All B/R update speculation.

[Crimhead]

Afaik, you can "continue to play" your game without your permanents and 15 lost life.

So, If all your permanents are gone and you are at 5 life staring down a protected 15/15, you can still "play magic". But if all your 1cc spells are countered you cannot? Nice.

Emrakul into play almost always causes the opponent to (correctly) scoop - the possibility of further interaction is seriously reduced (usually outright eliminated). Playing Chalice out of the board to stall a Storm player does not cause a scoop, and the potential for interactive plays in that game has just increased. Everyone else understands this, as it's pretty obvious.

[Ronald Deuce]

Emrakul into play almost always causes the opponent to (correctly) scoop - the possibility of further interaction is seriously reduced (usually outright eliminated). Playing Chalice out of the board to stall a Storm player does not cause a scoop, and the potential for interactive plays in that game has just increased. Everyone else understands this, as it's pretty obvious.

As a pretty bottom-of-the-barrel Storm player, I've beaten a Snack-Attacked Emrakul at 1 life. I have never beaten a resolved Chalice in game 1. And (again, in G1) there's nothing interactive about facing a Chalice. I'm either sitting on a boatload of Cabal Rituals or I'm dead.

[Lemnear]

So, If all your permanents are gone and you are at 5 life staring down a protected 15/15, you can still "play magic". But if all your 1cc spells are countered you cannot? Nice.

Oh, Chalice can be set only at 1? You mean just like CounterTop cannot counter 0cc, 2cc, etc?

Emrakul into play almost always causes the opponent to (correctly) scoop - the possibility of further interaction is seriously reduced (usually outright eliminated).

Aha ... and this is only a problem in case of Emrakul, but not if Chalice or CounterTop is involved? Nice point of view

playing Chalice out of the board to stall a Storm player does not cause a scoop, and the potential for interactive plays in that game has just increased. Everyone else understands this, as it's pretty obvious.

But G1 Chalice or CounterTop likely causes a scoop, so whats your point

[Crimhead]

But G1 Chalice or CounterTop likely causes a scoop, so whats your point

My point is that Chalice as a SB card does not mean the deck is trying to avoid interaction in the same way as a main-deck Chalice (note - SB CotV never ever causes a G1 scoop).

I can't get why you are so focussed on the narrow "It must be mainboard and the card must be the strategy itself".

You're the one who doesn't want to distinguish between decks which run Chalice man vs decks that run it in the side to thwart combo. G1 examples don't further your position here!

Aha ... and this is only a problem in case of Emrakul, but not if Chalice or CounterTop is involved? Nice point of view

I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm saying it tends to reduce the potential for further interaction. Playing Chalice vs Storm or Decay on to kill a hate card does not.

[Dice_Box]

It's an odd turn of the norm. Crim and I are on the same side of an argument for once. But you two are talking at each other now, not to each other. I don't think your going to get anywhere so maybe it's time to agree to disagree?

[Zombie]

So, If all your permanents are gone and you are at 5 life staring down a protected 15/15, you can still "play magic". But if all your 1cc spells are countered you cannot? Nice.

Emrakul into play almost always causes the opponent to (correctly) scoop - the possibility of further interaction is seriously reduced (usually outright eliminated). Playing Chalice out of the board to stall a Storm player does not cause a scoop, and the potential for interactive plays in that game has just increased. Everyone else understands this, as it's pretty obvious.

He's just being an ass like usual - I guess the point was that an Emrakul attack is, for most intents and purposes, game over then and there even if you can technically play, the same way Chalice at 1 can blank most of a Delver or Storm player's deck, for example. The game technically goes on but no, not really.

[Lemnear]

He's just being an ass like usual - I guess the point was that an Emrakul attack is, for most intents and purposes, game over then and there even if you can technically play, the same way Chalice at 1 can blank most of a Delver or Storm player's deck, for example. The game technically goes on but no, not really.

Thats what I said, before he was suddenly changing the topic to "SB Chalice".

We started out at "CounterTop, Thalia and Chalice being cards played to ensure the opponent cant play their cards", but it got derailed to ridicule the point

[iatee]

Not if they only ban out OP decks. You're talking about banning a card not because the deck is over-powered, but rather because in your opinion that deck should be under-powered.

Saying no deck should be over-powered is not picking winners. saying certain select decks do not deserve to eb tier-one is picking winners.

'Overpowered' is a judgment call. There is no objective 'overpowered ' and it's hard to even attempt a definition that doesn't include Brainstorm. I think Chalice is overpowered not because it's a stronger card than Brainstorm (it obviously isn't) but because its power makes the format less interactive and interesting and increases the number of one turn games.

The cards that are legal in the format are the result of decisions Wizards made. Recently Wizards pushed DnT and Eldrazi by printing a bunch of cards for them - that was 'picking winners'. These cards didn't appear out of nowhere, they weren't handed down from God and they weren't the result of a competitive free market. Sometimes Wizards makes mistakes, mostly due to the fact that they don't really care that much when they print cards that make Legacy worse. In the case of Eldrazi they just made Legacy a little clunkier and dumber. The same was true for DTT, and eventually they came to their senses and banned it - it was not overpowered to an extent that the format was unplayable. But it was pretty bad and DTT Omnitell was a dumb deck.

[HammerAndSickled]

I think that Chalice, Thalia, and Counterbalance are all very interactive cards. Anyone who says they just scoop to them G1 has made a choice NOT to interact and now they're getting salty about it. No one is forcing you to build decks that fold to these kinds of effects. Yes, 1cmc cards are good, but by playing cards of varied mana costs (and in the case of Thalia/Sphere, playing creatures) you get to dodge or eliminate the hate. Your choice whether to interact with Chalice and company or not happens not in game, but before the game even begins, while you're making your deckbuilding decisions. And that's a really awesome thing that only really exists in Legacy.

Lemnear, I'm really surprised that you're on that side of the argument, because Storm pressures the metagame in exactly the same way. It requires specific constraints in deckbuilding to combat it (cheap or free stack interaction, lock pieces, or discard) and we always say "if you play a deck that can't beat storm, you deserve to lose to it." How is Chalice and friends any different? And both Storm and Chalice decks have a percentage of games where even if you came prepared, you'll still lose. Maybe I had Force force Flusterstorm and he shredded my hand and went off, maybe I had 2 decays and he had T1 Chalice into t2 Lodestone and I never got to cast them. That's just variance.

All strategies deserve a shot in Legacy. If you're sick of losing to Chalice or Countertop play a deck that shits on them. But be aware that like everything else, there's an opportunity cost.

[taconaut]

As a pretty bottom-of-the-barrel Storm player, I've beaten a Snack-Attacked Emrakul at 1 life. I have never beaten a resolved Chalice in game 1. And (again, in G1) there's nothing interactive about facing a Chalice. I'm either sitting on a boatload of Cabal Rituals or I'm dead.

I hate Chalice as much as (actually, probably more than) the next guy, but strictly speaking, Chalice is interactive in the sense that it demands that you interact - the point of Storm is that we get to win by interacting as little as possible, and Chalice forces us to do things like board in decays. It sucks real bad and feels like a blowout in game one, but because it is interactive in a way we usually don't have to or don't want to deal with.

I liked the observation a page or two back that everyone is complaining about different things and that it's a good sign for format balance. I would personally love it if Chalice and Counterbalance were banned, but I have a hard time convincing myself it actually makes sense from a powerlevel/diversity standpoint. As hard as it is to beat Miracles with storm, and as dumb as I think Eldrazi is, I think it's important that they exist.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Sometimes Wizards makes mistakes, mostly due to the fact that they don't really care that much when they print cards that make Legacy worse.

Aren't the mistakes what define Legacy?

Wasn't Storm a mistake?
Wasn't Dredge a mistake?
Wasn't Jace, the Mind Sculptor a mistake?
How about Deathrite Shaman? Or Batterskull? Or Dark Depths after the 'legendary' rules change?

Legacy is interesting because you can use the mistakes.


Also, as someone who started in Legacy playing Goblins, I have to laugh when I hear Storm players complain that Chalice on turn 1 is bad for the game because it reduces interaction.

[rlesko]

I think that Chalice, Thalia, and Counterbalance are all very interactive cards. Anyone who says they just scoop to them G1 has made a choice NOT to interact and now they're getting salty about it. No one is forcing you to build decks that fold to these kinds of effects. Yes, 1cmc cards are good, but by playing cards of varied mana costs (and in the case of Thalia/Sphere, playing creatures) you get to dodge or eliminate the hate. Your choice whether to interact with Chalice and company or not happens not in game, but before the game even begins, while you're making your deckbuilding decisions. And that's a really awesome thing that only really exists in Legacy.

No. They are by definition not interactive. They prevent you from casting cards in your hand. I am actually baffled you could convince yourself these cards are interactive.. And the assumption that people who scoop to chalice are only "being salty" is incorrect. Managing the clock is an important aspect of comp REL tournament magic. Conserving time is important to be able to play both post board games. This also doesn't make any sense... "No one is forcing you to build decks..." as if, you could build a competitive legacy deck while also keeping up with the speed of the format by "varying CMC" arbitrarily. Shall I play incinerate instead of lightning bolt to vary my CMC? And let deathrites and delvers live for turns before I kill them? Should I play mana leak instead of spell pierce? Because according to you, I just made the choice to play lightning bolt for no reason, and efficient removal and stack interaction isn't important in a format where you can die turn 2.

That being said, I think chalice is a fine card for the format (symmetrical effect) but counterbalance has to go.

[Stuart]

Moving on, I feel like they should unban Earthcraft, and maybe something like Mystical Tutor or Gush.

As a quick point, I think you're right about Earthcraft but wrong about Gush. Having played against that card in both Vintage and Pauper, it absolutely should not ever be unbanned in Legacy. Mentor/Pyromancer decks go absolutely nuts with that card. Also, Gush in response to Wasteland is pretty fucking lame.

Earthcraft and Mind Twist are the obvious next 2 unbans. I'd like to see Frantic Search and Recruiter, too, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Megadeus]

As a pretty bottom-of-the-barrel Storm player, I've beaten a Snack-Attacked Emrakul at 1 life. I have never beaten a resolved Chalice in game 1. And (again, in G1) there's nothing interactive about facing a Chalice. I'm either sitting on a boatload of Cabal Rituals or I'm dead.

I mean at this point we're swapping anecdotal evidence, but I've certainly won a few games through a chalice on one before with storm in game 1's. It's not actually super hard, it just requires a certain hand. Hell the other night I played against Tez and beat chalice on one once, and would've beaten chalice on one and 0 in game three had I remembered to put a badlands in the deck.

[Ace/Homebrew]

No. They are by definition not interactive. They prevent you from casting cards in your hand. I am actually baffled you could convince yourself these cards are interactive..

I get his point. If you are playing Storm against a deck that cannot interact on the stack, YOU are trying to win as fast as possible without interaction. If I play Chalice @ 1, I am interacting with you by shutting you down instead of losing myself. In that sense, I added a layer of interaction that otherwise wouldn't have been there.

And the assumption that people who scoop to chalice are only "being salty" is incorrect. Managing the clock is an important aspect of comp REL tournament magic. Conserving time is important to be able to play both post board games.

The two are not mutually exclusive, both can be true. Not all players that scoop to Chalice are salty about it, but not all of them do it to save time (but ARE salty).

[Crimhead]

Thats what I said, before he was suddenly changing the topic to "SB Chalice".

We started out at "CounterTop, Thalia and Chalice being cards played to ensure the opponent cant play their cards", but it got derailed to ridicule the point

We started off with you saying every deck needs to play Counter-Top, Decay, or Chalice.

You play either Countertoo, chalice or Decay in Legacy, if you want to actually win anything

I argued that of five DTBs, only one plays Chalice, one plays Counter-Top, and one plays AD. The other two are Lands and D&T:

There are currently five decks in DTB. One plays Counter-Top, one plays Chalice (main), one plays Decay. The other two do not. Maybe we should say:

• Play Counter-Top, or
• Play Chalice, or
• Play Decay, or
• Play Vial, or
• Play Loam

Not really much substance here, because that basically says play any one of the five DTBs!

Then you rejected the distinction between SB Chalice vs maindeck Chalice:

Funny that you talk about "accurate" description, given that Loam plays Chalice and you still count it as two decks. Its not that you differ for sideboard Decays either.

I can't get why you are so focussed on the narrow "It must be mainboard and the card must be the strategy itself".

So I didn't change gears. I've been arguing al along that 2/5 DTBs don't run the cards you claimed to be necessary as main strategies which discourage interaction.

[taconaut]

Also, Gush in response to Wasteland is pretty fucking lame.

You misspelled, "pretty fucking awesome"

Also, I'm definitely one of the storm players who doesn't scoop to chalice but does get salty about it

It definitely sucks, but I've been told getting domed for twenty before you get to play a land sucks too, but lord knows I'm not going to stop trying to do that to people

[Fox]

What's a real game of magic? I like descriptive language better than emotive language.

In terms of facing graveyard-based decks, mulling to Leyline or casting RiP would be uninteractive whereas a card like DRS is interactive. Adding to board/gamestate complexity is probably the best way to define interactive; and interactive cards lead to real games of magic. There is nothing clever or desirable about making a game unwinnable for opponent until they remove specific un-linked card with specific removal that can't be interacted with (aka Decay); such things should be built around or require drawbacks or be incredibly narrow...or (since you can't go back and add drawbacks like culm. upkeep to uninteractive cards) printing of new cards that serve as removal while doubling as sub-par engine pieces.

[taconaut]

In terms of facing graveyard-based decks, mulling to Leyline or casting RiP would be uninteractive whereas a card like DRS is interactive.

I feel like this is pretty reasonable.

Adding to board/gamestate complexity is probably the best way to define interactive; and interactive cards lead to real games of magic. There is nothing clever or desirable about making a game unwinnable for opponent until they remove specific un-linked card with specific removal that can't be interacted with (aka Decay); such things should be built around or require drawbacks or be incredibly narrow...or (since you can't go back and add drawbacks like culm. upkeep to uninteractive cards) printing of new cards that serve as removal while doubling as sub-par engine pieces.

This I'm not sure about - for instance, the nature of BUG or Jund in a lot of formats, including Legacy to an extent, is to play a lot of un-linked, individually powerful cards, and those decks are as interactive as they come.

I think people are arguing different points and calling both interactivity:

1. Chalice and the like are interactive, because they force opponents to care about each other (as a storm player, I don't care what you're doing as long as I can resolve nine spells and then tendrils; Chalice interacts with me and makes me interact because I now care about your boardstate)

2. Chalice and the like have a limited number of answers, making certain decks unable to deal with them reasonably outside of sideboard cards.

I think many of the people saying debating that chalice is uninteractive (i.e., contesting #1) are really arguing #2. The question is, does requiring particular answers or mana curves to beat qualify a card for banning? I would say no, presuming it isn't completely oppressive.

[Zombie]

One key thing about the "uninteractive" cards: Their effect is usually very brutal, and binary in nature. It's why game loss examples and might as well scoop arguments come up. With a heavy graveyard deck you're either fucked up by RIP or not, that's pretty much it. A greedy BUG deck can somewhat handle a resolved RIP depending on build, it makes the game really difficult but you've got tools to work with, a Blood Moon you don't have the answer for then and there is pretty much game because your whole deck turns into blanks.

That's the difference between eg. D&T which builds up these kinds of "you still have realistic game left" hindrances one after another until they amount to "can't play Magic effectively at all anymore" - where you can fight against the buildup and where there's nuance to the kind of prison the white player is building vs. someone casting Chalice and, well, I guess I can still cast Tarmogoyf... the end state is the same, the route to getting there not at all, in the Chalice scenario it's just an on/off switch between you being able to do shit or not.

It's a similar kind of difference playing, say, Storm vs. Delver where both people have lots of nuanced interaction available but can also make completely backbreaking plays if they sniff out a window or can build themselves one. In contrast, G1 ANT vs. Elves with Teeg is awful. Resolve Teeg, yay, such skill, they scooped up. A game didn't really happen. Postboard Teeg is more of a speedbump instead of a win condition in itself, and the game becomes something with maybe some back and forth, but regardless of win percentages I'd play Delver vs. Storm any day of the week. It's just a better matchup.

As far as I'm concerned, that can be permissible but I'd never consider these kinds of one-card-and-fucked scenarios desirable. Many of the endstates can be achieved more interactively, and hate cards made into something that has play to it - Relic, Crypt, DRS, Nihil bomb, Knight+Bog are all amazing. RIP is shit outside the matchups where it's an incidental value card.