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

[ReAnimator]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that SCG results are irrelevant by any means. They're simply not the end-all be-all barometer for what is and is not viable in the format. Obviously "no innovation echo chamber" is hyperbolic, but there's some truth to it.

The same top level players do well in almost every event, and those players and their friends are choosing to play a particular subset of decks, and so are of course doing well with them.

I suspect that if those same players chose to tune and sleeve up Maverick for a few events, it would start looking to some people like an unstoppable force in the metagame that can only be fixed with a ban, and then we can be having this same discussion about Green Sun's Zenith next month, like Brainstorm this month, and Show and Tell last month, and on and on and on.

Or we can accept that, over time, the Legacy card pool is deep enough to adapt to almost any "dominant" force available to it. If that actually proves to be untrue for more than a few months, then maybe action is necessary.

I guess this opens up a lot of other questions that would derail this thread, but it could lead to interesting discussions that might have already been covered here in other threads and around the net.
Is it all in the player and decks mean nothing? (obviously it lies somewhere in the middle)
Hypothetically a strong enough team would essentially be able to get anything banned, by just showing up with 20 players playing the same thing that is hard to hate out at every event (is this what happened with vengevival?). If the player population at large can't beat/hate out said deck/card in the hands of an excellent player over multiple events isn't that grounds for a banning of some sort? the whole appeal of big tournaments for a lot of people unlike in chess is that you can get there and get lucky against anyone. If that stops happening cause of a specific metagame or strategy it is very bad for business.
I think in general terms maverick is a way easier deck to hate out (if necessary) than anything with blue, just cause of the nature of counterspells.

[Zilla]

I guess this opens up a lot of other questions that would derail this thread, but it could lead to interesting discussions that might have already been covered here in other threads and around the net.
Is it all in the player and decks mean nothing? (obviously it lies somewhere in the middle)
Hypothetically a strong enough team would essentially be able to get anything banned, by just showing up with 20 players playing the same thing that is hard to hate out at every event (is this what happened with vengevival?). If the player population at large can't beat/hate out said deck/card in the hands of an excellent player over multiple events isn't that grounds for a banning of some sort? the whole appeal of big tournaments for a lot of people unlike in chess is that you can get there and get lucky against anyone. If that stops happening cause of a specific metagame or strategy it is very bad for business.

I dig what you're saying, and again, I think it's completely fallacious to just throw out SCG results entirely and say "well no one there is trying to beat Brainstorm so it doesn't matter." Brainstorm is fucking amazing, and that's why players that like to win like to play with it. No question.

I was simply pointing out that the "group think" aspect does have merit and should be accounted for. It's the biggest reason we see the same deck doing well for two or three SCG's in a row, and then suddenly people think it's unstoppable. Wait a few months more and see if that same deck is dominating. If it is, then there might be a problem.

In general, the notion that Brainstorm needs to be "hated out" is kind of absurd, because you don't hate out a card. You hate out a deck, and Brainstorm exists in an extremely diverse set of decks, ranging from fast combo to slower combo to aggro control to pure control. Obviously that's going to be hard to hate out, because it's a bunch of different strategies.

It just seems like people want to lump them all together as one deck because they all have Brainstorm in them, and I don't really see how that's relevant, or a problem for the format.

[ReAnimator]

Agreed on all the earlier stuff.

In general, the notion that Brainstorm needs to be "hated out" is kind of absurd, because you don't hate out a card. You hate out a deck, and Brainstorm exists in an extremely diverse set of decks, ranging from fast combo to slower combo to aggro control to pure control. Obviously that's going to be hard to hate out, because it's a bunch of different strategies.

It just seems like people want to lump them all together as one deck because they all have Brainstorm in them, and I don't really see how that's relevant, or a problem for the format.

The thing is, it isn't what we think it's what Wotc thinks. Ponder and Preordain were banned for this exact reason in Modern. They made Pyromancers, Storm, and Twin all too good and too consistent in their eyes. Sure they are all UR Combo decks, but it was the one thing they all shared in common, and they are vastly different decks. It probably would have been even more damning if some aggro control or teachings lists ran them too, and that is exactly the space that BS is occupying now. I'm not saying i want to see BS go but i wouldn't be surprised at all if it did given the history and how Wotc is handling modern. It fits all of the criteria of Preordain and Ponder and then some.

[Gui]

It just seems like people want to lump them all together as one deck because they all have Brainstorm in them, and I don't really see how that's relevant, or a problem for the format.

The thing is, if a card is so strong that every player want to use it, and worse, every winning player uses it, it's comparable to the exact set of cards that was not allowed in legacy in the first ban list, to start with.

I think this is probably one of the most important traits a card must show before being banned.

[Zilla]

I'm not saying i want to see BS go but i wouldn't be surprised at all if it did given the history and how Wotc is handling modern.

I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but if WoTC starts handling Legacy's ban list the way they handle Modern's, the format will cease to exist in any meaningful way within a year.

The thing is, if a card is so strong that every player want to use it, and worse, every winning player uses it, it's comparable to the exact set of cards that was not allowed in legacy in the first ban list, to start with.

Like Goblin Recruiter, Mana Drain, Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad, and Worldgorger Dragon? EVERY deck was running those cards, right? That's a really good point.

[Gui]

Like Goblin Recruiter, Mana Drain, Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad, and Worldgorger Dragon? EVERY deck was running those cards, right? That's a really good point.

I didn't say every card was in the list for the same reason, I said brainstorm was comparable. But ok, I should have said to SOME of the cards in the set.

Edit: Actually I didn't say Brainstorm as well, I was thinking in a more general way, like, everyone and their mothers using Flash or SotF in their decks.

[Zilla]

I didn't say every card was in the list for the same reason, I said brainstorm was comparable. But ok, I should have said to SOME of the cards in the set.

Edit: Actually I didn't say Brainstorm as well, I was thinking in a more general way, like, everyone and their mothers using Flash or SotF in their decks.

My point is that the cards in Legacy's original ban list are not comparable to Brainstorm in any way. Almost every card on Legacy's ban list that was not already on 1.5's list were engine cards that enabled broken decks.

You had Bazaar/Worldgorger in Dragon, Goblin Recruiter in Food Chain Goblins, Mana Drain in Landstill, Illusionary Mask in Masknought, and Mishra's Workshop in MUD. They weren't even really banning cards, they were banning entire decks. The only one to survive the transition (in a much weaker state) was Landstill.

Brainstorm is a very powerful card, but it has basically nothing in common with the cards originally added to Legacy's ban list.

[ReAnimator]

I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but if WoTC starts handling Legacy's ban list the way they handle Modern's, the format will cease to exist in any meaningful way within a year.

Totally agreed that a modern style approach would be awful, and also unnecessary where as with modern it seems fine until it gets it's footing. But all i'm saying is that between modern and vintage there is precedent for going after exactly the type of card brainstorm is, with a way more compelling reason than preordain and ponder had for modern.

[Zilla]

But all i'm saying is that between modern and vintage there is precedent for going after exactly the type of card brainstorm is, with a way more compelling reason than preordain and ponder had for modern.

The precedent is there, I agree, but the commonality is incidental, I think.

In the case of Modern, it appears they were aiming for a format where combo and control take a back seat to decks that win with the attack phase. All of their bannings to date would seem to support that, including Ponder and Preordain.

In the case of Vintage, you have a different situation. Brainstorm is really only as strong as the other cards in your deck. In Vintage's case, the power level of every individual card in a deck is much higher than in Legacy, which makes Brainstorm exponentially more powerful there than it is here.

If there's a precedent, it's that they're willing to ban cards like Brainstorm, but there are very specific (and very different) reasons for their having done so. I don't think those reasons are applicable to Legacy.

[Gui]

Brainstorm is a very powerful card, but it has basically nothing in common with the cards originally added to Legacy's ban list.

But my point was that, when people say "You have to play Brainstorm in legacy to win", if this is true (maybe it isn't), then it is comparable to the strong decks they banned exactly because they had cards like "If you don't play this, you lose", or, worded better, "If you are not playing this card, maybe you win, but you are giving up some serious chance of winning there."

I find Brainstorm to have a lot in common to Ancestral Recall, tbh. It's not the engine winning the game, but it will usually point you to that direction, and when that card exists, everyone will want to play it.

I don't know if I made myself clear, if I don't I apologize, I'll think a better way to say what I mean later.

EDIT: I think I got what you meant now, I think you were talking about the list of cards added to the list when WotC split the formats, while I was talking more about the whole idea of 1.5 not having the cards that were restricted in vintage.

[DrJones]

There was an interesting discussion at Themanadrain about Brainstorm and if it should be banned. They seem to agree Vintage is better without Brainstorm, that Legacy sucks because Brainstorm + Force has always been the clear best strategy and it has been that way all these years, and that the only downside if the card were to be banned would be the emotional response of some legacy players rage quitting.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=43423.0

[snappingbowls | ಠ_ಠ]

There was an interesting discussion at Themanadrain about Brainstorm and if it should be banned. They seem to agree Vintage is better without Brainstorm, that Legacy sucks because Brainstorm + Force has always been the clear best strategy and it has been that way all these years, and that the only downside if the card were to be banned would be the emotional response of some legacy players rage quitting.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=43423.0

WAY, WAY more people want to play with those cards than people who don't. I think this is something people don't give enough credit to... these cards attract people to the format and they are in part what defines legacy as a format.

Do you personally dislike these cards? Do you own them or play with them? It seems like most of what you say is just you attacking blue

[DrJones]

WAY, WAY more people want to play with those cards than people who don't. I think this is something people don't give enough credit to... these cards attract people to the format and they are in part what defines legacy as a format.

Do you personally dislike these cards? Do you own them or play with them? It seems like most of what you say is just you attacking blue

To make this post short: I enjoy playing Blue, and I enjoy playing Magic. What I don't enjoy, is playing Cat & Mouse. Not because I don't enjoy playing as the Cat, but because I know that as long as I have half a brain, the mouse can't win regardless of that player's skill, and I cannot play that game if nobody picks the mouse.

The problem with Legacy, as said by the Pros, is that Mental Misstep taught people that not playing blue is the same as playing as the mouse, it broke "the illusion" that blue was fair, and that cat cannot be longer put again in the bag without several bannings taking place (and I mean more than just banning brainstorm), because if you think that WotC knows how to balance their game and will print cards that actually fix the problem you are terribly näive. It took them TWO freaking years to start realizing the concept that only one deck being viable in Standard/Extended is not healthy for a game based around building your own deck; and they only got the clue once people stopped playing tournaments. They actually believed that Cawblade mirrors all the day and Jace at 100$ was fine and healthy because "skill matters" and games lasted more than three turns.

For the laughs, here's some quote from a moron whose job is specifically to make sure that no card that can easily break a format in half ends printed in a Magic set:

In older formats like Legacy and Modern, creature removal spells are proportionally less powerful because the diversity of viable strategies in these formats renders removal more of a liability in creature-light matchups. It therefore becomes easier for a card like Insectile Aberration to take over a game—particularly when there are so many efficient ways to protect it, and when cards like Brainstorm virtually guarantee an early transformation. Fortunately, these formats tend to be robust enough to adapt to a creature that, for all its power, simply attacks and blocks.

[snappingbowls | ಠ_ಠ]

The problem with Legacy, as said by the Pros, is that Mental Misstep taught people that not playing blue is the same as playing as the mouse, it broke "the illusion" that blue was fair, and that cat cannot be longer put again in the bag without several bannings taking place (and I mean more than just banning brainstorm)

who said this? where are the links

why would you want to ban cards to balance the color pie... if you want to play every color play edh? It's fine that blue is the best color... you can still kick ass with G/W and Vial Goblins... Blue is the best support color, what mono u decks are good? Merfolk, thats it, solidarity and high tide suck and mono blue control really sucks... legacy is all about playing old cards and playing 2/3 colored decks... since is blue is such a great support color it gets splashed alot... this isn't a bad thing and is not worthy of being banned...

[from Cairo]

The thing is, if a card is so strong that every player want to use it, and worse, every winning player uses it, it's comparable to the exact set of cards that was not allowed in legacy in the first ban list, to start with.

As Zilla replied the original Ban list really was the busted stuff in Vintage + the main engines of the 1.5 decks at the time.

Actually I didn't say Brainstorm as well, I was thinking in a more general way, like, everyone and their mothers using Flash or SotF in their decks.

I still don't think Brainstorm is that comparable to Flash or Survival, both of them were engines that enabled decks based around 2 card combos if they resolved.

I think Zilla's quote/point can just as easily be applied to Flash and Survival...

My point is that the cards in Legacy's original ban list are not comparable to Brainstorm in any way. Almost every card on Legacy's ban list that was not already on 1.5's list were engine cards that enabled broken decks.

[replace Worldgorger Dragon / Food Chain Gobs / Workshop MUD with Flash + Hulk and Survival + Vengevine]

Brainstorm is a very powerful card, but it has basically nothing in common with the cards originally added to Legacy's ban list.

The banning of Flash and Survival were used to kill off single dominant interactions.

Banning Brainstorm would be closer to the banning of Mystical Tutor in that it would hurt the consistency of several archetypes without being aimed at a specific interaction in general.

[Zilla]

Blue is the best support color, what mono u decks are good? Merfolk, thats it, solidarity and high tide suck and mono blue control really sucks...

To be fair, the same can be said of every other color. Most other colors don't even have one viable mono-color option, let alone multiples. (And incidentally, Spiral Tide is amazing in the hands of a competent player, imo.)

All colors in this format are basically support colors, and blue is certainly in the highest percentage of decks. I just don't think that alone is enough of a reason to ban a card that most people enjoy playing with.

[Final Fortune]

There was an interesting discussion at Themanadrain about Brainstorm and if it should be banned. They seem to agree Vintage is better without Brainstorm, that Legacy sucks because Brainstorm + Force has always been the clear best strategy and it has been that way all these years, and that the only downside if the card were to be banned would be the emotional response of some legacy players rage quitting.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=43423.0

No offense, but the popularity of Vintage has fallen off the face of a cliff since about the time that Gifts Ungiven, Thirst for Knowledge, Merchant Scroll, Brainstorm and Ponder all went on the restricted list and the format has lived on life support since - being a Vintage refugee I'd rather Legacy not make that mistake.

Also saying FoW and Co. has always been the undisputed best deck in the format is just straight up bull shit, Goblins owned this format until Tarmogoyf was printed and that's a fact.

[DragoFireheart]

Riddle me this: if blue was such a overpowered color, why aren't mono-blue decks dominating the format?

(Waits for arguments saying that the blue shell is what they are taking about yet they miss the point that multi-color decks are what dominate the format.)

[Lt. Quattro]

Riddle me this: if blue was such a overpowered color, why aren't mono-blue decks dominating the format?

(Waits for arguments saying that the blue shell is what they are taking about yet they miss the point that multi-color decks are what dominate the format.)

Jesus, there is no point in addressing your point because you won't ever listen. If you had just read the last 2 posts in this thread before yours, you would already know the answer to your question. There are only a few mono colored decks, and non are dominating the format.

[Artowis]

Riddle me this: if blue was such a overpowered color, why aren't mono-blue decks dominating the format?

(Waits for arguments saying that the blue shell is what they are taking about yet they miss the point that multi-color decks are what dominate the format.)

Why would you ever play a mono-colored deck in a format with fetches and duals?