All B/R update speculation.

[Dice_Box]

Just to touch and go on one thing, Painter (Red) and Painted Stone (UR) are not on the same game plan. Saying Painter wants Brainstorm so it splashed Blue is at best a drastic overstatement that stems from false logic. The decks happen to share a win con, that is about it.

It's like saying that Zoo and Thresh are the same because they both run Bolts and Goyf.

[H]

My point is there is no correct answer. There are flaws in every argument.

All data is selective since we don't have a lot of statistics. Most arguments on here are valid, people just think that their logic trumps someone else's. Ergo my first post quoting you.

I never once said I had the correct answer.

I was discussing ways to look at actual data. One way to analyze data is to first create a binary. In no way was that meant to be the answer, its a step to parse data. People told me it is not valid to create a binary based on presence, which makes no logical sense, no matter what side of the argument you are on. If you want to see how a card preforms, first you have to include the decks that run it and exclude decks that don't. I don't know how you can construct a logic that states the opposite.

You can decry "strategic diversity," "color diversity" or anything else you want, that doesn't change the fact that if you want to look at any card's performance, you first need to create a data set that includes all the decks running it and excludes those that don't. If you can explain to me how that is not true and doesn't make logical sense, I'll be happy to change my mind.

[rlesko]

The problem with Brainstorm is that even non-blue decks want it. Jund wants it, that's why we have BUG. Painter wants it, that's why we have UR painter decks. Burn wants it, that's why we have Delver. Deadguy wants it, that's why we have Stoneblade. Sneak Attack wants it, that's why we have Show & Tell. You can build mono-green Cloudpost and mono-black Reanimator decks. But why would you when adding Brainstorm just makes the deck so much better?

The problem with Swords to Plowshares is even non-white decks want an efficient removal spell.

The problem with Lightning Bolt is even non-red decks want an efficient removal spell.

Yes, 2 color legacy decks are traditionally better than their mono color counterparts. Thats what happens in a format with dual lands. Your argument is stemming into - mono color decks should be just as good as dual/tri color decks. This isn't brainstorm. This is the cost benefit of two color decks in a format where you can have perfect mana.

[rlesko]

I never once said I had the correct answer.

I was discussing ways to look at actual data. One way to analyze data is to first create a binary. In no way was that meant to be the answer, its a step to parse data. People told me it is not valid to create a binary based on presence, which makes no logical sense, no matter what side of the argument you are on. If you want to see how a card preforms, first you have to include the decks that run it and exclude decks that don't. I don't know how you can construct a logic that states the opposite.

You can decry "strategic diversity," "color diversity" or anything else you want, that doesn't change the fact that if you want to look at any card's performance, you first need to create a data set that includes all the decks running it and excludes those that don't. If you can explain to me how that is not true and doesn't make logical sense, I'll be happy to change my mind.

Say I humor you we create that set of data. Whats the next step?

[Megadeus]

The problem with Swords to Plowshares is even non-white decks want an efficient removal spell.

The problem with Lightning Bolt is even non-red decks want an efficient removal spell.

Yes, 2 color legacy decks are traditionally better than their mono color counterparts. Thats what happens in a format with dual lands. Your argument is stemming into - mono color decks should be just as good as dual/tri color decks. This isn't brainstorm. This is the cost benefit of two color decks in a format where you can have perfect mana.

false. The real argument is that you should be playing blue. No one says that mono black reanimator or dead guy ale should be splashing red to become a better deck. It's always blue. It's not, man this deck needs another color, how about red? Green? No. It's always, man this deck could use more consistency. Add blue for brainstorm.

[rlesko]

false. The real argument is that you should be playing blue. No one says that mono black reanimator or dead guy ale should be splashing red to become a better deck. It's always blue. It's not, man this deck needs another color, how about red? Green? No. It's always, man this deck could use more consistency. Add blue for brainstorm.

Did it ever cross your mind that Sneak Attack wants blue for...SHOW AND TELL?

likewise for 12-post.

How about counter magic?

Saying its solely for brainstorm is wrong.

[LOLWut]

I've been testing for a Modern tournament. Despite the criticism it gets on this board, Modern is quite varied due to the many different ways in which decks try to gain card advantage. There are tempo decks that play Serum Visions and Treasure Cruise. Scapeshift plays Peer through Depths, Izzet Charm, and Dig Through Time. There are Dark Confidant decks. There are Birthing Pod decks. Notably, there is no deck in Modern whose goal is just to troll the meta like D&T or Lejay's deck. (I know there's a hatebear deck, but it's fringe.) It's difficult to do that because it's not just a matter of Thalia/3ball + Wasteland shutting down any slow draw because that's the only axis of attack. In modern, knowing the meta is incredibly important because the cards that are good against URx aren't good against BGx. You can't roll up with your Chokes and REBs and be covered for 70% of the meta.

Oh my God, if I had to play a format in which those were the best card selection/card advantage spells, I'd Kevorkian myself. Unlike there, here, I get to see varied, skill-intensive, and interesting card advantage/selection methods such as Green Sun's Zenith, Brainstorm, Entomb, Sylvan Library, Punishing Fire, Baleful Strix, Stoneforge Mystic, Imperial Recruiter, Sensei's Divining Top, Ponder, Living Wish, Crop Rotation, Goblin Matron, Ancestral Vision, Hymn to Tourach, Standstill, Innocent Blood, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Goblin Ringleader, Glimpse of Nature, Bloodbraid Elf, Burning Wish, Enlightened Tutor, Mirri's Guile, Shardless Agent, Intuition, Cunning Wish and Cabal Therapy. Make a list of the best Modern card selection spells and put on a laugh track. I'm guessing Serum Visions and Peer Through Depths make the list, and the list is neither pages long nor exciting and varied?

"What about the 4k player Grand Prix?" You mean the one where people complained about seeing only Delver on stream all day? The one that was fueled by people buying blue staples at an insane rate earlier in the year? You know what people remember from that event? Joe Lossett tweeting cards he had never seen in Legacy before. People want to see different cards in this format.

You know that the top 8 had one Delver deck and that a team of senile gophers decide what to stream, right?

Christ, I think blue has too many tools right now, but some of you people have lost your goddamn minds.

[ahg113]

Christ, I think blue has too many tools right now, but some of you people have lost your goddamn minds.

Which tools do you think are superfluous and are correct to remove from blue's card pool?

[H]

Say I humor you we create that set of data. Whats the next step?

Now you actually analyze your data. You say we don't have much data, but we have numerous years of top 8 data to look at. Once you have actual numbers (i.e. how many times a card top 8's) you can analyze your data. This is where you take quantitative results and look for explanations of how and why the data are as they are. If you want to look at top preforming cards in the format, do that, then come to conclusion about what that means.

All the data that I do look at points to one card being far-and-away more powerful than any other. I never called for a ban. It is worrisome to me that the issue of consistency in Legacy is too often answered by hitting the Brainstorm easy-button, as shown by how many Brainstorm decks are both played and make top 8's, consistently. However, you think that means I am staunch for a ban, when in reality I am not. I am concerned. I love Brainstorm, but to me, Legacy should not be defined by obviously superior cards (that's Vintage).

People says Brainstorm makes "strategic diversity" possible as the defense of the power level of Brainstorm, but can't point to a single deck that would become unplayable in the face of a Brainstorm ban. If Brainstorm is what enables diversity, then it's absence would reduce diversity, correct? So what decks would become unplayable to cause that? I haven't seen a single one presented, so I am challenging people to use actual logic and real examples, not vague allusions.

Listen, my feelings tell me that Brainstorm is fine. The data I see however leads me to believe that it might be too powerful. No one has convinced me that this can't be the case.

[Lemnear]

First of all, it's funny to compare a card with 38% penetration to one with 70%+. Think about that for a second. Would this discussion be live at all if Brainstorm was at 38% penetration? If Wasteland was at 70%, would people be calling for a ban?

So thank god this thread alone dates back to 2009, a time Brainstorm was below 50% and people still wanted it see banned. I wonder where you want to draw the line for penetration justifying a ban on itself. If Wasteland was 70% still no one woild call for a ban, because the general perception of that card is that it balances tool-lands and punishes greedy manabases. I guess, the 12-post and Marit Lage pilots are also not the loudest whiners, but are fine with maindecking Pithing Needles against their enemy #1 Wasteland, which is a similar drastic move as maindecking Pyroblasts in Jund against TNN/Delver/Brainstorm, despite not causing an uproar. Classic selective perception of the forum.

Second of all, even if Wasteland was at 70%+ penetration, it would at worst be a 56-card format. It is a colorless land with a desirable effect that any deck can play. And yes, I know WHY elves and storm and Miracles don't play wasteland. What I'm saying is that if they wanted to, they COULD..

Brainstorm has also a desireable effect. Why it it ok to adjust your manacurve and manabase to run and support Wasteland, but it's totally unacceptable that players splash blue for Brainstorm? Even the 56-card format example applies lol. Let me guess, it boils down to "but ... colors!?"

The problem with Brainstorm is that even non-blue decks want it. Jund wants it, that's why we have BUG. Painter wants it, that's why we have UR painter decks. Burn wants it, that's why we have Delver. Deadguy wants it, that's why we have Stoneblade. Sneak Attack wants it, that's why we have Show & Tell. You can build mono-green Cloudpost and mono-black Reanimator decks. But why would you when adding Brainstorm just makes the deck so much better? .

I don't want to adress the hyperboles of Imperial Painter vs. UR Painter or Jund vs. BUG. What you gain by running less colors is stability and the freedom to hate on the greedy, blue manabases like Imperial Painter, Sylvan Plug, MUD or D&T do. It's a strategic advantage ... especially if you can hit 3/4 of the metagame.

And then once you make the financial and/or deck construction changes to incorporate Brainstorm, you end up going farther into blue. Force is always the first thing that gets added, then you up your blue count. So you add Ponder, then maybe Probe or Cruise or Delver or TNN or whatever..

This isn't even an argument as it can be made for Green (GSZ -> Tarmogoyf, DRS, Cradle), White (Plows -> SFM, Karakas) or Black (Thoughtseize -> DRS, Liliana) as well. The financial downward spiral and the question "if I run color x for card y, which cards are also in color x which I might want to run?" are totally different topics.

"Why is this bad?" Because this is supposed to be a format where you can play cards from all of Magic's history, and the pool of playable cards is narrowed every printing. And the decks aren't really all that different. .

Are you complaining about the cream of the crop principle of tournament magic? Vintage has an even larger cardpool than Legacy and the decks are even more similar than Legacy's. It's not WotCs duty to keep card x or strategy y playable for decades in high level tournaments. Cardpool has no immediate impact on top tier cards in their respective format nor was it ever intended to have. Crafting a problem from an absurd idea imo

"What about the 4k player Grand Prix?" You mean the one where people complained about seeing only Delver on stream all day? The one that was fueled by people buying blue staples at an insane rate earlier in the year? You know what people remember from that event? Joe Lossett tweeting cards he had never seen in Legacy before. People want to see different cards in this format..

They complained about Delver mirrors. Delver/Blade subtypes are ~40% of the metagame. Thats the problem people have. They indeed don't want to see SFMs & TNNs trading blows without interaction and Delver mirrors toning down to "who has more creatures?". Heck, SCG decided that the UWR Delver mirror and three rounds of Tom Ross is more interresting than Storm vs. miracles during the GP.

"What about the decks a Brainstorm ban kills?" We don't know what would happen yet. It's possible that some decks will become unplayable. That's life. There may be new interesting decks that pop up. Or nothing could change because Ponder, Preordain, and Cruise are all still strong. The thing is we don't know, so why worry too much about it? This isn't like banning a card to kill a particular deck..

It's indeed a fact that we can only speculate about the formats development post-brainstorm, but if we have no compiled and convincing arguments that the possible change is for the better of the format, rather for the worse (which includes my expected degeneration to SFM/TNN/Countertop).

"Why not ban all the mistakes wizards made instead?" Because those aren't just blue. Delver, TNN, maybe. Cruise, S&T, maybe. SFM? Young Pyromancer? Tarmogoyf? Griselbrand? Emrakul? So in order to protect a couple decks, we have to kill dozens of other archetypes? And are we really going to say that a 3/2 creature is the problem? An 8-mana sorcery? Some of those cards are only playable because of Brainstorm.

And there it goes down the drain. Seriously, which diverse, completely different strategic archetypes do Delver or TNN go into? There is only 1. S&T? Also only 1. Are TNN and SFM playable because of Brainstorm? Sure they are, as the GPNJ Quarterfinal showed which featured the SDT+SFM+TNN derping.

You point at Brainstorms penetration, while also Delvers numbers are far above the ines Survival presented before it got banned. The difference between those three cards is that only 1 feeds diverse strategies and is NOT a threat.

[H]

Brainstorm has also a desireable effect. Why it it ok to adjust your manacurve and manabase to run and support Wasteland, but it's totally unacceptable that players splash blue for Brainstorm? Even the 56-card format example applies lol. Let me guess, it boils down to "but ... colors!?"

No, for me it comes down to the question of, "how does it effect the meta?" and "how effective are the answers." In the case of Wasteland, playing basics, playing less colors, using fetch lands or even Pithing Needle are acceptable answers. With regards to Brainstorm, the problem is the lack of very playable options as answers, which leads to people playing Brainstorm as a way to "stay in the game" versus Brainstorm.

If it was possible that people found in necessary to fight Wasteland with Wasteland, I'd say it would certainly be time to look at that as an issue. Since you can't even do that, the point is largely irrelevant.

[rlesko]

Which tools do you think are superfluous and are correct to remove from blue's card pool?

EDIT: Forgot to respond to this. I'm guessing the blue creatures as of late, but i don't want to put words in someone's mouth.

false. The real argument is that you should be playing blue. No one says that mono black reanimator or dead guy ale should be splashing red to become a better deck. It's always blue. It's not, man this deck needs another color, how about red? Green? No. It's always, man this deck could use more consistency. Add blue for brainstorm.

this argument is totally ass backwards by the way. what in red's color pie does it offer to a deck like reanimator?

Continue to overlook how blue offers show and tell, counter magic, as well as ponder (this goes for reanimator and sneak attack, and 12 post).

Also overlook how by adding "consistency" you water down the actual deck by running less business spells. Take RUG delver, you only can run 5-6 bolts because the rest is cantrips, you just rely on being able to find the right cards. Guess what, you don't always find the right cards.

Now you actually analyze your data. You say we don't have much data, but we have numerous years of top 8 data to look at. Once you have actual numbers (i.e. how many times a card top 8's) you can analyze your data. This is where you take quantitative results and look for explanations of how and why the data are as they are. If you want to look at top preforming cards in the format, do that, then come to conclusion about what that means.

All the data that I do look at points to one card being far-and-away more powerful than any other. I never called for a ban. It is worrisome to me that the issue of consistency in Legacy is too often answered by hitting the Brainstorm easy-button, as shown by how many Brainstorm decks are both played and make top 8's, consistently. However, you think that means I am staunch for a ban, when in reality I am not. I am concerned. I love Brainstorm, but to me, Legacy should not be defined by obviously superior cards (that's Vintage).

People says Brainstorm makes "strategic diversity" possible as the defense of the power level of Brainstorm, but can't point to a single deck that would become unplayable in the face of a Brainstorm ban. If Brainstorm is what enables diversity, then it's absence would reduce diversity, correct? So what decks would become unplayable to cause that? I haven't seen a single one presented, so I am challenging people to use actual logic and real examples, not vague allusions.

Listen, my feelings tell me that Brainstorm is fine. The data I see however leads me to believe that it might be too powerful. No one has convinced me that this can't be the case.

top 8 data is such a miniscule amount of actual data. even if you extend to top 16, its still not very meaningful. you're talking about looking at 8-16 lists out of 200+. doing a top 8 card count is as indicative of the "best" cards as it is the "popular" cards. if everyone is playing brainstorm...is it good or popular? both? how many people played maverick this past weekend? it won the tournament! did his deck overpowerform, or is it just as good as "brainstorm" decks and people just aren't gravitating to it for whatever reason? my ultimate point here being that *just* presenting top 8 data is pretty meaningless.

[H]

top 8 data is such a miniscule amount of actual data. even if you extend to top 16, its still not very meaningful. you're talking about looking at 8-16 lists out of 200+. doing a top 8 card count is as indicative of the "best" cards as it is the "popular" cards. if everyone is playing brainstorm...is it good or popular? both? how many people played maverick this past weekend? it won the tournament! did his deck overpowerform, or is it just as good as "brainstorm" decks and people just aren't gravitating to it for whatever reason? my ultimate point here being that *just* presenting top 8 data is pretty meaningless.

I can't say it is the total picture, but I think it grants you some insight in to how cards are preforming over a long period of time.

For example, it is easy to prove the reverse: how good is Kird Ape? See how many top 8's that has. We'll find none for years. I think that is meaningful. So take Brainstorm, how many top 8's does that have in the same time span? That has meaning. It is hard for me to accept that Brainstorm-based decks top 8 only because more people play them. If the premise that Brainstorm is not the best card in the format, that means that 70% of the meta is playing suboptimal decks. That would be astounding to me.

Why would so many people choose to play something that isn't the best thing? Either everyone is playing and making it the best thing, or it's the best thing and everyone is playing it. Having played with and against Brainstorm, I really have an incredibly hard time believing that it's power level is not at the top of Legacy, which points to it really being the superior strategy. Add to that the fact that is makes SFM, Pyromancer, Delver even better than they already are (which was pretty damn powerful already) and it makes the case of Brainstorm just being popular and not the most powerful thing really doubtful to me.

[Hoojo]

I have a couple thought experiments I want to propose:

The first, say instead of banning Brainstorm, they banned Ponder and Preordain instead?

The second, pick 5 cards you would unban and replace with 5 cards you would ban. I'm still working on my list, but I'd like to see what everyone thinks.

[Lemnear]

I was discussing ways to look at actual data. One way to analyze data is to first create a binary. In no way was that meant to be the answer, its a step to parse data. People told me it is not valid to create a binary based on presence, which makes no logical sense, no matter what side of the argument you are on. If you want to see how a card preforms, first you have to include the decks that run it and exclude decks that don't. I don't know how you can construct a logic that states the opposite.

Now you actually analyze your data. You say we don't have much data, but we have numerous years of top 8 data to look at. Once you have actual numbers (i.e. how many times a card top 8's) you can analyze your data. This is where you take quantitative results and look for explanations of how and why the data are as they are. If you want to look at top preforming cards in the format, do that, then come to conclusion about what that means.

I see a significant logic gap between both bolded statements. I agree with the first, because it sets results into relation with metagame presentation, but looking at top 8 only (which we have the most data off) is flawed because it gives no conclusion about decks/cards over-/underperforming. That's why I have significant issues to take arguments serious which ground on Top 8 results only. Ergo the problems concerning the data start long before we can interpret what they actually mean.

People says Brainstorm makes "strategic diversity" possible as the defense of the power level of Brainstorm, but can't point to a single deck that would become unplayable in the face of a Brainstorm ban.

If Brainstorm is what enables diversity, then it's absence would reduce diversity, correct? So what decks would become unplayable to cause that? I haven't seen a single one presented, so I am challenging people to use actual logic and real examples, not vague allusions.

Hu? People (like me) point non-stop at decks like OmniTell, SneakShow and Miracles which would take a truck-like hit off banning Brainstorm, if they can't shuffle back dead cards in their early turns. The whole S&T and Miracles supertype is unplayable if you need to hit 4 mana for Jace to start sculpting your game layout and setup your Terminus/Griselbrand/Entreat/Omniscience/Enter the Infinite/etc. which are all bricking dead before the turn 3-4 Jace is castable which is very questionable if UR Delver can easily kill via autopilot before you can even enter your fifth turn. With non-belcher combo and control possibly delayed to turn 4+ to get grip on their own gameplan, the Delver/SFM/TNN circle-jerk gets even more of an easy choice to pickup, because of not suffering from those significant construction issues, Griselbrand and stuff come with. Hope that was an example you can accept :)

[H]

I see a significant logic gap between both bolded statements. I agree with the first, because it sets results into relation with metagame presentation, but looking at top 8 only (which we have the most data off) is flawed because it gives no conclusion about decks/cards over-/underperforming. That's why I have significant issues to take arguments serious which ground on Top 8 results only. Ergo the problems concerning the data start long before we can interpret what they actually mean.

That is why we involve time. Looking at a single top 8 tells us only what was best that day(s). Looking at years of top 8 data can show you general trends. Trends can help establish a baseline of performance. Baseline's of performance can show you how a deck is over or under preforming.

Would gross play data be better? Sure, but we don't have that to make inferences about what it tells us.

Hu? People (like me) point non-stop at decks like OmniTell, SneakShow and Miracles which would take a truck-like hit off banning Brainstorm, if they can't shuffle back dead cards in their early turns. The whole S&T and Miracles supertype is unplayable if you need to hit 4 mana for Jace to start sculpting your game layout and setup your Terminus/Griselbrand/Entreat/Omniscience/Enter the Infinite/etc. which are all bricking dead before the turn 3-4 Jace is castable which is very questionable if UR Delver can easily kill via autopilot before you can even enter your fifth turn. With non-belcher combo and control possibly delayed to turn 4+ to get grip on their own gameplan, the Delver/SFM/TNN circle-jerk gets even more of an easy choice to pickup, because of not suffering from those significant construction issues, Griselbrand and stuff come with. Hope that was an example you can accept :)

Those decks definitely lose a dimension, no doubt. Are they unplayable in that new meta? I have no idea. UR Delver would obviously take a hit with the loss of Brainstorm as well. The most consistently successful SFM decks feature Brainstorm as well, so they would also take a hit. TNN often follows with SFM, so there could be a likely decline in that too. Decks like Jund and other decks that use discard as their main disruption would also probably be better, since Delver, SFM, and TNN aren't exactly insane versus them.

Combo of that variety certainly does take the largest hit, which is why I am not sitting here on a soap-box screaming "BAN IT!" I am saying there I am real concerned over Brainstorm's power level because Wizards is unwilling to print real tools to fight it effectively (which leads to people just jamming it themselves).

[rlesko]

I can't say it is the total picture, but I think it grants you some insight in to how cards are preforming over a long period of time.

For example, it is easy to prove the reverse: how good is Kird Ape? See how many top 8's that has. We'll find none for years. I think that is meaningful. So take Brainstorm, how many top 8's does that have in the same time span? That has meaning. It is hard for me to accept that Brainstorm-based decks top 8 only because more people play them. If the premise that Brainstorm is not the best card in the format, that means that 70% of the meta is playing suboptimal decks. That would be astounding to me.

Why would so many people choose to play something that isn't the best thing? Either everyone is playing and making it the best thing, or it's the best thing and everyone is playing it. Having played with and against Brainstorm, I really have an incredibly hard time believing that it's power level is not at the top of Legacy, which points to it really being the superior strategy. Add to that the fact that is makes SFM, Pyromancer, Delver even better than they already are (which was pretty damn powerful already) and it makes the case of Brainstorm just being popular and not the most powerful thing really doubtful to me.

I'm not really sure how the kird ape example plays into this. im not saying brainstorm is a bad card - that would be asinine.

but i think some big factors in top 8 decks which we aren't accounting for are popularity and perception (which really can't be quantified).

But quite frankly I don't understand how brainstorm is overpowered when its been clearly demonstrated that decks like elves, painter, jund, maverick, d&t, etc. all take down large tournaments despite likely having less of a share of the metagame.

[Lemnear]

That is why we involve time. Looking at a single top 8 tells us only what was best that day(s). Looking at years of top 8 data can show you general trends. Trends can help establish a baseline of performance. Baseline's of performance can show you how a deck is over or under preforming.

Would gross play data be better? Sure, but we don't have that to make inferences about what it tells us.

I see a difference between trends and being oppressive. Just because iPhones sell like fresh Croissants, does not equal being the best phone on the market. Hive mind and hype play their role, so I only rely on data which comes with a foundation, top-8-only does not provide.

Those decks definitely lose a dimension, no doubt. Are they unplayable in that new meta? I have no idea. UR Delver would obviously take a hit with the loss of Brainstorm as well. The most consistently successful SFM decks feature Brainstorm as well, so they would also take a hit. TNN often follows with SFM, so there could be a likely decline in that too. Decks like Jund and other decks that use discard as their main disruption would also probably be better, since Delver, SFM, and TNN aren't exactly insane versus them.

Combo of that variety certainly does take the largest hit, which is why I am not sitting here on a soap-box screaming "BAN IT!" I am saying there I am real concerned over Brainstorm's power level because Wizards is unwilling to print real tools to fight it effectively (which leads to people just jamming it themselves).

I can see that pure tempo strategies taking a hit because they can't exchange tempo-elements on demand, that's why I think that the blue SFM/TNN midrange decks would suffer MUCH less in comparison and streamline the Delver/SFM/TNN decks even more (diversity?!). I don't see why the possible banning of BS should have ANY affect on the popularity of the Ponder/Preordain/SDT/FoW blue shell or would increase the popularity of decks which remain inferior in their ability to reduce variance. The discard vs. Brainstorm argument is overstated imo as the most common use for the first BS is as a sorcery during turn 2's followed by a fetch to optimize a hand rather than sitting on it in case opponent Plays discard. It's more of an active card these days than a tool to hide stuff from discard as you can't afford to remain passive in todays metagame.

For my taste, the format has tools like REB's to fight back BS/Delver/TNM/S&T and we saw Containment Priest as the newest printing to hate on blue derping. The problem is, that people consider MB hate aside creature removal "a sign for an unhealthy metagame" which is a questionable mindset

[tescrin]

Hu? People (like me) point non-stop at decks like OmniTell, SneakShow and Miracles which would take a truck-like hit off banning Brainstorm,

And we wish you'd stop :p

if they can't shuffle back dead cards in their early turns. The whole S&T and Miracles supertype is unplayable if you need to hit 4 mana for Jace to start sculpting your game layout

Why would they need to do this? The decks would evolve to accommodate the lack of an abusable card by reducing conditional garbage or morphing (such as Sneak becoming Big Red and Reanimator, possibly a Grixis Variant existing.) I don't see the issue with two Tier2 combos becoming better on the back of the idealized variant taking a hit.

Omni-tell -> Cut garbage, splash white and/or Red. I imagine it'd become a Burning Wish E Tutor deck that durdles a bit more.
Miracles -> As if Snap-plow and Entreat become unplayable. It merely brings this deck in line with the myriad fair decks it currently completely invalidates. You *know* that Maverick player didn't play miracles or got damn lucky.

UR Delver can easily kill via autopilot before you can even enter your fifth turn. With non-belcher combo and control possibly delayed to turn 4+ to get grip on their own gameplan, the Delver/SFM/TNN circle-jerk gets even more of an easy choice to pickup, because of not suffering from those significant construction issues, Griselbrand and stuff come with.

Except you think that UR delver is actually a good deck. It exists on the back of things like Zoo, Maverick, Junk, Jund, and DGA being hard pressed to make it to the top tables. These decks match the tempo or card advantage easily but are utterly crushed by Miracles. UR Delver would also be worse on the back of no brainstorm; nerfing this supposed problem.

The very deck you're pointing to as taking over would be nerfed; do you not get that Delver and Miracles being worse means that non-blue fair decks would creep in a lot more? Terminus blowouts would be lessened. GBx decks controlled the delver population not too many years ago and things were healthy. The difference is that blue has been disproportionately buffed again; making Delver compete with these anti-delver decks.

Hope that was an example you can accept :)

The examples are terrible. You make assumptions that the other 71 cards can't change even though they already change consistently. They would simply morph into either other successful decks, former variants, etc..

Delver would take a significant hit (the biggest hit) because it can't control it's hand; being forced to basically add 1-2 lands and mediocre cantrips while Delver being much less stable (luck or sorcery cantrip setup.) I don't see how Miracles (being the obvious best deck for over a year in a meta of counterbalance hate) taking a hit and becoming a regular fair deck is a big deal. It by itself invalidates so many creature decks that it limits diversity by it's mere existence.



Again, I don't have a stake in this; but your argument is garbage. I don't care that much that Brainstorm is everywhere, because I can run either side of the fence; but it does limit diversity. You seem to think that the only combo are the combo decks that exist as is; but they're optimized around a card that we're talking about getting rid of. If it were gone then these decks would either cease to be optimal combo or they'd become hybridized, etc..

Further you leave contradiction straight in your argument. Your argument that Belcher becomes *the* viable combo deck implies:
-That delver/FoW counts go down, but you also argue they'd stay the same or increase; you can't have both.
-It isn't a significant part of the meta and shouldn't be. This goes right to diversity. I get you're implying that it'd be the only one

Can you really say that:
-Food Chain
-Bomberman
-Painter
-Big Red
-Reanimator
-Elves
-Storm
-Belcher
-Oops
-Dredge
-High Tide
-other things that may emerge or current decks that remain competitive (Omni, S&T)

isn't enough combo? They're just worse than the current S&T build and/or suffer from the overpopulation of Tempo. None of those require Brainstorm to survive and all benefit from the current kingpins of the format being taken down a notch (except reanimator having to deal with more Plows/DRS maybe)

It's like you think Burn decks and things won't also keep the fair decks in check.

Further, FoW counts in the decks that run them would be worse. You'd have less chance of seeing FoW since there wouldn't be BS for instant-speed nabbing and it'd be more susceptible to discard. This means fair FoW decks would go from a 52% chance of T1 FoW (or BS->FoW) to the expected 40% (before mulligans and requisite blue card.)

[btm10]

That is why we involve time. Looking at a single top 8 tells us only what was best that day(s). Looking at years of top 8 data can show you general trends. Trends can help establish a baseline of performance. Baseline's of performance can show you how a deck is over or under preforming.

Would gross play data be better? Sure, but we don't have that to make inferences about what it tells us.

Even baselining with historical data has its problems when it comes to ban decisions because it's very hard to tell to separate causes and effects here.

For instance, people have largely bandwagoned into URx not because of Brainstorm but because of Treasure Cruise, leading to what I believe is an incidental rise in Brainstorm because low cost/high velocity decks like UR Delver encourage people to play things like Miracles because CounterTop looks good against 1cmc.dec, and do this despite the fact that the UR Delver/Miracles matchup is closer than it superficially appears to be. If this guess is correct - and I think it is - then you'd expect to see Brainstorm's top 8 penetration rise faster than 1-for-1 with Cruise because Miracles, like most other CB/Top decks, usually runs 0-2 DTT/Cruise whereas it invariably runs 4 Brainstorms.

Similarly, and even putting aside correcting for substitution effects, the decline in BGx decks seems to be due primarily to perception of weakness in the face of Cruise rather than much evidence to support that belief. Jund's UR Delver matchup is pretty good - and it improves if you add MD Pyroblast/REB. The situation with the various BUG decks is similar.

Tl;dr - even with baselining it's hard to tell what the problem cards are, and even if we decide that card X is over represented, it's not even clear if X over represented because X is a problem or if X is over represented because X is a response (or even an accessory to a response) to the real problem, Y.

Those decks definitely lose a dimension, no doubt. Are they unplayable in that new meta? I have no idea. UR Delver would obviously take a hit with the loss of Brainstorm as well. The most consistently successful SFM decks feature Brainstorm as well, so they would also take a hit. TNN often follows with SFM, so there could be a likely decline in that too. Decks like Jund and other decks that use discard as their main disruption would also probably be better, since Delver, SFM, and TNN aren't exactly insane versus them.

Combo of that variety certainly does take the largest hit, which is why I am not sitting here on a soap-box screaming "BAN IT!" I am saying there I am real concerned over Brainstorm's power level because Wizards is unwilling to print real tools to fight it effectively (which leads to people just jamming it themselves).

I've been pretty steadfastly against banning until the last couple of days, but now that I'm starting to see more decklists with people sideboarding BEB/Hydroblast to fight their opponents' REBs/Pyroblasts I feel like we're reaching a point where the meta is too inbred to ignore that there's a problem. That being said, I don't think that a Brainstorm ban is the right way to fix things. As you can probably guess from what I wrote above, I think the main problem card is Treasure Cruise and that the bigger problem is players' response to Treasure Cruise.

Specifically, I can't accept banning Brainstorm if the meta is incredibly inbred as a result of people overreacting (or reacting inappropriately) to Treasure Cruise, especially given that banning Brainstorm would create considerable collateral damage. I'm not saying that you want Brainstorm banned, I'm saying that I can't get on that particular ban-train because I'm not even convinced that the metagame is in equilibrium, let alone that Brainstorm is the real problem if it is. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it's appropriate to ban a card if people refuse to appropriately adapt, but I'm 100% certain that this isn't a Caw-Blade like meta where there's only one deck, or even only one family of decks.