All B/R update speculation.

[Lemnear]

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.

oh, because Big Red or Sneak show would simply reduce "conditional garbage" like Griselbrand or Emrakul you possibly draw in multiples ... brillant idea, dood! /sarcasm

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.

Terminus does not invalidate ANY deck. Stick the term "fair" to yourself. It's vague and lacks substance as any deck tries to minimize interactivity to win, starting with Thalia/Mother of Runes for your example: Maverick

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.

you think Terminus is the reason Zoo sucks and not combo, SFM or even TNN? Think again. Zoo was outclassed long before the Miracles mechanic saw print. Stop spreading bullshit

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.

you have problems with timelines, no? Delver was in the same block as the Miracles Mechanic and you claim that BGx decks were fine & the meta healthy and at the same time you moan that Miracles invalidated all those "fair" BGx decks like Jund or Junk get crushed and oppressed by Terminus. That Argumentation does not make sense

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..

if Terminus and Entreat have to be replaced because of being bad and clunky without Brainstorm the deck named "Miracles" does no longer exist. That's what the example was all about. If you replace the Terminus and Entreat with SFM and TNN you are back to my argument made earlier, because those two cards don't need Brainstorm for setup

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.

oh dear god! Delver decks would morph into midrange because they can't shift their tempo-components?! That's exactly what I said!

Miracles is worth a shit if your starting grip is full of Jaces, Entreats and Terminus' and you die by turn 4 die to creature beatdown while staring at your 6-mana sweepers. It does not require much brain to realize that you need to switch your control components to something cheaper and less conditional then. No Terminus/Entreat; no Miracles.dec. Period

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..

you call my argument garbage, but can't even give an educated ... what do I say ... ANY evidence, that Brainstorm is "limiting diversity" despite we're talking about decks changing/vanishing without Brainstorm? Do you seriously argue that new combo decks would spread if Brainstorm was banned even if they lack the glue which holds them together which BS is known for doing for combo?

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

comprehend what I was saying, not what you thought I said. I hinted that Belcher-style decks are the form of combo which suffers the least from variance which is otherwise adressed by Brainstorm. That redundancy and speed would make them superior to S&T subtypes which can brick on their own combo-components if they can't fix them via Brainstorm. This would render Belcher-like combo decks the top choice for combo and the increased suffering from variance will make decks like Reanimator/S&T/FoodChain/etc even less attractive and ergo streamlines the remaining viable combo-variants

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?

Did I say it's not enough combo? No I did not. I said that same of these may extinct because of increased variance and/or because of metagame changes coming after a ban

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)

you want to tell me, that Omni, SneakShow, Storm, Foodchain, Bomberman, High Tide and Reanimator will just do fine without Brainstorm? Sorry, I stop here, because it's pointless to discuss the impact of the banning on combo decks with someone who has obviously not even a clue how those decks work, not to talk about experience piloting these.

[TsumiBand]

What's going to be sweet is when the metagame metagames the metagame and a bunch of 8-Blast decks go up against like Junk and have nothing to shoot at.

[Lemnear]

What's going to be sweet is when the metagame metagames the metagame and a bunch of 8-Blast decks go up against like Junk and have nothing to shoot at.

That how a metagame balances itself ... If the 8-blast players realize how their metagaming bites their ass against BG midrange.

[LeoCop 90]

Some of tescrin's arguments are debatable but i agree with the whole concept : banning brainstorm weakens combo decks, but also weakens their best enemy that is blue tempo. Less consistent combo decks, and less consistent delver strategies, would favor a return of non blue aggro/midrange decks now unplayable. The format would be more balanced, and blue would remain the best color because even without brainstorm, force of will/ponder/preordain is enough to outclass a lot of other decks. The only deck that would suffer too much would be miracle, but i don't care because i don't think that any deck should be able to wipe the board for 1 white mana with extreme consistency.

My personal view is that brainstorm was fine in legacy because wizard printed all the overpowered shit in the last few years. I am talking about griselbrand for combo decks, terminus/entreat for control decks, and delver/nemesis for tempo decks. When too much crazy stuff is printed, you need to limit the consistency in enabling this crap or everything else becomes obsolete.

[Lemnear]

Some of tescrin's arguments are debatable but i agree with the whole concept : banning brainstorm weakens combo decks, but also weakens their best enemy that is blue tempo. Less consistent combo decks, and less consistent delver strategies, would favor a return of non blue aggro/midrange decks now unplayable. The format would be more balanced, and blue would remain the best color because even without brainstorm, force of will/ponder/preordain is enough to outclass a lot of other decks. The only deck that would suffer too much would be miracle, but i don't care because i don't think that any deck should be able to wipe the board for 1 white mana with extreme consistency.

My personal view is that brainstorm was fine in legacy because wizard printed all the overpowered shit in the last few years. I am talking about griselbrand for combo decks, terminus/entreat for control decks, and delver/nemesis for tempo decks. When too much crazy stuff is printed, you need to limit the consistency in enabling this crap or everything else becomes obsolete.

There is one checkmark for non-blue Aggro/midrange and that is Blade.

As those decks rely less on BS fixing a selection of conditionally useful cards (Stifle/Daze/Wasteland) and already outclassed non-blue Aggro/midrange for years in various forms of Esperblade, UWR, Deathblade and the like, I don't see a reason why non-blue Aggro should become more popular especially if the lack of Brainstorm will likely merge the Aggro-control decks together into one redundant slick midrange pile which can harass combo (which also lacks Brainstorm to find answers) with hatebears, counters and if Deathblade, with discard in addition.

[LOLWut]

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?

My comment was more aimed at the bizarro attempt to favorably compare Modern's card selection/advantage variety with Legacy's.

To answer your question, I'm not certain if I want to, or don't want to, remove any of them. It's possible. Essentially, my three part solution (which could be done in different ways) is: a.) Blue not getting stuff it shouldn't have, like Delver and TNN b.) Other colors not getting shafted, especially on stack interaction and card selection (while still maintaining the color pie) c.) Make Brainstorm not completely without drawback, restrictions, or risk.

I'm against something idiotic and juvenile that nouveau R&D sharts out, like Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, Griselbrand or True-Name Nemesis, ruining something interesting, like Brainstorm, Force of Will or Sneak Attack.

It's worth looking at the above poll from five years ago to be reminded that things will naturally swing back and forth, and cards that seem overpowered today will be fringe tomorrow, all without the need for a demolition.

[Wave]

Just to chime in on the Delver arguments. I don't think Delver would be hit at all with a Brainstorm banning. UR Delver in vintage is basically a Legacy deck with added Ancestrall and Timewalk. Brainstorm is restricted in vintage and still the Delver decks function just fine without it, and it's still one of the best decks in the format. I am aware of the differences between the two formats however if you want to hit Delver decks, Brainstorm is probably not the card to take down since the deck is just fine without it.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

You should try opening 1. h4 in chess. I hear it's severely underrepresented in pro games due to the hive mind around e4 and d4.

well played.

[maharis]

There is one checkmark for non-blue Aggro/midrange and that is Blade.

Jund, Zoo, Goblins, Suicide Black

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.

Brainstorm is the best card for assembling two-card combos, so even though the effect they may want at the end is Show & Tell, the means by which they get there is through Brainstorm and related cards. Card selection is the most powerful effect in the format.

My comment was more aimed at the bizarro attempt to favorably compare Modern's card selection/advantage variety with Legacy's.

That isn't what I said, though I understand why you read it that way. What I meant was that because of its lack of one dominating selection/advantage strategy, Modern has many different angles of attack. You can't show up to a Modern tournament expecting 70% of the room to be on the same strategy of "cast cantrips until I sculpt the perfect hand to win." You can't mainboard color hosers. Granted that has been due to what some would say is overcurating the format. Until Treasure Cruise was printed, Modern was heavily B/G no matter what they did to the list (Pfire, BBE, DRS) because Dark Confidant and Birthing Pod were the best engines.

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!?"

It's not 56 cards. It's 36 cards assuming around 20 lands for a blue-producing manabase and 4 Brainstorm. And the reason color diversity matters is that it reduces the amount of playable cards. This makes it easier for there to be a clear best deck and with every printing that improves that shell that deck absorbs the new card and gets even better. But the reason we can't have this discussion is that we disagree on what strategic diversity means. To me the strategy is about the midgame. What are you doing to gain advantage throughout the game? 70% of decks start wth 4 Brainstorm and go from there. They aren't starting with Sylvan Library or Dark Confidant. Cutting the shell off at the knees is the only way to prevent it from dominating because it is the card selection that makes the wincons great, not the other way around. You can ban whatever wincon you want, the deck with the best card selection will win with a pudding cup.

[Julian23]

You can ban whatever wincon you want, the deck with the best card selection will win with a pudding cup.

This is the moment where I say "No it will not", you reply with "challenge accepted" and then we run my Mono Green Genesis Wave deck into your Brainstorm-centered deck with Watchwolf.

[Dice_Box]

Meh, I would just run Painter against Delver and call it a day. Seams like a fine challenge, Delver will win every time of course.

[Lemnear]

It's not 56 cards. It's 36 cards assuming around 20 lands for a blue-producing manabase and 4 Brainstorm. And the reason color diversity matters is that it reduces the amount of playable cards.

Because non-blue decks don"t run around 20 lands? What kind of point you are trying ro make? I'm sick of commenting again and again on the nonsense in the second sentence. I did three times within two weeks.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

It's not 56 cards. It's 36 cards assuming around 20 lands for a blue-producing manabase and 4 Brainstorm. And the reason color diversity matters is that it reduces the amount of playable cards. This makes it easier for there to be a clear best deck and with every printing that improves that shell that deck absorbs the new card and gets even better. But the reason we can't have this discussion is that we disagree on what strategic diversity means. To me the strategy is about the midgame. What are you doing to gain advantage throughout the game? 70% of decks start wth 4 Brainstorm and go from there. They aren't starting with Sylvan Library or Dark Confidant. Cutting the shell off at the knees is the only way to prevent it from dominating because it is the card selection that makes the wincons great, not the other way around. You can ban whatever wincon you want, the deck with the best card selection will win with a pudding cup.

That's pretty well written. And I already realized that the most important reason why the two camps don't understand each ther, is becasue they got different view of what's strategical diversity.
"Oh look, that BS, Ponder, Preoirdain deck that wins with watnot is that much different from that BS, Ponder, Preordain deck that wins with whateva!"
" No, they're not really different and I want my Kavus back!"
Copypaste 500 pages.

The new blue prints add to the incresing homogenity, of course. One of them is Delver that made the four or how many flavours of blue cantrip aggro possible. While some of them use StP and SFM, the others burn, and there are some with Decay, fundamentally they're all the same decks with 1mana flying Nacatl and CQ spells to find what they need. It's not liek they differ that much (it's not RUG vs. Folks) and as such, I wouldn't call them strategically diverse. Maybe tactically. Or operationally? Crap, I'm not into army lingo...

Then there are blue KTK delve spells, and when I write spells, I mean mostly TC. Once again, even though it fuels some very distinct decks (like say UR Delver and URx Delver), it's not that the colored symbol prevents it from being used in say Pox, right?
Being TC printed in green or black (preferably with two colored mana symbols), we'd might see a resurgence of GB Pox or G-drawgo or MBC or whatever. Alas, TC is blue ("man, but it's an allusion of Ancestral Recall, it totally must be blue, something something nostalgia!"), and while the rich blue girls once again dance in their new dress, the poor non-blue girls sit in the corner waiting for a lame duck to invite them for a round. Yes, the legged guy might be a good man, fine husband and loving father (just like my grandgrandfather was), but that's a strategically different story...

So that's why color diversity matters.

Speaking of BS ban and the usual "But it'll kill deck XYZ!" mantra:

A deck would die? So what? I don't believe people's bullshit that the health of a format is defined by viability of ZOO Miracles.

[maharis]

This is the moment where I say "No it will not", you reply with "challenge accepted" and then we run my Mono Green Genesis Wave deck into your Brainstorm-centered deck with Watchwolf.

Haha! But don't you wish you could play Mono-Green Genesis Wave anyway? Oh wait, it's probably just in your Elves sideboard

Lemnear, we don't understand each other as BDP illustrates. I'll call it a day.

[Lemnear]

At least you don't "sense" the irony of posting this picture after a rant on blue. ;)

Personally, I don't care much if a deck extincts (especially SneakShow), but I have a problem with the argument that killing an array of playable and boarderline playable decks contributes to format diversity, rather than the obvious opposite, with the decks people have in mind returning to the big stage were outclassed years before we saw Brainstorm rising to a 69% format representation and cards like TNN or TC saw print.

[Megadeus]

How can you possibly believe that a meta where it is okay to main board blasts in a non painter type deck is healthy?

[rlesko]

How can you possibly believe that a meta where it is okay to main board blasts in a non painter type deck is healthy?

You aren't the first person to ask this, Lemnear has addressed this before. Read a few pages back.

[Lemnear]

How can you possibly believe that a meta where it is okay to main board creature removal is healthy?

Fixed, because I see Blasts as a sheer metagame reaction which will bite peoples asses once they play against the 31% non-blue decks. Heck, every reactive card in MTG has it's justification within the metagames structure and threats.

If the threats have a toughness <4, people play Bolts
If the threats have a toughness >4, people play Plows
If the threats are artifacts or enchantments, people play naturalize-effects
If the threats come from the graveyard, people play yard-removal
If the threats are either blue or red, people play blasts.

Why is it ok to mainboard Bolts and Plows to get rid of Delver, but if people pickup Pyroblasts for additional value even against TNN, Jace and S&T, we have an outcry?

It's simply because you decided for yourself, that creatures are THE outstanding and defining threat-type in Magic. Let me tell you something: I don't care about the cardtype a threat has; it needs to be answered

You aren't the first person to ask this, Lemnear has addressed this before. Read a few pages back.

Of course. All was said before. This discussion is an endless loop of the ever same arguments and them being dismembered

[LOLWut]

How can you possibly believe that a meta where it is okay to main board blasts in a non painter type deck is healthy?

Fixed, because I see Blasts as a sheer metagame reaction which will bite peoples asses once they play against the 31% non-blue decks. Heck, every reactive card in MTG has it's justification within the metagames structure and threats.

If the threats have a toughness <4, people play Bolts
If the threats have a toughness >4, people play Plows
If the threats are artifacts or enchantments, people play naturalize-effects
If the threats come from the graveyard, people play yard-removal
If the threats are either blue or red, people play blasts.

Why is it ok to mainboard Bolts and Plows to get rid of Delver, but if people pickup Pyroblasts for additional value even against TNN, Jace and S&T, we have an outcry?

It's simply because you decided for yourself, that creatures are THE outstanding and defining threat-type in Magic. Let me tell you something: I don't care about the cardtype a threat has; it needs to be answered

The original question has merit, but so does the question, "How can you possibly believe that a meta where it is okay for Enchantress to main board Swords to Plowshares is healthy?".
Banning almost certainly won't put a better head on WotC R&D's shoulders, or make the target demographic they're developing for any less apelike.

[rlesko]

Of course. All was said before. This discussion is an endless loop of the ever same arguments and them being dismembered

Yea, Zoo sucks. Not brainstorms fault. You can still win with your Junk deck though, so what really is the problem?