All B/R update speculation.

[nevilshute]

Mono Red Sneak Attack. Tell me where the Brainstorm is in that deck and I am sure it also runs a few cards it can't shuffle back.

We'll that is effectively the marriage of dragon stompy and a belcher style combo deck. Both types of decks run lots of redundancy in order to make up for their complete lack of tutoring and cantrips. So they will naturally get more garbage hands of all mana triple fatty no combo card etc and be forced to mulligan or pray to the top-deck gods... There's a reason why monored sneak isn't tearing up the format and it starts with 'incon' and ends with 'sistent'

[Jain_Mor]

I mean the arguement was these kinds of cards wouldn't be played without brainstorm, not that decks would be just as good without it.

[Lemnear]

I mean the arguement was these kinds of cards wouldn't be played without brainstorm, not that decks would be just as good without it.

That implies that people would play decks, which are less consistent than Belcher, in GPs and simular tournaments. We all know that isn't going to happen.

[Jain_Mor]

Lol what are you on about? Show n Tell with ponder and preordain and maybe burning wish isn't less consistent than belcher XD and belcher doesn't run brainstorm so you wouldn't literally be making belcher less consistent than belcher. So I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

[Lemnear]

Lol what are you on about? Show n Tell with ponder and preordain and maybe burning wish isn't less consistent than belcher XD and belcher doesn't run brainstorm so you wouldn't literally be making belcher less consistent than belcher. So I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

Weren't we just talking about MonoRed SneakAttack in this thread in terms of working without Brainstorm?

[Dice_Box]

I was simply pointing out it can be done. The idea that the format would be different after such a shake up is undebatable, the idea that decks would have to change is common sense. The idea that now you can't shuffle things away therefore the world ends on a deck like SnT though. I don't buy that. Miracles? I buy that. SnT? No.

Again though, what the fuck does it matter, it's never going to happen. This topic is beyond riden to death, we are beating the soil where once a dead horse decayed.

[Crimhead]

Come up with data that contradicts more than 2 years worth of collection or stop.

I know you were responding to anecdotal evidence, but I want to point out that our "two years of data" does not include comparisons of meta representation vs top8 penetration, nor does it include win-rates specifically within the top8. That's why (parts of) this thread have been so interesting and reasonable lately - we are finally looking at this data!

I didn't put it in context with the metagame structure, just tried to make a point in regards to Miracles having obviously a positive percentage not only during the previous rounds (see: the previous discussion about metagame share and top 8 presence), but ALSO within the T8 and against the other DtBs. I might should have done that - Sorry for that.

I don't see how your data supports this? Are you going by DTE's top8 data? His original figure was something like 51-52% win rate within the top8, but his newer data (I think he shared it after the post I quoted above) says 47.5%. the second calculation counted more events, and it also counted any events in 2016 (including data that predates Eldrazis, and data during the less stable meta adjustment. Given the nature of stats and variance, I think it's best if we conclude that Miracles is close to 50/50 in the top8 meta. Most likely it's a little more or a little less - but I don't think we have enough data to commit to either one.

"Top8" does not equal "metagame", mind that. "About to 50% winrate" in the T8 can be busted depending on the actual distribution of opposing decks we can get from DtB data. ~50% winrate has a very different value depending on if you achieve that against Lands/D&T/etc or against Jund/Storm.

Very true. I prefer to think of the top8 as simply a different, or sub-meta game.

Being 50/50 in the top8 meta is actually average. If we take every archetype that's ever been in the top8 ( in a defined, relevant, timeframe) and count their wins and losses, we will get a win-rate for each deck. 50/50 will be exactly dead average. The well positioned decks (within the top8) will have a >50% win-rate. The worse-than-average decks will have a <50% win rate.

Miracles gets its strength apparently not from being particularly well positioned in the top8 meta - but from being an average deck there plus a much better than average deck in the qualifying rounds. The difference between the metas is that by definition the top8 meta has a higher density of decks which are good on the preliminary meta; and also presumably a better average skill level.

In other words, Miracles is "the best deck" because it picks on weak players and weak decks better than the other decks which also hold their own in the top8 meta.

But to some people this would be a tragic reason for a ban! Because once we establish an "elite meta" - a meta that parallels the top8 meta in terms of deck distribution and players skill - Miracles is only an average deck or a little better. This "elite meta" also looks to be fairly well balanced. Half a dozen plus decks which regularly place (and are highly varied), plus a whooping ~30% of the meta made up of rogue or tier-two decks. It seems like such h a waste to disrupt this well balanced and diverse meta on account of it being warped by bad players and bad decks!

Maybe this was what Sidneyious was eluding too. A local meta that is populated by competent players mostly in DTBs is going to be well balanced and no picnic for Miracles.

On the other hand, reality is a thing. We might have a deck that is even better that Miracles at advancing to the top8 as well as advancing within the top8. But if this deck is barely played (for whatever reason), does it make sense to ban it? This would be a deck that should be a problem but isn't!

On the flip side, what if we had a deck that was just bellow 50/50 in both the Swiss meta and the top8, but was played in such high numbers that it dominated the format. Here is a deck that shouldn't be causing problems but nonetheless is. Do we allow a narrow meta to thrive because we think it shouldn't have to be like that? (I realise this isnt exactly the case with Miracles, but it's an exaggeration of a principle that does into play when we analyse the meta).

Thing is, I think a good case can be made for banning (a card from) Miracles, but an equally good case can be made for not banning anything.

I also think Miracles' days are numbered (as the top dog of the format). I know Randy Buehler doesn't work for WotC any more, but I suspect he and they think alike. If the new improved D&T doesn't knock Miracles down a peg, I think a ban is very likely. We might just get a ban regardless. On the plus side, maybe they'll give us Twist or Earthcraft?

That's one of the worst parts. You still have to continue playing in order not to give up on that tiny chance of still turning it around, heavily demoralizing you in the process.

I certainly can sympathise. A long grindy game vs Miracles with a deck that has a low win-rate vs Miracles is probably the most miserable and demoralizingly match that Legacy has to offer. I further suspect that with WotC paying more attention to Legacy, "fun-police" bans are a real possibility. Sadly, banning cards because decks are "not fun" to lose to would not stop at Miracles! If we want Legacy to include resource denial, fast combo, and efficient counter-spells, we should hope that WotC doesn't give a fuck if they think Legacy is fun or not!

@Crimhead, I think that is what people have been generally trying to say. The presence of Miracles greatly narrows the format down. Which in my mind is one of the characteristics / appeals of legacy. It plays fun police far too well against all archetypes and forces the resultant successful decks in its presence to behave in certain ways.

Me I'm just not seeing this. Other successful decks (DTBs) behave in a great variety of ways. Storm, D&T, Shardless, Lands, Pyromancer, S&T, Eldrazis, Infect... do any of these decks behave even similarly? As for narrowing the format down, we still have roughly 1/3 of the top8 meta belonging to archetypes outside the DTB. I think that's a pretty healthy share for tier-two decks!

Again, the issue isn't that the format is not diverse. It's that Miracles seems too good (compared to the other "good" decks at beating the softer competition in the earlier rounds. This is a legitimate problem; but it's simply not true that Miracles is pushing tier-two decks put of the meta, nor that it is limiting the other "good" decks to a narrow set of characteristics or styles (nothing could be further from true).

An interesting follow up would be to preform a similar analysis of other decks. Lemnear reported that Storm goes from a 6% meta share to a 15% top8 meta share! If this deck also holds a ~50% or better win-rate within the top8 meta, it's actually outperforming Miracles! I'd love to see numbers for the "good" decks with low representation, like Lands, Infect, Loam, etc. I probably do t have time to do this myself though.

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

Most Brainstorm decks are already redundant goodstuff packages built for the most part from general use cards.

I disagree.

Shardless and Delver are "good-stuff" decks. Brainstorm helps the draw the right proportions of functionality. Eg, the right balance between mana, removal, threats, counters, etc.

Reanimator, S&T, and Storm are not good-stuff! They run cards which are bad unless combined very specifically with other cards. You don't see "good-stuff" lists running rituals, fatties, petals, Sneak Attack, Exhume, LED, etc. Brainstorm is used to sculpt the perfect hand out of specific components, not general use cards.

Miracles is also a synergistic deck that balanced top-deck manipulation with cards that care the top of the deck (CB, miracle cards, which are not general purpose and can only fit into decks which specialise in manipulation).

Brainstorm again? Don't ever change y'all.

I know, right?

[Lemnear]

I don't see how your data supports this? Are you going by DTE's top8 data? His original figure was something like 51-52% win rate within the top8, but his newer data (I think he shared it after the post I quoted above) says 47.5%. the second calculation counted more events, and it also counted any events in 2016 (including data that predates Eldrazis, and data during the less stable meta adjustment. Given the nature of stats and variance, I think it's best if we conclude that Miracles is close to 50/50 in the top8 meta. Most likely it's a little more or a little less - but I don't think we have enough data to commit to either one.

-snip-

Being 50/50 in the top8 meta is actually average. If we take every archetype that's ever been in the top8 ( in a defined, relevant, timeframe) and count their wins and losses, we will get a win-rate for each deck. 50/50 will be exactly dead average. The well positioned decks (within the top8) will have a >50% win-rate. The worse-than-average decks will have a <50% win rate.

I refered to the range of 47,5%-52% against a DtB/T8 structure containing decks like D&T, Lands and Shardless (which are bad matchups for Miracles) and still having a 50/50 in that case is not neccessarily reasonable imo.

Miracles gets its strength apparently not from being particularly well positioned in the top8 meta - but from being an average deck there plus a much better than average deck in the qualifying rounds. The difference between the metas is that by definition the top8 meta has a higher density of decks which are good on the preliminary meta; and also presumably a better average skill level.

As just stated, on the paper it isn't well positioned due to the DtB status of the named decks (and the DtB status tied to performance), but still Miracles pulls off a solid 50/50 in the T8 DESPITE being the most hasted out deck and the DtB list filled with decks which prey on Miracles

But to some people this would be a tragic reason for a ban! Because once we establish an "elite meta" - a meta that parallels the top8 meta in terms of deck distribution and players skill - Miracles is only an average deck or a little better. This "elite meta" also looks to be fairly well balanced. Half a dozen plus decks which regularly place (and are highly varied), plus a whooping ~30% of the meta made up of rogue or tier-two decks. It seems like such h a waste to disrupt this well balanced and diverse meta on account of it being warped by bad players and bad decks!

bannings are always a bad option. We all want to evade such.

Maybe this was what Sidneyious was eluding too. A local meta that is populated by competent players mostly in DTBs is going to be well balanced and no picnic for Miracles.

...which still has zero relevance for discussing the grand scale of things. :)

On the flip side, what if we had a deck that was just bellow 50/50 in both the Swiss meta and the top8, but was played in such high numbers that it dominated the format. Here is a deck that shouldn't be causing problems but nonetheless is. Do we allow a narrow meta to thrive because we think it shouldn't have to be like that? (I realise this isnt exactly the case with Miracles, but it's an exaggeration of a principle that does into play when we analyse the meta).

Bares the question, why the large part of the metagame should pickup a deck with average statistics in general, which is nothing I think has ever happened in the history of the game (bold statement, I know). The closest thing fitting your description seems to be Delver and that type at least exists in flavors different enough for me to not speak about a narrowing metagame. Delver is a large chunk of the metagame, but not really over-/underperforming aka 50/50 from what I see.

I also think Miracles' days are numbered (as the top dog of the format). I know Randy Buehler doesn't work for WotC any more, but I suspect he and they think alike. If the new improved D&T doesn't knock Miracles down a peg, I think a ban is very likely. We might just get a ban regardless. On the plus side, maybe they'll give us Twist or Earthcraft?

If Randy "I don't know how Lodestone works despite playing against it for years" Buehler is the sole reason anything gets banned and not the 2+ years of metagame data, WotC should really just stop claiming they care for the format. Unfortunately the Player Council for the Vintage B&R is questionable as well

[Crimhead]

I refered to the range of 47,5%-52% against a DtB/T8 structure containing decks like D&T, Lands and Shardless (which are bad matchups for Miracles) and still having a 50/50 in that case is not neccessarily reasonable imo.

What kind of win-rates do you think the other decks have in this field? Two possibilities:

1. All the decks have a ~50/50 win rate in the top8 meta.
2. At least one deck is performing significantly above 50/50.

Miracles' win-rate is as reasonable as it can get!

As just stated, on the paper it isn't well positioned due to the DtB status of the named decks (and the DtB status tied to performance), but still Miracles pulls off a solid 50/50 in the T8 DESPITE being the most hasted out deck and the DtB list filled with decks which prey on Miracles

1. ~33% of the top8 meta is rogue decks, pet decks, and other wise tier two decks; not DTBs. You are ignoring a HUGE amount of data when you take that ~50/50 top8 win-rate and apply only to the DTB matches. Assuming Miracles is an overall favourite vs that 1/3 of the meta (which is evident by their impressive win rate pre-top8), it follows mathematically that Miracles is batting bellow 500 vs the portion of the top8 made up of DTBs.
2. DTBs are not decks that are gunning for Miracles! Some DTBs are actually underdogs to Miracles. Most decks with a very good Miracles MU struggle with the rest of the field. Besides Infect and possibly Eldrazis, DTBs are decks with a good balance of performance vs the rest of the meta combined with a miracles MU which is anywhere from slighly flavoured to bad-but-not-dismal.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds to be like you are saying Miracles averages a 50/50 win-rate vs a meta made up of its worst matches. This simply isn't the case.

[Quasim0ff]

I refered to the range of 47,5%-52% against a DtB/T8 structure containing decks like D&T, Lands and Shardless (which are bad matchups for Miracles) and still having a 50/50 in that case is not neccessarily reasonable imo.

This is not true. The new predict-miracles based on Snapcaster/Predict/Mentor (an evolution from the cantrip for days approach) doesn't have a bad matchup against shardless.

Miracles and Death and Taxes (as well as lands) are both player skill dependant, as well as matchup familiarity dependant.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Even with Boseiju, Miracles should be crushing lands about 60+% of the time.

Agree with the rest, D&T especially as you can completely steam roll D&T if they don't know what they're doing.

[Dice_Box]

Even with Boseiju, Miracles should be crushing lands about 60+% of the time.

I do not agree with this. Game one is not the easiest in the world, but when you bring in the Trackers it really changes up the game. Its not as hard as you think.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

I'll grant you that but I'm not certain that's something that can't be adapted to (like what was done with Choke)

[Dice_Box]

I'll grant you that but I'm not certain that's something that can't be adapted to (like what was done with Choke)

Thats fair, and I find that if they drop Mentor fast I am in for hell if i do not have an answer. That said it is not Miracles I fear right now, it's an updated DnT list. One card, that one card, can fuck me harder than anything Miracles is trying to do.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Eh, they're becoming a bit slower as a trade off (more time to make more 20/20s), wouldn't worry too much about it for now.

[Crimhead]

Thats fair, and I find that if they drop Mentor fast I am in for hell if i do not have an answer. That said it is not Miracles I fear right now, it's an updated DnT list. One card, that one card, can fuck me harder than anything Miracles is trying to do.

With the attention Wizards is paying to Legacy, I won't be surprised if they continue to do this - pushing cards that are not only not blue, but are specifically designed for decks that already aren't running blue.

I think five of the last six cards banned were blue? I predict this won't be the case going forward.

I agree that we should be close to 50/50 vs Miracles.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

They'd need to make something bonkers to think about banning a non-blue card. Like actually insulting they would print something that busted.

I may be underestimating D&T but 3 mana hatebears and white recruiters aren't going to take over the format

[Crimhead]

They'd need to make something bonkers to think about banning a non-blue card. Like actually insulting they would print something that busted.

I may be underestimating D&T but 3 mana hatebears and white recruiters aren't going to take over the format

I'm not saying D&T will need the banhammer! Just if they kept trying to make Legacy relevant cards in other colours, that's were they're next mistakes will happen.

[Dark Ritual]

I'm not saying D&T will need the banhammer! Just if they kept trying to make Legacy relevant cards in other colours, that's were they're next mistakes will happen.

Like, what do they have to print hypothetically to get something banned out of DnT for making DnT oppressive? 1 mana original or new thalia? It's far easier to get things banned from the blue cantrip shell because those decks are consistent as hell at abusing the card that ultimately gets axed since they can find it with the cantrip cartel. For white to be broken, historically, I can think of 3 cards. Land tax, stoneforge mystic, and balance. Land tax is now unplayable. Balance is still just one of the most broken cards of all time for its cost. Stoneforge is going to be legacy legal forever unless they print something that's way too obscene with it, like 10/10 living weapon + bounce it for 1 or something stupid. Current design philosophy isn't going to break DnT to banworthy either, as they are simply printing good creatures for it that could never hold a candle to the likes of lion's eye diamond and co. that legacy allows as 4 ofs.

Topic is beaten to death, but magic players still discuss it. Doesn't matter what we think, WotC is the one making the shots.

[Fox]

Like, what do they have to print hypothetically to get something banned out of DnT for making DnT oppressive?

I think this is more about Sanctum Prelate being a poorly designed card. There's nothing healthy about Prelate on 2, R/G Lands can't do anything anymore...btw RiP so no threshold (Barbarian Ring). If a DnT pilot has any idea of how other decks in the format work then Prelate is even viable maindeck.

Plenty of players like to play "but then I drew a removal spell" magic, but a large portion of eternal players choose either legacy or vintage to get away from that mentality. With cards like Prelate there is potential to shift the format away from trying to win to trying not to lose harder than your opponent. Lots of players think arbitrarily grindy/fair magic is fun, lots of players don't. Both are based on opinions and equally valid; what is important is that legacy accommodates both. It will take time to see the effect of Prelate, but it shouldn't be hard to imagine the disgust a pilot R/G Lands or storm deck would have with such card design, just in the hypothetical.