All B/R update speculation.

My vote is to ban Delver, Snapcaster, and Terminus. You can throw TNN in there, as well.

Alternatively, ban things until Wild Nacatl is good. And then don't ban Wild Nacatl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I think the judgement of either case is tied to the question of what they wanted to achieve. If neutering Miracles and breaking the BUG control/aggro-control/tempo circlejerk was the idea ans they just wanted to "reset" the cantrip shell like they did with the banning of DTT/TC, then they succeeded. However if anyone thought it's going to weed out the cantrip shells dominance, then he/she is plain naive.

P.S.

It might me only loosely related to the current topics here, but it's quite interresting to see how the shares within the blue shell moved around among supertypes since '11. The amount of combo and control supertypes seems to constantly get lower compared to aggro-control (aside from the outliners within these years like Miracles or Omnitell)

---

The DRS ban made sense to me. It was doing a lot of damage to the format in terms of the manabases it enabled. The format isn't in a great place right now, but at least mana is beginning to matter again and that's a step towards recovery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

LookLook at it from a modern perspective. If the format were Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, and RG tron as the top decks and there were no good ways to fight them (no ghost quarter, stone rainrain, field of ruin) then the format would be fucking miserable despite the being an aggro, control, and ramp deck as different styles being the top decks. Without a good way to fight the cantrips then you're either forced to resort to playing it or getting fucked. Chalice and Thalia are the two best ways to fight the cards. Both create miserable experiences for people (though I enjoy both personally). The format looks like the family tree of the average Crimson Tide fan. It's warped around either play thesethese cards or hate them out. I just hate when the retarded power level of cantrips is under stated because they aren't blatantly powerful to the layman. Whatever though. Format is fucking miserable. Attendance is going down while prices go up. Enjoy the shitfest while you can

---

TL:DR
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...7wbo1_1280.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

Enjoy the shitfest while you can

---

I will

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise

I think (...)

---

You robbed me of all the fun. Of course my usage of words was like trolling. If I am forced to be serious, I have to admit I agree with almost all you wrote.

And the difference between persons A, B and C is not only about how they measure diversity but also about what they are looking for in the game in order to enjoy it. Of course if, as you pointed out, one's goal is to be a creative deckbuilder, then being "limited" by the existence of "the best option" would sound bad.
But I still agree with myself :cool: and don't think every point of view is equal.

For example, person C who loves deckbuilding, actually isn't limited by the existence of the best option (let's say, the cantrip cartel).
It's only when he adds a second requirement that things start to go wrong, that one being "I also want my creative deck to be competitive". Sorry: that's not possible. But not because I personally like this, or because Wizards is poorly managing the ban list. It is so by the very nature of the game (maybe of many games if you start reasoning with a game theory approach): "best" things tend to emerge when the metagame begins to be solved. So actually person C is being unreasonable in requesting two mutually exclusive concept, like an unstoppable force and an unmovable resistance. "build whatever you like" and "win with whatever you like" can't go together. Very sorry, but not the fault of person A.
Also compare Legacy metagame in the last few years with standard metagame in the last few years and try again convincing me that the card pool and the power level are the problems.

As for the quantification of the number of cards overlap before it being "too much", I think we almost already are in the 30 cards range, but I don't see the problem; there is still people who enjoys Vintage, you know, and if you forget for a moment MUD and Dredge (big things to forget) your overlap between decks could go up to 50 and you could still find people who can appreciate diversity.

TL;DR I think people who focus mostly on card diversity (instead of strategic diversity), while still claiming that the thing they appreciate most is the gameplay experience*, are unable to appreciate subtleties, even if of course they are entitled to their opinions.

(*both requests are reasonable if taken alone, they just don't go together necessarily, and they happen to be mutually exclusive in legacy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

If the format were Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, and RG tron as the top decks and there were no good ways to fight them (no ghost quarter, stone rainrain, field of ruin) then the format would be fucking miserable despite the being an aggro, control, and ramp deck as different styles being the top decks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

TL;DR I think people who focus mostly on card diversity (instead of strategic diversity), while still claiming that the thing they appreciate most is the gameplay experience*, are unable to appreciate subtleties, even if of course they are entitled to their opinions.

---

Megadeus explained the irrelevance of strategic diversity as a goal in a way I think no one should be able to fail to understand. If you understand the example, then you also understand why strategic diversity is an irrelevant, narrow concept that can only be used to qualify the bare minimum quality of a good format.

In relation to Talpa's comment (if I understood it), I would say the opposite is more plausible. Players who are satisfied with strategic diversity don't seem to appreciate format diversity; there is no reason to believe the opposite, that appreciation of format diversity is in conflict with appreciation of playstyle, play patterns etc. All this is naturally included in a diverse metagame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrzyMoose

My vote is to ban Delver, Snapcaster, and Terminus. You can throw TNN in there, as well.

Alternatively, ban things until Wild Nacatl is good. And then don't ban Wild Nacatl.

---

This.

Yeah, I've said it for awhile now, just ban stuff until Wild Nacatl is playable. Or until Goblins is Tier One again. I mean, that's basically the same thing.

I think the printing of Delver more than anything else is when the format really took a left turn into bullshit. Blue should just not, under any circumstances, have the best aggro one-drop.

While we are wish-listing bad shit we wish was playable, we should ban everything until Dust Elemental is playable, then all quit because no one wants to play my shit format formulated on the poor taste of sour grapes. :wink:

Nobody said ban everything until Nacatl is good seriously. Just ban the one card that should've been banned 7 or more years ago. You could probably stand to unban at least a few cards in the wake of the great unmulliganer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrzyMoose

My vote is to ban Delver, Snapcaster, and Terminus. You can throw TNN in there, as well.

Alternatively, ban things until Wild Nacatl is good. And then don't ban Wild Nacatl.

---

Put on your war paint, this is the fight that should be happening. Blue should have NEVER gotten such efficient aggressive creatures. Delver, Snappy, TNN, V. Clique, should have been printed in different colors. Terminus is fine, it's a bitch, but the hoops to make it work, I'm fine with it. Tucking is better than exiling, so many different ways to shuffle the library.

Cantrip-cartel or efficient beaters, blue shouldn't have both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahg113

Put on your war paint, this is the fight that should be happening. Blue should have NEVER gotten such efficient aggressive creatures. Delver, Snappy, TNN, V. Clique, should have been printed in different colors. Terminus is fine, it's a bitch, but the hoops to make it work, I'm fine with it. Tucking is better than exiling, so many different ways to shuffle the library.

Cantrip-cartel or efficient beaters, blue shouldn't have both.

---

And for some reason we consider decks with the best aggressive creatures, the best broad answers, and the best cantrips to be "skill testing"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

And for some reason we consider decks with the best aggressive creatures, the best broad answers, and the best cantrips to be "skill testing"

---

But can they durdle? Being able to durdle, and still win a game, that's a true test of skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahg113

Put on your war paint, this is the fight that should be happening. Blue should have NEVER gotten such efficient aggressive creatures. Delver, Snappy, TNN, V. Clique, should have been printed in different colors. Terminus is fine, it's a bitch, but the hoops to make it work, I'm fine with it. Tucking is better than exiling, so many different ways to shuffle the library.

Cantrip-cartel or efficient beaters, blue shouldn't have both.

---

When Canadian thresh first came onto the scene it had to run green beaters because blue had shit all to offer and barely had enough blue to make force work. Now blue has one of the best aggressive creatures (delver), evasive creatures (TNN) and a ton of efficient, versatile creatures like snapcaster and clique. The problem now is that giving other colors stronger cards wont do shit because in order to be playable they have to be cheap, if they are cheap they can be splashed, and since cantrips are the only game in town when it comes to card consistency (loam/elves/library/or whatever else is a distant second in this regard), and consistency is really important, they will always have a home there, which is basically what delver and midrange lists have become nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pettdan

Megadeus explained the irrelevance of strategic diversity as a goal in a way I think no one should be able to fail to understand (...)
In relation to Talpa's comment (if I understood it), I would say the opposite is more plausible. Players who are satisfied with strategic diversity don't seem to appreciate format diversity

---

Nice try :cool:
I am not understanding what you mean with "format diversity" as opposed to "strategic diversity". I suppose you mean there can't be different playstyle, different play patterns, a diverse metagame UNLESS there is also card diversity. I disagree. And I don't think I am failing to understand Megadeus example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

If the format were Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, and RG tron (...) would be fucking miserable despite the being an aggro, control, and ramp deck as different styles being the top decks

---

Because it's simply an exaggeration. Even though I don't know modern and Tron enough to even evaluate if what he said isn't completely wrong in regards to the assignation of an archetype (maybe they are all three ramps, full stop) surely legacy is not in that exact situation, so what he wrote is irrelevant and an obvious straw-man.

I am not saying you should stop telling you love CARD diversity. You should just stop using false arguments like "that is detrimental to format diversity" to support your preferences. Just count the archetype that can be considered tiers and this is a sufficient demonstration that legacy does not lack format diversity. Of course if we disagree on the goals we can never agree on the means to reach it. Just stop pretending you share the same goals :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

And for some reason we consider decks with the best aggressive creatures, the best broad answers, and the best cantrips to be "skill testing"

---

They can very well be. Power level alone is not a sufficient reason to say a thing can't be skill testing. Nor it would be an hypothetical lack of format diversity: the mirror match can be skill testing too.

That doesn't mean I don't see why delver or TNN can't be considered a design "failure". But still I don't think they could ever be considered ban worthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonics

When Canadian thresh first came onto the scene it had to run green beaters because blue had shit all to offer and barely had enough blue to make force work. Now blue has one of the best aggressive creatures (delver), evasive creatures (TNN) and a ton of efficient, versatile creatures like snapcaster and clique. The problem now is that giving other colors stronger cards wont do shit because in order to be playable they have to be cheap, if they are cheap they can be splashed, and since cantrips are the only game in town when it comes to card consistency (loam/elves/library/or whatever else is a distant second in this regard), and consistency is really important, they will always have a home there, which is basically what delver and midrange lists have become nowadays.

---

This.

Is pretty simple to see, and i wrote the same some months ago.

There are some people like Talpa, that maybe for their own nature (talpa in italian means Mole, the animal) can't see this.:laugh:

Talpa You can call a first dish of Pasta in a lot of way, maybe Alfredo (even if in italy does not exist) but in the end is the same carbohydrates.

Same thing with blue shell. You can build a different deck around, beatdown with shadow instead of tnn, remove creature with fatal push or kolaghan or stp, but is the same blue shell.

Now lots of player has less interest in playing legacy because if they don't want to use that shell, they have to: or run with a combo, or build a deck that has only cards to disrupt that blue shell, in that case You have to run awfull situational cards, and you expose your deck at variance because of lack of manipulation.

That in the ends means if i want to beat blue shell i have to be lucky at drawning.


That is not so attractive. -> format is not attractive -> hope something change.

just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds

TL:DR
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...7wbo1_1280.jpg

---

Do you have this picture saved somewhere? Because you should get a better one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morgan_coke

I think the printing of Delver more than anything else is when the format really took a left turn into bullshit. Blue should just not, under any circumstances, have the best aggro one-drop.

---

I've made the same argument with a strong dose of irony in the past, but you're absolutely right. Delver's what's causing homogeneity—both in card choices and in play strategy—so if you want Boros Goodstuff and Darklands to come back, that's your target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Nice try :cool:
I am not understanding what you mean with "format diversity" as opposed to "strategic diversity".

---

So, based on Megadeus's example I found it apparent that strategic diversity is possible while still having very low diversity in the format. Or, in other words, a strategically diverse format can still be very monotonous and boring for every single legacy player regardless of their preferences. So, I didn't attempt to define diversity, and I'm using the term widely in a way that includes all legacy players' idea of what diversity is. I think when we try to raise our understanding of format diversity beyond strategic diversity is when we are discussing something more relevant. Strategic diversity is great as a lowest bar of requirement for diversity, but if we want to have a meaningful understanding of diversity it needs to go beyond strategic diversity.

Quote:

---

And I don't think I am failing to understand Megadeus example:
Because it's simply an exaggeration. Even though I don't know modern and Tron enough to even evaluate if what he said isn't completely wrong in regards to the assignation of an archetype (maybe they are all three ramps, full stop) surely legacy is not in that exact situation, so what he wrote is irrelevant and an obvious straw-man.

---

Exaggeration or not, it proves the point. It is irrelevant if it is an exaggeration. It is an example that shows you easily that the requirement of strategic diversity for a good format is not a sufficient requirement for a good format.

Quote:

---

I am not saying you should stop telling you love CARD diversity. You should just stop using false arguments like "that is detrimental to format diversity" to support your preferences. Just count the archetype that can be considered tiers and this is a sufficient demonstration that legacy does not lack format diversity. Of course if we disagree on the goals we can never agree on the means to reach it. Just stop pretending you share the same goals :tongue:

---

I didn't fully understand this, will read it again. I think however it would be good to try to write down what I think good format diversity could look like [edit: I think it would be good if we all reflect on what level of format diversity we want/need/require; just arguing for more or less of it is so abstract and can be hard to relate to. And also to specify what the proposed changes, bannings etc, might result in]. I'll consider that for the coming weeks, although it doesn't need to be very extensive I just try to focus on other things (like work).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zulabnar

Now lots of player has less interest in playing legacy because if they don't want to use that shell, they have to: or run with a combo, or build a deck that has only cards to disrupt that blue shell, in that case You have to run awfull situational cards, and you expose your deck at variance because of lack of manipulation.

That in the ends means if i want to beat blue shell i have to be lucky at drawning.

---

What deck do you want to play that you currently can't? Why do you think it ought to be competitive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pettdan

I think when we try to raise our understanding of format diversity beyond strategic diversity is when we are discussing something more relevant. Strategic diversity is great as a lowest bar of requirement for diversity, but if we want to have a meaningful understanding of diversity it needs to go beyond strategic diversity.

It is an example that shows you easily that the requirement of strategic diversity for a good format is not a sufficient requirement for a good format.

---

This makes no sense. Strategic diversity is the only relevant measure of diversity, because it is what makes matchups interesting and varied.

Consider a format in which the legal cards are exactly:

1W: 2/2
1U: 2/2
1B: 2/2
1R: 2/2
1G: 2/2
WU: 2/2
WB: 2/2
WR: 2/2
.
.
.
RG: 2/2

That is, the 15 different costs you could give a bear. Technically, this format would be more "diverse" by your measure than a format that had only the five monocolor bears, but it would be a vacuous distinction because all of the games would play out the exact same way. Having an arbitrary number of differently named and colored pokemon is not a relevant characteristic when evaluating meaningful differences between decks.

If, instead, what you're trying to say is that you prefer formats with higher variance than Legacy has, I am pleased to introduce you to Modern, Standard, and Limited, all of which have much flatter power levels and are much more draw and matchup dependent than Legacy. Fortunately, because we have these formats, we don't have to make Legacy, one of the few magic formats where a reasonable level of consistency can be employed/expected, into more of a high variance format.

Also, I know it's an exaggeration, but "banning everything until Wild Nacatl is playable" would make for easily the most horrible eternal format. The banned list for that format would be long enough that you could make a format out of just the cards on the list, and I guarantee it would be more awesome than the "Wild Nacatl is playable" format :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

What deck do you want to play that you currently can't? Why do you think it ought to be competitive?

Also, I know it's an exaggeration, but "banning everything until Wild Nacatl is playable" would make for easily the most horrible eternal format. The banned list for that format would be long enough that you could make a format out of just the cards on the list, and I guarantee it would be more awesome than the "Wild Nacatl is playable" format :laugh:

---

If the ban blue folks got their way I would play the heck out of a format that only had cards from the Legacy banned list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Star|Scream

If the ban blue folks got their way I would play the heck out of a format that only had cards from the Legacy banned list.

---

"Only-Banlist Modern" is practically already there :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

What deck do you want to play that you currently can't? Why do you think it ought to be competitive?

---

just some combination of color is not possible it means more diversity.

white red
white green
whit black
red green
red black
green white


salut

I spent a ton of time bitching in this thread, but honestly, I really like where the current environment stands. It was really fun watching GP Richmond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zulabnar

just some combination of color is not possible it means more diversity.

white red
white green
whit black
red green
red black
green white


salut

---

There are tier decks that use these color combinations, however they do not use them in the way you feel they should. That is the problem. I believe many people who complain about lack of diversity only want to play midrange slugfests with Knight of the Reliquary and Wild Nacatl. It seems to be similar to older people who only enjoy the music they grew up with; Neural Nostalgia.

The fact is to get back to those types of decks we'd have to ban 5-10 Blue Legacy cards, and at that point (I feel) that fast combo would take over--forcing more bans.

It's unfortunate to your nostalgia, but blue creatures haven't been as weak as you remember in a long time. They are never going to go back to man'o'war no matter how much you complain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Star|Scream

There are tier decks that use these color combinations, however they do not use them in the way you feel they should. That is the problem. I believe many people who complain about lack of diversity only want to play midrange slugfests with Knight of the Reliquary and Wild Nacatl. It seems to be similar to older people who only enjoy the music they grew up with; Neural Nostalgia.

The fact is to get back to those types of decks we'd have to ban 5-10 Blue Legacy cards, and at that point (I feel) that fast combo would take over--forcing more bans.

It's unfortunate to your nostalgia, but blue creatures haven't been as weak as you remember in a long time. They are never going to go back to man'o'war no matter how much you complain.

---

There are definitely cards I think that can and should be banned in Legacy and the format would improve as a whole. However, it isn't unfair to want there to be more viable non-blue fair decks with or without bans. It's not actually asking much. Wizards should take the opportunity to print busted aggro creatures in supplemental products like Conspiracy and Battlebond since that sort of design space is pretty unexplored for older formats anyway.

Thankfully, Wizards has printed a few pretty good Goblins in the past couple sets and that new Goblin they spoiled today is excellent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Star|Scream

we'd have to ban ONE Blue Legacy card

---

yes, just one.

dig through time, treasure cruise, sensei's divining top, deathrite shaman, gitaxian probe and several other cards that can be unbanned.

don't be a shill for brainstorm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zulabnar

just some combination of color is not possible it means more diversity.

white red
white green
whit black
red green
red black
green white

---

LOL the biggest epic fail :laugh:
There are tier decks for this color combinations :cool:
Also I'd love to understand what difference do you mean to underline between "white green" (2nd in your list) and "green white" the last in your list :laugh::laugh::laugh:

WR - Red Taxes - example list Nick Tucker 18th/810 SCG Open Worcester
WG - Maverick - example list Tristan Pölzl 6th/194 MKM Series Paris
WB - Deadguy Ale / Pikula - example list Owen Watson 16th/187 SCG Duel for Duals
RG - Belcher

Scapeshift - example list Billy Smith 21th/621 SCG Team Constructed Dallas

Lands - example list Lucien Longlais finalist/843 at the last GP Richmond

RB - Walking Dead or Team Italia (of course they also play white, why shouldn't they? all that matters is that they don't play blue, isn't it?)


Anyway considering only the color pairs really doesn't mean anything, unless you want to say that UB Death Shadow is the same as UB Ad Nauseam-Tendrills, or that UR Burn is the same thing as Sneak and Show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeckBird

it isn't unfair to want there to be more viable non-blue fair decks with or without bans

---

See above. They already exist; of course one could never stop asking more and more :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by non-inflammable

yes, just one.

dig through time, treasure cruise, sensei's divining top, deathrite shaman, gitaxian probe and several other cards that can be unbanned.

don't be a shill for brainstorm...

---

I was responding to the cries to ban Delver, TNN, Etc.

P.S. banning brainstorm isn't going to make Wild Nacatl good again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

LOL the biggest epic fail :laugh:
There are tier decks for this color combinations :cool:
Also I'd love to understand what difference do you mean to underline between "white green" (2nd in your list) and "green white" the last in your list :laugh::laugh::laugh:

WR - Red Taxes - example list Nick Tucker 18th/810 SCG Open Worcester
WG - Maverick - example list Tristan Pölzl 6th/194 MKM Series Paris
WB - Deadguy Ale / Pikula - example list Owen Watson 16th/187 SCG Duel for Duals
RG - Belcher

Scapeshift - example list Billy Smith 21th/621 SCG Team Constructed Dallas

Lands - example list Lucien Longlais finalist/843 at the last GP Richmond

RB - Walking Dead or Team Italia (of course they also play white, why shouldn't they? all that matters is that they don't play blue, isn't it?)


Anyway considering only the color pairs really doesn't mean anything, unless you want to say that UB Death Shadow is the same as UB Ad Nauseam-Tendrills, or that UR Burn is the same thing as Sneak and Show.





See above. They already exist; of course one could never stop asking more and more :tongue:

---

More than half the deck you listed are not viable competitive options. Maverick? Deadguy Ale? Scapeshift? Belcher? Team Italia? Come on...
It would be nice to be able to play in a somewhat competitive manner a midrange deck that isn't grixis or sultai. Instead, rather than doing something to make different color combinations more appealing, they print shit that strengthens the same old shells like assassin's trophy (that should have definitely been b/w, but is golgari because by some inexplicable reason only golgari gets good cards in ravnica sets).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by H

While we are wish-listing bad shit we wish was playable...

---

We've come a long way when we can say that Wild Nacatl is "bad shit we wish was playable".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bithlord

We've come a long way when we can say that Wild Nacatl is "bad shit we wish was playable".

---

Yes we have. Even Snapcaster is light-years ahead of where Nacatl is/was. The HMS Nacatl has sailed and sunk, but constantly been dredged back up as some paragon of playabilty, or of pillar of power-level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

More than half the deck you listed are not viable competitive options. Maverick? Deadguy Ale? Scapeshift? Belcher? Team Italia? Come on...
It would be nice to be able to play in a somewhat competitive manner a midrange deck that isn't grixis or sultai. Instead, rather than doing something to make different color combinations more appealing, they print shit that strengthens the same old shells like assassin's trophy (that should have definitely been b/w, but is golgari because by some inexplicable reason only golgari gets good cards in ravnica sets).

---

Finally someone is being honest about what they really want.

Many of the combinations you listed are viable but none of them are midrange (RB Reanimator, RG Lands, etc.) I'm glad non-blue midrange isn't that great in Legacy. When that happens you wind up playing against Chains and The Abyss, which are miserable to play against (imo.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Star|Scream

Finally someone is being honest about what they really want.

Many of the combinations you listed are viable but none of them are midrange (RB Reanimator, RG Lands, etc.) I'm glad non-blue midrange isn't that great in Legacy. When that happens you wind up playing against Chains and The Abyss, which are miserable to play against (imo.)

---

Chains, maybe. And that's a good thing. It'd be nice to have a bit more diversity among anti-cantrip cards besides just Chalice of the Void and Thalia.

The only deck that plays The Abyss is Tezzerator, which is not a midrange deck. Midrange decks would rather play Deluge. And how is The Abyss miserable to play against, but you list RG Lands as a viable option which is a deck that plays Tabernacle?

I mean, you also list RB Reanimator as if playing against Griselbrand is less miserable to play against than Tarmogoyf and Dark Confidant. The fact that few non-blue fair midrange decks, or aggro decks for that matter, are not viable in Legacy is a perfectly legitimate critique of Legacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeckBird

Chains, maybe. And that's a good thing. It'd be nice to have a bit more diversity among anti-cantrip cards besides just Chalice of the Void and Thalia.

The only deck that plays The Abyss is Tezzerator, which is not a midrange deck. Midrange decks would rather play Deluge. And how is The Abyss miserable to play against, but you list RG Lands as a viable option which is a deck that plays Tabernacle?

I mean, you also list RB Reanimator as if playing against Griselbrand is less miserable to play against than Tarmogoyf and Dark Confidant. The fact that few non-blue fair midrange decks, or aggro decks for that matter, are not viable in Legacy is a perfectly legitimate critique of Legacy.

---

Please stop. You're twisting words and adding thoughts that I didn't type.

I'm sorry you can't play the deck you think you should be able to play in this format, but the format has evolved and it would take banning several cards (yes, more than just brainstorm) to allow midrange (let alone non-blue midrange) to have an equal footing. As a parallel, Modern has much fewer cards than Legacy but yet midrange is already dying there in favor of Aggressive decks, combo decks, and hard control. Those decks have access to all the same creatures (Nacatl, Confidant, Goyf) sans Stoneforge and those cards are nearly unplayable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by H

Yes we have. Even Snapcaster is light-years ahead of where Nacatl is/was. The HMS Nacatl has sailed and sunk, but constantly been dredged back up as some paragon of playabilty, or of pillar of power-level.

---

Snapcaster should have been red, and is exemplary as to why player designed cards are a bad idea.

The biggest reason we have cantrip shell dominance is because they powered up *all* creatures, and at the same time depowered everything else. So all (or pretty much all) the old creatures are invalidated, but none of the old spells are. Couple that with "modern design sensibilities" which dictate that all colors get roughly equal powerlevel creatures, and blue suddenly jumps to the top because it used to get the best spells, and now gets just as good a creatures.

It is what it is, but I'd just once like to see them make an "oops that was way too powerful" mistake that *isn't* blue.

Edit: que argument over whether DRS was one such mistake :P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeckBird

The only deck that plays The Abyss is Tezzerator, which is not a midrange deck.

---

I—uh, what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bithlord

The biggest reason we have cantrip shell dominance is because they powered up *all* creatures, and at the same time depowered everything else. So all (or pretty much all) the old creatures are invalidated, but none of the old spells are. Couple that with "modern design sensibilities" which dictate that all colors get roughly equal powerlevel creatures, and blue suddenly jumps to the top because it used to get the best spells, and now gets just as good a creatures.

---

I don't think the historical record reflects the idea that the Blue was ever not the best color in Magic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bithlord

It is what it is, but I'd just once like to see them make an "oops that was way too powerful" mistake that *isn't* blue.

Edit: que argument over whether DRS was one such mistake :P.

---

Deathrite was a mistake. That doesn't mean ban-worthy though.

There are plenty of mistakes, they are in general the highly playable cards in Legacy. There are plenty of non-Blue examples too, Jitte, Aether Vial, Emrakul, Griselbrand, Terminus, Sneak Attack, the list goes on and on (and there are plenty more examples that are actually on the Banned list too). Granted, because of the nature of Legacy, Blue adopts those tools pretty often. That doesn't mean that Blue is the only color the gets really good cards. It's just the fact of the matter that Legacy is, has always been, and will always be the best color in Magic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeoCop 90

More than half the deck you listed are not viable competitive options. Come on...

---

Second big epic fail aka I don't want to admit the obvious aka deny the evidence.

Strangely I saw this objection coming and the answer is already there, in the names and tournaments results: those deck were chosen by strong players and piloted to strong finish in big events.

So if you continue to complain you are wrong and the reason you do that can be:
either you like to complain
Or you hate blue
Or you fail to admit it isn't your favorite deck that sucks but the player
Or you pretend to dictate what others should play

Legacy has tiers but you can put up results with many decks, players just follow their tastes like they follow fashion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Second big epic fail aka I don't want to admit the obvious aka deny the evidence.

Strangely I saw this objection coming and the answer is already there, in the names and tournaments results: those deck were chosen by strong players and piloted to strong finish in big events.

So if you continue to complain you are wrong and the reason you do that can be:
either you like to complain
Or you hate blue
Or you fail to admit it isn't your favorite deck that sucks but the player
Or you pretend to dictate what others should play

Legacy has tiers but you can put up results with many decks, players just follow their tastes like they follow fashion

---

I respect your efforts, but the ban-everything-until-maverik-is-great-again crowd will never stop bitching how unfair good blue is. (You can also insert another bad pet deck there)

I mean do these people now 4c-Loam? It's like a competitive, good maverick :laugh: But I guess it's too unfair because of Mox Diamond and Chalice, these people only enjoy the pure Maverick expirience.

Edit: The denial of the competitiveness of the decks you lsitet even when you provided data of TopX finishes at big events made me laugh as well :laugh: Ban everything until this one guy, how probably just sucks at magic can top 8 an event with his pet deck :laugh:

Also no word about D&T which has always been competitive and get's new playable creatures in like evey set... Also to unfair because of the Taxing/Controlling Elements I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorphBerlin

I respect your efforts, but the ban-everything-until-maverik-is-great-again crowd will never stop bitching how unfair good blue is. (You can also insert another bad pet deck there)

---

If we're gonna talk about unfairness and blue let's talk about how many shitty pet decks have been made even shittier as key cards from them get banned so that WotC and people who jerk off to/with Brainstorm can pretend that Legacy is a serious, competitive format while preserving their sacred cow.

Brainstorm's still 80% of the top tables, but now instead of Pile, Delver, and Miracles, we have U/B/R Control, Shadow, and Miracles. What a change!

Quote:

---

I mean do these people now 4c-Loam? It's like a competitive, good maverick :laugh: But I guess it's too unfair because of Mox Diamond and Chalice, these people only enjoy the pure Maverick expirience.

---

People probably don't play Loam for the same reason they don't play Lands all that much.