All B/R update speculation.

[Higgs]

Well, I'm playing Tinker, Academy and Ancestral in one deck, so I guess...?

I guess you are playing Vintage and not Legacy?

[Arsenal]

Nobody is disagreeing with you that TNN is the reason that Jund is gone. I liked the deck too but that is what happens when new, better cards are printed. Esper and goblins went away after deathrite got printed. It happens almost every time a legacy playable is printed. You can't ban TNN then declare balance restored as the blue dominance continues.

I like the poll with this thread. It gives perspective. At one time 20% of people thought goyf should get the axe.

edit - it's very rare that you can stick with your pet deck forever. they die and you need to move on (RIP folk). Your posts sound like stage 2 of the grieving process.

Brainstorm has everything to do with non-blue midrange and aggro decks being tier two.

You just stated that Brainstorm is the reason non-blue midrange is tier 2. Now you state that TNN is the reason non-blue midrange (Jund) is tier 2? Which is it? Also, the "blue dominance" you think was happening pre-TNN just wasn't occurring according to thecouncil's data. Jund was 4th place for virtually the entire year, Maverick averaged a 9th place finish for Jan-Nov 2013. D&T is still top tier.

Also, if UW Stoneblade is considered a "pet deck", then yeah, I'm sad that it's only #2 instead of #1 in the meta.

[testing32]

You just stated that Brainstorm is the reason non-blue midrange is tier 2. Now you state that TNN is the reason non-blue midrange (Jund) is tier 2? Which is it?

Also, if UW Stoneblade is considered a "pet deck", then yeah, I'm sad that it's only #3 instead of #1 in the meta.

The two are not mutually exclusive for bringing jund back.

[Arsenal]

The two are not mutually exclusive for bringing jund back.

How was Maverick able to be in the top 3 for what seemed to be all of 2012 while Brainstorm existed? Maverick was super top tier while Brainstorm was in the format. Again, this is another example of a non-blue midrange deck that was top tier despite your claim that Brainstorm has/had everything to do with non-blue midrange and aggro decks being tier 2.

[DragoFireheart]

Ironically, it's creatures, not Brainstorm, that pushed out non-blue decks.

Think about that for a second. Blue CREATURES. Some people are ignoring the Elephant in the room...

[Lemnear]

I guess you are playing Vintage and not Legacy?

No, he plays Natural Order, Gaea's Cradle and Glimpse of Nature

[Arsenal]

Ironically, it's creatures, not Brainstorm, that pushed out non-blue decks.

Think about that for a second. Blue CREATURES. Some people are ignoring the Elephant in the room...

This is what I've been saying the last two pages; Delver of Secrets + TNN are the main reasons non-blue midrange and aggro died. I've even provided data to back up my claims. And yet, Brainstorm is the reason why Zoo died. Brainstorm is the reason Jund died. Brainstorm is the reason Maverick died. lolwut?

[PirateKing]

You can't really debate on how the dominance of Brainstorm is effecting the metagame using data compiled in 2013-20014. If you want to argue what the spring of 1994 meta was like, versus now, then you can single out Brainstorm. Realistically though, we're talking about Brainstorm & fetch land, so to be fair, we should use data from before the summer of 2002 and see what a pre-Brainstorm meta looked like. But since all these predate Legacy as a format, any data presented reflecting the use of Brainstorm is just background radiation, and can't be singled out as a reason for anything happening.

[HSCK]

You just stated that Brainstorm is the reason non-blue midrange is tier 2. Now you state that TNN is the reason non-blue midrange (Jund) is tier 2? Which is it? Also, the "blue dominance" you think was happening pre-TNN just wasn't occurring according to thecouncil's data. Jund was 4th place for virtually the entire year, Maverick averaged a 9th place finish for Jan-Nov 2013. D&T is still top tier.

Also, if UW Stoneblade is considered a "pet deck", then yeah, I'm sad that it's only #3 instead of #1 in the meta.

Maybe Maverick just isn't good, and stop using TC data with its sub-50 player tournaments, it's skewing results. It'd be far more credible if Maverick was a top tier deck on the open circuit or bigger European tourneys. Maverick's been dead for a long time now, at least 8 months, it's not TNN.

[Arsenal]

Maybe Maverick just isn't good, and stop using TC data with its sub-50 player tournaments, it's skewing results. It'd be far more credible if Maverick was a top tier deck on the open circuit or bigger European tourneys. Maverick's been dead for a long time now, at least 8 months, it's not TNN.

HSCK, you are the only person that doesn't want to use thecouncil's data for reasons I do not understand. Everyone in the "Would you like to see TNN go away" thread agreed to use thecouncil's data. This very website uses thecouncil's data for it's DTB selection (with a 33 player floor).

The website you provided me (http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...game-analysis/) doesn't update frequently enough (his last post was 12-4-13) and it uses old data, citing stuff like SCG Dallas? That tourney happened on November 10, 2013. BOM Last 3 Bye Trial? That happened on November 1st, 2013. Until you provide me with a website as comprehensive and frequently updated as thecouncil (daily updates > 12-4-13 post analysing November 1st, 2013 data), I will continue to use thecouncil for all of my data referencing needs. Thanks for the old data though, that really helps.

[Higgs]

No, he plays Natural Order, Gaea's Cradle and Glimpse of Nature

He plays Tinker in Elves?

Ninja edit: got it. Good one :)

[FTW]

I've seen people compare Brainstorm to Ancestral Recall. But we have a thread here comparing Stoneforge Mystic to Oath of Druids so I guess some people just have wild imaginations.

That's a comparison LSV made in a video. It's a bit of a stretch, but it's functionally a 2cc tutor-engine tool splashable in blue decks (1X) that gives the control strategy much better game against aggro and puts a fatty or whatever else you want into play on turn 3. Obviously there are huge differences though, and Stoneforge is playable in way more than just blue decks, so I think LSV's analogy was narrow.

[FTW]

No, he plays Natural Order, Gaea's Cradle and Glimpse of Nature

I thought he played Goblin Matron, Skirk Prospector and Goblin Ringleader

[Lemnear]

I thought he played Goblin Matron, Skirk Prospector and Goblin Ringleader

Still playing green creatures ... so what? ;D

[DragoFireheart]

, and stop using TC data with its sub-50 player tournaments, it's skewing results.

Ok, I'll stop using The Source then.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...Deck-Selection

So how are decks selected for the DTBF?

Rather than relying on arbitrary selection or decision-making based on conjecture which can be tainted by personal bias, decks are selected for the DTBF based on their performance at recent, large, competitive Legacy tournaments. Decks which make up a very large portion of the metagame are considered DTB's. Decks which are less prevalent but appear multiple times are considered DTW's. Archetypes which appear multiple times are considered ATW's.

The data used for selection is based upon Top 8's from the most recent Legacy tournaments with 33 or more players. European, Japanese, and other non-American tournament data is included in this process, because there is a thriving, well-developed Legacy community in places other than America, and their results are relevant.

For the sake of currency and relevance, the DTBF contents will be revised on the first of every month. The data from the most recent ten tournaments will replace the previous data.

[HSCK]

HSCK, you are the only person that doesn't want to use thecouncil's data for reasons I do not understand. Everyone in the "Would you like to see TNN go away" thread agreed to use thecouncil's data. This very website uses thecouncil's data for it's DTB selection (with a 36 player floor).

The website you provided me (http://www.channelfireball.com/artic...game-analysis/) doesn't update frequently enough (his last post was 12-4-13) and it uses old data, citing stuff like SCG Dallas? That tourney happened on November 10, 2013. BOM Last 3 Bye Trial? That happened on November 1st, 2013. Until you provide me with a website as comprehensive and frequently updated as thecouncil (daily updates > 12-4-13 post analysing November 1st, 2013 data), I will continue to use thecouncil for all of my data referencing needs. Thanks for the old data though, that really helps.

Because 36 player floors are still too small. I don't think anything under 50 is really that useful, and the most useful data's going to come from Opens or BoM type tournaments, at which Maverick has been a non-factor for a long time. So averaging 9th with your data is really misleading, because it didn't perform well at all at important tournaments. I'm fine with TC data...if it excludes random 19-50 person tourneys.

[Arsenal]

Because 36 player floors are still too small. I don't think anything under 50 is really that useful, and the most useful data's going to come from Opens or BoM type tournaments, at which Maverick has been a non-factor for a long time. So averaging 9th with your data is really misleading, because it didn't perform well at all at important tournaments. I'm fine with TC data...if it excludes random 19-50 person tourneys.

But I'm not misleading anyone. I'm citing my source and applying the same data analysis to all decks. If you don't think thecouncil is a good source for data, fine, keep using Bob's outdated and largely irrelevant blog post. But don't come in here everytime I mention "Maverick" and "thecouncil" and try to say that I'm misleading people; I don't control what the raw data is or where it comes from nor do I apply varying standards to decks when analyzing the data.

And even if what you say is true, a deck that doesn't do well at majors (pretty sure Maverick placed top 8 in BOM), but dominates the mid-sized tourneys sounds very much like a fringe top 10 deck to me.

[Nielsie]

I am so sick of reading: Brainstorm can't be banned because it's why we play Legacy in the first place.

Maybe that is true for you but this ain't about your pet-card. Brainstorm makes blue decks too consistent and this wasn't so much of a problem before because hand-shaping alone doesn't win you games, you also need the tools to win the game. Because blue got creatures like Delver and TNN it kind of has everything all the other colors stand for and it has more then enough tools to win.

I think banning Brainstorm is an option. Maybe not a popular one at first but I am starting to get sick of "play blue or go home". Banning Brainstorm would be a first step into a more versatile and colored meta-game. Banning Brainstorm would hit decks as Show and Tell or Blade/TNN decks without having to ban TNN or S&T.

If Brainstorm is off-limits than blue needs to be nerfed somewhere else, obvious place is TNN. This card only made things worse, almost everyone that is just a little bit honest, agrees the card isn't fun at all. So why put up with this shit. Ban the thing and go back to the meta before november 1. It wasn't a very bad meta. Ok, Brainstorm and blue was everywhere but it wasn't as bad as it is now.

Think about this for a moment: two great players, Max Tietze and Jim Davis have played with Goblins the last few years. Now they are converts to the "Play blue or go home" camp because they want to win and don't see any other option but blue. These are just two players, imagine how many more Tietze's and Davis's there are right now!

[HSCK]

But I'm not misleading anyone. I'm citing my source and applying the same data analysis to all decks. If you don't think thecouncil is a good source for data, fine, keep using Bob's outdated and largely irrelevant blog post. But don't come in here everytime I mention "Maverick" and "thecouncil" and try to say that I'm misleading people; I don't control what the raw data is or where it comes from nor do I apply varying standards to decks when analyzing the data.

And even if what you say is true, a deck that doesn't do well at majors (pretty sure Maverick placed top 8 in BOM), but dominates the mid-sized tourneys sounds very much like a fringe top 10 deck to me.

Because it was already dead before November 1st, the proof is there. Winning FNM sized Legacy tournaments doesn't mean squat really. I could just have Curio Cavern's results posted to TC for some real data considering it's by far the best place to play Legacy in the States. If a deck doesn't perform well at big tourneys how good can it actually be over the span of 8-9 months? It means it's probably not, TNN didn't kill Maverick, it was already dead.

[Arsenal]

Because it was already dead before November 1st, the proof is there. Winning FNM sized Legacy tournaments doesn't mean squat really. I could just have Curio Cavern's results posted to TC for some real data considering it's by far the best place to play Legacy in the States. If a deck doesn't perform well at big tourneys how good can it actually be over the span of 8-9 months? It means it's probably not, TNN didn't kill Maverick, it was already dead.

You don't like thecouncil, we get it. You think the only tourneys that matter are SCG Opens and BOM, we get it.

You keep on using Bob's outdated and irrelevant data from an old blog post, that's fine with me. I'm going to continue using thecouncil's data, just like almost everyone else does on these boards + this own website uses, until a more comprehensive and frequently updated website replaces thecouncil. I'll continue to cite Maverick's 9th place average from Jan-Nov 2013 as the data allows me to do such. Thanks for playing.