All B/R update speculation.

[Lysandros]

Terminus is just a sweeper. If it invalidates your deck, you probably need to learn how to play around sweepers...

Haha, I know how to play around sweepers, thanks. I didn't say it invalidates my deck (reading comprehension is a good thing), I said it invalidates some decks I consider to be cool parts of the meta game. Maverick? Goblins? Merfolk? Zoo? I miss creature decks being a thing. They all disappeared around the time of AVR's release. Coincidence?

Terminus was a mistake. Again, I'm not in favor of banning anything, but if something has to go, this gets my vote.

Unban Mind Twist!

[Quasim0ff]

Goblins? Merfolk?

PLEASE, try to play those two decks against Miracles. Both are awful matchups for miracles. NOT the other way around.

Delver killed Zoo. Not Miracles. Why play a 3/3 w/o evasion (nacatl), when you can play a 3/2 that also lets you interact?

[Zombiesquisher]

Haha, I know how to play around sweepers, thanks. I didn't say it invalidates my deck (reading comprehension is a good thing), I said it invalidates some decks I consider to be cool parts of the meta game. Maverick? Goblins? Merfolk? Zoo? I miss creature decks being a thing. They all disappeared around the time of AVR's release. Coincidence?

Terminus was a mistake. Again, I'm not in favor of banning anything, but if something has to go, this gets my vote.

Unban Mind Twist!

I feel like you seriously dont understand how good the match up is when you play against Miracles with Goblins. I'd dare to say its our easiest deck to beat... Goblins in no way disappeared because of AVR. If anything the sheer amount of Miracles decks in my local meta has made it easier to just jam a bunch of combo hate in my sideboard and go 6-0 at my local events.

[Finn]

Terminus is just a sweeper. If it invalidates your deck, you probably need to learn how to play around sweepers...

I don't usually have anything to say about Terminus. But let's put this argument to rest once and for all.

Wrath of God is not as powerful an effect as Terminus, and not being cast as an instant. But let's say for argument that their effects are analogous. Wrath costs 4, the baseline rate for such an effect, as it goes up to 6 in some cases. How far out of whack is Terminus as it is being used in Legacy?

Best creature we have for 1 is Delver of Secrets. What have we got for 4?

Hypnotic Specter
Bloodbraid Elf
Elvish Piper
Geist of Saint Traft
Ball Lightning
Phyrexian Obliterator
Notion Thief
Thrun, the last Troll
Magus of the Moon
Siege Rhino
Grand Arbiter Augustin IV
Goblin Ringleader

...and so on.

Try to imagine what would happen if any of these cards suddenly cost 1 instead. Legacy would devolve immediately into a format dominated by that one card and people would rightly call for its banning.

BTW, I have no problems with Terminus. It is but the tip of the spear. Ban Brainstorm and all will be healed.

[iatee]

Yep, pretty much all miracles cards are fair/unplayable without Brainstorm, as we can see in Modern. There are ways to set up your deck that aren't Top, but there aren't easy ways to get cards out of your hand on top of your library. The drawback of 'If you have this in your opening hand, you've basically mulliganed' is huge - it's big enough that burn doesn't feel like it's worth playing a one of Thunderous Wrath, even though there's a lot of upside.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Terminus is just a sweeper. If it invalidates your deck, you probably need to learn how to play around sweepers...

If you believe you can profitably play around an instant-speed 1cmc board wipe, you need a reality check.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Crimhead]

Yep, pretty much all miracles cards are fair/unplayable without Brainstorm, as we can see in Modern.

I would think all this shows is that Miracle cards are unplayable in a format without Brainstorm, Ponder, Preordain, Top, or Jace.

If you believe you can profitably play around an instant-speed 1cmc board wipe, you need a reality check

Somebody does. In reality most creature decks have a lot of play vs Miracles. Only Elves and possibly Blade are dead in the water.

Try to imagine what would happen if any of these cards suddenly cost 1 instead. Legacy would devolve immediately into a format dominated by that one card and people would rightly call for its banning.

Very poor analogy.
Those cards are threats, and the sooner you can drop them the better they are. Mass removal is good because it allows for card advantage. The ability to cast it turn one isn't nearly as big a boost in tempo. Mostly it just gives you more free mana later when you need to cast it. This is good, but not equivalent to a 1cc Magus or BBE.

But let's put this argument to rest once and for all.

At least you have a sense of humour!

[Finn]

Very poor analogy.

Because you say so?

Those cards are threats, and the sooner you can drop them the better they are. Mass removal is good because it allows for card advantage. The ability to cast it turn one isn't nearly as big a boost in tempo. Mostly it just gives you more free mana later when you need to cast it. This is good, but not equivalent to a 1cc Magus or BBE.

Oh, look. Opinions being stated as facts. Hey, watch this cool trick:

That card is mass removal, and the sooner you can cast it the better it is. Threats are good because they allow for tempo. The ability to cast them turn one isn't nearly as big a boost in card advantage. Mostly they just give you more free mana earlier when you need to cast them. This is good, but not equivalent to a 1 cc wrath.

************

I am trolling you a bit here, but you did the nerd thing and took a contrary position to some of the details of my post without actually debating the merits of its central point. Let me state a longer version here for clarity:

The price of 4 for a wrath has been maintained since the beginning of the game, has been tested many times, and has been found to be appropriate. It is a tightly controlled balancing act between aggro and control. Lavafrogg demonstrated on this site a number of years ago that Landstill (Miracles is a direct descendant) can compete if it gets its sweepers for 3. The ones available at 3 sucked though and that was that. Terminus for 1 (it's really ) is not power creep, but a power explosion in favor of control. It is a sweeper for at least two mana less than any of its competitors. You can not just have a card that arbitrarily ignores the fundamental math that governs the healthy give and take between aggro and control and expect everything to just work out.

By cutting the cost of creatures by a commensurate amount, I am simply leveling the playing field with a tangible reference that you have fully fleshed out in your mind from experience for comparison. Magus of the Moon for 1? That's dumb. It is obviously too powerful, you say. Well, I agree!!! Look how stupid it is to give a particular element of the game steroids. Just because Terminus is a reactive card does not change the fact that it is completely imbalanced.

[Raystar]

Because you say so?
Oh, look. Opinions being stated as facts. Hey, watch this cool trick:

That card is mass removal, and the sooner you can cast it the better it is. Threats are good because they allow for tempo. The ability to cast them turn one isn't nearly as big a boost in card advantage. Mostly they just give you more free mana earlier when you need to cast them. This is good, but not equivalent to a 1 cc wrath.

************

I am trolling you a bit here, but you did the nerd thing and took a contrary position to some of the details of my post without actually debating the merits of its central point. Let me state a longer version here for clarity:

The price of 4 for a wrath has been maintained since the beginning of the game, has been tested many times, and has been found to be appropriate. It is a tightly controlled balancing act between aggro and control. Lavafrogg demonstrated on this site a number of years ago that Landstill (Miracles is a direct descendant) can compete if it gets its sweepers for 3. The ones available at 3 sucked though and that was that. Terminus for 1 (it's really ) is not power creep, but a power explosion in favor of control. It is a sweeper for at least two mana less than any of its competitors. You can not just have a card that arbitrarily ignores the fundamental math that governs the healthy give and take between aggro and control and expect everything to just work out.

By cutting the cost of creatures by a commensurate amount, I am simply leveling the playing field with a tangible reference that you have fully fleshed out in your mind from experience for comparison. Magus of the Moon for 1? That's dumb. It is obviously too powerful, you say. Well, I agree!!! Look how stupid it is to give a particular element of the game steroids. Just because Terminus is a reactive card does not change the fact that it is completely imbalanced.

Thread won...

[lavafrogg]

Because you say so?
Oh, look. Opinions being stated as facts. Hey, watch this cool trick:

That card is mass removal, and the sooner you can cast it the better it is. Threats are good because they allow for tempo. The ability to cast them turn one isn't nearly as big a boost in card advantage. Mostly they just give you more free mana earlier when you need to cast them. This is good, but not equivalent to a 1 cc wrath.

************

I am trolling you a bit here, but you did the nerd thing and took a contrary position to some of the details of my post without actually debating the merits of its central point. Let me state a longer version here for clarity:

The price of 4 for a wrath has been maintained since the beginning of the game, has been tested many times, and has been found to be appropriate. It is a tightly controlled balancing act between aggro and control. Lavafrogg demonstrated on this site a number of years ago that Landstill (Miracles is a direct descendant) can compete if it gets its sweepers for 3. The ones available at 3 sucked though and that was that. Terminus for 1 (it's really ) is not power creep, but a power explosion in favor of control. It is a sweeper for at least two mana less than any of its competitors. You can not just have a card that arbitrarily ignores the fundamental math that governs the healthy give and take between aggro and control and expect everything to just work out.

By cutting the cost of creatures by a commensurate amount, I am simply leveling the playing field with a tangible reference that you have fully fleshed out in your mind from experience for comparison. Magus of the Moon for 1? That's dumb. It is obviously too powerful, you say. Well, I agree!!! Look how stupid it is to give a particular element of the game steroids. Just because Terminus is a reactive card does not change the fact that it is completely imbalanced.

Brilliant and very true.

[Crimhead]

Because you say so?
Oh, look. Opinions being stated as facts. Hey, watch this cool trick:

That card is mass removal, and the sooner you can cast it the better it is. Threats are good because they allow for tempo. The ability to cast them turn one isn't nearly as big a boost in card advantage. Mostly they just give you more free mana earlier when you need to cast them. This is good, but not equivalent to a 1 cc wrath.

Magus being better on turn one is not an opinion. Same as any creature whos purpose is to put the opponent on a clock.

Terminus on turn one is not going to be much better than Swords unless you run into Empty The Warrens or a turn one Emrakul - and control has other ways to prevent this. Most of the time players like to hold sweepers to get CA. If your are using your sweeper as spot removal, casting it for one is not as strong.

A better comparison would be creatures with a Serra Avenger type clause. A 1cc Magus that can't enter the battlefield till turn 3 would be far less ominous and more apt.

There as two things good about costing one instead of more:

1. You can play the card on turn one.
2. If you play the card later, you save mana.

A 1cc creature benefits from both of these; a 1cc Wrath benefits much less from the first advantage. That's a fact.

R&D demonstrated good understanding when they printed the Cold-Snap pitch cards. These cards were much better when played later, which took the edge off the ability to cast them without mana

The price of 4 for a wrath has been maintained since the beginning of the game, has been tested many times, and has been found to be appropriate. It is a tightly controlled balancing act between aggro and control....
...Terminus for 1 (it's really ) is not power creep, but a power explosion in favor of control.

4cc Wraths were good and "delicately balanced" when they were racing Armaggedons in white weeine and RDW was playing Jackal Pup. That's a fact.

Creatures have being enjoying power creep for over a decade now. Remember when Hound Of Konda and Watchwolf reset the bar for efficient creatures? Wrath didn't get a boost to keep up. By 2011 those creatures where obsoleted by yet more power creep. By the time Wrath finally got a cost reduction, it needed a lot of catch-up.

The bolded text indicates you seem to think creatures can get more and more efficient while the cost of Wrath should never come down!

You can not just have a card that arbitrarily ignores the fundamental math that governs the healthy give and take between aggro and control and expect everything to just work out.

Your "fundemental rule" is a fossil. Maybe if we ban every good creature printed in the last umpteen years so we can go back to Wearbears and Kird Apes, we can also ban out Terminus and have a balanced format.

The fact is that fair creature decks abound in Legacy! By this measure everything does indeed "work". Linear aggro is hurting, but that began before Terminus. Midrange and Tempo decks are just better. "Control" decks fetching Jittes and Batterskulls are as hard on aggro as Miracles. Delver beats the snot out of aggro. I'm sorry if you want to play Zoo or Maverick. I'd like to play Enchantress or Pox; maybe we can go splits on a box of tissue paper?

By cutting the cost of creatures by a commensurate amount, I am simply leveling the playing field with a tangible reference that you have fully fleshed out in your mind from experience for comparison.

The cost of creatures has already been slashed, just not overnight, so we have been eased into accepting it. Terminus is cutting costs to level the playing field.

[Mr. Safety]

Because you say so?
Oh, look. Opinions being stated as facts. Hey, watch this cool trick:

That card is mass removal, and the sooner you can cast it the better it is. Threats are good because they allow for tempo. The ability to cast them turn one isn't nearly as big a boost in card advantage. Mostly they just give you more free mana earlier when you need to cast them. This is good, but not equivalent to a 1 cc wrath.

************

I am trolling you a bit here, but you did the nerd thing and took a contrary position to some of the details of my post without actually debating the merits of its central point. Let me state a longer version here for clarity:

The price of 4 for a wrath has been maintained since the beginning of the game, has been tested many times, and has been found to be appropriate. It is a tightly controlled balancing act between aggro and control. Lavafrogg demonstrated on this site a number of years ago that Landstill (Miracles is a direct descendant) can compete if it gets its sweepers for 3. The ones available at 3 sucked though and that was that. Terminus for 1 (it's really ) is not power creep, but a power explosion in favor of control. It is a sweeper for at least two mana less than any of its competitors. You can not just have a card that arbitrarily ignores the fundamental math that governs the healthy give and take between aggro and control and expect everything to just work out.

By cutting the cost of creatures by a commensurate amount, I am simply leveling the playing field with a tangible reference that you have fully fleshed out in your mind from experience for comparison. Magus of the Moon for 1? That's dumb. It is obviously too powerful, you say. Well, I agree!!! Look how stupid it is to give a particular element of the game steroids. Just because Terminus is a reactive card does not change the fact that it is completely imbalanced.

Pfff, you and your logical arguments. Seriously though, excellent post.

[Crimhead]

The point I was attempting to make is that every deck rewards skilled play, but not every deck do so to the same extent. Another way to put this is I think some decks rewared skilled play more then others.

Only the willfully naive could disagree!

Now I think this is often overstated or understated... people often understate skill when it comes to non-blue decks (Just turn dudes sideways) and over state it when it comes to Blue decks

I agree with this too. I used to enjoy creatureless Burn, and did very well. I always faced tough decisions and probably never played a perfect game.

I've never played Post, but have you read the primer? It seems people make a lot of mistakes that seem like obvious, straight forward plays.

OPINION: Miracles has one of the steepst Skill - Win Ratio curves of any legacy deck in a long time. Perhaps only Doomsday is steeper...

Also just an opinion, but I think Elves is Even more skill intensive. Miracles is skill intensive, but gets plenty of free wins

Another consideration, I thinking playing against can require similarly difficult decisions. A good example might be wasting or porting a fetchland to force (or bait) a shuffle. Miracles MUs are tough, but this skill intensity extends at least partially to the opponent.

Maybe there is something to this. Maybe the overall win-rate of Miracles is dragged down by bad and mediocre players more so than most other decks.

But it would be incorrect to to ignore the percent of the field altogether. Even weak players will win sometimes - enough weak players pushing Miracles will contribute to its DTBF pps. And it's fair to say that the deck probably has more competent pilots than other less popular decks too.

I see your point of view, and of course on point of view questions this is going to be entirely subjective.

IMO: Miracles is unique in the meta, because it's eating the lunch of all the other decks that would normally be filling that role. I also think that barring banning Brainstorm, Ponder, or Force of Will, there will alwasy be a unique control deck in Legacy.

Before Miracles the only good control decks were Midrange. The format always has midrange but it doesn't always have dedicated control.

I know you mention mentor, but for now Miracles lists are still generally too passive to qualify as midrange.

Miracles is also teaming with synergy. IMO synergistic decks are always more unique that "good-stuff". My biggest complaint about Legacy over the past several years is the excessive levels of good-stuff decks. (Clearly this is also subjective).

And again I know this is subjective and you are happy with the mix of tempo, midrange, combo, and control in legacy, but I personally think it's actually pretty flat right now.

Just for fun - If you could add three or four decks to the competetve ranks without taking anything away (obviously not realistic), what would you add? I'd probably add Pox, Enchantress, Affinity, and Zombardment.

before the reply, I'll just say I think we are starting to get on the same page here.

I hope you are as relieved as I am! I'm back to work soon and cannot maintain this pace of discussion (much to the dismay of nobody).

[Raystar]

...4cc Wraths were good and "delicately balanced" when they were racing Armaggedons in white weeine and RDW was playing Jackal Pup. That's a fact.

Creatures have being enjoying power creep for over a decade now. Remember when Hound Of Konda and Watchwolf reset the bar for efficient creatures? Wrath didn't get a boost to keep up. By 2011 those creatures where obsoleted by yet more power creep. By the time Wrath finally got a cost reduction, it needed a lot of catch-up.

The bolded text indicates you seem to think creatures can get more and more efficient while the cost of Wrath should never come down!

Your "fundemental rule" is a fossil. Maybe if we ban every good creature printed in the last umpteen years so we can go back to Wearbears and Kird Apes, we can also ban out Terminus and have a balanced format...

Maybe you weren't really playing when Armageddons were a thing, but for a long time you just couldn't play creatures deck because of "delicately balanced" effects like Balance. Now Balance was priced at exactly the current cost of Terminus and it is also a sorcery and it is still (rightfully) banned because 4 Balance in a deck are extremely oppressive...Terminus is also an instant...just saying...

[Zombie]

Maybe you weren't really playing when Armageddons were a thing, but for a long time you just couldn't play creatures deck because of "delicately balanced" effects like Balance. Now Balance was priced at exactly the current cost of Terminus and it is also a sorcery and it is still (rightfully) banned because 4 Balance in a deck are extremely oppressive...Terminus is also an instant...just saying...

Please, please, please don't compare Terminus to Balance. Terminus is retarded, but nowhere near stupid enough.

[Raystar]

Please, please, please don't compare Terminus to Balance. Terminus is retarded, but nowhere near stupid enough.

Well I was just trying to debunk the myth of Wrath being rightly costed for creatures of ancient times...it was a bad example from Crimhead part because there just weren't good creature decks, the meta was not very favourable to them.

The comparison between Terminus and Balance in terms of the effects they have against aggro strategies stands, a lot. Imagine Zoo against a "Miracles" deck using Balance instead of Terminus: Balance would probably force the Miracle player to loose advantage instead of gaining it, the Zoo player would have less cards in hand and probably less lands in play. In addition, Balance would have to be played as a sorcery.

It goes without saying that Balance is a stronger card in other contests and enables stupid combos. The arguments being put forward to support Terminus are twisting the reality behind the fact that Terminus IS one of the major reasons why certain archetypes are fading by being extremely overpowered and undercosted. I just twisted reality in response to highlight how it could be compared to some of the most busted cards ever printed and show that by not being completely intellectually honest you can defend any thesis.

TLDR: I can understand somebody defending an archetype because he enjoys playing with/against it, but not willing to see that there are cards deforming the meta beyond reason is becoming a bit tiring.

[Crimhead]

Maybe you weren't really playing when Armageddons were a thing, but for a long time you just couldn't play creatures deck because of "delicately balanced" effects like Balance.

• Balance has never been legal in Legacy.
• Creature decks have always been viable in Legacy.
• Early type II environments also almost always had creature decks performing well in world championships:
  http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Wo...cks.2C_Seattle

1997 - Black Aggro wins, Green stompy in semifinals
1998 - Cali-Nightmare wins, Sligh in 2nd place, White Weenie in Semifinals.
1999 - RDW 2nd, Green Stompy in semifinals.

Well I was just trying to debunk the myth of Wrath being rightly costed for creatures of ancient times...it was a bad example from Crimhead part because there just weren't good creature decks, the meta was not very favourable to them.

WTF are you smoking?

[Raystar]

[QUOTE=Crimhead;924076][QUOTE=Raystar;924058]Maybe you weren't really playing when Armageddons were a thing, but for a long time you just couldn't play creatures deck because of "delicately balanced" effects like Balance.

• Balance has never been legal in Legacy.
• Creature decks have always been viable in Legacy.
• Early type II environments also almost always had creature decks performing well in world championships:
  http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Wo...cks.2C_Seattle

1997 - Black Aggro wins, Green stompy in semifinals
1998 - Cali-Nightmare wins, Sligh in 2nd place, White Weenie in Semifinals.
1999 - RDW 2nd, Green Stompy in semifinals.

WTF are you smoking?

I'm pretty sure we were playing this game before 1997. Creatures existed already and balance was a thing...even before Legacy started.

But you are right, what was I smoking when I decided to enter into this conversation?

[Crimhead]

I'm pretty sure we were playing this game before 1997. Creatures existed already and balance was a thing...even before Legacy started.

Which has nothing to do with my claim that 4cc was a fair cost for Wrath in the days of Savannah Lions or Wearbear.

It's a fact that Wrath at 4cc provided a balanced environment for many years across multiple formats when the best creatures of the day are mostly unplayable in contemporary Legacy.

This is not meant to prove Terminus is or isn't fairly coated - rather to challenge the view that 4cc is the supposedly correct cost for a sweeper despite years and years of creatures getting better.

[GundamGuy]

Terminus on turn one is not going to be much better than Swords unless you run into Empty The Warrens or a turn one Emrakul - and control has other ways to prevent this. Most of the time players like to hold sweepers to get CA. If your are using your sweeper as spot removal, casting it for one is not as strong.

I think this is missing the point.

It's not about how quickly you can cast it, the reason Terminus is super super good is because you can wrath and then have a ton of mana left over to dig into threats, spin your top, counter punch, etc... also you can cast it on your opponents turn... It's not that it costing 1 means you cast it sooner then you would Supreme Verdict... it's about having 3 additional mana to work with afterwords...plus the effect is more powerful....

Just for fun - If you could add three or four decks to the competetve ranks without taking anything away (obviously not realistic), what would you add? I'd probably add Pox, Enchantress, Affinity, and Zombardment.

I hope you are as relieved as I am! I'm back to work soon and cannot maintain this pace of discussion (much to the dismay of nobody).

If I could add three decks to the format without taking anything away, it wold be Enchantress, Goblins (Not exactly miracles holding this back... but the meta as a whole), Pox (or something like it), and if we go for 4 Alluren (which I think is actually not bad, and underplayed).