Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
Depends on if the new card is showing a structural issue with the old card, just like in case wirh Survival, where WotC saw that if they ban Vine, its just a matter of time until their creature power creep creates the next issueOriginally Posted by Ronald Deuce
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
It would be a massive shakeup to legacy. Manabases get more expensive, things like brainstorm and deathrite get significantly worse to the point where deathrite might not be playable, which by itself would be massive. All the delve stuff gets much worse. Knight of the Reliquary gets worse, but still playable probably. The greedy manabases either go away or might actually be forced to play city of brass style lands to exist. Blood moon gets better to the point that banning it might happen. Price of Progress is also better, but unsure if it would be ban worthy or not. Top also gets a lot worse.
Sign me up! I want this so much. I hate to lose money on cards, I really do. But I am so over fetch lands. They have pretty much ruined competitive Magic for me.
End personal opinion rant.
It's not even losing money on the fetches. The pressure on duals would be too real.
Second that.
After coming back to Magic in the last year after a 12 year hiatus I have to say I really dislike the fact that you can run 3-color 16 land decks with "perfect" mana. It makes mono-color decks and really even two-color decks totally obsolete. Back in the day the different colors had a personality. The meta is really just Blue-shell.dec and Chalice.dec with some combo outliers. There should be a drawback for splashing/adding colors and currently with the fetch/dual situation as it is there is no draw-back whatsoever.
That's before you get into the whole being able to shuffle your deck virtually every turn and how that causes certain cards to be overpowered.
I'd be curious to see what a legacy/modern format would look like if fetchlands were banned. It's never going to happen so its all hypothetical but its at least fun to think about.
Hrm, no drawback whatsoever? This leaves one wondering why Death & Taxes is so consistently mono-White. There's no drawback whatsoever, so why isn't it in more colors?
The answer? There are drawbacks. Not counting basic lands, Wasteland is the 4th most played card in the format, and the more colors you run the more vulnerable to you are to that card. Blood Moon and Back to Basics, while not seeing as much play, can also hurt someone if they're going into a lot of colors.
Sure, the drawbacks generally outweigh the advantages of going into multiple colors. But to claim there is no drawback is absurd.
Virtually no drawback. Happy? Or at the very least, a drawback so minute that that the answer to "should I splash or should I keep a more stable manabase?" virtually always cuts in favor of the former because there's almost no stability change.
Like I said, a deck playing 16 "real" lands and three colors shouldn't be able to work the way it currently does, at least in my subjective opinion. And when its allowed to work like that is when you see certain cards (e.g. DRS, BS, etc.) played in half the decks to the point that all "fair" decks begin to look almost exactly alike since they're all splashing for the same cards. (I don't mean to sound overly negative here by the way; legacy is still a really fun format.)
Regarding Blood Moon, Wasteland, and Back to Basics: those are a symptom of having the mana bases we have. The same way Abrupt Decay is so prevalent as a result of Countertop and Chalice. Don't put the cart before the horse.
As an aside, I don't think taking such a literal interpretation to an obviously somewhat hyperbolic statement is very conducive to advancing the discussion.
The risk of making mono-colored/duel colored decks obsolete is fine honestly. Games where everyone is able to cast their spells (or at least have the opportunity to at some point) are infinitely more enjoyable then otherwise.
Nuance and tact on the internet, surely you jest.
If you only played 1 color of cards you could always* cast your spells. There used to be difficulty in deck building because the more things you wanted to be able to cast the harder it was to do it consistently. This is one axis of deckbuilding that a lot of us miss, since now you just pick the 4 best colors of stuff to cast and get to without much trouble.
Nah, you're thinking of Khans-BFZ Standard. It's actually pretty rare for Legacy decks to go above 3 colors.
Genuine question: do you think that's because those decks can't support the fourth color or because they don't want anything from a fourth color that can fit into their 60?
Aside from RUG colors having issues answering bigger dudes and grixis having trouble answering enchantments, most 3 color combos don't really have an issue needing to splash a fourth color to answer things in such a diverse card pool. So besides just being greedy and wanting to play certain cards, none of my 3 color decks have ever really needed to play a fourth color besides me just wanting to play a random 3 of blood braid elf in my junk deck or something stupid like that
I'm not the guy you were talking to, but I think it's closer to the former than the latter.
It's less that decks are incapable of supporting a fourth color than that it's extremely risky to do so if you're running more than approx. four cards of the fourth color. There's top-flight hate in blue, red, white, and artifacts that completely shuts down the mana from, e.g., Delvers because those decks can't afford to run basics as it is.
Some of those decks brave a fourth color anyway. Other decks do it, too, but they often work in ways that a) don't require all four or five colors of mana to use those cards, b) run the fourth color primarily/exclusively out of the sideboard, and/or c) don't utilize cards of all four/five colors for their overarching strategy even if they fill out the deck. Coincidentally, many of these decks often don't play long games, or if they do, they don't need to develop their manabases to the same extent that ramp strategies and control decks do.
I'd be all over five-color Storm if I thought it were remotely viable, but I don't think it is, and I'm not good enough at Magic to brew something competitive, especially not something that wacky.
EDIT: Lemnear, once again I think we largely agree. You've touched on something else I think is worth mentioning, which is that the current design doctrine favors fixing perceived wrongs in the early days of the game with new printings intended for specific formats (of which Legacy is not one). That's fine, I guess, but it's dangerous ground to tread when those older cards aren't going anywhere.
All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
PM me if you want to contribute!
That's the answer I expected. So in essence, given the fetch/dual landbase the number of colors is only restricted by the needs of the deck as opposed to any concern over mana problems.
I guess that can be considered a good thing as indicated by previous posters but it definitely simplifies the deck building and leads to the situation we have now with every deck jamming the same cards.
I just wanted to point out that Wasteland is the fourth most played cards INCLUDING basic lands. (According to Deckbox last two months of tournaments.)
I LOVE Fetchlands but if it meant that I could play 5 to 10 more minutes of Magic per rounds without getting a draw or an annoyed store employee who can't really check slow play, I would gladly remove them from the allowed card pool.
I feel nostalgic of decks playing full sets of duals with a few rainbow lands or pain lands.
@Purple Blood There is some severe costs in going to 4 colours, you can't get access to all your colours by turn 2 and keep an 100% Daze friendly mana base. Casting double coloured spells become harder. Even 3 colours decks such as BUG Delver can have mana issues by wanting Blue, Green and Double Black out of two Dazable lands or sufficient shuffling with its fetches.
as I am at work, but saw the Fetchlands topic to neuter Brainstorm/DRS/Ponder/SDT/etc has been picked up by the community, I wonder why "price" is now the reason to dismiss the potential structural fix (of currently perfect working 3-/4-color decks with 15-18 lands) or why Bloodmoon/Wasteland/B2B/etc should not be allowed to punish 16-Dual 4-color decks in a hypothetical post-Fetchland metagame?
did I miss something or are we back to "I dont want to lose the backbone of my perfect, greedy manabase, which is also the enabler for all the cards I complain about (SDT, DRS, Brainstorm, Ponder, etc.)."?
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Tbh, if we really wanted to go that way, banning duals is probably better. It indirectly nerf fetches massively and it make decks much cheaper. Banning fetches would make every single deck cost a trillion with maximum duals.
How is that fixing the issue? BUG could run 2 islands, a swamp, a forest and like 12 fetchlands, maintain the mana stability while still being able to go nutz with DRS, Ponder, Brainstorm, etc
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Thing is, banning fetches would also cut back drastically on shuffling.
All I did was state what would most likely be the outcome of a fetchless legacy. I never advocated for the proposed ban.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote