All B/R update speculation.

[Lord Seth]

Yeah, my local meta is not very competitive, obviously. Banning FoW is absolutely ludicrous. It would completely overhaul the metagame.

Yeah, Show and Tell is what I've been hearing a lot of, but Brainstorm? Really?

Brainstorm is a very powerful card, is a big factor in the Blue dominance of the format, and is in an alarmingly high percentage of decks. And while you could claim that about Force of Will, Force of Will is weak against quite a few decks and is far more necessary in the format.

I wouldn't ban it, but I can see the arguments for why.

Show and Tell, on the other hand, really doesn't have much of a basis for banning outside of a lot of people simply not liking it. I don't like it much either, but there's nothing currently bannable about it. Maybe they'll print some permanent even more mighty than Emrakul or Griselbrand that breaks it, but that hasn't happened yet.

[HammafistRoob]

I played A LOT of Legacy back when Top was heavily disliked. Counterbalance Top was raping the meta so bad people started maindecking Krosan Grip. There were also many complaints about how it was insanely time consuming and whatnot. I love Top so I'm glad wizards ignored those cries.

[Ellomdian]

Show and Tell, on the other hand, really doesn't have much of a basis for banning outside of a lot of people simply not liking it. I don't like it much either, but there's nothing currently bannable about it. Maybe they'll print some permanent even more mighty than Emrakul or Griselbrand that breaks it, but that hasn't happened yet.

No basis, outside of turning games into binary decisions that a monkey could make. I guess we could dredge up the "Ban Griselbrand" argument, but I feel like it's been killed already in this BnR cycle.

[Lord Seth]

No basis, outside of turning games into binary decisions that a monkey could make.

So, again, the basis is that people don't like the deck, not that the deck is overpowered or dominant.

[bjholmes3]

*hackmodernstormwheeze* I don't think that unpopularity should ever be a reason to ban a card, ever. But then again, maybe that's why I don't run the sanctioned formats of a multimillion dollar international card company.

[Lord Seth]

*hackmodernstormwheeze* I don't think that unpopularity should ever be a reason to ban a card, ever. But then again, maybe that's why I don't run the sanctioned formats of a multimillion dollar international card company.

If you're trying to claim that unpopularity led to the Seething Song ban in Modern, you're not putting forward a decent case. Seething Song got banned because Storm was winning too frequently before turn 4 (this was due to Goblin Electromancer giving the deck a speed boost--beforehand it wasn't as swift). A rule for the format is that if a deck can win consistently before turn 4 and is one of the top decks in the format (some Tier 2 deck that can do that doesn't matter), it's not allowed. Therefore, its banning was motivated by enforcing the rule of the format. Whether or not you like or agree with that rule is another issue entirely, but I doubt it was due to people disliking the deck it got banned.

Indeed, I actually saw very little complaining about the deck, and its banning was a big surprise to a lot of people. So trying to point to Seething Song being banned as "Wizards of the Coast banned it just because people complained" is fallacious because (1) there wasn't that much complaining, especially compared to something like Show and Tell, and (2) its banning was in fact consistent with the rules of the format.

[bjholmes3]

Well I'll be, here I thought people just hated that deck out. This actually makes me feel a lot better about the ban. Thanks for explaining that to me!

[Darkenslight]

If you're trying to claim that unpopularity led to the Seething Song ban in Modern, you're not putting forward a decent case. Seething Song got banned because Storm was winning too frequently before turn 4 (this was due to Goblin Electromancer giving the deck a speed boost--beforehand it wasn't as swift). A rule for the format is that if a deck can win consistently before turn 4 and is one of the top decks in the format (some Tier 2 deck that can do that doesn't matter), it's not allowed. Therefore, its banning was motivated by enforcing the rule of the format. Whether or not you like or agree with that rule is another issue entirely, but I doubt it was due to people disliking the deck it got banned.

Indeed, I actually saw very little complaining about the deck, and its banning was a big surprise to a lot of people. So trying to point to Seething Song being banned as "Wizards of the Coast banned it just because people complained" is fallacious because (1) there wasn't that much complaining, especially compared to something like Show and Tell, and (2) its banning was in fact consistent with the rules of the format.

Another aspect of that might have been that it natively adds +3 mana to your mana pool with an Electromancer out. That last two major cards that essentially did that are banned in almost every format (Mind's Desire and Black Lotus, for reference, and yes, I'm well aware that that's not what Desire actually does). Whilst Modern Storm can still get T4 wins, it's not nearly as consistent as it was with Song.

[FTW]

Maybe they'll print some permanent even more mighty than Emrakul or Griselbrand that breaks it, but that hasn't happened yet.

Omniscience

I hear being able to cast your deck for free on turn 1, including Emrakul and Griselbrand and another win condition, is pretty broken.

[Dice_Box]

Omniscience

I hear being able to cast your deck for free on turn 1, including Emrakul and Griselbrand and another win condition, is pretty broken.

I have never seen it in play turn one.

[bruizar]

I have never seen it in play turn one.

I stumble upon petal, tomb, snt, omniscience, enter the infinite with force of will back up hands all the time.

[Mr Miagi]

I stumble upon petal, tomb, snt, omniscience, enter the infinite with force of will back up hands all the time.

I call bullshit.. and perhaps post traumatic stress syndrome from one lucky opening hand that raped you in one game..

srsly, that's exactly 6 /7 (if you count the blue card for force pitch) card combo hand you are mentioning here. Yes my goldfish also wants SnT to be banned casue all of them turn one kills like the one above..

[Megadeus]

A majority of omniderp decks don't even run petal so that has got to be horse shit.

[Dice_Box]

While I hate SnT a lot, I do not see it being a constant turn one kill. I have seen the deck kill turn two only twice. Turn three is far more common.

Now I am not debating that SnT CAN kill turn one. But I have never seen it. There are two SnT players locally so I do see the deck played a fair amount. I think saying it can kill turn one is like pointing out Painter can kill turn one. Yea, it's possible, but so very unlikely.

Sent from my mobile, forgive spelling and grammatical errors.

[Megadeus]

The BOM list literally cannot kill turn one. There is no perfect seven that does it

[bruizar]

I call bullshit.. and perhaps post traumatic stress syndrome from one lucky opening hand that raped you in one game..

srsly, that's exactly 6 /7 (if you count the blue card for force pitch) card combo hand you are mentioning here. Yes my goldfish also wants SnT to be banned casue all of them turn one kills like the one above..

It's actualy a 7/7, and yes, obviously that has never happened to me. I was being sarcastic.

[FTW]

While I hate SnT a lot, I do not see it being a constant turn one kill. I have seen the deck kill turn two only twice. Turn three is far more common.

Now I am not debating that SnT CAN kill turn one. But I have never seen it.

I didn't say turn 1 was the average kill. The question was whether a permanent more mighty than Emrakul and Griselbrand had been printed to truly break SnT. I argue Omniscience is that permanent.

The little details of whether that happens on turn 1-3 applies to anyone casting Show and Tell for anything. But being able to draw your deck and insta-win seems actually even better than just dropping a summoning sick Emmy or Griselbees.

Some builds run Petal or Moxen and can go off turn 1 with City/Tomb + Petal/Mox + SnT + Omnsicience/Dream Halls + Enter the Infinite, so it is theoretically possible. Yes, that's a 5-card combo, but there are also redundant pieces which mean this could actually happen more than once in a blue moon. Whether those builds are optimal against the meta is another question -- it appears they are not and the more successful builds go off later -- but that doesn't make dropping Omniscience any less broken.

[Higgs]

The UR Omniscience deck can pull a turn 1 win but people don't even remember the deck exists because what you gain in brokenness you lose in resilience.

[Backseat_Critic]

The UR Omniscience deck can pull a turn 1 win but people don't even remember the deck exists because what you gain in brokenness you lose in resilience.

Exactly. This is the balancing act of all the combo decks. The catch to omniscience is that it adds theoretical speed, but requires a three card combo. I know people say they think the combo is stupid, but I haven't heard an argument that it's too broken for legacy. Carry on.

[Humphrey]

WotC has actually shown they are very conservative with banning cards which is a good thing. I think they have done a much better job at maintaining the Legacy banned list than anyone will give them credit for.

I ABSOLUTELY dont agree. The banning of Mental Misstep was much to fast. Same with the banning of Survival. The format didnt have the time to evolve.

And remember the reasons, why Mystical Tutor was banned?

...