All B/R update speculation.

[Barook]

Copycat way already 40% of all 5-0 decks before the B&R announcement. Now they panic and emergency ban because it's still 40% two days later? Bullshit.

My guess is that prerelease and preorder numbers for the latest set came in and were catastrophic, so they had to change things asap, especially with sale numbers down in Q1 2017.

[Smuggo]

I think they'd be better off just leaving the format alone even if it is a two-deck affair (I mean, it's usually no more than a 3-deck format anyway so who cares?). Seems this way they are making themselves look like a total shambles and pissing off their customers who are constantly having to chop and change their decks even more often than they would do normally.

Also, dunno why they seem to hate anything that isn't just slapping each other in face with creatures for standard these days. There just seems to be so few opportunities for any kind of interesting interactions and if there is one it now gets banned.

[catmint]

B & R Announcement June 14:

Standard: no changes

Modern: no changes

Legacy: Julian is banned from playing Elves.

[bruizar]

Copycat way already 40% of all 5-0 decks before the B&R announcement. Now they panic and emergency ban because it's still 40% two days later? Bullshit.

My guess is that prerelease and preorder numbers for the latest set came in and were catastrophic, so they had to change things asap, especially with sale numbers down in Q1 2017.

it's exactly this behavior that pushes magic players to eternal or worst, hearthstone.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I am salty about that reasoning for the Mystical Tutor ban, not the ban itself.

An old weak gray man on the hill
Alone, sad he looks down, down the vale


I'm very close to being sad that I cannot play Magic: the Gathering anymore, at least not with the cards that I could be calling my own. The SDT affair is the most interesting B&R decision in years, and it will lead to an explosion in deck-building creativity, metagame shifts and tournaments attendance.

I really like the elegance of WotC's solution. While crippling the non-Mircles deck was bad side effect of the banning, it's still lovely that the other two "offenders" (CB and Terminus) are unharmed and there's a possibility for the archetype (and its very original cards) to survive.

While Terminus might be a cold meat, and God bless that it happened, Counterbalance is still usable, and as it is an extraordinarily interesting card (that may finally serve its duty without being misused due to the 2nd part of the lock), I'm glad that it remains.
It may become a part of "non-broken" prison style deck, a type of CB.dec that finally needs some tweaking (similarly to how other prison decks need to be builded, be it CotV/Stasis/whatever) and doesn't just get jammed into the Best Cards pile.

I know that Scroll Rack (and Tax/Rack as an archetype) is pretty far from SDT/Miracles, but that's exactly what I like about the idea. Instead of having a CB/Top hard lock that needs zero deckbuilding concession to apply, a lock that is kinda easy to operate, and one that leads to enormous number of non-games, now there'd be a "soft" lock that is operated through main phase Ponders and/or JTMS activations (that pre-emptively set the top card in an anticipation of opponent's possible plays, something that calls for the skills that only a few Cabal Therapy masters posses), with a backup of one and only Scroll Rack activation, maybe with an emergency Brainstorm.

The inability to flush the board clean during the "announce attackers" phase is a real plus, yet the one-mana Wrath is still viable, although its chances are lowered.

[Ronald Deuce]

Can't they analyze data BEFORE their regular B&R announcement?

This is the main question that leads me to think it's not a bad thing that they listened to the players on Top. Assuming, of course, that they actually listened to players.

I don't know; their reasoning was flimsy this time around, too.

Also, yeah; 48 hours' worth of data? Really? Rounds of Standard don't finish in 48 hours.

[Crimhead]

B & R Announcement June 14:

Standard: no changes

Modern: no changes

Legacy: Julian is banned from playing Elves.

I don't think they'll ban Julian till the 16th. They need to gather some data, right?

[Crimhead]

This is the main question that leads me to think it's not a bad thing that they listened to the players on Top. Assuming, of course, that they actually listened to players.

There's real danger in listening to players. Players are usually divided, (and almost always self-interested) with the least content making the most noise. And there ks always something in this format people are screaming to have banned. Look what has been happening in Vintage.

I very much hope SDT was banned for tournament data and not player feedback.

[Megadeus]

The difference in Vintage is that they seem to be weighing heavily on one heavily inbred small metagame in the VSL. If the legacy league on MODO takes off it's a great thing, but I really hope that because we still have some large legacy tourney every month or two that any future decisions wouldn't rest solely on the Legacy MODO league

[Crimhead]

really hope that because we still have some large legacy tourney every month or two that any future decisions wouldn't rest solely on the Legacy MODO league

That's my hope too. But I can't help thinking that Miracles was (so I heard) far more dominant online than in paper.

I don't mind the Top ban. But I would mind if WotC starts getting hands on with the banned list.

[H]

This is the main question that leads me to think it's not a bad thing that they listened to the players on Top. Assuming, of course, that they actually listened to players.

I don't know; their reasoning was flimsy this time around, too.

Also, yeah; 48 hours' worth of data? Really? Rounds of Standard don't finish in 48 hours.

How many times does it need to be shown that the "explanations" in the B&R announcement is solely PR pitch? Spin, nothing more. This doesn't mean it can't have elements of truth, or be based on some facts. You don't need their explanations, you have logic you can use. Somewhat valuable life lesson: look what people do, not what they say.

I'm pretty sure they saw Zvi's article and realized what was about to happen. Kuddos for at least realizing they fucked up and fixing it.

[Claymore]

That's my hope too. But I can't help thinking that Miracles was (so I heard) far more dominant online than in paper.

Noticed this awhile back:

So for the first time, I got a Miracles list posted as a 5-0 in a league for which I didn't even go 5-0. Apparently, this has also happened with another Miracles player I know. Is there something about the MTGO posting algorithm that somehow may cause Miracles list to be over-represented among these 5-0 lists?

(I have also had several 5-0s for which the lists were never posted. I think these were usually with decks other than Miracles.)

They only post either a random assortment of 5-0 or 4-1 decks, or they curate the list. I remember awhile back they started to restrict the data that came out of MTGO dailies because formats were being solved too fast. It likely was dominant and everywhere online, I've heard it was a cheap deck.

[Dice_Box]

I don't mind the Top ban. But I would mind if WotC starts getting hands on with the banned list.

I have to agree with you here. (Dont let it get to your head ) Right now the talk that DRS is next feels premature as fuck to me. For a long time I have had one deck in my sights, that target has been taken down. I have come to understand that Brainstorm is not going to be touched and thus no longer care to think on it. Since the only other card I feel really needs to go won't be, I am hoping we have a long period of stability with unbannings marking the large events that occur.

To the comments that DRS is next: This is Legacy, wait until at lest we have reports what you feel is going to happen has played out. A year to 18 months I think is a good amount of time to work out what comes of this.

The difference in Vintage is that they seem to be weighing heavily on one heavily inbred small metagame in the VSL. If the legacy league on MODO takes off it's a great thing, but I really hope that because we still have some large legacy tourney every month or two that any future decisions wouldn't rest solely on the Legacy MODO league

We also as a format do not have a single or small group of voices that speak for us with broad appeal. We have our people that we as a community look to, but they are not really seen from the outside as voices for the format. I would happily talk of Julian and Stephen as equals in their respective fields and weight within the formats they have become titans of, outside of the formats I would argue Stephen's voice reaches out a greater distance that Julian's does. Granted, I speak as an insider of both the Legacy and Vintage formats so I may be wrong, but that is my personal perception.

So I am not sure that the VLS field itself gets more weight so much as the voices that come from it reach out past their epicenter. Legacy, without this broadcast, has a hamstrung reach that Vintage has found and delivered. This is not not because of a lack of voices worthy of the role though. I do not like personally Joe Lossett for some of his behaviour on this site but I do respect his views on the format. I would be happy if he was a voice that, aside with Julian, Reid, Bob Huang and should she wish to come back and speak, Feline Longmore all were public voices for us. I know that there are others too, Long for example, but I can not list everyone who I feel would be fit for this role. We would be here all day. I would also state these are not all people to whom I agree, but one can not have true change in an echo chamber.

This is a format I love, and it is a format I wish I could have more of a voice in. I do my part once a month as a small scale data cruncher, but as a man who can not write articles, (I have tried 3 times this year and I never manage to) can not make events outside of my local sphere and can not even claim I am a good player I must lend my voice to others to carry. At this stage I feel like the people whom that weight must rest on are doing what they can, but until some time as a true megaphone rests in their hands we are still going to sit without equals to the VSL and its influence.

[Lemnear]

I don't think they'll ban Julian till the 16th. They need to gather some data, right?

Following the logic of Tom LaPille, he just needs to lose against Julian in the MTGO practice room

[DarthVicious]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mkd6JkfI4yk

It's just too perfect for the current state of things.

[Ronald Deuce]

How many times does it need to be shown that the "explanations" in the B&R announcement is solely PR pitch? Spin, nothing more. This doesn't mean it can't have elements of truth, or be based on some facts.

That'd actually be even worse.

You don't need their explanations, you have logic you can use. Somewhat valuable life lesson: look what people do, not what they say.

Don't worry; I'm one step ahead of you there (I follow politics and live in America). I don't think they'd lie, though; they don't stand to gain anything, especially when people get so angry about their decision-making.

[H]

That'd actually be even worse.

What would be worse?

Don't worry; I'm one step ahead of you there (I follow politics and live in America). I don't think they'd lie, though; they don't stand to gain anything, especially when people get so angry about their decision-making.

I never said they lie in the "explanations," just that they are PR statements. Like any other PR statements, they are meant to spin something. It's true, they have no need to lie. They do, however, have a "need" to not state the entire truth and there are plenty of reasons why this is the case, none of which need be nefarious, but rather pragmatic. Just because you spin something, doesn't mean it wasn't true, or necessary, just means you are going to put it into a context which may be simplified, exaggerated, imagined, pragmatic, etc., when the fact of the matter is the answer is subtle and nuanced and much harder to explain.

My hunch has been, for years now, that "data" means little in the grand scheme of Wizard's B&R decisions. While I have no way to confirm this, anecdotal evidence, like their usual "explanations" gives me the strong impression that decisions are made on feelings and perceptions. Data may be used, or not, but the process is far less scientific than most would think. Like all feelings and intuitions, they'll be hard to fully rationalize, even when correct. This is why all the "explanations" we get as usually somewhat incoherent and somewhat illogical. They are post-hoc rationalizations of intuition-based decisions. That doesn't make them wrong, just makes them non-data driven.

[PirateKing]

You're correct H, read through the spin and it's entirely:

CARDNAME is banned.
Explanation: We're a business and we believe this will make us more money over time

Anything on top of that is just koolaid

[Crimhead]

They were clever to give us two explanations and claim it was a combination of factors.

One explanation is easy to argue against. The combined effect of two unrelated factors is more vague, and less vulnerable to critique.

[vnayin]

At least they are trying now with the B&R explanations. I was bored and looked up the B&R when Earthcraft got hit to see if it actually was dominant at the time and found this one line gem.

http://www.wizards.com/dci/main.asp?...cted_List_0303