No
Yes
Omg ... Nothing more to say...Originally Posted by death
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
A lot of people arguing for completely non-interactive decks :/
Just because your pet deck isn't as good as it used to be doesn't mean the format is broken.
You got me wrong ... I found it ridiculous to claim that Stompy should be a Deck-to-beat and toe-to-toe with something like blue and one of it's flavors of the month aka BUG tempo
Sarcasm poorly tranfers in a forum
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
No I am on your side and knew it was sarcasm. I got it but we're just both confused.
Haha, I must say that this is such a heated topic.
Look at all of the vitriol in this thread. It's beautiful, but I would get back more on topic before the thread gets locked.
Polls are kind of a cold way to gauge and you can only glean so much from the replies in this thread.
Personally, I'm in the camp that believes that the "Brainstorm menace" is a fabricated threat.
If it's not one card, it's another. Right now, Brainstorm is in the crosshairs. I just wish people would chill the hell out and not complain so damn much.
We already lost some great cards due to bannings recently. I would, instead of Brainstorm's banning, would like to see responsible R&D from them. It's not consumer friendly to have them acquire cards aftermarket and then tell them they blew $x for nothing.
I'd also like to see them print some reactive answers. Remember Tsabo's Web? There are other examples if you remember.
After all, the zeitgeist and what people play at different points in time is often based on perceptions or other influences/cultural behaviors. Which is why one metagame in the same format can be so different (god I wish I had Europe's meta, for example).
I think that new hate is enough to make a strategy fall out of favor until people move on to something else. We don't and won't, I would argue, really experience a "runTheHate.dec or lose to it" meta.
The closest thing we have to this is Dredge, in my opinion, and that deck still exists.
Do you find yourself saying "Aw man, he cast Brainstorm! I'll scoop" when people play it? I didn't think so. Banned cards should have that feeling. All of the hoopla like "Well, you just don't know that you've already lost because that is the majestic power of Brainstorm" I'm not buying it.
TL;DR: Don't ban brainstorm.
Voted NO.
Why you would ban cards? I dont get it instead you should cry for better cards in the other colors.
It would be so easy too push the other colors. But you just want ban cards becouse you cant handle them. SO many counter cards for brainstorm and co:
Chains of Mephistopheles
Grand Abolisher he need to brainstorm in his turn = less mana
if he has no mana open = discard
Ethersworn Canonist
and more.
So dont ban cards you think are too strong ask for cards in your color...
Voted no. I wouldn't fault WotC for banning Brainstorm, because it's almost impossible to argue that the card isn't too powerful. However, I think it's a big gamble to ban it, because it simply goes against what the vast majority of Legacy players want. If you read the GP Amsterdam coverage, they basically acknowledged that Brainstorm isn't fair, but that it's still an integral part of Legacy.
The fact that blue seems to be getting all the best cards in nearly every new set doesn't help matters either. At this point, I don't think Adam Barnello's idea of unbanning Survival is unreasonable.
I find hilarious that people are even considering Chain as a counter to brainstorm. A 2 mana enchantment to counter a 1 mana instant? Chain is worse than meddling mage on brainstorm. Not to mean is cost inefficient and casting chain (which does nothing, by itself) is like a tempo black hole.
Its funny that you cant think. Its not only for brainstorm its for card draw but thats too much for you. It was just an example what Chain can do.
That i even need to write that here gj man.
The only consistent card draw that is played alongisde Brainstorm is ponder. Not even JTMS is played that much after the MM ban. And you listing a 2 mana answer (not even a real counter, just virtual card advantage) for a 1 mana spell mean you have some hazy understanding of the fundamental of this game else everyone would play removal that cost more than the removed threat. There's a reason spell pierce and snare see play. There's a reason if the answer for weenie decks isn't simple removal but cards like pyroclasm. Mana efficiency. Playing a 2 mana enchantment that blank 7-8 1-mana instants in the opponent library (1 on average in hand) is the epitome of an inefficient answer, i mean, for the lovecraftian gods, it's arguably worse than surgical extraction on a brainstorm on a grave, you tell me that's efficient? And that cost 0 mana.
You can't really play cards to answer 1 mana instants, no matter what you've been told. The only card that came close was MM, card parity and mana advantage plus it was never dead when the opponent didn't have brainstorm. But MM is dead and gone now. The other possibility are cards that are also threats on their own, obviously.
Efficient market theory is used strictly by tossers.
50% is a lot worse in this case than 80%, you're talking more than six times as likely a chance you'll go two turns without flipping. I think Delver will still be playable, but in fewer decks. "SignificantlY" worse but not outside of the Legacy playable range.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
Translation: a deck is good because I said so.
I only play legacy. I like Brainstorm. Don't touch my game!
In my humble opinion, Brainstorm should not be banned. It is an insanely powerful card, that's sure, but it also happens to be one of the pillars that hold up legacy itself. Banning brainstorm will cause a major wave of chaos and disorder in the format. More likely, it will lead to a chain-ban of other key cards, enlarging the already long banlist. As stated previously, banning brainstorm will cause a powering-down of most blue-based decks. This will lead to the viral diffusion of combo decks and more risky-but-rewarding gameplans. A deck we're all thinking about is Belcher. Blue decks would be forced to mull hard just to see an active force in the opening hand. Non-blue, non-combo decks would be forced to completely modify their game asset, bringing in the maindeck cards tipically designed for sideboards, or which could serve only for the purpose of stopping straightforward combo decks. The metagame, talking with havoc in my eyes (yes i'm not an optimistic person, i just tend to se the darkest part in every situation), will be reduced to a combo-or-hate type of metagame, similar to SotF times.
This will then lead to the entire redesigning of the banlist, giving more and more instability to the metagame. And this is the worst scenario I can thnk about.
And sorry if i put too many words in the tl;dr paragraph and so few explaining the fundamental concept.
-Magic: the Gathering L1 Judge-
When blue-based control decks are doing well, it is a sign that it is a healthy format. This is because those decks tend to be the most interactive. They must sacrifice offensive potential in order to run defensive cards.
Defensive implies that it is defending against something, namely your opponent's moves. This signifies interaction and thus how Magic should be played. Not just two combo decks racing one another.
With Brainstorm, one must ask: does it increase player interaction?
- AKA: Modern format. Control is crap, combo is nerfed to the ground, and at least 50% of the winning decks are Zoo.
-Absolutely.
Anyway, RGB Goblins is a good call now. You don't see it in top8s because it's the most difficult aggro deck to play. And most Goblin players don't know how to properly handle the silver bullets, Matron, Vial triggers, etc etc. Also most builds you see on TCdecks have something wrong in them/are misbuilt.
Ps: Don't ban Brainstorm. I need it to find Fow when I'm on the play against a Lackey...
Are you into Jazz? Have a look at the Lp's I have for sale on Discogs!
No, it shouldn't be banned.
The critiques of these types of threads are all true. There are people who play Legacy that are alarmist and freak out when a card is perceived as "dominating". Affinity, Flash, CawBlade, and to a less extent Survival of the Fittest are all archetypes that were oppressive. I use the word oppressive versus dominant because contextually, they mean different things and when there is an oppressive deck, something ought to be banned; dominating cards should not be.
Dominate, by definition, means to have a commanding influence and oppressive means to unjustly inflict hardship. Does Brainstorm have a dominating effect on Legacy? Yes, it has a "commanding influence". However, I would contend its not oppressive. People don't (and shouldn't) design decks to defeat Brainstorm.deck because such a deck does not exist. By definition, eras in Magic such as the Black Summer, Affinity, Flash, and CawBlade were metagames when one homogenized deck pushed every other deck out of the format. Even if there were variations in those decks, it was usually done to gain an advantage in the mirror or combat the decks that were designed explicitly to take down the oppressive deck. This seems to fit the notion of inflicting unjust hardship and I would therefore classify these decks as oppressive. Hence, cards such as Necropotence, Flash, the Affinity engine, and Jace/Stoneforge Mystic were banned. However, the presences of Brainstorm does not push every other archetype out of contention in Legacy. As as evidenced by the last SCG top eight when three of the decks in the top eight did not feature Blue. Not to mention that 7 out of the top 16 decks did not have Brainstorm. The American metagame is heavily influenced by the SCG events which are driven by circuit Pros (who are heavy Blue proponents) and the legions of netdeckers....I mean subscribers that emulate them. So is it really that surprising that the Legacy Metagame is driven by legions of blue.deck players which gives off the perception of an unhealthy metagame?
The sick irony of this whole exercise is that it doesn't matter. WotC does not have a transparent policy when it comes to criteria for banning a card so we're at the whim of whatever Tom LaPille and the other powers that be are feeling on the day (or how terribly they got their butts kicked on MtGO that morning).
So 7 out of 16 decks did not play Brainstorm. And you use that as a sign of balance if only 9/16 decks play the same card 4 times? This is actually more dominating than Affinity back in the day. And also oppressive. There were other decks that were good when Affinity was banned, they were just heavily metagames against Affinity. And the same thing happens today. Merfolk and Maverick just happen to be good against the majority of the blue Brainstorm based decks and that is the main reason why they are contenders so on top of the 60+% Brainstorm decks you have the rest filled up with decks that are good against Brainstorm deck. That is the same oppression as back then with Affinity.
All of your examples are of dominant decks not cards. Don't you think comparing Brainstorm, a card, to decks is a little unfair?
Fetchlands/Force of Will are as prevalent as Brainstorm, that doesn't mean they should be banned. Whatever the best card for a job is will be played, banning won't ever change that.
What the fuck are you talking about, "80%"?
You haven't made an argument for why this card should be banned and are just being contrary to some posters you clearly have a beef with. Stop talking about irrelevant economics and actually make a case for your side rather than only trying to divert.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
