All B/R update speculation.

[Lemnear]

Oh, and I don't see too much harm in Frantic Search. A ponderous mono Blue combo deck with pretty good game against other combo decks seems fine. If it helps UB Tezz also then all the better.

Is Show&Tell + Dream Halls still not enough or you?

It does filter for "free", but it is card disadvantage as well.

Here's a question, if it were something like a Phyrexian Mana Careful Study, would it see a lot of play and be broken? It isn't completely the same card, but it is a "free" loot 2. (yes I'm aware dredge would poop its pants with such a thing)

Would be insane. Every deck that can make up the carddisadvantage would run it. Reanimator, Storm combo, Dredge, Tres.hold, Loam

[JPoJohnson]

Is Show&Tell + Dream Halls still not enough or you?



Would be insane. Every deck that can make up the carddisadvantage would run it. Reanimator, Storm combo, Dredge, Tres.hold, Loam

I'm not sure I can see dredge running it, but I could definitely see the others.

[Lemnear]

I'm not sure I can see dredge running it, but I could definitely see the others.

Free looting? Manaless/LED Dredge would shit pants in joy. The thing is a Street Wraith on steroids AND a FREE discard outlet

Phyrexian Looting, response break LED, dredge like an idiot and flashback milled Faithless Looting ... xP

[Megadeus]

Free looting? Manaless/LED Dredge would shit pants in joy. The thing is a Street Wraith on steroids AND a FREE discard outlet

Phyrexian Looting, response break LED, dredge like an idiot and flashback milled Faithless Looting ... xP

I mean they already play careful study, why wouldnt they play free careful study? I think the card would be strong, but not necessarily broken.

[DragoFireheart]

So I like how the best Legacy deck doesn't use TNN or Show and Tell.

Maybe TNN is fine afterall?

[testing32]

So I like how the best Legacy deck doesn't use TNN or Show and Tell.

Maybe TNN is fine afterall?

TNN is, BS isn't.

[DragoFireheart]

TNN is, BS isn't.

Could Brainstorm be banned? Sure. Tarmogoyf could get banned. Sensei's Divining Top could be banned.

Will Brainstorm be banned? Brainstorm is unlikely to be banned.

[testing32]

Brainstorm is unlikely to be banned.

I know :(

They need to get on printing some good non-blue cards already.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

So I like how the best Legacy deck doesn't use TNN or Show and Tell.

Maybe TNN is fine afterall?

A card doesn't have to be the best card to be banned, it's enough if it warps the meta around it, especially towards combo and anti-combo. I don't think even Wizards thought the Mystical Tutor decks were clearly better than the aggro-control lists of the day for instance.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I don't mean this as an insult (like 90% of the people on this site would) but you should come play modern. Check my post history, it's pretty much all I play now, and the B&R list there is actually pretty damn good. They do change the format depending on what seems OP and even though they flub it once in a while (like banning GSZ and Wild Nacatl in the same round), overall it seems to be getting better and better.

And check this out, blue isn't the end all be all of the format.

I've been playing it recently, it's an interesting format. I'm planning on going to the Richmond GP. I like that the different decks are actually different.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I suppose this is off topic, but this is outstandingly bad advise. It doesn't matter if they can pay for the soft permission to resolve the High Tide because every Island that they tap on their combo turn denies them 2-3 mana. Using REB to counter a Brainstorm is also extremely wasteful. Countering a Merchant Scroll or Cunning Wish can sometimes be good when you expect them to be searching for a Wipe Away (to remove CB, Ethersworn, Leyline, etc). Usually the best strategy is to fight over the High Tide with any soft counters and then let HT resolve so you have more mana to fight again over their big draw spells (Time Spiral, BSZ) with your Cliques and hard counters.

If you are sitting on your counters and letting the High Tide player sculpt a perfect hand, you are never going to beat them when they go off. Countering a three card loot if they have or can drop a fetchland by REBing a Brainstorm is fantastically efficient. You also want to just stop them from finding land if it's possible.

You have clearly not spent a lot of time actually playing against competent High Tide players.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Using B/R list length as an evaluation parameter is useful because it guards against inertia ("X is restricted because it was broken at one time and the format is currently healthy without it..."), which leads to a stagnant format. When a meta is healthy (and clearly the current health of the meta is up for debate), that's the ideal time to be talking about unbannings to shake it up, and the cards unlikely to have an impact (Mind Twist, Frantic Search) are the ideal place to start.

Length of the banned list has no intrinsic connection to when cards on it were banned.

Also an unhealthy format is when you talk about changing the banned list most, because you hope to resolve an issue with the state of the game, although it's a good idea to re-examine cards that may not have belonged on the list to start with.

[JPoJohnson]

Free looting? Manaless/LED Dredge would shit pants in joy. The thing is a Street Wraith on steroids AND a FREE discard outlet

Phyrexian Looting, response break LED, dredge like an idiot and flashback milled Faithless Looting ... xP

Oh, I didn't realize we were talking about the card that didn't actually exist. Yes, they definitely would want to run a phyrexian looting.

[btm10]

Length of the banned list has no intrinsic connection to when cards on it were banned.

Also an unhealthy format is when you talk about changing the banned list most, because you hope to resolve an issue with the state of the game, although it's a good idea to re-examine cards that may not have belonged on the list to start with.

Using banned list length as a criterion sets implicit flags for when bannings/unbannings should be considered. If the meta is healthy, then cards for which sound theoretical arguments for unbanning exist should at least get a hearing, if not a one-at-a-time unbanning. If minimizing the length of the list weren't something the DCI explicitly aimed for then the argument for unbannings would always be intrinsically uphill, with the burden of proof being on showing that a banned card would be safe. With the current framing, the burden, at least rhetorically, lies on those arguing to maintain a ban on something like Mind Twist. Essentially, the card is innocent until proven guilty.

This system makes healthy metas the setting for talking about unbannings/restritions and unhealthy metas the setting for talking about bannings/restrictions because unhealthy metas are the only ones where it's possible to single out a card as being the cause of the problem. If we adopt a policy where the burden is on the people arguing against restrictions, we open the door to a whole slew of undesirable bannings and things like TNN and Brainstorm would just be the start and the end would likely be a format only marginally different from Modern and far less like Vintage. One of the things I find unappealing about Modern is how sterile and controlled the format is. I like the wilder, swinger atmosphere that having powerful cards like Brainstorm enables. I don't want "swing with better dudes than standard" and "Mana Leak is too good" to be the themes of my format.

[DragoFireheart]

Using banned list length as a criterion sets implicit flags for when bannings/unbannings should be considered. If the meta is healthy, then cards for which sound theoretical arguments for unbanning exist should at least get a hearing, if not a one-at-a-time unbanning. If minimizing the length of the list weren't something the DCI explicitly aimed for then the argument for unbannings would always be intrinsically uphill, with the burden of proof being on showing that a banned card would be safe. With the current framing, the burden, at least rhetorically, lies on those arguing to maintain a ban on something like Mind Twist. Essentially, the card is innocent until proven guilty.

This system makes healthy metas the setting for talking about unbannings/restritions and unhealthy metas the setting for talking about bannings/restrictions because unhealthy metas are the only ones where it's possible to single out a card as being the cause of the problem. If we adopt a policy where the burden is on the people arguing against restrictions, we open the door to a whole slew of undesirable bannings and things like TNN and Brainstorm would just be the start and the end would likely be a format only marginally different from Modern and far less like Vintage. One of the things I find unappealing about Modern is how sterile and controlled the format is. I like the wilder, swinger atmosphere that having powerful cards like Brainstorm enables. I don't want "swing with better dudes than standard" and "Mana Leak is too good" to be the themes of my format.

AKA: go play Modern if you want frequent bannings designed to balance the format.

AKA2: Go play Modern if you dislike Brainstorm.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Using banned list length as a criterion sets implicit flags for when bannings/unbannings should be considered.

I don't know what you mean by "flags," it sets a clear condition. It just has no connection to the actual purpose of the banned list, which is to manage the format. It is a self-referential and thus useless and incestuous purpose. The banned list's purpose cannot be for it to exist in given state X, without regard for any other function.

If the meta is healthy, then cards for which sound theoretical arguments for unbanning exist should at least get a hearing,

This is a total and complete shift in topic from the prior sentence. The meta being healthy or not should be the basis for changing the banned list, with banning and unbanning cards being equally viable means to alter the format; but there's no clear reason given why the format needs to be changed when it's healthy. The opposite should pretty clearly be the case.

if not a one-at-a-time unbanning. If minimizing the length of the list weren't something the DCI explicitly aimed for then the argument for unbannings would always be intrinsically uphill, with the burden of proof being on showing that a banned card would be safe. With the current framing, the burden, at least rhetorically, lies on those arguing to maintain a ban on something like Mind Twist. Essentially, the card is innocent until proven guilty.

Not at all. The burden is on those who argue to change the banned list to explain why changes should be made. "People want to play card X" might be part of that argument, although pretty clearly not a sufficient part.

This system makes healthy metas the setting for talking about unbannings/restritions and unhealthy metas the setting for talking about bannings/restrictions because unhealthy metas are the only ones where it's possible to single out a card as being the cause of the problem.

This is a nonsensical distinction. Bannings and unbannings are flip sides of the same coin. If a card being in a meta makes it healthier- a necessary precondition if we are also to assume that a card can make a meta less healthy- then it follows that adding a card can make a meta more healthy, as removing a card can make it less healthy. It has been argued pretty compellingly that Survival, or Mind Twist, or even Mishra's Workshop coupled with a ban of Trinisphere, could make the metagame more interesting and diverse, as it is pretty easy to argue that for instance, banning Force of Will, or banning Thalia, or banning Wasteland would be negative for the format.

One of the things I find unappealing about Modern is how sterile and controlled the format is. I like the wilder, swinger atmosphere that having powerful cards like Brainstorm enables. I don't want "swing with better dudes than standard" and "Mana Leak is too good" to be the themes of my format.

So, you don't play Modern.

[DragoFireheart]

This is a nonsensical distinction. Bannings and unbannings are flip sides of the same coin. If a card being in a meta makes it healthier- a necessary precondition if we are also to assume that a card can make a meta less healthy- then it follows that adding a card can make a meta more healthy, as removing a card can make it less healthy.

What objectively determines whether a card should be banned or not because it makes the meta "unhealthy"? (short of WotC deciding they want to ban it)

The last 300+ pages of this topic is my evidence that subjective means isn't the best course.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

What objectively determines whether a card should be banned or not because it makes the meta "unhealthy"? (short of WotC deciding they want to ban it)

The last 300+ pages of this topic is my evidence that subjective means isn't the best course.

Objective preferences are by nature contradictory. Even given a stated ends, subjective decisions have to be made. This can lead to mistakes but it doesn't really matter because there isn't an alternative. This is true of life in general, not just banned list decisions.

[DragoFireheart]

Objective preferences are by nature contradictory. Even given a stated ends, subjective decisions have to be made. This can lead to mistakes but it doesn't really matter because there isn't an alternative. This is true of life in general, not just banned list decisions.

Without an objective means, you're pretty much left with mob rule. Even in the world of MTG there are times when a ban is clearly needed. Skullclamp and Jace, the Mind Sculptor during their time in Standard comes to mind.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Plenty of people argued quite vehemently against banning Jace or Skullclamp in Standard. Even after GP: Columbus, people argued that people should "quit whining" and "adapt" to a Hulk-Flash meta.

What objective criteria do you want to use to determine bannings?