All B/R update speculation.

Corpt has made a wonderful effort gathering the raw data, but I think people in this forum are unable to interpret raw data, so I've parsed these data through a normal distribution so that it becomes apparent by exactly how much the blue decks are better than the rest.

Online tools used:
http://easycalculation.com/statistic...-deviation.php
http://stattrek.com/tables/normal.aspx

2011: 50,55,37,75,46
2010: 56,62,36,67,43
2009: 45,72,55,62,39
Caw: pre: 57,22,40,69,22 post: 45,24,42,62,23

2011: Mean - 0.52
Standard deviation: 0.1415
Values between (0.3845 , 0.6675) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.75) are better than 94.32% of the field.
Red decks (z=0.37) are better than 13.513% of the field.

2010: Mean - 0.528
Standard deviation: 0.1298
Values between (0.3982 , 0.6578) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.67) are better than 86.30% of the field.
Red decks (z=0.36) are better than 9.78% of the field.

2009: Mean - 0.546
Standard deviation: 0.1316
Values between (0.4144 , 0.6776) are within standard.
Green decks (z=0.72) are better than 90.69% of the field.
Blue decks (z=0.62) are better than 71.30% of the field.
Black decks (z=0.36) are better than 7.87% of the field.

Cawblade std: Mean - 0.42
Standard deviation: 0.2096
Values between (0.2104 , 0.6296) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.69) are better than 90.11% of the field.
Black decks (z=0.22) are better than 16.99% of the field.

Post-Cawblade std: Mean - 0.392
Standard deviation: 0.1624
Values between (0.230 , 0.554) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.62) are better than 91.98% of the field.
Black decks (z=0.23) are better than 15.93% of the field.

In sum, the standard bannings didn't fix anything as blue puts even better results than before the bannings, and Legacy is right now MUCH WORSE than standard, with blue decks being 94.32% better than nonblue decks.

hehe, if they ever want Legacy to die a terrible bloody death, banning Brainstorm would be a good way to do it. Just take a look at vintage after they restricted it.

You kinda have to look how standard looks atm. Any deck can play the best removal in the format. Is there really a reason to play an other color when blue offers so much solutions, best multicolored manlands, card filters and great finisher and totally insane creature like Consecrated Sphinx? :P

On that 94.32% in legacy does that count in when noneblue decks are running mental missteps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rizso

You kinda have to look how start looks atm. Any deck can play the best removal in the format. Is there really a reason to play an other color when blue offers so much solutions, best multicolored manlands, card filters and great finisher and totally insane creature like Consecrated Sphinx? :P

On that 94.32% in legacy does that count in when noneblue decks are running mental missteps?

---

It counts all the decks that packed blue in 2011, which includes 6 months of pre-misstep era and three months of blue dominated legacy with a few nonblue decks splashing it.
I can't access to the tools Corpt has because I'm not a Starcity premium member, but anybody with a membership can gather the tournament relevant data for a more precise evaluation, then pass it through the online tools I posted and get the percentages.

EDIT: But I can access to CorpT's data about the post-survival pre-misstep meta vs the post-misstep meta:

2011 pre-misstep 50,57,34,71,45
2011 post-misstep 51,53,39,80,46

2011 post-survival pre-misstep: Mean - 0.514
Standard deviation: 0.1379
Values between (0.3761 , 0.6519) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.71) are better than 92.24% of the field.
Red decks (z=0.34) are better than 10.35% of the field.

2011 post-misstep: Mean - 0.538
Standard deviation: 0.1561
Values between (0.3819 , 0.6941) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.80) are better than 95.44% of the field.
Red decks (z=0.39) are better than 17.15% of the field.

In conclusion, blue was already broken in the post-survival meta, and it just got crazily broken after mental misstep (more than twice the standard deviation, woah!).
But mental misstep made red better, but I don't know if that's because "red decks" includes "red-blue decks" beating "nonred,nonblue decks" because they don't pack misstep.

I see little value to be gained from that kind of analysis. It includes any deck that plays blue? Throwing decks as vastly different as Landstill, Merfolk and Hive Mind into one category and just calling them "blue decks" isn't the way, I'm looking at the format. Seeing as green is super popular as well, I guess it might put up large numbers as well. It's just feels real polemic to me, arguing that something is "better" than something else. I assume this only takes "matchup data" into account, which just doesn't cut it for me. I mean, "blue decks" (just like green decks) make up such a huge portion of the metagame, that running the numbers against the rest of the field doesn't really provide a whole lot.

Still, there are some non-blue decks that just slaughter most "blue based" decks. Take GW Maverick; that decks just eats blue based control alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

I see little value to be gained from that kind of analysis. It includes any deck that plays blue? Throwing decks as vastly different as Landstill, Merfolk and Hive Mind into one category and just calling them "blue decks" isn't the way, I'm looking at the format. Seeing as green is super popular as well, I guess it might put up large numbers as well. It's just feels real polemic to me, arguing that something is "better" than something else. I assume this only takes "matchup data" into account, which just doesn't cut it for me. I mean, "blue decks" (just like green decks) make up such a huge portion of the metagame, that running the numbers against the rest of the field doesn't really provide a whole lot.

Still, there are some non-blue decks that just slaughter most "blue based" decks. Take GW Maverick; that decks just eats blue based control alive.

---

This kind of analysis can also be done per archtype basis, and also per card basis. It also illustrates the matters at point: that you are an idiot if you are not playing blue, or suggest not playing blue; that the standard bannings didn't fix standard; and that despite what some blue players hold, blue was already pretty broken before misstep, so if R&D only bans that card, I can predict in advance that it won't fix anything (just like in standard) so I can avoid wasting my time and my money for the next three months.

EDIT: And frankly, that GW Maverick beats blue control when the winning decks are blue tempo and blue combo (as can be expected from a fow-dominated format), only means that you are suggesting us to play a Tier 3 deck.

I read a lot of message on this tread since a few days, and I fail see what is the point of all peoples claiming that "Legacy will die if Brainstorm is banned". I also have problem to understand the attitude of those who say "If Brainstorm is banned, I'll quit".

Actualy, I'm not sure if the format would be better without Brainstorm or not, but I believe it's a legitime question, as the blue domination do not seem totaly healty and I'm convinced that Brainstorm is more responsible of it than any card.

So why Brainstorm is so essential to the format?

If it's about the consistancy it provide, I think that Ponder and Preordain can help almost as much to find a needed land, threat or combo piece, without being broken as Brainstorm is.

I understand that Brainstorm is a real fun card, that people love to play it and I know it's skill-testing. That said, well played, Brainstorm is perhaps a bit too good. I'm sure everybody is agree to say that Ancestral Recall is too good for Legacy. Why can't we can ask ourself if the power level of Brainstorm is not too near of Recall for being healty?

If we reached the point where playing blue, because of Brainstorm, is the absolute best strategy and playing any other color mean playing with an handicap, it will be the time to take action, and I fail to see why it will be bad for the format. Now, I don't claim we reached that point. But if the format continue to evolve toward more and more blue domination, we'll reach this point and we'll have to seriously discuss Brainstorm or its very presence could, at the end, kill the diversity of Legacy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJones

This kind of analysis can also be done per archtype basis, and also per card basis. It also illustrates the matters at point: that you are an idiot if you are not playing blue, or suggest not playing blue; that the standard bannings didn't fix standard; and that despite what some blue players hold, blue was already pretty broken before misstep, so if R&D only bans that card, I can predict in advance that it won't fix anything (just like in standard) so I can avoid wasting my time and my money for the next three months.

EDIT: And frankly, that GW Maverick beats blue control when the winning decks are blue tempo and blue combo (as can be expected from a fow-dominated format), only means that you are suggesting us to play a Tier 3 deck.

---

Wait, what? Why is Maverick a tier 3 deck? Maverick has done very well. It's a DTB for a reason, to say it's bad or a tier 3 deck is disingenuous.

Banning brainstorm wouldnt completely kill the format but it would kill certain decks and besides brainstorm is part of the spirit of the format.
For people who dont like brainstorm/mms/blue dominance in general, theres a great alternative and its called modern. In modern blue is weak and red is more powerful. I dont see what the issue is really. If I didnt like this format I wouldnt be calling for bannings I would simply play in a different format rather than ruin this one for others.

Statistics can be tweaked to anyone desire. They can say anything. By the way, the maverick deck is playing mental misstep, does that makes it a blue deck ? hell no !

-open garbage bin.
-put stats in garbage bin.
-close garbage bin.
-repeat the previous 3 steps if necessary !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honestabe

hehe, if they ever want Legacy to die a terrible bloody death, banning Brainstorm would be a good way to do it. Just take a look at vintage after they restricted it.

---

^ agree with this. Nobody can deny that the restriction of Brainstorm caused 'some' Vintage players to jump ship to Legacy. How many? I have no idea, but I was one of them and I am sure there were others with the same sort of mindset. Did this cause Vintage to die? Maybe, maybe not, but it was definitely one of the factors contributing to its declining popularity.

It is almost guaranteed that some Legacy players will stop playing the format or Magic altogether if Brainstorm were to be banned.

I have a love-love relationship with the playset of Brainstorm ever since playing Counterpost to great success resulting in mass moola and mass store credit back in the latter half of the 90's with the awesome Thawing Glaciers (Extended was awesome back then too). So yeah if they ban Brainstorm, there is no incentive at least for me to play Magic anymore and I will definitely sell the rest of my cards at that time since I have very little interest in Standard and no interest in Modern especially the way it is right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon Amarth

Wait, what? Why is Maverick a tier 3 deck? Maverick has done very well. It's a DTB for a reason, to say it's bad or a tier 3 deck is disingenuous.

---

I was thinking that any deck you choose to specifically beat a tier 2 deck is a tier 3 deck by definition, but then I realize that tier 2 decks don't have to beat all tier 1 decks, so I probably goofed that one. In any case, you should pick decks that beat the Tier 1 or are tier 1 decks themselves, not the ones that beat tier 2 decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikoo

I see this line of thought all the time, and so it's incredibly annoying to be subjected to this child logic. Here's the deal: If someone complains about a card, it does NOT necessarily mean he/she is unable to beat the card or the decks it's used in.

Since you label me as a cry baby who can't beat MM, I'll have to carefully explain where my criticism of MM is coming from. I have mostly played various blue aggro-control in Legacy over the years and generally believe this to be the best archetype, although I have changed deck when there was an obvious best deck (ANT, Survival, Spiral Tide, etc). I win consistently and have (had?) a high rating. Even if Misstep boosts the decks I like the most, I still hated it from the moment I saw it spoiled. I won't repeat myself as to why I hate it, because that's getting too tiring. The reason I want it gone is for the health of the format's sake, not because I keep running Lackey into it...

Anyway, I kind of regret selling 80% of my Legacy staples now that we know MM is likely to be banned. Not in a million years would I have thought they would make the correct decision. I was pretty sure the format would only keep degenerating into more and more blue mirror matches until everyone got too sick and tired of it and SCG just switched its sunday format to Modern, but now it looks like Legacy isn't going down in flames after all.

---

Sorry but it's not the correct decision it's not even a wise decision it's called making the gamblers happy. And I'm very sick that this game has becomes a gambler market.

The turth is mental misstep adds a little chaos in the format therefore as long as your willing to play a 1cc spell or focus your deck on 1cc spells your odds of winning isnt better.

A smart ban is Brainstorm because it will fuck over blue base control decks and mental misstep will total suck for those players since the card isnt a universal counterspell.

On the subject of Mental Misstep, I would be extremely disappointed to see a banning of the aforementioned card. I simply don't think that the dust has been allowed to settle since they dropped that little bomb on us, and the metagame has not yet fully adapted to it's existence. I think it deserves nearly a year to wait to see how everything adapts to it. I feel like it has been one of the best moves for legacy in a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJones

I was thinking that any deck you choose to specifically beat a tier 2 deck is a tier 3 deck by definition, but then I realize that tier 2 decks don't have to beat all tier 1 decks, so I probably goofed that one. In any case, you should pick decks that beat the Tier 1 or are tier 1 decks themselves, not the ones that beat tier 2 decks.

---

Ah, OK. I thought we were talking about beating decks like NO RUG and other DTB blue decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Cheese

I take issue with this train of thought though. If the idea of a format reaching maturity is either:

A. Everyone starts every decklist with the same X cards, then adds one of a handful of win conditions (a.k.a. Vintage)
and/or
B. Everyone gravitates to one of 2-3 well-known archetypes that dominate the field (a.k.a. Standard)

---

This sums it up perfect. Legacy is a unique format and cards like survival of the fittest and mental misstep turn the format stagnant. Before MM came around SSG had a new top 16 each week, it continuously rotated. Post MM it became battle of the NO rugs and Stoneblades, just like standard before there bans. So to keep the format moving any some direction(even if in circles) MM out of the way will help.

Why ban MM instead of brainstorm. Brainstorm is one of several cards, like wasteland and FoW, that are balanced perfectly for Legacy. Anything weaker would not get played, thirst for knowledge/thwart/ghost quarter. Anything stronger would dominate, ancestral recall/mana drain/strip mine. Brainstorm is at an acceptable power level for most of the Legacy community to accept. The format revolves around this level of power.

Mental Misstep does NOT dominate the format. It changes the format. It reduces the number of different decks you could realistically play in any given tourney. This is something the Legacy community and apparently WoTC(who knew?) do not like nor want. So yeah good riddance MM, it was fun while it lasted.

What I would absolutely love is if WotC was much more transparent in their policy concerning the B/R List and Legacy. I want an article detailing what they like/want in the format and running down the current list giving their reasoning why said card is still on it. Is it like Vintage in as much that there are cards they won't ban even if they are ubiquitous: the "pillars".

... or they could keep making decisions based on a few matches in the MODO practice room. Whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joemauer

Mental Misstep does NOT dominate the format. It changes the format. It reduces the number of different decks you could realistically play in any given tourney. This is something the Legacy community and apparently WoTC(who knew?) do not like nor want. So yeah good riddance MM, it was fun while it lasted.

---

And still legacy got more decks to beat then ever. Dont think I have seen the format having 8 decks to beat before and so many other decks that you really have to look out for.

I dont feel that legacy needs any ban as of yet.

Modern, something has to get banned there thats for sure. Cloudpost, Blazing Shoal or some of the 12-cantrip instants, Rite of Flames just a few example. Unban of ancestral vision, If that card resolves the player who dared suspended it deserves to win.

Standard, really wouldnt be surpriced if Dismember would get the axe. Its really screwing with the colorpie. There is at least 2 dismember in every deck. Dismember is the new standards Test, like jacetest, flametongue test etc.

Just do it already. Cards with Phyrexian mana should be banned. I'm not fucking kidding.

I don't care how 'broken' any given card with Phyrexian mana in its casting cost actually is. The fact that it lets any given deck play the spell for N colorless mana + X life, this just enables decks to do shit they should have no business doing per their construction, manabase, etc.

Srsly, think about the soul of the game for a second. Fuck all that "heart of the card" gushy stuff that people usually associate with speeches like this, I'm talking about as "original intent" as it gets here. Why is it okay for a deck full of Plains to cast a spell that gives target dude -5/-5? We all know what it's worth in life points to be able to kill target creature. We all know life doesn't matter until you're at 0 or less. So wtf. Just let any deck do 'off-color' things as long as they're willing to pay life? No. Just no. That's stupid. It poops on the heart of what it means to play spells that require certain colors of mana. White gets to have X effects, Blue gets Y effects, Black gets Z, etc etc. That might come off as pandering, I don't care. Phyrexian mana fucks with the soul of the game. Mental Misstep does it, Dismember does it, maybe even on the fringe of playability Birthing Pod does it, it doesn't really matter; the point of fact is the effects transcend the colors they're peculiar to, and that's a problem. It's a problem because it lets any given card that can skip over color requirements bleed into "The Best Deck" in the format, and it doesn't matter what deck it actually is; Good Cards always make The Best Deck better, no matter what color they are, Vintage is proof enough of that. So imagine a scenario where colored mana doesn't matter at all anymore. That's Phyrexian mana. I say be done with it outright.

"Red does this, white does this, etc." is a nice mindset if the colorpie wasn't messed up since years.

With this argumentation we have to BAN all red rituals because they where from blacks colopie? Ban the White Force Spike, the ISD counterspell that discards a card too, etc.?

If you came up with this in Ravnica it would have been fine, but half a decade later is pointless