All B/R update speculation.

[Star|Scream]

So we have decided to make this discussion unproductive?

"You have to draw the line, and you are saying that a turn one 14 card draw is below your line, and I am saying it's way above my line."

and leave it at that.

No one told you to go play anything. What I did say was what show and tell does is no more broken or degenerate then so many other things that are legal in legacy when left unchecked.

It takes way more then 2 weeks of results to say a card should be axed. Give people a chance to react and prepare for these decks. If at that point they are still putting up numbers where it's play x or play to beat x then by all mean it deserves the ban.

Not sure if you were trying to troll me with your comments but that type of post I would not expect to get on this site.

No, I'm sorry if you can't understand what I am saying. Words are hard. I will try to rephrase for clarity.

A: You are in a thread that was specifically created to talk about banning cards, and you are complaining that people are talking about banning cards. o_O?

B: We all agree that Black lotus is too powerful for legacy. You believe show and tell into Griselbrand on turn 1 or 2 is not too powerful for legacy, while I (and others) believe that it is too powerful. We have a difference of opinion. I have strongly disliked Grisdelbrand from the first time I played against it, weeks ago. I am upset that Wizards created a card with such a busted mechanic with absolutely zero regard with how easy it is to cheat it into play in eternal formats. They could have at least given it a delayed trigger or required it to tap to activate. The SCG results are just beginning to show how degenerate the interaction really is, and I believe it will only get worse. I may be wrong and the format will adapt but that doesn't change my opinion of it.

There is no need to put down my arguments or infer that I am a troll because I disagree with you.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

No, I'm sorry if you can't understand what I am saying. Words are hard. I will try to rephrase for clarity.

A: You are in a thread that was specifically created to talk about banning cards, and you are complaining that people are talking about banning cards. o_O?

B: We all agree that Black lotus is too powerful for legacy. You believe show and tell into Griselbrand on turn 1 or 2 is not too powerful for legacy, while I (and others) believe that it is too powerful. We have a difference of opinion. I have strongly disliked Grisdelbrand from the first time I played against it, weeks ago. I am upset that Wizards created a card with such a busted mechanic with absolutely zero regard with how easy it is to cheat it into play in eternal formats. They could have at least given it a delayed trigger or required it to tap to activate. The SCG results are just beginning to show how degenerate the interaction really is, and I believe it will only get worse. I may be wrong and the format will adapt but that doesn't change my opinion of it.

There is no need to put down my arguments or infer that I am a troll because I disagree with you.

I disagree with your opinion that sneak and show is too powerful for legacy. Legacy has always been a turn 2 format and this deck doesn't even win the game by turn 3.

[Star|Scream]

I disagree with your opinion that sneak and show is too powerful for legacy. Legacy has always been a turn 2 format and this deck doesn't even win the game by turn 3.

No, the game isn't won on turn 3. It will take Griselbrand 3 more turns to technically win, but isn't that just semantics? I contend that a turn 1 Griselbrand is just as lethal as a turn 1 tendrils

[Ignithas_]

Holy Cow, Maverick was dominating forever, and when it does play Brainstorm, we can start banning it!

Brainstorm being restricted in Vintage does not necessarily mean that it should be banned in Legacy. The two formats are entirely different and it can be argued that Brainstorm is the defining pillar of Legacy (where blue maintains its stronghold in eternal formats). I will continue to argue that blue NEEDS to be a stronghold in any eternal format, otherwise people will be whining at unwinnable Belcher/SI/insert-balls-in-wall-combo.format.

Thankfully, blue control-based decks can be stopped these days easily by non-blue decks (Maverick, Nic Fit, Rock etc). The only pure strength of blue comes when you have an exceptional pilot piloting decks that rape good decks in the format aka Thresh. CT has always raped good decks under the hands of good pilots, and this is nothing new, and does not add to the argument that Brainstorm needs to go. In fact, it's hilarious that as we were talking about Brainstorm being the culprit again, Maverick has gone on a stomping streak for months.

Now an old archetype of SnT/Sneak has surfaced again and people haven't been prepared against it, so inevitably the "B/R update speculation" thread gets active again. Aside from MM and Vengevine, I seriously doubt that any card has shaken and unbalanced the format yet. Even a powerhouse like Delver could still be considered fair, although edging on the 'overpowered' side of Legacy cards.

Maverick isn't dominating anything, it's only strong against U decks in this format. And the people that like Brainstorm can't adapt to that, so Maverick will win against them.

That U has to be the best color in Legacy is simply not true. U got with Delver one of the best 1 drop creatures, why shouldn't other colors get free MB hate against Storm?

No, I'm sorry if you can't understand what I am saying. Words are hard. I will try to rephrase for clarity.

A: You are in a thread that was specifically created to talk about banning cards, and you are complaining that people are talking about banning cards. o_O?

B: We all agree that Black lotus is too powerful for legacy. You believe show and tell into Griselbrand on turn 1 or 2 is not too powerful for legacy, while I (and others) believe that it is too powerful. We have a difference of opinion. I have strongly disliked Grisdelbrand from the first time I played against it, weeks ago. I am upset that Wizards created a card with such a busted mechanic with absolutely zero regard with how easy it is to cheat it into play in eternal formats. They could have at least given it a delayed trigger or required it to tap to activate. The SCG results are just beginning to show how degenerate the interaction really is, and I believe it will only get worse. I may be wrong and the format will adapt but that doesn't change my opinion of it.

There is no need to put down my arguments or infer that I am a troll because I disagree with you.

I personally find LED more opressive than SnT, because fair decks have abysmal win chances against it. I can pack 3 Traps, 2 Cannonists, 4 Enlightened Tutor, 4 Thalia and 4 Phyrexian Revoker and the chance of winning is bad. When I pack the same amount of hate against SnT, my chance is at least decent.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

No, the game isn't won on turn 3. It will take Griselbrand 3 more turns to technically win, but isn't that just semantics? I contend that a turn 1 Griselbrand is just as lethal as a turn 1 tendrils

First off, the probability of turn 1 anything is like 3%, that is nothing. Stop making it seem like this deck goes off turn 1 all the time, because it doesn't. Saying things like that make me think you haven't ever played against or with the deck. Secondly, when you can Sword or Path a Tendrils of Agony let me know.

[Einherjer]

Im not in the mood of writing a long text, so I will make it short.

Ive been playing SneakAttack for about a year now. It's always been strong. It's always been unfair. But there have always been cards I lost against. These cards are getting more and more over the time - one of the recent ones - Thalia. Yes I can drop a T1 Emrakul vs Maverick, but what if they drop a Knight/Karakas. Yes I can drop a Griselbrand, but what if they Stifle the first activiation and Daze the Counterspell from the next 7 cards? What if I play vs CounterThopter? What if I play vs (a well built) Team America? Guys there are so many (decks) strategies that rape SneakShow. Learn to adapt. Learn to play magic.

Greetings

[(nameless one)]

Im not in the mood of writing a long text, so I will make it short.

Ive been playing SneakAttack for about a year now. It's always been strong. It's always been unfair. But there have always been cards I lost against. These cards are getting more and more over the time - one of the recent ones - Thalia. Yes I can drop a T1 Emrakul vs Maverick, but what if they drop a Knight/Karakas. Yes I can drop a Griselbrand, but what if they Stifle the first activiation and Daze the Counterspell from the next 7 cards? What if I play vs CounterThopter? What if I play vs (a well built) Team America? Guys there are so many (decks) strategies that rape SneakShow. Learn to adapt. Learn to play magic.

Greetings

This. Its not like Sneak/Show has 50+% winning percentage against the whole field. This is what sideboards are for if you don't have meta-game decks.

[millerd33]

No, I'm sorry if you can't understand what I am saying. Words are hard. I will try to rephrase for clarity.

A: You are in a thread that was specifically created to talk about banning cards, and you are complaining that people are talking about banning cards. o_O?

B: We all agree that Black lotus is too powerful for legacy. You believe show and tell into Griselbrand on turn 1 or 2 is not too powerful for legacy, while I (and others) believe that it is too powerful. We have a difference of opinion. I have strongly disliked Grisdelbrand from the first time I played against it, weeks ago. I am upset that Wizards created a card with such a busted mechanic with absolutely zero regard with how easy it is to cheat it into play in eternal formats. They could have at least given it a delayed trigger or required it to tap to activate. The SCG results are just beginning to show how degenerate the interaction really is, and I believe it will only get worse. I may be wrong and the format will adapt but that doesn't change my opinion of it.

There is no need to put down my arguments or infer that I am a troll because I disagree with you.

You can have any opinion you would like. Is GB on turn 2 any worse then turn 2Ad Naus?
You think it's 2 powerful and don't like the card. I think there are just as many other very powerful cards and interactions in this format.

As for the trolling comment... When you direct a post at me saying my ideas on the power of a card that has been in print for what a few weeks are = unbanning the likes of black lotus then follow that up with putting words into my mouth that I would never dream as using as an argument, Yes to me that is someone trolling to get a reaction. Look down your nose at someone else.

[Mirrislegend]

Generally, I'd say everything is pretty healthy. The only card I would consider is Show and Tell.

Show and Tell enables 3 different decks (Sneak and Show, Reanimator, Hivemind). In the latter 2, it allows them to evade typical hate, which is overly favorable for these combo-ish decks.

In every case, it's effectively a game winning spell. When's the last time we had a single spell with the capacity to auto win the game not get banned or get unbanned. Every example (Natural Order, Time Spiral) is 4 CMC or higher. Sure that brings Teeg into the equation, but there's more too it than that: 4 CMC is the dividing line in Legacy for something to be called "expensive" (in terms of casting cost). So it makes sense that these auto win cards are expensive. Show and Tell is an auto win that is not expensive. It's powered above it's cost. Sure that's happened in the past, but for an auto win card to be powered above it's cost, THAT is an issue.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

Generally, I'd say everything is pretty healthy. The only card I would consider is Show and Tell.

Show and Tell enables 3 different decks (Sneak and Show, Reanimator, Hivemind). In the latter 2, it allows them to evade typical hate, which is overly favorable for these combo-ish decks.

In every case, it's effectively a game winning spell. When's the last time we had a single spell with the capacity to auto win the game not get banned or get unbanned. Every example (Natural Order, Time Spiral) is 4 CMC or higher. Sure that brings Teeg into the equation, but there's more too it than that: 4 CMC is the dividing line in Legacy for something to be called "expensive" (in terms of casting cost). So it makes sense that these auto win cards are expensive. Show and Tell is an auto win that is not expensive. It's powered above it's cost. Sure that's happened in the past, but for an auto win card to be powered above it's cost, THAT is an issue.

Doomsday costs 3

[Dark Ritual]

Maverick isn't dominating anything, it's only strong against U decks in this format. And the people that like Brainstorm can't adapt to that, so Maverick will win against them.

I strongly disagree that maverick is only good against blue decks, if that were the case maverick wouldn't be tier 1. Maverick has decent matchups across the entire field of legacy, which is why it's tier 1. It can literally compete with any deck it wants to via the adaptation of its sideboard and maindeck including storm combo.

Also, the chances of killing anyone on turn 1 in legacy is quite low in decks not named the Spanish Inquisition. But even SI isn't the most consistent combo deck in terms of how often if successfully comboes off and it is a very volatile deck that if you misplay once with can automatically lose you a game. And don't say belcher kills on turn 1, it rarely does in fact in my experience as making 12 goblins on turn 1 is a strong play it is beatable and there's the fact that 12 goblins don't win until turn 3.

Legacy is fine right now. I have no problem with the metagame at hand currently.

[Koby]

Show and Tell is an issue because it costs . The plays a huge role in making it easy to cast. I don't think we would have an issue with it if it cost . Doomsday, while more powerful, has a much more restrictive mana cost that limits its ease of use. Would Jace be as powerful if it cost ?

[Star|Scream]

You can have any opinion you would like. Is GB on turn 2 any worse then turn 2Ad Naus?
You think it's 2 powerful and don't like the card. I think there are just as many other very powerful cards and interactions in this format.

As for the trolling comment... When you direct a post at me saying my ideas on the power of a card that has been in print for what a few weeks are = unbanning the likes of black lotus then follow that up with putting words into my mouth that I would never dream as using as an argument, Yes to me that is someone trolling to get a reaction. Look down your nose at someone else.

Like I said: Words are hard. I was using Black Lotus as a baseline for something that you and I both completely feel is broken (at least I hope you do,) and then followed with: Now that we agree that Black Lotus is too powerful, I also feel that Show and Tell (now that griselbrand has been printed) is ALSO too powerful. And you feel otherwise. I wasn't trolling you. The world isn't against you, and I'm not your psychiatrist.

First off, the probability of turn 1 anything is like 3%, that is nothing. Stop making it seem like this deck goes off turn 1 all the time, because it doesn't. Saying things like that make me think you haven't ever played against or with the deck. Secondly, when you can Sword or Path a Tendrils of Agony let me know.

"like 3%" is hardly an argument. I have played against the deck plenty enough. You can't swords an Emrakul, but you can swords a Griselbrand provided the 14 cards they draw from it don't contain a counterspell, or worse, a misdirection for the creature you SNT

[TooCloseToTheSun]

Doomsday, while more powerful, has a much more restrictive mana cost that limits its ease of use.

That is just bullshit. Last I checked Dark Rit still made

"like 3%" is hardly an argument. I have played against the deck plenty enough. You can't swords an Emrakul, but you can swords a Griselbrand provided the 14 cards they draw from it don't contain a counterspell, or worse, a misdirection for the creature you SNT

How is that hardly an argument. 97% of the time sneak and show will not cast show and tell for a creature on turn one. This entire game is based on probabilities.

[Koby]

That is just bullshit. Last I checked Dark Rit still made

You're really dense. Of course you can cast it via Dark Ritual. It's restrictive in deck selection too - show me a deck with Dark Ritual, Doomsday, and Force of Will that gels as well as Show & Tell decks do.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

You're really dense. Of course you can cast it via Dark Ritual. It's restrictive in deck selection too - show me a deck with Dark Ritual, Doomsday, and Force of Will that gels as well as Show & Tell decks do.

Why would you play force when you can play silence and discard, are you dumb. They both work better in that deck. Do you want to see a list?

[Star|Scream]

That is just bullshit. Last I checked Dark Rit still made



How is that hardly an argument. 97% of the time sneak and show will not cast show and tell for a creature on turn one. This entire game is based on probabilities.

Because "like 3%" isn't an actual figure. I don't have the figure, but if you're going to spout off numbers to prove an argument, don't you think you should at least know it?

Also, what is an acceptable first turn win percentage for legacy? Like 20%? Like 35%? Why do you get to choose that Like 3% is okay?

[millerd33]

Like I said: Words are hard. I was using Black Lotus as a baseline for something that you and I both completely feel is broken (at least I hope you do,) and then followed with: Now that we agree that Black Lotus is too powerful, I also feel that Show and Tell (now that griselbrand has been printed) is ALSO too powerful. And you feel otherwise. I wasn't trolling you. The world isn't against you, and I'm not your psychiatrist.

How about instead of the flaming because I don't agree you and actually tell me how a turn 1 GB is more oppressive then a turn 1 ad naus?

This holier than thou attitude has no place in a discussion. You sir can go pound sand.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

Because "like 3%" isn't an actual figure. I don't have the figure, but if you're going to spout off numbers to prove an argument, don't you think you should at least know it?

Also, what is an acceptable first turn win percentage for legacy? Like 20%? Like 35%? Why do you get to choose that Like 3% is okay?

Probability of getting Griselbrand into play turn 1 (Assuming you run 4, and 4 Petals, and 6 Sol lands, and 4 Show and Tell) = %3.4522023212028309465332723808

If you wanted the exact number you could do the math instead of just spouting bullshit. Also %3 doesn't factor in protection, if you want it protected the percentage gets way lower.

[Koby]

Probability of getting Griselbrand into play turn 1 (Assuming you run 4, and 4 Petals, and 6 Sol lands, and 4 Show and Tell) = %3.4522023212028309465332723808

If you wanted the exact number you could do the math instead of just spouting bullshit. Also %3 doesn't factor in protection, if you want it protected the percentage gets way lower.

What are the chances that you have (black source) Dark Ritual, Doomsday, and the ability to win the game the next turn with the remaining cards in your hand?