All B/R update speculation.

[Zombie]

Leyline is an awful card btw. Nothing funnier than mulliganing and having an extra layer of lottery to whether the keep is amazing or half bricks without the (usually Griseltard) opponent having to resolve anything.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

We get it, anything that doesn't fit into your rigidly defined notion of fun is awful.

[apple713]

it may have been pointed out already but this poll was actually right that the most bannable card in legacy was SDT. It got the axe before any of the others.

[Megadeus]

it may have been pointed out already but this poll was actually right that the most bannable card in legacy was SDT. It got the axe before any of the others.

Goyf is next!

[apple713]

Goyf is next!

Although it doesnt fit the criteria for a banned card it does significantly limit design space.

[Barook]

it may have been pointed out already but this poll was actually right that the most bannable card in legacy was SDT. It got the axe before any of the others.

The poll is there for historical reasons and all, but it would be pretty interesting to see what an updated poll would bring as results, considering Countertop makes up over 71% of the old result and Goyf got various answers (Abrupt Decay, RIP, Fatal Push, DRS to an extend) printed by now.

[mistercakes]

The poll is there for historical reasons and all, but it would be pretty interesting to see what an updated poll would bring as results, considering Countertop makes up over 71% of the old result and Goyf got various answers (Abrupt Decay, RIP, Fatal Push, DRS to an extend) printed by now.

also forgetting TNN, Gurmag Angler, and arguably YP.

[Megadeus]

Although it doesnt fit the criteria for a banned card it does significantly limit design space.

Although I was joking, I agree with you. I hate how it invalidates so many creatures because of how powerful it is. Though at this point if a creature that seemingly does "nothing" in a fair deck besides attacking and blocking were to go I'd much rather see TNN go as it's much more difficult to interact with and invalidates probably more cards than the goof at this point

[non-inflammable]

No other card invalidates entire colors as well as brainstorm...

A long time ago, when a card was restricted in vintage it was banned in legacy.
Since that no longer holds true, why can't we restrict cards in legacy?
It would also be easy to unban several seemingly broken cards but also restrict them to see how they impact the metagame.

[Crimhead]

Since that no longer holds true, why can't we restrict cards in legacy?
It would also be easy to unban several seemingly broken cards but also restrict them to see how they impact the metagame.

Because we'd end up playing Vintage? Restricting instead of banning problematic cards is the only difference between the formats.

[non-inflammable]

Because we'd end up playing Vintage? Restricting instead of banning problematic cards is the only difference between the formats.

When I say, "unban and then restrict seemingly broken cards", I'm referring to earthcraft and mind twist ; not Power 9 or it's ilk.

but again, what says in legacy there can't be restricted cards?

[Mr. Safety]

I just have a tough time to see how locking opponents out from playing the game with chalice, resistors and landdestruction is "fair" in regards of "having an Interactive game".

If the opponent can't resolve a spell because its either countered by Chalice, unplayable because your opponent attacks your mana or you die before you get to play your spells, the way barely makes a difference.

Re-read that quote please. I specifically said the only one in that list that could be called fair was DnT. I was mentioning non-blue decks specifically as a way to reinforce that most competitive fair decks are blue based.

Reading FTW.

[Crimhead]

When I say, "unban and then restrict seemingly broken cards", I'm referring to earthcraft and mind twist ; not Power 9 or it's ilk.

That adds an element of complication. How do they decide when a card is ban worthy vs restricted worthy?

but again, what says in legacy there can't be restricted cards?

WotC have said they don't like restricting cards in general because puts too much randomness into the game. They only restrict cards in Vintage because otherwise a bunch of cards would be unplayable anywhere.

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles...004-2004-12-01

[non-inflammable]

WotC have said they don't like restricting cards in general because puts too much randomness into the game.

That's a solid article from 2004, I was on hiatus then. Since 2004, they created and sanctioned an entire format where every card is restricted...

[Megadeus]

That's a solid article from 2004, I was on hiatus then. Since 2004, they created and sanctioned an entire format where every card is restricted...

I assume you're talking about EDH, and they actually have banned cards in that format

[non-inflammable]

I assume you're talking about EDH, and they actually have banned cards in that format

Semantics aside since I can't play goblin guide in standard; every format has banned cards...

But really, why the resistance to a possible solution to the choke-hold that brainstorm (and blue) has on Legacy?

[Megadeus]

Semantics aside since I can't play goblin guide in standard; every format has banned cards...

But really, why the resistance to a possible solution to the choke-hold that brainstorm (and blue) has on Legacy?

How do you determine if a card is not good enough to be banned, but too good to allow to be completely legal? There's no precedent set for that. Even if so, all the good blue draw spells are restricted and the blue stew still is too good.

[non-inflammable]

How do you determine if a card is not good enough to be banned, but too good to allow to be completely legal?

My .02 is a lot less than a dollar since I wasn't even concerned with top...

Wouldn't restricting a card be useful just to see if a card can even be safely entered into the legacy card pool as a one-of?

[maharis]

But don't take my word for it...

https://www.channelfireball.com/arti...the-best-deck/

For the most part, everything in Magic is contextual. Cards don’t exist in an abstract vacuum—they exist as pieces or cogs in decks that work toward winning the game.

When I say Serum Visions and Sleight of Hand are “too good,” I mean that it doesn’t matter that they are objectively worse versions of Ponder or Preordain because they still function to enable Turbo-Xerox-style decks in Modern, albeit less streamlined versions.

Although we live in a world where 1-mana “selection cantrips” exist, I would argue that these cards were all mistakes from a design perspective. I acknowledge that they are fun and people enjoy them (which is a great counter argument to my position that I accept), yet their existence tends to drive their formats down a very predictable and linear path toward Turbo Xerox decks.

The problem with these cards is a mana issue. 1 mana=1 card is a fine rate. The problem with these cantrips is that they replace themselves and they create options. Serum Visions provides three options and a card for 1 mana: the card you draw, access to either the top two cards of your library during your next draw, or the third card down if the top two are not what you want. It also lets you plan your next turn with information about the next draw step. It lets you keep land-light hands. And Snapcaster Mage gives the player the option to create more options in later in the game.

I’m not advocating one way or the other about whether these cards should be legal—I only intend to explain “why” these repeated trends occur across formats. The nature of Turbo Xerox in Modern explains precisely why Death’s Shadow has risen to become the established “best deck” in Modern.

[MorphBerlin]

So aside from the usual Brainstorm debate, I started to play MTGO some weeks ago and Grixis Delver seems to really have a strong hold as the clear best deck in the meta there to a point where I don't see a reason not to play it if you want to win as much as possible (other than it being dull as hell). Any thoughts on this?