Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
1. Saying that FoW is good in this format does not mean that control should now exist if CB or SDT are banned.
2. Even if CB+SDT did cause your opponent to concede that would not be a reason for it to be banned.
3. If an overly popular deck is banned from a format, you will increase the diversity of that format and the point of a ban is to increase diversity because what almost every player wants out of a format is diversity in decks and archetypes.
@LegacyIsAnEternalFormat you started out with an unsubstantiated post about banning Terminus, I point out the logical failings that generally accompany that opinion. Sure enough you walked right into it demonstrating the incoherence and logical inconsistencies behind banning Terminus. Your argument had fatal flaws from the onset that can't be reasoned with. You continue to go down the rabbit hole talking about things that are hardly germane and are often self-repudiating.
Despite failing to make a logical argument and failing to define what banned cards should have in common, your common theme is that legacy bannings should be more like modern - even though the whole point of legacy and vintage is to play magic with as much of the catalog as is healthily possible. Advocating turning legacy into modern is fine; it won't win you a lot of support here, but no one will tell you that can't be your opinion. It is borderline trolling though to 'champion the cause of diversity' in legacy by telling everyone card x is ok because a fair deck can answer it with 1-for-1 removal. You don't have to like playing with or against unfair decks, but you're still going to have to take into account their right to approach the format in their way. I have to imagine you'd be screaming bloody murder if every time you said 'ban Terminus' people told you to just play blue (Stifle, Clique, counterspell it)... Have the common courtesy to return the favor.
@Sidney Apparently a majority who polled in my poll think that Miracles should be weakened by a ban and statistics prove this.
@Fox If you think CB+SDT limits diversity in the format because it pushes out 1-2cmc spells I don't know what to say except to ask you if you even play legacy. The reason storm isn't tier 1 is not because of Miracles it is because of Chalice decks being popular right now. So banning CB will increase diversity except not as much as banning Terminus will because banning terminus will not get rid of the only control deck we have in legacy right now. The fact that you don't like playing against CB+SDT is not a reason for a deck to get banned because if it was we would have a much longer ban list than we do now.
I have actually stayed away from making an emotional appeal to ban Counterbalance, focusing on out-of-game problems the card creates including quality of life (time-wasting), power level, and diversity-killing grounds. You can agree or disagree with my points, but you will at all points understand the metric used when I discuss what makes cards ban-worthy. I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims that card x should be banned because [silently] it's good against deck y; nor am I making the ludicrous claim that Counterbalance is the only card that can make a control deck effective. I also don't resort to saying "don't play creatures; see, Terminus is fine" which is as close-minded as telling an unfair deck to play 1-for-1 removal like a fair deck does.
You can't possibly take yourself seriously if you say "x kills CB, so CB is fine" and not also say "playing x kills Terminus, so Terminus is fine." To translate that is "play a fair deck, CB is fine" and "play blue [or no-creature combo], Terminus is fine."
In legacy/vintage we do not approach the banlist discussions by looking at one specific deck and look to specifically doctor the amount of top 8s it generates. That is merely a tool to show something isn't right; there are certain things people shouldn't have to put up with, and that has little to do with reading the text of a card in game and carrying it out. Following your logic DTT got banned because Omnitell was winning to much; in reality it was banned because discard stopped working (except in the case of Pyro+Gitaxian+Cabal+DTT decks). Often times you'll see top 8 overperformance and bans go hand in hand, but it's the why that's important - when you stop caring about making a case for 'why' people get ticked off (see also Lodestone Golem).
"power level"- no one cares what the power level of CBplusSDT is we are talking about banning miracles to increase diversity not the power level of certain combos you can assemble. I can tell you that the PainterStone decks of legacy run a much more powerful combo and no one is talking about that deck getting banned... Will banning CB increase diversity more than banning Terminus? That should be the question.
"diversity-killing" - banning CB will kill an entire deck, while banning Terminus will weaken the deck into being just another of those decks you can play if you like playing that type of deck. In your whole post I see a bunch of words but nothing that addresses which ban is better for diversity.
"what makes cards ban-worthy." what makes cards banworthy is whether or not they push a certain deck too far so that deck becomes too dominant as we see miracles is right now and that this card which pushes a deck too far is the best card to ban to weaken the deck that is too dominant so to increase the diversity of the format that the deck is played in.
"card x should be banned because [silently] it's good against deck y" I'm not making this point either... The reason I want Terminus banned is because I believe it is the right card to ban so Miracles has its power level adjusted so it isn't too powerful or too weak. If you have an idea of a better card that achieves this goal Id be glad to hear it but CB isn't that.
"Counterbalance is the only card that can make a control deck effective" This is true, a true control deck needs to be able to counter a majority of cards their opponent plays and Counterbalance is how Miracles does this. You can't just play 4counterspell 4FoW as your counter spells for a control deck and expect to win games in legacy.
"telling an unfair deck to play 1-for-1 removal like a fair deck does." I said this in my list of ways of dealing with miracles a while ago and you are using it as an Ad Hominem against me saying that I am so stupid as to suggest this.
"discard stopped working" this makes sense as an argument to ban a card if the fact that discard stopped working made a certain deck bad... while CB+SDT does make 1-2cmc spells bad, all we see in legacy is still 1-2cmc spells so this does not apply to Miracles
Overall your post was a bunch of unexplained reasoning, Ad Hominem fallacies, and totally unrelated comments,
Edit: @skipjack what exactly makes you think I don't play legacy?
I'll answer that post more completely tomorrow, but vintage/legacy is not about arbitrarily deciding which decks 'belong' in the meta game and at what strength - again that's a modern thing. The best decks will rise to the top, and cards that deserve to be banned based on their power level/other relevant qualifiers will be. No deck is entitled to protectionism - this isn't modern.
Here's what I've noted:
- The only decklist you've posted is for BW 8Rack. While I haven't tested your deck, it seems only partially optimized and includes The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, which is too expensive in paper to justify purchasing for 8Rack alone, leading me to believe one of the following is true: 1) you merely theory-crafted the list, 2) you also play Lands, or 3) you play MTGO. Based on your comments regarding MTGO, I don't think you'd be willing to invest the value of your deck online, so I ruled out (3). You also haven't really struck me as a Lands player, so I ruled out (2) even though I could be wrong. This leaves (1) as the best option, although I'll admit there are a few fringe possibilities I'm not taking into consideration.
- Your contributions to actual deck discussions are minimal and tend to just be questions regarding the viability of certain cards. There's nothing wrong with sourcing opinions, but the lack of follow-up indicates you probably don't play the decks in question and instead just want to foster card discussions.
- You've never reported personal testing/match/tournament results.
- The vast majority of your posts are in relation to the B&R List, with many longtime players vehemently disagreeing with you.
- You've expressed controversial opinions on how to fix Legacy/MtG which I wouldn't expect any entrenched player to share.
- You've only been a member of The Source since February 2016 and I doubt you're on anything other than your first account here.
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say you're new to the format, you've been following Legacy format coverage and discussions for a little while, and the closest you've gotten to actually playing Legacy is testing on Cockatrice/XMage.
Mind you, I could be completely off my rocker, but you really haven't done a good job of painting yourself as an experienced Legacy player. While I don't think your opinions are completely invalid, it's hard to take you seriously when you don't seem to have any real qualifications to back them up.
The BW 8Rack deck I played on Cockatrice only...
I actually do play legacy in real life and I have been playing Legacy since Worldwake.
I play JUND.(The only legacy deck I have ever owned and one that I have mastered throughtout the years)
In Modern I play Living End and Jund
WantToPonder
former: Team SpasticalAction & Team RugStar Berlin
Team MTG Berlin
The Dragonstorm
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...he-Dragonstorm
There are currently 2000 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2000 guests)