Printable View
Nice selective bold. I'm not claiming those cards should be unbanned, way to be a jerk about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
There was a topic where people were encouraged to do just that, one sec and i'll retrieve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by (nameless one)
EDIT: here it is http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...%3BR+challenge
EDIT2: i noticed you were already a contributor of that thread
Doesn't sounds like the type of format DCI would sanction/condone/support. Supporting player testing of banned cards would basically be admitting they're not doing their job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
Usually those more exploratory/testing formats are something you see fire off online via community interest or maybe a lgs. I could see based on results higher profile/influence players maybe stirring up some discussion via articles/twitter, and then DCI might take action.
I don't think any more fast mana should come off the list. That includes Mana Vault. Monolith was okay because Stax and MUD decks aren't overpowered in this format, and it's only a +1 accel without Key.
Fast mana is what makes Vintage what it is. That's what seperates Legacy from Vintage. Decks in Legacy don't start with 4+ mana on turn 1.
Other than that, there's a shitload of cards that could come off the banned list without damaging Legacy. Hell, alot of them won't even see top tier play.
Yup. I was trying defending Land Tax on that. Don't get me wrong, Land Tax isn't broken and playing with it was nostalgic but I think the real reason why it's banned is because if you want to be a jerk, you can make the games go on. A control deck that has the capabilities of finding answer but cannot secure a win due to the parameters of how it's built around Land Tax can make for sadistic long games. Granted, that was before Stoneforge Mystic and Jace 2.0 saw print.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheizen64
WotC doesn't really playtest about eternal formats. DCI ban cards because of their performances on a big tournament. Previously banned cards before the conception of formats (such as Modern and Legacy) are there because of historical and theoretical reasonings. Though overtime, they will unban cards to provide us new toys, bad offenders are somehow doomed to stay there.Quote:
Originally Posted by from Cairo
Think about it, post Flash bannings, all the unbanned cards from the banned list didn't really historically shook up the game. Yes, Replenish, Mind Over Matter, Dream Halls, Metalworker, Illusionary Mask and Grim Monolith didn't have a history of "I cast this, I win" problem. The closest was Entomb but in the same format where that card was banned, Vampiric Tutor was legal (old extended). The DCI somehow learned who the real offender was (Vampiric Tutor)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanni
I agree with Mana Vault.
Though which cards do you think theoretically deserve to come out of the list and why? I just want to see if everyone is on the same page. (if we are all on the same page, maybe these cards are safe after all)
Why is Tinker considered so much more broken than Oath of Druids? They're already pretty close in Vintage as is, but there are a lot of factors that makes Oath much stronger in Legacy relative to Tinker.
1) Legacy is a format with Swords to Plowshares; Vintage is a format with Nature's Claim. Therefore, not only does Emrakul >>>>> Blightsteel Colossus, but Oath is much more likely to stick on the table in Legacy than it is in Vintage.
2) Legacy is a format where about 75% of the decks are either aggro or aggro-control, and even combo decks like Elves and Dredge--or even the occasional control deck like Enchantress--runs creatures. Therefore, Oath is a 1-card combo, as opposed to a 2-card combo, in the vast majority of matchups.
3) Vintage is a format defined by its cheap mana acceleration. It is extremely easy to sacrifice an artifact to Tinker without running suboptimal cards. Legacy Tinker decks would certainly run more artifacts if Tinker were legal (and it would be really busted), but it's not quite the same fit.
4) Vintage decks that run Tinker aren't dedicated "Tinker decks". They run a lot of good cards, but Tinker is an easy win condition orthogonal to the rest of their game plan, which makes it more difficult for the opponent to disrupt. Legacy Tinker decks would likely require Tinker as plan A, running suboptimal artifacts (compared to Vintage).
5) A Legacy Oath shell would include 4 Oaths, maybe a few enablers in the few matchups where the opponent has no creatures*, a few creature targets, and the rest filled by protection and setup spells. A Tinker deck would actually require a critical mass of cheap artifacts. Still busted as hell. (*Note: this is in the hypothetical case where you'll allowed to play Oath in the existing Legacy metagame; but if Oath were ever unbanned, decks with creatures would pretty much get pushed out completely.)
Don't get me wrong, Tinker is an absolutely busted card that should never see the light of day in Legacy. Oath of Druids would be even worse.
I guess not being able to go for Time Vault and no jewerly would actually make Tinker comparatively worse compared to Oath in legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordofthepit
Tinkering Duplicant after Oath trigger is pretty good though. You can even play Johnny cage and tinker it for Blighsteel lol or tinker directly for johnny cage.
Here that Happens: One half plays a strategy with the exciting new cards, the other half may plays a deck that prays for it. In any possible configuration the results of this side event would not deliver any data of value but wrong impressions. We see the same effect every time a new powerful card enters the cardpool. Snapcaster and Delver came out and peeps act like the sky was falling. There was suddely UR Tempo everywhere, so the the omnipresent calls for banning, until Maverick and Burn were finally even played in the U.S. The poínte is that such events create only their "UR Tempo's" but rarely their "Mavericks" and fuel wrong conclusionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
Well, Maverick took 6 out of 8 slots at the SCG Baltimore Open, but I'm not sure anything in that deck is actually banworthy. Green Sun's Zenith fuels multiple decks and seems pretty fair, so I would be sad to see it go. Is Thalia too much? Scavenging Ooze?
I'm actually at a loss. It's obvious something is wrong when a deck puts up 6 copies in a top 8, but what do you do when the offending deck is just full of fair cards?
You can't really evaluate Top 8 performances like that, without looking at the the rest of the field. I'm willing to bet that the field was saturated with Maverick decks. Also, if there was alot of decks in the field that Maverick is strong against, that would also skew the Top 8.
Nothing in Maverick is banworthy. The SCG Open metagame just needs to shift. If Maverick is making Top 8's en masse, then people should start playing decks that beat Maverick, no?
I mean, theoretically yes. But in practice that never happens in the echo chamber of the SCG Open Series.
Goblin Recruiter should never be unbanned. If it was there would be no more reason to play any other straight aggro deck as goblins would be the best aggro deck and a descent combo deck.
Food Chain still exists and it's not exactly hard to get a turn 3 win off turn 2 Recruiter -> turn 3 Food Chain. Turn 3 win aside Food Chain + Recruiter pretty much always wins the game next turn at latest if not answered.
Worst case scenario Recruiter lets you stack your deck, best case scenario you win almost instantly unless your opponent has counters.
New cards have come out since Recruiter last saw the light of day, it's even better now. The only reason it wasn't rolling and controlling back in 1.5 was that Landstill w/ Mana Drain and Disk, Dragon w/ Bazaar, and Stax w/ Workshop were just a little bit better. With those threats gone and the new cards that have come out in the past 8 or so years it would be far too powerful.
I hate Goblins, but I would easily pilot Food Chain Gobs if Recruiter were legal with zero hesitation, I mean why wouldn't you? The deck was borderline tier in Vintage for a short time (when prison with 4x Spheres was the DTB), it's fast and hella solid.
It happens at a high enough level of tournaments like PT/GP level, not the Open series. Lower budget and lower skill skews those results too. Can 9 rounds really tell us the strength of a regional metagame?Quote:
Originally Posted by majikal
Time to ban Mother of Runes :laugh:
hehe, on a more serious note - will be interesting to see what card in Maverick ends up being on the "Ban crowd" radar.
I hope It's not GSZ its a Glue in Mavericks..
THe offender IS Green Sun Zenith. It suffers from the same design flaws as Survival of the Fittest -> tutor up a wincondition (KOTR) or specific hate (Ooze/Qasali/Gaddock Teeg/Thrun). Whereas an Enlightened Tutor toolbox leaves you with maindeck stuff you don't want to have, GSZ just leaves you with a bunch of creatures that you can just tap for more damage should their abilities be irrelevant. Obv Survival was stronger, but it had the same built in capacity to answer what ever people were trying to do to stop it (Pithing Needle on Survival, tap Fauna Shaman, get Pridemage, or use Survival in response for Pridemage).Quote:
Originally Posted by majikal
Problems occur when cards can both deal with the hate against your deck and still give you the ability to execute your game plan.
I'm not saying any bannings are warranted yet, but indulge me in a thought exercise for a moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koby
The problem is that Legacy doesn't get many GPs and there is no Legacy PT at all, so the SCG Open series is literally the only regularly-occurring barometer we have for the format's health (in the USA).
The fact of the matter is that Maverick has consistently been putting up the best numbers on a global scale, and we now have a situation where it has not only taken the top spot in a large, two-day event, but also six top 8 slots in a large tournament on the same weekend. Since this was an invitational weekend, I'm hesitant to say that it is just a regional thing.
Obviously there is nothing inherently unfair about the deck - it doesn't win particularly quickly, and it doesn't have any combos to speak of, so I'm kind of baffled here. I mean, we wished for a format where blue wasn't so dominant and we got it, but now we have this grindy creature deck which just seems to have the answers to the majority of the field and is largely able to adapt to any and all hate that is thrown at it.
What I want to know is, how can we deal with a deck that isn't doing anything unfair, but is just able to squeeze out wins against virtually everything through tight play and a near-critical mass of hatebears, short of just upending the format's established decks and brewing specifically against it?
I mean, that would be fucking great if that happened, but let's be honest for a moment. It just won't. It never has and it never will. What will happen is people will tune Maverick to beat the mirror instead of making a new deck to beat Maverick. And everyone else will continue playing whatever they're already playing even though it's bad. Too many people look at Legacy as a format where you can just play your pet decks forever and not have to change them, but we are now forced into a situation where a fair deck just edges out all the competition or goes 50/50 or better with most things and is being played on an unprecedented scale, and the only thing we can do is scratch our heads over it.
Nothing in the deck is banworthy on it's own, but the internal synergy of the deck is frighteningly good. When this problem arose with Affinity in Standard, they just banned almost everything in the deck, but here we run into the problem that almost everything in the deck is used in almost every other deck that shares colors with it, and fills some vital role in the format rather than being extremely narrow like Affinity. The only real wiggle room we have is with the hate bears.
I honestly think that if we find ourselves still in this situation in three months, Thalia has to go, not because it's broken, but because it gives the deck far too much game against the combo decks that should be its natural predators.
And this is coming from someone who plays the deck regularly.
Edit - I'd also like to point out that this situation will likely continue to crop up with different decks if WotC don't scale back the absurd level of power creep they are applying to creature designs at the moment. Bannings will not solve this issue in the long run, but simply serve as a temporary fix to an ever-growing problem that can only be mended by more competent set design.
The problem I have with this line of thought is that GSZ is literally what makes this deck good against blue. We can either have GSZ, and not have a completely blue-dominated meta, or we can not have GSZ and play against Counterbalance all day forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
I'm okay with GSZ crushing blue decks. I am not okay with a critical mass of hatebears making aggro decks good against combo decks.
Placing 6 out of the top 8 spots is concerning, but this is unprecedented for Maverick. In previous SCG events and GPs, it would place 0-2 spots per top 8, even as one of the top 3 decks in the format. It wasn't very heavily represented in the top tables of the Invitational, even if the one Maverick player in the top 8 did manage to win it all.
Let's see if Maverick can keep up such dominance for even a second tournament before we start predicting why players will be unable to adapt.
Since nearly all the games are decided by Equipments and Stoneblade beeing a huge player in the actual meta, (also in europe, saw like half of a top8 of a 100+ player event beeing Esper-Blade) I think Stoneforge Mystic will leave the format. At the end of the year he's gone. It is one of the few sources that produce natural card advantage in Maverick and IMO it's the card that keeps Aggro-Decks far away from the format.Quote:
Originally Posted by majikal
The best answer to SFM+toolbox is to play the card by yourself or play a deck that can handle the engine (Tempo) or doesn't care about it at all (High Tide, Belcher Rit. Combo).
People are already sick and tired of the card and there is no such equivalent that, combined with the tools lateley printed, that domintes the actual meta.
People can reply all day long that it is not broken for Legacy-terms but that doesn't change the fact that it's the main reason for an unhealthy metagame which is definetly on the rise. As much as people will hate it, SFM is already waving goodbye.
Banning Stoneforge Mystic would be ridiculous though. It won't hurt Maverick since people are already dropping it in favor of playing more Umezawa's Jitte (instead of a slow squire) for the mirror. On the other hand it would mean death of several archetypes, like for example UW mystic deck(s).
Maybe it's time for combo decks to start packing Infest/Massacre and control decks playing Wrath of God? heh
Did you realize that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place Maverick decks played a total of 0 Stoneforge Mystics? There were a total of 7 Stoneforge Mystics in the Top 8 of SCG Baltimore Legacy Open.Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the brainwasher
Maverick is a very strong and consistent deck, but Stoneforge Mystic is certainly not the powerhouse in that deck.