All B/R update speculation.

[H]

I've been preaching that Wizards doesn't care for a long time now.

I don't see why EDH can have a B+R committee and Legacy (and Vintage) can't. A few right-minded players, a few Judges, and a couple people from Wizards shouldn't be so hard to organize.

[catmint]

such an attitute is not a very inspiring foundation for democracy... you represent the pragmatic / realistic view like Angela Merkel.
...how about some "yes we can"...

Wizards could make sure that it does not go crazy by establishing some ground rules of which cards are out of the question to unban - only a certain amount of bannings/unbannings at the same time,...

[H]

such an attitute is not a very inspiring foundation for democracy... you represent the pragmatic / realistic view like Angela Merkel.
...how about some "yes we can"...

Wizards could make sure that it does not go crazy by establishing some ground rules of which cards are out of the question to unban - only a certain amount of bannings/unbannings at the same time,...

Democracy is oppressive. Oppressing people by majority is not what I'd be after.

If I ran it (I doubt I qualify) I would have the following structure:

Start with everyone presenting what meta-game data they have studied in the previous time frame, present that data and their interpretation there-of.

After everyone presents, we look at all that data and discuss what it all means and identify any issues, tends, etc.

Suggestions of what could/should/shouldn't be done about said issues or deciding if they are even valid issues to address.

Vote on suggestions if they seem viable, or modify suggestions to achieve consensus.

Or I don't know, something like that...

[sjmcc13]

If wizards is not interested in monetizing and investing in legacy, why not hand over the format to the community to decide on bannings / unbannings.
...Democracy...

They establish criteria which make you eligable to vote (playing a certain amount of legacy with your DCI).
Then people can run for a seat in a committee if they get a certain amount of legacy eligable DCI's to support them.
A committee decides based on absolute majority.
The committee is reelected every year.

#powertothepeople

This whole stupid threads would then actually make sense.
People running on banning certain cards or keeping them in the in the format.

Horrible Idea.
this would lead to bannings not based on power or dominance, but one unpopularity. Pretty much every good control card would end up getting banned because of the idiots who clamour for a ban of every card they do not want to play against.

I don't see why EDH can have a B+R committee and Legacy (and Vintage) can't.

Because wizards did not create EDH, they just decided to market towards it when they realized it was popular.

[H]

Because wizards did not create EDH, they just decided to market towards it when they realized it was popular.

It's still a sanctionable format, so why can't other formats have that too? I get why it doesn't have one, my question is why can't it have one?

[Star|Scream]

I've been preaching that Wizards doesn't care for a long time now.

I don't see why EDH can have a B+R committee and Legacy (and Vintage) can't. A few right-minded players (who think the same way I do)

Fixed that for you.

And suppose this committee decided not to ban brainstorm. Then what would you do?

[HSCK]

It's still a sanctionable format, so why can't other formats have that too? I get why it doesn't have one, my question is why can't it have one?

There are no EDH tournaments at Comp REL or Pro REL run by Wizards, that's the difference. The DCI handles it, and I'm positive they talk to people they trust about the game about things like that. It's how Modern became a PT format in the beginning. As long as attendance is good and decks do different things, there isn't a lot of reason for the DCI to bring the banhammer in. The same people screaming for TNN to go are still screaming now.

[H]

Fixed that for you.

And suppose this committee decided not to ban brainstorm. Then what would you do?

You realize that I have said multiple times that I am ambivalent to Brainstorm being banned or not, right?

If it was banned I would stop playing Brainstorm. If it was not, I'd still sometimes play it and sometimes not, depending on how I felt.

[Star|Scream]

You realize that I have said multiple times that I am ambivalent to Brainstorm being banned or not, right?

If it was banned I would stop playing Brainstorm. If it was not, I'd still sometimes play it and sometimes not, depending on how I felt.

Ehhh nevermind. I'm done!

[catmint]

Horrible Idea.
this would lead to bannings not based on power or dominance, but one unpopularity. Pretty much every good control card would end up getting banned because of the idiots who clamour for a ban of every card they do not want to play against.

Because wizards did not create EDH, they just decided to market towards it when they realized it was popular.

You obviously surround yourself with the wrong people given you think so little of the legacy community.
The people I know and would want to decide are very objective, experienced, careful and do not overreact to extremists and hypes.

Also control is loved by the community - if unpopularity would be a factor it would more be cards like show&tell which is not dominant but people don't like it because they think it is stupid and easy.

Most importantly it is primarily not about bannings. This topic is very polarizing and loaded with emotion and polemic non sense. But what everyone seems to agree that there is tons of stuff that can be unbanned. So obviously this is where it would start...

[tescrin]

Here's my argument:

I really really want to play with Mind Twist. I don't care if 90% of games it'll be a more daze-able color-light Hymn.
Unban it with the restriction you have to play 4, I don't care. I pine for it.



Never said it was a good argument.

[Adryan]

I think the best solution to Brainstorm is to let it stay in the format and give other colors consistency tools.

In Hearthstone there are two cards almost every deck runs and no one gives a damn about it, because everyone can play with them. If Brainstorm was a colorless spell, i'm sure almost no one would care about it being 8/8 in every Top 8.

If Brainstorm gets the axe, im sure we will have 6/8 Ponder Top 8's. The majority of people don't want to lose to a monkey playing Belcher (yes a monkey can learn playing Belcher).

The problem of this format is more FoW and the lack of tools to fight combo in other colors.

[FoolofaTook]

We don't really know what the optimal number of cantrips is in the blue shell at this point. 8-12 seems to be the number that most people have settled on but we don't know what the number really is at this point. We have a pretty good idea that it is not 13+ because everybody has the opportunity to play 13+ and only a few combo lists use 13+ cantrips.

Lam Phan's UR Landstill list had only 4 cantrips in the 4 Brainstorm. One of the Miracles lists had only 5 cantrips and avoided Ponder entirely with 4 Brainstorm and a singleton Preordain.

I don't think we know what people would choose to do in the absence of Brainstorm. It's possible that 4x Ponder would be the answer, but it's also possible that people would make other choices. Impulse is a deep dig. Portent lets you screw with your opponent. Preordain and Telling Time let you bury unwanted cards on the bottom.

Brainstorm is so good that it makes none of the other choices worth a look at this point. It has enough defensive characteristics that people choose the second best cantrip to accompany it. It's possible they'd make different choices in the absence of Brainstorm.

[Lemnear]

How nice was the SCG Portland Top 4? Maverick, UR Delver, Burn and Elves.

"But you need Brainstorm to have a shot at the top tables!"

[Barook]

How nice was the SCG Portland Top 4? Maverick, UR Delver, Burn and Elves.

"But you need Brainstorm to have a shot at the top tables!"

"Oh yeah, let's conveniently not talk about #5-16 which all ran Brainstorm!"

Not exactly a convincing argument when 81% of the Top 16 still consisted of blue decks running Brainstorm.

[Julian23]

"Oh yeah, let's conveniently not talk about #5-16 which all ran Brainstorm!"

Not exactly a convincing argument when 81% of the Top 16 still consisted of blue decks running Brainstorm.

I said this on Twitter before: it also seems super convenient to argue that 81% of the Top16 was on Brainstorm, thus something is wrong. How many people played Brainstorm to begin with?

[Fatal]

yeap and with looking on top16: those 3 decks which are in top4 are only decks which doesn't run brainstorms ;).

We have on top16:

2 U/R Delver (4 Brainstorm, 4 Ponder, 4 Probe, 4 Treasure Cruise, 4 FoW)
2 RUG Delver (4 Brainstorm, 4 Ponder, 2 Probe, 4 FoW)
1 BUG Delver (4 Brainstorm, 3 Ponder, 2 TC, 4 FoW)
1 Shardless BUG (4 Brainstorm, 4 FoW)
1 UWR Stoneblade (4 Brainstorm, 4 Ponder, 4 Probe, 4 TC, 4 FoW)
1 UWR Control-Combo (Ascendancy Combo) (4 Brainstorm, 4 Ponder, 4 Probe, 4 TC, 4 FoW)
1 Miracles (4 Brainstorm, 4 FoW, 1 DTT)
1 U/G 12Post (4 Brainstorm, 2 Ponder, 2 TC, 2 FoWs)
1 Reanimator (4 Brainstorm, 3 Ponder, 4 FoWs)
and top4:
1 Elves
1 Maverick
1 Burn
1 U/R Delver (4 Brainstorm, 4 Ponder, 4 Probe, 4 TC, 4 FoW)

Yeap I see 3 different decks - which are more unique then other 13.. No matter the win con is it tempo, combo, or control..

[Lemnear]

I said this on Twitter before: it also seems super convenient to argue that 81% of the Top16 was on Brainstorm, thus something is wrong. How many people played Brainstorm to begin with?

According to the current metagame structure (as I have no data about the events field): ~70%, ergo are the 81% of Brainstorm-decks in the top 16 not something unexpected or abnormal. They perform according to their metagame representation, which appears to be something some users on the Source can't comprehend

[davelin]

I said this on Twitter before: it also seems super convenient to argue that 81% of the Top16 was on Brainstorm, thus something is wrong. How many people played Brainstorm to begin with?

Sure perhaps >80% of the meta is on brainstorm therefore one would expect that >80% of the top16 is on Brainstorm. However couldn't this in of itself be a problem? I don't think these metas just arbitrarily form, they are somewhat evolutionary ecosystems where the less-performing (or perhaps less consistent) decks get quickly crowded out.

[Lemnear]

Sure perhaps >80% of the meta is on brainstorm therefore one would expect that >80% of the top16 is on Brainstorm. However couldn't this in of itself be a problem? I don't think these metas just arbitrarily form, they are somewhat evolutionary ecosystems where the less-performing (or perhaps less consistent) decks get quickly crowded out.

Depends. SCG Opens are known for their swingy playerbase picking up what's up the Hype-meter, so I expect the ridiculous follow-the-leader principle to have an impact of the ever decreasing number of non-blue decks over time on itself. It's a Hive mind development to see 50% Brainstorm decks in Top 8 in 2010 according to 50% of the metagame representation, fail to set this into relation and asume Brainstorm is overperforming and play the "overpowered" card yourself. Over time the number of BS' in the field and Top 8 is rising automatically.

The interresting Observation for the next weeks would be, if this particular Top 4 has any influence on the SCG field