Why? What does it break?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
Printable View
Why? What does it break?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
I should qualify my perspective: I don't want randomness per se, what I really want is a little more chance. I've played Modern, and in the old days, standard, and the amount of times your opponent *doesn't have it* are more often than in legacy. In Legacy we pretty much have to assume our opponents have exactly what they need or a Brainstorm, etc., to find what they need. It's much more solved, which I'm ok with. My small criticism is that with the cantrips, and even with some of the non-blue engines, the chance factor has been obliterated. In my little pea brain I want to have a chance at winning even against a 10/90 matchup. The lower the variance, the fewer times that happens. Everyone loves an underdog story, right?Quote:
Really? Why?
So many people seem to want this, and I just don't get it.
I like this variance. I don't want "have it" / "don't have it" variance, but "how" i did it variance. I have an ideal line my deck wants to go, but when the inevitable disruption comes, I want to have an option B/C/D ready, depending on the game state. That stuff is fun to me. Sometimes its like playing a completely different deck from round to round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
Not sure I agree it's THAT good, but a common complaint about The Card that Must Not be Named is it's unrivaled ability to improve opening hands. This guy has a similar effect for less upfront investment (it costs free) that can also pitch to Force or take over the game after the fact. Granted the deckbuilding cost is higher, but any blue deck that plans to hit 4 mana can run this guy to great effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
I get you, I think. That being said, it’s the skill of the pilot that makes a 10/90 matchup become 40/60 sometimes. Seriously though, I’ve seen tes players plough through trinispheres, chalices and all that just through skill and a bit of variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
It’s kinda nice that there is lower variance in some formats compared to others. If I want a wild game of nutty stories, I’ll play edh. If I want to test my skills, I’d play legacy.
That being said, I’m curious what that 4cmc chancellor has that might be bannable. It seems underwhelming, though I can see it being the top of a mono-U stompy, featuring card advantage and not just lock pieces.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I dunno... Why run a card that costs :2::u::u: that isn't Jace? I don't think that's ever been done before. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watersaw
:smile: Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
I think that card is sweet but not good enough - it's a 4 mana 4/4, which decks that can abuse the Scry don't want, and decks that might want the body have way better options and probably don't care about the Scry.
What deck do you think would play it?
So, I actually get this a lot, and there are a couple of reasons why I don't/it's not as relevant here:Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
1. It's much harder to find opponents for chess in a casual context - I can play Legacy with my other buddies who play Legacy and also play in tournaments, but for chess it'd pretty much only be events.
2. The collectability aspect of Magic is fun - the cards themselves are fun to handle/look at, and there's some personalization available, which breeds attachment.
3. (This might betray me as a rank novice, so any Chess masters feel free to correct me here, but:) Chess has less leeway in terms of "creative" or "orthogonal" strategies - there are a number of reasonable openings, but ultimately the game has similar trajectories for both players. I enjoy decks like Storm or Miracles or Elves that aim to be orthogonal to typical strategies - engine combo has a different textural feel than midrange, and I like that Magic has that.
Variance exists on a spectrum in games, and I simply prefer it present, but dialed down. Other examples are Scythe and Root - both have variance in terms of cards drawn, but outcomes are largely determined by good decision making, rather than luck. I've lost some games of Scythe and Root to luck, but far fewer than in magic, and typically they were closer than the Magic games decided by luck.
I think these are great points, and another that you didn't mention that supports your point (and is a strike against chess in favor of Magic, contributing to Magic's continued popularity/longevity) is that variance helps low skill/new players win a couple games, which encourages them to keep playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
However, to continue my other point earlier, variance isn't a toggle, it's a spectrum - I would just prefer my games to be determined 10% by variance and 90% by skill, rather than, say, 40%/60%.
I don't mean for people to think that I want Magic to be entirely deterministic, just that I feel that a lot of people want to move the needle closer to 40/60, and I want to speak for the 10/90 side.
Sure I do, but I love it way less than I love feeling smart because of good plays I made. Winning a 10/90 matchup because your opponent mulliganed to 5 and then drew bricks every turn is meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
The underdog stories that are really inspiring are the ones that overcome adversity through work/dedication/cleverness.
Edit: people posted ahead of me using 10/90 and 40/60 as well; I just want to clarify that I am not using those as "matchup stats," I am using them as, "percentage of games determined by luck vs. percentage of games determined by skill"
You're not wrong, but I am no master, lol. I've been studying chess for 2 years now, not just playing, actually studying tactics, openings, games where the strategies are named. You can call the Italian game a 'king's pawn opening' if you want, but it has a specific way it is approaching the game (like instead of UW control it's called 'Miracles'.) Chess is solved, no doubt. The dirty secret to chess, as far as I see it, is 'how well can you memorize different lines of play'. It's all pretty much been done before. People have preferred openings that are offensive or defensive, traps, and ways of leveraging every part of the game (opening, development, endgame.) There are combo wins (Fried Liver attack, Max Lange attack), there are control based games (Pirc defense in black, the classic opening, the Scandinavian defense) and there are tons of variations of the two (the king's indian comes to mind.) The big difference is the pieces are established right from the beginning. There is no variance, only human preference and error.Quote:
3. (This might betray me as a rank novice, so any Chess masters feel free to correct me here, but:) Chess has less leeway in terms of "creative" or "orthogonal" strategies - there are a number of reasonable openings, but ultimately the game has similar trajectories for both players. I enjoy decks like Storm or Miracles or Elves that aim to be orthogonal to typical strategies - engine combo has a different textural feel than midrange, and I like that Magic has that.
What I like about MtG, and you touched on it, is that there is a collectability aspect and the opportunity to create. Chess doesn't create, it only plays. Magic creates, plays, and most importantly, changes. Legacy changes the least, I'll grant that, but it does change. What legacy offers is a way to master a deck the way a chess player masters his favorite opening. Sometimes you run into the strategy that perfectly foils you, sometimes you steam-roll them. Then you add the sideboard and it's a totally different aspect. It's like playing white when you lose or if you win the die roll.
This is why I'm fine with Brainstorm being so good, why it's ok that blue itself is so good. Legacy is a chess game more than any other format. It leverages skill, it tests your ability to adapt, and it rewards practice. I can't help but feel that the anti-brainstorm crew wants to devolve the format to the point of modern or even standard in terms of consistency.
I'll say it again, it feels like a creationist debate. One side is looking to spin facts to lead to their conclusion while the other is letting the facts lead where it may.
"This is why I'm fine with Brainstorm being so good, why it's ok that blue itself is so good. Legacy is a chess game more than any other format. It leverages skill, it tests your ability to adapt, and it rewards practice. I can't help but feel that the anti-brainstorm crew wants to devolve the format to the point of modern or even standard in terms of consistency."
I think that's quite a blanket statement about wanting to devolve to modern. This couldn't be further from the truth. There's a very narrow set of cards that no longer give deckbuilders any kind of creativity. You can say "but playing with ponder and brainstorm allow you to play so many options", but this is only relevant for local weekly events and nothing at a competitive level.
If you want to play a game that is more skill, don't just give chess as the only option. There's plenty. I played competitive fighters for some time, rts, fps games, and poker. Those are all games that in general the better player wins.
Even if you exclude the cantrips, I would make a healthy wager that most Depths players are stealing wins left and right due to bad opponents, or even good opponents that don't understand the intricacies of the deck. (list/sb options/how the deck works under fringe conditions)
There's a reason why cards like vampiric tutor, demonic consultation, mystical tutor, and survival were banned. In general they provide a level of consistency which the rest of the format is unable to keep up with. Brainstorm+Ponder+Preordain+fetches allow for a similar, albeit slower effect on the game.
Brainstorm is fine, it's a novel card. The others are just boring, and the other colors are either far behind/banned.
(edit b/c i had written on my phone originally and added in the italics)
No they don't. If you ever play blue, please continue keeping this one-lander ponder, so you'll continue losing. And even more certainly, brainstorm DOES NOT let you keep one lander, because you then will die "brainstorm locked" not being able to shuffle.Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercakes
(Not even mentioning that your kind of reasoning would only work on the play, because if you keep one land one cantrip on the draw, god forbid your opponent starting with targeted discard...)
These are precisely those kind of posts that don't let me take seriously cantrip-haters complaints. Just complain about consistency if you really need to, but don't oversell it please.
And this comes over again and again, I can't stop myself from answering. Wrong. False. Not real.Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercakes
Can't everybody please stop saying ANT and Miracles are the same thing?! "goodstuff deck" WTF?! they ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT MIDRANGE DECKS. Stop. Just Stop.
If you want to try and convince anybody who loves blue (like me) of your ideas, please note that your point of view would be taken more seriously if you avoided this laughably propositions.
(and sorry for quoting you again, it's just that this come over and over)
+1 :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by taconaut
That's another exaggeration. They increase consistency, but not at that level. Nor they are so flexible as tutors are. Cantrips come with a cost too (you can play down this as much as you want, but there is a cost): the tempo you lose by playing "air" is not negligible and you can lose because of that (I am not saying the advantages do not overcome the costs, otherwise one would not play them, it's just that they are not "exactly" free). They also make you more vulnerable to tax strategies (thalia, spheres, pillars, eidolons, etc), while a strategy of "simple" redundance in threats does not. The key is that "albeit SLOWER".Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercakes
Apart from the way you put it, this observation deserves answers and discussion, and plenty of people already did. I'd like too to add something about variance, as I think it could be one of the core reasons of the "cantrip debate".Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
What are differences between chess and magic? Well, there is not only the randomness part that many already pointed out; you also have a game of hidden information, where (usually) nobody can know what you will draw in the future, and your opponent (usually) can't know for sure what you are already holding. I always loved to describe magic, for those who don't know it and asked me what it was, as a mixture of chess and poker. This not only allows for bluffs, "opponent reading", "mind tricks", etc but also add a different level of complexity in trying to plan against the unknown.
Then, there is another thing that makes magic different from chess: you don't have a metagame in chess, everybody plays against the same thing.
So, what cantrip detractors aren't admitting is that CANTRIPS DO NOT MAKE VARIANCE MAGICALLY DISAPPEAR (and I really am wondering if they are exaggerating for the purpose of arguing or they really don't get it. It could very well be they are overestimating the impact of cantrips on variance, be it because they generally don't play them and so have less experience, or because everyone of us has a selective memory -so you recall that time where your opponent cast a brainstorm while standing behind on board and destroyed you, but you don't recall those other time when after two ponders and a brainstorm the opponent couldn't find anything).
You don't play two-cards combo (show, reanimate) with only cantrips and 4 copies of the combo pieces. Why is so that you add sneak to complement show and tell and 8 creatures instead of four? because cantrips by themselves aren't enough to warrant consistency, even in the dumbest of the combo (sorry show players, it's just an example :tongue:) you need to make the list as a whole more solid.
So, do I dislike variance in principle? Of course not, otherwise I wouldn't be playing magic. But the "variance" I like is of the kind "I have to find a route against what my opponent deck is trying to do in general as an archetype, now in particular considering what and how he played, and taking into account the card in my hand and what I could draw". I certainly don't like the kind of variance where one of the players doesn't play magic because he/she gets mana screwed or mana flooded. Guess one of the things you can do to reduce (but not eliminate, mind you) this kind of "bad variance"? Cantrips.
Finally, there is another kind of variance that I hate: loopsided matchups. This also allows situations where one of the two players doesn't stand a chance, therefore the match is not really about playing magic.
Somebody already spoke about why one should like a certain amount of variance (10%) but not too much (match decided at 40% by pure luck). I'd invite you to take into account matchups too, and pairings also are pure luck. So if 30% is luck in the form of pairings, why should you want another 40% of luck in the form of variance? That would leave you with way too little importance of skill in the outcome of a match.
PS. As somebody already said. If you play other formats, be it standard, limited, vintage, you'd notice -as someone already said- that legacy is the format where ALL DECKS exhibit more consistency, even non-blue ones. The outcome for a Vintage game, for example, with more powerful cards in single copy, really can depend on who was the first who found the more broken card (wherein Legacy has less powerful cards in more copies, and redundancy of course is a way to reduce variance). In standard, on the contrary, flood and screw really are much more relevant. I really can't understand why anybody should want a "more standard" legacy. We have a format with powerful cards but also solid decks, cantrips are part of it (just like tutors, advantage engines, recursions, etc).
Mulligans with cantrips is a good talking point, one that has been done frequently. One land Brainstorm keeps are sketchy, one land Ponder keeps are slightly less sketchy because you get to see an extra card and shuffle away non-lands. The risk factor goes down if you have 2 Ponders or a Brainstorm and a Ponder. Two Brainstorms is almost as bad as 1 Brainstorm if you only have one land. Locked is locked, spending a turn to see one extra card is inefficient by legacy standards. I think the conversation a while back about fetchlands was really productive because it opened my eyes to the nature of how free shuffle effects and perfect mana affect the low variance of legacy.
Put another way, I see playing non-blue in Legacy like seeing Chuck Norris enter a saloon where there are 10 cowboys with loaded Smith & Wessons. In this fantasy world, you know Bruce might get nicked or even get shot in a non-vital area like a bicep or calf. But you also know those muthafuckas are in for a world of hurt. It doesn't change the fact that a gun is better way to win a fight than martial arts, so you'd better make sure you're Chuck Norris level badass when you go into that saloon. If you're going into legacy, make sure what you're bringing something that can keep up with the gunslingers. It doesn't change the fact that you're going into a saloon where everyone is packing heat, that's just the nature of a saloon, take it or leave it.
There are definitely Chuck Norris decks in legacy. Look at Lands, Death and Taxes, Dredge, Reanimator, Depths, Dragon Stompy, and Eldrazi (to name a few common ones ATM.) They know what they are facing, but they're Chuck Fuckin' Norris, they'll distract you with chest hair and fuck your shit up.
you can also focus on cantrips towards midgame, and especially late game. this is not to compare them to combo decks, although combo decks can also utilize this (not as well).
if you are playing deck X (non-blue), there are far fewer topdecks that can solve a random board state than in blue. i think unfortunately SDT solved this problem for non-blue decks, there may be some good arguments for bringing back SDT and banning the real problem card with top (counterbalance). it was a bit overpowered with miracles, but it did give other colors the ability to manipulate their library and was a great turn 1 in any deck (even ANT was using it, not to speak additionally for doomsday)
let's use a scenario like mid/late game -> ponder -> brainstorm -> shuffle -> snapcaster -> removal spell/answer
there's very few cards outside of cantrips that can provide this. of course it can be said that there's a cost associated with it, but it's a much smaller cost than running a bunch of random answers and hoping to draw the right one at the right time.
green has GSZ, but other colors are hurting a bit, at least at a reasonable cost. sylvan library is probably the next best card in terms of card selection at a low cmc, and maybe you can add faithless looting as it flashes back.
cantrips solve this problem by being relevant early game as well.
it's maybe better to just hope the other colors get some toys like how red is getting light up the stage
currently the DTB is more or less the following:
A) cantrip decks
B) decks that hate on cantrips
C) decks with synergies so good they do not need A or B
it would be nice to see some more decks that can squeak by and deal their 20 without any of those 3, but maybe those days are just long gone for legacy.
When the screenshot of that was just spoiled, I was hoping so hard that spectacle wasn't going to be, "If you have some guys..." and then... it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercakes
dontknowwhatIexpected.jpg
Not to be cheeky, but what fourth category could you possibly have here? Anything that isn't A or B is C.Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercakes
I know you're being rhetorical but I got bored and curious which ones I could think of-Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
Sower
Diminishing Returns
Misthollow Griffin
Slithermuse
Mindbreak Trap
;3
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by taconaut
It's a reasonable question, I checked for a few decks that would fit although these are probably debatable:
Deadguy Ale, Maverick, Zombardment, Pox, 12 Post, Nic Fit, The Rock, Enchantress, Jund, Team Italia, Imperial Painter, Strawberry Shortcake, Goblins, Humans, Slivers, Affinity
I'll note that expanding group 3, the set of synergies that are competitive, would increase format diversity which Mistercakes asked for, it doesn't have to come from a fourth group.
Edit: so basically, since all decks have synergies, group 4 would be decks that have synergies that aren't currently very competitive. [edit: which would by definition not be a dtb, so there is no 4th group. Ah, this is Taconaut's point, I somehow interpreted a wider question first]
I was just typing this up.
This is what I had, but your list is more exhaustive.
Maverick
Jund
BW
Nicfit
Enchantress
Affinity
Cloudpost
Tribal decks
And zoo I suppose.
I read through the recent discussion and again I get the impression that posts represent two groups of players: those who care more about how games play out and a bit less about format diversity, and those who care more about format diversity and a bit less about how games play out.
When players who like one aspect don't understand the qualities asked for by another group, then we get a detailed discussion on technical aspects that don't consider the greater picture.
Edit: every deck does what it can to reduce its variance, or rather to control its variance. Be that Brainstorm, GSZ, Gamble, 35 Merfolk or whatever. That's fine, or well up for discussion, but when one consistency tool (any tool really as indicated by Deathrite, though there were options) ends up ruining deck diversity it is probably not fine.
The aspects I mentioned above, format diversity and how games play out, can be detailed and expanded on. For example, play experience is another aspect, how different decks feel when they play out their strategies.
...
Now just an observation, a bit long, but this is just peripheral to my main point which is above. Not sure about its relevance, but it's providing a perspective on the discussion. I think that players who enjoy playing a current dtb are probably more inclined to enjoy the tactical and technical aspects of playing, we can compare it with chess-like qualities, they probably play a cantrip shell, and the players who value format diversity, creativity and strategy of the game they tend to play some decks that are not in the dtb section (these qualities are not covered by poker or chess it seems). If you play a dtb then you are enjoying your games because you get what you want out of the game and you have a good shot at doing well in a competitive setting such as a GP and you keep winning over non-dtb's. While if you are in the second group, you are likely playing a less competitive deck and you may be less content with how your efforts at deck building tend to lead to losses to the dtb's.
This is a natural relationship between dtb's and other decks, but the question is maybe how static those dtb's are, and how large the gap is to the non-dtb's. Like, how often does a non-dtb top8 or win a large tournament? Also, if the gap is too large, will group 2 decrease as people give up on playing non-dtb's? How will this affect the enjoyment of games for group 1 players? If everyone plays grixis control, grixis delver, miracles, ant, elves, eldrazi and turbo depths, for example, is this a problem for the format? I think actually, we probably were approaching that, the convergence of dtb's, with grixis control and grixis delver before the deathrite ban, only the hardcore group 1 players seemed to be enjoying the constant deathrite mirrors and the format was not enjoyable for a large group of players. Similarly Countertop Miracles was too dominant for too long in my view.
Hmm, I'd argue that the convergence of dtb's being an unpleasant experience for most players illustrates that an opposite development, with a substantial widening of the dtb's, would be very enjoyable for most players.
I'd consider myself to be among the people who enjoy the technical/tactical aspect. Thing is, one of the things I enjoy playing out on the table are different engines. It's just fun when the decks feel really truly different. Part of that is the strategy they take (fair/unfair, control/beatdown and so on), part of it is the flavour with which that is done.
Elves and Storm are in many ways the same deck: Fiddly, fast engine combo that makes a pile of mana and goes through a lot of cards and plays a big sorcery that instamurders you. But even when they're comboing off to melt your face on T3, doing pretty much the same thing from a strategic viewpoint. We can take a dry, difference-flattening wording to what they're doing - both are fiddling with their cards and making mana and drawing them, but in practice they feel refreshingly different since they're totally different ways to do the same thing.
Same thing with eg. Ancestral Vision and Loam. Both can amount to drawing three cards, but the whole mechanical operation to achieve that end result gives two decks with a similar aggression/control bent a really different feel. And even if Grixis Control does the same thing of being some midrange value pile, it just has far less character to it than Shardless or Loam/Knight decks.
It's that different texture to doing the same thing that's a good part of my fun. Same thing when you play an aggressively tuned BUG Delver and RUG Delver back before everything became 4c bleh. Similar gameplan? You bet. Different texture? You bet. Less so than eg. RUG vs. D&T, but it was there.
tl;dr I love engines and the engine counts from mistercakes' listing are miserable:
116 Cantrips
13 Knight of the Reliquary
11 Redundancy
8 Vial
7 Loam
6 Ancestral/Cascade
4 Elves
4 Oddball
3 Standstill
3 Dredge
All the non-cantrip engines combined (which includes blue Brainstorm decks, mind you, and nonviable nonsense like Goblins and Standstill) add up to 59 lists. That means 34% of the sample overall, and 51% of the total count of cantrip lists. The Brainstorm% of for the sample is 73%.
So basically decks that have been powercreeped out of the format either by raw efficiency of the cantrip decks or by the power level of blue non cantrip cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercakes
While i appreciate this post and your perspective, there is still a small but noticable point you left out. One section accepts what legacy is and the other is trying to argue that legacy should be something else. The 2nd group has some people that have actually left the format. The 1st group soldiers on and attempts to reconcile how the format works. One is engaged and will likely continue to be engaged. The 2nd is unengaged and is likely to continue in that direction. I have immense respect for people with tenacity. I don't look down on people leaving the format, quite different actually. I feel sad, almost melancholy, because when they leave they take their experience away from the community. I understand its about appraoch to the format, but there is a practical effect as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by pettdan
Non—blue powered decks tend to be pretty easily hated out after sb. For everything else, isnt that why people are still on this thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Well thanks for your comments, I definitely appreciate both of yours too! I appreciate all polite comments really.. Sorry for slow answering, whenever I make a long post a part of me regrets using my time for that and I stay away a while. (Love the discussion though)
Well, I must respectfully disagree with this reappearing description (maybe it's not what you meant here, sorry then, but I'll take the opportunity to address it now) that people who want to make small changes to the format are somehow less entitled to this than those who want a status quo; this is what WotC do repeatedly to improve the format (most players even seem to like most of it once it's a fact) and actually I think every change they have made has been protested when discussed here prior to bannings using this argument that people who want to improve the format don't belong and should play something else (well this was certainly not in your post). If anything, WotC's constant rearrangements of the format should indicate that people who want to keep oppressive cards in the format are actually the ones who are out of touch with what the format represents. Tl;dr: just let people argue for what they think is good for the format (whether that is change or not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
I think you are introducing a third group here, right, the players who actually left due to discontent with format management. Lots of players from group 2 stay and innovate in the face of seemingly unbeatable decks (well it is relatively fine now, but there have been previous times with more uphill battles vs certain dtb's). And I imagine some players from group 1 leave due to getting bored with the format too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
Without analyzing this carefully (where the data comes from) at first glance it looks like one engine is superbly overrepresented. A valid comment though is that what you use the engine for makes a difference on how games play out or feel. Despite this I still think, which I've argued a few times here, that if something could suppress the dominance of the cantrip shell that would open room for the format to flourish (even more). Not destroy the cantrip shell, just reduce its dominance a small bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
Cantrips see the most play because they are the most flexible and most accommodating, and by association their access to counterspells, and every other good blue thing makes the package way, way more appealing for other strategies to adopt for consistency than any other engine currently in the game. Off the top of my head, every other engine needs to be built around (elves/dredge synergies, loam with lands, most tutors are very specific, and sol land/ chalice to a lesser extent), none of these other strategies are anywhere near as flexible as cantrips which has found a home in everything ranging from ant to ru delver to miracles. It is the closest thing to 'one size fits all' for legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by pettdan
@Phonics: good point. Need to consider that and look at the data again.
Edit : I think, maybe, a reasonable way to interpret what you're saying is that it's just verifying the cantrip shell's dominance. Blue has access to this generic shell, counterspells and great threats. This leads to convergence of the meta I think. Which I argued is bad for format health. I still need to look into the data though.
Edit2: this just leads to the same question of meta diversity, doesn't it, is the glass half full or half empty, when you can play SnT, Storm, Miracles, Grixis Control, and Grixis Delver supported by the cantrip shell, and a few other decks, is this a meaningfully diverse meta? I guess this leads back to my first post on how different players request different things from the format and maybe a meaningful evaluation considers how possible it is to win or top8 a large tournament with another deck than the dtb's. I'm writing and thinking fast now so maybe way off..
mistercakes said he collected decklists from the last 22 Legacy GPs - the listing goes very far back, as evidenced by eg. Standstill decks, and was done a few pages back during an argument about what the historical trend has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by pettdan
The problem with suppressing the dominance of the cantrip shell is - how? If you do it by deck selection, it basically means Thalia and Chalice and a rather inbred metagame. The other direction means bans, and probably more than most of us are comfortable with because Xerox is fundamentally the best way to play the game. A cantrip has to, at face value, "read bad" and look like a bad card and then it's maybe fine. A cantrip with good optics is probably just broken. Rich Shay's brief article about Mentor-Xerox decks in Vintage is still worth a read. To see just how things go, Pauper decks now look like Legacy ones - not just "okay they play cantrips", but basically being Bizarro to Superman:
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
The second problem with bans "around" the shell is that the cantrip shell is in some ways incredibly generic in what it enables: You can tag a GSZ target and hit a certain kind of green deck pretty surgically, but Xerox shells care only that cards are efficient, cheap to cast and good on their own. An eternal format by nature accumulates those cards. It was far easier to nerf Shardless or Jund because their lynchpin cards were relatively unique than it is to do jacksquat to Xerox dominance without attacking the engine itself.
If we look at nonblue decks in Legacy and which of Shay's criteria they fulfill:
Eldrazi: Goes under, goes over the top, taxes/locks out. Probably no wonder they are consistently DTB.
Lands: Goes over the top, taxes.
D&T: Taxes/locks out, a bit of going over the top in some cases.
Elves: Goes over the top, with the occasional goes under fast combo hand.
Dredge: What is this "Magic" you speak of? Fast, over the top.
I apologize if I was unclear. I wasn't using a blanket categorization. I meant there are some in these groups you mentioned that are doing this. There are folks that are fine with the format, and yet don't see it in a real way because their preferred deck was blue since the beginning (for example.) So they are fine with the format, but don't see it for what it is. There are folks that perpetually play non-blue decks but see the format for exactly what it is and attempt to find a way around it, for some reason (love of a strategy, exploiting a known quantity, etc.) Then there are folks that prefer blue, for whatever reason, and have a clear picture of the format and can reasonably get behind the 'small changes' you mention (which I'm not clear on yet.) Then there are folks that don't play blue, don't recognize the format, and are actively trying to petition for change to suit their view of what it should be. My point isn't about generalizing or oversimplifying; it's that there is another element to your discussion, that being some people recognize the format as it is and some don't. Some people are pragmatic, some are idealistic (still too general, but getting closer.) These aren't categories, these are attributes that affect your categories. A good example is a new Legacy player, let me be non-pc, someone younger that doesn't have experience with the changes over time. And yet, they have the format figured out and call for drastic change. New perspectives are great, but truly learn the landscape before suggesting changes. On the flip side of the coin are old (I'm old, I admit it) players that want 'the good old days' of when zoo and High Tide were competitive decks. Ban some shit so we can get back to that! Both are using an entitlement mindset, and both are wrong.Quote:
Well, I must respectfully disagree with this reappearing description (maybe it's not what you meant here, sorry then, but I'll take the opportunity to address it now) that people who want to make small changes to the format are somehow less entitled to this than those who want a status quo; this is what WotC do repeatedly to improve the format (most players even seem to like most of it once it's a fact) and actually I think every change they have made has been protested when discussed here prior to bannings using this argument that people who want to improve the format don't belong and should play something else (well this was certainly not in your post). If anything, WotC's constant rearrangements of the format should indicate that people who want to keep oppressive cards in the format are actually the ones who are out of touch with what the format represents. Tl;dr: just let people argue for what they think is good for the format (whether that is change or not).
What are these small changes you speak of? We need a definition. I would argue banning a card would not be a small change but rather a big change. I would say small changes are: new cards printed that are strict upgrades to older cards, unbanning 'safe' cards (Black Vise, Worldgorger Dragon, speculation on Mind Twist and Earthcraft), and printing new cards that create new archetypes (Eldrazi and Ruby Storm are the ones that come to mind, even though the card that birthed Ruby Storm isn't played in it anymore, Hazoret's Undying Fury.) These are small changes to the format. Ask anyone, in any group you care to describe, if they are against these small changes. I think you know the answer is 'no'. So what other small changes are you suggesting?
TL;DR - I'm not blanket categorizing, I'm saying a true understanding, or the lack of it, of the format informs perspectives. I welcome debates about the format, I love a good argument for change. We all need to keep in mind there are things that just won't change, ever. Brainstorm isn't going anywere. Blue will always be good, favored even, in the metagame. We need to see legacy for what it is, affect what we can affect, and stop trying to change things that are clearly never going to. I firmly believe that once we see the format for what it is, we will relax and enjoy it. Tackle some of those small changes and keep it growing.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pettdan
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by pettdan
@Zombie & Mr. Safety: how great that you ask the same question, I'll be able to answer both of you in one message. :) However, it'll have to wait a while. Anyway, discussing how to improve the format is a separate discussion, I was mostly trying to give some input to the question that some people don't understand why a change would be needed at all.
@taconaut & WashableWater1: hehe, I wrote a post recently trying to explain how some people think so and some people think otherwise, and how this may be motivated by players having different appreciation of values related to the format. Also, the format is, like I said, relatively fine now, I'm fine with waiting to see what shape it takes when stabilizing. Though I still think it can be improved, too.
I reply since it almost seems to me as a debate with creationists :tongue: :cool: :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
Or maybe this blue fanatics do see the format for what it is, and simply denounce the opposite POW exaggerations (maybe sometimes exaggerating on their own).
And by the way, not just the format but THE GAME was blue since 1994 (I discovered it only then :tongue:) with ancestral recalls and counterspells, so maybe they don't like when someone speaks of the old good days where blue wasn't dominant (ok, I get that delver and nemesis are new things and I don't particularly like them, but still).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
oh and by the way
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pettdan
And I think you're right in pointing out that different people have different priorities.
I look forward to it! This allows for productive conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by pettdan
Also:
Let me be the 3rd to chime in with 'yes'.Quote:
This just leads to the same question of meta diversity, doesn't it, is the glass half full or half empty, when you can play SnT, Storm, Miracles, Grixis Control, and Grixis Delver supported by the cantrip shell, and a few other decks, is this a meaningfully diverse meta?
Well, that is basically my point. People have different values, and in a discussion based on values it is hard to convince others. We need to understand what different values people have or it's very hard to understand why we have different opinions. I think it is similar with religion, like you noted, and politics too for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by talpa
So, in my view, this discussion is fine but it's not as important as motivating why this discussion is relevant. The challenge is explaining why/that it is ok to have a different opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
I've also written many times now that I think the meta is relatively fine. When three people feel like they need to add this, I realize I failed at making my point in the previous posts. ;) Which is ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
I think it's hard to say that something like cantrips are objectively better than other strategies is an opinion.
I also feel like every time Talpa wants to make an argument, he's making them very personal and not so objective.
He stole that from me! :mad::mad::mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by pettdan
I would argue that any productive discussion is better than the shitshow this thread has become in the past. Why is this discussion relevant? Because the people engaged in it make it relevant.Quote:
So, in my view, this discussion is fine but it's not as important as motivating why this discussion is relevant. The challenge is explaining why/that it is ok to have a different opinion.
I missed that sentiment, sorry for being so thick!:frown:Quote:
I've also written many times now that I think the meta is relatively fine. When three people feel like they need to add this, I realize I failed at making my point in the previous posts. ;) Which is ok.
You're right, I wasn't necessarily making an argument for or against anything, but just stating that it is natural for the format to progress the way that it has. The design 'restriction' of cantrips is that they require everything else in the deck to be very efficient because what they give in consistency they take with tempo. As WOTC prints more and more efficient cards as they have done over the past decade, it is only natural that cantrips become more dominant. Until WOTC decides to give other colors access to way better card selection this will be the norm. Printing a bunch of very good blue cards (specifically creatures) along the way certainly didnt hurt either.Quote:
Originally Posted by pettdan
I was trying to address some of the shit show, so to speak. By helping people understand why you would want to change the format, hopefully they can act a bit more rationally, maybe respectfully. Discussing how you actually accomplish this change is a separate discussion, and while interesting I will not jump into that right now. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
Edit: I guess I also consider it more productive to try to change people's attitudes than to discuss hypothetical scenarios [edit: on how to manage the format] that we have no control over. Not that I mind that, just, some other time.
Well, I should probably apologize for not being more clear, but I'm kind of torn and really consider the glass both half full and half empty at the same time, as opposed to full or empty; it's kind of good, better than in some time, but not great, also not horrible.Quote:
I missed that sentiment, sorry for being so thick!:frown:
Would anyone actually be against switching out counterbalance for top? I never understood the original ban decision, where they basically blamed the players, instead of looking at their horribly implemented rules. Wizards is always trying to play up the 'fun' aspect of Magic, and uses it in their banning decisions. If that's the case, why is a two blue mana, zero activation, non-symmetrical hardlock the card that stays in the format? At least chalice forces design restrictions and is purposely built to prey on cards like brainstorm/top. TNN has to go as well. This was designed right when commander was starting to get huge. It was a corporate profit-push to get new commander product out, and some guy who doesn't play Legacy ended up being on the design team. I don't think its too much to ask wizards to acknowledge they don't always know what some random corner of their company is about to put out, and to remove dumb cards for ones people like to play.
I also think everyone already forgot that before the design abominations that were miracle cards, Sensei Top wasn't overpowered. Top was a deceptively large mana sink that took a while before seeing a return on your mana investment. Even without top, current Miracles decks are doing the exact same thing pre-ban old miracles decks were doing. Blue has been given enough tools that they will always be able to control the top of their library for counterbalance now, and the only difference is that instead looking at the top 3, miracles just draws three now. Predict+Accumulated Knowledge is no different than Sensei Top, and might be better for flashback/dodging chalice, since the payoff cards are always Snapcaster/Swords/Jace/Terminus. My quick aside on Miracles cards is that why haven't they been errata'd yet to only trigger during your own draw step? Forsythe???
The format stagnated back into this cantrip morass because they removed non-blue midrange's only viable selection tool, in order to protect the underlying agenda of pushing the Blue-White shell. Grixis control is just the latest flavor of blue-jund, successor of shardless bug and esper stoneblade. I would wager that Miracles right now is stronger than it would be if Counterbalance was gone instead. If you fix the miracle mistake and just ban balance for top, the format opens back up towards its natural Brainstorm/Chalice/LED/Top/Wasteland ebb and flow.
At the very least, the select few can keep believing they only lost with Doomsday because they couldn't figure out the line in time.
I wouldn't be surprised either if at some point the community says fuck it and takes the banned list into its own hands, like Old School. If that ever becomes the case, i want in on the council.
And while we're at it, #FreeNedleeds2019
I think part of the reason they hit Top instead of CB was because of the tournament time thing. Slow players playing top are excruciating (reduce the fun). That being said I agree CB and/or terminus might have been the more oppressive and less widely used cards. I don't think Wizards is going to change their mind about this ban anytime soon, even though I miss Top.
This is the "wallpapering" Kap'n Cook was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by merfolkotpt
Tournaments still have rounds that go to time even with Top gone - slow players are slow players, it's not about the card itself. All it takes is one match going long for the round for everyone to have to wait.
The reason they banned top was similar to why they banned Probe - there's a huge number of players that just have an irrational hatred for it, so banning it is probably net positive for players' attitude about the format, because the group that liked Top/Probe is much smaller than the contingent that hates them.
That being said, as others have pointed out with data, it's still possible that Miracles was too good and needed some sort of ban as an independent issue; choosing to get rid of Top lets Wizards do both the nerf and the "feel-good" ban at the same time, even if it was a bummer for a lot of other cool non-miracles decks like Painter.
Swap bans with CB just makes miracle tier 0 again, terminus and top just can't be both playable.
Top was a correct ban, and it should have been done a lot earlier.