All B/R update speculation.

[Megadeus]

If I crop into a bog I can assure victory against a Storm player. Invasive Surgery on Tendrils does the same. Most people would consider those answers to the the threat of Storm.

I guess we answer threats with threats not answers.
And I guess there's only one style of play - trying to win the game.

I hope you guys are having a good laugh. Enjoy your Miracles matches.

Most of the time, storm will have a way to not lose to rotation, whether it be preemptive discard or seeing it in hand and playing around it via Ad Nauseam or natural chain. You could often simply cast the card Extract and win most game 1's against storm. I had an opponent open on a white leyline at the open against me in game 1 and sent me to game 2 immediately. When facing super powerful but somewhat linear decks, certain cards exist to shut those down and they very often win the game alone.

[Crimhead]

It's certainly a threat. And against Dredge, I would very much consider Rest in Peace to be a threat. CB lock in game one against storm is almost certainly GG. Just like 95% of the time RIP is GG. It doesn't actually kill the opponent, but it effectively wins the game. It's not blind hatred for the deck, but if you've ever been on the storm side of the match up you would know that often in Game 1, similar to playing against MUD with chalice, your first order of business is often to try to strip CB or Top from miracles hand.

Generally something we play to shut down a degenerate strategy is called an answer to that strategy.

And usually we don't say threat about something that wins on the spot.

[Lemnear]

If I crop into a bog I can assure victory against a Storm player.

Lol, no. Probe, Discard, Ad Nauseam and Natural Stormchain are still a thing

It's certainly a threat. And against Dredge, I would very much consider Rest in Peace to be a threat. CB lock in game one against storm is almost certainly GG. Just like 95% of the time RIP is GG. It doesn't actually kill the opponent, but it effectively wins the game. It's not blind hatred for the deck, but if you've ever been on the storm side of the match up you would know that often in Game 1, similar to playing against MUD with chalice, your first order of business is often to try to strip CB or Top from miracles hand.

I think its the same issue I had here before with the term "control deck". Megadeus, you define "threat" as a "problem you can't work around or win the game against" while Crimhead defines "threat" as "something what actually kills you", so don't waste your breath fighting against narrow definitions from the 90s where "threat = creature".

Generally something we play to shut down a degenerate strategy is called an answer to that strategy.

And usually we don't say threat about something that wins on the spot.

And there is no such a thing to shut down Miracles' strategy at all, moreover if the deck has answers to everything what bugs it for 1-2 mana (Wear/Tear, Plows, Terminus, CounterTop, Flusterstorm, etc) and access to all that for a single mana (Ponder, SDT, Brainstorm).

[dte]

This thread has reached a new low of willful ignorance. First aggressive control and hard control are the same thing. Then prison control and permission are the same thing. Now counter-spells are threats?

You guys must be blind with anti-miracles rage I guess. That or I'm being trolled hard.

That's a bit offensive, don't you think?
Otherwise I love to play against miracle. It is always interesting for me, and tight play is on average rewarded. I do not think that it is a crazily uphill fight (and I usually play elf).
And neither I am trolling.


That aside, a "threat" is something that threatens to win the game.
It doesn't have to do damage, or anything. But, if resolved, it should be answered or else will most probably take the game.
Most often, it is creatures.
For instance, with evasion and a correct body, delver perfectly fits this description.

If you disagree with this definition, please explain why.
If you agree with it, you'll see that in some MUs, CB, SDT or RiP can be considered as threats.
To take another example than miracle, against most MUs the biggest threat in elves is the visionary-symbiote engine. It is not because it will make damage points, it is because drawing three per turn will eventually win the game.

[Lemnear]

This thread has reached a new low of willful ignorance.

says the man who droped this:

If I crop into a bog I can assure victory against a Storm player.

...willingly ignoring that Discard, Probe and Ad Nauseam get around that trick. Its just like claiming that Storm can't beat Mindbreak Trap.

First aggressive control and hard control are the same thing.

No one said that

Then prison control and permission are the same thing.

No one said that either. Maybe you are confused by the shitty definition of "control = counterspells = permission". There is no "Prison Control" as a subtype. Its either/or. "Prison" implies you cannot "play magic" while "control" hinders you to progress your gamplan. Miracles is not a prison deck and Countertop not a prison strategy

Now counter-spells are threats?

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Please fucking stop putting words into peoples mouth. No one said that.

You guys must be blind with anti-miracles rage I guess. That or I'm being trolled hard.

Lol. You are complaining about ignorance, yet argue based on narrow-minded definitions the last two pages. You claim to GET trolled if YOU are the one throwing "aggressive control and hard control" into the same bowl first

[Crimhead]

That aside, a "threat" is something that threatens to win the game.
It doesn't have to do damage, or anything. But, if resolved, it should be answered or else will most probably take the game.
Most often, it is creatures.
For instance, with evasion and a correct body, delver perfectly fits this description.

If you disagree with this definition, please explain why.
If you agree with it, you'll see that in some MUs, CB, SDT or RiP can be considered as threats.

I dislike this definition because it's too gauge a concept that one particular card cause a player to win. If I need a sixth land to win the game, is a Forest now a threat?

You definition also blurs the distinction between threat and answer. If I Abrupt Decay that Delver, that might contribute to me winning the game. If I Abrupt Decay that Delver when it was about to kill me (and I go on to win), AD prevented me from losing, hence arguably won me the game. Now Abrupt Decay is a threat?

I think any definition of 'threat' needs to include a contrast between a threat and an answer. Otherwise everything is a threat, because everything we play is there to help us win the game. Threats and answers should be considered different strategic elements, but in order to do so, we need to distinguish between various functions and goals in terms of how they will contribute to a win.

That's a bit offensive, don't you think?

I try not to get offended, but willful ignorance is certainly annoying.

Lol. You are complaining about ignorance, yet argue based on narrow-minded definitions the last two pages. You claim to GET trolled if YOU are the one throwing "aggressive control and hard control" into the same bowl first

eh?

I've been trying to make a distinction between those two styles, claiming Miracles is a distinct play style from aggressive control like Shardless or EsperBlade.

No one said that either. Maybe you are confused by the shitty definition of "control = counterspells = permission". There is no "Prison Control" as a subtype. Its either/or. "Prison" implies you cannot "play magic" while "control" hinders you to progress your gamplan. Miracles is not a prison deck and Countertop not a prison strategy

I think we agree 100%. I've been arguing exactly that; that Miracles is not prison, and controls the game in a different style than, eg, Lands. Our only quarrel here is whether or not prison is a sub-category of control. This is strictly semantic.

No one said that

Actually they did.
My claim that Miracle is distinctly more control/defence focused than the more aggressive build has been rejected by various forum users.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Please fucking stop putting words into peoples mouth. No one said that.

Well, CB is arguably a counter-spell.

But if RIP is a "threat" against Dredge, and Moat is a "threat" against Shops, surely FOW is a "threat" against Belcher? Because apparently shutting down a strategy is done with threats and not answers now.

says the man who droped this:

...willingly ignoring that Discard, Probe and Ad Nauseam get around that trick.

Whoa there!

I don't mean to say this is a sure fire way to stop Storm! I was saying it is possible for me to beat Storm with a timely Rotation into Bog, and I'm using this possible play for the purpose of contrasting threats vs answers. That is all. Sometimes Storm has to go off in a hurry and they can't wait for discard or Probe (perhaps they just bounced a sphere and need to go off before I recast it).

[Dice_Box]

If I need a sixth land to win the game, is a Forest now a threat?

In a way, yes. If you need a land to say, activate Treetop then in all due respect it would be the Treetop that's the threat, but if someone Fatesealed you they would put that Forest on the bottom. Why? It is a threat too.

[Crimhead]

So there is no meaningful distinction between threats, answers, and enablers? I think this game can bear a deeper analysis that that, but maybe I'm alone on this.

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the argument of "Insert play style here" should exist has long since stopped being valid in my eyes. The reason: Aggro is dead. I am not suggesting that we ban everything until Fish, Goblins and Zoo are in the DTB again but I feel like it's disingenuous that we accept that the time for Aggro in Legacy has come and gone but yet we make out that a meta shift is in some way the end of the world. It's happened before, the format survived. I mean, as a Goblins fan, it stings, but that's life.

I'd argue that aggro is strong thanks to Eldrazi Shops.
But it did suck when aggro was dead, and it will suck if hard (permission) control ever dies.

Banning hand over fist until Goblins, Zoo, and Fish come back would be drastic measures. Not banning a card from a boarder-line OP deck is not. If Goblins had Miracles' meta share (and that was the only agro deck in the format), we might be less inclined to want a ban than if Fish and Zoo were also viable competitive decks. And if we did get a ban, it might be reasonable to hope that ban preserves Goblins as an aggro deck. Is that so crazy?

The death of aggro was very said. Even in the later days the decks were moving more towards a midrange style (Zoo was becoming Maverick with red, and Goblins were being called red D&T). The same thing might be happening to Miracles, as Mentor is pushing more towards an aggressive game plan. I hate that pure aggro and pure control are shrinking, while tempo and midrange grow and thrive.

As for Blue/non Blue Midrange, played Shardless for the first time a few weeks back. Fuck that deck is fun. It's just Jund. I mean, it played nothing like I expected out of a Blue deck. It felt so much like Jund it shocked me. If I was not married to Lands at this point, that would be my deck.

I hope you better appreciate why I can tolerate the high cantrip density on the grounds that these cards support a variety of styles. This is also why I've accused those complaining about no blueless midrange decks as hating blue - it's bizarre to me that people think Jund would add significant diversity to a format where Shardless BUG is already a tier one deck.

[Zombie]

Countertop not a prison strategy

Countertop absolutely is a prison strategy. Play it, the opponent isn't allowed to play Magic anymore in many, many cases and it's landed proactively, not to eg. deprive an opponent of built-up resources like blowing up a Storm player's graveyard. Miracles as a whole may not be a purebred prison deck the way the most controlling Lands builds are, but Countertop absolutely is a prison element where Chalice, Teeg and half the stuff played by D&T is.

So there is no meaningful distinction between threats, answers, and enablers? I think this game can bear a deeper analysis that that, but maybe I'm alone on this.

There absolutely are meaningful distinctions, just not absolute ones in some cases. The boundaries are not hard and fast in all cases, there is a fuzzy gray area because some cards that can't kill by themselves are usually deployed proactively and for all intents and purposes end the game (Teeg vs. ANT game 1 is for all intents and purposes a hard win condition, for example). Resolve a Moon against BUG and they more or less just can't play Magic anymore. Extreme prison pieces are threats for all purposes besides inane nitpicking. Magus of the Moon is technically a threat vs. Burn (has power, and so can win) but it's practical threat value is terribly low. A BUG deck could have a Strix out and Magus would be much more damaging due to its rules text alone.

There are of course cards that are blatantly one or the other - Decay is an answer and Delver is a threat, I don't think you'd find anyone would argue otherwise. But the problem of strict definitional structures is that they sometimes just don't match reality and reality-matching definitions aren't clean, simple and non-overlapping. Reality is dirty and complicated.

[square_two]

I dislike this definition because it's too gauge a concept that one particular card cause a player to win. If I need a sixth land to win the game, is a Forest now a threat?

You definition also blurs the distinction between threat and answer. If I Abrupt Decay that Delver, that might contribute to me winning the game. If I Abrupt Decay that Delver when it was about to kill me (and I go on to win), AD prevented me from losing, hence arguably won me the game. Now Abrupt Decay is a threat?

I think any definition of 'threat' needs to include a contrast between a threat and an answer. Otherwise everything is a threat, because everything we play is there to help us win the game. Threats and answers should be considered different strategic elements, but in order to do so, we need to distinguish between various functions and goals in terms of how they will contribute to a win.

A threat is a singular entity that wins the game if left unanswered.

I don't see how this blurs any distinctions...

My opponent plays a Delver. I know that he has lots of permission, counterspells, burn, etc and if I don't take care of that Delver or win quicker, I will die. It is a threat. My Abrupt Decay is an answer to that threat. It doesn't ensure any victory on its own, in any abstract sense. Delver opponent still has other threats that can be employed.

My opponent is on Miracles, and I'm playing Storm. If they establish CB + Top, I will die. In this situation, CB + Top is a threat and my answers consist of pre-emptive discard, and a sideboarded Decay (I'm guessing since I'm not a storm player).

The situation matters. If I'm playing a Chalice deck and my opponent's deck purely consists of 1-drops, is my Chalice an answer or a threat? I think clearly a threat because it wins me the game if it comes down. If my opponent is playing a deck with few 1-drops, perhaps mainly Swords to Plowshares that I'm worried about, then Chalice isn't a threat (although the opponent may still have reason to remove it).

Well, CB is arguably a counter-spell.

But if RIP is a "threat" against Dredge, and Moat is a "threat" against Shops, surely FOW is a "threat" against Belcher? Because apparently shutting down a strategy is done with threats and not answers now.

I think it is ridiculous to call CB simply a counter-spell. CB is like, endless counter-spells. And Top makes it configurable.

When your "answer" actually "answers" your opponent's entire deck, and they will lose the game if you get your "answer" in play...it just sounds more like a threat to me. I'd be hard-pressed to call FoW a "threat" against Belcher though. Fow and other 1-time use cards just don't continue to lock down a game.

[rufus]

A threat is a singular entity that wins the game if left unanswered.
...
My opponent is on Miracles, and I'm playing Storm. If they establish CB + Top, I will die. In this situation, CB + Top is a threat and my answers consist of pre-emptive discard, and a sideboarded Decay (I'm guessing since I'm not a storm player).
...

CB + Top is a lock, not a threat. If the opponent's win cons have been cleared from the deck with something like Bitter Ordeal, countertop is unlikely to win the game, even if it stays in play.

[square_two]

CB + Top is a lock, not a threat. If the opponent's win cons have been cleared from the deck with something like Bitter Ordeal, countertop is unlikely to win the game, even if it stays in play.

Of course. If all of an opponent's win cons have been cleared from their deck then the point is moot. Can't locks be threats? I'd say that someone can threaten you by finishing establishing a lock, especially if that lock is very hard to break. For many decks with low cmc, CB + Top is a hard enough lock to be considered a threat. I mean, there is a reason people to try answer it with Decay or Grip, or by preventing both CB and Top from being in play. And if people are paying so much attention and effort to prevent it from happening or from disrupting it once it is in place, then I think that helps qualify it as a threat (again, in certain matchups).

This is dumb. I should've just kept my enjoyment as a spectator.

[rufus]

Of course. If all of an opponent's win cons have been cleared from their deck then the point is moot. Can't locks be threats? ...

They can, but that's like using Solitary Confinement to deck people or the fateseal/ult combination on Jace, the Mindsculptor.

Typically countertop is not used that way. Rather, the plan is to hold the game and beat down for the win with wizards, angels, or monks.

Your definition is 'wins the game if left unanswered', and countertop is not expected to do that.

[Crimhead]

A threat is a singular entity that wins the game if left unanswered.

I don't see how this blurs any distinctions...

It gets blurry when we extend that definition to"a singular entity that, if left unanswered, will provide an advantageous game-state that will most likely (or with certainty) allow the player to eventually win the game through some other means".

CB + Top is a lock, not a threat.

One would think that was a reasonable distinction. Anywhere but this thread you could differentiate the two without any confusion or argument.

[Rackhamm]

To that point, neither Blood Moon nor Rip "win the game if left unanswered". They might shut out your opponent entirely, but you still have to do something else with other cards to achieve win conditions such as decking your opponent, bringing them to zero life, or a win the game spell/ability. Calling something a threat should be relegated to cards that actively achieve one of these win conditions.

Top decking a Maelstrom pulse to hit a Moat and be able to swing in for lethal doesn't make the Pulse a threat even if you couldn't have won the game without it. Pulse will never kill your opponent by decking them or taking them to zero life. It's an answer to your opponent's cards. It's still an answer even if they recognize it's your out and fateseal it with jace.

Answers, threats, lands, lock pieces etc can all be crucial to winning the game at one point or another, but if the classification is going to have any meaning in a deck building or card evaluation situation, you can't just say it's all relative and any card can be a threat in some corner case example (like the forest being needed for treetop activation). There are cards that can play multiple roles though, manlands or tabernacle being a perfect example.

[Fox]

Pulse will never kill your opponent by decking them or taking them to zero life.

Tell that to the guy whose Lich just got targeted.
Not sure why we're talking about the semantics of the word 'prison' or 'threat.' Seems like you could start a whole other thread dedicated to the topic since it isn't really germane to B/R. The important thing is when you can reduce someone's deck down to 1 card (or one zone, or one mechanic, or one cmc) that actually matters, there's a problem when you can't address it - such is the case for Counterbalance, and that's why it's the most bannable card in legacy on those grounds.

Problem is every time you make that point someone says "but Decay is a card," which has a number of problems not the least of which is format diversity. Let's recap:
-if they resolve CB, you're never resolving a cantrip (certainly not a legacy playable one).
-ergo you must topdeck Decay

If that sounds like Strip Mine (i.e. you can't use mana to find more lands, you better topdeck one), it's because they're about equivocal. No one enjoys playing vs an effortless 2-drop that is somewhere between Time Vault and Strip Mine - that is to say something that basically ended the game, but you can't concede b/c technically there's a chance. Poorly designed card, and there really isn't an excuse since they knew from the time of Ice Age and Alliances just how every card denied should have cost 2 life (Zur's Weirding and Tidal Control).

[Dice_Box]

So there is no meaningful distinction between threats, answers, and enablers? I think this game can bear a deeper analysis that that, but maybe I'm alone on this.

I guess the definition is dependent on the situation at hand? I do not see the point to argue over it personally. It really does not matter in the overall scheme of things.

I'd argue that aggro is strong thanks to Eldrazi Shops.
But it did suck when aggro was dead, and it will suck if hard (permission) control ever dies.

Did not think of Eldrazi as Aggro, I will concede that point and I do like that the deck is in the format. On the point overall though, will it suck for those who like to play control if Miracles takes a hit? Yes. Is that an argument for keeping it? No.

Banning hand over fist until Goblins, Zoo, and Fish come back would be drastic measures. Not banning a card from a boarder-line OP deck is not. If Goblins had Miracles' meta share (and that was the only agro deck in the format), we might be less inclined to want a ban than if Fish and Zoo were also viable competitive decks. And if we did get a ban, it might be reasonable to hope that ban preserves Goblins as an aggro deck. Is that so crazy?

I was not ever suggesting that we ban things like this, just pointing out that as a fan of Goblins, I have no right to say that "Goblins must be a viable deck" in the same way people are saying "Miracles as the only (insert deck type here) must be viable". Both arguments do not hold water to me and when you see the points side by side, look silly.

The death of aggro was very said. Even in the later days the decks were moving more towards a midrange style (Zoo was becoming Maverick with red, and Goblins were being called red D&T). The same thing might be happening to Miracles, as Mentor is pushing more towards an aggressive game plan. I hate that pure aggro and pure control are shrinking, while tempo and midrange grow and thrive.

I would argue meta shifts suck for those left behind and those without the money to adapt to them yes, but I am not going to fight the tide of change like I myself have any control over it. If this is the direction we are going, so be it. All I and anyone else here can do is Play or not Play. Those really are your options.

I hope you better appreciate why I can tolerate the high cantrip density on the grounds that these cards support a variety of styles. This is also why I've accused those complaining about no blueless midrange decks as hating blue - it's bizarre to me that people think Jund would add significant diversity to a format where Shardless BUG is already a tier one deck.

I do not want to get into a debate on Cantrips again, if you want my views on this topic, PM me.

[Crimhead]

Not sure why we're talking about the semantics of the word 'prison' or 'threat.' Seems like you could start a whole other thread dedicated to the topic since it isn't really germane to B/R.

Oh, but it is!

• Whether or not there should be more cards banned is dependant on the health of the format.
• Format health is highly dependant on format diversity.
• Diversity can be gauged not only by the number and distribution of competitive decks; but also by the extent to which the competetive decks play differently from one another.

Essentially, any argument in favour of a ban is an argument that Legacy is not sufficiently diverse. People say this format is not diverse because:

• Too many decks run Brainstorm, or cantrips in general, or blue in general.
• One deck in particular (Miracles) sees too many top8s (or top16s, or whatever).

These points are countered by pointing out that:

• Decks running blue cantrips are of a variety of styles (format diversity is upheld).
• Miracles is a unique play style that might disappear in its absence; thus it contributes to format diversity.

In attempt to dismiss these points, people wish to downplay the differences between various play-styles. To this end, any lingo this game normally uses to distinguish styles of play (or functionality of cards is being challenged); and any such distinctions are being intentionally blurred.

That's why suddenly prison and control are the exact same thing. Hard control vs aggressive control are also indistinguishable - the argument of threat:answer ratio is no good because answers, lock-pieces, and even mana sources are all basically threats because everything is relative to the situation.

This is the lowest and dumbest I have ever seen this threads stoop. Why not go to a deck development thread, and interrupt any discourse related to the number of threats that deck should run with all sorts of useless garbage about all sorts of cards potentially threatening your opponent's prospects? In a practical conversation about deck building, such nonsense would be recognised as obvious, facetious trolling. I will not entertain these "arguments" any longer.

I was not ever suggesting that we ban things like this, just pointing out that as a fan of Goblins, I have no right to say that "Goblins must be a viable deck" in the same way people are saying "Miracles as the only (insert deck type here) must be viable". Both arguments do not hold water to me and when you see the points side by side, look silly.

I know you weren't suggesting that, but you were making a false ewuivolence. Nobody is saying Miracles must be viable!

What I'm saying is that if Miracles is indeed single-handedly representing an entire play style, the fact that it is arguably hampering diversity (by being overly present in the meta) should be weight against the fact that it is simultaneously preserving format diversity (by keeping an otherwise struggling/extinct play-style in the meta).

There are lots of people who think Miracles is putting up the results to warrant a ban, but lots of people who don't. WotC have yet to make a move against it, well having shown recently they were willing to ban cards when they believe there is a problem.
I think we should all agree that Miracles is boarder-line ban-worthy. Yes?

I think we should also agree that holding off on a boarder-line line ban to preserve a play-style is at least reasonable. It certainly should not be damaged with heavy handed banning to preserve a play-style! Something can be important enough to tip a close decision even if that thing is not important enough to prompt drastic action. (This is where your analogy of using the banhammer to preserve Goblins or Aggro falls apart).

If you don't agree that Miracles is boarder-line ban-worthy you and think it desperately and certainly needs a ban, than my argument holds no water because not banning when the format desperately needs it is a drastic measures. But if you think banning Miracles is otherwise close call my point is more than fair.

Also, banning a card which preserves the deck (in a weaker version) instead of a card which kills the deck is not a drastic measure either. If the point of a ban me too strengthen format diversity, why ban a card that will kill a whole play-style when another card would do?

[Dice_Box]

And I am saying that Miracles, and by extension, control, should not be a sacred cow. We lost Aggro, a shift like that happened. This happens. Does it suck if you want to play that style of deck? Yes. Does that mean it should be treated with kid gloves? No.

"Control must be viable" is in my mind no different from "Aggro must be viable". The format has proven that is not the case. Also, for the record, Control is viable elsewhere. Nahiri made that happen in Modern and that deck rocks.

[Crimhead]

"Control must be viable" is in my mind no different from "Aggro must be viable". The format has proven that is not the case.

You keep confusing "control must be viable in Legacy" with "there is a non-zero value in keeping control viable".
The second statement - my actual position - is enough to sway a close decision (and enough to ruin any argument that Miracles should be banned because it is holding down creature decks).

The idea that "control must be viable" is very easy to refute. Too bad it is not my stated position nor is it relevant to my actual argument.