All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

b) the non-blue decks run Chalice and prey on the cantrip decks, there is no reason to celebrate "variety".

We have seen Survival and Eldrazi pushing back the cantrip shell for weeks just for it to adapt easily because mana/colors is barely any limitation or hurdle. A few weeks of Chalice stiring up the pot every now and then doesnt make up for years and years of 60-82% Brainstorm/Ponder decks.

---

How many Chalices does Elves play? How many in DnT? What about Depths?

I'm not saying the Cantrip decks aren't good, I'm saying there are plenty of non-cantrip decks, and that even the cantrip decks have diverse strategies.

The argument people were making was that there's only one thing you can do in Legacy, which is just not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chunderbucket

Just look at supplementary products such as Commander, UB always seems to get the best toys to play with and everything else is garbage. Leovold, Kess, Yuriko, Artisan... meanwhile Mardu gets that shitty vampire and Boros doesn't seem to get anything outside of "Whenever X attacks". Meanwhile White gets tossed the generic 2-3 mana hatepiece and should be grateful to get to play it as a 1-of in the SB.

---

Why are you just arbitrarily dismissing the hatebears as though they don't count as powerful non-blue spells?

Brightling
Sanctum Prelate
Recruiter of the Guard
Chandra, Torch of Defiance
Tireless Tracker
Gideon, Ally of Zendikar
Nissa, Vital Force
All of the relevant Eldrazi are recent (and from standard sets!)
Edit: just realized Glass House had also made this list, my bad.

There's no way there are more Kesses, Yurikos, or Artisans in the format than there are Prelates.

When was the last time they printed something good for Storm? Dark Petition? Meanwhile, they're banning things like Gitaxian Probe, which are totally innocuous but non-blue players hate.

Could they do cooler things with Boros and Mardu? Sure! Do they only print good blue and black things? No.

All of the cards you listed either only see sideboard play or only see play in one deck, sometimes both. Granted the commmander toys were not so much about how they are ubiquitous but more about how they were the only non-garbage cards coming out of these sets. Weak point I'll admit, but ranting feels cathartic.

You're probably right that the meta is the least blue it's ever been for quite a few years, and that's pretty cool. Nevertheless, if you were to ask any pro (as in, mtg pro and not legacy specialist) to take a deck to a Legacy GP with the intent to take it down, they would still go with a blue deck. The oppprtunity cost of leveraging variance by playing the same 8 homogeneizing cards + a bunch of good blue stuff and FoW to take care of the random nonsense from early rounds is simply too low. In my opinion you should get punished for "playing safe", and that's where Chalice comes in. Fortune should favor players who do a bunch of cool and unusual things, not people who stay within safe paths.

I remember that early versions of Dredge (when it was still called friggorid or something) would tilt a lot of people. Part of it was the lack of 'interactivity' (understand: people refused to interact with it, as they now do with Chalice. Granted, gy hate was much worse back then) and part of it was the 'how dare you beat my finely tuned spike deck with a pile of garbage cards' aspect. Today, you can beat people with a pile of garbage and 4-5 drops propped up by Chalice, and it does tilt people the same both ways. The point is, Legacy used to (and still does, to some extent) have this characteristic whereby you could bring together a bunch of garbage that would become unstoppable due to weird rules interactions and meta positioning. Aluren + Cavern Harpy + Strix, Food Chain + Griffin, Dredge, Storm, Elves, Depths + Stage, etc. More and more, this flavor of Legacy is being phased out in favor of straigtforward, unambiguously good and 'real' cards. People don't want to mess with Aluren anymore, they just cram all the 2 for 1s in a deck and call it 'Grixis Control'. They don't even want to mess with Shardless + Vision when Leovold exists. All the 'I won because something cool happened' stuff loses to 'I won because I'm a serious player slinging serious cards and playing serious games'.

Hence my proposition, print cards that punish good cards until bad cards are good again. Or ban all non-basic Islands or something.

I guess this is where we differ.

You see

"All the 'I won because something cool happened' stuff loses to 'I won because I'm a serious player slinging serious cards and playing serious games'."

As a problem, but for me, it seems that this should largely be how the game is played. The player who is trying to build and play the more competitive deck should win more than the player who is trying to get cute. This is essentially how all games are though, not just Magic.

I'm not saying this as a strict Spike either, I've always been one to blaze my own trail in deck design and selection and I've largely been rewarded for it, it just happens to be that decks I enjoy tend to play brainstorm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

I would argue DnT is pretty "prison" intensive - is it just not far enough on that axis to be interesting for you?
It's not really me no. I rather Lands, Stax or Stais.

How much of this is actually true, and how much of it is you knowing more about the format over time, and holding your decks to higher standards?

I would say it's all true, or I would not have said it.

The DTB currently has eight decks, four of which are:

DnT
Depths
Eldrazi
Elves

None of which are cantrip decks. There are plenty of other decks that are in Established that aren't either. I know it hasn't been up there in a while, but I'd be surprised if Lands weren't still completely fine.

Only three of these have managed to be less than a blimp in the DTB in the last 12 months really, and only one of them has been consistent. Let's have a look at the other consistent decks that show up in the DTB and have a look at the pattern that emerges.

But...it's not? There's examples right there. I know you see them, because you update the DTB. Also, what makes non-cantrip decks more complex?

Don't worry everyone, Blue is not a decade long monolithic influence because of one DTB update, we can all go home.

As for your other question, it's not universal one way other the other, Storm is more complex to pilot than Eldrazi, but the fact that you can't dig yourself out of holes means you need to play tighter. Brainstorm will not save you if your playing Goblins or DnT. It's a different skill with a different identity. But I would say there is no deck more difficult to play correctly than a deck that can't save itself from its players mistakes with Brainstorm. I don't give a fuck what you play, a good DnT player is on a level high than you if you have only ever depended on Brainstorm to save yourself from yourself.

All eight decks in the DTB right now are vastly different, even among the decks that have cantrip shells in common. You know I like combo, but I wouldn't touch SnT with a ten foot pole - fortunately, I can play Storm. Despite the fact that they both have Brainstorm, they are completely different decks. The same is true of Storm and Grixis - just because they both have underground seas, volcs, and ponders doesn't meant they're the same - in fact, they're vastly different.

Yay one data point of a single DTB, let's just forget that at one point the format was shit like Goblins, Iggy Pop, Mav, two shades of High Tide, Burn and Thresh... You know, let's at one point each deck in the format was totally unique and not all just gumbled piles built around the same 12 cards. But one DTB guys! One DTB. It's all OK now because one single point of data is all I need to say your wrong while ignoring years of trends!

How many can you expect to have?
I guess none, but I can at least explain myself, so I did.

---

Edit
I know I haven't answered everything, I have to start work. Send anything important back at me and I will get to it later.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the game. There are serious games with minimal variance where people ascend to top level through pure skill and strength of will. These games are called Chess, Go, Shogi, etc. Magic: the Gathering has always been and will always be a corporate children's card game with fantasy art and cheesy flavor text written on the cards. It has inbuilt variance (through topdecks, mulligans and the mana system) meant to hamper pros and give newbies a chance to shine. It is rigidly controlled by printings, bannings and design decisions meant to bring a profit to Hasbro's shareholders. The whole game atmosphere is meant to convey a 'chill' and 'friendly' vibe to its players so as to maximize the playerbase and its retention. This is why you see them insist so much on diversity, family-friendliness and clamp down on anything that may convey the impression that MtG places are in anyway 'unsafe'. This is why, to my despair, they don't dare stray off the beaten path and design wild new mechanics that may turn out to be too combo-tastic or prison-tastic and scare off new players. Even Richard Garfield didn't have balance in mind when the first cards of the game were designed since you were just meant to buy a couple boosters, jam whatever you found in them and get playing in-between two Dungeons and Dragons sessions.

Of course there are competitive aspects. But to me, the great strength of this format is that competitiveness does not go against the 'you can bring any cool shit' aspect of the format. Of course you can't bring your limited deck full of combat tricks but you learn about D&T or Infect and you still keep that feeling. Of course you can't bring a newbie deck full of 8 drops, but when you learn about Show and Tell -> Emrakul or tap 4 Cloudpost -> Ulamog, your Timmy instincts are satisfied. Of course you can't bring your shitty Timmy 4-card combo deck but then you learn about Aluren, Bomberman, Food Chain or Storm and your inner Timmy revels. Of course you can't bring your shitty Vampire tribal deck but then you learn about Elves, Goblins, Eldrazi or Merfolk (hell, even Soldiers these days) and you still feel like you're flavoring your way to victory. Legacy has this unique aspect where any player can think of any strategy or silly concept (from decks without creatures to decks without lands), and there's probably a deck in that range that can do reasonably well. But let me tell you one thing: no one ever thought, upon discovering this format, "what if I put a bunch of midrange cards and a namesake one and call my deck <Color Combination> <Cardname>?" Such is the realm of serious people who want to pretend they're Kasparov or something, while forgetting Kasparov never won off his opponent's bad mulligans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

How many Chalices does Elves play? How many in DnT? What about Depths?

I'm not saying the Cantrip decks aren't good, I'm saying there are plenty of non-cantrip decks, and that even the cantrip decks have diverse strategies.

The argument people were making was that there's only one thing you can do in Legacy, which is just not true.

---

It's nice that you partly list decks without any major Top 8s in the last months as a Counterargument to a) Loam, Eldrazi and Stompy all playing Chalice and b) decks like DnT & Co being no smart, viable tournament choice.

Just look at the last 4-6 majors and count the URB, URW and Chalice decks compared to stuff like DnT or Elves. The trend is the same like the years before: Cantrip Shell vs Decks preying on Cantrip decks with the Cantrip decks still performing significantly better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

People keep making this comparison, and I just don't get it. Have you ever played against either of these decks? They are completely different! If you board for storm like you do for Grixis, you will probably lose. If you play around the type of interaction Grixis plays against Storm, you're gonna get Stormed. Yes, I get that on paper they have similar lands and both have cantrips, but they play nothing alike!

---

I don't get what sideboarding has to do with this, at all. When people complain about the decks being samey, it never ever means they are so much the same that you can attack them the same way. It's like the Standard example I gave: People feel every deck playing a bunch of creatures is samey, but if you board the same against control-oriented pile of kinda midrangeish Standard cards and a historically oddly high-curved aggro deck, you're going to get rekt. That doesn't mean the two decks don't feel more similar to each other than say, Stompy and Tron in Pauper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

People keep making this comparison, and I just don't get it. Have you ever played against either of these decks? They are completely different! If you board for storm like you do for Grixis, you will probably lose. If you play around the type of interaction Grixis plays against Storm, you're gonna get Stormed. Yes, I get that on paper they have similar lands and both have cantrips, but they play nothing alike!

I'm not some Storm ringer like some of the people on the Source, but I can generally go positive and win some small events. If you handed me a perfect Grixis Delver or Control list to play I would get housed, because it requires a completely different skill set, and has completely different matchups.

...in terms of the possibilities in the format, you can't really say that a run of:

Miracles
SnT
Storm
Grixis

For your first four rounds is "bland and monotone." They're so different!

---

This whole thing feels like:

Zombie: Makes complaint about every dish in the restaurant coming with fries as a side, when I'd like some salad instead.
taco: But look at all the different kinds of burgers you can order! There's the trusty beef+cheese+bacon one, one with avocados and vinaigrette, one where they put a huge veggie in instead, and even salmon!
Zombie: The burgers were never the point, it's that every meal having a pile of greasy salty starch sticks as an integral part of the dish makes them feel kinda samey, and it's hard serving the meat as something like wok because the side is always fries.
taco: But you can't say the burgers are all the same, salmon's so fresh compared to beef and bacon! And sometimes the fries are made of sweet potato :O

Basically, it misses the point because it points at everything but the point that was being made and goes look, diversity, while there's a whale plopped in the middle of the room.

People keep acting like Brainstorm shows up in every game in decks that play it and that that fact is pushing all the mono-green aggro-enchantment lists out of the format.

There's another card that goads people into thinking their decks are still viable without it, in spite of the fact that those decks fold to everything else in the format that doesn't play the card if they can't land said card on T1–2.

EDIT: There's another card that wins games on the spot about 70% of the times it resolves, but nobody's complaining about it.

Ponder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

This whole thing feels like:

Zombie: Makes complaint about every dish in the restaurant coming with fries as a side, when I'd like some salad instead.
taco: But look at all the different kinds of burgers you can order! There's the trusty beef+cheese+bacon one, one with avocados and vinaigrette, one where they put a huge veggie in instead, and even salmon!
Zombie: The burgers were never the point, it's that every meal having a pile of greasy salty starch sticks as an integral part of the dish makes them feel kinda samey, and it's hard serving the meat as something like wok because the side is always fries.
taco: But you can't say the burgers are all the same, salmon's so fresh compared to beef and bacon! And sometimes the fries are made of sweet potato :O

Basically, it misses the point because it points at everything but the point that was being made and goes look, diversity, while there's a whale plopped in the middle of the room.

---

I don’t think this works given that any reasonably sensible adult will tell you walking into a burger joint and getting a salad is likely not the wisest decision in the world and if you want something beside burger and fries, you’d be best advised visiting another establishment

I mean, I get your point but as a burger enthusiast, I can tell you that a salad from a burger joint is barely a salad (basically lettuce, tomatoes and a dollop of whatever hidden valley dressing they have on hand)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds

as a burger enthusiast

---

Your salad logic is airtight, but can one really be a burger enthusiast repping McDonald's?

The Taco Salad is like the best thing you can eat at Wendy's. You literally pour a bowl of chili on top of a bigger bowl of lettuce and crunchy stuff.

Edit: Holy shit, remember when there was an actual salad bar at Wendy's? All you can eat super bar for $2.99.

"I'll decide when I've had enough bacon bits, thank you"

https://youtu.be/79XNWFu13CE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ESG

Your salad logic is airtight, but can one really be a burger enthusiast repping McDonald's?

---

Go away, snob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ESG

Your salad logic is airtight, but can one really be a burger enthusiast repping McDonald's?

---

There is a long story involving larping that explains that

#Whataburger4Lyfe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds

There is a long story involving larping that explains that

#Whataburger4Lyfe

---

Good nick names always have good stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chunderbucket

All of the cards you listed either only see sideboard play or only see play in one deck, sometimes both.

This is also true of the cards you listed (Kess, Leovold, Yuriko, Artisan).

Weak point I'll admit, but ranting feels cathartic.

Totally fair, this is the rant thread. I think the "new cards are only good if they're blue" is pretty fairly refuted by those examples though.

Nevertheless, if you were to ask any pro (as in, mtg pro and not legacy specialist) to take a deck to a Legacy GP with the intent to take it down, they would still go with a blue deck.

I think this has more to do with the incentives and the play skills of the pros. If you're a pro, you have to believe your ability to play Magic is better than the average nerd in the room. Decks that have cantrips maximise your ability to leverage the difference in play skill, because they allow you to make more decisions. A pro isn't going to play something like Eldrazi, because the deck inherently has fewer opportunities to leverage playskill - it has mulligans and occasionally combat math, but ultimately has fewer choices to make.

More importantly, if you're a pro, you can't afford to be taking big risks on high variance decks - if you're trying to make your living playing, it just makes more sense to pick the low variance option. This doesn't mean the non-cantrip or non-blue decks aren't viable, just that the incentives aren't there for someone that is in the situation the pros are.

In my opinion you should get punished for "playing safe", and that's where Chalice comes in. Fortune should favor players who do a bunch of cool and unusual things, not people who stay within safe paths.

Today, you can beat people with a pile of garbage and 4-5 drops propped up by Chalice, and it does tilt people the same both ways.

:laugh: I mean, I would dispute there's anything cool or unusual about chalice, that card is dumb as hell, but that's a matter of taste.

The point is, Legacy used to (and still does, to some extent) have this characteristic whereby you could bring together a bunch of garbage that would become unstoppable due to weird rules interactions and meta positioning. Aluren + Cavern Harpy + Strix, Food Chain + Griffin, Dredge, Storm, Elves, Depths + Stage, etc.

All of the decks you listed are totally fine in current Legacy, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I would take any of those decks through the events I play.

Hence my proposition, print cards that punish good cards until bad cards are good again. Or ban all non-basic Islands or something.

I mean, I'm fine with this perspective as long as we're acknowledging it has nothing to do with balance management and everything to do with a particular taste in how a format looks. Everything here makes me wonder why you wouldn't just play Modern - that's a format where all sorts of weird stuff flies (there's a competitive deck with Goblin Lore and Burning Inquiry. Goblin Lore!!), they ban the good stuff all the time, even if it's not a huge metagame portion, and the cantrips are bad. It literally hits every criterion you've provided - why do we need to make Legacy more like Modern, when we already have Modern?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chunderbucket

But let me tell you one thing: no one ever thought, upon discovering this format, "what if I put a bunch of midrange cards and a namesake one and call my deck <Color Combination> <Cardname>?" Such is the realm of serious people who want to pretend they're Kasparov or something, while forgetting Kasparov never won off his opponent's bad mulligans.

:laugh: So, I actually know a guy who loves Legacy for just this reason - he is all about debating, "which is better, two spell pierce or a pierce and a snare?" and various other very midrangey concerns that I personally think are hilariously specific.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Only three of these have managed to be less than a blimp in the DTB in the last 12 months really, and only one of them has been consistent. Let's have a look at the other consistent decks that show up in the DTB and have a look at the pattern that emerges.

Don't worry everyone, Blue is not a decade long monolithic influence because of one DTB update, we can all go home.

Are you arguing that DnT, Elves, etc are not storied Legacy decks with real history? Or that Eldrazi has not had a huge impact on the format? I'm point at the most recent DTB because it's the most up-to-date and relevant, not because it's the only one that supports my point.

Yes, blue decks are good! Yes, blue decks have been good for a long time! They are not the only thing you can do in Legacy. there are plenty of options.


As for your other question, it's not universal one way other the other, Storm is more complex to pilot than Eldrazi, but the fact that you can't dig yourself out of holes means you need to play tighter.

I get what you're saying about not having cantrips being unforgiving, but I really don't think this is true in a lot of cases. For example, Sol land, chalice, spaghetti monster beats a whole lot of decks, and really doesn't involve any sort of subtle calculation or tight technical choices.

But I would say there is no deck more difficult to play correctly than a deck that can't save itself from its players mistakes with Brainstorm. A good DnT player is on a level higher than you if you have only ever depended on Brainstorm to save yourself from yourself.

You're acting like just casting Brainstorm immediately resolves all your problems. It's possible to misplay a Brainstorm, too - if the pilot is losing because they're bad, their Brainstorms are going to be bad, too.

Yay one data point of a single DTB, let's just forget that at one point the format was shit like Goblins, Iggy Pop, Mav, two shades of High Tide, Burn and Thresh... You know, let's at one point each deck in the format was totally unique and not all just gumbled piles built around the same 12 cards. But one DTB guys! One DTB.

Again, "one DTB" because it's the most recent and relevant. Do you dispute that there are different archetypes available in Legacy? You mentioned a Vial deck, a Storm deck, Monoblue combo, Burn, and a Tempo deck. Look at the DTB. All of those archetypes are represented, plus combo and stompy! Yes, if you want to play Goblins, you're out of luck, but if you don't want to play blue, you don't have to!

The "How many can you expect to have?" is specifically referring to "flavors of midrange." Of course you can expect to have multiple distinct archetypes, and Legacy does. What it doesn't have is seven versions of "removal plus creatures pile," which makes sense for the efficiency reasons I've described elsewhere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

It's nice that you partly list decks without any major Top 8s in the last months as a Counterargument to a) Loam, Eldrazi and Stompy all playing Chalice and b) decks like DnT & Co being no smart, viable tournament choice.

My understanding is that the DTB measures explicit tournament success. Is that not true?

These decks are there, in the DTB, in black and white.


Just look at the last 4-6 majors and count the URB, URW and Chalice decks compared to stuff like DnT or Elves. The trend is the same like the years before: Cantrip Shell vs Decks preying on Cantrip decks with the Cantrip decks still performing significantly better.

Yeah, I'm not saying blue decks aren't good. I've said they're good every time. The point is, they're not the only thing you can do, like many posters are arguing. DnT is a great deck!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

When people complain about the decks being samey, it never ever means they are so much the same that you can attack them the same way.

Then what is the point of calling them samey? What can possibly make a deck like another one, if not the way you play against them? That is the only way you can experience them...

It's like the Standard example I gave: People feel every deck playing a bunch of creatures is samey, but if you board the same against control-oriented pile of kinda midrangeish Standard cards and a historically oddly high-curved aggro deck, you're going to get rekt. That doesn't mean the two decks don't feel more similar to each other than say, Stompy and Tron in Pauper.

Sideboarding is one aspect of it, but just in general, Miracles and Storm, or Grixis and Storm, are also less similar than Stompy and Tron in pauper. Like, outside of the opponent occasionally casting BRainstorm or Ponder, how are Grixis and Storm alike.

This whole thing feels like:

Zombie: Makes complaint about every dish in the restaurant coming with fries as a side, when I'd like some salad instead.
taco: But look at all the different kinds of burgers you can order! There's the trusty beef+cheese+bacon one, one with avocados and vinaigrette, one where they put a huge veggie in instead, and even salmon!
Zombie: The burgers were never the point, it's that every meal having a pile of greasy salty starch sticks as an integral part of the dish makes them feel kinda samey, and it's hard serving the meat as something like wok because the side is always fries.
taco: But you can't say the burgers are all the same, salmon's so fresh compared to beef and bacon! And sometimes the fries are made of sweet potato :O

Basically, it misses the point because it points at everything but the point that was being made and goes look, diversity, while there's a whale plopped in the middle of the room.

I actually love this metaphor because I think it perfectly encapsulates how I feel about cantrips, and I just come to the exact opposite conclusion. When you go to a restaurant, the main dish is The Point - you don't go to the restaurant for the sides, you go to get the Salmon burger, or because this is the one joint that does good Veggie Burgers. Sure, they all come with some potatoes, because Potatoes Are Good - the fact that the supporting cast is tried and tested doesn't make variation in the main any less applicable. There is diversity in archetype; if you don't want to acknowledge it because a couple of them have Ponder, that's on you, rather than the nature of the decks.

Maybe it's just because I can tolerate having to think for a second while my opponent resolves a cantrip or whatever, but I just don't even really perceive them as meaningful to the flavor or a match in Legacy - they're just the lubricant or fuel that keeps the machine running, and the machine is what I care about. Corvettes and F-150s both run on gasoline; doesn't mean they feel the same to drive.

+1 for the evocative metaphor though, love it. :smile:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

Are you arguing that DnT, Elves, etc are not storied Legacy decks with real history? Or that Eldrazi has not had a huge impact on the format? I'm point at the most recent DTB because it's the most up-to-date and relevant, not because it's the only one that supports my point.

Yes, blue decks are good! Yes, blue decks have been good for a long time! They are not the only thing you can do in Legacy. there are plenty of options.

Ok. I'm going to rant here, but I want to prefex it by saying smarter men than you or I have made the mistake your making now, this is not a dig at you personally.

No. No. No. No. No. No. Never. Ever. Never tell me a single point of data is the most important or relevant or reliable or whatever. What you have is a single point of data, one DTB. It is the most recent, it's not the most relevant. It's never going to be.

That's not to say points of data don't matter, but never look at one in isolation and base your arguments off it. I'll give you an example of why this is bad.

In the 80 a bunch of Phycs got together and did a test on some teens. They brought them in to the office and played music from the 50s though to the 80s. The kids knew the 80s stuff, of course, but they also knew some of the 60s stuff.

Now I'm sure you can see what is going on here, but these 40 year old men who grew up on this 60s music missed it. They came to the conclusion that the 60s must have been a quote "Golden age of music" and thus everyone knew at least some of it.

Fast forward to the early 2000s, the test is run again. Kids know a bunch of current music, 80 music and no 60s music. The new analysis? Shit their parents listen to rubs off on the kids. Shocking I know. But one point of data let a bunch of really smart people make up the answer they liked and move on, not the correct answer.

Why does that matter here? Because I have no idea if next month Elves will still be a DTB, or Depths. I have limited data that suggests they will be. What I can say is likely Eldrazi, Miracles and Grixis will be. Because I have trends to support that idea. Not a single point of data but trend lines.

"These points of data make a beautiful line"

End rant.

As for Elves, Eldrazi or what not else having a history. They do, but only Eldrazi has consist data to support the suggestion it will continue to have consist success. There is no data right now to suggest that Elves for example will ever be a DTB again much less next month. I mean it likely will be, but we have seen it only just make it once after a major card was ripped from the deck. Not exactly a glowing review that anyone can make with one data point.

I get what you're saying about not having cantrips being unforgiving, but I really don't think this is true in a lot of cases. For example, Sol land, chalice, spaghetti monster beats a whole lot of decks, and really doesn't involve any sort of subtle calculation or tight technical choices.

Fairly sure I said Storm was harder to play than Eldrazi, I don't think Grixis is. In fact I think the Blue midrange decks are dead fucking simple.

You're acting like just casting Brainstorm immediately resolves all your problems. It's possible to misplay a Brainstorm, too - if the pilot is losing because they're bad, their Brainstorms are going to be bad, too.

Sure, you can fuck it, but it's going to save you having it than your going to lose playing DnT and just drawing dead. Brainstorm is a get out of jail almost free card in a lot of situations, even if some people fuck it.

Again, "one DTB" because it's the most recent and relevant.

No. It's not. It's a stupid thing to say. Please don't be stupid. Your not.

Do you dispute that there are different archetypes available in Legacy? You mentioned a Vial deck, a Storm deck, Monoblue combo, Burn, and a Tempo deck. Look at the DTB. All of those archetypes are represented, plus combo and stompy! Yes, if you want to play Goblins, you're out of luck, but if you don't want to play blue, you don't have to!

Forgive if the last 18 to 24 months make me say "Represented is not the same as playable"

This is going to seem hyperbolic, whatever, this is the thread for it, but it's felt like UBx Midrange, Miracles and Eldrazi have basicly been all anyone has really been consistently doing well with for ages. So yea, it really has felt like all these decks with a storied history have been useless next to Pile, Miracles or Grixis deck number 326.

Not that it's been a problem for me, the midrange piles all die to the same mix of Loam, Wasteland, Port, GQ and Tabernacle. So I myself cleaned up. It's just so fucking boring.


The "How many can you expect to have?" is specifically referring to "flavors of midrange." Of course you can expect to have multiple distinct archetypes, and Legacy does. What it doesn't have is seven versions of "removal plus creatures pile," which makes sense for the efficiency reasons I've described elsewhere.

What the fuck have you been smoking? Can I have some? Grixis, Grixis Pyro, BUG, Pile... Then the off shoots of each? Come on, that's all Legacy has felt like for ages.

---

Dice, I guess i can save my breath after you already outlined that current DtB status means nothing in the face of a decade dominanted of the ever same deck core and predators.

Instead, i wanna spend the time wishing you, your loved ones and everyone on The Source who cares a wonderful holiday season, merry Christmas and a great start into 2019!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

Ponder?

---

Assuming you were responding to me, Dark Ritual. And before anyone asks, I most definitely don't want to see it banned.

Seconding "Merry Christmas!" Also seconding a good 2019 for everybody. This year really sucked.

Yeah, for sure, fuck 2018. Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas, and whatever you may prefer celebrating, to everyone and not least all passionate MtG-players!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

I mean, I'm fine with this perspective as long as we're acknowledging it has nothing to do with balance management and everything to do with a particular taste in how a format looks. Everything here makes me wonder why you wouldn't just play Modern - that's a format where all sorts of weird stuff flies (there's a competitive deck with Goblin Lore and Burning Inquiry. Goblin Lore!!), they ban the good stuff all the time, even if it's not a huge metagame portion, and the cantrips are bad. It literally hits every criterion you've provided - why do we need to make Legacy more like Modern, when we already have Modern?

---

The last ban there was in Modern was nearly 2 years ago. How long does a format have to go between bans to no longer qualify as "ban[ning] the good stuff all the time"? Heck, Legacy's had more bans in the last 2 years than Modern has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce

Assuming you were responding to me, Dark Ritual. And before anyone asks, I most definitely don't want to see it banned.

Seconding "Merry Christmas!" Also seconding a good 2019 for everybody. This year really sucked.

---

Yea 2018 sucked for me too. Wishing y’all a better 2019 and a merry Christmas!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

The last ban there was in Modern was nearly 2 years ago. How long does a format have to go between bans to no longer qualify as "ban[ning] the good stuff all the time"? Heck, Legacy's had more bans in the last 2 years than Modern has.

---

Legacy players do have the ban-happy attitude that Modern players had back then, and it had had a similar impact on the format. I think it’s warranted for comparisons sake at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Dice, I guess i can save my breath after you already outlined that current DtB status means nothing in the face of a decade dominanted of the ever same deck core and predators.

Instead, i wanna spend the time wishing you, your loved ones and everyone on The Source who cares a wonderful holiday season, merry Christmas and a great start into 2019!

---

No worries. You to mate.

And the rest of you nutters. Merry Christmas or whatever it is that you celebrate at this time of the year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

The last ban there was in Modern was nearly 2 years ago. How long does a format have to go between bans to no longer qualify as "ban[ning] the good stuff all the time"?

---

I don't mean to sound antagonistic, but two years' worth of rotten sets would result in few/no bans. The state of Kaladesh/Amonkhet Standard—with more banned cards in the format than at any time since 2004, none of which did anything at all in any other format—would support my assertion that the sets were pretty bad.

EDIT: Put another way, the fact they had to ban a terrible Barbarian Ring clone that I've literally never seen anyone play in another format indicates that the pickings were pretty slim.

It has begun in Pauper as well:

UB Delver

//Maindeck:
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Augur of Bolas
4 Gurmag Angler

4 Brainstorm
4 Preordain
3 Gitaxian Probe
3 Gush

3 Counterspell
4 Daze
3 Foil

1 Disfigure
3 Echoing Decay
3 Snuff Out

1 Ash Barrens
3 Terramorphic Expanse
3 Evolving Wilds

8 Snow-Covered Island
2 Snow-Covered Swamp


//Sideboard:
4 Hydroblast
2 Annul
2 Dispel
1 Faerie Macabre
2 Relic of Progenitus
1 Shrivel
3 Stormbound Geist

This looks eerily like a Legacy deck. Xerox comes, Xerox takes over. Resistance, it seems, is futile. Recent results also include totally-healthy things like maindeck Pyroblast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce

EDIT: Put another way, the fact they had to ban a terrible Barbarian Ring clone that I've literally never seen anyone play in another format indicates that the pickings were pretty slim.

---

The Barbarian Ring clone they banned had a key difference to Barbarian Ring - it wasn't a solitary, random bolt, it was an engine that could make a large number of lands into bolts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

It has begun in Pauper as well:

UB Delver

//Maindeck:
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Augur of Bolas
4 Gurmag Angler

4 Brainstorm
4 Preordain
3 Gitaxian Probe
3 Gush

3 Counterspell
4 Daze
3 Foil

1 Disfigure
3 Echoing Decay
3 Snuff Out

1 Ash Barrens
3 Terramorphic Expanse
3 Evolving Wilds

8 Snow-Covered Island
2 Snow-Covered Swamp


//Sideboard:
4 Hydroblast
2 Annul
2 Dispel
1 Faerie Macabre
2 Relic of Progenitus
1 Shrivel
3 Stormbound Geist

This looks eerily like a Legacy deck. Xerox comes, Xerox takes over. Resistance, it seems, is futile. Recent results also include totally-healthy things like maindeck Pyroblast.



The Barbarian Ring clone they banned had a key difference to Barbarian Ring - it wasn't a solitary, random bolt, it was an engine that could make a large number of lands into bolts.

---

Why play anything else when the best creatures are a 3/2 for U and a 5/5 for B that each say "fill your deck with a lot of cantrips, that coincidentally will also make your deck more consistent"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

The last ban there was in Modern was nearly 2 years ago. How long does a format have to go between bans to no longer qualify as "ban[ning] the good stuff all the time"? Heck, Legacy's had more bans in the last 2 years than Modern has.

---

I mean, it also had one or more bannings for all the years preceding those two since its inception, but this is a fair point. I think Modern still takes the cake for number of arbitrary bannings, though; the point is, I think the last few Legacy bans were more like bans in Modern than bannings in Legacy have been historically (that is, they were based on perception rather than actual dominance).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

What you have is a single point of data, one DTB. It is the most recent, it's not the most relevant.

---

Isn't the DTB a synthesis of an aggregate of data? That is, it's constructed from the combined results of a plurality of tournaments over a period of time?

As a consequence of the bannings, it is necessarily the most relevant, because the DTBs of the months before the ban represent a different format - one that included some number of cards that were known to be powerful/playable in Legacy that current Legacy does not have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Forgive if the last 18 to 24 months make me say "Represented is not the same as playable"

---

What is the point of collating the DTB, then? If you don't think it represents a snapshot of the format, what do you think that data does show?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Grixis, Grixis Pyro, BUG, Pile... Then the off shoots of each? Come on, that's all Legacy has felt like for ages.

---

I can't dispute the bolded part, because it's just how you feel, so it's possible your meta is just all UB midrange.

I think there were only really two decks, there, though - the BUG Pile lists and the Grixis lists, which now have consolidated a bit with Probe gone. The point is, there isn't a "Mardu Pile" and a "Junk Pile" and a "Bant Pile," and there won't be as long as Grixis is the best stack of efficient threats and answers. Even if they make some of the bannings people here want, there still won't be all those variations - even if it dethrones Grixis, something else will take its place, and there's no guarantee that whatever does will be the second coming of Abzan Maverick.

Also, chiming in with Happy Holidays! I definitely spent the weekend eating an absurd amount of food (my brother loves to bake) and I plan to post my Source Secret Santa Brag either tonight or tomorrow! :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

Isn't the DTB a synthesis of an aggregate of data? That is, it's constructed from the combined results of a plurality of tournaments over a period of time?

---

It is, but it itself is also a single data point. The DTB section, with the way that it is set up is a monthly snapshot of the format. Its taking data and turning it into another metric. You are then using a single snapshot to justify a single statement. That is not how stats work.
If you want to talk about TC data be my guest, but that's its own thing. The DTB is based on TC, but it is also its own independent set of data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

As a consequence of the bannings, it is necessarily the most relevant, because the DTBs of the months before the ban represent a different format - one that included some number of cards that were known to be powerful/playable in Legacy that current Legacy does not have.

---

Ok, here's the deal, next time you tell me one data point is the most relevant and demonstrate your total lack of understanding of how stats work I am going to ignore you. Because I just explained why this is wrong, as an adjective statement not a subjective statement and example. I'm not being an arse, but I will not bother to debate with you if you are unable to understand how stats work while trying to use them in an argument. I'm just unwilling to waste my time so.

I will agree that the format has changed, some of the data is not as useful as it was. But we still have TRENDS. Miracles, Grixis and Eldrazi have stayed where they are consistently. This is something you can look at and say "Though this time of change these decks are still the top 3 in the format." There are some other things too in the trends. "The changes that Miracles has brought with B2B and the lack of free mana has pushed up the Basic counts. This is likely why Lands is not entering the DTB of late."

Look at that, I have data, I can look at said data and I can see trend lines. I am not looking at this one point of data and making an argument. Because that's not how stats works. Please stop. Don't be stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

What is the point of collating the DTB, then? If you don't think it represents a snapshot of the format, what do you think that data does show?

---

See above. Also I do think it represents a snapshot of the format, I just do not accept that one point of data proves anything. Its the same as showing an SCG with 8 decks running Brainstorm and Ponder and making a case. You have one SCG, don't die on that hill. Not when you have years of trends you can look at to make a case. I can pull a single point of data from just about anywhere and use it to make a case, but its going to be faulty, its going to be flimsily and its going to be a hard case to defend.

I mean lets look at what your doing. Your looking at one DTB and your making a call. Lets do the same thing:
August 2018: Deaths Shadow take the pie, Miracles is in 7th place and Lands is a DTB. I am going to guess from this one snapshot, without looking at any other data that Deaths Shadow is going to keep ruling the roost, Lands will prey upon its weak land base and stay a strong DTB and Miracles will be pushed out of the DTB.
Oh fuck, I just saw Octobers DTB update... well that didn't go well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

It is, but it itself is also a single data point. The DTB section, with the way that it is set up is a monthly snapshot of the format. Its taking data and turning it into another metric. You are then using a single snapshot to justify a single statement.
If you want to talk about TC data be my guest, but that's its own thing. The DTB is based on TC, but it is also its own independent set of data.

---

OK, so the point you're making is that, historically, the DTB months, taken together as a data set, do not support my point?

As a counter point, I went through the DTB back to page 4, looking at the four lists I cited as things you could do in Legacy that aren't cantrips or blue (Elves, DnT, Eldrazi, Depths). Here's what I found:

Elves: 16 appearances, made it in every year since 2014, which even includes plenty of months where Sensei's Divining Top was legal
DNT: 35 appearances, made it in every year since 2014
Eldrazi: 20 appearances, notably out of a possible 35 (as February 2016 is as early as we can expect the deck to show up, as that is when Khans is released)
Depths: 4 appearances (this one, I must admit, surprised me, given that the combo and most of the relevant cards for the deck have been available since the m14 rules changes. I will concede that this one is not as storied as the others, but I still contend that it is a perfectly reasonable 75 to bring to a Legacy event.)

I think this clearly supports the notion that Elves, Eldrazi, and especially DnT are legitimate, respectable legacy decks that have no cantrips or blue in them.

Now, I do want to acknowledge some of you point as well - essentially every appearance of these decks also saw the inclusion of Miracles, Grixis, or both.

I want to be clear: I am not saying these decks are better than Miracles or Grixis. I am not saying that Miracles and Grixis are not strong.

What I am saying is, there are certainly things to do in Legacy that aren't blue. Yes, blue is A Thing. But it's not The Only Thing.

Just because a deck comes in and out of the DTB doesn't mean it doesn't have staying power, or isn't a useful consideration for deck selection. ANT came in and out of the DTB almost as much as DnT did, but I still feel good bringing it to tournaments. Just ask CyrusCG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

But we still have TRENDS. Miracles, Grixis and Eldrazi have stayed where they are consistently. This is something you can look at and say "Though this time of change these decks are still the top 3 in the format." "The changes that Miracles has brought with B2B and the lack of free mana has pushed up the Basic counts. This is likely why Lands is not entering the DTB of late."

---

These are great arguments, and totally fair. I agree with both.

What decks do you want to play against? If you're cleaning house with Lands, the decks are clearly beatable. Why do you think people don't switch? I think as much of it has to do with the relatively high cost of the format as it does Grixis being some sort of unbeatable format breaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Ok, here's the deal, next time you tell me one data point is the most relevant and demonstrate your total lack of understanding of how stats work I am going to ignore you. Because I just explained why this is wrong, as an adjective statement not a subjective statement and example. I'm not being an arse, but I will not bother to debate with you if you are unable to understand how stats work while trying to use them in an argument. I'm just unwilling to waste my time so.

Look at that, I have data, I can look at said data and I can see trend lines. I am not looking at this one point of data and making an argument. Because that's not how stats works. Please stop. Don't be stupid.

---

Also, for what it's worth, I would've reported this post and the last one if you weren't already a mod. :frown: I understand statistics just fine, and I don't take shots at you for misspellings/using "adjective" when you mean "objective," etc, because I know what you mean and it doesn't add anything for me to mention it. I know we all employ some hyperbole in this thread, and I know you clearly stated it wasn't a dig specifically at me, but I just wanted to ask that you address the argument charitably.

I tried to address the point you were making more specifically above; I was trying to make a point using the current DTB because it's the format we're currently living with, whereas you were making a point about the history of the format. Both are important and worth discussing. :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

I tried to address the point you were making more specifically above; I was trying to make a point using the current DTB because it's the format we're currently living with, whereas you were making a point about the history of the format. Both are important and worth discussing. :smile:

---

Dice is pointing you to the DtB section of this or other websites only covering a span of one or two months within a decade of Xerox dominance. Moreover the data is pretty clear that Xerox gives you the best shot at winning tournaments though all these years which puts a huge question mark behind the topic if listed non-blue decks are actually compeditive on an equal footing or just winning a slice of the cake here and there whenever xerox gets too greedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Dice is pointing you to the DtB section of this or other websites only covering a span of one or two months within a decade of Xerox dominance. Moreover the data is pretty clear that Xerox gives you the best shot at winning tournaments though all these years which puts a huge question mark behind the topic if listed non-blue decks are actually compeditive on an equal footing or just winning a slice of the cake here and there whenever xerox gets too greedy.

---

I mean just based on numbers Xerox can't win 100% of the time. The difference is basically that the non blue dtb at the time generally tends to be whatever is the best meta predator at the time and the various blue decks shape whatever non blue decks are viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

It has begun in Pauper as well:
UB Delver

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit

Why play anything else when the best creatures are a 3/2 for U and a 5/5 for B that each say "fill your deck with a lot of cantrips, that coincidentally will also make your deck more consistent"

---

It's wonderful and it's precisely why I am beginning to think I could play pauper as well :laugh:
Alas, I'm afraid January will see the ban of gush and/or foil and/or gitaxian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

demonstrate your total lack of understanding of how stats work

---

Yuhuuuuu finally even the mods have subscribed to the unpolite mode, if not to the trolling mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Dice is pointing you to the DtB section of this or other websites only covering a span of one or two months within a decade of Xerox dominance. Moreover the data is pretty clear that Xerox (...) [bla bla bla, also xerox xerox xerox ]

---

So THIS is what all that screaming about "statistics!" actually was about.
Not that it comes as a surprise.
It was never a discussion about how anybody can be "scientific", how data can be interpreted. Instead, it was the usual complaint about xerox. WITHOUT a single real data. With a complete disregard of a rational discussion and a "scientific method". Just complete prejudice. Of course you can alsways just say "decade of xerox dominance!!1111!111!!"

Actually, the winner metagame says NOTHING about conversion rates. It says nothing about what the majority of people plays at a tournament.
So what are you complaining about, exactly? Xerox is too strong? If you want to discuss how strong a deck is, you should look at how many decks were there of each archetype at the begininng of the tournament and how many of each archetype made it to the top. Without that, top8 could be xerox infested simply because the metagame is xerox infested (not that it would be an "infestation", in my view that is the good side).
If you instead are complaining that everybody plays xerox, you should look at the data of the whole metagame, which nobody has access to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

the non blue dtb at the time generally tends to be whatever is the best meta predator at the time and the various blue decks shape whatever non blue decks are viable.

---

https://i.ibb.co/SsvZJpq/tiers.jpg
Look! the FIRST deck among the winners's metagame is Turbo Depths. And it's actually emerging from a TREND that begun a years ago. I don't think it is preying upon blue. At most it could be preying on a lack of wastelands and/or swords to plowshare. So look, single point of data or not, you have a non blue deck that is actually the best combo deck right now and the most successful of the winner's metagame.
SURPRISE!

Now, since this thread is for blue haters, I'm predicting from the past trends you'll immediately start hating again
Have fun!



POST SCRIPTUM
Let me add another, useless, single point of data. In Italy we just had a three-day big event (Modern, Vintage, ecc). One of my friend made a complete analysis of the results of the main event Legacy (263 players). 58% of the starting metagame was "blue", 42% non-blue. If we look at the top32 as an estimate for the conversion rate, blue decks reach 62% and non-blue decks 38%. Yes, there is a slight increase of the blue share, but not really a "dominance" in term of winnings.

If you are curious about the archetypes, the most played deck was grixis control (9% of the starting metagame) followed by Show, Miracles (similar %), Death and Taxes.
If we counted chalice.decks as a whole it would have been the most played with 12% of metagame. There were 55 distinct archetypes. My interpretation: the starting metagame is as open as it could be, and the non-blue decks are both present and winning.

If you are curious about the performance of the archetypes, UB Shadow was the best performing, both in terms of "conversion rate" and in terms of "average point after swiss made by the players". The worst were Death and Taxes and Show and Tell. Grixis Control, Miracle, Turbo Depths, Dragon Stompy were average good. Eldrazi and Taxes, Big Eldrazi, Eldrazi Stompy were among the best performing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

So THIS is what all that screaming about "statistics!" actually was about.
Not that it comes as a surprise.
It was never a discussion about how anybody can be "scientific", how data can be interpreted. Instead, it was the usual complaint about xerox. WITHOUT a single real data.

---

I beg to pardon. We have a decade of data showing that the cantrip shell is the unquestionable king of the format and claiming that non-blue decks are equally compeditive in that longterm statistic doesn't quite have a fundament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

With a complete disregard of a rational discussion and a "scientific method". Just complete prejudice. Of course you can alsways just say "decade of xerox dominance!!1111!111!!"

---

I dunno why a decade of data underlining the points made is a prejudice for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Actually, the winner metagame says NOTHING about conversion rates. It says nothing about what the majority of people plays at a tournament.

---

That's true, but the T8/T16/T32 still show which decks and strategies perform the best. If all what floats at top for a very long time are the ever same strategies, it's fair to be pointed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

So what are you complaining about, exactly? Xerox is too strong? If you want to discuss how strong a deck is, you should look at how many decks were there of each archetype at the begininng of the tournament and how many of each archetype made it to the top.

---

Did that for some events im the past during the Miracles era and to no surprise, that deck overperformed relative to its representation. Sadly only a few tournament organizers publish the full metagame data for us to work with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Now, since this thread is for blue haters, I'm predicting from the past trends you'll immediately start hating again
Have fun!

---

Nah, i am not into ad homiem to finish my arguments. I care little for a 30-Day period prolly mixing MTGO level results with majors if the topic is about the formats longterm trends which have not been shaken in more than a decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

POST SCRIPTUM
Let me add another, useless, single point of data. In Italy we just had a three-day big event (Modern, Vintage, ecc). One of my friend made a complete analysis of the results of the main event Legacy (263 players). 58% of the starting metagame was "blue", 42% non-blue. If we look at the top32 as an estimate for the conversion rate, blue decks reach 62% and non-blue decks 38%. Yes, there is a slight increase of the blue share, but not really a "dominance" in term of winnings..

---

So the cantrip shell was overperforming relative to its metagame share. I think it's fair to interpret that as a point in favor of the Xerox shell for being the top choice to enter a tournament with.

How much B and R discussion is based around misrepresentation? Is “Cantrip a deck? Is UB a single deck? My favorite is the claim that Delver and Czech Pile are the same deck.

Ban:

Brainstorm
Ponder
Show and Tell
Dark Depths
Griselbrand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WashableWater1

How much B and R discussion is based around misrepresentation? Is “Cantrip a deck? Is UB a single deck? My favorite is the claim that Delver and Czech Pile are the same deck.

---

most of the debate is not around the same deck, but around the strategy that enables X decks. if you think this is a debate about the individual decks, it's not worth the discussion as most of those cards outside of the cantrips aren't inherently powerful. i think the exceptions are show and tell, infernal tutor, snapcaster mage and terminus.

non-blue decks need to jump through hoops for game plan consistency and mana consistency or for finding singleton cards. with xerox strategies, it becomes significantly easier. (and to a lesser extent how snapcaster mage enables them more.)

some prefer playing those strategies, others prefer to have raw power, and a third prefer to have synergies.

that is the entire debate.

we should really have a separate b/r thread for just brainstorm/ponder. i really liked when discussion about b/r had some different cards involved in it. now it's just a pissing contest about who understands statistics. (it doesn't matter, especially given wotc's view on brainstorm in legacy.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mistercakes

we should really have a separate b/r thread for just brainstorm/ponder. i really liked when discussion about b/r had some different cards involved in it. now it's just a pissing contest about who understands statistics. (it doesn't matter, especially given wotc's view on brainstorm in legacy.)

---

This is a great idea. I used to enjoy this thread, but it's been the same rubbish for the last few years now.

how about a new thread with: Ban list discussion other than Brainstorm/Ponder/Fetches?