Printable View
Pardon me, but this "argument" is so boring. 90% of my Brainstorms as a combo player are played during my own mainphases. I wouldn't care much if it was a Sorcery.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahg113
I however suspect, thats its again about the myth that "discard is sooooo bad because brainstorm is around and people can hide cards", which is among the most inacurrate thing ever written in this thread.
that sir, is garbage...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
problem solved, "BS" just get errata'd to a sorcery...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
/close thread
How the fuck is Belcher.format going to lead to a decline of FoW?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Also how the fuck is Probe ever the problem over Brainstorm?
A zero mana card that tells you exactly how to play and replaces itself is not ok. There are a lot of games of magic where you play land and pass, then randomly opponent turns out to be on hyper-aggressive combo...Brainstorm is somewhat important here. Against decks where you'd side out FoW, it's generally important to flush that out of the hand game 1 - again Brainstorm. These two cards are linked, there's pretty much 1 deck that runs 1 and not the other and it's called Tezz (or insert blue chalice deck name). No one is going to do your dirty work for you [fair decks], FoW players aren't going to blind mull to FoW in game 1 (certainly not without Brainstorm).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
If there's one thing people bellyache about more than a Brainstorm, it's getting blown out by [insert hyper-aggressive combo]. You want to sign up for routinely running into that even late into long tourneys? Be careful what you wish for.
A lot of posters are touching on something that's really important to consider in all this discussion of Brainstorm, and it is this: if Brainstorm were banned, there would still be a "best card in the format," and people would still complain that the majority of decks would run it.
You see the same thing happen in Modern every time they have to panic-ban a bunch of cards because Wizards designed a set poorly. So though I'm not going to tell anyone who doesn't like cards I like to leave the format (I also don't think that's quite what Sidneyious was saying, but plenty of people do), I do think people who argue for Brainstorm's banning both don't acknowledge that the format won't suddenly be fixed (I think it'll be a lot less interesting) and fail to notice that there is, in fact, a format in which such a strategy's been used, and it's gone predictably poorly.
And I still don't see why people are less upset at getting locked out of the game by one card than they are at seeing their opponents put together a hand.
For the record, several posters (including me) entered this thread because the material we were interested in discussing covered more than just Brainstorm, so the argument is broader than "ban Brainstorm" and includes discussion of other cantrips. And there certainly were posters arguing that Ponder was also unfair.
Lemnear and Fox are right. There are cards that are incredibly problematic that don't receive a ban (perhaps for the worse), yet I don't hear "blue players" complaining that much about them, though I hear plenty of complaints from the "fair" crowd about cards that have been part of the format since its inception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Not liking a card ≠ not liking a style of deck. I hate Counterbalance and Top, I love control. As a Stax player and Lands player, am I aloud to have the view that a one sided, multi CMC Chalice effect is bad or does that mean I hate Prison and Control decks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Can we have an actual discussion without reverting to absurd generalisations and fallacies or is that too much to ask?
"There is always going to be a best deck or a best card" is not a defence when the current best deck or best card are problems. This is not Vintage, we can solve these issues. I understand that there is going to be a "Best X", the issue here is not if that X is the best at something it is if that X is problematic regardless of the monica of "Best".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
For example, Wasteland is the "Best" Land removal we have, I would not seek to have it removed from the format. DRS is the "Best" one drop (IMO) and I would not argue to have that removed. Swords is the "Best" removal spell and it should stay. Brainstorm is the "Best" card at what it does and I have an issue with Brainstorm, not the effect overall of cantrips.
If your deck gets completely locked out by chance or blood moon then that is the price you pay for being a greedy deck builder. Both of those cards can be overcome fairly easily. Complaining about either of those cards to me is like playing Dredge and complaining about Rest in Peace.
Posh as you sound, blah blah blah, I pardon you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
While you might use it at sorcery speed, the card is still an instant. If wotc could follow non-inflammable's advice, problem solved. There's is a part of me that dislikes the ability to exchange cards from your hand and library, but alas, that's the card.
The premise is Ancestral Recall was a "mistake" card, for the cycle of boons. Brainstorm, which "sucked" when printed back in Ice Age, began as a "fixed" version of that card. But with more printings, it becomes more obscene. First it was Alliance and FoW, then it was fetchlands (the good ones). In the same manner that Show'n'Tell seems more stupid with derp creatures or enchantment, brainstorm suffers the same track pattern albeit with different parts.
But hey, we disagree, doubt either of us will convince the other to change their mind. Just don't attribute things to me that I did not state myself. I hate brainstorm more for finding some jank to counter a spell than I do for hiding from discard. Cause LD = counter spells (effects), but irl LD ≠ counter spells (effects).
I'm not really arguing sentiment; this is just what happens if you take out Brainstorm or its instant speed: FoW presence drops as a function of decreased effectiveness, and we know where this road leads. I understand the frustration of someone who is piloting a deck, with the luxury of casting whatever they topdeck (without any static need for critical hand mass), when their tool [discard] either fails or just backfires. I'm not going to pretend like telling such a fair deck that they should play a bad card (like say Psychotic Episode) to beat Brainstorm; it happens and it sucks to lose to it, but it meant you didn't have to waste your time playing fair vs Belcher, or turbo moon, or whatever other hyper-aggressive combo deck should rarely be performing above say x-3 in a longer event. If you want to enjoy legacy as a fair deck pilot, you need to get turns...and that means other people have to be protecting you with BS/FoW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Look at which BS/FoW decks are more than happy to face any type of combo, the more offensive the better; they're combo decks as well - and you definitely won't ever hear them say something like "I have a good matchup against [insert offensive combo deck] because I have [insert fair card, like RiP] in my sideboard." This is a specific demographic BS/FoW decks that keep even worse combo in check...and even these have more offensive, linear, uninteractive variants they can revert to in the case that FoW starts to suffer from a Brainstorm nerf/ban.
This isn't an absurd generalization or fallacy, going after Brainstorm inadvertently and indirectly advocates for an increase in non-games. There are of course legacy players who choose to enjoy legacy playing these hyper-aggressive combo decks, but I would guess that even they realize that the legacy community's size would suffer if they were left unchecked. Some cards are total bullcrap and probably shouldn't exist, but they do...can't really get around it, no sense banning 'em all. For every Brainstorm that gets cast there was also a Chalice or a Prelate or other polarizing card. An enemy Brainstorm at least lets you play magic, not just in that match, but simply by being in the same room with it's other half FoW.
p.s. a rehash on both our parts about what you think of control (good content on previous pages, not that a newcomer will necessarily go back that far), but I firmly believe the more apt comparison of CB/SDT is to Time Vault/Voltaic Key; these are not real control cards.
This makes smaller tournaments such a tedious place. My local meta is basically only BGx, Chalice.dec and Belcher. T_TQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Not to pick nits (well, okay, I guess I'm picking nits), but Alliances also had Thawing Glaciers. So it was always a really good card, just not to the degree that it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahg113
I agree with you. The problem is that I don't see a qualitative difference between complaining about those cards and complaining about Brainstorm. There's an answer to virtually every card in the format, and when one of those cards has a significant chance of shooting its user in the foot (or giving him/her a draw and nothing else), I don't think it's worth the complaints, especially in comparison to those other cards (which I don't think warrant a ban, either).Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
You're right that when a card is a real problem, bans are something I can countenance (and everybody should). I don't think that's the case with Brainstorm for any number of reasons, just like I don't think that's the case with a number of extremely oppressive cards that absolutely wreck the decks I play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
I can't get behind your argument about Wasteland, Deathrite, etc., though you're correct that in any category there will always be a top slot. I just don't think it really applies to the argument over Brainstorm specifically. People (not sure whether you were one of them; I don't want to put words in your mouth) have been arguing that Brainstorm is far and away the best card in the format, period, and—presumably as a result—they want it banned. Maybe because of its relative power level, for which a case could possibly be made, though I think they'd be hard-pressed to state this in non-abstract terms. Their broader argument (not necessarily yours) doesn't hold water, and frankly, it's intellectually bankrupt to say that the diversity it grants the format should suffer so that other people can play decks they want to without meeting opposition from the decks the allegedly questionable card enables. As the standings show (whatever they're worth), plenty of non-blue decks are doing very well in the format in spite of Brainstorm's supposed bustedness, and most of them aren't first-timers in the DtBs this month.
More to my earlier point, where does one draw the line? What's someone to do about any number of ridiculous plays for which they won't be able to find answers without the digging power of Brainstorm? What makes those strategies more justifiable to keep in the format than Brainstorm is? If we're purely looking at the format from the (rather subjective) perspective of "what's fun," I can't think of why it's less fun to face someone who's cantripping to find any number of pieces of permission/business than it is to play against the same two or three hard lock-pieces or T1 combos. No deck is perfect, and "Brainstorm decks" are only as good as the other contents of the decks and the decks' pilots. And, of course, luck.
And if degeneracy is the problem, again, why aren't people complaining about All Spells?
The math has been done before on brainstorms percentages to help you against fast combo to find force of will, and the percentages are extremely small. Again, on the draw, it doesn't matter if you even have it or not. On the play, it digs 3 cards deep to find force. The people that say that the format would become all fast all in combo have been proven wrong long ago.
I won't argue with that, but doesn't it also prove my point that fast combo is more degenerate than cantrips or Force of Will?Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Sure. And if fast combo decks were played at the obscene rate that brainstorm is played I would be talking about how it's an issue too
I will comment more deeply when it's not quater to 2 in the morning. I would like to say something now though. Taking out Brainstorm weakens Blue combo too so I doubt that kind of combo would become an issue. As for non blue glass cannon combo, a mix of its own internal inconsistencies mixed with a good selection of counters would solve the issue. I would also remind everyone that non Blue decks have been handling these decks for years. I personally enjoy Sphere of Resistance or Rotation into Bojuka Bog as my answers.
Fish played for years without Brainstorm and held its own against combo. With Force, Daze and Cursecatcher it held its own. If you think that's not a point worth noting, Fish in Vintage is very close to exactly the same deck. It gets some fast mana, a single draw spell, sometimes a pair of Pierce and Time walk otherwise it's unchanged. With that set up, it held its own against The Perfect Storm, a deck any Legacy Storm deck should look at with envy. No Brainstorm, no worries.
Short story, this is all elementary since we know that ban is never happening and I really did not want to drop down this rabbit hole again.
Anyway. I will post actual personalised responses tomorrow. Night all.
That sounds awful; why do we want more of it? (i.e. banning brainstorm and making more people's experiences resemble what you've described?)Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
Hands also just become more keepable, which isn't as easy to quantify. Now some of those 1 land or 3-4 lands/fetch with Brainstorm hands will have FoW as well (most won't), but what's more important there is you're also not mulling - and that's significant, because it's a doubly bad mull if you ever have to alt-cast FoW on top of it. When FoW becomes less effective, its presence will diminish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
@Dice_Box Brainstorm works a little different in the BS/FoW combo decks, so for SnT they simply will lose more to discard where a deck like Reanimator won't care so much, but is much more interested in the efficacy of enemy countermagic (especially turn 1-2). Both of these decks can go in the wrong direction, not currently a 'better' [~more winning] direction, by doubling down on turn 1 consistency. It's not really making legacy more fun/interactive for either party if one side was enticed to go in the direction of B/R Reanimator or something inane like BigRed. There are other BS/FoW combo decks, but it looks like Food Chain coming in at 1% currently is the next closest member of that peer group...and it's more or less a less-winning, folds to Revoker, Aluren deck (3x FoW in the side there), and these decks have more questionable matchups vs hyperlinear combo. I'll take a moment to congratulate B/R as it just took down EW in Europe, but it is still a less-winning cousin of UBx.
Two major tournaments finish with 6/16 top decks Miracles.
check out this post in the Maverick thread. The player faced Miracles FOUR straight times in the X-0 bracket of Eternal Extravaganza, then again in the top 8. (Despite winning two of those rounds, he still concluded that the matchup was poor for his deck.)
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post975054
Don't know how we still overthink this.
You mean a deck that's been Tier 3 at best for at least 4 years and could actually use some help?Quote:
Originally Posted by guillemnicolau
Yeah, I feel responsible. Hope I'm not causing headaches half a world away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box