All B/R update speculation.

[pettdan]

Merry Christmas, and whatever you may prefer celebrating, to everyone and not least all passionate MtG-players!

[Lord Seth]

I mean, I'm fine with this perspective as long as we're acknowledging it has nothing to do with balance management and everything to do with a particular taste in how a format looks. Everything here makes me wonder why you wouldn't just play Modern - that's a format where all sorts of weird stuff flies (there's a competitive deck with Goblin Lore and Burning Inquiry. Goblin Lore!!), they ban the good stuff all the time, even if it's not a huge metagame portion, and the cantrips are bad. It literally hits every criterion you've provided - why do we need to make Legacy more like Modern, when we already have Modern?

The last ban there was in Modern was nearly 2 years ago. How long does a format have to go between bans to no longer qualify as "ban[ning] the good stuff all the time"? Heck, Legacy's had more bans in the last 2 years than Modern has.

[schweinefettmann]

Assuming you were responding to me, Dark Ritual. And before anyone asks, I most definitely don't want to see it banned.

Seconding "Merry Christmas!" Also seconding a good 2019 for everybody. This year really sucked.

Yea 2018 sucked for me too. Wishing y’all a better 2019 and a merry Christmas!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WashableWater1]

The last ban there was in Modern was nearly 2 years ago. How long does a format have to go between bans to no longer qualify as "ban[ning] the good stuff all the time"? Heck, Legacy's had more bans in the last 2 years than Modern has.

Legacy players do have the ban-happy attitude that Modern players had back then, and it had had a similar impact on the format. I think it’s warranted for comparisons sake at least.

[Dice_Box]

Dice, I guess i can save my breath after you already outlined that current DtB status means nothing in the face of a decade dominanted of the ever same deck core and predators.

Instead, i wanna spend the time wishing you, your loved ones and everyone on The Source who cares a wonderful holiday season, merry Christmas and a great start into 2019!

No worries. You to mate.

And the rest of you nutters. Merry Christmas or whatever it is that you celebrate at this time of the year.

[Ronald Deuce]

The last ban there was in Modern was nearly 2 years ago. How long does a format have to go between bans to no longer qualify as "ban[ning] the good stuff all the time"?

I don't mean to sound antagonistic, but two years' worth of rotten sets would result in few/no bans. The state of Kaladesh/Amonkhet Standard—with more banned cards in the format than at any time since 2004, none of which did anything at all in any other format—would support my assertion that the sets were pretty bad.

EDIT: Put another way, the fact they had to ban a terrible Barbarian Ring clone that I've literally never seen anyone play in another format indicates that the pickings were pretty slim.

[Zombie]

It has begun in Pauper as well:

UB Delver

//Maindeck:
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Augur of Bolas
4 Gurmag Angler

4 Brainstorm
4 Preordain
3 Gitaxian Probe
3 Gush

3 Counterspell
4 Daze
3 Foil

1 Disfigure
3 Echoing Decay
3 Snuff Out

1 Ash Barrens
3 Terramorphic Expanse
3 Evolving Wilds

8 Snow-Covered Island
2 Snow-Covered Swamp


//Sideboard:
4 Hydroblast
2 Annul
2 Dispel
1 Faerie Macabre
2 Relic of Progenitus
1 Shrivel
3 Stormbound Geist

This looks eerily like a Legacy deck. Xerox comes, Xerox takes over. Resistance, it seems, is futile. Recent results also include totally-healthy things like maindeck Pyroblast.

EDIT: Put another way, the fact they had to ban a terrible Barbarian Ring clone that I've literally never seen anyone play in another format indicates that the pickings were pretty slim.

The Barbarian Ring clone they banned had a key difference to Barbarian Ring - it wasn't a solitary, random bolt, it was an engine that could make a large number of lands into bolts.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

It has begun in Pauper as well:

UB Delver

//Maindeck:
4 Delver of Secrets
4 Augur of Bolas
4 Gurmag Angler

4 Brainstorm
4 Preordain
3 Gitaxian Probe
3 Gush

3 Counterspell
4 Daze
3 Foil

1 Disfigure
3 Echoing Decay
3 Snuff Out

1 Ash Barrens
3 Terramorphic Expanse
3 Evolving Wilds

8 Snow-Covered Island
2 Snow-Covered Swamp


//Sideboard:
4 Hydroblast
2 Annul
2 Dispel
1 Faerie Macabre
2 Relic of Progenitus
1 Shrivel
3 Stormbound Geist

This looks eerily like a Legacy deck. Xerox comes, Xerox takes over. Resistance, it seems, is futile. Recent results also include totally-healthy things like maindeck Pyroblast.



The Barbarian Ring clone they banned had a key difference to Barbarian Ring - it wasn't a solitary, random bolt, it was an engine that could make a large number of lands into bolts.

Why play anything else when the best creatures are a 3/2 for U and a 5/5 for B that each say "fill your deck with a lot of cantrips, that coincidentally will also make your deck more consistent"

[taconaut]

The last ban there was in Modern was nearly 2 years ago. How long does a format have to go between bans to no longer qualify as "ban[ning] the good stuff all the time"? Heck, Legacy's had more bans in the last 2 years than Modern has.

I mean, it also had one or more bannings for all the years preceding those two since its inception, but this is a fair point. I think Modern still takes the cake for number of arbitrary bannings, though; the point is, I think the last few Legacy bans were more like bans in Modern than bannings in Legacy have been historically (that is, they were based on perception rather than actual dominance).

What you have is a single point of data, one DTB. It is the most recent, it's not the most relevant.

Isn't the DTB a synthesis of an aggregate of data? That is, it's constructed from the combined results of a plurality of tournaments over a period of time?

As a consequence of the bannings, it is necessarily the most relevant, because the DTBs of the months before the ban represent a different format - one that included some number of cards that were known to be powerful/playable in Legacy that current Legacy does not have.

Forgive if the last 18 to 24 months make me say "Represented is not the same as playable"

What is the point of collating the DTB, then? If you don't think it represents a snapshot of the format, what do you think that data does show?

Grixis, Grixis Pyro, BUG, Pile... Then the off shoots of each? Come on, that's all Legacy has felt like for ages.

I can't dispute the bolded part, because it's just how you feel, so it's possible your meta is just all UB midrange.

I think there were only really two decks, there, though - the BUG Pile lists and the Grixis lists, which now have consolidated a bit with Probe gone. The point is, there isn't a "Mardu Pile" and a "Junk Pile" and a "Bant Pile," and there won't be as long as Grixis is the best stack of efficient threats and answers. Even if they make some of the bannings people here want, there still won't be all those variations - even if it dethrones Grixis, something else will take its place, and there's no guarantee that whatever does will be the second coming of Abzan Maverick.

Also, chiming in with Happy Holidays! I definitely spent the weekend eating an absurd amount of food (my brother loves to bake) and I plan to post my Source Secret Santa Brag either tonight or tomorrow!

[Dice_Box]

Isn't the DTB a synthesis of an aggregate of data? That is, it's constructed from the combined results of a plurality of tournaments over a period of time?

It is, but it itself is also a single data point. The DTB section, with the way that it is set up is a monthly snapshot of the format. Its taking data and turning it into another metric. You are then using a single snapshot to justify a single statement. That is not how stats work.
If you want to talk about TC data be my guest, but that's its own thing. The DTB is based on TC, but it is also its own independent set of data.

As a consequence of the bannings, it is necessarily the most relevant, because the DTBs of the months before the ban represent a different format - one that included some number of cards that were known to be powerful/playable in Legacy that current Legacy does not have.

Ok, here's the deal, next time you tell me one data point is the most relevant and demonstrate your total lack of understanding of how stats work I am going to ignore you. Because I just explained why this is wrong, as an adjective statement not a subjective statement and example. I'm not being an arse, but I will not bother to debate with you if you are unable to understand how stats work while trying to use them in an argument. I'm just unwilling to waste my time so.

I will agree that the format has changed, some of the data is not as useful as it was. But we still have TRENDS. Miracles, Grixis and Eldrazi have stayed where they are consistently. This is something you can look at and say "Though this time of change these decks are still the top 3 in the format." There are some other things too in the trends. "The changes that Miracles has brought with B2B and the lack of free mana has pushed up the Basic counts. This is likely why Lands is not entering the DTB of late."

Look at that, I have data, I can look at said data and I can see trend lines. I am not looking at this one point of data and making an argument. Because that's not how stats works. Please stop. Don't be stupid.

What is the point of collating the DTB, then? If you don't think it represents a snapshot of the format, what do you think that data does show?

See above. Also I do think it represents a snapshot of the format, I just do not accept that one point of data proves anything. Its the same as showing an SCG with 8 decks running Brainstorm and Ponder and making a case. You have one SCG, don't die on that hill. Not when you have years of trends you can look at to make a case. I can pull a single point of data from just about anywhere and use it to make a case, but its going to be faulty, its going to be flimsily and its going to be a hard case to defend.

I mean lets look at what your doing. Your looking at one DTB and your making a call. Lets do the same thing:
August 2018: Deaths Shadow take the pie, Miracles is in 7th place and Lands is a DTB. I am going to guess from this one snapshot, without looking at any other data that Deaths Shadow is going to keep ruling the roost, Lands will prey upon its weak land base and stay a strong DTB and Miracles will be pushed out of the DTB.
Oh fuck, I just saw Octobers DTB update... well that didn't go well.

[taconaut]

It is, but it itself is also a single data point. The DTB section, with the way that it is set up is a monthly snapshot of the format. Its taking data and turning it into another metric. You are then using a single snapshot to justify a single statement.
If you want to talk about TC data be my guest, but that's its own thing. The DTB is based on TC, but it is also its own independent set of data.

OK, so the point you're making is that, historically, the DTB months, taken together as a data set, do not support my point?

As a counter point, I went through the DTB back to page 4, looking at the four lists I cited as things you could do in Legacy that aren't cantrips or blue (Elves, DnT, Eldrazi, Depths). Here's what I found:

Elves: 16 appearances, made it in every year since 2014, which even includes plenty of months where Sensei's Divining Top was legal
DNT: 35 appearances, made it in every year since 2014
Eldrazi: 20 appearances, notably out of a possible 35 (as February 2016 is as early as we can expect the deck to show up, as that is when Khans is released)
Depths: 4 appearances (this one, I must admit, surprised me, given that the combo and most of the relevant cards for the deck have been available since the m14 rules changes. I will concede that this one is not as storied as the others, but I still contend that it is a perfectly reasonable 75 to bring to a Legacy event.)

I think this clearly supports the notion that Elves, Eldrazi, and especially DnT are legitimate, respectable legacy decks that have no cantrips or blue in them.

Now, I do want to acknowledge some of you point as well - essentially every appearance of these decks also saw the inclusion of Miracles, Grixis, or both.

I want to be clear: I am not saying these decks are better than Miracles or Grixis. I am not saying that Miracles and Grixis are not strong.

What I am saying is, there are certainly things to do in Legacy that aren't blue. Yes, blue is A Thing. But it's not The Only Thing.

Just because a deck comes in and out of the DTB doesn't mean it doesn't have staying power, or isn't a useful consideration for deck selection. ANT came in and out of the DTB almost as much as DnT did, but I still feel good bringing it to tournaments. Just ask CyrusCG.

But we still have TRENDS. Miracles, Grixis and Eldrazi have stayed where they are consistently. This is something you can look at and say "Though this time of change these decks are still the top 3 in the format." "The changes that Miracles has brought with B2B and the lack of free mana has pushed up the Basic counts. This is likely why Lands is not entering the DTB of late."

These are great arguments, and totally fair. I agree with both.

What decks do you want to play against? If you're cleaning house with Lands, the decks are clearly beatable. Why do you think people don't switch? I think as much of it has to do with the relatively high cost of the format as it does Grixis being some sort of unbeatable format breaker.

Ok, here's the deal, next time you tell me one data point is the most relevant and demonstrate your total lack of understanding of how stats work I am going to ignore you. Because I just explained why this is wrong, as an adjective statement not a subjective statement and example. I'm not being an arse, but I will not bother to debate with you if you are unable to understand how stats work while trying to use them in an argument. I'm just unwilling to waste my time so.

Look at that, I have data, I can look at said data and I can see trend lines. I am not looking at this one point of data and making an argument. Because that's not how stats works. Please stop. Don't be stupid.

Also, for what it's worth, I would've reported this post and the last one if you weren't already a mod. I understand statistics just fine, and I don't take shots at you for misspellings/using "adjective" when you mean "objective," etc, because I know what you mean and it doesn't add anything for me to mention it. I know we all employ some hyperbole in this thread, and I know you clearly stated it wasn't a dig specifically at me, but I just wanted to ask that you address the argument charitably.

I tried to address the point you were making more specifically above; I was trying to make a point using the current DTB because it's the format we're currently living with, whereas you were making a point about the history of the format. Both are important and worth discussing.

[Lemnear]

I tried to address the point you were making more specifically above; I was trying to make a point using the current DTB because it's the format we're currently living with, whereas you were making a point about the history of the format. Both are important and worth discussing.

Dice is pointing you to the DtB section of this or other websites only covering a span of one or two months within a decade of Xerox dominance. Moreover the data is pretty clear that Xerox gives you the best shot at winning tournaments though all these years which puts a huge question mark behind the topic if listed non-blue decks are actually compeditive on an equal footing or just winning a slice of the cake here and there whenever xerox gets too greedy.

[Megadeus]

Dice is pointing you to the DtB section of this or other websites only covering a span of one or two months within a decade of Xerox dominance. Moreover the data is pretty clear that Xerox gives you the best shot at winning tournaments though all these years which puts a huge question mark behind the topic if listed non-blue decks are actually compeditive on an equal footing or just winning a slice of the cake here and there whenever xerox gets too greedy.

I mean just based on numbers Xerox can't win 100% of the time. The difference is basically that the non blue dtb at the time generally tends to be whatever is the best meta predator at the time and the various blue decks shape whatever non blue decks are viable.

[talpa]

It has begun in Pauper as well:
UB Delver

Why play anything else when the best creatures are a 3/2 for U and a 5/5 for B that each say "fill your deck with a lot of cantrips, that coincidentally will also make your deck more consistent"

It's wonderful and it's precisely why I am beginning to think I could play pauper as well
Alas, I'm afraid January will see the ban of gush and/or foil and/or gitaxian.

demonstrate your total lack of understanding of how stats work

Yuhuuuuu finally even the mods have subscribed to the unpolite mode, if not to the trolling mode.

Dice is pointing you to the DtB section of this or other websites only covering a span of one or two months within a decade of Xerox dominance. Moreover the data is pretty clear that Xerox (...) [bla bla bla, also xerox xerox xerox ]

So THIS is what all that screaming about "statistics!" actually was about.
Not that it comes as a surprise.
It was never a discussion about how anybody can be "scientific", how data can be interpreted. Instead, it was the usual complaint about xerox. WITHOUT a single real data. With a complete disregard of a rational discussion and a "scientific method". Just complete prejudice. Of course you can alsways just say "decade of xerox dominance!!1111!111!!"

Actually, the winner metagame says NOTHING about conversion rates. It says nothing about what the majority of people plays at a tournament.
So what are you complaining about, exactly? Xerox is too strong? If you want to discuss how strong a deck is, you should look at how many decks were there of each archetype at the begininng of the tournament and how many of each archetype made it to the top. Without that, top8 could be xerox infested simply because the metagame is xerox infested (not that it would be an "infestation", in my view that is the good side).
If you instead are complaining that everybody plays xerox, you should look at the data of the whole metagame, which nobody has access to.

the non blue dtb at the time generally tends to be whatever is the best meta predator at the time and the various blue decks shape whatever non blue decks are viable.

Look! the FIRST deck among the winners's metagame is Turbo Depths. And it's actually emerging from a TREND that begun a years ago. I don't think it is preying upon blue. At most it could be preying on a lack of wastelands and/or swords to plowshare. So look, single point of data or not, you have a non blue deck that is actually the best combo deck right now and the most successful of the winner's metagame.
SURPRISE!

Now, since this thread is for blue haters, I'm predicting from the past trends you'll immediately start hating again
Have fun!



POST SCRIPTUM
Let me add another, useless, single point of data. In Italy we just had a three-day big event (Modern, Vintage, ecc). One of my friend made a complete analysis of the results of the main event Legacy (263 players). 58% of the starting metagame was "blue", 42% non-blue. If we look at the top32 as an estimate for the conversion rate, blue decks reach 62% and non-blue decks 38%. Yes, there is a slight increase of the blue share, but not really a "dominance" in term of winnings.

If you are curious about the archetypes, the most played deck was grixis control (9% of the starting metagame) followed by Show, Miracles (similar %), Death and Taxes.
If we counted chalice.decks as a whole it would have been the most played with 12% of metagame. There were 55 distinct archetypes. My interpretation: the starting metagame is as open as it could be, and the non-blue decks are both present and winning.

If you are curious about the performance of the archetypes, UB Shadow was the best performing, both in terms of "conversion rate" and in terms of "average point after swiss made by the players". The worst were Death and Taxes and Show and Tell. Grixis Control, Miracle, Turbo Depths, Dragon Stompy were average good. Eldrazi and Taxes, Big Eldrazi, Eldrazi Stompy were among the best performing.

[Lemnear]

So THIS is what all that screaming about "statistics!" actually was about.
Not that it comes as a surprise.
It was never a discussion about how anybody can be "scientific", how data can be interpreted. Instead, it was the usual complaint about xerox. WITHOUT a single real data.

I beg to pardon. We have a decade of data showing that the cantrip shell is the unquestionable king of the format and claiming that non-blue decks are equally compeditive in that longterm statistic doesn't quite have a fundament.

With a complete disregard of a rational discussion and a "scientific method". Just complete prejudice. Of course you can alsways just say "decade of xerox dominance!!1111!111!!"

I dunno why a decade of data underlining the points made is a prejudice for you.

Actually, the winner metagame says NOTHING about conversion rates. It says nothing about what the majority of people plays at a tournament.

That's true, but the T8/T16/T32 still show which decks and strategies perform the best. If all what floats at top for a very long time are the ever same strategies, it's fair to be pointed out.

So what are you complaining about, exactly? Xerox is too strong? If you want to discuss how strong a deck is, you should look at how many decks were there of each archetype at the begininng of the tournament and how many of each archetype made it to the top.

Did that for some events im the past during the Miracles era and to no surprise, that deck overperformed relative to its representation. Sadly only a few tournament organizers publish the full metagame data for us to work with.

Now, since this thread is for blue haters, I'm predicting from the past trends you'll immediately start hating again
Have fun!

Nah, i am not into ad homiem to finish my arguments. I care little for a 30-Day period prolly mixing MTGO level results with majors if the topic is about the formats longterm trends which have not been shaken in more than a decade.

POST SCRIPTUM
Let me add another, useless, single point of data. In Italy we just had a three-day big event (Modern, Vintage, ecc). One of my friend made a complete analysis of the results of the main event Legacy (263 players). 58% of the starting metagame was "blue", 42% non-blue. If we look at the top32 as an estimate for the conversion rate, blue decks reach 62% and non-blue decks 38%. Yes, there is a slight increase of the blue share, but not really a "dominance" in term of winnings..

So the cantrip shell was overperforming relative to its metagame share. I think it's fair to interpret that as a point in favor of the Xerox shell for being the top choice to enter a tournament with.

[WashableWater1]

How much B and R discussion is based around misrepresentation? Is “Cantrip a deck? Is UB a single deck? My favorite is the claim that Delver and Czech Pile are the same deck.

[porcupinetreeman]

Ban:

Brainstorm
Ponder
Show and Tell
Dark Depths
Griselbrand

[mistercakes]

How much B and R discussion is based around misrepresentation? Is “Cantrip a deck? Is UB a single deck? My favorite is the claim that Delver and Czech Pile are the same deck.

most of the debate is not around the same deck, but around the strategy that enables X decks. if you think this is a debate about the individual decks, it's not worth the discussion as most of those cards outside of the cantrips aren't inherently powerful. i think the exceptions are show and tell, infernal tutor, snapcaster mage and terminus.

non-blue decks need to jump through hoops for game plan consistency and mana consistency or for finding singleton cards. with xerox strategies, it becomes significantly easier. (and to a lesser extent how snapcaster mage enables them more.)

some prefer playing those strategies, others prefer to have raw power, and a third prefer to have synergies.

that is the entire debate.

we should really have a separate b/r thread for just brainstorm/ponder. i really liked when discussion about b/r had some different cards involved in it. now it's just a pissing contest about who understands statistics. (it doesn't matter, especially given wotc's view on brainstorm in legacy.)

[Whitefaces]

we should really have a separate b/r thread for just brainstorm/ponder. i really liked when discussion about b/r had some different cards involved in it. now it's just a pissing contest about who understands statistics. (it doesn't matter, especially given wotc's view on brainstorm in legacy.)

This is a great idea. I used to enjoy this thread, but it's been the same rubbish for the last few years now.

[mistercakes]

how about a new thread with: Ban list discussion other than Brainstorm/Ponder/Fetches?