Ban on Brainstorm: Yes or No (Post Snapcaster Mage)

[DragoFireheart]

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.

Staple != Oppressive.

Brainstorm is a staple, not an oppressive card. It's not Skullclamp, it's not Survival of the Fittest, it's not Flash.

[Catitas]

please unban gush

[Gheizen64]

please unban gush

I'm all for this if they ban basic island and island duals.

[Dark Ritual]

Look you can argue a card has a large presence in a top 16 but that doesn't mean it's banworthy. Swords to plowshares and force of will are in the same boat as brainstorm when it comes to how much play they see but we don't see people arguing that swords to plowshares is wrecking the format or FoW sans DrJones.

Don't unban gush. Actually, unban gush so I can wreck even more face with doomsday because gush is ridiculous in that deck for drawing into a pile.

I hope when Dec. rolls around WotC gives us a present instead of taking our favorite one away i.e. they unban something like land tax or earthcraft.

[GGoober]

... because gush is ridiculous ...

Fixed that for you. Even if you can't abuse Gush in Legacy the way you can in Vintage (especially on the mana-generation side), it is still insanely powerful. Tempo, Combo, Aggro-control decks would all pack Gush. Gush also ROFLs at Wasteland. Whoever even thinks about unbanning Gush is simply ignoring other targets on the banned list that could be safely unbanned. Gush is definitely not the safer cards to unban.

Also, can someone tell me how different is this thread compared to the other 10 threads on banning blue cards and unbanning non-blue cards in the Source?

[Koby]

Also, can someone tell me how different is this thread compared to the other 10 threads on banning blue cards and unbanning non-blue cards in the Source?

Hi there, I'd love to explain that for you. You see, in the title it has "Snapcaster Mage". The other threads don't. Aside from that subtle difference, the same arguments have been used/refuted/reissued/re-refuted.

Please stand by for thread #11, discussing whether we should or should not ban Brainstorm.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Fixed that for you. Even if you can't abuse Gush in Legacy the way you can in Vintage (especially on the mana-generation side), it is still insanely powerful. Tempo, Combo, Aggro-control decks would all pack Gush. Gush also ROFLs at Wasteland. Whoever even thinks about unbanning Gush is simply ignoring other targets on the banned list that could be safely unbanned. Gush is definitely not the safer cards to unban.

Also, can someone tell me how different is this thread compared to the other 10 threads on banning blue cards and unbanning non-blue cards in the Source?

this one has a poll

[Purgatory]

I voted "No".

I played my first bigger event last weekend with Snapcaster Mage in my 60, and I think I flashed back Brainstorm once all day. For most of the part, I saved them to play reactive spells or utility spells, like Spell Snare, Lightning Bolt, Surgical Extraction, Stifle etc. etc.

Needless to say, being able to flash it back for 1UU while getting a 2/1 on the side adds a lot of value to Brainstorm (flashback obviously adds lots of value to any card), but I still don't think it's ban-worthy. It sure is powerful, but it is a pillar of Legacy, and I think many players enjoy the format because they are able to play with these "broken", skill-testing spells.

<hyperbole>
Naw, let's ban the hell out of it, gather around and sing "ding dong the witch is dead" and then go back to play redundant creature decks, that don't need any silly filter spells!
</hyperbole>

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

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.

This seems to be status quo confirmation bias. You just list decks where cards were banned as oppressive, but I don't see a reason why you wouldn't have described them as merely "dominant" had nothing been banned.

What the fuck are you talking about, "80%"?

From the context you might pick up that this is the estimate I am giving for your chances of swinging for 3 the turn after you drop a Delver.

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.

Yes I have. Also efficient market theory is perfectly relevant here; it precisely describes the argument that, "if it were so good, people would be doing it already," or, "If some people are doing it, it must be good."

[DragoFireheart]

Yes I have.

Then restate your reasons because all I have seen you do is pull a GOP (aka, attack the other position without offering a counter-offer).

[Fossil4182]

This seems to be status quo confirmation bias. You just list decks where cards were banned as oppressive, but I don't see a reason why you wouldn't have described them as merely "dominant" had nothing been banned.

If you critique is that I listed only decks in which cards were banned...fair enough. I would describe the Jund Standard as being oppressive but nothing was banned from that metagame. Jund Standard top eights were only surpassed by UW Cawblade in terms of their percentages in top eights during that period.

Your critique also fails to address the rest of my post in which the decks I describe were homogenized into one deck with the variations existing only to get an edge in the mirror. Their linch pin card(s) were so dominate that they crossed the threshold into becoming oppressive. Therefore, the banning of cards such as Necropotence were justified.

Additionally, there is no Brainstorm.deck. The variety of Blue decks that exist lends to the diversity of the format. BUG, RUG, UW, UWx, UWG are vastly different decks with each color combination having different variants within it; for example, there is a BUG Landstill deck and tempo deck. Additionally, each of these decks have varying early, middle, and late game goals with different paths to victory. They also aren't designed to take an "edge" in the mirror since a deck like Team America approaches the game very differently than a RUG Counterbalance list. The argument about Brainstorm being oppressive (and therefore ban worthy) would only be true if there was a low number of viable decks that did not contain Brainstorm. Off the top of my head: GW Maverick, Goblins, BW Disruption, Zoo, Merfolk, Dredge, Enchantress, BWG Tempo/Control, Aggro Loam, Elf Combo, Imperial Painter, Team Italia, and Burn are non-Brianstorm decks that have placed within the last six months of major events. I'd say non-Brainstorm decks plenty diverse.

[SpikeyMikey]

One thing I'd like to point out, and this is irrelevant in terms of the Brianstorm ban discussion but very relevant in terms of bannings in general.

Deckbuilders thrive on stable metagames. A settled metagame has points that can be attacked. No deck is unassailable. As long as the tools are out there for different strategies (and in Legacy, the pool is big enough that this is almost always true) than the ones currently holding sway, a clever builder can create a deck that exploits these flaws without ruining the deck's game against the rest of the field. It won't beat everything, but it will beat the top deck(s) and enough of the rest of the field to perform well. On the other hand, a a semi-settled field is a horrible thing. There are enough decks that are tuned enough that you can't just count on superior construction skills to buy you wins but the field is not stable enough to have hard nodes you can attack.

It's been very difficult for me to come up with viable creations lately because there has been so much flux in the format. Just about the time I had NO RUG and U/W Stoneblade down, MM was banned. Things have been in flux for the last 7 months or so and it's fiendishly difficult to create a deck that I feel like would give me the best chance to win. Every time something gets banned, people who like to stick to their pet deck rejoice and people like me who prefer to play something fresh and innovative gnash our teeth.

Eventually, enough rapid change leads to people just giving up on trying to get ahead of a metagame. It's like trying to run on quicksand. Then you don't have people left to create the new decks to avoid the stagnation, leading to more cries for banning.

[death]

Before Snapcaster Mage and Mental Misstep everyone agreed the format was more or less balanced. The problem now is more and more good blue spells are being printed. A combo deck for example now has near zero of chance winning against 8x Spell Snare 8x Spell Pierce 8x Stifle 8x Flusterstorm 8x Surgical Extraction 8x Extirpate 8x Thoughtseize 8x Brainstorm + Force of Will. For an aggro comparison, replace those with 8x StP, 8x PtE, 8x Lightning Bolt, Fire//Ice, Dismember, Ghastly Demise etc. etc..

I can't say a format is diverse when almost every blue deck is an iteration of the following cards:
4 Brainstorm
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Tarmogoyf/Stoneforge Mystic
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Snare

If you haven't seen these suspects in your meta yet, don't worry you'll get there.

I voted yes because of reasons like 'Don't ban brainstorm because it's a pillar of the format, because it's nostalgic and fun, I use it to dig for Force.' Go play Ponder then. They don't convince me when the issue on the table is balance of the format. I have played Brainstorm back when it wasn't even a staple and when Bad River is 'the' fetchland. I still play Brainstorm now and I won't be happy to see it go.

But when games hinges on card X (2 crappy cards + fetchland), casting X = 3 new cards, this causes problems. Same as when a top deck card X yields a card that is 3 cards more deep at instant speed FTW = busted. We've seen a lot of games go like that. This is why Brainstorm is comparable to the Vintage card Ancestral Recall and its consistency makes non-blue an inferior choice.

And don't think that even without Brainstorm, Snapcaster Mage will be harmless. Snapcaster is the root of all this (like a broken record..)

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Then restate your reasons because all I have seen you do is pull a GOP (aka, attack the other position without offering a counter-offer).

No, you haven't. You just ignored the arguments you didn't like.

You know, -snip-, I specifically compiled the data on Brainstorm's penetration in top 8's. I've brought actual data to the table. What the fuck have you posted? Some mindless bullshit about how combo decks don't need Brainstorm because they can just run Ponder.

The next time you decide to accuse me of not forming actual arguments I want you to literally -snip- Seriously? I know you know you are crossing the line.

[CorpT]

No, you haven't. You just ignored the arguments you didn't like.

You know, -snip-, I specifically compiled the data on Brainstorm's penetration in top 8's. I've brought actual data to the table. What the fuck have you posted? Some mindless bullshit about how combo decks don't need Brainstorm because they can just run Ponder.

-snip-

Ignoring Drago happened awhile ago. He ignores data and misrepresents arguments against him. Pretty typical.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

If you critique is that I listed only decks in which cards were banned...fair enough. I would describe the Jund Standard as being oppressive but nothing was banned from that metagame. Jund Standard top eights were only surpassed by UW Cawblade in terms of their percentages in top eights during that period.

Okay, so this is a merely quantitative distinction? Can we get rough guidelines on where dominance turns into oppression? I mean traditionally in strategic terms, "dominance" denotes that no other strategy actually makes sense.

Your critique also fails to address the rest of my post in which the decks I describe were homogenized into one deck with the variations existing only to get an edge in the mirror. Their linch pin card(s) were so dominate that they crossed the threshold into becoming oppressive. Therefore, the banning of cards such as Necropotence were justified.

I mean I am not actually seeing that much variety between most Legacy decks. A significant portion of them are just three color aggro-control buffet, with the actual cards almost identical within colors and blue by far being the most usual core.

Additionally, there is no Brainstorm.deck. The variety of Blue decks that exist lends to the diversity of the format. BUG, RUG, UW, UWx, UWG are vastly different decks with each color combination having different variants within it; for example, there is a BUG Landstill deck and tempo deck. Additionally, each of these decks have varying early, middle, and late game goals with different paths to victory. They also aren't designed to take an "edge" in the mirror since a deck like Team America approaches the game very differently than a RUG Counterbalance list. The argument about Brainstorm being oppressive (and therefore ban worthy) would only be true if there was a low number of viable decks that did not contain Brainstorm. Off the top of my head: GW Maverick, Goblins, BW Disruption, Zoo, Merfolk, Dredge, Enchantress, BWG Tempo/Control, Aggro Loam, Elf Combo, Imperial Painter, Team Italia, and Burn are non-Brianstorm decks that have placed within the last six months of major events. I'd say non-Brainstorm decks plenty diverse.

Well first off we're not discussing the past six months, we're discussing the past month or so since Innistrad came out. The past six months extends not only before Innistrad but before New Phyrexia- completely irrelevant to the current meta.

Secondly, the diversity of other decks doesn't really matter if those decks don't put up numbers.

[DragoFireheart]

No, you haven't. You just ignored the arguments you didn't like.

Still upset about the other topic where you showed yo clearly don't understand why Brainstorm is bad in merfolk? Get over it. I refuse to even read your other points when you fail to understand basic usages of Legacy staples like Brainstorm.

You know, fuck off, I specifically compiled the data on Brainstorm's penetration in top 8's. I've brought actual data to the table. What the fuck have you posted? Some mindless bullshit about how combo decks don't need Brainstorm because they can just run Ponder.

Status quo confirmation bias much? I provide data for my points (ex: brainstorm being bad in merfolk) but you dismiss it. You then pretend that if you use data it's ok? Lol what a hypocrite! You are hilarious IBA!

The next time you decide to accuse me of not forming actual arguments I want you to SNIP

How old are you? 15? I never claimed you didn't, I only asked you to repost since I haven't SEEN you post good counter arguments, and then you lash out with a strawman? The fact you actually resorted to a personal attack of that nature pretty much destroys your credibility as anything but an immature child. Thanks for admitting you were wrong though.

[DragoFireheart]

Ignoring Drago happened awhile ago. He ignores data and misrepresents arguments against him. Pretty typical.

More like you misrepresent what I do and ignore my questions and/or dodge them like a Nimble Mongoose dodging a Lightning Bolt.

I'm opinionated and I get into heated discussion easily, but don't accuse me of doing something if you don't plan on backing it up. I haven't ignored any data and I haven't misrepresented any arguments against me and if I did by some accident I seem to remember correcting myself and if I haven't I apologize in advance. I'm not perfect but don't pretend you are either. If you have a gripe with me say so, but last time I checked I asked you a question and you dodged the hell out of it.

Ball in your court...

[Vacrix]

Honestly I don't see whats so hard about this. Why can't WotC make some decent anti-blue measures. Its not that fucking hard. If they can make blue good enough to lead the format for this long then why can't they make something that can't be played effectively with blue or discourages other players from playing blue?

[UnderwaterGuy]

Honestly I don't see whats so hard about this. Why can't WotC make some decent anti-blue measures. Its not that fucking hard. If they can make blue good enough to lead the format for this long then why can't they make something that can't be played effectively with blue or discourages other players from playing blue?

As far as I can tell they just don't want to. For all this talk about banning Brainstorm it hasn't been coming from wotc. The only two cards played in Legacy from Innistrad are blue.