All B/R update speculation.

[Dice_Box]

Essentially we are doing mental gymnastics to justify not banning top.

No, I don't think so. You can take other cards away and leave Top in for Painter and the like without issue.

Banning something if you wanted to sting just Miracles can be done, collateral damage is unnecessary.

[AznSeal]

As an Elves player, I hate Miracles but I don't think Miracles is as oppressive as people are making it out to be. It's basically a 50-50 deck and the tournament data support it. I don't think being "boring" should be a criteria to ban something. Hell, i think burn is boring af.

[Crimhead]

Terminus and Counterbalance aren't broken cards, the synergies with top however are...

...but let's be real, top is the problem card, it's what enabling those cards to function. It's a card that has two broken interactions already and whose to say they aren't going to make more.

Are these interactions really "broken"? Does a 15% meta share constitute a deck being objectively out of hand and running amok?

This is the heart of the issue, and something we likely will just have to disagree on. But for the sake of consistency, I hope anybody wanting a Miracles staple banned would also want a ban if a deck like Jund ever hits a meta share that high again.

[Chatto]

Just ban Counterbalance, I really loath that card. Top and Brainstorm are fine by me, and I don't really care about Entreat the Angels: it's Counterbalance I really really really really loath.

[Dice_Box]

This is the heart of the issue, and something we likely will just have to disagree on. But for the sake of consistency, I hope anybody wanting a Miracles staple banned would also want a ban if a deck like Jund ever hits a meta share that high again.

I am not sure they would. Because while Jund is a pain to play against, it's not as irritating as Miracles is. I think most of the hate on the deck has to do with the feel of the deck and from how much it sucks to watch play.

If Brainstorm is protected for being the card everyone loves then Counterbalance is marked as the card everyone hates. What happens to it though is not for me to decide but I can understand the issue. It's less about % played and more about the eye roll factor when you realise someone is playing it. The decks popularity is just compounding that eye roll factor.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Are these interactions really "broken"? Does a 15% meta share constitute a deck being objectively out of hand and running amok?

This is the heart of the issue, and something we likely will just have to disagree on. But for the sake of consistency, I hope anybody wanting a Miracles staple banned would also want a ban if a deck like Jund ever hits a meta share that high again.

I don't think you read my post, yes I said they are broken but legacy is made up of many broken spells and interactions, turn 1 20/20 indestructible that you can make every turn, Lion's Eye Diamond + Infernal Tutor, Show & Tell, etc, Top + Counterbalance/Terminus is just another one in the list of dumb broken things you can do.

[jrsthethird]

Ban Plains. Make them play 4 Tundra.

[GundamGuy]

As an Elves player, I hate Miracles but I don't think Miracles is as oppressive as people are making it out to be. It's basically a 50-50 deck and the tournament data support it. I don't think being "boring" should be a criteria to ban something. Hell, i think burn is boring af.

A deck that's got a 50% chance of winning almost every time you sit down to play is actually mathematically pretty good.

This is the heart of the issue, and something we likely will just have to disagree on. But for the sake of consistency, I hope anybody wanting a Miracles staple banned would also want a ban if a deck like Jund ever hits a meta share that high again.

That's not likely to happen because Jund can't cover all the angles like Miracles can. Miracles is pretty good in almost every meta (minus a meta dominated by 12-posts), Jund is easier to meta game around.

[maharis]

Miracles has many unfavourable MUs among the competitive decks which regularly place (I listed them in the post you've quoted). This is evidently enough to keep Miracles down to ~15% of the meta.

Miracles is 15% of the meta, which is a TON given the legacy cardpool and card availability. People are switching to Miracles for a better chance at doing well in tournaments. The idea that it has tons of natural predators is simply wrong. Miracles tops tournaments at a rate far exceeding any other deck for a reason: it is naturally powerful and lacks truly lopsided matchups (12 post notwithstanding).

Similarly my tolerance for Miracles' share of the meta is increased by the fact that it's literally the only classic style control deck which is competitive. If there were other such control decks - especially other counter-top variants - in the top tier, I would tolerate less.

It is the only one of these decks because it is so good. Other control decks would pop up if Miracles was broken up a bit.

This is not a good metric for what is or is not too powerful. Every single deck in the DTB section puts up better numbers than CotV prison. It's okay for the tier one decks to be more powerful than the tier two decks!

The point is that Chalice is an acceptable power level for this kind of effect. It requires deckbuilding considerations and doesn't naturally protect itself.

As for fun & logistics, in Modern, these concerns seem to trump competitive integrity. I'm personally very thankful that in Legacy it is the other way around!

Actually, the bans of Mental Misstep in Legacy and Chalice of the Void in Vintage show that Wizards will occasionally take steps to remove cards because they are unfun to play against, even in the big boy formats. And the bannings of Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time indicate that the "enabler" is not always the first to go. (Delve is nowhere near broken in formats with limited fetching and cantripping).

[btm10]

A deck that's got a 50% chance of winning almost every time you sit down to play is actually mathematically pretty good.

RUG Delver has been 50% vs. the format since Innistrad was released and no one has complained. Also, most decks have an average match win rate of about 50%, with deficits in one area being made up for by excess in another. Lands and Enchantress are probably the most extreme examples of this phenomenon.


Also, as if on cue, 12 distinct archetypes in the first "SCG Classic" Top 16, only one is Miracles.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Also, as if on cue, 12 distinct archetypes in the first "SCG Classic" Top 16, only one is Miracles...

...the others are Shlongless Slutai, Terror Delver, Slutless Grizzlies and Team Denver.
fuck, I hate this nomenclature.

[rufus]

...the others are Shlongless Slutai, Terror Delver, Slutless Grizzlies and Team Denver.
fuck, I hate this nomenclature.

Preach it!

[barcode]

...the others are Shlongless Slutai, Terror Delver, Slutless Grizzlies and Team Denver.
fuck, I hate this nomenclature.

It's okay, you'll live.

[GundamGuy]

RUG Delver has been 50% vs. the format since Innistrad was released and no one has complained. Also, most decks have an average match win rate of about 50%, with deficits in one area being made up for by excess in another. Lands and Enchantress are probably the most extreme examples of this phenomenon.


Also, as if on cue, 12 distinct archetypes in the first "SCG Classic" Top 16, only one is Miracles.

Bolded is the key point I'm trying to get accross.

Any deck that's a top deck is likely to have a better then 50% match win rate. My point is that miracles doesn't have as many excessively good matches or excessively bad matches (and the ones it has are not widely played because they aren't very viable in the meta) . I'd rather have Miracles against a random matchup each round, then a deck which has a larger varriation in good vs bad matchups.

Also I disagree that RUG Delver has been 50% vs. the format since Innistrad. There have been periods during that time where RUG was pushed to the fringes and other Delver decks were better, including a period earlier this year when Treasure Cruse was legal.

[Crimhead]

The point is that Chalice is an acceptable power level for this kind of effect. It requires deckbuilding considerations and doesn't naturally protect itself.

Let me get this straight. The "acceptable power level" of a prison lock piece is too weak to actually support a tier one prison strategy in the current environment? This is your position?

Basically you are saying Legacy should not have a tier one prison deck, and you want WotC to invoke the banhammer in order to enforce this? I guess we just have very different ideas as to what makes a good format and how the banned list should be used.

Actually, the bans of Mental Misstep in Legacy and Chalice of the Void in Vintage show that Wizards will occasionally take steps to remove cards because they are unfun to play against, even in the big boy formats.

When MM was banned the format was overrun with u/w midrange control (mostly Blade and NO Bant). That was an oppressive meta! Also Snappy was due to hit the scene, which would have unleashed an absolute shit-storm into what was already an extremely narrow meta.

Vintage MUD was also ridiculous! I think something like 25% of the meta! Comparing Miracles to these seems silly to me. These were very oppressive metas- nothing like the openness we have in Legacy today (with regards to archetypes - lets not rehash the cantrip debate please).

WotC are not always clear (nor necessarily even honest) about their motivations and thought processes. so maybe you are right. But when I look at bannings in Vintage and Legacy (especially compared to Modern), it seems to me that eternal formats are intended for thick-skinned players who have acquired a taste for them. These are the formats where it is (seemingly) okay for the best decks to be combo, control, or even prison - despite how contentious and hated these decks can sometimes be.

Miracles is 15% of the meta, which is a TON given the legacy cardpool and card availability.

Most of that cardpool is unplayable. Considering instead the number of tier one decks, 15% is more modest. Let's look at it numerically:

If you enter a large event with 13 or 14 rounds, you can expect to see Miracles, on average, in just 2 of those 13 or 14 matches. If you happen to make top 8, on average roughly one of the seven other finalists will be playing Miracles; and you are less than 50% likely to actually play them.

I just don't see how that is oppressive. Im-pressive, but not o-ppressive. Those Miracles matches will not dominate your play experience (unless emotionally), and should not be dominating your deck selection process.

The idea that it has tons of natural predators is simply wrong...
...it is naturally powerful and lacks truly lopsided matchups (12 post notwithstanding).

Miracles doesn't have any (tier one) lop-sided matches, but having a high number of moderately unfavorable MUs can be just as bad.

It is the only one of these decks because it is so good. Other control decks would pop up if Miracles was broken up a bit.

Most likely only midrange "control" decks would pop up. There is no reason to believe another pure control deck will suddenly materialize (though if you have a theory I'm interested).

Fair decks exist on a continuum of aggro/control, depending on their potential for fast threats vs disruption. Losing Miracles could shift this whole spectrum towards the aggro end as the best control decks (besides Lands) would all be midrange. Legacy has been depolarizing for some time now, with aggro decks and control decks both losing ground to tempo and midrange aggro/control decks (mostly good-stuff). I feel that also having fair decks which are more extreme one way or another is invaluable for format variety,

I get the impression you don't care much if Legacy has a tier one hard control deck or not. That's cool, but it illustrates the difference in our ideals for the banned list. You want the ban list to treat prison decks more harshly, while I want (if anything) the banned list to be more lenient on decks of a under-represented play style (in this case, hard control/prison). I don't imagine we will change each-other's minds, and it's okay if we disagree on what is a rather subjective point.

[GundamGuy]

Miracles doesn't have any (tier one) lop-sided matches, but having a high number of moderately unfavorable MUs can be just as bad.

What are miracles "high number" of "moderately unfavorable" match-ups?

Also

Let me get this straight. The "acceptable power level" of a prison lock piece is too weak to actually support a tier one prison strategy in the current environment? This is your position?

is a total strawman argument.

I get the impression you don't care much if Legacy has a tier one hard control deck or not.

Legacy would have a tier one control deck if miracles were banned tomorrow. Control will have no problems assembling a solid control list without any or all of the following... top/counterbalance/terminus Legacy has way to many great control cards for the banning of any of those to prevent the existence of control.

[maharis]

Let me get this straight. The "acceptable power level" of a prison lock piece is too weak to actually support a tier one prison strategy in the current environment? This is your position?

Basically you are saying Legacy should not have a tier one prison deck, and you want WotC to invoke the banhammer in order to enforce this? I guess we just have very different ideas as to what makes a good format and how the banned list should be used.

Not at all. Just because I think Counterbalance is overpowered does not mean I think that prison/control should be banned out of existence. I simply think that Countertop is a negative for the format. It's compact, one-sided, synergistic with the best consistency engine in Legacy, and has only a narrow range of answers such that games against it simply boil down to "Didn't draw my sideboard hate, guess I lose." Terminus may be the reason it's over the top right now, but we're always just one printing away from the next card like that anyway.

Other prison cards are powerful, but ask you to sacrifice some of your own consistency in order to unlock their power. That actually means that prison becomes one of the most diverse, interactive archetypes in the format if you look at non-countertop decks. For example, a key card in both Lands and D&T is Rishadan Port. Each deck has a different way of overcoming the self-2-for-1 that Port really is (tap two of your lands to tap one of theirs): Lands has exploration/diamond, while D&T has Aether Vial. Or Chalice, which is powered out by sol lands or Mox Diamond, requires you to take one-drops out of your own deck (or reduce them to a minimum), and ends up yielding decks from MUD to Loam to Tezzeret.

That all being said, I'm not even ready to die on the hill that Miracles needs banned immediately. However, I think it's obvious that it is the best deck, and that it comes with logistical issues that impact tournaments. Counterbalance is the reason for both of these facts, which are irrefutable.

When MM was banned the format was overrun with u/w midrange control (mostly Blade and NO Bant). That was an oppressive meta! Also Snappy was due to hit the scene, which would have unleashed an absolute shit-storm into what was already an extremely narrow meta.

I guess this is true, I can't find data to prove or disprove otherwise.

Vintage MUD was also ridiculous! I think something like 25% of the meta! Comparing Miracles to these seems silly to me. These were very oppressive metas- nothing like the openness we have in Legacy today (with regards to archetypes - lets not rehash the cantrip debate please).

When Chalice was banned, So Many Insane Plays did a really interesting podcast about the "dominance" of MUD.

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-man...d-list-update/

Most of that cardpool is unplayable. Considering instead the number of tier one decks, 15% is more modest. Let's look at it numerically:

If you enter a large event with 13 or 14 rounds, you can expect to see Miracles, on average, in just 2 of those 13 or 14 matches. If you happen to make top 8, on average roughly one of the seven other finalists will be playing Miracles; and you are less than 50% likely to actually play them.

I just don't see how that is oppressive. Im-pressive, but not o-ppressive. Those Miracles matches will not dominate your play experience (unless emotionally), and should not be dominating your deck selection process.

Slightly misleading. If you enter a tournament expecting to win, your chances of facing the top decks go up round by round. Miracles is unquestionably the top deck, therefore you need to consider the likelihood of facing it. Again, this is if your goal is to win and not just have fun, which is a smaller portion of Legacy players than other formats.

Most likely only midrange "control" decks would pop up. There is no reason to believe another pure control deck will suddenly materialize (though if you have a theory I'm interested).

Miracles already plays Monastery Mentor, Snapcaster Mage and Vendilion Clique, aggressive, disruptive, midrangy creatures.

I get the impression you don't care much if Legacy has a tier one hard control deck or not.

You're right. No deck deserves to be tier 1. However, in Legacy, the chance of a deck archetype being completely unviable are low. There will always be hard control decks in Legacy as long as Force, Counterspell, Brainstorm, STP, and any number of other cards are legal.

That's cool, but it illustrates the difference in our ideals for the banned list. You want the ban list to treat prison decks more harshly,

Nope.

while I want (if anything) the banned list to be more lenient on decks of a under-represented play style (in this case, hard control/prison).

Miracles is the most played deck in Legacy, it is not under-represented.

I don't imagine we will change each-other's minds, and it's okay if we disagree on what is a rather subjective point.

well, you're misrepresenting my point, but I do see that we are likely to talk past each other. Interesting debate though.

[btm10]

Bolded is the key point I'm trying to get accross.

Any deck that's a top deck is likely to have a better then 50% match win rate. My point is that miracles doesn't have as many excessively good matches or excessively bad matches (and the ones it has are not widely played because they aren't very viable in the meta).

Again, RUG (just to name one example) doesn't have any horrible matchups. Even something like Dragon Stompy - which is basically a hate deck for the Delver macro-archetype - isn't an unwinnable matchup, even putting aside the number of times it just loses to itself. Shardless BUG has unfavorable matchups against combo but makes up for that by having favorable matchups against aggro, tempo, and control decks while having only slightly favorable matchups against other midrange decks.

Also I disagree that RUG Delver has been 50% vs. the format since Innistrad. There have been periods during that time where RUG was pushed to the fringes and other Delver decks were better, including a period earlier this year when Treasure Cruse was legal.

You mean when they cut Nimble Mongoose for Kird Ape and put two people in the top 8 of a fifteen round tournament?

[GundamGuy]

Again, RUG (just to name one example) doesn't have any horrible matchups.


You mean when they cut Nimble Mongoose for Kird Ape and put two people in the top 8 of a fifteen round tournament?

This depends on how you define "horrible." RUG does have some bad match-ups... Jund for example. I think Grixis Control was solid vs RUG delver, and I imagine that RUG Delver players don't like sitting down across from MUD, or 8 Tezz (Since both can drop an early CotV and then go above your curve...). Again the point I'm making though isn't that there is only one deck to beat, and that all the other deck to beats actually have really bad match-ups (no duh) (They wouldn't be decks to beat if they weren't above the curve vs the field.)... It's that the highs and lows are higher and lower with decks that aren't Miracles.

Also, are you really pointing to two people who won with an an unconventional RUG build as "RUG Delver" being dominate? Really? Also the period I'm talking about is when people figured out to cut the G and just play UR Delver since it was better (when you could play treasure cruse...) but you know whatever.

Also about a year and a half ago... maybe 2, Jund was keeping RUG delver in check pretty well. (This was why Jund and Shardless were popular)

I am not going to deny that RUG Delver has had a long period of success (with ups and downs...), but I am going to again point out that it's highs are higher and it's lows are lower.

[Crimhead]

Again, RUG (just to name one example) doesn't have any horrible matchups.

l play exclusively Lands, and Thresh is arguably better than a bye because the improved tie breakers actually off-set those rare occasions when Lands loses this MU. If I'm exaggerating it's only slightly. Either way, this is a horrendous match for RUG.

Honestly I don't understand the appeal to having skewed MUs vs even MUs. What's important is your average win-rate, assuming that accounts accurately for you probability of running into each of your possible matches.

I do see that we are likely to talk past each other. Interesting debate though.

I think we are doing well!

Its not my intent to misrepresent you, nor talk past you, and I see I was a bit off the mark on a point or two. I'm running to work, but will post later.