All B/R update speculation.

[Barook]

Like Thalia or chalice of the void ?

CotV limits yourself too much in terms of card choices. Plus, there are consistency issues as stated by Koby.

Thalia is alright, but taxing isn't that punishing if they can StP her for , Bolt her for or go EoT Brainstorm for to set up a Terminus for in the next turn.

Imagine what would happen if we had a Chains of Mephistopheles dude with Flash that also happens to be maindeck playable (e.g. by throwing deathtouch in the mix). Losing 3 cards (BS + putting 2 cards back) while not seeing new cards would be downright devastating for any BS player.

[majikal]

MUD, yeah. How many Pox decks, where exactly? Where can this been proved? C'mon mannnn

This year alone:
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=9948&iddeck=72507 - 6th, KING 5- Roma (51 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=9909&iddeck=72255 - 5th, Cyborg One Super Legacy 2 (53 players)

And last year:
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=9484&iddeck=69241 - 13th, SCG Open St. Louis (162 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=9556&iddeck=69734 - 7th, TLA - 2012 - Torneo 6 (74 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=9270&iddeck=67683 - 16th, SCG Open Providence (175 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=8753&iddeck=63906 - 14th, SCG Open Las Vegas (223 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=8051&iddeck=58697 - 4th, Danish Legacy Masters (89 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=7718&iddeck=56162 - 5th, GBLL Tappa 6 (71 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=7634&iddeck=55426 - 10th, SCG Open Richmond (118 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=7572&iddeck=55012 - 4th, SCG Open Washington DC (234 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=7471&iddeck=54261 - 15th, SCG Open Atlanta (191 players)
http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=7471&iddeck=54262 - 16th, SCG Open Atlanta (191 players)

[Lemnear]

CotV limits yourself too much in terms of card choices. Plus, there are consistency issues as stated by Koby.

Thalia is alright, but taxing isn't that punishing if they can StP her for , Bolt her for or go EoT Brainstorm for to set up a Terminus for in the next turn.

Imagine what would happen if we had a Chains of Mephistopheles dude with Flash that also happens to be maindeck playable (e.g. by throwing deathtouch in the mix). Losing 3 cards (BS + putting 2 cards back) while not seeing new cards would be downright devastating for any BS player.

Unless it has an absurd low P/T-to-manacost-Ratio peeps would dismiss this "being too narrow" and continue calling for a ban. We had this issue already in the Hatebears vs. Combo discussion and it needed Thalia to make it into a maindeck. She however diminished from maindecks together eith the fall of the traditional GW Maverick while never played in other aggressive decks. This gives a clue about the required powerlevel of a hatebear which is even more Limited in effect by "only" attacking draws and cantrips.

I'm not ok with some Kind of Thorn of Amethyst for W with a 3/3 Body after what happend to Vintage After the printing of Lodestone Golemn. I think we can learn from this about T1 permission creatures with a real body

[menace13]

6 top 8s in 2 years.

You're really using that as a valid example of how a deck no longer places?

[nedleeds]

So a format where many variants of Control, Aggro Control, and Combo are all viable? Sounds awful.

and all require a one mana instant to work ... pretty sure we call that ubiquity ...

<waits for some mouth breather to point out that lands are ubiquitous>

[azador]

and all require a one mana instant to work ... pretty sure we call that ubiquity ...

<waits for some mouth breather to point out that lands are ubiquitous>

Lands are ubiquitous. Duals, fetches, basics. They're everywhere! All the decks us them!

<Waits for some mouth breather to talk about how brainstorm should be banned.>

[Koby]

Lands are ubiquitous. Duals, fetches, basics. They're everywhere! All the decks us them!

<Waits for some mouth breather to talk about how brainstorm should be banned.>

Oops! All spells! /t

[azador]

I honestly wasn't counting that as a deck. But touche good sir.

[Fatal]

Actually only card that should be banned is probably Griselbrand.

Why ?

1. Yawmoth's Bergain is on banned list where Griselbrand is almost same or even better - no drawback, 7/7 lifelink, black, flying body.

2. Griselbrand can't be answered 1-1 with single card without permission it's enabler, using it once is mostly enough to win.

3. S&T decks (Sneak Attack/OmniTell) or Reanimator is rising on bay - 6/16 in SCG Las Vegas which involve meta changes and destabilize of meta bettween combo/aggro/middle-aggro/control. There isn't card which can asnwer 1-1 Griselbrand resolved from S&T (with exception of Humility which has very big impact on board and its limited only to control decks with white and very light creature package) and still it's still 1/1 creature :]. Only decks which can handle enough good Griselbrand vs are hard controls like Miracle/BUG with a lot of permission and very few wincons.

4. I can't imagine more power-creep creature which can be casted from S&T this mean that next step will be S&T ban which is wrong - this will kill all archetype not a single deck (similar like with Survival and Vengevines).

[Will_L]

Actually only card that should be banned is probably Griselbrand.

Why ?

1. Yawmoth's Bergain is on banned list where Griselbrand is almost same or even better - no drawback, 7/7 lifelink, black, flying body.

2. Griselbrand can't be answered 1-1 with single card without permission it's enabler, using it once is mostly enough to win.

3. S&T decks (Sneak Attack/OmniTell) or Reanimator is rising on bay - 6/16 in SCG Las Vegas which involve meta changes and destabilize of meta bettween combo/aggro/middle-aggro/control. There isn't card which can asnwer 1-1 Griselbrand resolved from S&T (with exception of Humility which has very big impact on board and its limited only to control decks with white and very light creature package) and still it's still 1/1 creature :]. Only decks which can handle enough good Griselbrand vs are hard controls like Miracle/BUG with a lot of permission and very few wincons.

4. I can't imagine more power-creep creature which can be casted from S&T this mean that next step will be S&T ban which is wrong - this will kill all archetype not a single deck (similar like with Survival and Vengevines).

Griselbrand is worse then Bargain because you can only draw in increments of 7. The field will shift to address graveyard decks and Show decks, the card pool is big enough that the deck can be answered. As far as unfair, broken decks go Show/Reanimtor are fine. My rule of thumb is if it's more obnoxious/degenerate then FlashHulk or Channel/Emrakul deck then it should be considered for banning. It's not fun losing to Grizzy, but as you point out, there are actually several ways to beat him. I think the biggest mistake is focusing on Grizzy too much, it's easier to stop the spells that get him into play then it is to stop Griselbrand itself.

1) Make a deck that's strong against combo (BUG Delver, Merfolk, RUG is pretty decent too because of Stifle)
2) Play Humility, Ensnaring Bridge and the endless Show specific SB cards like Angel of Despair, Confusion in the Ranks, O-Ring, Pithing Needle, etc...

I think Griselbrand is broken, but that's fine because that's a big part of the fun of legacy in my mind.

[rufus]

Actually only card that should be banned is probably Griselbrand.
...

I tend to think that the comparison of Griselbrand to Yawgmoth's Bargain is apt, but that, really, it means that bargain could be taken off the list without causing too much trouble. (Ad Nauseam also compares pretty favorably to Bargain.)

Sooner or later, they'll probably print something ugly enough that Show and Tell becomes ban-bait, but the meta seems to be doing OK right now.

[Will_L]

I've been thinking about this a bit recently... I often hear the argument or suggestion that eventually something will come along and make Show way too over powered, and thus, that card will get SnT banned.

Between Emrakul, Enter the Infinite, Omniscience and Griselbrand... I think we've reached the limits for absurdity with Show and Tell.

I don't think Show and Tell deserves to banned. If something was going to push Show and Tell over the top, what would that card look like if it wasn't one of the aforementioned cards? Barring the printing of something like "20UUUUUU: Split Second. Gain ownership of target players deck. You win the game." what could push Show over the top that we don't already have access to?

[GGoober]

Ah but they will never ban the creature, only the enabler. Except that banning the enabler usually leads to archetypes fading away from Legacy (e.g. Survival).

I'm a strong proponent of preserving archetypes in Legacy. I don't hope for Show and Tell and Entomb to be banned, the same way I was strongly on board that Vengevine instead of Survival be banned. It's true back in those days, we had no tools to deal with Survival Vengevine but looking at the metagame today, I highly doubt Survival will be format warping (it might be a DTB but no where ubiquitous as it used to be when hate wasn't as prevalent e.g. Surgical Extraction, RiP etc).

The same reason I feel that although you could have potentially a lot more abusive targets if the archetype cards Entomb/Show and Tell were not banned, I still feel that basing off the current scenario, which is the true-culprit should be analyzed and the ban should be made on that decision because it is a short matter of time when new cards get printed and new solutions get printed that can battle the archetype. But if you lose an archetype, you lose it forever until WotC decides to unban the archetype enabler.

I still don't think Griselbrand needs to be banned, but it definitely increases the power level of Entomb/Show and Tell decks significantly.


EDIT: And I no longer buy the argument that specific cards should not be banned but the enabler of the deck should be banned. The Modern banned list is a good example of the contradictory philosophy that DCI applies onto Modern and Legacy. In fact, I don't think that is a bad idea to ban specific cards that are relevant during a specific 'season'/timeframe because the whole point of the DCI is to keep the format healthy and with a format that constantly evolves like Legacy, it is great if we can see as many archetypes out there as possible.

[Lemnear]

Survival into Vengevines was a pretty unique Aggro-Combo-archtype but the reason for it to be banned instead of the Vines wasn't the lack of graveyard removal. Grave hate only shuts down the Combo but still you face an Engine that spits out hardcasted Knights of the Reliquary or Vines every fucking turn which outclasses every other creature-strategy.

WotC decided that it's not healthy for Legacy that every creature deck had to start with 4 Survival and the idea that Knight and Vine even meet more powerful successors in the future settled it. Now we can discuss if and how Green Sun's Zenith took it's Place

In case of Grizz we have the advantage that it fits into several archtypes and can be paired with several engine cards like Sneak attack, entomb, oath (vintage) or Show&Tell among others. This and the fact that it's a threat itself unlike Bargain and is easier to cheat into Play make it strictly superior in ANY case. Bargain in Storm has only one advantage: it doesn't punish you for running Force of Will.

In terms of Format health it's more acceptable that half a dozen engines make Grizz work than a Single Engine that makes a dozen of kill options and Decks work. It sounds that Show&Tell fits that later but I can't see any difference in the outcome between cheating Emrakul, Grizz or an Omniscience into Play ... it's simply a flavor of the same Concept

[dontbiteitholmes]

In case of Grizz we have the advantage that it fits into several archtypes and can be paired with several engine cards like Sneak attack, entomb, oath (vintage) or Show&Tell among others. This and the fact that it's a threat itself unlike Bargain and is easier to cheat into Play make it strictly superior in ANY case. Bargain in Storm has only one advantage: it doesn't punish you for running Force of Will.

What?

When the aim is to win through storm Bargain >>>> Grizz, believe that shit.

[Lemnear]

What?

When the aim is to win through storm Bargain >>>> Grizz, believe that shit.

You misunderstood. Obviously Bargain in superior in Storm because of the mana cost alone. My Point was about the following: if you can cheat either permament into play no matter the type or cost, grizz gets the nod over Bargain

[GGoober]

You misunderstood. Obviously Bargain in superior in Storm because of the mana cost alone. My Point was about the following: if you can cheat either permament into play no matter the type or cost, grizz gets the nod over Bargain

Then Bargain would be better simply because you don't draw in multiples of 7 and lose life in multiples of 7, and being non-creature is harder to remove. You can stack multiple activated abilities for Bargain against the stack but you can't do the same for Grizz. However, in a format like Legacy where mana-ramp into Bargain/Grizz is more limited while having more ways to cheat Creatures into play is more accessible (reanimating/Sneak), Grizz in that context is stronger in Legacy than Bargain in terms of the ways to actually get it into play.

[Arsenal]

All this talk made me flashback (hehe) to the days of Rector-Bargain in Vintage. Man Rector was a dirty little card.

[Lemnear]

All this talk made me flashback (hehe) to the days of Rector-Bargain in Vintage. Man Rector was a dirty little card.

Then you might visit the Nic Fit Thread for some up-to-date rector shenanigans :)

@GGoober in case of Griz:
The question still remains how difficult/relevant it is to protect a creature with 14 extra cards in hand (unless it's hasted like in TinFins.dec or Sneak Attack) which even gives 7 life upon removal in most cases. As a vintage Player i can ensure that the Package draw of Grizz vs. Bargain's Single draw isn't a real issue unless you feel that removal in response of your draw7-trigger is devastating. At least grizz don't make you skip your draw phase

[lordofthepit]

Then Bargain would be better simply because you don't draw in multiples of 7 and lose life in multiples of 7, and being non-creature is harder to remove. You can stack multiple activated abilities for Bargain against the stack but you can't do the same for Grizz. However, in a format like Legacy where mana-ramp into Bargain/Grizz is more limited while having more ways to cheat Creatures into play is more accessible (reanimating/Sneak), Grizz in that context is stronger in Legacy than Bargain in terms of the ways to actually get it into play.

I mostly agree with this, although Griselbrand also doesn't lock you out from you normal draws, gains life to net more cards, and is a win condition in itself. None of this would matter if everything went perfectly, but Griselbrand is also great when you're at a low life total, or some piece of hate would prevent you from winning with Bargain (e.g. a Pithing Needle or a Leyline of Sanctity that you have no maindeck answer for).

Add to the fact that Griselbrand is easier to cheat into play, I think it's more busted than Bargain, despite vulnerability to cards like Humility and Cursed Totem and the less flexible activation cost.

Edit: it's not dominating the format, but I'm sure it's on the watch list for its degeneracy even if it doesn't have the empirical volume of a Flash, Survival, or Mental Misstep.