All B/R update speculation.

[Admiral_Arzar]

This. Especially given that the ability to aggregate and disseminate decklists will only increase, most of the "home-brew" aspect of this format will slowly go away regardless of whether Brainstorm is in the format or not.

Y'all have short memories. I mean, it wasn't THAT long ago that we had top eights with eight different decks and only 50% Brainstorm penetration.

[jrsthethird]

If you want to see a lot of original decks, perhaps competitive legacy isn't the best choice. The card pool is well-known and changes slowly.

People are starting to brew with Field of Dreams. There's still space that hasn't been explored. Banning Brainstorm lets many more creative options become viable.

[Quasim0ff]

People are starting to brew with Field of Dreams. There's still space that hasn't been explored. Banning Brainstorm lets many more creative options become viable.

And makes so many decks unviable.

[phonics]

Y'all have short memories. I mean, it wasn't THAT long ago that we had top eights with eight different decks and only 50% Brainstorm penetration.

It turns out when you print really good cards for an archetype over and over a lot more people play that archetype. Spell Pierce > sfm > delver + snapcaster > DRS young pyromancer > treasure cruise + dig through time. Really strong, splashable, efficient creatures and spells (most demanding being UU), some even on color (remember when having a high enough blue card count to be able to use fow effectively was a thing?). These cards put the cantrip cartel into the defacto engine in legacy, with threats as efficient as the ones we have now it is just a matter of taking the cantrip counter package and filling the blanks with any of the above to make a t1 deck. They may all have different names and color combinations but they are all the same deck, and last time I checked they were roughly a third of the meta. Consider that survival got the axe when survival decks were around 20% of the meta.

[Crimhead]

You seem to be of the 'there should be sufficiently clear criteria for B/R changes that the community in any format can look at tournament results and determine what cards (if any) will be banned in an upcoming announcement with a high degree of certianty' school of thought. I think this approach is problematic for a variety of reasons...
...Having to hold to rigid criteria also presents problems when dealing with cards that hurt people's play experience much more quickly than they cause large noticeable metagame shifts as is the case with Dig.

I'm becoming more sympathetic towards players who think the cantrip package is too strong/versatile. That said, I am extremely apprehensive about banning cards to enhance "people's play experiences". Market research has show that draw/go, prison lock, and fast combo decks have an adverse effect on people's play experience. This is why Modem has the turn four rule (which results in banned cards which do not threaten the strategic balance). This why these styles don't exist in Standard.

Even within the Legacy community there is a sentiment that aggro and aggro control decks are the heart of the game while other strategies are more novelty. You may have heard the complaint that if you don't play blue you have to play prison or combo? I've never heard anyone complain that if you don't play blue you're forced to play midrange or aggro - and this was largely true in Maverick's heyday.

I would hate for WotC/DCI to start banning cards in Legacy based on what they think meets their criteria for "fun".

It's possible to say that Dig violates a key rule of the format and should be banned as a result, but Dig's efficiency is very difficult to know a priori and then we'rre right back to the issue of having to generate data from tournaments (since its efficiency is, to a first approximation, proportional to how powerful a strategy chaining cantrips is and that's dependent on bunch of factors).

When Legacy was founded, OP card draw and tutors where banned by a "key rule" (there was no data, as the format was new). DTT could be banned for this reason.

If they ban BS (and possibly Ponder), I wold like them to announce that they have reassessed Legacy and feel that top tier filtering cantrips are too good/efficient; and have this be a new key rule for banning. Or they could take the angle that while 100% colour equilibrium is not a realistic goal, Legacy has reached a threshold where blue needs to be reigned in just a little.

Finally, being tied to objective criteria and unambiguous rules for B/R changes poses serious problems for format stewardship in Legacy and Vintage. Tournaments tend to be both rarer and smaller than for Modern and Standard and the monetary costs of large metagame shifts are much larger if people don't have access to the entire cardpool, so a significant fraction of the player base for Legacy and Vintage can find themselves locked out of the top tier for however long it takes for them to buy and trade for the pieces they need, and there's a chance that many people who aren't already substantially invested in the formats will just cash out or deepen their Modern/EDH collections rather than buying the additional Legacy/Vintage staple needed for their new top tier decks.

Unfortunately thanks to the reserve list this is only going to get worse over time. (On the upside the entry barrier keeps out a lot of newer players who would be attracted to the high power level but would ultimately demand WotC act to make the format more "fun).

But meta shifts will always be a problem in a format where a large amount of the player base can't afford to switch decks. I'm don't think this justifies banning cards because there has been a major change in the meta! But it does make a good case for WotC more actively supporting archetypes with no duals in the mana base - and to try to keep all ten duals closer in usefulness. This is a good argument for making colour balance more of a priority than it has been in the past (though I maintain that total equilibrium should never be the goal of the banned list).

It would also help if players would broaden their horizons. I suspect Aggro Loam (with Chalice) is better positioned than its numbers reflect, and that Maverick/Junk players are shunning the deck almost out of spite (they shouldn't have to run Chalice). Elves is another deck that does well compared to its meta-penetration (based on what limited data we have for it), and would probably do better if more players where to push it (and learn to play it well - it's a very tricky deck). MUD is also neglected IMO due to being a less popular style and the helpless feeling which comes with its losses. Merfolk is on the rise, and hopefully continues to thrive. Lands is a powerhouse - and despite the Tabernacle (of which there are many copies available online, including cheaper Italian versions) it is almost a budget deck compared to decks running a bunch of island-duals.

[atopebenidorm]

Please Legacy needs a change. Ban Terminus, SDT, and Show and tell. The first destroys ALL control and ALL creature decks and the second are a JOKE. Without this cards People could play other decks than Delver decks or ultrahate creature decks.

Metagame is: Delver, s&t and miracles, other decks are rogue.

And DTT is the next in banned list probably.

[Crimhead]

Metagame is: Delver, s&t and miracles, other decks are rogue.

Grixis control is doing well, as is Storm. Lands is a beast, and Merfolk is picking up a lot of steam. Calling these decks rogue is misinformed.

Also, rogue decks (actual rogue decks) still make up a significant portion of the meta and top brackets. It's wrong to dismiss them.

DTT can (and should) probably go, but I can't agree with banning S&T, Terminus, or SDT.

[atopebenidorm]

Grixis control is doing well, as is Storm. Lands is a beast, and Merfolk is picking up a lot of steam. Calling these decks rogue is misinformed.

Also, rogue decks (actual rogue decks) still make up a significant portion of the meta and top brackets. It's wrong to dismiss them.

DTT can (and should) probably go, but I can't agree with banning S&T, Terminus, or SDT.

Ok. 6 of 8 decks on top8´s are Delver, Show and tell or Miracle control. 2 of 8 are fast combos and hate decks.

[jrsthethird]

Ok. 6 of 8 decks on top8´s are Delver, Show and tell or Miracle control. 2 of 8 are fast combos and hate decks.

There are two cards that are 4-ofs in all of those decks. I don't think Show and Tell, Top, or Terminus are the issue.

[Crimhead]

Ok. 6 of 8 decks on top8´s are Delver, Show and tell or Miracle control. 2 of 8 are fast combos and hate decks.

Where are you getting these numbers? Goldfish records the following:

• Miracles - 12.39%
• Omnitel - 7.08%
• Grixis Delver - 13.27%
• Team America - 4.42%
• U/R Delver - 1.77%

How are you getting these decks to total 75% of the meta?

Last major event (SCG Premier IQ Somerset) had one Miracles deck, one Delver deck, and zero S&T.

Do you have any data to support your (seemingly wild) claim?

[Finn]

It does not matter if his statistics are accurate or not. One thing we can all agree upon is that cantrips fuel 3/4 of all top placing decks in Legacy, and that this percentage has been slowly rising for years. Cantrips enable those other cards and lots of others to do their thing consistently which is the reason why so many decks use them.
Full stop.

With that undisputed knowledge, a ban of Terminus, Show and Tell, or anything that is not a card-carrying member of the cantrip cartel is like trying to prevent E. coli to toddlers playing in a sewer by distributing antibiotic pills and telling them not to bother washing the shit off their hands.

[Stuart]

I'm becoming more sympathetic towards players who think the cantrip package is too strong/versatile . . . It would also help if players would broaden their horizons. I suspect Aggro Loam (with Chalice) is better positioned than its numbers reflect, and that Maverick/Junk players are shunning the deck almost out of spite (they shouldn't have to run Chalice). Elves is another deck that does well compared to its meta-penetration (based on what limited data we have for it), and would probably do better if more players where to push it (and learn to play it well - it's a very tricky deck). MUD is also neglected IMO due to being a less popular style and the helpless feeling which comes with its losses. Merfolk is on the rise, and hopefully continues to thrive. Lands is a powerhouse - and despite the Tabernacle (of which there are many copies available online, including cheaper Italian versions) it is almost a budget deck compared to decks running a bunch of island-duals.

Why be sympathetic? There are absolutely lots of viable options available to players who, for whatever reason, don't want to run U or cantrips. It's standard anti-Brainstorm dogma to say that the cantrip cartel locks out non-U strategies, but if people would just play any of the decks you've listed (or some others), they'd see that's not the case.

There's a quote in Admiral Arzar's signature pertaining to this. It's being used there as an argument against Brainstorm, as it's assuming that if you do play non-Brainstorm decks you're sacrificing your power for fun. In actuality, you can play those decks, have fun, and win. Hell, even Burn isn't horribly positioned right now!

Please Legacy needs a change. Ban Terminus, SDT, and Show and tell. The first destroys ALL control and ALL creature decks and the second are a JOKE. Without this cards People could play other decks than Delver decks or ultrahate creature decks.

Metagame is: Delver, s&t and miracles, other decks are rogue.

And DTT is the next in banned list probably.

There are two cards that are 4-ofs in all of those decks. I don't think Show and Tell, Top, or Terminus are the issue.

Why not just ban U fetches and duals? They're enabling Delver, Miracles, SnT, etc to splash all the options available in the game. They also represent ~50% of the meta. [Note: I understand why this isn't a valid argument, but it feels very similar to the argument against cantrips. It's saying that "I don't like what U can do, so its tools should be banned."]

[testing32]

Why be sympathetic? There are absolutely lots of viable options available to players who, for whatever reason, don't want to run U or cantrips.

Is wanting to win a good enough reason?

[Cartesian]

It does not matter if his statistics are accurate or not.

Actually, I think it does.

Cantrips enable those other cards and lots of others to do their thing consistently which is the reason why so many decks use them.

Well, duh.

Consistency is great for the game, because it reduces luck, and enables new combos, and synergies. We should ask for more consistency across all colors, not less by banning the best (admittedly blue) consistency tools.

[Dice_Box]

Consistency is great for the game, because it reduces luck, and enables new combos, and synergies. We should ask for more consistency across all colors, not less by banning the best (admittedly blue) consistency tools.

We all know this is a pipe dream. Wizards current philosophy kills this hope outright. You can ask, but I will put down good money on the answer being "See that door, yea, use it."

[Stuart]

Is wanting to win a good enough reason?

No, it's not. Everyone wants to win, but no one is entitled to win. Depending on your perspective, you need to either play well enough to win, or use a deck that will win for you.

There isn't a lack of options of decks that can win if played well enough. If you don't believe that, I'd recommend either playing one of the decks you think can win or changing your mindset.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Why be sympathetic? There are absolutely lots of viable options available to players who, for whatever reason, don't want to run U or cantrips. It's standard anti-Brainstorm dogma to say that the cantrip cartel locks out non-U strategies, but if people would just play any of the decks you've listed (or some others), they'd see that's not the case.

There's a quote in Admiral Arzar's signature pertaining to this. It's being used there as an argument against Brainstorm, as it's assuming that if you do play non-Brainstorm decks you're sacrificing your power for fun. In actuality, you can play those decks, have fun, and win. Hell, even Burn isn't horribly positioned right now!

No, there's one. Our own DTB forum has one tier-one non-blue deck. In the current meta, you are handicapping yourself playing anything else and the numbers back it up.

That quote by maharis was incredibly prescient. Imagine if suddenly the next GP (a la the Dota international) had a multimillion dollar prize pool. The meta would likely be over 90% blue, if not close to 100%. There are plenty of people out there who don't play blue because they don't enjoy it. But when you get down to brass tacks, playing it gives you the best chance to win if real money is on the line. And Burn? Are you joking?

[Finn]

Well, duh.

Please do not mock me when I explain simple ideas. Some people need to be told that which should be obvious.
Like this:

Consistency is great for the game, because it reduces luck, and enables new combos, and synergies. We should ask for more consistency across all colors, not less by banning the best (admittedly blue) consistency tools.

If additional consistency is a universal good why not let us all just select our opening 7 and then dictate which card we draw each turn? There is in fact a balance to be struck.

See, in this case a person clearly does not understand the simplest of game mechanics. So I am giving this person an education on the topic so that we can have a meaningful discu...

Oh, wait...it's you.
Oh, my.

To be clear, we want the field leveled. Right now it is certainly not which is the reason people are opting for blue in such high percentages - around 75-80%. The numbers have backed that up for a long time. There is no dispute on this subject. Whether one person shows us questionable stats on this topic or not, the facts remain because there is just so much data already.
************************
Also, Stuart, I can not piece together what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that there are plenty of nonblue decks that can win consistently?

[theBloody]

Hey DTT you scared, bruh? You should be

I'm not really seeing anything else getting banned. Are Wizards brave enough to pull an unban lever? I hope.

[Stuart]

No, there's one. Our own DTB forum has one tier-one non-blue deck. In the current meta, you are handicapping yourself playing anything else and the numbers back it up.

That quote by maharis was incredibly prescient. Imagine if suddenly the next GP (a la the Dota international) had a multimillion dollar prize pool. The meta would likely be over 90% blue, if not close to 100%. There are plenty of people out there who don't play blue because they don't enjoy it. But when you get down to brass tacks, playing it gives you the best chance to win if real money is on the line. And Burn? Are you joking?

That's a fine perspective to take. Personally, I'm not crazy about data and much prefer personal experience (though that does open me up to the whole "anecdotal" accusation). My experience via a variety of shops and tournaments is that the numbers don't follow our DTB, MtgGoldfish's meta breakdown, etc. People are playing and winning/losing with a wide variety of decks. I fully understand and believe that at the top tables at the biggest tournaments we're seeing a huge concentration of cantrip decks. However, B/R decisions effect local metas too, where I haven't found cantrips to be so problematic.

Likewise, it's possible that in a multimillion dollar tournament you'd see all blue. However 1) that tournament probably will never exist, and 2) as is, it seems silly to be playing this game for the money.

And yeah, I feel like Burn's positioned decently Of the DTB, I'd say it's got a fair-to-good matchup against most Delver variants and Lands. Miracles isn't the worst, either. Omni and ANT seem like the tough ones. But I could be totally off base there.

Also, Stuart, I can not piece together what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that there are plenty of nonblue decks that can win consistently?

Sorry if I was unclear. That's basically it. I'm saying you don't have to play Blue to win, and that regardless of what deck you play, it's not really productive or smart to expect to win. You need to either play the best you can, change your deck/approach, or be comfortable with not winning consistently.