Do you enjoy the current state of legacy?

[maharis]

I agree with most of these points. Especially the lands point. Lands used to be an incredible interesting deck that has turned into a pile of snoozefest.

Your last point though about what are you bringing to beat CB Top, the issue I have is that a majority of the time the answer is, I play abrupt decay. The color restrictive part of the card is nice, but you basically end up like what Reid Duke said in his article. I want to play brainstorm because I have to to win. I'm in blue. I want to have good answer to counter balance, but not play counter balance myself. I'm BUG. Boom. From there you already have 75% of a deck build simply because when you're in those colors you have to play certain cards. It's homogenizing and it kind of sucks

Seconding this.

The upshot is that Decay is the only guaranteed way to get rid of a counterbalance in the format. (Other than weird stuff like Cavern -> creature with ETB nuke enchantment.) Everything else can be hit off the CB trigger or just Forced from hand if need be. And its presence hasn't done anything to make CB/Top a less attractive option; in fact, CB/Top has been the best deck in the format the entire time Decay has been legal.

The collateral damage from that is what's also impeding enjoyment of the format. More Decays -> less ability to build around CMC<3 permanents. Think decks like Painter or Stiflenought or even Thopters. Then, you have all the cards in UB that are good against Decay: Angler, TNN, Jace, etc.

Obviously you don't HAVE to play blue with your BG spell, but there's not a really good reason not to. Playing the blue cantrips lets you skimp on lands so you can play more of the strong cards in BG. Between counterspells, hand disruption, and decay you're probably ready to answer 90% of the commonly played cards in the format. And you're best equipped to fight those cards as well.

I do feel like the problem stems from Miracles being the uncontested best deck for several years now as it clearly warps the meta around it. The increase in AD is just the symptom, not the cause.

But let's assume Wizards actually gave a shit and axed one part of the Counterbalance combo. How much would the AD ratio actually decrease? It's still an incredible flexible removal spell that can't be countered.

As for DRS, let's not forget how much GY abuse we had to suffer before DRS became mainstream. It may be a broken creatures, but it also has good sides.

Decay is obviously good, but it is mostly tempo-negative. There are a number of cards that getting Decayed is just sort of meh or impossible. The only card I would say it really keeps in check is Delver of Secrets, since Delver doesn't do much but hit for a few points before getting hit by Decay. But letting someone untap with a DRS or Mom, or spending your turn getting rid of their Bob or Stoneforge so it doesn't get active, are not really swingy plays. That Decay looks pretty bad against the turn 2 TNN because you couldn't tag their DRS. Or even if it's something like Knight... they still have a DRS which is a threat in and of itself. Decay vs. Thalia is pretty bad.

There also may be more diverse threats outside of Decay's range since the fear of such a threat eating a Force or STP or Terminus reduces a little bit. Miracles owning the late game right now holds a lot of other late-game decks back. Nic Fit may be the No. 1 example of this.

This is sort of an optimistic view because obviously Decay is a very powerful card and there's plenty of support around it. But I don't think it's an auto 4-of in decks as long as the threat of Counterbalance doesn't loom as large.

[Lemnear]

Er, sure? There aren't many decks that don't fall under that huge blanket statement. CB and Chalice are part of the format, if you're weak to them by having a low curve, play answers for them. If you're not, don't. Lands rarely runs more than one CotV in the SB anyway, it's hardly a 'chalice deck'.

I will not argue over list x from event y running z Chalice. The point is that the list of card which can answer Chalice and Counterbalance is VERY limited

There's a huge difference to DnT and Delver, I'm very surprised you're even asking.

The only difference is that one deck has parts of its tempo components in hand until needed while the other deck has all on the battlefield. That does not affect the general strategy of the decks.

Of course it's interacting, maybe our definitions differ then, but they're stopping you from doing things by interacting...I don't know how else to put it. Would you also argue that Storm is not an interactive deck?

You are missing the point. Storm does not want the opponent to interact, that however does not mean that it can't run cards to react to its opponents. "Interaction" means for me that BOTH players are able to DO something during a game. That is not the case if you get killed T1 or locked out from doing anything other than dropping lands.

[janchu88]

as i mentioned earlier, im going to add some sophisticated data (2011 - 2017) to the discussion. After a long day at work, ive managed several things, but now i´ll leave it for several hours to compute.

What i did so far:

- I extracted all the played cards
- Increased Resolution to Quarters for each year
- Wrote the code to analyze the Metashare for each played card by quarter... This step will take several hours and is currently running

Coming Up
- Analyze the Meta for changes at a certain Treshhold for each single card in between quarters. The question i can anwser by that is: Which cards came into the format and which in conclusion got pushed out. The computing on this wont take long, so ill test with different treshholds to give a conclusive image... but i wont make it today anymore, since i gotta get up early tomorrow again

And for everyone who is interested: This is what the data looks like being computed now (2193 different cards were played in legacy during this era btw)



So stay tuned for more

[Phoenix Ignition]

I picked "not really."

After playing Vintage a bunch it's clear to me that having 4x Brainstorm and 4x Ponder in every deck is just absurd. If Vintage allowed you to choose either:

1) 1x Ancestral Recall, 1x Time Walk, 1x Brainstorm, 1x Ponder, fill in the rest of cantrips with Preordain
or
2) 4x Brainstorm, 4x Ponder, fill in the rest with whatever

I would strongly consider the 4x Brainstorm 4x Ponder package. With all that variance reduction it's no wonder the game has grown stale.

[thecrav]

I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning.
Your posts suggests that you don't like the combo because it's too powerful or uninteractive?

It's not that stage/depths is too powerful that I don't like. I don't like that it's not interesting. It's classic herp+derp combo.

[Lemnear]

I picked "not really."

After playing Vintage a bunch it's clear to me that having 4x Brainstorm and 4x Ponder in every deck is just absurd. If Vintage allowed you to choose either:

1) 1x Ancestral Recall, 1x Time Walk, 1x Brainstorm, 1x Ponder, fill in the rest of cantrips with Preordain
or
2) 4x Brainstorm, 4x Ponder, fill in the rest with whatever

I would strongly consider the 4x Brainstorm 4x Ponder package. With all that variance reduction it's no wonder the game has grown stale.

This statement is absolutely pointless. Your case 1) would be more accurate if you list Treasure Cruise, Demonic Tutor, Mystical Tutor and Vampric Tutor instead of the Preordains and set it in powerlevel-context of the cards you grab with that "variance reduction" tools. Do you really want to tell me that casting Ponder is more reliable than Demonic Tutor from a variance point of view?

[CutthroatCasual]

It's okay. I like that the power players are well defined, but that they're not so dominant that you need to play one of them to succeed. In other words, it's nice to have pillars of the format but not ones that are unbeatable. Do I wish more decks had a more equal share of the meta? Sure. But that's just not realistically going to happen. I'd much rather have what we have now, a more or less stale tier 1 but with several top performing tier 1.5 and tier 2 decks rather than a rotating tier 1 and nonviable tier 1.5 and tier 2 decks (aka a rock-paper-scissors meta).

[Megadeus]

It's not that stage/depths is too powerful that I don't like. I don't like that it's not interesting. It's classic herp+derp combo.

This. The lands decks went from an interesting deck with many options each turn and varying ways to gain an average to "end of turn crop rotation make a 20/20 GG"

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

"I liked it better when it sucked"

[Megadeus]

"I liked it better when it sucked"

It was a very good deck then. People just didn't play it then because it was a difficult deck to pilot correctly and the internet never told them to play it.

[Chatto]

It's not that stage/depths is too powerful that I don't like. I don't like that it's not interesting. It's classic herp+derp combo.

This. The lands decks went from an interesting deck with many options each turn and varying ways to gain an average to "end of turn crop rotation make a 20/20 GG"

Which is awesome! I love the deck, and how it looks like, feels like, and plays like a (non-Blue) combo deck (which I think is the reason people are starting to dislike the deck), or go the 'classic' route of looking your opponent out of the game.

It's okay. I like that the power players are well defined, but that they're not so dominant that you need to play one of them to succeed. In other words, it's nice to have pillars of the format but not ones that are unbeatable. Do I wish more decks had a more equal share of the meta? Sure. But that's just not realistically going to happen. I'd much rather have what we have now, a more or less stale tier 1 but with several top performing tier 1.5 and tier 2 decks rather than a rotating tier 1 and nonviable tier 1.5 and tier 2 decks (aka a rock-paper-scissors meta).

I agree, but I still miss 'the old days' with Goblins and weird brews, though.

[Crimhead]

I can only speak from the Elves perspective, but I enjoy playing against Storm a lot. DRS gives the matchup more depth than fair decks used to have in the past.

I like playing against Storm with Lands. I need to be very lucky G1, but postboard is an interesting race. Usually I can land a lock piece to stall them. Then I need to either win quickly or else drown them with mana denial and more Prison pieces. I can also sometimes Bog their yard with PiF on the stack. I find the decisions interesting and the games intense. I'm usually a good favourite post board, but I need to win twice in a row. Fun times!

I agree with most of these points. Especially the lands point. Lands used to be an incredible interesting deck that has turned into a pile of snoozefest.

RUG Lands, my good man! It's slower, more "tool-boxy", and still takes a certain type of insanity to want to pilot. I believe it's very well positioned right now - and overall strong against the format's top decks.

This is where you've got decks that fire a Goblin of Arson Gun for 52 on the first turn, or sacrifice a land to make a 20/20 creature, or don't pay mana for any spell in the deck, or force opponents to draw hundreds of cards. I definitely don't think those should be the only ways to play, but I think it's a beautiful thing that those things are possible in Legacy. If all that stuff suddenly stops being viable, what's really separating Legacy from Modern?

...Since before I started playing the format, there's been an obvious attempt to push certain decks and archetypes—which is to say, value decks—at the expense of other archetypes and strategies. I don't have a problem with those decks, but—and I don't mean offense to anyone when I say this—they don't feel like they define the format to me...

...these printings are boosting specific strategies that really feel quite a bit like the ones that predominate in Modern and Standard, and they've started pushing the other styles of play to the periphery

This was worrying me a lot more during Maverick summer than now. I'm still worried now! Just not as much because we have such a wide range of decks in the top tier.

For me it's not about format contrast. It's just what MTG should be!

[rlesko]

RUG Lands, my good man! It's slower, more "tool-boxy", and still takes a certain type of insanity to want to pilot. I believe it's very well positioned right now - and overall strong against the format's top decks.

This is just a side question, but what is the benefit of running RUG vs RG? Don't get me wrong, I like EE lock, tolaria west, etc, and that style of play appeals to me way more than "turbo 20/20" does. But it seems like you may as well just make a 20/20 instead of trying to get the opponent to 0 permanents.

[nedleeds]

LOL at Brainstorm on that ubiquity spreadsheet ... nah nothing to see here, carry on.

I picked "not really."

After playing Vintage a bunch it's clear to me that having 4x Brainstorm and 4x Ponder in every deck is just absurd. If Vintage allowed you to choose either:

1) 1x Ancestral Recall, 1x Time Walk, 1x Brainstorm, 1x Ponder, fill in the rest of cantrips with Preordain
or
2) 4x Brainstorm, 4x Ponder, fill in the rest with whatever

I would strongly consider the 4x Brainstorm 4x Ponder package. With all that variance reduction it's no wonder the game has grown stale.

It's even more depressing when you consider more facts. More decks play Brainstorm as part of the field than play Ancestral Recall in Vintage. Essentially any description you could apply to Ancestral Recall, besides money, apply to Brainstorm in the context of why the card is banned.

- Card quality and draw at far too low a cost
- Promotes homogeneity and warps the format around trying to beat the card, or giving up and playing 4 yourself
- which reduces the deck building experience to a 56 card experience

I enjoy Vintage for what it is, I look to legacy to be free from the restricted list and not have to start my deck building experience at ~50 cards to be competitive.

#inb4banisland

[Phoenix Ignition]

This statement is absolutely pointless. Your case 1) would be more accurate if you list Treasure Cruise, Demonic Tutor, Mystical Tutor and Vampric Tutor instead of the Preordains and set it in powerlevel-context of the cards you grab with that "variance reduction" tools. Do you really want to tell me that casting Ponder is more reliable than Demonic Tutor from a variance point of view?

A lot of decks are blue without black in vintage, so I don't see how not including Demonic would completely invalidate my point. UW Mentor is probably the best deck right now, and obviously doesn't use it.

It doesn't matter though, my point is that 4x Brainstorm 4x Ponder is at least on the same level as the equivalent playable blue cards in vintage. Brainstorm is virtually an Ancestral every time you cast it.

[ESG]

The sheer efficiency of what the format has become with decks being 8-12 cantrips with different win conditions has pretty much pushed out any room to brew.

Yes, the efficiency is higher than it used to be, but there's always room to brew. Every time a new set is released or people move to different decks, you have a new opportunity. The Seattle area is always experimenting, and you can watch our streams/VODs to see the latest brews. In the past six months, you could have seen people playing around with the Monarch mechanic, vehicles, Leovold brews, Shared Fate, Tainted Pact, a Nykthos Leylines deck, a four-color Vial deck with Notion Thief AND Phyrexian Obliterator, and more. If you're bored with the format, you need to see what other players are doing and get inspired.

[Ronald Deuce]

For me it's not about format contrast. It's just what MTG should be!

Oh, right on; it's not that I feel like every format should play differently. I just don't like the way Modern plays, and that's because there isn't really anything crazy in the format. Sure, I think it's fair to say that the default setting for a good deck shouldn't be "do something nuts," but when there isn't anything like that in a format, it feels a bit quotidian.

I guess a counterargument is that things feel samey when many of the top decks (and a majority of winning decks) run the same 8-12 cards. I don't necessarily think that's a problem, though. For comparison, Vintage has a similar suite of "must-play" cards that largely constitutes the separation in the cardpool from Legacy's. And sure, those cards are restricted, but that doesn't mean that eight of the P9 (plus X other cards) aren't going to be in two-thirds of decks in the room.

I keep considering the debate over format diversity. To a point, I don't think the saturation of certain cards in a format constitutes a homogenous metagame. Equally important is whether the strategies people can employ (perhaps using those cards) regress to a specific mode of play or path to victory, and in a format like Modern, where the most played cards take a much smaller share of the total cards, that's a much bigger problem than it is in Legacy.

[pandaman]

... even with Foil MM Ports separating me from all the plebs who picked it up 2 weeks ago because you can buy it with 2 centrelink payments now.

Digging this reference.

[Lemnear]

A lot of decks are blue without black in vintage, so I don't see how not including Demonic would completely invalidate my point. UW Mentor is probably the best deck right now, and obviously doesn't use it.

It doesn't matter though, my point is that 4x Brainstorm 4x Ponder is at least on the same level as the equivalent playable blue cards in vintage. Brainstorm is virtually an Ancestral every time you cast it.

Its just that your topics were [Variance reduction] and [Vintage vs. Legacy] in that context, so we should look at the available cardpool and not just at a single color because a player choose to not run black for whatever reason. Its like choosing to not play blue in Legacy and complaining that there "is no good card selection in Legacy".

Vintage isn't a real format these days if GP Vintage sideevents cant even attract a dozen players and WotC outsourced the B&R management of that format to a "council of known players" who like to play 60-card-blue-highlander-goodstuff + 4x FoW.

[Megadeus]

Its just that your topics were [Variance reduction] and [Vintage vs. Legacy] in that context, so we should look at the available cardpool and not just at a single color because a player choose to not run black for whatever reason. Its like choosing to not play blue in Legacy and complaining that there "is no good card selection in Legacy".

Vintage isn't a real format these days if GP Vintage sideevents cant even attract a dozen players and WotC outsourced the B&R management of that format to a "council of known players" who like to play 60-card-blue-highlander-goodstuff + 4x FoW.

Vintage side events in Louisville looked too have around 40 each round