All B/R update speculation.

[Pippin]

Can you name a few of these that are no longer viable because of GB?

For example - Aggro Loam which was putting good results before Griselbrand decks. There are other examples of course.

[rxavage]

For example - Aggro Loam which was putting good results before Griselbrand decks. There are other examples of course.

Oh yeah thats right, back in 2009.

[salvor]

Oh yeah thats right, back in 2009.

Yeah, I've never seen Aggro Loam in top of an event recenly.

It was inconsistent deck, yet very powerful one.

[rxavage]

Yeah, I've never seen Aggro Loam in top of an event recenly.

It was inconsistent deck, yet very powerful one.

Was that supposed to prove something? A few placings over the past year does not mean the deck was consistently putting up good results.

[salvor]

Was that supposed to prove something? A few placings over the past year does not mean the deck was consistently putting up good results.

There were 15 Starcity legacy opens between January and Starcity:Providence.
Aggro loam had 5 top 16 finishes and two top 1 finishes.
For comparison: ANT had 7 top 16 finishes and 0 top 1 finishes in same set of events.

Maybe I'm wrong but Aggro Loam consistently was putting up good results, imo.

P.S. Nic Fit was a deck to beat couple of months before, and where is it now? It's also an example of a deck which was hated by Grisel. (I'm not a Nic Fit player, so I don't know if it can adapt to make their matchup better).

[Hopo]

Read Kibler's thoughts on Griselbrand from Starcitygames. Even Kibler is fed up with people crying over a card that didn't even top 8 GP Atlanta.

No doubt Griselbrand is a really good card which is somewhat difficult to deal with when it comes into play, but there is absolutely no evidence that it's unbeatable, oppressive or whatever happens to be your favorite hyperbolic term of the day.

Kibler mentions that it feels like that the people crying just seem to be the guys who don't know how to win Griselbrand. If your first thought when a powerful deck or synergy arises is "ban this, I can't deal with it", maybe competitive legacy with its almost infinite card pool just isn't your thing.

[caiomarcos]

Read Kibler's thoughts on Griselbrand from Starcitygames. Even Kibler is fed up with people crying over a card that didn't even top 8 GP Atlanta.

No doubt Griselbrand is a really good card which is somewhat difficult to deal with when it comes into play, but there is absolutely no evidence that it's unbeatable, oppressive or whatever happens to be your favorite hyperbolic term of the day.

Kibler mentions that it feels like that the people crying just seem to be the guys who don't know how to win Griselbrand. If your first thought when a powerful deck or synergy arises is "ban this, I can't deal with it", maybe competitive legacy with its almost infinite card pool just isn't your thing.

Is Bargain any more oppressive, unbeatable or whatever happens to be your favorite hyperbolic term of the day than Griselbrand?

[dontbiteitholmes]

Is Bargain any more oppressive, unbeatable or whatever happens to be your favorite hyperbolic term of the day than Griselbrand?

Bargain is much more castable, much harder to disrupt, allows you to draw one card at a time as opposed to in chunks of 7, ect...

Bargain is just as easy to get into play if not easier (see Academy Rector, Grim Monolith, Rituals) and is better in decks that aren't planning on winning through the attack phase. Griselbrand is in no way Bargain. They go in different decks, they lose to different things, they are put into play different ways, they end the game differently. In the end Bargain is better IMO but they are completely different cards. They are both black and both draw cards for life but that's basically the end of the similarities. If you have another argument that is fine but comparing Griselbrand to Bargain doesn't mean anything because it's not a valid comparison. So to answer your question yes Bargain is oppressive but that is irrelevant.

[Hopo]

Is Bargain any more oppressive, unbeatable or whatever happens to be your favorite hyperbolic term of the day than Griselbrand?

I wouldn't know, as Bargain hasn't been legal in this format and I don't follow vintage. But you should be aware that there's quite a difference in drawing a card per life to 7 cards per 7 life. Just because they both draw cards for life doesn't make them interchangeable.

If you are trying to imply that Griselbrand should be banned, then I'm just bored.

[Pippin]

Bargain is much more castable, much harder to disrupt, allows you to draw one card at a time as opposed to in chunks of 7, ect...

Bargain is just as easy to get into play if not easier (see Academy Rector, Grim Monolith, Rituals) and is better in decks that aren't planning on winning through the attack phase. Griselbrand is in no way Bargain. They go in different decks, they lose to different things, they are put into play different ways, they end the game differently. In the end Bargain is better IMO but they are completely different cards. They are both black and both draw cards for life but that's basically the end of the similarities. If you have another argument that is fine but comparing Griselbrand to Bargain doesn't mean anything because it's not a valid comparison. So to answer your question yes Bargain is oppressive but that is irrelevant.

Where to start?
First of all, Bargain isn't easier to cast/put into play than Griselbrand. Reanimate effects and Show and Tell (same speed) are direct proof of that.
Other thing is that Griselbrand is a wind condition in itself, there is no need to run Tendrils of Agony beside him, as you need to in a Bargain deck.
Griselbrand and Bargain comparison is a very valid one. If Griselbrand is legal, then please immediately unban Bargain (and possibly Necropotence). If one fears that this will give combo decks an edge, don't you worry - blue Griselbrand decks will still keep them in check.

[Kich867]

Read Kibler's thoughts on Griselbrand from Starcitygames. Even Kibler is fed up with people crying over a card that didn't even top 8 GP Atlanta.

No doubt Griselbrand is a really good card which is somewhat difficult to deal with when it comes into play, but there is absolutely no evidence that it's unbeatable, oppressive or whatever happens to be your favorite hyperbolic term of the day.

Kibler mentions that it feels like that the people crying just seem to be the guys who don't know how to win Griselbrand. If your first thought when a powerful deck or synergy arises is "ban this, I can't deal with it", maybe competitive legacy with its almost infinite card pool just isn't your thing.

It's annoying when people say vague undescriptive things like: "somewhat difficult to deal with" and that people essentially "don't know how to beat it".

What a genuinely stupid thing to say. Honestly. Here's how to deal with Griselbrand: kill it. But how do you kill it? That actually means, "I need either so many removal effects that their hand + 7-14 cards can't stop it" or "I need a removal, and enough counters to beat their hand of counters + 7-14 cards." How unrealistic is that?

The reason they don't show up in top 8's has absolutely nothing to do with Griselbrand or Emrakul being "beatable" cards. It's because the deck occasionally collapses on itself. It runs 8 ways to cheat 8 creatures into play. Sometimes if they have more counters than you you don't get there. Sometimes if your Show and Tell gets discarded and your ancient tomb gets wasted you just can't get the mana to cast Sneak Attack.

The creatures being beatable isn't even a consideration as to why the deck occasionally just flops. It's because much like any other deck that has a few issues with consistency over the course of a 2 day long event or a very long one day event odds are your deck just doesn't work a few times and you get fucked. That's it.

Decks that perform hyper consistently IE: maverick, rug, etc. will always appear more often in top 8's because it's far less likely that their deck fucks them, with even moderately good mulliganing it should be close to never.

But all of that doesn't change the fact that Griselbrand itself is a dumb card that actually is oppressive given resolution. A card's difficulty to play should have no bearing on it's objective power level. That should make sense, right? That while a card itself may be absurdly oppressive and overpowered, the deck that it is in may not be? That the card itself simply existing in it's current power is enough of a reason to ban it, and that it's difficulty to actually get into play should have no bearing on whether it should be banned? We're not talking about a deck here, we're talking about a creature that when it's in play is essentially game-ending. Killing it is a losing situation, not killing it is a losing situation, the odds of your opponent not being able to kill you in 7-14 cards is astronomically low and the resources you put forth in order to actually get him dead are great, only to have your opponent not run out of steam equally as quick.

A simple thought experiment: if a card existed that won the game as soon as it resolved and was unable to be answered, but had some absurd requirements in order to actually cast it, so much so that to play it required playing a deck that is unquestionably the hardest deck to play that has ever been created, should that card be banned? To me, I would say yes. To me it doesn't matter if it's difficult to get into play, or difficult to play the deck that plays it, if it wins with no realistic opposition, it should probably be banned. Feel free to get semantical on me over that, but the basic premise is this: if the card has no realistic answer and wins you the game, it should be banned.

[ESG]

Read Kibler's thoughts on Griselbrand from Starcitygames. Even Kibler is fed up with people crying over a card that didn't even top 8 GP Atlanta.

Reanimator came in 9th and 10th at the GP. That's only a hair away from top 8, and you should consider that it was against a field already skewed to beat Griselbrand. I mean, Gilded Drake in Goblins, man. Griselbrand hasn't destroyed the format, but he has unquestionably warped it.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Where to start?
First of all, Bargain isn't easier to cast/put into play than Griselbrand. Reanimate effects and Show and Tell (same speed) are direct proof of that.
Other thing is that Griselbrand is a wind condition in itself, there is no need to run Tendrils of Agony beside him, as you need to in a Bargain deck.
Griselbrand and Bargain comparison is a very valid one. If Griselbrand is legal, then please immediately unban Bargain (and possibly Necropotence). If one fears that this will give combo decks an edge, don't you worry - blue Griselbrand decks will still keep them in check.

Bargain is easier to cast, no discussion there.
Show and Tell puts Bargain into play too, or doesn't because there are better ways to do it so draw there.
RE: Reanimate - Every deck in Legacy has answers to graveyard games or plans to win before it matters. Griselbrand is a wincon in himself, but he isn't castable, so he's more of a combo piece. He's basically the Tendrils in that combo deck except he never wins the turn he comes into play.

Bargain doesn't need to enter play for you to win with Tendrils. You build the combo deck and add Bargain knowing you can win without casting it and if you do end up landing it you win on that turn pretty much always.

So if you want to continue to cry about GBrand please find a more convincing argument than "GBrand = Bargain and Necro, so if it's not banned immediately unban Bargain and Necro because that it not obviously flawed logic!!!!11!1!!"

Please name one deck where Griselbrand and Bargain or Necro are interchangeable, I'll wait...............................................

[caiomarcos]

Bargain is much more castable, much harder to disrupt, allows you to draw one card at a time as opposed to in chunks of 7, ect...

Bargain is just as easy to get into play if not easier (see Academy Rector, Grim Monolith, Rituals) and is better in decks that aren't planning on winning through the attack phase. Griselbrand is in no way Bargain. They go in different decks, they lose to different things, they are put into play different ways, they end the game differently. In the end Bargain is better IMO but they are completely different cards. They are both black and both draw cards for life but that's basically the end of the similarities. If you have another argument that is fine but comparing Griselbrand to Bargain doesn't mean anything because it's not a valid comparison. So to answer your question yes Bargain is oppressive but that is irrelevant.

You really think that there are more ways to cheat an enchantment into play then there are ways to cheat a creature?
Rituals and Monolith and any sort of acceleration also applies to Griselbrand. Harder of course, but if you are ramping to 6, it is not far fetched to go to 8. That makes Bargain a bit more castable, not much more.
Griselbrand is just as good in decks that do not plan on winning through the attack phase and just plain infinetly superior in decks that do plan winning through the attack phase.

Why is Bargain harder to disrupt?

Griselbrand is better IMO because he is easier to cheat into play and he is a kill condition himself and only swords to plowshares get rid of him and while killing the opponent he replenishes the life paid to draw cards by himself.

Bargain had to rely on Soul Feast or Delusions of Mediocrity in order to keep drawing cards. Griselbrand relies on himself and the attack phase.

Bargain is easier to cast, no discussion there.
Show and Tell puts Bargain into play too, or doesn't because there are better ways to do it so draw there.
RE: Reanimate - Every deck in Legacy has answers to graveyard games or plans to win before it matters. Griselbrand is a wincon in himself, but he isn't castable, so he's more of a combo piece. He's basically the Tendrils in that combo deck except he never wins the turn he comes into play.

Bargain doesn't need to enter play for you to win with Tendrils. You build the combo deck and add Bargain knowing you can win without casting it and if you do end up landing it you win on that turn pretty much always.

So if you want to continue to cry about GBrand please find a more convincing argument than "GBrand = Bargain and Necro, so if it's not banned immediately unban Bargain and Necro because that it not obviously flawed logic!!!!11!1!!"

Please name one deck where Griselbrand and Bargain or Necro are interchangeable, I'll wait...............................................

Casting a 4 mana creature, with Phyrexian Tower, High Market or whatever scruby way to sac it is better than show and tell? Or entomb -> exhume?

The logic is not that GBrand = Bargain, the logic here is GBrand > Bargain.

If you go back and take a look at the successful decks that ran bargain and compare them to Reanimator with Griselbrand, you won't try to interchange them you'll just stick to Griselbrand.

Like said above, it does not matter the decks, the card itself deserves a ban. It is as oppressive as a card can be.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Bargain had to rely on Soul Feast or Delusions of Mediocrity in order to keep drawing cards. Griselbrand relies on himself and the attack phase.

lol, yeah in Urza's block standard? RELEVANT...

Still waiting on that deck where Griselbrand and Bargain are interchangeable that I asked for otherwise I guess we can all agree they are very different cards and you guys can abandon that particular complaint and move into the realm of shit that is actually relevant to Griselbrand's power level and stop talking about Bargain.

[Awaclus]

You really think that there are more ways to cheat an enchantment into play then there are ways to cheat a creature?
Rituals and Monolith and any sort of acceleration also applies to Griselbrand. Harder of course, but if you are ramping to 6, it is not far fetched to go to 8. That makes Bargain a bit more castable, not much more.

It is indeed much more castable. For combo decks, the difference between 4 and 5 isn't big, but the difference between 5 and 6 is already worth noting. The difference between 6 and 8 is enormous. The fact that nobody's casting Griselbrands and doing well in tournaments proves this.

[caiomarcos]

lol, yeah in Urza's block standard? RELEVANT...

Still waiting on that deck where Griselbrand and Bargain are interchangeable that I asked for otherwise I guess we can all agree they are very different cards and you guys can abandon that particular complaint and move into the realm of shit that is actually relevant to Griselbrand's power level and stop talking about Bargain.

Exhume Bargain

1 Yawgmoth's Will
3 Yawgmoth's Bargain
4 Soul Feast
4 Vampiric Tutor
4 Dark Ritual
4 Skirge Familiar
4 Exhume
2 Renounce
4 Radiant's Dragoon
4 Academy Rector
4 Grim Monolith
6 Swamp
8 Plains
2 City of Brass
1 Remote Farm
1 Peat Bog
2 High Market
2 Phyrexian Tower

There, happy? :D

[Hopo]

Why is Bargain harder to disrupt?

Are you kidding? Stifle? Gilded Drake? Karakas? Bounce?

only swords to plowshares get rid of him

You seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Like said above, it does not matter the decks, the card itself deserves a ban. It is as oppressive as a card can be.

Yeah, a true Griselbrand-winter going on here. Atlanta is still a bit shocked on the amount of Griselbrand in top 8. I'd really like to hear more on this how something deserves to be banned. Slivers didn't dominate Atlanta, so maybe they should be banned as well.

You are a perfect example of a person who is crying for a ban based on shitty logic. Like Kibler said, you people are hard to take serious after all this.

Griselbrand itself is a dumb card that actually is oppressive given resolution

Legacy is full of cards that are "oppressive given resolution". That vaguest and most biased of terms applies to Emrakul, Tendrils of Agony, Hive Mind, Counterbalance, Nimble Mongoose, Goblin Lackey.. basically with each deck you are playing, there is a card that is "oppressive" to play against. I guess Griselbrand is your nemesis then. That is fine, now live with it.

I just see crying for bans to be the solution for the more simple minds, just like Kibler. Sometimes bans are absolutely necessary. Griselbrand is in no such positions.

I have a suggestion for all the criers. Start playing Griselbrand. By your own words, you will absolutely dominate the legacy scene of your area, because it's so super oppressive and dominant. One might even say ban-worthy. If that is not what you are saying, then why do you want it banned in the first place?

The thing is that if Griselbrand would be a true problem, it would be banned. It's not, therefore it's legal.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Exhume Bargain

1 Yawgmoth's Will
3 Yawgmoth's Bargain
4 Soul Feast
4 Vampiric Tutor
4 Dark Ritual
4 Skirge Familiar
4 Exhume
2 Renounce
4 Radiant's Dragoon
4 Academy Rector
4 Grim Monolith
6 Swamp
8 Plains
2 City of Brass
1 Remote Farm
1 Peat Bog
2 High Market
2 Phyrexian Tower

There, happy? :D

Okay, can you get serious or give up? Bargain > Griselbrand in this deck as well... Don't waste your time though I'm done arguing with someone who is trying to convince everyone Griselbrand needs to be banned because of comparisons to Bargain and can't get the fuck out of Urza's Block Type 2 when assessing the power level of Bargain.

[Vacrix]

Maybe people will stop bitching about how broken Jizzlebrand is when they look up how fucking expensive the deck is to put together.

Are you seriously worried about a deck that costs like 2 grand to build? Yeah clearly this is going to show up a lot...