All B/R update speculation.

[taconaut]

The thing I don't get is the hate for cantrips. It always feels to me like complaining that a dinner is bad because you don't like forks - like, the point of the dinner is the food, not what you use to eat it, and in eternal formats, cantrips are what we play so we get to eat what we want. I get that brainstorm is on another level, and maybe it's banworthy, but some people here talk about it like it shot their dog. I'd rather play against brainstorm every round and have both people actually get to play than have to ever play against chalice or get mana screwed again.

[Megadeus]

Because 87.5% of a top 32 at a GP is completely absurd and basically invalidates the deck building process and is a completely broken card.

[Lava Snacks]

Julian Knab‏
@itsJulian23

One guy still played Miracles at #mkmsfrankfurt including Sensei's Diving Top. Had to replace Top with 4 Basics when it was discovered.
https://twitter.com/itsJulian23/stat...99202761306112

The judges must have felt like people bringing news of a death. Can't imagine the sudden change in the look on the guy's face.

[Fjaulnir]

Because 87.5% of a top 32 at a GP is completely absurd and basically invalidates the deck building process and is a completely broken card.

2016-2017 GPS in reverse order:

GP Louisville:
Brainstorm: 24/32
Ponder: 22/32
DRS: 16/32

GP Chiba:
Brainstorm: 24/32
Ponder: 18/32
DRS: 4/32

GP Prague:
Brainstorm: 28/32
Ponder: 24/32
DRS: 8/32

GP Columbus:
Brainstorm: 28/32
Ponder: 20/32
DRS: 4/32

So Ponder had been pretty much approaching Brainstorm saturation, while DRS was nowhere near that. Sure Miracles ban can change things (as they occupied 11/32 of these Top 8 slots = 33%; admittedly DRS occupied 8/24 = 25%, but that supported varied archetypes as Elves, Shardless or Grixis Delver), but in that case we'd have to wait for actual results instead of panicky hype predictions.

Admittedly, I have been on the "ban Ponder to nerf blue cantrip shell's consistency if Brainstorm is untouchable" train for a while already. Gets rid of lame ass Sneaky Show/Omnitell as the current 10% deck (they're really not gonna run Serum Visions... like someone suggested here as a Ponder replacement?), and other decks may adopt Preordain but that's still not gonna get them as far so the succes of decks trying Preordain over Ponder will be lower = less lagging behind in consistency for nonblue.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Because 87.5% of a top 32 at a GP is completely absurd and basically invalidates the deck building process and is a completely broken card.

So you want FoW banned too?

[Purple Blood]

The point is, if ubiquity is why it should go, then you have brainstorm, ponder, and probably force that are more ubiquitous than deathrite. However it seems that raw ubiquity isn't the only factor for bans

Aren't we using a faulty metric for ubiquity if we're just looking at what number of X card was played in a given tournament. It shouldn't be raw percentages but rather what percentage of on color decks use that particular card. We can also look at what percentage of "off color" decks are splashing for the card.

I'm guessing the number comes out about even and close to 100% for both cards in that comparison.

[Purple Blood]

The point of Legacy is not to put everything we don't like on the list, it's to put what we can't contain on the list. Right now that means leave everything alone.

I don't know if "can't contain" is going to be the right way to look at whether or not to ban a card like Brainstorm. Brainstorm isn't part of some degenerate combo a la SDT. It's just a super powerful card that boosts your consistency plus some ancillary benefits.

If WotC was going to ban Brainstorm I'm sure the reasoning (at least publically stated reasoning) would be more along the lines of: "all blue decks in Legacy are forced to play four Brainstorms. This requirement is constraining deck building and making the format more homogenous. We think banning Brainstorm will lead to more interesting deck building choices by players."

I've read reasoning like this from them in the past when they got rid of cards that basically fit into every deck that could make the right mana.

DRS is a bit different of a case because he's more of a swiss army knife. Ramp, main deck GY hate, a bit of reach, a bit of life gain. All for one hybrid mana. Nevertheless, I can't imagine a situation where you "can't contain" DRS or its part of an oppressive deck in the same vain as SDT or other enablers that have been banned. So the decision to ban or not bad has come from a totally different line of thought.

[maharis]

Aren't we using a faulty metric for ubiquity if we're just looking at what number of X card was played in a given tournament. It shouldn't be raw percentages but rather what percentage of on color decks use that particular card. We can also look at what percentage of "off color" decks are splashing for the card.

I'm guessing the number comes out about even and close to 100% for both cards in that comparison.

Storm: Blue and black deck. 4 Brainstorm, 0 DRS
Infect: Green and blue deck. 4 Brainstorm, 0 DRS
12-post: Green and blue deck. 4 Brainstorm, 0 DRS
Reanimator: Blue and black deck. 4 Brainstorm, 0 DRS
Loam: Black, green, red and white deck. 1 DRS

There are far more tier 1/2 black and green decks that don't want DRS than tier 1/2 blue decks that don't want 4 Brainstorms.

That's not to say that either DRS or Brainstorm should be untouchable, but there is no comparison. Not playing DRS in your black or green deck is far more defensible than not playing Brainstorm in your blue deck. Even a midrange deck like Maverick or Nic Fit may not want max DRS because of the impact on Knight or the corner case where no one fetches or wastes and the acceleration doesn't work.

The DRS + fetchlands + cantrips engine is disheartening because of the mockery it makes of the mana system, but taking DRS out of that equation isn't going to change too much.

[Dice_Box]

DRS is a bit different of a case because he's more of a swiss army knife. Ramp, main deck GY hate, a bit of reach, a bit of life gain. All for one hybrid mana. Nevertheless, I can't imagine a situation where you "can't contain" DRS or its part of an oppressive deck in the same vain as SDT or other enablers that have been banned. So the decision to ban or not bad has come from a totally different line of thought.

With respect, I will not be commenting on Brainstorm again today.

DRS, I think it's a card that on everyone's mind with no legitimate reason right now. The debate on a ban is beyond foolish, not because it is or is not warranted, but because no one else had a clue what the format will look like this time next week. Educated guesses sure, but my weatherman can make an educated guess it will be sunny next week and my Archery class can still get rained out.

My issue with the current "Debate" is that I don't get what we are debating. What evidence are you going to use? The evidence from last month, back when the format looked dramatically different than it does now? What about the evidence from an amount of events I can count on a hand? We are doing nothing of actual benefit here.

And the odd part is that I know how it sounds coming from me, the man who has asked for years to change things. But here is the rub, I got what I wanted. You know what you do when you get a new toy for your birthday? You play with it. You don't, while holding the wrapping in your hands, make Christmas demands.

[Purple Blood]

With respect, I will not be commenting on Brainstorm again today.

DRS, I think it's a card that on everyone's mind with no legitimate reason right now. The debate on a ban is beyond foolish, not because it is or is not warranted, but because no one else had a clue what the format will look like this time next week. Educated guesses sure, but my weatherman can make an educated guess it will be sunny next week and my Archery class can still get rained out.

My issue with the current "Debate" is that I don't get what we are debating. What evidence are you going to use? The evidence from last month, back when the format looked dramatically different than it does now? What about the evidence from an amount of events I can count on a hand? We are doing nothing of actual benefit here.

And the odd part is that I know how it sounds coming from me, the man who has asked for years to change things. But here is the rub, I got what I wanted. You know what you do when you get a new toy for your birthday? You play with it. You don't, while holding the wrapping in your hands, make Christmas demands.

Think we're in agreeance. I just chimed in to say the reasoning/methodology being thrown around is faulty.

Just to play devil's advocate, if their logic is "we want to ban because its overly ubiquitous" do they really need new data? Nothing is going to stop certain cards that fit into every deck from being played. The whole meta could change but those cards will still be there.

[danyul]

You know what you do when you get a new toy for your birthday? You play with it. You don't, while holding the wrapping in your hands, make Christmas demands.

[UnderwaterGuy]

My issue with the current "Debate" is that I don't get what we are debating. What evidence are you going to use? The evidence from last month, back when the format looked dramatically different than it does now?

Now that the genie is out of the bottle and we know that complaints are the primary driver of bans there is no more debate. Whichever side wotc hears complaining the most will get their way. I don't think Top should have been banned or that anything should be banned in the foreseeable future but people are right to bitch about whatever cards they dislike because we're learned that it works.

In my opinion, people that want to ban Brainstorm are idiots but I wouldn't "debate" about that. There is no common ground and there is no room for compromise. It's just about getting your opponents' cards banned. Blue-haters want Brainstorm banned, creature-haters want DRS banned, etc.

You got one of your vindictive bans and shouldn't have expected everyone else to stop wanting their vindictive bans. There are people that hate DRS as much as you hate Top and Brainstorm (or whatever you want banned). This is not a "new toy" situation. Some of your playmates had their toys taken away from them and now they want to cry to the teacher and get other kids' toys taken away too.

[Hanni]

We should ban Swords to Plowshares, because it's ubiquitous as removal when running white. We should ban Lightning Bolt, because it's ubiquitous as removal when running red.

The fact is, this spiral never ends. There is always going to be a card that is best at what it does. Do you ban everything into oblivion until the power level of Legacy is on par with Standard?

Cards should not be banned for ubiquity. Cards should be banned only when they are oppressive to the format, and significantly impact the health of that format. Deathrite Shaman does not have that sort of impact. It's a powerful card, but it most certainly is not broken, and it's not warping the format around it. Graveyard strategies are still successful (see Lands and Reanimator). Decks don't have to either run it themselves, or warp themselves to run hate for it in order to be competitive. There are tons of commonly played cards that deal with it.

TL;DR Stop whining about banning cards. If you want to play in a neutered format, go play Modern. The only cards that should be banned in Legacy are the truly broken and degenerate cards.

[Crimhead]

Two take aways from all this DRS nonsense:

1. There will always be something in Legacy being complained about loudly. Be it Miracles, Cantrips, CotV, or you name it. Even during a major shake-up people call for bans. Lets hope the new CEO, sudden change of heart regarding STD, and unprecidented Standard bans do not mean WotC are "listening" to players.
   
2. There is a large and vocal segment of the community that like to evaluate the meta first and formost by its fair decks (particularly midrange). The cantrip ban camp and DRS ban camp differ most by which decks they ignore! Of course there is overlap.
   If I'm being told I need to play cantrips to compete, Lands, D&T, Eldrazi, Elves, B/R Reanimator, and possibly Burn are being downplayed (or outright denied). If DRS is the card people are "forced" to play, it's Storm, S&T, Reanimator, Lands, D&T, and Eldrazi that apparently do not exist.

Business as usual, I guess.

[Jander78]

We should ban Swords to Plowshares, because it's ubiquitous as removal when running white. We should ban Lightning Bolt, because it's ubiquitous as removal when running red.

The fact is, this spiral never ends. There is always going to be a card that is best at what it does. Do you ban everything into oblivion until the power level of Legacy is on par with Standard?

Cards should not be banned for ubiquity. Cards should be banned only when they are oppressive to the format, and significantly impact the health of that format. Deathrite Shaman does not have that sort of impact. It's a powerful card, but it most certainly is not broken, and it's not warping the format around it. Graveyard strategies are still successful (see Lands and Reanimator). Decks don't have to either run it themselves, or warp themselves to run hate for it in order to be competitive. There are tons of commonly played cards that deal with it.

TL;DR Stop whining about banning cards. If you want to play in a neutered format, go play Modern. The only cards that should be banned in Legacy are the truly broken and degenerate cards.

#banlightningbolt

[Dice_Box]

Now that the genie is out of the bottle and we know that complaints are the primary driver of bans there is no more debate. Whichever side wotc hears complaining the most will get their way.
Trusting what they say is a mistake. This is the same company that said Mythic Rares would not be chase cards but thematically driven items. Then we got a double striking Lackey. That wasn't exactly Mythic in feel. Also if bans were driven mostly by complaints I would have lost both Street Wrath out of Modern and Thorn of Amethyst out of Vintage last week.

In my opinion, people that want to ban Brainstorm are idiots but I wouldn't "debate" about that. There is no common ground and there is no room for compromise. It's just about getting your opponents' cards banned. Blue-haters want Brainstorm banned, creature-haters want DRS banned, etc.
The reason there is no room for debate on this topic is because both sides are in trenches. It's a partisan issue now. Sometimes it's best to just nail your colours to the mast and move on. It's got nothing to do with idiocy, liking or hating a colour or creature. It's well past any of that.

That said, stating people are idiots because they disagree with you is not a good comment to make when also commenting about how debate is useless.

You got one of your vindictive bans and shouldn't have expected everyone else to stop wanting their vindictive bans.
I have no vindictive feelings. My meta is Nic Fit and DnT. My comments about Top had little in the way of personal anger or pain attached these days and more to do with my dismay at what was happening in large events. These being the only Legacy I get to be involved with of any real substance because of my isolated location. I no wish to tear something down, I wish to see change for the better on streams and in the decks that ruled the format.

There are people that hate DRS as much as you hate Top and Brainstorm (or whatever you want banned).
I would argue that hating something and wanting it banned are not the same thing. I hate DRS, it's a shit stain mistake of a design made to combat another shit stain of a mistake but I don't want it banned. Not without evidence it should be.

[Ronald Deuce]

Why are people so ban-happy to begin with? I was glad to see Miracles take a dive, but I still didn't like the idea of banning stuff from it at all—much less a card that had utility in other decks. Bans are a necessary evil, not a tool for building a metagame.

Also, I'm equally surprised/unimpressed that eight days after a really major ban, it's already back to "ban X or Y because it's too good." And awaaay we goooo!

I'm still curious as to whether people thought Top was causing slow-play problems in other decks, or whether it was just Miracles.

Speaking of the Top ban, I'm interested to hear what people who used to run it are up to these days—not just that people are setting old decks on fire, but what people are doing to modify lists that used to run the card. Is this the appropriate thread?

[EDIT: Realizing that the "new metagame" thread is probably a better place.]

[Megadeus]

Eh. Cruise, Dig, and Top are all paying for Brainstorms sins. All of those things would be in the format if brainstorm weren't around.

[janchu88]

Regarding the time/slowplay issues, having Played at mkm series this weekend, its been a Long time since i Played such a fluent tournament in the past. Shortly after time was announced we had New pairings (Remember, 440 players...) , i actually think this really boils down to no topsturbation

[Hanni]

Eh. Cruise, Dig, and Top are all paying for Brainstorms sins. All of those things would be in the format if brainstorm weren't around.

I'm pretty sure I'd still play all of those cards even if Brainstorm was banned. I think what you meant to say was fetchlands. Fetchlands are the reason those cards are as strong as they are/were.