All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

It's on the 2nd page of the thread I think, not you posting it. Lots of people were arguing for banning top and the counter argument that kept coming up was "you can't ban top because CounterTop is the only thing holding combo in check in Legacy".

Obviously this was not the case because CounterTop declined dramatically on it's own and combo didn't take over Legacy in the process. If you point at any card as necessary to the health of Legacy you are likely pointing at a mirage.

---

That is partly true, but Force of Will is such a massive impact that it must be kept. If it isn't, you could legitimately just play mana + combo, and never have any need for protection. Go off on turn one or die. Without Force, if your deck is so much as functional, you start on a good win percentage against literally every deck. Half the time you go first, and a good 80% of the games you should be combing on the first turn of the game. When you don't, they have to have the correct hate, and they have to also be able to represent a clock with that. T1 combo probably goes through the roof if you ban free countermagic. Maybe it isn't Force of Will on its own, but I am much less incentivised to play something like Delver when I only have 4 Dazes and some shitty Spell Pierces to protect it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YamiJoey

Maybe it isn't Force of Will on its own, but I am much less incentivised to play something like Delver when I only have 4 Dazes and some shitty Spell Pierces to protect it.

---

And how is this bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

The glass cannon combo decks wouldn't go off with even 70% consistency on turn 1 on the play and they'd mull a lot trying to get there. On the draw they'd face a lot of resistance.

Force of Will doesn't prevent a lot of turn 1 losses. It prevents a few turn 1 losses. In the course of doing that it makes a bunch of lists that might be viable almost unplayable.

---

It's not just the games you have it/use it that it prevents T1s. It prevents decks like those from being popular because they know they'll straight lose to the meta a lot of the time; which in turn means that decks reliant on sorcery-speed hate can survive in the meta.

I can't really believe you're anything but a troll in here and I really don't think anyone should take your posts seriously. I wouldn't find it unlikely that you're doing this simply to destroy the thread in a wake of months of BS talk.


While I can see merits in the BS discussion during the TC craze (and less so before/now), there is no merit in discussing the banning of FoW. What does FoW do negatively to the format that Foil wouldn't also do? What lists does FoW make un-viable other than janky combos that are unwilling to protect themselves? Why are the myriad combo decks that exist less important than those you're trying to push here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReAnimator

This is a totally great point, especially when taken into the context of the full top 32, which has 7 whole non Brainstorm decks! this is looking healthy, and one of those decks features 3 main deck chokes!

So looking at that data point it looks like blue decks aren't actually performing very well vs the non blue ones and therefor the meta should swing back as more and more people pick up the non blue decks that are doing so well. This will probably be the last time we see ~75% of the best performing decks running brainstorm as it performed so poorly.

/sarcasm

---

So, before, the high amount of blue in top 8s was the barometer for how messed up the format is, and now that there's a heavily nonblue top 8, we've now subtly switched to the top 32 being the competitive barometer? oh, ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

So, before, the high amount of blue in top 8s was the barometer for how messed up the format is, and now that there's a heavily nonblue top 8, we've now subtly switched to the top 32 being the competitive barometer? oh, ok

---

Get back to me when consistently heavily nonblue top8's become a trend instead of an anomaly.

So... Why are people replying to foolofatook and taking him seriously? The history of his other posts make me just read past them at this point.

How can we really be discussing FoW as a ban option? I like the direction that a few decks appear to have since ban updates. I think banning TC was spot on correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPoJohnson

So... Why are people replying to foolofatook and taking him seriously? The history of his other posts make me just read past them at this point.

How can we really be discussing FoW as a ban option? I like the direction that a few decks appear to have since ban updates. I think banning TC was spot on correct.

---

He's Dr.Jones reincarnated! Just exchange Force of Will for "Blue Shell".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quasim0ff

Hi,

The first premier modern event was PT Philly. It was a T3 format (Sam Black's Blazing Infect - It could actually in NARROW cases kill on T2), and otherwise it was a T4 format, with splinter twin being, without question, the best deck in the entire room.

Modern doesn't have the cards to kill T1. Nothing would make that possible, as they don't have any t1 rituals, or other t1 enablers - besides mox opal, but that's just good in affinity.

---

Oh, Modern has some decks which can kill on turn 1, but the chance is below ~5%, so it is very unlikely. I had the turn 1 kill only twice in like 100+ games (Goryo's Vengeance Reanimator, with Grisselbrand and chained Fury of the Hordes and Soul Spikes), but yeah, Modern is a turn 4 format and so it doesn't need cards like FOW or Daze to keep Combo in check.

Greetings,
Kathal

PS: And the card, which makes this possible is SSG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonderPreaux

So, before, the high amount of blue in top 8s was the barometer for how messed up the format is, and now that there's a heavily nonblue top 8, we've now subtly switched to the top 32 being the competitive barometer? oh, ok

---

You are totally right me moving the goalposts all willy nilly is incorrigible. I dislike larger numbers and more data especially when they are available. I'm actually totally fine with 9th through 32nd being 94% blue/bs with the 2 hold outs being a deck with 3 maindeck chokes and one copy of D&T, the top 8 completely invalidates it as a talking point for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReAnimator

You are totally right me moving the goalposts all willy nilly is incorrigible. I dislike larger numbers and more data especially when they are available. I'm actually totally fine with 9th through 32nd being 94% blue/bs with the 2 hold outs being a deck with 3 maindeck chokes and one copy of D&T, the top 8 completely invalidates it as a talking point for me.

---

What invalidates this talking point is that top 16/32 spots of non-blue decks during the TC-era were called irrelevant and people just pointed at the top 8s with the reasoning that "you can only top 8 if you run Brainstorm".

Now that we have plenty of non-blue decks in a top 8 and the "just outliner" argument for their appearance is a wacky one to keep bringing up, you want to expand the "relevant" data? To show what? That blue obviously underperformed in relation to metagame presence?

I honestly think they should print a stronger Notion Thief type card, some (non-white) form of card filter hate. There also is a card that stops players from drawing more then one card each turn, can't remember it right now. A card of that type suited for competitive Legacy would certainly help the format, there just isn't enough hate for card filtering (aside from Stasis :tongue:). It certainly should have a drawback that doesn't make it overly strong against combo though as such a dual purpose would shift the meta too much.

Maybe something like a 2cc red/green creature that forbids players to look at the top cards of their library (but don't stop searches), and is 3/3, maybe even uncounterable.

I also think Black Vise and Mind Twist could probably be unbanned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

What invalidates this talking point is that top 16/32 spots of non-blue decks during the TC-era were called irrelevant and people just pointed at the top 8s with the reasoning that "you can only top 8 if you run Brainstorm".

Now that we have plenty of non-blue decks in a top 8 and the "just outliner" argument for their appearance is a wacky one to keep bringing up, you want to expand the "relevant" data? To show what? That blue obviously underperformed in relation to metagame presence?

---

That is certainly a lot of words being put into my mouth and a bunch of arguments i never made. I'm glad everything i've said can be dismissed because other people said completely different things. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

What invalidates this talking point is that top 16/32 spots of non-blue decks during the TC-era were called irrelevant and people just pointed at the top 8s with the reasoning that "you can only top 8 if you run Brainstorm".

Now that we have plenty of non-blue decks in a top 8 and the "just outliner" argument for their appearance is a wacky one to keep bringing up, you want to expand the "relevant" data? To show what? That blue obviously underperformed in relation to metagame presence?

---

If the metagame actually consisted of 80+% blue decks, I sure wouldn't drop the blue maindeck hate, I would even increase it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReAnimator

That is certainly a lot of words being put into my mouth and a bunch of arguments i never made. I'm glad everything i've said can be dismissed because other people said completely different things. :(

---

Even if I quoted you, it does not mean I'm picking on your sarcastic post in particular, but on the general idea of narrowing/expanding/selecting data at will to support arguments lately.

If the Top 8 is very blue and the top 16/32 contain plenty of non-blue, the top 16/32 do not count for certain users with the argument that "Brainstorm is required to top 8". If the Top 8 is mixed accordingly to metagame-distribution, people exclude non-blue decks from their Argumentation as "outliners". If the Top 8 is non-blue, they dig so deep in the Rankings that the metagame distribution (70% blue) is visible again and call the fact that non-blue decks left the blue decks behind not relevant. This is bending the data at will.

There is no was to argue that blue is overpowered if it's outclassed (stong word here) by non-blue strategies. People still seem to try here by suddenly pointing at the metagame distribution instead of the Top 8 which is the complete opposite of what they have done the last months.

"Ban Brainstorm because blue decks lose to Maverick and Lands!" ... Brilliance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mlschuma

He's Dr.Jones reincarnated! Just exchange Force of Will for "Blue Shell".

---

Well, he was right. Force is the rug under which you hide the filth. It's just that filth is fun, so having some safety valves to stop it means we can enjoy the broken stuff without turning the game into a farce.


on teh top/top16 stuff: If we get healthier top8 color representation I don't give a fuck about the top32. top16, maaaybee. The whole reason for focusing on top8 is and was the idea that nonblue decks have a harder time slugging it out throughout long events. If we start getting consistent, healthy numbers of nonblue decks in top8, that's all that's needed, really.

The main reason I object to "look, half a top8 is nonblue => look folks noblue is valid" type of thinking is that they tend to be relatively isolated incidents - the typical top8 is still 6-7 blue decks. The blue dominance thing is a heuristic rule, not an absolute one.

Gut feelings can lie though, do we have numbers for top8 nonblue counts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

If the Top 8 is non-blue, they dig so deep in the Rankings that the metagame distribution (70% blue) is visible again and call the fact that non-blue decks left the blue decks behind not relevant. This is bending the data at will.

---

And as I was saying earlier, we should expect a minimum of ~55% blue, with 70% being perfectly acceptable in an established meta (since you're likely to run three colors, two of which are U, B, or W.)

I agree with you that it's a bit of a fallacy (some way or another) to be so inconsistent with choice of who's non-blue and which matters (top 8 vs. top 32), though I'd caution that you're probably bundling up different people's arguments and it may not be Reanimator who was inconsistent; but rather there's always someone barking in here and you're bound to hear it one way or another no matter what happens.

But again, I'd contend that seeing less than 5/8 blue is an *unhealthy* metagame, as we should expect at least half the decks, at a minimum, to run blue. Similarly, I'd expect at least half the decks to run Black or White by the same token (and notice; they do!) The fact we see as much Red or Green as we do (anything over about 30% each) is good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tescrin

And as I was saying earlier, we should expect a minimum of ~55% blue, with 70% being perfectly acceptable in an established meta (since you're likely to run three colors, two of which are U, B, or W.)

I agree with you that it's a bit of a fallacy (some way or another) to be so inconsistent with choice of who's non-blue and which matters (top 8 vs. top 32), though I'd caution that you're probably bundling up different people's arguments and it may not be Reanimator who was inconsistent; but rather there's always someone barking in here and you're bound to hear it one way or another no matter what happens.

But again, I'd contend that seeing less than 5/8 blue is an *unhealthy* metagame, as we should expect at least half the decks, at a minimum, to run blue. Similarly, I'd expect at least half the decks to run Black or White by the same token (and notice; they do!) The fact we see as much Red or Green as we do (anything over about 30% each) is good.

---

I think it has been pointed out each time whenever the Top 8 wasn't choke-full with blue decks, the Top 16 was normally loaded with blue decks. We also couldn't compare Top 32 before because SCG normally cut it at Top 16.

People should calm the fuck down until we have more data. One data point isn't enough to draw conclusions yet, especially when people disregard other factors people probably wanting to play a nonblue deck after the TC era or the event only being 8 rounds instead of 9. Blue decks traditionally perform better the more rounds an event has due to higher consistency.

If one wants to waste his time, go back to the pre-TC era and compare T16 data of 8 round and 9 round SCG events.

Interesting side note: Where did Elves go? Not a single one in the Top 32 this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

Blue decks traditionally perform better the more rounds an event has due to higher consistency..

---

No, tournament size and round numbers are completely irrelevant for that. There is just no correlation whatsoever between deck consistency and round numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

Interesting side note: Where did Elves go? Not a single one in the Top 32 this time.

---

My guess is two-fold and related:
-Scared of the number of miracles coming out to play => more Elves players picked lists appropriate for Miracles-meta until the hype calms down
-That the meta-call is correct and miracles are everywhere. My local typically has (at most) 1 Miracles player except during the last explosion of the deck. Last week it had 3 (out of like 15 guys.) If it's at all representative, it's kinda like this time last year.

Even so, Elves have been surviving in a Miracles Meta for the last 9-12 months.. so it does seem strange they'd go away. I'm not super familiar with the MU, except that it's unfavorable (but not necessarily by a wide margin?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tescrin

My guess is two-fold and related:
-Scared of the number of miracles coming out to play => more Elves players picked lists appropriate for Miracles-meta until the hype calms down
-That the meta-call is correct and miracles are everywhere. My local typically has (at most) 1 Miracles player except during the last explosion of the deck. Last week it had 3 (out of like 15 guys.) If it's at all representative, it's kinda like this time last year.

Even so, Elves have been surviving in a Miracles Meta for the last 9-12 months.. so it does seem strange they'd go away. I'm not super familiar with the MU, except that it's unfavorable (but not necessarily by a wide margin?)

---

The matchup is extraordinarily unfavorable for Elves - I don't think I ever won a match against Miracles during my time playing it. Better Elves players will have better results, but regardless, it's never a deck I would take in a local meta with multiple Miracles players.