[Article] Eternal Europe: What Legacy Needs

[IsThisACatInAHat?]

This article was awesome, Carsten. Well-stated quality content. To me, the most important points come down to:

• Delver of Secrets and Griselbrand are two representative cards of everything that's wrong with Legacy (and really, contemporary Magic card design).

• Green Sun's Zenith and Thalia, while obnoxious, are steps in the right direction. Next up, Red needs something(s) that's not just another sideboard option for blue mirrors and Black needs something(s) that make it playable outside of combo. More mono-red or mono-black garbage not included.

Something I disagree on is this idea surrounding the sanctity of the color pie. Yes, the colors should act differently. They should have their own strengths and weaknesses. But they absolutely don't need to be, nor should they be, equal on power level or depth in every format.

No color should be unplayable in any format, but there also shouldn't be some kind of push to equalize them. Let Eternal be where blue cards win, let Standard be where green cards win. In the mean time, no more dumb garbage that wrecks the balance like Delver.

[Kich867]

Standard at the moment actually, to me at least, has an unprecedented equality amongst the colors. RG Aggro, mono G infect, black control decks, black zombie decks, UW tempo decks, esper control decks, this is probably the most diverse I've seen standard in awhile.

[Gheizen64]

Good article, i loved the mention of Academy. So many lovable cards on the Banned list while Delver (black vise don't be sad) and Griselbrand (Yawgwin isn't alone anymore) and Emrakul (welcome to magic, Yu-gi-oh Exxodia) roam the land undisturbed.

[Jenni]

great article.

regarding the imbalance between colours, I think it's overstated a bit. Sure, most of the best decks are going to have blue - but you also have:
Enchantress (G/W, one of my fav. decks)
Goblins (Mono-R or R/b or R/g)
Elf (mono-G or G/w)
Painter (Can be mono-R)
Zombies (B/r, Dunno if this is an actual deck, or just Sam Black showing he can win with anything)
Maverick (G/W/x)
The Rock (G/B)
Pox (mono-B)
Burn (mono-R, again not sure how much of a deck this is though)
Affinity (Brown with a splash of thoughtcast)
Zoo (R/G/W, though I've seen people trying delver-zoo of late)
Lands (I've seen a few that seem to have no blue, but I don't know the list for lands that well tbh)
Not to mention room for invention - there are a lot of less common brews like mono-green infect floating around that can do pretty well in the right meta.

So, every colour has it's place in the meta game, and a lot of decks work well without a significant amount of blue. Though I admit, playing without Force in a combo-heavy metagame can be pretty discouraging.
I agree, though, that as a whole, legacy needs more varied general answers to the "I win" decks. As is, Force is the best general solution, and seeing some more general cards outside of force(which demands a solid amount of blue) that can stop fast combos would be great.
Regarding cards like emrakul, though, I don't think they are an actual problem... Once they stick, you basically lost the game, but some combo hate goes a long way to stopping them, and being able to combo out a turn 3-4 emrakul is something I personally love about legacy - it's an interesting way to win a game, it has vulnerabilities (karakas, force, duress, daze, humility). It's not actually unbeatable, and it's easy enough to play and build that a new legacy player can jump right in with a simple show and tell combo, but vulnerable enough that someone with some experiance and a fair deck can still have a positive matchup against it.

Griselbrand I don't like, though, I somewhat hope he finds his way to the ban list, because unlike other show and tell/reanimate targets, even if you get rid of him, it's too late. Swords him? they just drew 14 cards in response and can combo a new one out. karakas? they drew 7-14 cards in response, and put him right back out there off their 2nd show and tell. Unlike other reanimation/Show and tell/etc. targets, griselbrand literally only needs to touch the battlefield to basically win the game, where almost everything else needs to, at a minimum, make it to the combat step.
Omniscience I'm not sure about, on one hand, like griselbrand, you can get value off of it the second it hits the battlefield, because you have priority once it resolves to cast any sorcery-speed card, and even if it gets bounced/destroyed in response, you can get free instants off of it, including free counters to protect it etc.... I don't know, I just don't know the card well enough to say either way, but my gut feeling is that it's not something you can really beat, once it touches the field, unless the person playing it really screwed something up.

[Tammit67]

great article.

regarding the imbalance between colours, I think it's overstated a bit. Sure, most of the best decks are going to have blue - but you also have:
Enchantress (G/W, one of my fav. decks)

Hates thalia

Goblins (Mono-R or R/b or R/g)

Not good enough

Elf (mono-G or G/w)

Inconsistent

Painter (Can be mono-R)

Hasn't put up results in forever

Zombies (B/r, Dunno if this is an actual deck, or just Sam Black showing he can win with anything)

Just sam black showing he can win with anything

Maverick (G/W/x)

That's one deck

The Rock (G/B)

One top 8 recently

Pox (mono-B)

Is bad

Burn (mono-R, again not sure how much of a deck this is though)

more of a deck than painter or pox

Affinity (Brown with a splash of thoughtcast)

Meh

Zoo (R/G/W, though I've seen people trying delver-zoo of late)

Mostly because they are from North VA and Lazy (I'm looking at you dave price)

Lands (I've seen a few that seem to have no blue, but I don't know the list for lands that well tbh)

Some random success, due to others inexperience in the matchup

Not to mention room for invention - there are a lot of less common brews like mono-green infect floating around that can do pretty well in the right meta.

But they are not close to good!

[Phoenix Ignition]

Not much to add, great article though and I agree with literally everything you said!

[Lord Seth]

Despite supposedly being about Legacy, the article talked a fair amount about Standard, and I have some comments on that based on my experience in the format.

Specifically, this bit:
"...for me, personally, cards like Delver of Secrets (I really seem to hate that guy, huh?) and Geist of Saint Traft are the true offenders, not Mana Leak and Snapcaster Mage. I'm fine having a spell countered as long as I'm not being beaten down by an evasive three-power one-drop or a six-power three-drop that is incredibly hard to kill outside of creature combat."

I think that--in Standard--to try to point fingers as to what make Delver decks (especially UW Delver) so dominant (or at least most popular) is to miss the point. It isn't any particular card that made it the dominant deck, it's a combination. Delver of Secrets gives you a strong incentive to play Instants and Sorceries, and lots of them. Snapcaster Mage gives you more incentive to do that. Then you get Ponder and Mana Leak, which are a Sorcery and an Instant and work well with those cards, Ponder allowing you to better stack your deck and Mana Leak letting you protect everything pretty efficiently and being especially great with Snapcaster Mage. And all of these cards are the same color. Without all of these things, Delver loses a lot of its shine.

In fact, I decided to look into what's often an overlooked format, Block. In this format, Delver of Secrets is legal (as is Snapcaster Mage) but neither Mana Leak nor Ponder is. So let's take a look at some of the big Innistrad Block tournaments. How did Delver of Secrets do?

Number of Delvers in the Avacyn Restored Pro Tour Top 8? Zero. Number of Delvers among all decks that got 18 points or more in the 10 Swiss rounds? Zero. Number of Delvers in the top 8 of Grand Prix Anaheim? Zero. Number of Delvers in the decks that went undefeated Day 1 of the Anaheim GP? Zero.

Now to be fair, in the top 32 of the Magic Online Champion Series (also a Block tournament, check it out here), there were two decks with Delver of Secrets, which took 7th place and 28th place. But this is still a far cry from the Standard tournament a month later, where decks playing Delver of Secrets took 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th, 19th, 20th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, and 32nd.

What this seems to strongly support is that, again, Delver isn't the problem in Standard (if you consider it a problem to begin with, supposedly Standard attendance is up so it seems plenty of people enjoy the current format). It's the fact that in the format there are cards it combines so well with to become fearsome. So I feel that saying "it's not the fault of Snapcaster Mage or Mana Leak, it's Delver of Secrets!" (or vice versa, for that matter) isn't valid. It's all of them that combined to make Delver decks so strong. But I guess we'll see more surely when we discover how the deck is affected by the loss of cards like Ponder and Mana Leak when Magic 2012 rotates out.

I also don't share the enmity towards Geist of Saint Traft. I think the article overstates the difficulty of killing it outside of combat (I've seen tons of Geists die outside of combat--certainly, it's harder than your regular non-hexproof creature, but there's ways to deal with it), and that also ignores how easy it is to kill it in combat, considering any creature with power 2 or greater finishes it off. And this is especially relevant because the whole point of Geist is to actually attack with it, forcing it into combat. This isn't like Dungrove Elder or Thrun, where you can hang back and play defense with your big hexproof creature if you need to, Geist needs to be attacking to be decent. It's a strong card, surely, but I don't see it as problematic.

[Ignithas_]

Despite supposedly being about Legacy, the article talked a fair amount about Standard, and I have some comments on that based on my experience in the format.

Specifically, this bit:
"...for me, personally, cards like Delver of Secrets (I really seem to hate that guy, huh?) and Geist of Saint Traft are the true offenders, not Mana Leak and Snapcaster Mage. I'm fine having a spell countered as long as I'm not being beaten down by an evasive three-power one-drop or a six-power three-drop that is incredibly hard to kill outside of creature combat."

I think that--in Standard--to try to point fingers as to what make Delver decks (especially UW Delver) so dominant (or at least most popular) is to miss the point. It isn't any particular card that made it the dominant deck, it's a combination. Delver of Secrets gives you a strong incentive to play Instants and Sorceries, and lots of them. Snapcaster Mage gives you more incentive to do that. Then you get Ponder and Mana Leak, which are a Sorcery and an Instant and work well with those cards, Ponder allowing you to better stack your deck and Mana Leak letting you protect everything pretty efficiently and being especially great with Snapcaster Mage. And all of these cards are the same color. Without all of these things, Delver loses a lot of its shine.

In fact, I decided to look into what's often an overlooked format, Block. In this format, Delver of Secrets is legal (as is Snapcaster Mage) but neither Mana Leak nor Ponder is. So let's take a look at some of the big Innistrad Block tournaments. How did Delver of Secrets do?

Number of Delvers in the Avacyn Restored Pro Tour Top 8? Zero. Number of Delvers among all decks that got 18 points or more in the 10 Swiss rounds? Zero. Number of Delvers in the top 8 of Grand Prix Anaheim? Zero. Number of Delvers in the decks that went undefeated Day 1 of the Anaheim GP? Zero.

Now to be fair, in the top 32 of the Magic Online Champion Series (also a Block tournament, check it out here), there were two decks with Delver of Secrets, which took 7th place and 28th place. But this is still a far cry from the Standard tournament a month later, where decks playing Delver of Secrets took 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th, 19th, 20th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, and 32nd.

What this seems to strongly support is that, again, Delver isn't the problem in Standard (if you consider it a problem to begin with, supposedly Standard attendance is up so it seems plenty of people enjoy the current format). It's the fact that in the format there are cards it combines so well with to become fearsome. So I feel that saying "it's not the fault of Snapcaster Mage or Mana Leak, it's Delver of Secrets!" (or vice versa, for that matter) isn't valid. It's all of them that combined to make Delver decks so strong. But I guess we'll see more surely when we discover how the deck is affected by the loss of cards like Ponder and Mana Leak when Magic 2012 rotates out.

I also don't share the enmity towards Geist of Saint Traft. I think the article overstates the difficulty of killing it outside of combat (I've seen tons of Geists die outside of combat--certainly, it's harder than your regular non-hexproof creature, but there's ways to deal with it), and that also ignores how easy it is to kill it in combat, considering any creature with power 2 or greater finishes it off. And this is especially relevant because the whole point of Geist is to actually attack with it, forcing it into combat. This isn't like Dungrove Elder or Thrun, where you can hang back and play defense with your big hexproof creature if you need to, Geist needs to be attacking to be decent. It's a strong card, surely, but I don't see it as problematic.

I think that Delver is the actual problem. While I think that Snapcaster Mage is on the same powerlevel, Snapcaster Mage doesn't support such an agressive gameplan than Delver does. And that both get exponentially much stronger with cantrips and counters, while it proves that the synergy makes the deck stronger, doesn't prove that the card is fine. One similar case was SFM and Jace. SFM was on a moderate powerlevel without the Swords of x and y, very strong with them, and way too strong with Batterskull. So SFM was the problem, although she needs other cards to be on that high powerlevel. And while the eagles also get exponentially stronger with the Swords, neither the eagles nor the Swords were considered as the problem.

[Hardcore]

it just occurred to me that what black would like is discard that is not dead draws in mid and late game. Think of an IoK that has the addition; ", or scry 1 and draw a card".
Or think Funeral charm but with better discard ability.

[wcm8]

I agree with a lot of what is said in the article.

I think that they are making decent efforts towards throwing some bones to the Eternal crowd by printing new and interesting cards in non-Standard/Modern-legal products (e.g. Scavenging Ooze, Baleful Strix, etc.), but they could certainly try to do it more often. I also think they could try to print some new 'cornerstone' cards that could have strategies built around them, rather than just cards that slot into pre-existing decks.

They are also able to print good sideboard cards with Eternal format implications, such as Grafdigger's Cage, without affecting Standard too much. Cards like this allow degenerate strategies/cards avoid the banhammer while still giving most decks a decent answer to them if they become too problematic. I think this sort of thing will continue.

I would like to see Red get it's 1R god-tier creature, and would also like to see black get a power boost in the form of some better creatures and spells (is there any reason why black doesn't have a better 1cmc removal spell yet? Print it in a Commander product if you must...)

[nedleeds]

it just occurred to me that what black would like is discard that is not dead draws in mid and late game. Think of an IoK that has the addition; ", or scry 1 and draw a card".
Or think Funeral charm but with better discard ability.

I think R&D is hesitant to print instant speed discard. New players just don't understand magic well enough to know how it works.

This thread about what ails legacy contains all my favorite internet MtG-eGenius catch phrases

"Skill intensive"
"Format defining"
"You whine about cards, you must suck at Magic and life!"

"What Legacy Needs" is for dci to realize there are certain cards that are not banned, that have a power level far greater than other cards that reside on the banned list. Which logically leads to one (or both) options, ban those cards or unban some weaker cards.

The format has quite a few "kinds" of decks

Brainstorm decks (RUG, U/w control, SneakShow, Reanimator, U/w/x Blade, TES, ANT) (60% of an average large field)
W/g / W aggro/resource denial (20%)
Tribal (15%)
Decks that don't play magic and just hope to avoid hate (Belcher, Dredge, Burn)
Other (Lands, Enchantress, Chalice decks)

The last two make up some random portion of a large tourney. At first glance you say, the format is diverse. But it's really not that diverse. 60% of the field uses the same blue cards. In order of necessity.

- Brainstorm
- Ponder
- Force of Will

Starting with Brainstorm. In conjunction with fetchlands Brainstorm is above the power level of many colored spells on the banned list. Brainstorm is found in the following decks:

- The best combo deck(s)
- The best control deck(s)
- The best aggro deck (RUG)

This is obviously absurd. It does so many things for so little mana and it replaces itself.

- It filters and improves your card quality
- It allows for freakishly tight mana bases, which further creates mid-game gas
- It castrates targeted discard (especially on the play)
- It (when played properly with unneeded sandbagged lands) is as close to Ancestral as a mid game top deck

Based on power level, ubiquity and even arguably cheatz opportunity it deserves to be banned.

The immediate retort from the internet faithful who can't read or comprehend is typically one of the following:

"I'd quit if they banned Brainstorm"
"Format defining"
"You suck. It's skill intensive."

None of these answer the question, is Brainstorm powerful enough to merit banning given the other cards currently on the banned list. The answer to that is absolutely yes.

The first statement doesn't even mean anything, quitting over a cards banning means you didn't really like the format anyway you either just liked a single card or just just liked winning and not playing.

The second, "Format defining" is at least a point of discussion. If a colored cantrip defines a format, I might say that that format probably sucks and is slanted towards that color. I'd would hope that the versatile mana bases enabled by fetches, duals and wasteland define the legacy format.

The third statement isn't a consideration for banning. Yawgmoth's Will is skill intensive. It's banned because it's power level is absurd with respect to everything else that's on the banned list. Also, internet white knights that defend Brainstorms skill-intensiveness often completely dismiss other 100 other cards that are absolutely just as difficult to play optimally. Examples are numerous, targeted discard, jace, force of will, sylvan library, top, doomsday, daze, knight of the reliquary. Brainstorm actually makes magic easier, not harder. It salvages awful hands, cures mana flood or mana screw, salvages mid game lulls, solves targeted discard.

Back to ban or unban. Ask yourself, if they unbanned something like Earthcraft after you added 4 Earthcraft and 4 nests what are the next 4 cards you'd add to enable your combo? I'd add 4 brainstorms. If they unbanned WGD how would you craft a hand with your 2 card combo? I'd play brainstorm and ponder. How about Mind Twist ... ? Shit you better bet brainstorm would be played like wildfire in any format with Mind Twist as both players would jockey for hand protection.

Let's take another step back and imagine that they banned Brainstorm. Any deck that ran 4 x brainstorm, 4 x ponder would likely attempt to substitute the next best cantrip - preordain. They'd likely still be powerful and consistent. I'd argue combo decks would lose the most as they are trying to get redundant combo parts out of their hand for situationally more valuable cards (i.e. the other part of the combo), neither Ponder or Preordain solves the problem of having 2 Griselbrands in your hand.

I'd say start with more unbannings, I think it would become clear what card enables consistency in degeneracy.

What legacy needs is to remove or reduce the crutch of Brainstorm from the format, it powers the best aggro deck, the best combo deck and the best control deck.

/endrant

[Zilla]

At first glance you say, the format is diverse. But it's really not that diverse. 60% of the field uses the same blue cards.

You're saying there's not a significant difference between RUG and ANT because they use the same 3 blue cards? What planet are you from?

Your arbitrary division of "deck types" is preposterous. TES and ANT are similar deck types. U/w Control and Reanimator are not even remotely similar deck types.

The format is incredibly diverse, and the existence of Brainstorm does nothing to diminish that. If anything, it does the opposite by lending consistency to decks that might not otherwise be viable.

[nedleeds]

You're saying there's not a significant difference between RUG and ANT because they use the same 3 blue cards? What planet are you from?

Your arbitrary division of "deck types" is preposterous. TES and ANT are similar deck types. U/w Control and Reanimator are not even remotely similar deck types.

The format is incredibly diverse, and the existence of Brainstorm does nothing to diminish that. If anything, it does the opposite by lending consistency to decks that might not otherwise be viable.

It's not diverse. You have to play island to play the overwhelmingly best card in the format. It's preposterous that one card is the best card in the best combo deck, the best aggro deck and best combo deck. No other format can boast that kind of ubiquity. Whether you think that its 'good' or 'bad' is certainly personal opinion.

[Aggro_zombies]

It's not diverse. You have to play island to play the overwhelmingly best card in the format. It's preposterous that one card is the best card in the best combo deck, the best aggro deck and best combo deck. No other format can boast that kind of ubiquity. Whether you think that its 'good' or 'bad' is certainly personal opinion.

Oh man, fetchlands are so totally broken. Combo decks play them, aggro decks play them, and control decks play them. Sure, you can mono_color_budget.jank, but if you want to do really well you have to play fetchlands. No other format right now is so defined by cards like this. They stifle innovation because it's just so much better to fetch for splash colors than to be mono, and the drawbacks are negligible.

Man, we should really ban fetchlands.

And in other news, I don't understand why people still complain about a nuts-and-bolts card like Brainstorm. Does your pet deck lose to blue too much? It's probably not viable then, considering the incredible diversity in play styles, speed, and resilience of blue decks.

[Julian23]

What Zilla said still upholds.

Diversity is not about color but about decks. There are about 10 different decks that - despite all playing blue - provide a whole different kind of playing experience. Most of them share one, sometimes two tactical tools (BS & Force) while operating in completely different ways strategically.

[wcm8]

Thanks for derailing the thread. Unless your main point is, in fact, that banning Brainstorm is what Legacy needs. This position is certainly intriguing, though I'm not sure it would necessarily lead to a desirable result. Wouldn't certain combo decks theoretically be -stronger- now that opposing control decks would not have an efficient instant that could dig for a counterspell, not to mention they couldn't hide their piece of hate from targeted discard?

It also seems to me that plenty of decks that don't play Brainstorm beat on Brainstorm-decks pretty hard. e.g. Goblins, Merfolk, Maverick, etc.

I think the counterpoint that Carsten put forth was that other colors needs cheap/efficient methods of deck manipulation. We are seeing that to some extent with Red's looting, Green Sun Zenith, etc. Obviously we could use more to give other colors a chance of playing a RUG-esque style deck construction without needing to dip into blue. I'm all for printing cards that reduce the inherent randomness of opening hands/topdecks and increase the likelihood of interaction.

[Iron Buddha]

I’m actually fine that Black doesn’t have a good T1 removal spell except for untargeted Innocent Blood and Ghastly Demise that requires a lot of Fetchlands to work on T1. My reasoning is that you don’t want every color to be the same. Each color should be distinctly different from each other. That being said, I don’t think Black is as bad as some make it to be; its potential is just not fully utilized. One of the best examples is Vampire Nighthawk. Vampire Nighthawk is so blatantly power-creeped, but actually not very much played. If you disagree on how good he is ask the people from The Gate thread.

[Aggro_zombies]

I’m actually fine that Black doesn’t have a good T1 removal spell except for untargeted Innocent Blood and Ghastly Demise that requires a lot of Fetchlands to work on T1. My reasoning is that you don’t want every color to be the same. Each color should be distinctly different from each other. That being said, I don’t think Black is as bad as some make it to be; its potential is just not fully utilized. One of the best examples is Vampire Nighthawk. Vampire Nighthawk is so blatantly power-creeped, but actually not very much played. If you disagree on how good he is ask the people from The Gate thread.

The rewards are just not there for black. If you want removal, white has better. If you want draw, blue has better. If you want creatures, green has better large ones and white-green has better disruptive ones. Discard doesn't stack up favorably against a format full of good, cheap library manipulation (Brainstorm, Ponder, Top, Sylvan Library, Green Sun's Zenith). There aren't enough good black cards to justify committing to the color - and you really need to commit to the color, considering how mana of those cards are .

[nedleeds]

Man, we should really ban fetchlands.

And in other news, I don't understand why people still complain about a nuts-and-bolts card like Brainstorm. Does your pet deck lose to blue too much? It's probably not viable then, considering the incredible diversity in play styles, speed, and resilience of blue decks.

This standard response to this Brainstorm defense is pretty easy. You've echoed a standard reply, that lands are ubiquitous thus ban lands. Any deck can use lands, any deck can use fetch lands. Lands are necessary to play Magic (with rare vintage or belcher exceptions).

Nuts-n-bolts ... WTF does that even mean? Why is a blue instant a nuts and bolts (by that I assume you mean crucial to building decks????) card?

You nearly went for the triple crown of brainstorm defenders with your second response, of you suck your Shining Shoal deck can't beat Brainstorm that's why you want it banned.

Please edit your post to include "skill intensive" so you can score an A in all 3.

[DragoFireheart]

It's not diverse. You have to play island to play the overwhelmingly best card in the format. It's preposterous that one card is the best card in the best combo deck, the best aggro deck and best combo deck. No other format can boast that kind of ubiquity. Whether you think that its 'good' or 'bad' is certainly personal opinion.

Lack of color diversity != Lack of deck diversity.

You might have a point if the top decks overwhelmingly only consisted of the same 2-3 decks, which isn't the case.