All B/R update speculation.

[Dice_Box]

Fair enough. I do think Omintell had staying power though.

Having never played either side of the matchup, I am told Shardless holds its own well against Miracles. If that's true I think you have a deck there that would be a fine pick. Mud does well too and if they print more draw engines like this Seagate land it might see an untick in play.

I guess with all the talk and articles we will find out in a month what Wizards thinks on the matter. If they are going to take a card so be it but I will not enjoy writing that months announcement at all. I like Miracles in the format and I would think that with the unbanning of a "Real*" card we might see something beneficial happen that doesn't mean a large percentage of the format loses their deck.

* An impactful card.

[Tammit67]

What I bolded is a very good point. The decks that have good miracles matchups are largely unplayable now for other reasons. It's sort of like all of miracles natural predators have gone extinct.

I don't think they go extinct/obsolete so much as people don't want to play them. Aggro loam and infect are still good decks but they aren't as popular with people. You do have a point when you consider merfolk/goblins aren't good because other decks in the format make them a poor choice, but I do think their are underutilized decks that could feel that spot in the meta.

One of the 'nicer' things about being blue though is that even if something is a bad matchup, the cantrips and versatility of counterspells can leave you decently prepared. URW in particular has a lot of sideboard options.

[Stevestamopz]

I know Batterskull was printed, my point was that Goblins was a very popular deck for a very long time and then things changed. I am not asking what was the best deck ever in the format, I am simply stating that a deck being Dominate is not exactly a new phenomenon. After Goblins Maverick was the best deck, again faded. Then RUG Delver, now faded. Today we are in the time of Miracles but it too will fade. That's Legacy.

Also just to point out, the time of Miracles would be over if not for the bannings of Cruise and Dig. Though artificial means Miracles holds its titile, but it did lose it. As it will again in the future.

Remember when Maverick was the #1 Deck, by a long shot? I know it's just one tournament, but these results are hilarious.

[Crimhead]

First: I think this is a disingenuous argument. By suggesting it's all about "bad feels" you can dismiss opinions as being emotional not rational

Except he is backing this up by showing other times in Legacy's past when a top deck enjoyed a long reign (Thresh and Goblins). Those decks were never objected to as strongly as Miracles is, and the only real difference is that Miracles causes bad feels in a way that creature based decks do not.

Consider Maverick in its prime. The deck was far more dominant than Miracles ever was. It even had similar objectionable features - hate bears like Teeg, Thalia, Scooze, etc gave it good matches vs both control and combo. But most people remember this era fondly because the big deck was aggro/control and not hard/prison control. Bad feels!

Second: Do you remember Modern Eggs...?

Wasn't that the same format that banned Wild Nacatl? Please refrain from presenting Modern banned list decisions as having any kind of precedent relevant to Legacy.

Third: That's not why I think it's bannable. The fact that it's been the top deck or the second best (going by DTB info) deck for 19 consecutive months (soon to be 20 I'd wager...) and wins in whatever meta you put it in... including meta's that drop RUG delver out of the DTB.... that maybe we should honestly evaluate if it Miracles approaching the point of being a problem.

But there is nothing wrong with being a top deck (or second top deck) as long as that deck is beatable and has (tier one) unfavourable MUs.

And I have no idea what you mean by "wins in every meta". Miracles is top in the current American (big circuit) meta, and was also strong in recent such metas. It is not as Strong in the European meta, nor of course in many local metas.

Usually a deck stays at the top until new printings push it out. Maverick fell because new RTR cards made Jund better. Jund fell because of TNN. Goblins had a gradual decline as everything else around them got better over the years. Miracles is having its day in the sun, but this is nothing new or unprecedented. Only this time it happens to be a deck that gets under folks skin a little more.

[GundamGuy]

But there is nothing wrong with being a top deck (or second top deck) as long as that deck is beatable and has (tier one) unfavourable MUs.

And I have no idea what you mean by "wins in every meta". Miracles is top in the current American (big circuit) meta, and was also strong in recent such metas. It is not as Strong in the European meta, nor of course in many local metas.

Usually a deck stays at the top until new printings push it out. Maverick fell because new RTR cards made Jund better. Jund fell because of TNN. Goblins had a gradual decline as everything else around them got better over the years. Miracles is having its day in the sun, but this is nothing new or unprecedented. Only this time it happens to be a deck that gets under folks skin a little more.

Two points:

1) I've asked before... what are these Tier One unfavorable MU that you keep referring too... (Goblins and 12-post? )

2) Throwing this out there, but Miracle Control predates RTR, and while it wasn't a dominate force at the time, it has been gaining ground and not giving it back up, unlike these other decks that printings have actually had a real impact on. IMO only time will tell, but I personally don't think any new printings will ever actually make Miracles worse.

[Dice_Box]

Two points:

1) I've asked before... what are these Tier One unfavorable MU that you keep referring too... (Goblins and 12-post? )

In 05 I could have asked this same question about Goblins.

I have done up an Excel spreadsheet using all data openly available from TDecks. At a glance it will tell you the DTB for each month going back to Jan 13. I am doing some larger number crunching right now and this is a first step to help me with that. I leave it here for you all to look at if you think it will be helpful while I start crunching numbers beyond 13 using data from SCG and this thread. I also have some of the old DTB data open to me as I am now doing those updates. To be honest its all that old data that got me interested in the number crunching and I would like to put datesamps on everything I have. Anyway, here is the Drop Box link. Its nothing you can not get yourself but it's all in one place and its easy to read.

PM me if you have any questions.

[Crimhead]

Two points:
1) I've asked before... what are these Tier One unfavorable MU that you keep referring too... (Goblins and 12-post? )

I gave a list a few pages back. Merfolk, Loam, Infect, and Shardless mostly. I'd argue that Lands has a slight edge - depending on The specific lists. Miracles should not do well in a meta heavy with these decks - especially if there are not a lot of Elf pilots.

Miracles also doesn't have a lot of (tier one) MUs that are more than slightly favourable. Elves is a good time for Miracles, but Storm, D&T and Tempo deck of the week are pretty close. Miracles also enjoys the advantage of a blow-out vs the formats most popular and accessible budget deck (Burn). Overall the deck averages close to 50/50 against the field.

IMO only time will tell, but I personally don't think any new printings will ever actually make Miracles worse.

Any cards that directly help it's bad MUs will make those decks more prominent. Any card printed that you indirectly helps this decks (by positively affecting the meta) will hurt Miracles. And any card that Miracles doesn't use but improves other decks could potentially hurt Miracles. If enough of Miracle's slightly favourable MUs become slightly unfavourable, it won't be very good anymore. Don't expect a single new card to blow it out of the water. Expect a gradual decline (as is already evidenced in Europe).

[GundamGuy]

I gave a list a few pages back. Merfolk, Loam, Infect, and Shardless mostly. I'd argue that Lands has a slight edge - depending on The specific lists. Miracles should not do well in a meta heavy with these decks - especially if there are not a lot of Elf pilots.

Miracles also doesn't have a lot of (tier one) MUs that are more than slightly favourable. Elves is a good time for Miracles, but Storm, D&T and Tempo deck of the week are pretty close. Miracles also enjoys the advantage of a blow-out vs the formats most popular and accessible budget deck (Burn). Overall the deck averages close to 50/50 against the field.


Any cards that directly help it's bad MUs will make those decks more prominent. Any card printed that you indirectly helps this decks (by positively affecting the meta) will hurt Miracles. And any card that Miracles doesn't use but improves other decks could potentially hurt Miracles. If enough of Miracle's slightly favourable MUs become slightly unfavourable, it won't be very good anymore. Don't expect a single new card to blow it out of the water. Expect a gradual decline (as is already evidenced in Europe).

Gee it sure is strange how many people and pros decide to pilot a deck that merely 50/50 against the field every weekend... maybe they haven't gotten the "it's not that good" memo yet. IDK, maybe they aren't picking a deck that's merely average...

Also doesn't that mean that Miracles is a pretty different beast then the other "Better then Miracles decks" that folded to the printing of 1-2 cards in one set?

Is it fair to say that your argument is that Miracles is actually not very good at all (only 50/50 vs the Field) and is only a Top Deck to beat 20 months running because it's over played by people who should be playing something better?

[Crimhead]

Is it fair to say that your argument is that Miracles is actually not very good at all (only 50/50 vs the Field) and is only a Top Deck to beat 20 months running because it's over played by people who should be playing something better?

I think its a shave better than 50/50 - certainly a deck with a winning record!

I'm saying the reason it appears to do so much getter than the other decks with +ve records is because more people play Miracles than any other similarly powerful deck.

[GundamGuy]

I'm saying the reason it appears to do so much getter than the other decks with +ve records is because more people play Miracles than any other similarly powerful deck.

What you are saying is that it is over represented... so my follow up question is why if other similarly powerful decks exist do people choose to play Miracles month in and month out?

IMO, the causality goes the the other way and the reason Miracles is played so much more then other similarly powerful decks... is because it's had more success over a longer period of time, and has the best chance to be good any given week, over decks that might be similarly powerful but need a more favorable meta to excel.

Also: About the Teir 1 Decks you picked...

Merfolk is not Tier 1.

I'm not sure about Aggro Loam, but last I heard the decks you picked are not even 60/40 against Miracles. Infect and Lands are really close to 50/50. Shardless (and maybe Aggro Loam) are the best here, and even they aren't slam dunks...

[Crimhead]

...so my follow up question is why if other similarly powerful decks exist do people choose to play Miracles month in and month out?

I don't think that really matters. Numbers matter. And the greater the number of players on any given deck (whatever their reason), the greater the number of finishes it needs to be considered average, good, oppressive, or whatever. You're trained in stats, so you must agree.

If we want to speculate on the psychology, most people will assume (as you do) that the deck with the most top finishes must be the best regardless of its actual representation. If that deck is indeed a solid contender (above average), they have no reason to switch. People keep playing it in big numbers, so it keeps putting up proportionately big results.

Beyond that, there are many factors that go into deck selection. Miracles is the only tier-one stack-based hard control deck in the format, so old school control players flock to it. It's cheaper than most decks (specifically fewer duals); and known for rewarding skill (most Legacy players want a challenging deck - which incidentally is probably why fewer people play MUD/Post).

And of course lots of people don't switch decks very much. For anyone with less than a gauntlet, the cost is significant (even to a pro, shelling out $1000+ is not trivial, and will cut into those coveted profits). Plus it's a common conception (and probably true) that people who play mostly one deck for a long time play better on average than people who switch frequently or have been playing their current deck only a short time. The result is a lot of players won't abandon a deck unless it starts being actually bad (and this is evident in top 8s), or another deck is looking considerably better (also visibly in top 8s).

What you are saying is that it is over represented...

I'm not sure what you mean by "over-represented". If the deck sees top finishes in higher proportions that it sees entries, it is over-represented. To me this is what defines the strength or positioning of a deck - every tier one deck (or contender, or whatever you call it) is over-represented in the top brackets.

Miracles is over-represented in top brackets but not by very much.

[GundamGuy]

I don't think that really matters. Numbers matter. And the greater the number of players on any given deck (whatever their reason), the greater the number of finishes it needs to be considered average, good, oppressive, or whatever. You're trained in stats, so you must agree.

Miracles is over-represented in top brackets but not by very much.

I do agree.

The DTB data also shows a much higher top 8 placment rate for Miracles over the past few months, as much as double the second place deck.

I do think the casuality matters. I don't think a deck is only good because it's played by a lot of people. I think it's actually the case that it's a good deck, and that's why a lot of people play it.

Keep in mind that the only decks that came close to upsetting the status quo with Miracles in the last 12 months were only able to do so on the back of card advantage cards that are now banned because they were too good.

Look at the latest DTB data (needs that X-axis label back) BUG had over 2/3's the placements that Miracles had, but has under 2/3 of the points that Miracles achieved...

When I say overpresented, what I mean is that too many people are picking it to play given how average it is. Not how it's finishing.

[Admiral_Arzar]

I gave a list a few pages back. Merfolk, Loam, Infect, and Shardless mostly. I'd argue that Lands has a slight edge - depending on The specific lists. Miracles should not do well in a meta heavy with these decks - especially if there are not a lot of Elf pilots.

Miracles also doesn't have a lot of (tier one) MUs that are more than slightly favourable. Elves is a good time for Miracles, but Storm, D&T and Tempo deck of the week are pretty close. Miracles also enjoys the advantage of a blow-out vs the formats most popular and accessible budget deck (Burn). Overall the deck averages close to 50/50 against the field.

Shardless is the only tier one deck out of that list, and that matchup has become less unfavorable since the adoption of Monastery Mentor. Lands is strong against novice Miracles players but struggles against those who actually know what they are doing. The point (which you have not refuted) is that there is no tier-one deck which is a blowout against Miracles. Also, Storm even against Miracles? What alternate reality are you speaking from? The matchup preboard is bad enough, between Counterbalance and a bunch of countermagic. Postboard Miracles shaves its dead cards for Meddling Mage, Flusterstorm, Blasts, and yard hate (sometimes even Canonist) whereas Storm must dilute its combo to have a hope of stopping Counterbalance AND postboard hate bears.

[Crimhead]

I do agree.

The DTB data also shows a much higher top 8 placment rate for Miracles over the past few months, as much as double the second place deck.

Then you are missing my point.

What I'm saying is that if Miracles has twice as many pilots as the that second deck, it's actually performing the same, not better. And this is true regardless of the motivations for playing the deck - its a fact of math!

Frankly though you do not be understand the methodology of the DTBF and have no business citing it in an argument. Wanna prove me wrong? I'll ask for the fourth or fifth time for you do address the quote in my SIG (taken from the banned list philosophy page) and reconcile it with you interpretation of DTBF data.

I don't think you can, because you view is at odds with that statement. I have so far addressed every point you have made. You continually ignore this! It's incredibly obnoxious when you are investing time debating with somebody and they repeatedly ignore points you continually bring up. It also shows that you have no answer, but are unwilling to modify your view in light of evidence you can't refute.

If you want to continue you must step up your game and display some intellectual honesty.

[HSCK]

Then you are missing my point.

What I'm saying is that if Miracles has twice as many pilots as the that second deck, it's actually performing the same, not better. And this is true regardless of the motivations for playing the deck - its a fact of math!

Frankly though you do not be understand the methodology of the DTBF and have no business citing it in an argument. Wanna prove me wrong? I'll ask for the fourth or fifth time for you do address the quote in my SIG (taken from the banned list philosophy page) and reconcile it with you interpretation of DTBF data.

I don't think you can, because you view is at odds with that statement. I have so far addressed every point you have made. You continually ignore this! It's incredibly obnoxious when you are investing time debating with somebody and they repeatedly ignore points you continually bring up. It also shows that you have no answer, but are unwilling to modify your view in light of evidence you can't refute.

If you want to continue you must step up your game and display some intellectual honesty.

Your entire argument consists of, "Well it's not like 50% of the top 8s and it doesn't have creatures so that's really important!" I'm not sure what kind of intellectual honesty you're looking for.

[Crimhead]

I'm not sure what kind of intellectual honesty you're looking for.

My arguments are as follows:

• Its numbers in top brackets are strong but far from oppressive.
• Other long reigning top decks have had more impressive numbers in top brackets, but there was never an outcry to ban cards that, eg, Maverick would run. This indicates the reaction to Miracles is related to the distasteful play style rather than the numbers alone.
• Miracles is played in significantly higher numbers than other tier-one decks. This means its representation in top brackets are much less impressive when properly scaled. This is undeniably evident by the fact that Miracles decks to not decome denser between the start of day two through the final tables!
• Logistics has never been used in Legacy to ban out legitimate strategy.

As for not running aggressive creatures as a main strategic tool, it should be noted that the percent of top 8s a deck can produce before being considered a problem is subjective. Any precise figure would be arbitrary. Personally I feel that the more differently a deck plays than other decks in the format (with emphasis on threats, answers, and other interactive elements), the higher a percent of the meta that deck can occupy without hurting format diversity.

You might not agree with me, but that doesn't make me intellectually dishonest! Intellectual dishonesty is intentionally ignoring any facts or considerations which stand to challenge your assertions.

Your entire argument consists of, "Well it's not like 50% of the top 8s and it doesn't have creatures so that's really important!".

This, for instance, is intellectual dishonesty! I say "15% of the top8s is not oppressive", and you replace this with the more dubious and easily discredited assertion "anything less than 50% is not oppressive".

This way you did not have to argue with me or my points - you can instead refute an exaggerated version of my views which I do not actuall hold. Classy!

[GundamGuy]

Then you are missing my point.

What I'm saying is that if Miracles has twice as many pilots as the that second deck, it's actually performing the same, not better. And this is true regardless of the motivations for playing the deck - its a fact of math!

Frankly though you do not be understand the methodology of the DTBF and have no business citing it in an argument. Wanna prove me wrong? I'll ask for the fourth or fifth time for you do address the quote in my SIG (taken from the banned list philosophy page) and reconcile it with you interpretation of DTBF data.

I don't think you can, because you view is at odds with that statement. I have so far addressed every point you have made. You continually ignore this! It's incredibly obnoxious when you are investing time debating with somebody and they repeatedly ignore points you continually bring up. It also shows that you have no answer, but are unwilling to modify your view in light of evidence you can't refute.

If you want to continue you must step up your game and display some intellectual honesty.

1) Why assume every pilot is actually the same. Is magic a game with zero skill, and the outcome of matches is entirely deterministic and random?

2) I do understand the DTBF, what your mistaken on is assuming that you can be a deck to beat purely by having the most people play a deck. Hint, If I convinced 100 people to play Belcher for a month, it still won't be a DTB. (Blecher is as close to a coinflip as I can come up with) It's not enough to throw monkeys at type writers, because... and again I'm stress this, it's not a random draw, the probabilities of success isn't fixed, and isn't 100% determined by deck choice... there is some element of skill involved too. Your saying it's simply a numbers problem mathematically, when in fact that math is horribly off because you are trying to make non-random, and non-discrete probabilities, random and discrete.

3) "I don't think you can, because you view is at odds with that statement." No it's not. Your just treating all pilots and all players as if they are equal, when they aren't, and making many other mistakes... It's not like if 100 people play Miracles that each of those 100 people have an equally likely chance to win the tournament... if you think random pilot number 95 who just picked the deck up for the first time has exactly the same chance of winning as Joe Lossett then I don't know what to tell you... When you assume it's just a numbers game and that 50% of the decks played means you should get 50% of the top 8s that's what you are assuming...

When a deck is as successful and cheap as Miracles people of all skill levels are drawn to it. This is a downward force that contributes to why you don't see the "best deck" performing at or above it's percentage of the field, unless that deck is truly busted in half (think Vengvine, or Hulk Flash).

As to "Intellectual dishonesty"... I mean that's such a lazy way to dismiss things you disagree with.

Logistics has never been used in Legacy to ban out legitimate strategy.

False. Wizards has backed away from it in recent years, but it has been cited as a reason before.

[Crimhead]

2) I do understand the DTBF, what your mistaken on is assuming that you can be a deck to beat purely by having the most people play a deck.

Then knidly explain how a deck that's not tier one can be a DTB? You can't explain this because you don't understand it! This might seem abrasive, but you continually ignore this request and change the subject. So prove me wrong, eh?

As to "Intellectual dishonesty"... I mean that's such a lazy way to dismiss things you disagree with.

So calling intellectual dishonesty is bad forum, but calling somebody lazy is cool? I'm not the person dismissing things. Answer the question I've asked you did times, or admit that you don't have an answer. You do this one thing, and I will resume adressing all your points. And note that I have not simply thrown the term around! I've used it twice, referring to your continuing ignoring of a question, and whats-his-name's sraw-man fallacy. That is apt use of the term.

False. Wizards has backed away from it in recent years, but it has been cited as a reason before.

Citation required please. Note that I said " legitimate strategies". Shahrazard was not a legitimate strategy, and this is specifically noted in the associated banned announcement.

[Dice_Box]

Citation required please. Note that I said " legitimate strategies". Shahrazard was not a legitimate strategy, and this is specifically noted in the associated banned announcement.

Second Sunrise and Top.

[Raystar]

Edit: no need of more gasoline to the fire...