All B/R update speculation.

[Dice_Box]

"There is a none zero value in letting the format breathe" is my position. We are being strangled by one deck.

Also if you position is that the format should have control, I argue that Blade Control and Death Blade are fine. They are not lock out control, but they are control.

I argue you position seems not to be about control, but about Miracles. They are not the same thing.

[Megadeus]

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.

Well you heard it here first guys. This guy's position is the downright absolute correct one and ruins every argument against miracles being legal. Might as well not post in this thread until there's actually a problem. Game over

[Quasim0ff]

"There is a none zero value in letting the format breathe" is my position. We are being strangled by one deck.

Also if you position is that the format should have control, I argue that Blade Control and Death Blade are fine. They are not lock out control, but they are control.

I argue you position seems not to be about control, but about Miracles. They are not the same thing.

Miracles performed the same as Delver and Eldrazi at both GPs. It didn't outperform other decks.

[Mr Miagi]

Miracles performed the same as Delver and Eldrazi at both GPs. It didn't outperform other decks.

but brainstorm decks did outperform non-brainstorm decks

[Dice_Box]

I am not going to argue with anyone on numbers of a single event. Because I can pick and choose single data points to argue my case too but in the end single points prove nothing. I will argue that over 27 months the deck has consistently proven itself to be the undisputed king. That's a lot more data, collected over a long time showing a clear trend. A trend I do not agree is healthy.

[Crimhead]

Well you heard it here first guys. This guy's position is the downright absolute correct one and ruins every argument against miracles being legal.

Arguments can be made for Miracles needing a bad. Specifically the argument that Miracles is holding down creature decks (or midrange decks) fails unless it can be shown why Legacy needs more (yes, more) midrange creature decks ymor than it needs a single hard-control permission deck. (Not a midrange, aggro-control deck like Blade).

"There is a none zero value in letting the format breathe" is my position. We are being strangled by one deck.

I guess I don't agree that 16-18% of the meta constitutes a stranglehold.

Like I said, if you feel Miracles is this bad for the format, it's not really relevant if it is single-handedly supporting a play-style or not. If you had been willing to concede that Miracles is border-line (arguably ban-worthy, arguably not), than this might be worth consideration. If we can't agree that Miracles power level / representation is borderline oppressive, the ban camp vs the don't ban camp will never find common ground and this entire conversation is useless (much to the surprise of nobody, I guess).

@Megadeus - the best arguments against Miracles being legal are based on the following perspectives:

1. Miracles is more than a little bit too powerful & present - it is a menace.
2. Miracles is not a sufficiently different style from Blade to warrant extra meta space.

#2 is pretty weak, as should be obvious to anyone who knows the difference between answers, lock pieces, and threats. (And I'm no longer willing to argue with anyone who is purposely blind to these distinctions).

#1 is subjective, and well I'm willing to discuss it there are a lot of impasses in such a conversation based on what people want or expect from the banhammer.

[Dice_Box]

Miracles is not a sufficiently different style from Blade to warrant extra meta space.

For the record, this is not my position. I am just saying that there is other "Control" decks. Ones that warrant no play right now because why play a substandard control deck over the objectively best one?

I actually think (And you will likely disagree) that the removal of Miracles would help diversity of control in the format. Because right now there is no reason to play any other deck if you want to play control other than Lands.

I guess we can agree to disagree, I am ok with that and will step away. As I said before, all we can control in Legacy is if we play or don't. Nothing else is in our control, so I can't be bothered getting too worked up over this. I have enjoyed the debate though, even if I can't get as invested in them as I once did. (Likely a benefit.)

[Crimhead]

I actually think (And you will likely disagree) that the removal of Miracles would help diversity of control in the format. Because right now there is no reason to play any other deck if you want to play control other than Lands.

Hopefully (if there is a ban), control will prevail. But I do like to occasionally play against a control deck where I can board out Mazes (etc).
It's hard for me to feel control decks are diverse when I fight them in basically the same manner that I fight a Delver deck. We play the same deck, so I'm a little surprised that you haven't had the same experience.

[Barook]

Miracles performed the same as Delver and Eldrazi at both GPs. It didn't outperform other decks.

The thread could be alot more civil if people stuck to actual numbers instead of spouting random, reality-defying garbage.

If you want to argue with GPs, at least get your numbers straight and link the right events (instead of SCG Dallas in place of GP Prague):

GP Prague - Miracles coming second, 5 other decks in the Top 32 (18.75% of the Top 32) - which means 50% of the Miracles players played in the Top 32, based on the Top 100 meta - how is that performance below the field?

GP Columbus - 4 (!) Miracles in the Top 8 (50%), another 4 in the Top 16 (50% of the Top 16), and another 4 in the Top 32 (37.5%)- out of 13 Miracle decks in the Top 100 (placing 92.3% in the Top 32).

And yet you're arguing that Miracles somehow isn't overperforming, especially when those findings scale with event size, as you've also proven with your linked events.

GP Prague had a single Eldrazi deck placing at #11 - out of 15.
At GP Columbus, it had zero Top 16 entries, meaning 0/9 made it. Meanwhile, Miracles put a comfortable 8/13 in the Top 16.

If I wasn't dead tired and brain fried after 12 hours of work + 2 hours of driving, I could crunch more numbers, like other decks, including Delver.

[Begle1]

I am not going to argue with anyone on numbers of a single event. Because I can pick and choose single data points to argue my case too but in the end single points prove nothing. I will argue that over 27 months the deck has consistently proven itself to be the undisputed king. That's a lot more data, collected over a long time showing a clear trend. A trend I do not agree is healthy.

What's it take to be considered the "undisputed" king?

If a boxer loses every other bout, routinely gets knocked off but then comes back, then he's obviously a really good boxer and probably the best of his era, but it's hard to call him "undisputed" when he's only the best man in the champion's ring half of the time.

[HSCK]

What's it take to be considered the "undisputed" king?

If a boxer loses every other bout, routinely gets knocked off but then comes back, then he's obviously a really good boxer and probably the best of his era, but it's hard to call him "undisputed" when he's only the best man in the champion's ring half of the time.

Being the best deck in the format and being double the percentage of any other deck during that time period? Does that not make it the king?

[Begle1]

Being the best deck in the format and being double the percentage of any other deck during that time period? Does that not make it the king?

I feel like it's wins that matter the most, not Top 8's or metagame saturation.

Like, if the deck is half of the metagame and makes every Top 8 but never wins any tournaments, is it "king"? I'd say no. Definitely not "undisputed" king; those decks that beat it all the time are disputing it plenty well.

How many wins is too dominant? I don't have much skin in the game, but I'd say maybe if a deck wins a third of the time over a long period, then it's too good? I don't think it matters nearly so much if it almost always top 8's but only wins a quarter of the time; that means it's very beatable still.

[Noctalor]

I feel like it's wins that matter the most, not Top 8's or metagame saturation.

Like, if the deck is half of the metagame and makes every Top 8 but never wins any tournaments, is it "king"? I'd say no. Definitely not "undisputed" king; those decks that beat it all the time are disputing it plenty well.

How many wins is too dominant? I don't have much skin in the game, but I'd say maybe if a deck wins a third of the time over a long period, then it's too good? I don't think it matters nearly so much if it almost always top 8's but only wins a quarter of the time; that means it's very beatable still.

So would you consider a player able to top8 ten GPs in a row worse than one able to win once?

[Crimhead]

Yeah, top8 is single elimination and even more variance prone than MTG otherwise already is. I don't think there is to much difference between 8th place and 1st place in a two day event. I also like to look at the top16, or even top32 of the very large events.

[jake556]

So when is the new B/R list coming out? Mothership showed July 18?????

[Megadeus]

Yeah. No changes

[menace13]

The thread could be alot more civil if people stuck to actual numbers instead of spouting random, reality-defying garbage.

Wouldn't be the internet then. Besides most of that is from people who are playing the deck and don't want their shit nerfed.

[Crimhead]

The thread could be alot more civil if people stuck to actual numbers instead of spouting random, reality-defying garbage.

Format diversity can't be precisely quantified.

I get that you were referring to an erroneous quantification, and that's a fair complaint. But in general numbers alone can't tell the whole story of a format.

[slave]

(Miracles) Being the best deck in the format and being double the percentage of any other deck during that time period? Does that not make it the king?

Oh it's king material.
IMHO the reason Miracles is so good is simple - it's a very flexible control deck with good game against most strategies out there, and it's in colours that offer extremely good cards for cheap mana costs. There are very few matchups that Miracles will struggle against, including postboard, which isn't something a lot of decks can actually say.
IME, I play against D&T and Miracles a lot more often than any other decks. Miracles is hardest to beat, no matter which deck I play.

For me, I'm not saying Miracles necessarily needs a ban to knock it on the head, but I wouldn't be complaining if a ban came their way.

[Spam]

The thing that fascinates me the most is trying to understand what changed in the community in this couple of months that made miracles unsustainable.