All B/R update speculation.

[Gheizen64]

I love Survival of the Fittest, but the card only gets better with time. It will never be unbanned.

Except the card got worse since it was banned since the best thing you can do with it is still chaining vengevines (more powerful grave removal has been printed, and more powerful creatures that go in spell shells have been printed, see delver, pyro, mentor, while no card that abuse the grave and discard mechanic has been printed, except maybe for prized amalgam and that isn't stellar in the first place). And no, retaining Griselbrand isn't that better than retaining Iona and that isn't even that good in the first place.

[mistercakes]

Except the card got worse since it was banned since the best thing you can do with it is still chaining vengevines (more powerful grave removal has been printed, and more powerful creatures that go in spell shells have been printed, see delver, pyro, mentor, while no card that abuse the grave and discard mechanic has been printed, except maybe for prized amalgam and that isn't stellar in the first place). And no, retaining Griselbrand isn't that better than retaining Iona and that isn't even that good in the first place.

i think it actually makes the format a little worse to have survival come back. it pushes graveyard decks a bit harder than they currently are and people will be forced to dedicate even more grave hate. this is already a struggle for graveyard-based decks.

i guess the real question is, what would survival do the meta that would be beneficial?

[sjmcc13]

That's why I was calling for a player voting system for banlist changes but nearly everyone else thought that idea was stupid... Some people just don't like change I guess...

some people immediately saw the glaring flaw in banning based on player votes.
The player base in general does not have the background knowledge or even maturity required to handle the list properly, the vast majority would vote using their emotions, and not logically thinking it out. This would lead to horrible bans that kill off decks and entire archetypes because people do not like to playing against them or because they can lead to bad feel losses.

Saying not liking this is idea is the same as not liking change is a horrible analogy, as that is the same as going up to someone and saying they are not going to loose any weight because they will not have their legs amputated. Ya you would loose some weight but it would just make things worse for you, and quickly.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

some people immediately saw the glaring flaw in banning based on player votes.
The player base in general does not have the background knowledge or even maturity required to handle the list properly, the vast majority would vote using their emotions, and not logically thinking it out. This would lead to horrible bans that kill off decks and entire archetypes because people do not like to playing against them or because they can lead to bad feel losses.

Saying not liking this is idea is the same as not liking change is a horrible analogy, as that is the same as going up to someone and saying they are not going to loose any weight because they will not have their legs amputated. Ya you would loose some weight but it would just make things worse for you, and quickly.

If over half of a group wants a card banned is is for the greater good that the card is banned.


Also if for some reason something horrible happens, WotC can always step in and do something about it because it is their format after all.

[Matsaya]

If over half of a group wants WOTC to be in charge for the ban, it is for the greater good that WOTC is in charge for the ban.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

The voters would be able to vote for 3 different things.
1. They would be able to vote for cards that they want banned. If over half of the voters vote for a card to be banned it is banned.
2. They would be able to vote for cards that they want unbanned. This means that if voters thought they made a mistake by banning a they will be able to reverse the mistake by voting a card out of the banlist. If over half of voters want a card unbanned, it will be unbanned.
3. They would be able to vote the banlist back in WotC control. If 50%+ vote for this WotC will be in charge of the banlist again.
By "over half of the voters", I mean over half of those ELIGIBLE to vote.

And like I said, if it is found out that voters are too dumb to control the banlist(or if they want to troll the banlist), WotC can and will take over.
Any more "glaring weaknesses" about my plan?

[Blastoderm]

The voters would be able to vote for 3 different things.
1. They would be able to vote for cards that they want banned. If over half of the voters vote for a card to be banned it is banned.
2. They would be able to vote for cards that they want unbanned. This means that if voters thought they made a mistake by banning a they will be able to reverse the mistake by voting a card out of the banlist. If over half of voters want a card unbanned, it will be unbanned.
3. They would be able to vote the banlist back in WotC control. If 50%+ vote for this WotC will be in charge of the banlist again.
By "over half of the voters", I mean over half of those ELIGIBLE to vote.

And like I said, if it is found out that voters are too dumb to control the banlist(or if they want to troll the banlist), WotC can and will take over.
Any more "glaring weaknesses" about my plan?

Who's eligible to vote? Hopefully not 2016 sourcers.

[Svyelunite]

And like I said, if it is found out that voters are too dumb to control the banlist(or if they want to troll the banlist), WotC can and will take over.
Any more "glaring weaknesses" about my plan?

Managing the whole system? Voter fraud, speculator voting, precedence (as in, no other sport lets the competitors set the rules), WOTC's desire to maintain control over their game that we play.

Also, there's the overwhelming evidence that WOTC knows what they are doing pretty well. They've made dozens of changes (both to ban lists and the rules of the game itself) that were met with near-infinite hostility by a vocal portion of the player base. In almost all of those cases, once the vitriol and dust settled, it turned out to be not only acceptable, but preferable to the previous rules. Why introduce an unproven, potentially chaotic system when the one in place works and is resulting in a game that is more successful than ever?

[Ace/Homebrew]

Seriously? We're really talking about this again?

Can we please go back to arguing over Brainstorm?

[rlesko]

Can we please go back to arguing over Brainstorm?

Ban Thought-Knot Seer

[sjmcc13]

If over half of a group wants a card banned is is for the greater good that the card is banned.

Not if they want it banned for idiotic reasons, which is what would happen.

The vast majority of the player base does not have the background knowledge or even critical thinking skills needed to determine when a card needs a ban, every vote would turn into an emotional vote, resulting in cards the produce feel bad losses getting axed quickly, killing of combo and control as strategies, resulting in Legacy becoming little more than Modern with some better spells and mana sources.

Giving players a vote would only lead to disaster, I mean how many players either cannot or will not look beyond top 8 placements to argue over decks being to strong or to weak, and ignoring all the factors that affect those results like deck distribution (a deck played by 30% of a 150+ event is allot more likely to place then a deck played by 5 people at the same event), the skill level of the players playing those decks in terms of knowing the game, their deck and their opponents decks, how much luck played a factor in each matches results, and the matchup results of each deck. None of those players can tell the difference between a deck being represented in a top 8 due to being overpowered, popular, or just lucky and you think they can judge when a cards needs to be banned to weaken a deck?

There is also the problem that allot of people are just going to listen to the loudest voice, as opposed to thinking about the choice for themselves. Do you have any idea how many examples there are out there is people being convinced to vote against their interests using some form of a scapegoat issue to blind and sway voters.

Seriously? We're really talking about this again?

Can we please go back to arguing over Brainstorm?

Unban minds Desire ;)
(I know it will never happen, but I own 4 and want to use them in a deck.)

[Dice_Box]

This thread is like a Dormant volcano. When it's calm the place is peaceful. Hell it's even enjoyable to be around but when it erupts...

As for voting, the US just decided Trump was a good idea and over here we have Clive Palmer. Forgive me if I have about as much faith in a vote working out as my cold cynical heart will allow. It's cute how idealistic the idea is but it's also about as practical as trying to Stifle a Standstill.

Uneducated masses make bad choices. Sucks when you have to live with them.

[Barook]

Also, there's the overwhelming evidence that WOTC knows what they are doing pretty well.

This only applies to the game itself.

Literally everything else is a massive, mismanaged pile of clusterfucks that makes you wonder how they're still in business after all these years, let alone grow the game.

[Dice_Box]

Because the game is pure crack.

[Barook]

Because the game is pure crack.

And despite making lots of money, the dealers are still horrible, horrible people.

Seriously, is there even a month now where Wizards doesn't fuck up in any kind of way? Their latest "achievement" is revoking WPN status from tons of European LGS by applying standards that make sense in the US, but aren't feasable in the EU for the most places.

[tescrin]

I still think a rotating ban deal may be interesting if shake-ups were desperate. That said, I think the main attraction to Legacy is that it's not changing massively all the time. It's nice that you can bring a deck back years later and if you know what you're doing and have a twinge of luck, do just fine. I'm on an accidental couple-month hiatus only because of random circumstances, but I know that people are attending and running similar decks but adjusting to their own little mini-meta of people.

Just leaving and coming back to see familiar but changed decks is nice. It's nice to know that when someone places a Trop or Scrubland down, you immediately know 20 of their cards.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

If 50+% of people vote a deck to be banned because of its power level, it probably is too powerful. Yes, there will be some people who have a deck that has a bad matchup against a certain deck and vote for that deck to be banned, but we are talking 50+% here... there will also be people who think a deck is boring to play against and if 50+% think so, then it is probably pretty freaking boring to play against and deserves to be banned for the greater good. I really dont get why this concept is so hard to understand for you guys.

@Tescrin This will NEVER happen if WotC remains in control of eternal format banlists. In order to get more unbans into the format, we need a voting system.

[Vandalize]

In my humble opinion, the top to bottom in priority bannings should be:

1) Show and Tell - 3 CMC card that you either counter or you lose.
2) Brainstorm - Fix draws, make bad hands keepable, is present in every single blue deck in Legacy (outside of Merfolks).
3) Thought-Knot Seer - turn 2 Thoughtseize in a 4/4 body.
4) Deathrite Shaman - 1 mana planeswalker.
5) True-Name Nemesis - 3 mana, single color Progenitus.
6) Terminus - 1 mana sweeper with little setup (that can also be fired at instant speed in most cases).

Unbans:

1) Mind Twist - Only Nic Fit would benefit from this.
2) Earthcraft - This card sucks.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

In my humble opinion, the top to bottom in priority bannings should be:

1) Show and Tell - 3 CMC card that you either counter or you lose.
2) Brainstorm - Fix draws, make bad hands keepable, is present in every single blue deck in Legacy (outside of Merfolks).
3) Thought-Knot Seer - turn 2 Thoughtseize in a 4/4 body.
4) Deathrite Shaman - 1 mana planeswalker.
5) True-Name Nemesis - 3 mana, single color Progenitus.
6) Terminus - 1 mana sweeper with little setup (that can also be fired at instant speed in most cases).

Unbans:

1) Mind Twist - Only Nic Fit would benefit from this.
2) Earthcraft - This card sucks.

There is NOTHING that needs to be banned in legacy right now... Deathrite Shaman and True-Name Nemesis? Are you kidding me?
The format is in a pretty good spot right now. There is no reason to make people mad by banning Show and Tell and Brainstorm...
Unbans don't make anyone mad, but make many happy. I completely agree with both of the unbans you suggested as well as Mana Drain, Survival of the Fittest, and Goblin Recuiter.

[Vandalize]

There is NOTHING that needs to be banned in legacy right now... Deathrite Shaman and True-Name Nemesis? Are you kidding me?
The format is in a pretty good spot right now. There is no reason to make people mad by banning Show and Tell and Brainstorm...
Unbans don't make anyone mad, but make many happy. I completely agree with both of the unbans you suggested as well as Mana Drain, Survival of the Fittest, and Goblin Recuiter.

The format is in an awesome spot. With every deck being Miracles, Eldrazi or Grixis Tempo. Ocasionally some Show and Tell and Storm. GREAT DIVERSITY.