All B/R update speculation.

[iatee]

The legacy community is very small and dedicated to a format that enables you to play magic without buying magic cards.

[iatee]

In terms of their priorities, we are slightly ahead of 'Tiny Leaders players'.

[Megadeus]

Considering the release of eternal masters this year, I'd wager that you're probably wrong about that

[iatee]

Eternal Masters was a pretty easy way to print money. Maybe they'll do it again even. But they're not willing to offer institutional / tournament support for the format, and that matters more than the number of FoWs out there.

[Dice_Box]

Chalice is obviously the card that should be banned.

I disagree. Chalice is a useful tool to have. It puts pressure on the format in a unique way and it's right now one of the few tools that can stop the omnipresent cantrip shell.

Brainstorm is a card that, but all stated metrics from Wizards themselves, should be banned. But it's not going to be, we all know that. So if they are going to leave Brainstorm in the format, you have to leave the answer to it in the format also.

I know the comment is often "If Brainstorm is banned I'm leaving." in my case it's "If you take away Brainstorms counter, I lose faith and walk away."

As for Eldrazi being popular, feels fucking good not to have the most popular deck be one where the opponent sits their Masterbating for the whole fucking game. Why is it you bitch about Chalice so fucking much when there is another deck in this format that gets to play a one sided, multi CMC Chalice and the Cantrip shell? I can tell you, not being able to play 1 CMC spells is a real fucking cost. Being able to play Chalice on whatever number under five you like and play Cantrips? Yea, get off your crusade about Chalice and bitch about the real problem.

[Ronald Deuce]

stuff and things

Yeah; that guy couldn't have won that game without relying on The Shell of Brainstorm and Ponder.

[btm10]

I stay out of this thread normally but this just isn't a true statement.

Having played both sides of those matchups plenty, I strongly disagree.

[Lemnear]

Thanks for the data:

So Miracles did:

Place 3/8 decks in the Top 8 (37.5%)
Place 7/32 decks in the Top 32 (21.9%)
Place 13/64 decks in the Top 64 (20.3%)

All while being 10.4% of the field. It just continues the past trend that Miracles always overperforms at events that big. Sure, good players are on Miracles, but that still doesn't excuse the performace.

Its the same matter of overperformance I point at since months and I am glad that we got another full dataset to proof my points made in the past.

It however looks like that with Mentor the things became even worse than before. Thats a 95% to 260% overperformance rate from T64 to T8, meaning Miracles nearly TRIPPLED its representation within the top 64/32/8 cuts while other decks dropped out.

So, how long it takes this time until someone tries to attack the sheer numbers with arguments like "but they are exceptional players!" or "ok, ban unrelevant card X"?

[Stevestamopz]

Summing up some recent posts:

- If your spells can't resolve but you die slowly, it's bad.
- Someone else thinks that if your 1cmc spells can't resolve but you die quickly it's bad.
- These people also think that dying on turn 1 or 2, after having cast 0 spells (relevant or at all) is fine, that it's part of Legacy.



What's the difference? You didn't play a game of magic either way.

Please don't complain that Miracles and Eldrazi are boring when Show and Tell, Reanimator (both kinds) and Storm exist. They are all boring to play against at times, they are all products of overpushed bullshit, and they have all homogenised legacy into it's current state. Watching that japanese pro draw 14 cards in response to another spell was the most skill-intensive display of MtG I'd ever seen. It was almost too much for me.

[Lemnear]

Being able to interact > not being able to play

It isnt hard to understand

[Dice_Box]

Being able to interact > not being able to play

It isnt hard to understand

Doesn't matter if it's Chalice or Counter Top each one is going to fuck you out of the game. Saying that Chalice is a problem while defending Counter Top is hypocritical.

[Lemnear]

Doesn't matter if it's Chalice or Counter Top each one is going to fuck you out of the game. Saying that Chalice is a problem while defending Counter Top is hypocritical.

Except I dont. I have no problem with chalice as the decks running it have their own tradeoffs in Form of consistency. Having a similar effect in a cantrip shell while playing the clock? Not quite cool

[Ace/Homebrew]

Watching that japanese pro draw 14 cards in response to another spell was the most skill-intensive display of MtG I'd ever seen. It was almost too much for me.

You should have seen him draw 3 cards with Brainstorm, then pick 2 from his hand to put back on top of his library!

[Fox]

Please don't complain that Miracles and Eldrazi are boring when Show and Tell, Reanimator (both kinds) and Storm exist. They are all boring to play against at times, they are all products of overpushed bullshit, and they have all homogenised legacy into it's current state. Watching that japanese pro draw 14 cards in response to another spell was the most skill-intensive display of MtG I'd ever seen. It was almost too much for me.

I don't think anyone is actually calling for a ban on the grounds that a deck is subjectively boring to play versus. There are legitimate power level and tournament timing concerns with miracles. You can certainly make a sound argument that miracles should be banned for being boring though - insofar as broadcasting that deck at paper events is probably harmful to an end goal of growing the prospective legacy playerbase. It's not just that the lock is slow to watch being played out, it's also the incessant SDT activating and tanking - and there's not really anything for viewers or commentators to discuss there, b/c you generally can't even see the three cards they're basing decision on.

As far as Eldrazi goes, it's not any more boring to watch or play vs than any old lord/stompy deck. The other three you listed (skipping over B/R) keep a lot of nonsense, non-game hyper-combo decks out of the format, and off stream. You've basically said that as a player you don't like any type of combo; that's a fine personal opinion...but it's also antagonistic to growing the playerbase and overall format diversity. There's more than an emotional appeal of "I don't like that" behind saying miracles is boring, there are also rational external metrics which can be examined.

[Zombie]

For me it's a lot about the play itself. Is it "cast one card, game over or more or less over" (Chalice, S&T, Counter-Top, Blood Moon, Rest in Peace) or cobbling together a bunch of things to do stuff (Storm, Elves, D&T). Being locked out of the game or instakilled isn't something I find inherently bad (though a good number of Storm/Elves hands are pretty dull click click boom stuff as well), but something in me dies when it's "S&T, Griseltard, gg" or locking someone out of the game is the matter of casting a card. With eg. D&T, the lock gets built piece by piece and its specific construction has some nuance to it, it's usually not complete but at some point the opponent just concedes because he can't play Magic properly anymore.

[Sidneyious]

When you say things like "griseltard" then I can't take your seriously.

It seems you have a hatred for the established decks and your stuck with weaker decks or refuse to adapt or join them.

[Dice_Box]

Not everyone wants to join them, and adapt is a dickish argument when if you do adapt, and say use Chalice, then you are going to get yelled at for not wanting to play the game.

You just cant win unless you become one of the masses. Because if you are winning, its not legitimate and if your not winning, its all on you.

[DarthVicious]

Being able to interact > not being able to play

While I both understand and agree, this is Legacy. Almost every deck in this format is filled with ways to either win before your opponent can react, or to stop your opponent from doing anything regardless. Some decks lock you out right away with one or two cards, others build up their lock with many cards over time. Some decks would rather you win as fast as possible.

Legacy is almost the opposite of EDH in this regard. Legacy is where the cutthroat strategies exist because everyone wants to win. Those same strategies in EDH will get you hated off the table, mostly because no deck can handle the combined hatred of multiplayer Magic.

[Zombie]

When you say things like "griseltard" then I can't take your seriously.

It seems you have a hatred for the established decks and your stuck with weaker decks or refuse to adapt or join them.

I just don't like certain styles. I've no problem switching to a better-positioned deck that suits my tastes. I like D&T and BUG shells a lot, for example. But I don't like cards that read "I win" without prior preparation (eg. comboing out with an engine deck). They lead to dull games and I don't play exclusively for winrate, but fun as well. Putting myself into a coma for a win isn't really my idea for a productive use of free time.

I don't mind being locked out. D&T accruing hindrances until I can't find a way to play well enough to keep up anymore is wonderful. Delver decks hindering my mana and choosing counters well to keep up their tempo so I spend the whole game off balance is fine. I don't mind it at all.
I mind being locked out by someone casting a single (usually cheap) card that is basically game.

I don't mind being killed by some ridiculous over-the-top effect in the early turns. Just that, again, there's a difference between it being Show and Tell that has minimal exposure to anything and has Force backup vs. an Elves player casting NO where the win actually cares about board position to even be able to win in the first place, requires a sacrifice to even try, and has to be manuevered past the opponent's defenses because the shell doesn't support bruteforcing it through with free countermagic. Both are leagues behind cobbling together many cards so Llanowar Elves turn into Ancestral+Dark Ritual 2-in-1 packs or playing out a Storm line which needs a bunch of things to go right for PiF to become broken, or working out a combo turn with Tide. Even Griselbrand becomes more tolerable when the opponent has to expose it through a graveyard first, even if I still long for the day when Reanimator fatties actually cared about such paltry things as game state. When they put you ahead instead of winning outright.

[Fox]

I just don't like certain styles. I've no problem switching to a better-positioned deck that suits my tastes. I like D&T and BUG shells a lot, for example. But I don't like cards that read "I win" without prior preparation (eg. comboing out with an engine deck). They lead to dull games and I don't play exclusively for winrate, but fun as well. Putting myself into a coma for a win isn't really my idea for a productive use of free time.

I don't mind being locked out. D&T accruing hindrances until I can't find a way to play well enough to keep up anymore is wonderful. Delver decks hindering my mana and choosing counters well to keep up their tempo so I spend the whole game off balance is fine. I don't mind it at all.
I mind being locked out by someone casting a single (usually cheap) card that is basically game.

I don't mind being killed by some ridiculous over-the-top effect in the early turns. Just that, again, there's a difference between it being Show and Tell that has minimal exposure to anything and has Force backup vs. an Elves player casting NO where the win actually cares about board position to even be able to win in the first place, requires a sacrifice to even try, and has to be manuevered past the opponent's defenses because the shell doesn't support bruteforcing it through with free countermagic. Both are leagues behind cobbling together many cards so Llanowar Elves turn into Ancestral+Dark Ritual 2-in-1 packs or playing out a Storm line which needs a bunch of things to go right for PiF to become broken, or working out a combo turn with Tide. Even Griselbrand becomes more tolerable when the opponent has to expose it through a graveyard first, even if I still long for the day when Reanimator fatties actually cared about such paltry things as game state. When they put you ahead instead of winning outright.

Given its matchups vs SnS and Reanimator, it's kind of odd that piloting D&T has led to a mentality of Show and Tell is a problem card. Even if you're somehow losing to SnT decks on a regular basis; you're also not on a deck that either attacks the hand nor has a card they're ok dropping into play. You also need to remember what a deck like SnS protects you from in the grand scheme of things; unfair FoW decks generally love fighting even less fair decks (who are without FoW, and possibly also no discard). Control decks scrambling to cast the same white 2-drops as you aren't keeping the format honest - even if they were, cards that effectively read "I can't lose like this anymore" are intrinsically uninteractive. There's a lot of 'feels worse' ways to lose a game [without getting to play] than SnT; sometimes though that SnT deck is gonna come around and collect their service fees from you in the form of a win.