All B/R update speculation.

[Barook]

I just can't accept that something needs to be banned from Miracles just because its the best deck right now.

2.5 years is not just "right now". We don't need (nor should we) Cawblade numbers of deck dominance to have the need for a better format health.

If anything, Legacy is rather too slow when it comes to bans - DTT is a poster child of that, yet WotC let it ravage the format for another 9 months after the TC was banned.

[Jain_Mor]

Not sure if you all know, but it's currently "Legacy Festival" on MTGO or something like that. Has been for a month or so. I really doubt they would ban something while they are promoting the format, so you're going to have to wait a while for any non-emergency changes.

[Barook]

Not sure if you all know, but it's currently "Legacy Festival" on MTGO or something like that. Has been for a month or so. I really doubt they would ban something while they are promoting the format, so you're going to have to wait a while for any non-emergency changes.

The banned list change wouldn't be active on MTGO before the tournament is over anyway.

[Julian23]

When people talk about Miracles only dominating "just now" they neglect that it's been the top dog in Europe for way longer than in the US. We've been suffering for a lot more; can you please send help?

[HSCK]

No surprise-February 2014 was when GP Paris happened. Part of the reason Miracles has become so dominant is its popularity (a lot of people consider it the only "true control deck" available in Constructed Magic right now), and its popularity among skilled players in particular. When so many good players are on the deck, it follows that it rises to the top in a lot of events.

I just can't accept that something needs to be banned from Miracles just because its the best deck right now. Overall, the local and regional metas I play in look relatively diverse and healthy. We're no where near Caw-Blade territory in terms of overall meta penetration. Many people continue to play whatever they want regardless of what the best deck is, because this is Legacy. A ban would set a very unhealthy precedent that could turn this format into a basket case like Modern.

When was the last time Miracles wasn't the best deck?

[l33twash0r]

When was the last time Miracles wasn't the best deck?

I guess Omnitell took the best deck spot in DTT era?

[iatee]

Miracles is the - overall - best-positioned deck. It has been the best positioned deck for a while now.

However, it is not so dominant that if you have a strong Miracles plan or Miracles metagamed deck you'll necessarily do well. (e.g. how many tournaments has 12 Post won?) You might not even play against it in a long tournament. It makes up 14% of the metagame for live tournaments in the last 2 months according to this: http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=72

And that's only listing people who placed well at tournaments. The deck constitutes less than 14% of the field if we assume that the average Miracles player placed better than the average non-Miracles player. Might not be true, but if we're operating from the assumption that it's a scary dominant deck, then it seems like something you'd want to assume to be true. We're worried about a deck that's less than 14% of the format?

And honestly, the fact that it places #1 in the DTB doesn't reveal much. There are a lot of things that are hidden in that number. How many people showed up with Miracles? How many of them were Joe Lossett? How far ahead of the 2nd place deck was it? If Miracles is marginally more successful than lots of other decks month after month but far more people were playing it, is Miracles even the best deck?

[H]

When people talk about Miracles only dominating "just now" they neglect that it's been the top dog in Europe for way longer than in the US. We've been suffering for a lot more; can you please send help?

I've said it for a while, but it is a waste to throw drops into the cesspool that this thread usually is, but I'll say it again: I'm pretty sure that the slow reaction on Wizards part with respect to Legacy is because we have no high-profile voice for the format.

Look how slow things changed in Vintage, then how (relatively) quick it all started to change when Randy and several "Pros" started to rant on Twitter about it. There is little doubt that Randy, et. al., got Chalice restricted (and Lodestone). If we could somehow get high visibility people to look at the data (like what Barook posted just before) and get it to the eyes of Wizards, there is a much better chance for something to change.

[iatee]

Or maybe they'll look at the data and wonder why people can't get over a deck that makes up less than 20% of the format, and often doesn't even t8.

[Barook]

I guess Omnitell took the best deck spot in DTT era?

Nah, Miracles was also the best deck in that era.

2/15: #1 (end of TC era)
3/15: #1
4/15: #1
5/15: #1
6/15: #3
7/15: #1
8/15: #2
9/15: #1

Miracles wasn't dominant before 2014. It even left the DtB section a few times, like a normal deck could (and should). But those times are long gone.

Edit: The thing about Miracles is that it doesn't get worse over time, it just keeps getting better because it can regularly pick up upgrades that are easy to integrate (Wear/Tear, Council's Judgment, DTT (while it was legal), Mentor).

[Lemnear]

Miracles is the - overall - best-positioned deck. It has been the best positioned deck for a while now.

"a while" he says ... its the dominaent force for YEARS

However, it is not so dominant that if you have a strong Miracles plan or Miracles metagamed deck you'll necessarily do well. (e.g. how many tournaments has 12 Post won?) You might not even play against it in a long tournament. It makes up 14% of the metagame for live tournaments in the last 2 months according to this: http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=72

Nice try to manipulate the data. If you take the online Metagame into consideration and not straight up ignore it, the metagame slice of Terminus/Counterbalance is 18,3% and the BGx decks to counter Countertop with Decay are ~26% of the metagame. Its impossible to "accidently" miss that ~45% of the metagame plays Counterbalance/SDT or Decay.

The deck constitutes less than 14% of the field if we assume that the average Miracles player placed better than the average non-Miracles player.

Any hard data? Of course not. Because even the 14% is not correct.

And honestly, the fact that it places #1 in the DTB doesn't reveal much. There are a lot of things that are hidden in that number. How many people showed up with Miracles? How many of them were Joe Lossett? How far ahead of the 2nd place deck was it? If Miracles is marginally more successful than lots of other decks month after month but far more people were playing it, is Miracles even the best deck?

Dood, are you even reading the DtB updates of TheSource, because there is FUCKING written how many points are between the decks in the DtB ranking in each update and how its calculated. Why are you pointing to Joe here, because nis constant T8/T16/T32 show how good the deck is in the right hands against the whole metatame and what is the important aspect to look at and not the scrubs who pickup the deck two weeks before a GP and shit and fail.

[H]

Or maybe they'll look at the data and wonder why people can't get over a deck that makes up less than 20% of the format, and often doesn't even t8.

I have a very hard time believing that they sit around pouring over third-party data in some quest to figure out any format, let alone one that they show little care for like Legacy.

Chalice and Lodestone coexisted for years and years, it was literally only as Randy and co. complained about it stifling the format that suddenly they both got restricted. Once again, I seriously doubt that they crunched all sorts of numbers, they just went with what the "Pros" said and restricted away, because had they looked at all the tournament data out there, they literally could not have arrived at the bogus "explanation" they gave.

Again, I've said it many times, and I will over again, until someone proves to me I'm wrong: Wizards does not ban thing based on "hard" data, the ban things on perception of the format. I seriously doubt anyone walks into a B&R meeting with sheets of data and they all crunch numbers and come to statistical conclusions. It is more probably a round-table where anyone brings up anything they think might be an issue. If no one is looking at Legacy, who would bring anything up?

[Dice_Box]

Sometimes I wish there was a site like Modern Nexus for Legacy. To give a voice for just this format. If I knew how to write articles and not rambling rants I would try and do something like it myself.

[Di]

Sometimes I wish there was a site like Modern Nexus for Legacy. To give a voice for just this format. If I knew how to write articles and not rambling rants I would try and do something like it myself.

We did actually do something like this years ago (maybe around 2004-2006 or so), back when the site still had an actual front page and such. We probably had a dozen or so articles on here, though the lack of consistent contribution and quantity of solid writers led us to just stop doing it, not to mention it was entirely dead when we removed the rest of the pages and left the entire site as a forum only.

[Barook]

I have a very hard time believing that they sit around pouring over third-party data in some quest to figure out any format, let alone one that they show little care for like Legacy.

Chalice and Lodestone coexisted for years and years, it was literally only as Randy and co. complained about it stifling the format that suddenly they both got restricted. Once again, I seriously doubt that they crunched all sorts of numbers, they just went with what the "Pros" said and restricted away, because had they looked at all the tournament data out there, they literally could not have arrived at the bogus "explanation" they gave.

Again, I've said it many times, and I will over again, until someone proves to me I'm wrong: Wizards does not ban thing based on "hard" data, the ban things on perception of the format. I seriously doubt anyone walks into a B&R meeting with sheets of data and they all crunch numbers and come to statistical conclusions. It is more probably a round-table where anyone brings up anything they think might be an issue. If no one is looking at Legacy, who would bring anything up?

Except Miracles is blue and "skill-intensive", so relevant pros won't complain about it while continuing the circlejerk.

Notice how said pros don't complain about Gush or how the format turned into 1/3 Mentor decks after the bans.

Sometimes I wish there was a site like Modern Nexus for Legacy. To give a voice for just this format. If I knew how to write articles and not rambling rants I would try and do something like it myself.

We don't even need that. All we require is a nice, little shitstorm on social media like Reddit and/or Twitter at the right time. Question is how to trigger it correctly.

[iatee]

Nice try to manipulate the data. If you take the online Metagame into consideration and not straight up ignore it, the metagame slice of Terminus/Counterbalance is 18,3% and the BGx decks to counter Countertop with Decay are ~26% of the metagame. Its impossible to "accidently" miss that ~45% of the metagame plays Counterbalance/SDT or Decay.

Believe it or not, people play BG decks for reasons beyond "To beat Miracles with Abrupt Decay." They printed a 1 mana planeswalker and most Delver players decided it was a pretty good idea to play it. Abrupt Decay is good against Counterbalance...it's also good against most things in a format with Dazes, Delvers, Chalices, and curves that top out at 3.

When you clump in all of the Delver players with 'Abrupt Decay decks' there's some slight of hand going on, as if the only reason to play BG is to beat Miracles. That's simply not true. They printed some very powerful and efficient BG cards in RtR and most Delver players are now playing them. One reason is because they help against Miracles, another reason is because one-drop-dot-deck decided to play the best one drop creature ever printed. Shardless is also popular now but not just because of Miracles, but also because of Eldrazi.

Dood, are you even reading the DtB updates of TheSource, because there is FUCKING written how many points are between the decks in the DtB ranking in each update and how its calculated. Why are you pointing to Joe here, because nis constant T8/T16/T32 show how good the deck is in the right hands against the whole metatame and what is the important aspect to look at and not the scrubs who pickup the deck two weeks before a GP and shit and fail.

I said the 'There are a lot of things that are hidden in that number.' - the number being #1. I didn't say you can't find the margins between 1st and 2nd place, but when people are talking about a string of first places finishes rather than putting these things in context, they're missing a lot.

I do think that Miracles has been the best positioned deck during this time period, but I don't think the DtB system is actually a very good way to tell that. Tournament results are dependent on a lot of things - what the field looked like, how well people played, how many people showed up with the deck in question. Judging how strong decks are purely off tournament results is lazy, especially given how small the legacy tournament data set really is.

The best positioned deck for a tournament would have the highest overall EW % vs the expected metagame. I think if you wrote out every deck's EW % vs the field and adjusted it for the other deck's expected metashare, Miracles would still have the highest EW% vs the field. That's why it's the best deck. But I don't think that margin is nearly as high as people would like to believe - and that's something that tournament results do show us. It's a best deck, but it isn't enough of a 'best deck' to actually be wrecking house left and right.

[Lemnear]

Believe it or not, people play BG decks for reasons beyond "To beat Miracles with Abrupt Decay." They printed a 1 mana planeswalker and most Delver players decided it was a pretty good idea to play it. Abrupt Decay is good against Counterbalance...it's also good against most things in a format with Dazes, Delvers, Chalices, and curves that top out at 3.

When you clump in all of the Delver players with 'Abrupt Decay decks' there's some slight of hand going on, as if the only reason to play BG is to beat Miracles. That's simply not true. They printed some very powerful and efficient BG cards in RtR and most Delver players are now playing them. One reason is because they help against Miracles, another reason is because one-drop-dot-deck decided to play the best one drop creature ever printed. Shardless is also popular now but not just because of Miracles, but also because of Eldrazi.

By mentioning Chalice, counters and Counterbalance in the same sentence, you should already notice the issue with BGx having the only metagame relevant swiss-army knife while red/white/blue completely fail to handle Chalice or Counterbalance in a reasonable way. DRS is strong, no doubt, but the numbers of DRS & Decay before/during/after the Delve-Era paint a pretty clear picture of when/why the colorcombination became to obnoxious.

I said the 'There are a lot of things that are hidden in that number.' - the number being #1. I didn't say you can't find the margins between 1st and 2nd place, but when people are talking about a string of first places finishes rather than putting these things in context, they're missing a lot.

I do think that Miracles has been the best positioned deck during this time period, but I don't think the DtB system is actually a very good way to tell that. Tournament results are dependent on a lot of things - what the field looked like, how well people played, how many people showed up with the deck in question. Judging how strong decks are purely off tournament results is lazy, especially given how small the legacy tournament data set really is.

The best positioned deck for a tournament would have the highest overall EW % vs the expected metagame. I think if you wrote out every deck's EW % vs the field and adjusted it for the other deck's expected metashare, Miracles would still have the highest EW% vs the field. That's why it's the best deck. But I don't think that margin is nearly as high as people would like to believe - and that's something that tournament results do show us. It's a best deck, but it isn't enough of a 'best deck' to actually be wrecking house left and right.

Again: We have the data to show that variance is not a factor if the deck is the most dominant force in the last year and among the top 5 decks for several year straight. The deck covers 18,3% of the metagame and yet is 2/8 in Strasbourg and 8/16 in Columbus and from a sheer relation of "number in the metagame" to "number in T8/T16/T32" absolutely overperforming.

[iatee]

By mentioning Chalice, counters and Counterbalance in the same sentence, you should already notice the issue with BGx having the only metagame relevant swiss-army knife while red/white/blue completely fail to handle Chalice or Counterbalance in a reasonable way. DRS is strong, no doubt, but the numbers of DRS & Decay before/during/after the Delve-Era paint a pretty clear picture of when/why the colorcombination became to obnoxious.

Fewer people played BG decks when Ancestral Recall was temporarily legal. That seems like a reasonable decision on their part.

I think Chalice is more of a problem than Counterbalance, mostly because a t1 deck that gets half of its wins off a turn one play seems worse for the format than anything Miracles is doing.

Again: We have the data to show that variance is not a factor if the deck is the most dominant force in the last year and among the top 5 decks for several year straight. The deck covers 18,3% of the metagame and yet is 2/8 in Strasbourg and 8/16 in Columbus and from a sheer relation of "number in the metagame" to "number in T8/T16/T32" absolutely overperforming.

I am not convinced that it actually overperforms its share of the overall metagame, at least when it comes to converting to day 2 at large events. But we don't actually know the entire meta for any of these events, just the day 2 meta. It does tend to overperform on day 2.

Some amount of that is due to the fact that there are some really good Miracles players out there who made day 2. The t8 of the last Open and GP Columbus have someone in common. Should we be extra frustrated that so many of the best legacy players play Miracles - which helps further skew the results - or should we be happy that there are t1 decks that seem to only perform well when piloted by experts?

I think we should be happy when complex decks are at the center of a format. That's something to celebrate and a reason why legacy currently has most skill-intensive gameplay of any constructed format. I don't think Joe Lossett would have the fanbase he has right now if he were piloting Eldrazi or Belcher.

[Gheizen64]

If Miracle is such a big deal just unban SotF.

As of now i don't believe the deck is bannable at all. Being the topdog of the format for years didn't make thresh bannable, and surely not at those percents of sub 20%.

[phonics]

Well looking at a generalized metagame, it seems like it is currently skewing towards control/ aggro while combo is becoming less represented. In the archetypal rock paper scissors of the format, combo is supposed to be favorable against aggro, but since aggro has become extinct in lieu of aggro control (delver/ cantrip shell variants), combo doesn't have the favorable match ups it once had, couldn't this be the reason why miracles is where it is? It isn't just Miracles that is strong, other control decks as well like lands and some loam variants have been shown to be good in this meta as well.