All B/R update speculation.

[Fox]

Why would I not run Cavern in my tribal deck against a sea of blue decks?
Why would I not run Vial in my Merfolk/Goblin/Humans deck?
Why would I not run Decay in my b/g/x deck when it kills almost every non-land permanent in the format, at no risk?

Why play disenchant and smother when for BG, I can get the effect of both? Why would you dedicate 7 slots to kill different things when you can just play 4 copies of the one card and it will kill Thalia, blow up Jitte and destroy Cop: Black all the same? Seriously, come on.

You have named some of the few decks which will run Caverns and/or Vial regardless of CB being legal or not, which were alluded to in my last post.

Decay is the sausage of legacy, it looks great on the stack but you don't want to know how it made it there...the questionable manabase/fetching decisions, the presupposition of 2 mana, complete and utter dead space in a hand until opponent plays a target. I mean we're talking about what might be the least proactive card in the format. I'm afraid that the reason Decay is so over-used is that if there is any [non-Misdirection or exile from stack] way to stop you from killing Counterbalance, then the answer isn't good enough...because if it ever fails, you are no longer playing magic. Just like the other non-interactive cards Decay would see some play with CB banned, but sleeving it up means you're signing on for a deliberately slow and grindy game - and that's a much better reason to use it than being literally unable to play magic through CB without it.

Removal for the sake of removal is the antithesis of magic from the standpoint of combo. Removal-based mindsets are the domain of fair decks and control. The uncounterable clause and effect of Decay is powerful, but analyzing the card only from the removal-based mindset, and unilaterally determining how great the card is, is somewhat tunnel-visioned analysis.

[Ronald Deuce]

Decay is the sausage of legacy, it looks great on the stack but you don't want to know how it made it there...

This is too good not to sig.

[tescrin]

As for Tescrin... DnT is favoured against Miracles, Thalia does nothing against Show -> Omni -> Emrakul, or even better Show -> Omni -> Grisel, draw 14, cast Emrakul, 22 you. How are you surprised that Miracles has a good matchup against the deck that beats Omni/Show (aka Delver)?

Your comments about Miracles being tier 0 are way off, it has predators in Shardless and DnT and it's matchup against Sneak and Show is not fantastic either.

Are you really arguing that D&T isn't an absolute predator of S&T? It's literally the deck that pushed SneakShow out (not omnishow.) You also move the goalposts on Lemnear when you answer him; because you realize it literally takes a god hand for S&T to beat D&T. Not only does it take S&T, Omni, and Emmy, but it takes basic lands, no porting, and good chance of requiring 4 mana. What's it take D&T? Any combination of 2 of like 20 cards in their deck. Revokers, Wisps, Karakas, Thalia 1.0 to slow things down, Thalia 2.0 shutting down Sneak. You get the idea. This is a well defined "Worst matchup ever." Please don't. Sanctum Prelate seals the deal on S&T also.

I also really don't think D&T "preys" on Miracles and the Shardless/Miracles threads imply that it's not as bad as it's made to be. If you were correct on D&T or Shardless, why would they not have equal standing in the Top 8s? Are they all just worse players than the Miracles players?

It was also just said by Tescrin that Miracles has no bad matchups. Now you're saying it has a mediocre matchup against Show and Tell. Which one dude?

We're not a monolith. I have no issue with Chalice F.E., I have an issue with something that is ubiquitously known as the best deck that has no viable predators. I could've talked about 12-Post but it's obviously not performing.

The problem is that I perceive Legacy as solved. There's an ubiquitously considered/known best deck. A deck that has shown itself to be so for years on end. We can disagree on that being a good reason or not; but I am pretty sure we agree on the premise.

EDIT: I also don't think S&T is particularly good against Miracles. If the meta adjusts; miracles just hot-swaps a couple cards back to pyroblast and continues. If anything S&T would chase out Shardless; leaving Miracles in a similar situation as it is now relative to number of mediocre MUs. If you have an S&T/Miracles/x/y/z format, you'll have a lot of blood moons running around again. This is all just armchair spitballing at this point though.

[iatee]

If you were correct on D&T or Shardless, why would they not have equal standing in the Top 8s? Are they all just worse players than the Miracles players?

Yes. This is genuinely the reason.

[tescrin]

If you were correct on D&T or Shardless, why would they not have equal standing in the Top 8s? Are they all just worse players than the Miracles players?

Yes. This is genuinely the reason.

Citation needed.

Did I win the argument by using a one sentence quip!?

[iatee]

Even if you think your own 'one sentence quip' is really clever, you undermine yourself by saying stuff like 'Did I win the argument by using a one sentence quip!?' If you want to do that, I would actually suggest making a second account here so you can instead have a hype man who follows up your posts with 'DDAAMN. tescrin just won the argument with a one sentence quip.' (relevant animated gif)

[Crimhead]

This is probably mostly due to the fact that the Infect matchup really isn't that bad for Miracles.

It's an atrocious match for Miracles. Also it doesn't run Abrupt Decay.

[Lemnear]

It's an atrocious match for Miracles. Also it doesn't run Abrupt Decay.

It just runs Krosan Grip and loses hard to Eldrazi. All cool

[tescrin]

My point was you put up a one sentence quip, so I did that too; showing that they are both equally meaningless.

Your "point" in that post was an unfalsifiable claim that is mired by correlation/causation problems if you attempted to prove it. You can't, so you moved the goalposts from "It's not the best deck" to "Well I mean it's only the best deck in the hands of the best players"; which isn't even a refutation.

[Ace/Homebrew]

I would actually suggest making a second account here so you can instead have a hype man who follows up your posts with 'DDAAMN. tescrin just won the argument with a one sentence quip.' (relevant animated gif)

It's called a 'sock puppet'.


DDAAMN Ace! You the man!

[Stevestamopz]

With Sneak Attack back on the forefront of the format, a new natural (kind of-) predator of Miralces has (re-)emerged, which is something that most of us like to see.

Now who said that Miracles had a good Sneak and Show matchup again?
Source

I am just not going to argue over Abrupt Decay. It is the most efficient and universal removal spell in this game. Ban Miracles and everyone will still play 3-4 in their BGX deck.

[Julian23]

Now who said that Miracles had a good Sneak and Show matchup again?

What are you alluding to? Miracles has never had a good Sneak Show matchup.

[Stevestamopz]

What are you alluding to? Miracles has never had a good Sneak Show matchup.

People were saying that Miracles was favoured to beat absolutely everything, even SnS. If the miracles ubermensch can't change people's minds, nothing can. I still believe this thread to be valuable and worthwhile having, even if it is just venting 90% of the time, and I treat it as such.

[Chatto]

I still believe this thread to be valuable and worthwhile having, even if it is just venting 90% of the time, and I treat it as such.

This thread is not only valuable, it is hilarious. If people don't blame deck W or card X for being OP, they will blame deck Y or card Z for being OP.

[Dice_Box]

I still believe this thread to be valuable and worthwhile having, even if it is just venting 90% of the time, and I treat it as such.

Agreed. Makes Modding the site much simpler to have the dumpster fire contained to one location.

[Richard Cheese]

Agreed. Makes Modding the site much simpler to have the dumpster fire contained to one location.

We should probably make this thread visible only to registered users if we haven't already. That way unsuspecting folks just trying to learn more about the format won't stumble across it.

[Star|Scream]

This thread is not only valuable, it is hilarious. If people don't blame deck W or card X for being OP, they will blame deck Y or card Z for being OP.

Whatever, that's just your opinion. Card Z has been busted for years now.

[Ronald Deuce]

I am just not going to argue over Abrupt Decay. It is the most efficient and universal removal spell in this game. Ban Miracles and everyone will still play 3-4 in their BGX deck.

That's true, but that's not the way things are working right now. Decks are splashing a fourth color for a sideboard card for which there's no substitute, and they're doing it because there are two or three cards that define what the metagame is right now for which there are no comparable answers. That's not good, especially because those decks are solid or excellent without contorting themselves for Decay against any number of decks that don't run those two or three cards.

People were saying that Miracles was favoured to beat absolutely everything, even SnS. If the miracles ubermensch can't change people's minds, nothing can. I still believe this thread to be valuable and worthwhile having, even if it is just venting 90% of the time, and I treat it as such.

Don't remember who said that, but again, even if a deck has bad matchups, that doesn't make it a bad deck. Every deck has bad matchups. That doesn't mean that some of those decks aren't better than others.

[iatee]

Maybe we should just ban Abrupt Decay?

[Crimhead]

It just runs Krosan Grip and loses hard to Eldrazi. All cool

Okay. First there is a claim that too many decks are running Decay (even though only one of the five DTBs normally runs it, and three of the other four never run it). Now you have an issue with a couple decks running Grip in the SB? Wow dude!

It just runs Krosan Grip and loses hard to Eldrazi. All cool

Everything loses to something. Most of us consider Infect to be a tier one deck - or at least awfully close.

I think the issue with Infect is that people who want to play Daze, FOW, and Brainstorm are typically "fair deck" players and would rather play a Delver than Berserk Stompy. These are probably the same people who count Infect as a combo deck!

Aggro Loam is in a similar boat. It's a good deck with a great Miracles match (and no slouch against Eldrazi either), but people who want to play Goyf and KotR don't want to play a Loam engine or a "Chalice deck". Aggro Loam should be the go-to archetype for anybody who wants to play something like Maverick or Jund midrange; but I sometimes think the only people who actually play it are wannabe Lands players who are one Tabernacle short!

This is what we mean by "adapt". If you're having trouble winning with Thresh, switch to Pyromancer or Infect. If Maverick or Jund aren't getting results, switch to Loam. Or stick with a tier-two deck and accept your handicap - just don't go looking for any sympathy!

People were saying that Miracles was favoured to beat absolutely everything, even SnS.

I know, right? Somebody even told me Miracles does okay against Infect!
The lack of objectivity on behalf of disgruntled Legacy players is unreal. This thread is worse than Reddit sometimes.