I will be putting 'Brainstorm Realist' into my signature! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Printable View
I will be putting 'Brainstorm Realist' into my signature! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Being an idealist isn't bad though. Especially in a world where legacy is pretty much dead at this point. I know many people are just over with what the format has become and moved on. And that's fine. I'm at that point as well. The format has devolved into a hyper inbred mess and it's why I've quit the format.
Tired: Quitting LegacyQuote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Wired: Quitting Magic entirely
IMO, Legacy remains the best Magic format, but WotC has now succeeded in ruining the game as a whole
I never said it was. Like I said, with regards to most things, I am far more an Idealist than a Realist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
However, I see value in a pragmatic take as well. The thing is, whole MTGO Legacy might devolve fairly quickly, our playground doesn't because people only own so many cards. Plus, most just play what they like, rather than whatever the most busted thing possible.
That being said, play what you like. If you don't like it, don't play it. The future of Legacy is only, likely, more constrictive, rather than expansive. Modern is well the same track. Even Pioneer will get there as well. That is the nature of non-rotating formats, I think. I don't think it is ideal and it isn't for everyone, but I still enjoy it.
This is largely a function of incorrect banning (DRS instead of Hymn, SDT instead of CB), and the continued printing of anti-strategy, cowardly cards (SFM, SCM, Strix/Coatl, cascaders). Add in overpowered PWs like W&6 and Oko and the larger ETB creep’d duders (Uro, Yorion), and you end up with piles that relentlessly jam - and that’s literally all they can do. Leave player skill at the door, you won’t be needing it - you’re just going to jam nonstop and you’ll get there or you won’t. Play or watch enough mirrors of that kind of magic and you’ll realize how toxic it is to watch legacy devolve into standard (i.e. who topdecks better: the gathering).Quote:
Originally Posted by LOLWut
The mismanaged bans aside, they need to recognize that the cowardly ETB value duder (particularly at cmc 2) stuff is what’s really eroding legacy. You play that stuff without blue and [insert-Charbelcher’y combo] makes your deck unplayable, so everything gravitates towards xerox ETB duder. This how it happens, and it’s been going on a long time because there is no way to hate it out in a competitive way (hence the cowardly part of these cards) - effective hate does not exist.
The best way to un-ruin legacy is to print cards that unequivocally say “I’m going to make you suffer if you play ETB-style, and I’m not going to have to go too far out of my way to accomplish this.”
This is a new take I haven't heard before. ETB have been around for a while and not sure even a card like the following is going to stop them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Veil of Specific Hate G
Instant
Draw a card if a creature an opponent controls caused an abilities to trigger this turn. Counter all creature abilities and until your next turn creatures entering the battlefield don’t cause abilities to trigger.
It’s should make a lot of sense to legacy players; I’m pretty sure everyone who plays legacy has seen a problem where Astrolabe (or any future 1 drop trinket that cantrips without going to the yard - which they *will* print) becomes a 3/3 hasted cantrip elk. Ignore everything about the fixing, that’s a side issue - ETB duders are the problem and Oko is inflaming the situation [and he will be banned, b/c he’s the problem in this case; easily the main driver of Astrolabe use].Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire
What’s the ban threshold? 55% is it? So uh yeah, Oko in Delver and 4c Loam and Lands and Maverick and then 4c AstroXerox. I’m seeing Oko being way closer to the 55% than Astro will ever be.
I can see why Fox brings up Snapcaster and it has been discussed here before in that light, right? In a way, Snapcaster may have a similar effect on decks that Brainstorm has, in that it changes how many virtual copies of a card you're running during a game. Brainstorm is the more powerful one since it can also make cards go away from your deck, virtually, while Snapcaster Mage is powerful because it increases the virtual copies of the spells you need for a certain matchup. It is very powerful to be able to manipulate card availability in your deck. Playing 4 StP in Maverick feels very different from running 4 StP in a cantrip-heavy list with Snapcaster in it. Feels like running 4 vs 12 copies, or something silly like that, sorry if exaggerating! (not advocating a ban, btw, just wanted to comment on it)
Anyway, fwiw I have a more positive view on current Legacy (than above discussion). Sorry if I'm repeating myself, feel like I've said this a dozen times by now..
Legacy seems to be just two bans away from being pretty balanced and great. Some people think 3, some think 4, pretty similar views it seems. It seems like it's a crushing majority (wanting these couple of cards banned) but what do I know.. Having so many people presenting the same view, as I register it, and seeing how WotC have been acting in agreement with these views, pretty much, for years now with an accelerating pace, it seems likely they'll keep sharing the community sentiment and so it seems likely we'll have those bans within 6 months. Possibly delayed by new sets. I don't know why they delayed banning some of those problem cards this Monday, I imagine it's because banning Oko now would look very bad in that it would be banned in every format under Vintage (counting Commander somewhere above Vintage, perhaps, on a random scale such as deck-building space or card availability space). Or maybe it's rather because they didn't have actual recent data on these decks since Lurrus drowned out almost everything else. Yeah, that makes more sense.
way to move the goalposts, dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
i like how you downplay "those other things" like they are unimportant. those other things were lynchpins in decks sacrificed for BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
would "those other things" be banned if BS was not in the format? that's my question.
how many people would like to play with "those other things"? SDT, DTT, DRS, Breach, W&6, TC, Probe, MindTwist and ManaDrain
i throw-in mana drain since i like the card, but it is the weakest part of my suggestions. i see you agree, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
how many drains are you gonna play? you can't put them back without brainstorm.
sit there with your UU and do nothing? go ahead, i'll play mishra's factory, wasteland, abrupt decay, cavern, even flash cards, whatever...
SDT, DTT, DRS, Breach, W&6, TC & Probe are not "gish gallop". they were integral parts of decks that were sacrificed at the altar of BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
i understand that and don't want fectchlands banned; the only problem is BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
i've been trying to make the case and ban just one card and bring back SDT, DTT, DRS, Breach, W&6, TC, Probe, MindTwist and ManaDrainQuote:
Originally Posted by H
"legal card pool" is just a construct that you are happy with. you are figuratively on the high ground and never have alter your stance since it suits you.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
ask your play group if they would like to make decks with these cards: SDT, DTT, DRS, Breach, W&6, TC, Probe, MindTwist and ManaDrain and not BS
we eventually talk about diversity of decks, like it is THE gold standard in the legacy play experience. if legacy is too inbred (lurrus) it's a shit show.
what would the diversity of legacy look like without BS?
Still mono-Oko. We’ve got bigger fish to fry than BS right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Not entirely sure how any of these were "sacrificed at the altar of brainstorm" and I don't see how brainstorm leaving the format would allow them to come back.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
That's a hell of case to make. You want Wrenn & Six back? Treasure Cruise? Probe? Mana Drain?Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
You want Brainstorm gone to bring back this rogue's gallery of awful mistakes (possibly aside from Mind Twist)?
Seems like you're completely off your nut.
If Brainstorm were a sorcery instead of an instant it wouldn't be nearly the problem the idealist make it out to be.
Brainstorm has hit every metric MTG has used to justify banning a card, yet it persist.
I never thought I would say this, but he makes me miss Random_Miser and the legacy that is Invincible Counter-Troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seymour_Asses
Putting no-regrets value on threats starting at 2cc has changed decks a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
As for Brainstorm (not quoting Fox, this is just often repeated):
“If you ban Brainstorm, people will simply play the next best thing.”
Yup, exactly. I’ve long been interested to find out what that is.
I mean let's be real it's ponder and preordain, but those 2 as options are definitely a step down in terms of power more in line (and yet probably still better) with the rest of the formatQuote:
Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise
They can play those things: in Vintage, Modern, Pioneer, and EDH. One fundamental argument realists have stuck to is the idea of format identity. So follow the yellow brick road: ban Brainstorm in Legacy, which means its on the same power level as Ancestral Recall because both would be banned in Legacy and restricted in Vintage. You make an (indirect) argument with banning Brainstorm that it is closer to the equivalent of Ancestral Recall than the equivalent of Ponder. H didn't move the goal posts at all, he just followed through.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
SDT - banned for it's interaction with Counterbalance, Terminus, and causing excessively long tournaments. Brainstorm was redundancy, but not the problem.Quote:
i've been trying to make the case and ban just one card and bring back SDT, DTT, DRS, Breach, W&6, TC, Probe, MindTwist and ManaDrain
Dig Through Time - banned for being too powerful in enabling blue-based combo decks and powering up Miracles. Paying 2 mana to draw the best 2 cards in your top 7, functionally, is too good for most formats that fill graveyards too fast. How does Brainstorm make this more inherently busted? It was also banned in Modern, which also has fetchlands but no Brainstorms. I would argue fetchlands were to blame.
Deathrite Shaman - banned for not only being too powerful but also homogenizing the format too much. It was fairly used in non-blue mid-range decks but those decks didn't have blue filtering and free countermagic. This card could potentially be linked to Brainstorm based on the homogenization argument. I would, at first thought, probably lean towards banning Brainstorm as well but not unban DRS. He's not called the 1-mana PW for nothing, it's just that good of a card.
Underworld Breach - the real culprit for breaking Breach was Lion's Eye Diamond. Yes Brainstorm helped that deck to be consistent, just like with Show and Tell and Storm. The 'free' replays from Breach broke a fundamental rule of magic, all the while being resilient to the more common ways of hating graveyards.
W&6 - banned for synergies with Wasteland and consolidating blue decks into a single best variant with RUG delver. It reduced format diversity rather than expanding it, which is an argument that goes along with many of the banned cards.
Gitaxian Probe - free information that adds mana with the delve mechanic. More than any other reason, it was a free and powerful effect that anybody could take advantage of. Mental Misstep was also free and countered a large share of the formats key spells.
Those are the cards supposedly 'sacrificed on the alter of Brainstorm'. I'm not convinced, I can point to other reasons for their banning. Did Brainstorm contribute to the consistency with which people had access to those cards? For sure. Just like it contributes to the consistency of finding Show and Tell. Are you arguing that those cards are equivalent to Show and Tell?
The other cards mentioned (Mind Twist and Mana Drain) I really can't make any meaningful statement about. I can't think of a real-world example of them existing in a 4-Brainstorm format.
Or you can ignore everything I just wrote. The 'tl:dr':
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sella
I didn't look to move the goalposts, I am pointing out that I can pull cards out of a binder too. I said, quite explicitly, that "play your cards" means "play the cards that are legal." Should I make a list of all the cards I own that aren't legal in Legacy? What good does that do?Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Once again, I and numerous other people have pointed out how spurious your assertion that all those cards were banned because of Brainstorm. You simply choose to not listen or respond to any of them, so I am not going to go over it again. Simply put, I don't agree with your assertions, or your conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
The case is faulty, because it presupposes that every deck would play it. Simply put, not every card that is banned would see overwhelming amounts of play. That is beside the point. Mana Drain is a stupidly powerful card, would only serve to make the format both more Blue and then more Red, if it were legal. There simply is no need.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Once again, your assertion of this as a "fact" is dubious and has been refuted a number of times, by a number of people. You just keep ignoring it.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Once again, you ignore the fact that without fetchlands, Brainstorm is a pretty fair card. So, again, you claim to know that Brainstorm is the only "problem" but you fail to actually prove this. In fact, all the "evidence" you provide points more directly at fetchlands as the problem. But, your ideology, that Brainstorm is the arch-enemy of Legacy, blinds you to this. Not to mention, you give a sort of exemption to fetchlands, on a count of what? Why does this not extend to Brainstorm?Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
And have you noticed that this case has not been furnished with even a single plausible piece of evidence for why this could or should be done? Besides you bare assertion that is is a fact, again, refuted numerous times by numerous people, in numerous ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Funny, but no, actually I would like to see numerous changes to the "legal card pool." Personally, I think the Deathrite ban was stupid, Earthcraft and Mind Twist (probably Frantic Search as well) are likely fine to tentatively unban.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Ah, but now we are down the the real crux, the fabled "diversity." What you surmise is that Brainstorm quashes more Diversity than it enables. What evidence do you have of this? Once again, I do have the "high ground" here, because Brainstorm is legal and has been demonstrated that it will likely stay so. That means, yes, you have the burden of proof, not me.
If you think that you can just make the rational argument that Brainstorm is more anti-diversity, than pro-diversity, I can do the same in reverse. I have no idea what you think the notional diversity that suddenly gets fostered by banning Brainstorm is, but I am high skeptical it would come to be. You are relying on your, again, suspect (at minimum) notion that Brainstorm is what made your list of cards bannable. Again, that is likely not the case and you show no evidence, aside, again, your bare assertion of this as a fact.
But, still, you go on, as if your fabled diversity ends is served necessarily by a Brainstorm ban. Again, no evidence provided. Because, it seems, to you, no Brainstorm just automatically mean diverse, I guess. I see no other way in which you offer anything like evidence of this. So, once again, what proof do you have of this? I can only imagine that you simply place all Brainstorm decks in one "category" for this purpose, then all other decks opposed to that. So, no Brainstorm, all of a sudden, anything goes?
No one is going to win a Legacy event with River Boas any more. That ship sailed, long, long ago. Minus Brainstorm, there isn't a utopian ideal diversity just over the horizon, in fact, it is plausible that minus Brainstorm, "diversity" suffers far more so, in light of Blue decks having less flexibility and so would centralize over the whatever emerges as optimal builds. Also, the notion that somehow, there are all sort of "Legacy playables" lurking just outside the Brainstorm-sphere, just waiting to be competitive, again, has nothing like proof to back it.
But I think that reveals what your position likely is. What you really are making a case of is, "I am tired of Brainstorm, so anything besides Brainstorm is diversity." But I don't buy that. There will always be a next best thing that will quash options, that will suppress other things, that is the nature of a non-rotating format. See, again, I can't help but notice your appeal to a notional utopian ideal Legacy, where fabled diversity (whatever that is) rules the day. Again, actual Legacy is nothing like that, and even your ideal Legacy, were we to implement all your ideas, would likely move in that exact same way.
So no, I don't buy your assertion that your biased take is a matter of facts. I don't buy your assertion that "diversity" is just a ban away. You have tried to make a case, but, as far as I can tell, you have only made bare assertions with nothing to back them but an appeal to your personal preferences.
So many words when you could have stopped here: A format's identity is an idealistic argument. You are saying "this is how the ideal Legacy looks like" and then pretending your a realist. Man do I love banned list chat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
While I do agree with everything H typed I just gotta say please give those poor commas a break!
I think this is a fairly disingenuous reading of what he meant though.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
The "Realist" position here is the pragmatic one. The one that sees what cards are legal and works with them to play the game.
The "Idealist" position here is the idealistic one. The one that does not accept what cards are legal, won't play because the game is not up the their standards.
This isn't an actual Realism vs. Idealism debate, in the more technical philosophical operationalized terms. Because Legacy is no more "real" by that metric than money. If we could debate Moral Realism, we certainly could debate if Legacy is Real, or constructed.
That is hardly the point at hand though.
I certainly am not telling people who are idealistic to not be. I'm not telling anyone that they should be pragmatic. In fact, often, pragmatism is pretty gross. But, here, in this case, I see the value. I think that is what Mr. Safety is getting at, that the pragmatic view has value, because you get to play the game. If you don't want to, then don't.
The real point, I think, is that almost everyone is something of an Idealist. But, here, the case is being made that an extreme, fevenent idealism simply does not serve the practical aim of actually playing the game. We are all idealists in some way, but we can also just enjoy things for what they are, knowing that different doesn't always mean better.
Hey, give me a break, I'm stupid and I type like it too! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sella
I completely disagree. A format's identity is shaped by what's legal, not what 'ought' to be legal. It's not an idealistic argument at all. I have made no claims on how Legacy 'ought' to look like, only what it 'is', and challenging others who are making 'ought' arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
This is exactly what I meant to say. Thanks for clarifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
EDIT: I could dream all day of what a Brainstorm-less format could be, or I could play the game in a somewhat less desirable state (if that were how I felt) with Brainstorm. I choose the latter. I'm not saying you have to, far from it.
If you dare, follow this link:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...x=0&ajaxhist=0
Unrelated question: Is there a good reason Wizards doesn't use "suspensions" or temporary bans aside from the fluctuations they would produce in card pricing?
I don't think there is a particularly good reason. They've actually done it in Arena, IIRC for Historic. But maybe the answer is just a lack of wanting to constantly reevaluate things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
i would be 100% behind a sorcery errata...Quote:
Originally Posted by ahg113
remember before the stack, there was the batch, interrupts and mana sources?
https://i.imgur.com/7vhsk4q.jpg
"As a fast-effect..." lol The good old days.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Was pretty funny commentary from an Eternal Weekend where a guy tries to use Mystical Tutor to find a Tolarian b/c he didn’t know Mana Source was a card type. It’s important to continue to call things by their true names: Mono/Poly/Continuous Artifact, Interrupt/Mana Source, and local/global enchantment. These terms should never have gone away imo, they made perfect sense.
During my college years I became a super duper casual player. Then got out of the game until about Mirrodin Besieged etc. Fast forward to Tumble Magnet and I tap someone's whatever, thinking I was going to turn it off, and low & behold, a judge call later, that's not a thing anymore. (All those damn years of Icy Manipulator wrecking havoc are a thing of the past.) I was full of the disappoint. Mogg Fanatic, Yavimaya Elder, how I miss your great deal damage stack sac effects for profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Sorry for making this long. I wanted to sum up thoughts. I promise I tried to make it readable.
It’s not possible to mathematically prove that anything ought to be banned, and it’s not possible to define what Legacy ought to be in a way that’s universally agreed on. Putting that burden of proof on someone, in this context, is asking them to go jump in a lake.
To me it’s as plain as day that Brainstorm was better off banned seven to ten years ago, and I’ll make my case. When you’re reading it, please understand that all I’ve got — all WotC has ever had — is common sense and rough heuristics, not formal logic.
I’ll start with Vintage, the format whose mission is to encompass all of Magic. Even the most unbalanced cards, mostly early design mistakes, are legal to play (lol at Lurrus). There’s a trade-off: Allowing these unbalanced cards to remain legal, even if they’re restricted to one copy per deck, permanently focuses the format on these early design mistakes, since WotC intends to never again print cards unbalanced enough to compete with them. Vintage will forever be focused on blue decks and (as long as Workshop and Bazaar are unrestricted) artifact decks and graveyard decks. The cost of being able to play with every card is that if a player wants to have a shot at winning with any other kind of deck, Vintage is not for them.
Legacy was split off from Vintage. Its mission is to be very similar to Vintage in this one respect: it encompasses 99.99% of Magic. But it also has a mission to escape the sway of the unbalanced cards that define Vintage. The 0.01% chunk that’s missing from Legacy is the unbalanced cards, which are banned, not restricted, as a sacrifice for the sake of format diversity. Legacy is designed to avoid the fate of being permanently defined by a narrow bunch of unbalanced cards.
Some strategies will always rise to the top. There will be winners and losers. The promise of Legacy is not that you can play just absolutely anything and expect to win.
The promise of Legacy is that if you compare it to Vintage, you should be able to say, “This Legacy thing is a lot more diverse at the most competitive level.” (The noncompetitive levels don’t matter: You can run anything in any format if you don’t mind getting crushed.)
Legacy, to its credit, has fulfilled a great deal of its promise. I could rattle off more strategies with a fighting chance of winning a Legacy tournament than I could for Vintage. But “a fighting chance” is a nice way of saying “not a good chance.” While Legacy far outstrips Vintage in terms of strategies with a fighting chance, it doesn’t do much better in terms of strategies with a good chance.
Vintage has blue (a handful of substrategies with a great deal of overlap), Workshop, and Dredge stuff (??). Legacy has blue (a handful of substrategies with a great deal of overlap), Chalice (??), Depths (??), and Vial stuff (????). The difference between blue and the next best thing is actually bigger in Legacy than in Vintage (where Workshop is sometimes on equal footing with blue).
You may not like me grouping “blue” together like this, and you’d be right that there are some big differences within “blue.” But from a years-long perspective, the same gang of troublemakers are at it again and again. It’s fair to say “blue” is always the best Legacy archetype in a way that it would be unfair to say that “red” is an archetype encompassing Mono-Red Prison and Mono-Red Burn and Mono-Red Goblins. Those decks are really different.
So, Legacy largely but incompletely delivers on its promise. It’s not hard to spot the ringleader card in the archetype that’s always the best. It’s not hard to see that the ringleader card is bannable.
Here are some typical criteria for a bannable card:
It’s ubiquitous at the highest level of competition.
It’s cheap to cast.
It greatly reduces variance.
The best way to counter it is to use it and then tune your deck to face other decks using it.
It doesn’t have a meaningful deckbuilding cost.
We have enough observations to be sure of what we’re seeing.
Brainstorm also partially meets this criterion:
Provides card advantage (not quite, but it’s the ultimate virtual card advantage)
It’s often repeated that Brainstorm is bannable by every metric. I grant that the card requires decision making, but so do Demonic Tutor and Survival of the Fittest and really any other card, if you think hard enough about the correct play.
If you just like playing Brainstorm and would be sad if it were banned, I have no argument. I’m not here to tell you what you ought to like.
Tl;dr ban Brainstorm to upgrade the number of decks with not just a fighting chance, but a good chance, in accordance with the point of Legacy. If it doesn’t work, just unban it again. And do this seven to ten years ago.
Interestingly enough, if Brainstorm were banned seven to ten years ago, that probably means that Ponder and Preordain never get printed and that Serum Visions likely would be banned in Modern.
EDIT: Ponder still gets printed, but Preordain possibly not.
I <3 this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise
The question though is, even if I agree with you (and I generally do) the window of 7-10 years ago is well and gone now. So, while your post shows good hindsight, the issue lies in the present, looking to the future. The inaction is as defining as the action taken by Wizards, if not more so.Quote:
Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise
So, what do we do now? Frankly, I think Legacy just is 4x Brainstorm + Fetches now. That isn't for everyone and I don't claim that everyone should like it. If it is not for you, then it just isn't. At this point though, it is almost like playing Vintage and hating Moxes. I mean, sure, you could. You could even demand they be banned and have a valid case. Except it just isn't going to happen.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/article...lpuff_st_place
Post ban challenge
Companion count:
Yorion: 8
Gyruda: 3
Jegantha: 2
Honest question: if they banned Brainstorm would the meta change all that much?
Four Brainstorms becomes four Preordains. The decks running Brainstorm will lose a few % points to the non Brainstorm decks. However, being that most decks are Brainstorm decks, overall you will see no major change to the win rates and therefore likely no shift in the meta.
Maybe I'm underestimating the downgrade of Brainstorm to Preordain?
Then ban ponder too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Blood
conflate much? what ONE card in vintage could be a comparison to BS?Quote:
Originally Posted by H
I don't play vintage anymore, but when I did (type1), I hated mirror universe (mana burn during your untap phase, really!?!)
It's apples to oranges since mirror universe just ended the game but BS just incentivizes blue stew in legacy.
Or just play Modern if that's the format you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
Also, Uro and Oko present in 50% of the decks. Delver, that terrible formidable weapon reduced to 9% of the decks...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cire