Printable View
Disagree with both. You undermine the 1/2 body as well as being a non-combat damage source and yardhate all at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brael
The only difference between being hybrid instead of just green was, that people get to be even greedier with the manabase. However, we know there were plenty of decks which ran Hierarchs alongside DRS without much issues in regards to the manabase. I therefore dont think the hybrid costs alone holds up as an argument
True Name Nemesis and Delver of Secrets giggle. Next step blue gets an Unsummon with the clause 'The creature can not be cast for the remainder of the game.' :eyebrow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brael
Cool. Essentially Plowshares and Surgical extraction/meddling mage in one card.Quote:
Originally Posted by tsabo_tavoc
Deathrite was powerful because of all of the ridiculous abilities put together on one cheap easy to cast card. I do feel that his hybrid mana cost though is what tipped it over the edge. It's certainly not the only reason it got banned, but I do also believe that if it weren't castable off of Underground Sea that it would've maybe been fine
Before Deathrite, I had come to the conclusion that black deserved and needed a mana dork. When Deathrite was printed, I was happy, but I was worried about how good he was. I wish they had just made a Llanowar elf zombie so black could still have what it needs.
Being efficient does not violate the color pie. Being efficient is hardly a reason to ban something in current Legacy either. DRS was powerful, but being powerful isn't what got it banned. Undermining the games mana system did.Quote:
Originally Posted by tsabo_tavoc
A green creature, that has an off color activation in order to hit instants/sorceries (the main target of the GY hate ability) is very different from a black mana ramp creature that has that ability as an on color activation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Brainstorm is a perfectly reasonable magic card without a mostly uninteractive engine card that replaces the mana spent and shuffles off the two cards put back. Without Fetchlands, playing Brainstorm is a high variance decision due to the risk of Brainstorm locking. Yes, there are plenty of ways to shuffle and keep Brainstorm as your most powerful cantrip, but you have to make key deckbuilding decisions which are a self-limiting (basic land targets), slower (ETB tapped clauses), highly specific (such as shuffling with Entomb), wasteful (followup cantrip to clear), etc... In all cases you are forced to present a Brainstorm-centric strategy that invites and promotes more interaction and decision points. Increased interaction and increased meaningful decision points correlate directly to improved health of a format. Fetchlands are linear, [mostly] risk-free~uninteractive engine cards with a very narrow list of optimal methods of exploitation whose use pushes out more strategies than they enable. The only objectively positive impact Fetchlands have across the entire format is keeping the cost per deck down, which is an entirely artificial construct created by the Reserved List.Quote:
Originally Posted by talpa
So yes, even with Fetchlands banned you could create a deck that is designed to unlock the potential of Brainstorm, much like a deck with deliberate design can unlock the potential of Standstill - the thing about that though: it doesn't always pan out, because it shouldn't always pan out - and that is okay~normal~healthy, and the better you are at the game, the less you suffer the negative consequences of variance.
Your comments about archetypes are attempting to define things like miracles as a true control deck (it's a Counterbalance combo deck) and presumably Czech Pile as midrange/control (it's good stuff, tap-out jammy jams). Brainstorm is just a good card, played in decks like these because it's good; it's hardly centric to their strategy because they don't actually have a strategy other than mindless value or cheese'ing wins off of Counterbalance (sure losing Bstorm hurts, but they tapped for UU and without any support have to potential to counter every single card an opponent casts forever b/c this card is somehow not banned) - it's not like these two don't run JTMS to maintain the effect of Brainstorm (were they to actually cut BS after a Fetchland ban). What you are perhaps looking for is the Delver archetype which would be most profoundly affected by Brainstorm without access to Fetchlands? It's not about liking or disliking different decks, Brainstorm is [like DRS was] overpowered/overperforming due solely to Fetchlands.
The argument against Fetchlands is not controversial, the logic is sound. The issue that despite these being the largest source of problems in legacy, WotC won't reprint duals.
just throwin' this out there:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
what if "fetching" a land cost two life instead of one?
That would be a considerable difference. That is a 100% increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Gitaxian Probe and Thoughtseize showed us how little players care for 2 or 4 lifepoints over the course of a game. Even if Fetches would cost 2 lifepoints, it would stop no one from using them. It maybe would affect Thoughtseize position and result into the card getting replaced by IoK, but not the deck design.Quote:
Originally Posted by apple713
DRS was never a color pie infringement. Elves of Deep Shadow and Gnarlroot Trapper exist, showing that green and black often help each other out in the mana department. Priest of Yawgmoth ramps mana all the way back during antiquities and Necra Disciple shows that black creatures can tap for any color as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brael
If undermining the games mana system was a problem, Birds of Paradise should be banned, which obviously is foolish to think.
Playing 1 Breeding Pool in my deck with 2 other tropical islands has cost me games beforeQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Making fetches cost 2 life would have a pretty big impact on the metagame I think (but I agree that 2-life fetchlands would likely still be played to a large extent)
This guy 'talpa' said:
and you repliedQuote:
So you are simply saying "I don't want midrange/control deck because... because. Or, because I don't like 'em!"
The only argument for banning fetchlands that dodges this is that they are by far the most ubiquitous form of shuffling in the game currently, and that shuffling is bad for the game because it's a time sink.Quote:
I don't get why you reply to a topic, if you didnt bother to read the arguments in the first place.
If you say
- Fetchlands should be banned because they make Brainstorm (and Ponder) TOO good
- Fetchlands should be banned because they make it TOO easy to play 2+ or 3+ colours
- Fetchlands should be banned because they make delve spells TOO good
- Fetchlands should be banned because they make top TOO good
Every single one of these 'TOOs' is totally subjective, but these arguments have been made in the thread as though they are factual. So talpa is right to criticise most of the discussion by paraphrasing it as "I don't want it... because I don't like em!"
I can just as easily suggest something like the following
- Fetchlands are good because they make manabases more consistent and therefore players lose games less frequently to being colourscrewed
- Fetchlands are good because they make cantrips more consistent and therefore players lose games less frequently to variance in general
- Fetchlands are good because they create interesting sequencing decisions around cantrips
- Fetchlands are good because they provide more deckbuilding options; enabling splash colours allows decks to adjust to the metagame. This comes at the cost of reduced consistency and becoming more vulnerable to Stifle and nonbasic hate, so there is an interesting tradeoff and it's not just PLAY ALL THE COLOURS
All of these reasons are also subjective ("I want it... because I like em"), but I acknowledge this. This is true for the banning or unbanning of ANY card. We can have a discussion about the relative positive and negative contributions that fetchlands make to the game
Unfortunately, too many people in this thread think they've uncovered some kind of hidden undeniable truth that fetchlands (or whatever flavour of the month card that 'needs' to go) are bad for the format and shouting louder will bring everybody over to their side. This is annoying because other idiots will drink this kool-aid without thinking about it, and if WOTC is receptive to this then the format becomes directed by the consensus of mindless complainers.
There isn't anything inherently wrong about suggesting that fetchlands need to be banned but at least be clear about what exactly it is that you want to achieve by doing this and why you think it would be good.
"Banning fetches would be good because it makes Brainstorm worse which makes Sneak and Show worse." What is the problem with Sneak and Show? Is Sneak and Show 'too good'? Is the play-pattern 'unfun'? If these are true should we not ban a card from SNS instead? Do other fun/fair decks become worse with a fetch ban? What decks would become good to fill the space of SNS? Are we confident that these would not be 'too good' or 'unfun'?
^this guy gets it. Mental missstep never was a problem, all colors do have counters. Red elemental blast ,bind, mana tithe ,dash hopes all show that the other colors can counter too.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
The legacy banlist is truely managed by foolish apes
Thank you for spending time explaining yourself. But I think this sentence, disguised as reasonable, is hardly beliavable. The game has intrinsic variance and there will always be a threshold where, if you reach a certain amount of "bad luck", that would determine the outcome of the game more than the skill of the best pro. (Apart from very specific archetypes) if you draw seven lands in a row, I'd bet against you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Brainstorm WITH SHUFFLE EFFECT can help reducing the magnitude of variance (but never eliminate it, and there aren't any guarantees) . I'd advocate the actual opposite of what you are saying: it's when the "bad luck" is reduced that the skill has the most relevance in the outcome of the game.
Not at all. I am making a general point, without a particular deck in mind. Just as you said, this could apply to other decks also (delver in your example). The variance argument I just made applies to every brainstorm deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
But I'd also say that a brainstorm nerf would affect fair, midrange, reactive decks far more than linear strategies. And by linear, I don't mean only combos (example: fast zoo, which years ago was a tier, and can afford to not run cantrips nor card selection at all). The reason is that the following are two very different situations:
1) when you need to find the right ANSWER for a threat AND get rid of the cards that are useless in the specific matchup you are playing. Maybe you even are under pressure and, because of being behind not only in board presence but also in tempo, you also need to be very efficient and can't afford to waste mana or a couple of draws.
2) when you need to find the right piece to execute your plan. There are combos that win resolving just one spell, so they don't actually care if their other 4-5 cards in hand are useless. It should follow that actually Show and Tell would be less weakened by keeping his useless redundant creatures in hand than the opponent drawing all his removals.
Also, without brainstorm all discard effects would become much more relevant, which again would favor combos (like ANT).
Actually, as kombatkiwi said, that's precisely what you and all the other "against fetchlands" bandwagon are doing. You are saying that you like decks that are linear, and/or that you like decks that have redundancies more than decks that have filtering options (because a consequence would be build decks with more copies of the relevant cards, more "4x" lists).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Make no mistakes, Brainstorm never was Ancestral Recall. It never was card ADVANTAGE, it only CAN BE card quality, and for that to work it has to have fetchland AND still it needs a certain amount of luck, because you can always draw three other useless card when you are trying to get rid of the two in your hand.
Actually it is, and the very fact that we are discussing proves that it is :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Again, as as kombatkiwi said, it's not like it is an "objective truth". The point you make is sound WHEN and IF you accept the goals you are trying to achieveQuote:
Originally Posted by Fox
in short, it's exactly a matter of personal preferences
EDIT:
I could also replyQuote:
If you say
- Fetchlands should be banned because they make Brainstorm (and Ponder) TOO good
- Fetchlands should be banned because they make it TOO easy to play 2+ or 3+ colours
- Fetchlands should be banned because they make delve spells TOO good
- Fetchlands should be banned because they make top TOO good
- Fetchlands are good because they make Brainstorm (and Ponder) good
- Fetchlands are good because they make it possible to play 2+ colours
- Fetchlands are good because they make delve spells playable (otherwise they would be pure garbage; and by the way which are those? gurmag and? nothing else? :tongue: and by the way, why would a mechanic like bedlam reveler or dark petition be less unfair than delve? :laugh: how is delve positioned in the "storm scale"? but wait, do we also have in the format the actual storm mechanic, and dredge? how are THOSE positioned in the "storm scale"?)
RE-EDIT
Actually this is a sentence that you need to PROVE if you want to keep saying that "it's not controversial". How can you even begin to account for this? It seems a pretty bold statement. Does enabling MORE colors make LESS strategies available? It would seem quite the opposite. Does having Canadian that predates on them with stifles or soldier with suppression field reduces possibile archetypes?Quote:
Fetchlands use pushes out more strategies than they enable
What is a strategy that doesn't exist BECAUSE fetchland exist? I'd say that if you can build a thing when you don't have a certain piece you certainly can build the same thing when that piece does exist... by simply not using it :laugh:
It sounds like you deny the FACT that the engine is dominating the format forever despite the clear numbers we have on that. 5/20 of the most played cards in the format are Fetchlands. 48% of decks run Polluted Delta. These numbers are not subjective and neither that many of the banned cards in recent years ran on the back of this engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by kombatkiwi
So I beg to pardon, that I am unwilling to respond to an obvious troll, who ignores a dozen pages of discussion, connected arguments and a decade of metagame data, just to claim its about "people don't liking certain cards" instead. Of course all at the same time, he drops a hypocritical sentence in regards to decks he likes and which need Brainstorm+Fetch to shuffle away chaff.
These describe the status quo and only lack an argument for MD graveyard hate to fit for an "UNBAN DRS" campaign. Is the third point a nod to #SkillIntensive?Quote:
Originally Posted by kombatkiwi
Funnily, they are not subjective but underline why the engine is the single most dominant one since forever and it has become outright silly to ban cards every year just because this engine fuels them.Quote:
Originally Posted by kombatkiwi
The last 10 or so pages are literally filled with great arguments in favor and against Fetchlands. You are late to the party ;)
Ok, start thinking about it yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by kombatkiwi
Why is BS+Ponder+FoW+Fetch the dominating core since Llorwyn? Is every deck running the same engine not a problem in regards to diversity? What puzzle piece does SnT (the concept), tempo (concept) Ponder, Brainstorm, DDT, TC, DRS, SDT, Miracle spells, etc all have in common? I do see the pattern.
Of course its up to everyone to look at it as a problem or an accepted given, but pls don't try to discredit the points made by using the lot of "idiot", "kool-aid", "mindless" and "complainers" in a single sentence of a counter-argument
It's been outlined for several pages, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by kombatkiwi
Your examples are a tribal card for a mostly green tribe and a bunch of green cards that generate mana. Do you really not see the difference between that and Underground Sea being the best card to open on for mana acceleration?Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
Note a single sentence about WHY "number of presence in decklists" should equate to "bad for the format".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
WOTC repeteadly said that the mere numbers are not a sufficient reason for a ban. That should be enough for all your nothingness.
Nobody said fetchlands aren't played. The point is that giving to this FACT (!!11!1!!!!) the SUBJECTIVE value of "BAD" is, exactly, subjective. We could, can, and DO say that it's "GOOD".
As I said in my first post here, arguing with a conspiracist like you clearly are is pointless, given that you are even serious when you laughably use the word "engine" for a cycle of 10 cards with an ability. Let's suggest WOTC to add "fetch" as a mechanic in the storm scale and give it the value of 11. LOL
Did you played in 1994? do you play old school? wow, let's play without fetchlands, what a wonderful experience for the manabases.
Oh, but you have clever arguments!
Don't know, why is Force of Will being played since Alliances? Why is brainstorm being played since Ice Age? Conspiracy!!11!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I played before the fetchlands were printed, maybe i should say the Fast Fetchlands and after they were printed in Onslaught and I agree that the game will be much better without them.Quote:
Originally Posted by talpa
You can easily play 5 color decks without fetchlands and win games. It did it long time ago.
Why is FoW is the best counterspell his cost is 1 life+blue cards, what happened when they printed a counterspell that cost 2 life -> game over. It also do not require developed board like other counterspells.
Why BS is played since Ice Age, before fetchlands it extended your hand, you could BS end of opp turn and you could plan better your next two turns you had access to probably 6+3 cards, after fetchlands you have a less powerfull ancestral recall with an access to 6+3+1 cards.
I will opt to remove the Fast Fetchlands from the game, but i understand it is a difficult and problematic topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kombatkiwi
Quote:
Originally Posted by talpa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRe8J4scGtUQuote:
Originally Posted by talpa