How DRS got both just hurts my face from palming it so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Printable View
How DRS got both just hurts my face from palming it so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Well, sort of like Jitte (or Skullclamp), no one likely does. Because in late-development pushes on cards, it usually happens that a bunch of things happen and then it all just goes through as "now good enough."Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
I mean, with Deathrite, I think it should keep the utility to target both yards, but lose the ability to produce any color, lose the hybrid casting cost and the 2 toughness. Also ditch the non-cost nature of exiling of cards and lose the non-targeting ability of the life loss, this means less stand-offs, and still checks Snapcaster.
Not a doomsday scenario @PirateKing, it simply shouldn't be a thing because you failed to have two very specific pieces of interaction (vs Sea/DRS -> inevitable turn 2 Hymn). In the same way Probe -> Sea -> Therapy, lose 2 cards before turn 1 is moronic. There is no choosing to beat these openers, they always hit. Similar to Tomb -> Chalice, these strategies exist to make first player advantage more pronounced (i.e. anti-skill).
Now as bad as it feels to lose to SnT -> Emmy, or TNN, Reanimate Grisel, etc... you got to play your game. You might lose in a blowout; but unless they had a god hand, you're going to get a chance to enact a proactive plan. You may have brought a mismatched plan (which is favored to lose), but you're only going to be subjected to a mix of 'feels bad' + flawed card design. The one thing being second has going for it is the extra card. You can choose to play a competitive deck that doesn't lose to Chalice, but there's really no way to escape being second player starting with 6 cards, because Git. Probe [by itself] and Fetch/DRS-fueled Hymn have non-game written all over them.
Concerning @H's post on diversity, DRS + Hymn/Kcomm/Strix/SCM represented the complete collapse of any non-blue fair deck. Up to the point of the banning of DRS, there was no way to defend any Fetchland/DRS build that wasn't Grixis Delver, Elves, or Czech (to include Punishing Czech), if you wanted the deck to be considered competitive. Legacy's diversity has been run into the ground by the two Hymns (actual Hymn and CB) long enough....and we've been banning cards that put the brakes on SCM recursion [DRS] and the impact of discard [SDT]...we also banned DTT to help the bros out... This is an easy fix: CB out, SDT in + DRS in, Hymn out. It's been a spectacular bunch of years of boosting CB and Hymn for less than no reason.
Not so bold prediction: boosting Tomb with new mulligan going to hurt the rest of the field more than it will hurt CB/Hymn.
Deathrite should've been designed as a hoser and be able to target only opposing graveyards. It would've still been borderline playable as fetches and shit are everywhere, but not be a 100% reliable mana dork (in black, nonetheless).
OK, but again, you presuppose that it is Hymn that did whatever "forcing out" happened, even though you show no evidence for this, in fact, you show the opposite, in Grixis Delver (no Hymn) and Elves (non-Blue and no Hymn). Not to mention, that there were non-Blue fair decks doing rather well, notably Death and Taxes, in this time. But you will likely just write those off as "exceptions" as well, and still assert that your hypothesis is "right." So, it isn't even the case that your theory doesn't fit the evidence, there isn't even any evidence at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Not only that, but I am really not even going to get into your assertion on Dig Through Time, because I don't even see a cogent argument there to discuss. I am reminded of the sort of fictional statement by Pauli, "that is not only not right; it is not even wrong."
So you have two decks (Czech and Grixis Delver) that did the same thing: exploit first player advantage with 2-for-1 discard. They did it differently, but it was basically the same cheese. Elves was the only DRS deck that could have its hand obliterated over and over, but it was more than capable of DRS-machine gunning for 4/6/8 per turn with some on-board things. For everyone else, you're never beating Czech with your own DRS b/c you need to have a semblance of a hand to start playing things that play around Kcomm's Shatter/Shock.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
There is the realm of Fetchlands (mostly cantrip cartel, but some non-blue), which is distinct from the responses to it (Cavern/Vial, Loam/Mox, Sol Land/Chalice). It is rare, but sometimes you can compete without using either 4 methods, but this is mostly the realm of Burn or oddities like mono-black budget Reanimator. The three responses to Fetchlands are incredibly restrictive, because of how they've elected to gain velocity. There's a lot of diversity in Fetchlands (i.e. less-restricted color-users). Czech caused a massive diversity problem within the Fetchland peer group b/c it hijacked, and basically monopolized, DRS use in a way Grixis Delver and Elves never could.
So to be clear on that point: you could start with DRS and make a generically competitive deck and still stomp Grixis Delver/Elves. It is because of Hymn [specifically] being legal that there was no [non-Grixis Delver, non-Elves] DRS starting point that didn't get murdered by Czech.
It didn't matter what your deck was called, be it Shardless or Jund or Junk or Maverick, etc...you were on crappy Czech [with a horrid Czech matchup]. This kind of unplayability, for these archetypes, had not been seen since the apex of DTT's Omnitell.
So we've seen the not-blue Fetchland guys collapse twice in recent memory (DTT and Czech), and both times there have been bans. Taking away their best tool (DRS), predictably has not helped their meta share a ton.
From the CB/Hymn side of things the history looks something like this:
-up to the ban, DTT made Hymn unplayable (at that time Shardless)
-banning SDT made SCM more playable (less need to cascade to/towards Decay). The banning of the best remaining anti-discard tool [SDT] further rewards Hymn teaming up with SCM.
-banning DRS improves CB w/ SCM's place in the meta
Now WotC doesn't have a great track record when it comes to healthy management of legacy (see also letting Goyf ruin the format until SCM's printing)...but their recent banning decisions generally seem attributable to either: keeping not-blue [Fetchland] playable, or intentionally preserving Hymn/CB as the most cancerous 'policemen' in the format. I find the former explanation to be the most likely.
Assuming that is their motivation, they've dropped the ball repeatedly by: banning colorless card selection -> banning DRS -> printing better spot removal (like Push, new Edict, Angrath's Dreadbore) -> printing more PWs (friendly to Strix, Wraths, and hyper-efficient wincons like Mentor) -> now potentially handing Sol Land/Chalice better mulligans.
^This is a rather misguided way to help the mavericks of the format, but it's a little more believable than intentionally boosting CB/Hymn. It would be a little hard to disguise giving Grixis another maindeckable Shatter (Angrath's) and CB a maindeckable bounce (new Teferi) while boosting Ancient Tomb to hurt everyone else. Something is going to get banned, and the most likely motivation will be to give more meta share to not-blue Fetchland decks. They have fared a little better since Czech was reduced to Grixis, but without DRS they are still on life support; I wouldn't find his return that surprising.
Deathrite Shaman was fine and continues to be totally fine. People who complain that it invalidated Goblin Lackey should re-examine why they've been playing a deck that relies on a specific turn-1 play to function. Kind of like people who currently play decks that are only viable because of a specific turn-1 play.
"It's not that the card is too good even by Wizards' admission, it's players who choose to play decks I don't like."
For those interested they just nuked Pauper :laugh:
Quote:
Banned and Restricted Announcement was just released. Effective May 24, 2019 (May 20 on Magic Online):
Pauper:
Gush, Gitaxian Probe, and Daze are banned.
And no London Mulligan. I'm actually rather disappointed in that.
Me too, I thought for sure they would announce it. Maybe it will get it's own announcement?Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Not that I give a shit about Pauper, but good to see probe now being banned or restricted in every format it's legal in because it's a completely stupid card. I remember people in here actually thought it was a fine card to keep in legacy. Rest in hell you piece of shit card
No, it's actually that mulliganing for relevant plays and/or walking directly into opponents' answers as a matter of course indicates that a deck has trouble being relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by chunderbucket
It'll probably sound like I'm picking a fight (which, perhaps surprisingly, I'm not), but the question remains: what exactly was Probe doing that made it too good? Not good, not great, not exceptional—TOO good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
It's free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
I personally don't hate the card, I feel it's not the most egregious thing, that said, to answer the question:
1) Thins deck
2) Grants information
3) Acts like a mini Channel with Dredge
I feel the free information as well as acting as a mana source is in the end what really doomed it.
it's freeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
it gives you complete information on opponent . Magic is a game of missing information.
It let you draw. so is a cantrip
It combos so easily with a lot of cards (therapy?)
It's a green lamp signal for combo to close-
I wrote this years ago, and people was writing it was not strong. Now is banned everywhere. Fear me.
In just about every sense of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by aedemiel
It doesn't cost a card: It replaces itself.
It doesn't have a mana cost: Because you pay life, and then net mana with dredge.
It doesn't have an opportunity cost: Because the above.
The only real cost was 2 life, which... pssshhhh..
Next announcement in a week and a half. After 3 cards in a row being locked up without any prisoners being released, be a doll, WotC, and give us Earthcraft or Mind Twist.
Time to shake things up by unbanning some unplayables. Otherwise the format seems to be in a decent place right now. We'll see how it goes once the new Mulligan rule takes holdQuote:
Originally Posted by LOLWut
Is Echo of Eon not sufficient ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Blue will still be dominating the field, but it will definitely produce a new tier 1 deck.
Not sufficient for what? Card has been legal a couple weeks and I haven't seen a deck with the card dominating yetQuote:
Originally Posted by Matsu
I think he means the ability to mull better into LED + echo hands for consistency.
I think Echo is decent, but Wrenn and Six will likely have more lasting, long-term impact on the format at this moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
I am all for killing a 3 drop blue card. TNN, you are the weakest link... go die.
Yeah, that's a card too wrong to be legal. I hope it will be banned soonQuote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
It sure is convenient that the criterion for Banning something is: "that it is that which does not appeal to my taste."
Other wise, things sure would be ambiguous... :rolleyes:
You're right, we should use objective measures and ban brainstorm.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Mmm, yeah, lets do this again for a few hundred more pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
What are these "objective measures" and how/when do we employ them, pray tell?
Meh, I'm pretty happy with the shakeup that Modern Horizons and War of the Spark are putting into Legacy. I genuinely believe we'll eventually get Earthcraft and Mind Twist unbanned, SFM and others in Modern, once nobody really cares to discuss the banlist anymore. We're close to that now with the new mulligan rule and powerful new sets.
It's my hypothesis that the London Mulligan will shift "consistency" from "Cantrip-derived" to "Cantrip-derived proportional to game length." Which, I think is really what it likely "makes sense to be." That is, the logic of answering the question of, "why more "threats" vs. consistency-generative-things to find threats?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
It won't be a massive shift, but I have not seen why as a massive shift is necessitated.
Obviously results will substantiate this or not, we'll see as it goes along.
Scroll back a few pages from the last time that quote from MaRo was posted. Brainstorm should be banned, but it never will be because it turns out banning isn't an objective science and all about the fee fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Well, then scroll back a few more pages and see that I already said that it cannot be of any "one mode" or even just of two, or three.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
Oh I am aware that the card is not egregious enough on its own to eat a ban and likely never will. That does not mean I do not think it should be legal to play against. Cards have eaten bans in the past because they are not enjoyable to play against and TNN fits that bill. Granted those bannings where in Modern.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
To flesh out my point though, I feel the cards effect upon the game is not just about taste, it has a negative impact upon the games in which it is in play. Its massive reduction in interactivity is rather anathema to the way we are use to playing and I have not seen many people who find the change from the normal flow it inflicts to be positive.
In plain speak, if it dodges all of your creatures and your Swords, its not a lot of fun to play against.
Ironically enough, all of that applies to Tendril of Agony, in my mind, to a greater degree. And to some extent every Storm card ever printed. Except the fact that Storm is "old" and so we are "used to it." That sort of appeal to a sort "Historicism," that is, in the sense of simply having been as a justification for why it should be, is, to put it flatly, nonsense though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
As a matter of fact, I have never once advocated for a ban on Tendrils or any Storm card, nor would I ever. Nor should I ever.
TNN is a shit card and a shit design. It, however, is not ban worthy as far as I can tell, because I do, categorically, reject the notion of "banning for taste." I don't refute that it has, or might have occurred as a reason for something, but I think that is a shit policy, or at least a flatly terrible rationale to do anything in-and-of itself.
I disagree. One of the cards is a three drop that asks little of the player other than be in Blue and want creatures, the other asks you to build your whole shell around the card and then take massive risks in game against a lot of wide and varied sideboard hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
I think this is actually a good point. The viability of any strategy is inversely proportionate to you opponent's ability to meaningfully interact. I'm absolutely in love with Enchantress builds, there are a lot of cards that might as well not have text against the deck. You know what sucks? When Abrupt Decay and Narset are all over the place and suddenly I have to care about what my opponent is doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
At what point does this become "unfun" enough to warrant a ban and does a hyper-focused shell excuse that? Hell if I know, but it does suck that the best 3-drop creature costs 1UU.
There are not a "variety" of answers to remove a True-Name? Of course there are, from Edicts, to wraths and sweepers of various kinds (and other things too).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
The fact of Storms "build around" nature seems like a total non sequitur. What does it relate here? That a Storm deck needs a Storm card as it's pay-off? That is nothing but a tautology.
There are plenty of decks that have little access to "good" sideboard hate for Storm, because of color restraints or simply the lack of ability to land them in time for them to be relevant. We simply say, "that is a bad match-up" and move on with our lives. Why? Because what you already pointed out, this appeal to the "historical" nature of Storm having been as a justification for being.
If I play something like Death and Taxes, or whatever, I can safely assume that I can and likely will lose on turn one to Storm some amount of time, regardless of what I sideboard (yes, even with Mindbreak Traps). Now, with Death and Taxes again, I too can assume that I can and will lose to True-Name some amount of time, yet, I am afforded (in all likelyhood) a vast amount of time to attempt to "prevent" this outcome, or even to simply try to "race it." "Hard to interact with" is a relative term, as a matter of course, and so claiming that a creature that does not interact with most spells or abilities is bad, where a spell which most spells or abilities don't interact with is fine is a very creative stance to me, to say the least.
You can try to twist the nature and interpretation of what "interaction" means to suit your own thesis at will. But that doesn't make it more a more factual claim. I find it hard to do the sort of metal gymnastics required to imagine that True-Name "warps" the nature of how a Magic game plays out more than Storm does. At the very least, I guess we could see it as "analogous" (there could be no equivalence, as the cards are so dissimilar), but to say that True-Name is more so takes a stance I have no idea how to begin to understand.
But hey, you do whatever sort of thing appeases your notion of "reason" and I'll do mine. :wink:
Well, if we imagine things to be a sort of "Rock-Paper-Scissors" match, True-Name certainly does violate a certain sense we might have, in being "unfair." "I've included "Rock" (removal) in my deck, why am I lose to Scissors (creatures)?" But what makes Magic at all interesting, perhaps to a mistaken notion of mine, is that is is not a "Rock-Paper-Scissors" match. Even Nimble Mongoose is played for this very reason, it just does not "violate" other seeming senses of "symmetry."Quote:
Originally Posted by Watersaw
But Storm (and other strategies that "force" interaction on a "narrow" axis) are much the same in this regard, if not more so. But again, people are very apt (myself included) toward confirmation bias and the notion that things they "like" or "don't mind" are justifiable, where things they don't "are not justifiable."
Is there really? If your in the wrong colours your answers are really really limited. Red and Green have very few outs, white has a few dedicated ones. So if your in Black or Blue your ok? Thats not great for open gameplay. Unlike Storm that can get really badly hurt by colourless cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Its a point about ease of use casing the issue with TNN. Progen is much much more powerful and does much the same thing as TNN, but if Elves lands it you do not feel overly cheated. You have to put in work to pull off that effect. TNN asks very little of its players, that is part of what makes it so painful. ANT asks for you to jump though a ton of hoops, thus changing the feels when someone dies to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Sphere, 3 Ball, Thorn, Chalice, Thalia, Eidolon, Force, Discard and grave hate are all very common answers to the deck. Well maybe not that common for Eidolon. Still, most colours have an answer that sees rather wide play. Not just two colours. Also there is a wide range of colourless answers that Storm will bring in bounce effects to adapt to.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
DnT I find has a decent ability to race a lot of the decks with TNN, but again, Its not Blue or Black so... sucks to be you I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Twist? Twist? Really? I was thinking everything was fun as a talk up until this but really... I am not the first to state this card lacks interaction, is hard to interact with or makes the games that it hits the table far far less enjoyable because it lacks interaction. I am not the first, nor am I the only person to make this claim and it is correct. TNN reduces overall interaction to "Can you make me sac it or can you counter it? No, then race me." Personally I find your claim that I am twisting a words FACTUAL meaning rather insulting.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Also look up and find the line where I said it was not doing enough to get banned. Maybe you should read what I write before you start insulting me.
I'm okay with Mind Twist in Legacy. I mean, it's a discard spell. It requires an investment, and honestly, if you're looking to play the discard game and tap out to play a sorcery speed spell for >3 mana (which is also the equivalent of Hymn at three mana), is it really that big of a deal?