All B/R update speculation.

[Julian23]

To be fair, that's a question of definition. In fact you could very reasonably argue, that 20 blue cards are in fact 50% of a deck as decks usually only run about 40 colored cards alltogether. According to Lemenar's definition, no deck would run 100% of a given color thus rendering comparison based on it rather useless.

[Rizso]

What Julian said!

20 out of 40 playables. But sure if including lands about 30% - 1/3 of the deck as blue. Like average vision stoneblade runs ~41% blue cards, 13% white, 5% artfifact then rest is lands.

Colored cards arent gonna take the lands spots anyway unless you play combo.

[Lemnear]

You said "50% of a blue card deck" so I guess I wasn't wrong. Moreover we can't seriously discuss about "blue card decks" without talking about formats and metagames. I remember times threadhold ran 18 lands and todays landstills sometime 25. I don't even want to talk about Vintage and artifact mana (Vintage TPS has ~40% manasources out of their 60 what does affect FoW's playability).

If you want to talk about non-managenerating-cards it's a completely different topic and shouldn't be handled with generalisation that was thrown to my forhead 2 pages ago.

[joemauer]

If your issue is with Blade control and No RUG, banning Natural Order (a tutor) or maybe even Stoneforge Mystic (another tutor that can drop equipment that can't be countered) would be better choices. If you look at the ban list, WotC does not like tutors and rightly so. NO and SFM are both tutors that can drop powerful creatures for a relatively cheap cost compared to their actual cost. MMS and Brainstorm wouldn't seem so powerful if the other player couldn't get a 10/10 with protection from everythin by paying 2GG and sacrificing a green creature. And guess what: banning MMS or brainstorm isn't going to make those decks go away. They MIGHT get slightly weaker, but they'll still be using batterskuls and Progentius against you.

I think you sir might be on to something. Wizards does hate tutors and both are forms of tutors. SFM could be the new card they regretted making? But you can't really ban SFM and not ban NO. Then if NO is getting the axe why not show and tell? Similar brokeness, but show and tell isn't a one card combo like SFM or NO. Also why not ban ALL tutors like entomb, enlighten, or worldy? Never understood why mystical got the axe only. Perhaps mystical tutor can get a card that the other two can't get? Then you got to wonder is there some instant/sorcery in Legacy that is too powerful, but getting rid of the card finds instant/sorcery was an easier fix? Gotta wonder why WoTC does what it does some times.

[Rizso]

Ye, it did go a bit off topic. But still blue dominance still comes from Force of Will. Want to play all the best cards, Force, swords, some killing condiction or some engine etc. Force you need to have enought blue cards. So even if mental misstep does get banned, Force of will will keep decks playing with blue cards.

Banning Misstep wont change anything about the % of blue decks in the format but it will reduce a huge number of midrange decks as combo and then Counterbalance will claw their hands back into the format.

Blue Dominance will continue until a really punishing card against blue that blue cant play themself or if large amount of blue powerhouses gets banned force, brainstorm and others. But doubt we want an other modern format where combo decks are the dominant force.

Mystical tutor got banned cos of ANT and Reanimate. The tutor hated out hate. Bringing in gy hate against reanimate? NP, just tutor for SNT and go from their instead. Got that hatebear against ant ? np just tutor for that cheap 1 of bounce or 1 of slaughter pact. They could run their boad as 1 of cos the tutor made them able to have 15 diffrent board cards. Not only did the tutor have a huge board plan it worked wonders in the deck as well.

Over the history of magic wizard hasnt liked tutors at all except for tutors that affects only creatures. The green tutor was never restricted or banned, white one got unresitricted for a very long time ago. The most powerful spells in magic history are the instants, sorceries and artifacts. Mystical Tutor takes finds 2 of them. Only creature tutors they really got to ban in mulitple formats are Survival of the Fittest and Oath of Druids. They are even printing more creature tutors inform of Green Sun's Zenith. As powerful as Stoneforge is it still searchs for a narrow card type that also affect creatures.

[DragoFireheart]

But still blue dominance still comes from Force of Will. Want to play all the best cards, Force, swords, some killing condiction or some engine etc. Force you need to have enought blue cards. So even if mental misstep does get banned, Force of will will keep decks playing with blue cards.

- Wait, I thought brainstorm was the reason? Make up your mind please.

Banning Misstep wont change anything about the % of blue decks in the format but it will reduce a huge number of midrange decks as combo and then Counterbalance will claw their hands back into the format.

- You got something finally.

Blue Dominance will continue...

- Show me a blue deck that use FoW, Brainstorm, MMS, and only islands as lands that is topping the top 8 in 50% of the field. You won't find it.

Stop it with the intellectual dishonesty. 100% pure blue decks are not rampaig the format. Multicolored decks are the issue because they have dual lands to allow them to choose the best cards from ALL colors. It just so happens that blue has lots of good control cards, be it counters or drawing/filteration. However, BLUE won't do shit without the other colors. If you decide (as you admitted) to cripple blue, combo decks will utterly destroy the format. The solution to tone down control decks has always been to tone down combo decks and boost up aggro decks. GW/x Maverick, The Rock, and Zoo are three viable Tier 1 decks that either use no blue at all or very little. You also acknowledge that more mid-range decks are coming about.

People need to stop complaining and observe the meta. Blade control and No RUG? Make aggro decks or mid-range decks to fight them. Christ, BURN decks do fairly well and would be an amazing choice because:

A- Combo is gone so doesn't have to worry about combo out-racing it.

B- Counterbalance is gone so it doesn't have to worry about counterbalance pushing it out.

Instead, all I see is many articles/people complaining because they saw if they complain hard enough, they can get cards they don't like banned. And it's a shitty precedent to set.

[CorpT]

- Show me a blue deck that use FoW, Brainstorm, MMS, and only islands as lands that is topping the top 8 in 50% of the field. You won't find it.

Strawman much?

No one is complaining that mono-blue decks are dominating. People are complaining that 80% of the Top 16 decks at SCG events since 5/22 contain blue. That's a fact.

[DragoFireheart]

Strawman much?

- I keep hearing about "blue dominance". Hence the NON-strawman question.

No one is complaining that mono-blue decks are dominating. People are complaining that 80% of the Top 16 decks at SCG events since 5/22 contain blue. That's a fact.

I also bet 80% contain white or green as well. Does that mean green and white are dominate?

[Rizso]

- Wait, I thought brainstorm was the reason? Make up your mind please.



- You got something finally.



- Show me a blue deck that use FoW, Brainstorm, MMS, and only islands as lands that is topping the top 8 in 50% of the field. You won't find it.

Stop it with the intellectual dishonesty. 100% pure blue decks are not rampaig the format. Multicolored decks are the issue because they have dual lands to allow them to choose the best cards from ALL colors. It just so happens that blue has lots of good control cards, be it counters or drawing/filteration. However, BLUE won't do shit without the other colors. If you decide (as you admitted) to cripple blue, combo decks will utterly destroy the format. The solution to tone down control decks has always been to tone down combo decks and boost up aggro decks. GW/x Maverick, The Rock, and Zoo are three viable Tier 1 decks that either use no blue at all or very little. You also acknowledge that more mid-range decks are coming about.

People need to stop complaining and observe the meta. Blade control and No RUG? Make aggro decks or mid-range decks to fight them. Christ, BURN decks do fairly well and would be an amazing choice because:

A- Combo is gone so doesn't have to worry about combo out-racing it.

B- Counterbalance is gone so it doesn't have to worry about counterbalance pushing it out.

Instead, all I see is many articles/people complaining because they saw if they complain hard enough, they can get cards they don't like banned. And it's a shitty precedent to set.

I thought I was pretty clear I meant multicolored decks. As in blue dominance as in decks that are majority blue. I much rather face Stoneblade, NO-rug, GW-maverick and other great decks in the current format all day then old decks as mystical tutor ANT / Reanimate or thoes long games against counterbalance decks.

Still remember one time against one of thoes old mystical-ant when playing eva green. He starts game 1, he goes of turn 1, game 2 I rip his hand in to pieces, game 3 he goes of turn 1 again. Fun format.

[Gheizen64]

Blue predominance?

Show me a deck list that only uses blue cards that topped 50% of the topic 8 in the last four months. Go on, do it. Oh wait, so Blue predominance was just evidence that you are being intellecutally dishonest? What you mean to say is "U/x" predominance. Because that is what this comes down to: multi-colored blue decks that splash for other things. It just so happens that Brainstorm is blue by design and is a good card. Yes, I have been following the discussion and I have yet to see a single argument to prove that brainstorm is "ban worthy". It's restricted in Vintage because of the sheer power of OTHER cards it can find.

Seeing a pattern here?

Your issue is not with brainstorm but the cards brainstorm is able to filter. Tell me, does brainstorm kill you, or is it the Batterskull/Progenitus that kills you? And what cards tutors those? And what style of cards has Wizards almost always banned? Tutors?

Your arguments are all strawmen. Card quality/virtual card advantage can easily be too strong, also no one said anything about monoblue, just blue % is usually around 75 against the 50% of others color and 30-40% of red. My issue isn't brainstorm, my "issue", if you can call it so since i'm not having a problem with it, just stating facts, is blue dominating legacy and if we want to do something about it banning MM wouldn't achieve anything, banning brainstorm would give more space to other colors, especially black.

This whole discussion has been already done to death already, i'm tired to respond to people that doesn't care to read and enter and summarize everything perfectly like they are Pelè or Maradona.

EDIT: since it look like you didn't notice (the thread has been going extremely fast, after all) the color % posted some pages ago, i'll paste them here again:

Top16 from SGC events:

05-22-11 (MM printed) - Present

White: 119
Green: 124
Red: 92
Blue: 187
Black: 109

White: 51%
Green: 53%
Red: 39%
Blue: 80%
Black: 46%

Going back we find similar numbers, categorizing by years we find:

2011:
White: 50%
Green: 55%
Red: 37%
Blue: 75%
Black: 46%

2010:
White: 56%
Green: 62%
Red: 36%
Blue: 67%
Black: 43%

I've skipped 2009 numbers because the sample was extremely low. Looking here we find what was an already obvious fact: blue is overrepresented, green and white are around 50% each and black and red get the low end of the shaft.

[CorpT]

- I keep hearing about "blue dominance". Hence the NON-strawman question.



I also bet 80% contain white or green as well. Does that mean green and white are dominate?

You should read the thread before posting:

05-22-11 - Present

White: 119
Green: 124
Red: 92
Blue: 187
Black: 109

White: 51%
Green: 53%
Red: 39%
Blue: 80%
Black: 46%

Sorry, what were you saying about Blue not dominating? And no, your definition of blue dominance meaning that only blue is in the deck is not shared by many, nor is it what we're discussing.

[DragoFireheart]

Your arguments are all strawmen. Card quality/virtual card advantage can easily be too strong, also no one said anything about monoblue, just blue % is usually around 75 against the 50% of others color and 30-40% of red. My issue isn't brainstorm, my "issue", if you can call it so since i'm not having a problem with it, just stating facts, is blue dominating legacy and if we want to do something about it banning MM wouldn't achieve anything, banning brainstorm would give more space to other colors, especially black.

- Banning brainstorm would alienate blue players/control players. You and I know this. It would be akin to banning Lightning Bolt.

EDIT: since it look like you didn't notice (the thread has been going extremely fast, after all) the color % posted some pages ago, i'll paste them here again:

Top16 from SGC events:

05-22-11 (MM printed) - Present

White: 119
Green: 124
Red: 92
Blue: 187
Black: 109

White: 51%
Green: 53%
Red: 39%
Blue: 80%
Black: 46%

Going back we find similar numbers, categorizing by years we find:

2011:
White: 50%
Green: 55%
Red: 37%
Blue: 75%
Black: 46%

2010:
White: 56%
Green: 62%
Red: 36%
Blue: 67%
Black: 43%

I've skipped 2009 numbers because the sample was extremely low. Looking here we find what was an already obvious fact: blue is overrepresented, green and white are around 50% each and black and red get the low end of the shaft.

- Merfolk also have an impact on those % since they weren't around always. Blue is simply a popular color: it's "dominance" has little to do with it being overpowered.

You should read the thread before posting:

05-22-11 - Present

White: 119
Green: 124
Red: 92
Blue: 187
Black: 109

White: 51%
Green: 53%
Red: 39%
Blue: 80%
Black: 46%

Sorry, what were you saying about Blue not dominating? And no, your definition of blue dominance meaning that only blue is in the deck is not shared by many, nor is it what we're discussing.

I'm pretty sure you mean multi-color dominance, not blue dominance. The term "blue dominance" is purposely factious.

And what exactly are you showing by showing to me that blue makes up a higher % of the meta? Blue has always made up a large % of the meta. This isn't any different than before MMS, pre-SotF banning, or pre-printing of Tarmogoyf. You'll have to show me that blue being popular is a bad thing.

[CorpT]

I'm pretty sure you mean multi-color dominance, not blue dominance. The term "blue dominance" is purposely factious.

Let me be very clear what I am saying:

Blue is found in more top placing decks than any other color. By a wide, and growing, margin. This has nothing to do with other colors, or mono-blue. Blue is found in more top placing decks than any other color. Dispute that. When I, and others say "blue dominance", that is what we mean. Your intentional obtuseness, does nothing to help a conversation.

[Gheizen64]

- Banning brainstorm would alienate blue players/control players. You and I know this. It would be akin to banning Lightning Bolt.

Except red sucks already while it looks like winning decks have to be blue nowadays, so banning Bolt would have no justification.

- Merfolk also have an impact on those % since they weren't around always. Blue is simply a popular color: it's "dominance" has little to do with it being overpowered.

So people win with blue because it's popular? Sorry i'll go with Occam's razor here. If a color/deck win more than others, then the deck/color is probably a tad stronger than the others. Simple.

I'm pretty sure you mean multi-color dominance, not blue dominance. The term "blue dominance" is purposely factious.

And what exactly are you showing by showing to me that blue makes up a higher % of the meta? Blue has always made up a large % of the meta. This isn't any different than before MMS, pre-SotF banning, or pre-printing of Tarmogoyf. You'll have to show me that blue being popular is a bad thing.

It strike me as pretty preposterous that you call this "factious". I mean, everyone in this thread intended this as "blue-dominance" and now you come and say we're all wrong? Could be, but since we're discussing purposedly invented in-game semantics at this point, what the majority use is correct.
Also to be more correct, blue doesn't simply take an higher % of the meta, winning blue decks do since what we're discussing are only T16, not all decks. Blue being popular isn't a bad thing per se. However the implications of a decreasing diversity due to such dominance is not appealing for a lot of players and have also always considered bad for formats. In the years it also look like blue % is just going up, never down, so it's not even a case of "wait for the format to adapt" anymore, the format adapted to blue and decided that the best way to adapt was to be even more blue.

[DragoFireheart]

Let me be very clear what I am saying:

Blue is found in more top placing decks than any other color. By a wide, and growing, margin. This has nothing to do with other colors, or mono-blue. Blue is found in more top placing decks than any other color. Dispute that. When I, and others say "blue dominance", that is what we mean. Your intentional obtuseness, does nothing to help a conversation.

Whatever, use whatever term you want. It's all semantics anyways.

What is the significance of blue being popular? By all means, show me that blue being a popular color is a bad thing. Show me that it's making the format "unpleasant" to play it. Show me that WoTC needs to ban blue cards, be it MMS, BS, FoW, or something else. I ask because I have yet to see an argument showing that blue needs to have some of it's core staples banned.

[DragoFireheart]

So people win with blue because it's popular? Sorry i'll go with Occam's razor here. If a color/deck win more than others, then the deck/color is probably a tad stronger than the others. Simple.

-It's not as simple as that, but good job simplying it to that point yet ignoring other factors.

It strike me as pretty preposterous that you call this "factious". I mean, everyone in this thread intended this as "blue-dominance" and now you come and say we're all wrong? Could be, but since we're discussing purposedly invented in-game semantics at this point, what the majority use is correct.

- There is so much wrong with that statement. lmao.

Also to be more correct, blue doesn't simply take an higher % of the meta, winning blue decks do since what we're discussing are only T16, not all decks. Blue being popular isn't a bad thing per se. However the implications of a decreasing diversity due to such dominance is not appealing for a lot of players and have also always considered bad for formats. In the years it also look like blue % is just going up, never down, so it's not even a case of "wait for the format to adapt" anymore, the format adapted to blue and decided that the best way to adapt was to be even more blue.

- Because The Rock, Zoo, and GW/x Maverick don't exist. Because The Rock didn't just enter the tier 1 sector because blue is becoming more popular. Nope, every must be playing blue!

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Stop it with the intellectual dishonesty. 100% pure blue decks are not rampaig the format.

Mother fucker, you got irony all over my keyboard.

[DragoFireheart]

Mother fucker, you got irony all over my keyboard.

- When people scream "blue dominance" what the fuck should I think? Why aren't they screaming "blade/rug dominance"? (which is what they really mean)

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

- When people scream "blue dominance" what the fuck should I think? Why aren't they screaming "blade/rug dominance"? (which is what they really mean)

You should think they mean decks with blue, because to think that they mean decks with blue only is to be a dishonest prat.

[Gheizen64]

- There is so much wrong with that statement. lmao.

No there's nothing wrong actually. If everyone use a vague term like "blue dominance" is referring to % of blue decks in top16 of tournaments, than you can't argue otherwise only because you don't like it. It's like arguing that meters are not 100 cm but rather 98. You can say it all you want but it's wrong. I see no reasons for your crusade against windmills. Can't you just admit you were wrong and move on? You thought we meant a thing, we meant another so you were mistaken, it happen. It's not the end of the world. Obstinacy doesn't help your position, humility do far more.

- Because The Rock, Zoo, and GW/x Maverick don't exist. Because The Rock didn't just enter the tier 1 sector because blue is becoming more popular. Nope, every must be playing blue!

Those decks obviously exist, but as you conveniently continue to ignore, are evidently less successful than the old non-blue decks like Goblin and the old Rock incarnations, or things like AggroLoam, Stompy/Stax variants and Suicide variants (which evolved to TA, a deck that splash blue).