So the "debate" over BS seems to go nowhere. Here's my idea:
If you think BS is healthy for the format, then play a non-BS deck for your next big event.
How long you can go without BS in your list of 75: Can you go a month? 6 months? a year?
Here is the list of decks I have already played that don't run Brainstorm.
Affinity
Belcher
Burn
Cheerios
Deadguy Ale
Death And Taxes
Dredge
Enchantress
Jund
Lands
Maverick
MUD
Oops All Spells
Pox
Spanish Inquisition
On any given day, I have just as good a chance piloting any of those decks as I do piloting a deck with Brainstorm.
On any given day, I have just as good a chance piloting any of those decks as I do piloting a deck with Brainstorm.
Sure, I can make any deck in legacy, too...
But don't just discount my challenge for any reason, actually play a non-BS deck for an extended period of time.
That's the challenge...
So the "debate" over BS seems to go nowhere. Here's my challenge:
If you think BS is healthy for the format, then play a non-BS deck for your next big event.
How long you can go without BS in your list of 75: Can you go a month? 6 months? a year?
There are so many "other" competitive decks you can play, most of which have been mentioned on the last few pages...
I've played nothing but Maverick, Dredge, and MUD for my entire time in Legacy (4 years) and I still think Brainstorm is fine.
Tarmogoy is running at #22, with 14% of decks running 3.9 Goyf's on average.
Looks like brainstorm kinda *is* the most played card in the format. It's buddy ponder trails behind only it and Force of Will. 76% of the Meta isn't running 4x brainstorm because it's intrinsically a fun card. They're playing it because it's the BEST card. If you're playing to win in Legacy, you're playing brainstorm. If you aren't playing brainstorm, you're probably playing for fun, or playing what you have. There's nothing wrong with that (hell, I play affinity half the time), but to pretend that brainstorm isn't the way to go to win in legacy is absurd.
@LandboySteve: It isn't some tunnel vision leading players to talk about Brainstorm. It's Math.
I prefer to play any deck (in all formats) that currently isn't being played often.
So who's up for "The no-BS Challenge?"
Start today, no money down, and no cheating with some BS deck on the side...
Okay, I've been playing Legacy in league competition now for over 2 years. In that time, I have played over 30 different decks. I do not enjoy playing the same deck all the time. That to me is not fun. I played Lands this past week and did pretty well with it. I could play Lands every week if I wanted to and be very competitive. Depths is a pretty great win con. I don't play it every week because I'd be bored doing so. It has nothing to do with having to play Brainstorm.
Your challenge proves nothing. A good pilot can take almost any deck and do well with it.
I play what I enjoy. Sometimes it's a deck with Brainstorm and sometimes it isn't.
Those are very high and very consistent numbers, both before and after the ban of Treasure Cruise. Evidence like this suggests that Brainstorm is becoming close to a requirement if you want to win a large event in Legacy. That's certainly a red flag.
Only upon the misinterpretation of data.
How am I misinterpreting it?
That fact that it is used in most strategies does not make it a requirement to be used. Nor near one. It makes it an option. An easy option, similar to how if one wants removal, red or white provides an easy plash.
Brainstorm is the highway. It's an easy splash for a powerful effect. That effect is card quality and card advantage, that effect is the domain of blue. Other decks achieve that through other avenues. To do that one must necessarily use different strategies.
For many of those decks, they no longer exist even near their present power. I find it odd especially that you say Countertop would survive a loss of Brainstorm.
The two main lock pieces would remain.
Yes, but the enabler to their power would be hone. Countertop as a package is pretty terrible without brainstorm.
The thing to keep in mind is that it wouldn't be just a single deck being notched down in power, it would be a whole bunch of the best decks. To use a metaphor, we aren't trying to sink a particular boat, we're trying to lower the water level of the whole lake.
Which I personally don't care for.
We have no way of knowing that. We know that it would not be this wondrous wonderland. And given the fact that we are already in a wonderland, why are we overhauling?
Well, honestly, it isn't so much a wonderland for me. I've long been a fan of Legacy, but I just can't get excited for it in its present state. Color balance is a huge issue for me personally. Legacy has always skewed towards blue to some extent, and I accept that. This has waxed and waned a little over the years, and my enjoyment seems to be tied to how well the colors are balanced. Right now the scales are tipped too far toward blue for my taste.
That's unfortunate. The supposed problem with color balance is not one I take issue with, because I don't particularly care about that, I care about the diversity of strategy. Which legacy has.
It's to the point that I prefer Modern over Legacy. Even though interaction pales in that format, the colors are pretty well balanced and represented in top decks. We each have priorities and that is one of mine.
I will not dwell long on Modern. I would however ask you to really look at the supposed color and strategy diversity in modern, the land of little interaction.
As I mentioned before, I'm also exploring 93/94 Magic, which is proving to be a fascinating, deep, and varied format with no fetches, Force, or Brainstorm. I have yet to play a game, but I am working on a deck, and reports and videos suggest that every color has something powerful to add.
That's the wrong issue. I play 93/94 (online of course, because I'm a scrub) and the real difference is not the lack of force and brainstorm, but the lack of things like Delver and TNN, which push Blue out of its color position. I believe firmly that what causes the problematic color distribution you see is because blue doesn't really just deal with CA and Countermagic, but also has two of the best creatures, and probably the most aggressive creature in the format.
This is what I want for Legacy, too. I would rather the other colors be brought up to blue's level, but R&D seem utterly incapable of such a feat.
I agree, though I find our current situation preferable to the lowering to other colors, as I have little faith in WoTC's ability to actually manage a format without being hamfisted.
So the "debate" over BS seems to go nowhere. Here's my challenge:
If you think BS is healthy for the format, then play a non-BS deck for your next big event.
How long you can go without BS in your list of 75: Can you go a month? 6 months? a year?
Why? That's a bit of a pointless and aggravating challenge.
There are so many "other" competitive decks you can play, most of which have been mentioned on the last few pages...
I really hope you see the silliness here. Some people enjoy Brainstorm, some people don't. Those who don't like brainstorm are able to not play it.
On any given day, I have just as good a chance piloting any of those decks as I do piloting a deck with Brainstorm.
Sure, I can make any deck in legacy, too...
But don't just discount my challenge for any reason, actually play a non-BS deck for an extended period of time.
That's the challenge...
I ask again, with more gusto, Why?
Besides, I firmly assert that WeaponX's Parfait is one of the most fun in the format.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
I've only heard from a few people so far, but so far: silly, pointless, aggravating and "proves nothing" are the responses.
Pretty typical from the, "I'm always right and you're always wrong" crowd.
I've only heard from a few people so far, but so far: silly, pointless, aggravating and "proves nothing" are the responses.
Pretty typical from the, "I'm always right and you're always wrong" crowd.
So far, "ZERO" takers for the no-BS challenge...
How's this? How about over the course of the next 4 months I play all those decks I listed and nothing with Brainstorm and I tally up my record with those decks. And then I play the next 4 months with decks that have Brainstorm in it and tally up my record with those.
I guarantee you that the difference in my won loss record will be negligible.
How do I know this? Because I can almost predict how I'm going to do from week to week regardless of what I play. My skill level puts me around the middle of the pack. I'm better then some and not as good as others. And it doesn't matter if I'm playing the best deck in the format.
Proof of that is when I played the GPNJ winner the week after. My record that week was 1-2-1. About what I normally do.
Give any of the top players any competitive deck and they'll do well with it as long as they've had time to test it. It isn't the deck. It's the player. This is proven over and over by the same players being on top all the time.
Or is that all luck?
But sure, I'll call your bluff. It proves absolutely nothing but as I enjoy playing just about any deck in Legacy (except Elves) I'll give this a whirl.
I've only heard from a few people so far, but so far: silly, pointless, aggravating and "proves nothing" are the responses.
Pretty typical from the, "I'm always right and you're always wrong" crowd.
So far, "ZERO" takers for the no-BS challenge...
Did you miss the part where I said I've played nothing but Maverick, Dredge, and MUD for 4 years (and counting) in Legacy and that I think Brainstorm is fine?
So the "debate" over BS seems to go nowhere. Here's my challenge:
If you think BS is healthy for the format, then play a non-BS deck for your next big event.
How long you can go without BS in your list of 75: Can you go a month? 6 months? a year?
There are so many "other" competitive decks you can play, most of which have been mentioned on the last few pages...
How's this: I have blue duals, I've tried decks with Brainstorm in the past, and I found that hand sculpting with cantripping instants and sorceries isn't my style. I appreciate others' appreciation and like it being in the format, but play style is a very personal thing, and it's a general thing I don't go for, along with heavy creature combat and some other things. For three years, I've exclusively played Legacy, and exclusively played decks without Brainstorm, a variety of decks, in big events and small events. I've never felt at a disadvantage or constricted. I don't even know where my Brainstorms are, and I'm happy it's in the format. I've been naturally doing your challenge effortlessly for years.
Tarmogoy is running at #22, with 14% of decks running 3.9 Goyf's on average.
Looks like brainstorm kinda *is* the most played card in the format. It's buddy ponder trails behind only it and Force of Will. 76% of the Meta isn't running 4x brainstorm because it's intrinsically a fun card. They're playing it because it's the BEST card. If you're playing to win in Legacy, you're playing brainstorm. If you aren't playing brainstorm, you're probably playing for fun, or playing what you have. There's nothing wrong with that (hell, I play affinity half the time), but to pretend that brainstorm isn't the way to go to win in legacy is absurd.
@LandboySteve: It isn't some tunnel vision leading players to talk about Brainstorm. It's Math.
These are the decks without Brainstorm that have Top 8'ed 100-player minimum tournaments in the past year. I chose Top 8, 100 players, and 1 year because they're round numbers; if you want different parameters, I can get those too.
Death & Taxes
Elves
MUD
Junk Depths
Burn
RG Combo Lands
Maverick
Merfolk
Goblins
LED Dredge
Lands
Pox
Jund
Moggcatcher Stompy
Nic Fit
U/B Tezz
Turbo Depths
Junk
Manaless Dredge
Imperial Painter
Belcher
Oops, All Spells
Deadguy Ale
Aggro Loam
Blue & Taxes
Mono Green 12-Post
Affinity
Lot of people and lot of decks winning without Brainstorm. In case you think that--after seeing that plenty of decks without Brainstorm actually do win--that they usually lose, and lose more because they're not playing Brainstorm, and they're just sneaking through, take a look at these win percentage statistics from the three SCGs after Treasure Cruise was banned (non-mirror matches and match win percentages excluding draws for all archetypes with at least 20 matches against known decks). It's a fairly small sample, but it's the best we have right now. As always, pilot skill is a huge factor. Do these numbers give you the impression that piloting a good deck without Brainstorm gives you worse odds of winning than piloting a good deck with Brainstorm? I'll sort it by win percentage, alphabetically if tied. Decks with Brainstorm are bolded. 12-Post is italicized because the decks probably have Brainstorm, but might not.
SCG's old Too Much Information series with a much bigger sample size was years ago, but told a similar story, with some decks being overplayed and some underplayed based on win percentage, and good decks with Brainstorm not outperforming good decks without Brainstorm.
I play Lands almost exclusively these days. There are no real major events in my area, the big ones being ~35 to 55 players. The meta is well developed but I hold my own in those tournaments. I sometimes make top eight, and when I don't I usually lose by tie breakers.
So the "debate" over BS seems to go nowhere. Here's my challenge:
If you think BS is healthy for the format, then play a non-BS deck for your next big event.
How long you can go without BS in your list of 75: Can you go a month? 6 months? a year?
There are so many "other" competitive decks you can play, most of which have been mentioned on the last few pages...
So you challenge us to play decks without Brainstorm?
When I played Legacy, I played many decks: Merfolk, Dredge, UB Tezzeret, Stoneblade, Jund, ... Now, even if I stopped playing Legacy for some years, I'm still interested in this format's metagame.
But to answer your question: NO. If I would enter a tournament tomorrow, I would, without hesitation, enter it with a blue BRAINSTORM deck (any strategy, whatever archetype).
Why? Because they are more forgiving of misplays, they are more consistent, and aren't insta-lose if you open with a bad hand.
A Brainstorm deck plays more smoothly : it fixes itself on mana. It's more reactive, it finds its answers more easily. Post-SB (as more games are played post- than pre-SB), a Brainstorm deck will have the upper hand on a non-Brainstorm deck, because it can "see" more cards, and thus reach faster its SB elements.
I will not respond to your challenge. Brainstorm is the best card. Brainstorm makes for the best decks. If I enter a tournamement, I want to win my matches. So I would play a Brainstorm deck.
So then all these players taking down tournaments with decks like DnT, Maverick and Lands must be idiots then, is that it? Because the way I see it, based on results, you do NOT have to play Brainstorm to win.
No, for the most they are very good players and even better players with their synergic "pet" decks.
An average player like me will pull better results, with minimum training, if I choose a Brainstorm deck, which is more forgiving.
Okay, but that does not translate to "you must play Brainstorm to win" which is what people here who are advocating the banning of the card are essentially saying. If you don't play Brainstorm, you don't win. And that is nonsense.
SCG's old Too Much Information series with a much bigger sample size was years ago, but told a similar story, with some decks being overplayed and some underplayed based on win percentage, and good decks with Brainstorm not outperforming good decks without Brainstorm.
I can't thank you enough for this! Looking at the top eight disproportionately glorifies decks which see more play. That's how math works!
It's a fairly small sample, but it's the best we have right now.
Any sample size will be small, as the meta is new. But this is by far the superior type of data to look at if we want to measure how well positioned the top decks are!
You can argue that some decks are better, but don't make tier because they're unplayed. But then, you're assuming that players aren't playing to win.
Not at all! Many grinders are good at tactical problem solving on their feet, but less good at analyzing a bigger system. They are good at playing, but not capable of determining which decks are best positioned. So they just look at recent winning decks. If they looked at win rates instead, they might be making different choices!
You don't pick up Death and Taxes because you want to win. You pick it up because you like the deck.
according to the posted win-rates, D&T wins more than Miracles! You play D&T because you want to win and you have more vision than the players who blindy swear by top8s!
If you're playing to win in Legacy, you're playing brainstorm. If you aren't playing brainstorm, you're probably playing for fun, or playing what you have.
You are drawing the wrong conclusion from the data! There are more options for deck selection if you are willing to play Brainstorm, but that does not mean that any of those individual decks is better positioned than the individual decks not running BS.
Looks like brainstorm kinda *is* the most played card in the format. It's buddy ponder trails behind only it and Force of Will. 76% of the Meta isn't running 4x brainstorm because it's intrinsically a fun card. They're playing it because it's the BEST card.
In "good stuff" decks, playing the cards which are the most powerful on their own merit is the way to go. Of course playing Brainstorm has a cost - blue doesn't have enough good cards to make a mono-coloured deck, so if you run the best card in the format you need to run a vulnerable manabase. Good stuff decks like Burn and D&T forgo Brainstorm in exchange for the consistency offered from a stable manabase. As you can see from the data above (win-rates) both decks are highly competitive.
In Synergy based decks, you don't necessarily need "the best cards". Lands and Affinity don't run BS because there are better choices for those decks! The problem is that many players want to play mid-ranged or aggro/control good-stuffs, and those decks only.
To these players, it's a play-BS-or-go-home format because they are not interested in control (including prison), combo, or linear aggro. Then they make sweeping statements about the entire format as though midrange and aggro/control are the only decks which matter (or matter the most).
No, for the most they are very good players and even better players with their synergic "pet" decks.
An average player like me will pull better results, with minimum training, if I choose a Brainstorm deck, which is more forgiving.
Agreed! But let's be clear - Burn, D&T, Lands, Elves, are not intrinsically less powerful than any given BS deck. They just happen to be of a play-style that the majority of players do not like and/or does not play into their strengths. Maybe you need to play Brainstorm to have a chance, but that says more about you as a player (or even the "average player") than about actual archetype balance within the format.
For the record, I think this is by far the best and most productive Brainstorm discussion I've ever seen in this thread.
Not picking on you at all, but if I remember correctly you have a pretty nanny-state preference for Legacy, right, Necrogenesis? I think you've said before that you want wonky decks like fast combo, pure prison, you might have said Dredge, banned into fringe decks (I think you wanted Lotus Petal banned), when a lot of people consider all types of decks a welcome and important part of a self-balancing format. Again, not being a dick, but I think it's important to know the sort of philosophy someone has, when they're making statements.
Well, the phrase "nanny state" has a lot of negative connotation to it. I wouldn't describe my ideas with those words, but yes, I do think the format would be better if the deck types you mentioned were marginalized. A Lotus Petal ban seems like the best way to me to slow fast combo by a turn without killing it. I don't have any particular grudge against the card, though.
It's the sort of mentality that the ban Brainstorm minority often has. Frankly, I have an issue with such micromanagement, and the idea that one style--like combo, if one personally doesn't like it--has to be suppressed more than another style. I know it's not directly the same topic as Brainstorm, but it's rooted in the same desire for artificial format sculpting and (what I believe to be) an incorrect assessment of the diversity of what people can competitively pilot and should be able to play. If someone doesn't want to play Brainstorm in Legacy, and wants to be able to win, they still have more deck options than the entirety of competitive deck options in any other format. Brainstorm is not Flash and it's not Mental Misstep. We don't have to fear the banning of non-oppressive cards in Legacy. Sorry for the finger-pointing
I think I can understand your perspective, and it makes sense. If you're honestly interested, I'll try to give you an idea where my philosophy stems from.
I first played Magic in 1994 and bought my first cards in 1995. As time went by, I grew to prefer T1 (Vintage) over T2 (Standard) and didn't pay much attention to T1.5 (Legacy) or T1.X (Extended). For those who don't know, the banned and restricted lists for T1 and T1.5 were originally tied together. Anything restricted in T1 was automatically banned in T1.5. It wasn't a particularly popular format, and most of my friends and I considered it a poor substitute for "real Magic." (Sorry. I know that's elitist, and I try to avoid such judgments these days.)
Anyway, T1 was always skewed in blue's favor, but the format's guiding philosophy was that you could always play every card in Magic (other than the cards that caused insurmountable logistic problems, like ante and dexterity cards). Nothing could be banned for power level reasons. Even when Yawgmoth's Will was considered to be unbeatable and Time Vault was re-re-re-errata'd to provide a simple 2 card infinite combo any and every deck could play, nothing could be banned. Blessing or curse, it is the defining philosophy of the format.
When the B&R list for T1.5 was separated, Legacy was legitimized as an independent entity. It was no longer some sort of afterthought or parasitic twin of Vintage. It had it's own distinct philosophy. We would still be able to play *almost* every Magic card printed, but the cards that warped the game in the most egregious ways could be removed. The game could finally be balanced, despite a few ultra-powerful cards or combos being printed through the years. As we know, this turned out to be a pretty popular decision.
With that in mind, I do support using the ban list to bring a balance to the format that can never exist in Vintage. That's the point of the ban list, and it has been used very successfully over the years. It has not been perfect, but WotC has done a pretty good job of handling it since Legacy's inception. The idea of Legacy being "self-policing" feels anywhere from inaccurate to dangerous to me. For a long time, Force of Will was referred to as "the glue" that holds the format together. I think that is antithetical to the very concept of Legacy. The ban list is what keeps the format healthy.
Now, I understand that my personal opinion is just that... personal. And I certainly understand that there are a lot of differing opinions out there. People like to play the game in different ways. But over the years, WotC has been moving the game away from fast combo, prison, hard counters, etc. Their actions have been guided by a lot of market research and player feedback. And the game has been growing more than ever. That makes me feel that it's been the right decision to marginalize those kinds of decks and cards and to balance out the power level of the colors.
For what it is worth, Prison is probably my favorite deck type. That's followed by aggressive strategies with a good amount of disruption. (Whether you want to call that aggro, tempo, aggro-control, or even midrange, I don't know. There's too much difficulty in categorizing decks.)
These are the decks without Brainstorm that have Top 8'ed 100-player minimum tournaments in the past year. I chose Top 8, 100 players, and 1 year because they're round numbers; if you want different parameters, I can get those too.
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing how many first place decks were running BS and how many weren't, if you have those statistics easily available.
Lot of people and lot of decks winning without Brainstorm. In case you think that--after seeing that plenty of decks without Brainstorm actually do win--that they usually lose, and lose more because they're not playing Brainstorm, and they're just sneaking through, take a look at these win percentage statistics from the three SCGs after Treasure Cruise was banned (non-mirror matches and match win percentages excluding draws for all archetypes with at least 20 matches against known decks). It's a fairly small sample, but it's the best we have right now. As always, pilot skill is a huge factor. Do these numbers give you the impression that piloting a good deck without Brainstorm gives you worse odds of winning than piloting a good deck with Brainstorm? I'll sort it by win percentage, alphabetically if tied. Decks with Brainstorm are bolded. 12-Post is italicized because the decks probably have Brainstorm, but might not.
SCG's old Too Much Information series with a much bigger sample size was years ago, but told a similar story, with some decks being overplayed and some underplayed based on win percentage, and good decks with Brainstorm not outperforming good decks without Brainstorm.
I've only heard from a few people so far, but so far: silly, pointless, aggravating and "proves nothing" are the responses.
Pretty typical from the, "I'm always right and you're always wrong" crowd.
So far, "ZERO" takers for the no-BS challenge...
Because you haven't explained yourself, given reason or motive! You've asked everyone to give up their current hobby for 4 months and make a multi-thousand dollar investment, do you see why people wouldn't do such based solely on your whim? The only people to actually take that option have already taken it, as they already have made those non-brainstorm decks. I already have.
You aren't being reasonable, and you really should be, and you really need to move out of the script style of conversation, adapt to reactions. You've been given the answer to your challenge, it's mostly "We already are!"
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
No, for the most they are very good players and even better players with their synergic "pet" decks.
An average player like me will pull better results, with minimum training, if I choose a Brainstorm deck, which is more forgiving.
That doesn't make it better though, merely more straightforward possibly, if one agrees with your observation.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
Well, the phrase "nanny state" has a lot of negative connotation to it. I wouldn't describe my ideas with those words, but yes, I do think the format would be better if the deck types you mentioned were marginalized. A Lotus Petal ban seems like the best way to me to slow fast combo by a turn without killing it. I don't have any particular grudge against the card, though.
I think I can understand your perspective, and it makes sense. If you're honestly interested, I'll try to give you an idea where my philosophy stems from.
I first played Magic in 1994 and bought my first cards in 1995. As time went by, I grew to prefer T1 (Vintage) over T2 (Standard) and didn't pay much attention to T1.5 (Legacy) or T1.X (Extended). For those who don't know, the banned and restricted lists for T1 and T1.5 were originally tied together. Anything restricted in T1 was automatically banned in T1.5. It wasn't a particularly popular format, and most of my friends and I considered it a poor substitute for "real Magic." (Sorry. I know that's elitist, and I try to avoid such judgments these days.)
Anyway, T1 was always skewed in blue's favor, but the format's guiding philosophy was that you could always play every card in Magic (other than the cards that caused insurmountable logistic problems, like ante and dexterity cards). Nothing could be banned for power level reasons. Even when Yawgmoth's Will was considered to be unbeatable and Time Vault was re-re-re-errata'd to provide a simple 2 card infinite combo any and every deck could play, nothing could be banned. Blessing or curse, it is the defining philosophy of the format.
When the B&R list for T1.5 was separated, Legacy was legitimized as an independent entity. It was no longer some sort of afterthought or parasitic twin of Vintage. It had it's own distinct philosophy. We would still be able to play *almost* every Magic card printed, but the cards that warped the game in the most egregious ways could be removed. The game could finally be balanced, despite a few ultra-powerful cards or combos being printed through the years. As we know, this turned out to be a pretty popular decision.
With that in mind, I do support using the ban list to bring a balance to the format that can never exist in Vintage. That's the point of the ban list, and it has been used very successfully over the years. It has not been perfect, but WotC has done a pretty good job of handling it since Legacy's inception. The idea of Legacy being "self-policing" feels anywhere from inaccurate to dangerous to me. For a long time, Force of Will was referred to as "the glue" that holds the format together. I think that is antithetical to the very concept of Legacy. The ban list is what keeps the format healthy.
Now, I understand that my personal opinion is just that... personal. And I certainly understand that there are a lot of differing opinions out there. People like to play the game in different ways. But over the years, WotC has been moving the game away from fast combo, prison, hard counters, etc. Their actions have been guided by a lot of market research and player feedback. And the game has been growing more than ever. That makes me feel that it's been the right decision to marginalize those kinds of decks and cards and to balance out the power level of the colors.
For what it is worth, Prison is probably my favorite deck type. That's followed by aggressive strategies with a good amount of disruption. (Whether you want to call that aggro, tempo, aggro-control, or even midrange, I don't know. There's too much difficulty in categorizing decks.)
I'm definitely interested, and thanks for explaining from where you're coming.
The question of if the banned list should be used to marginalize certain strategies and balance color distribution is a matter of opinion, so I'll put that to the side. My question is, when since the 1.0/1.5 split has a card been banned to marginalize certain strategies or balance color distribution, and not for removing an oppressive card? Even if it has been done in the past, one could argue that it shouldn't be done again, but you said that the banned list has been used in this way, and I'm not seeing an example of that.
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing how many first place decks were running BS and how many weren't, if you have those statistics easily available.
In the past year, in 100-player minimum tournaments, decks with Brainstorm got first place 53 times, and decks without Brainstorm got first place 14 times. It's worth noting that 5 of these 12 months involved a now-banned Treasure Cruise, so the rate of decks with Brainstorm getting 1st is probably lower now. It's also worth noting that the number of 1st place finishes is an unreliable measure, for several reasons. The prize pool is often split before the matches, sometimes a player will even forfeit once everything's split up, and the small number of games in the knockout rounds is pretty random, and less statistically meaningful than going 7-1 or something before that. For most purposes, a deck finishing in 2nd or 7th is very similar. It's probable, though, that the percentage would be similar if I counted BS Top 8 participants vs. non-BS participants [edit: I'd have to count each tournament, but from a limited count, 14 compared to 53 doesn't seem representative. Top 8 participation had a comparably higher percentage of decks without BS]. It also has to be said that even simple Top 8 tabulation isn't fault proof, as often decks with the same exact records miss out because of tiebreakers.
It also has to be said that there are so many more decks with Brainstorm winning because there are so many more good decks with Brainstorm, not because the BS ones win at a higher rate than the ones without BS. And as you can see in my first list above, there are tons of different decks without Brainstorm that achieve success. And all the date I've seen, including the second list I posted above, demonstrates that good decks without Brainstorm don't have a lower win percentage than good decks with Brainstorm. There really are so many viable options with or without, especially compared to other formats. About the only concern is if it really bothers someone to play against decks with Brainstorm in a large amount of their rounds.
Okay, let's get to the bottom of this "ban Brainstorm" argument once and for all. I'm speaking specifically to those in favor of banning Brainstorm.
By banning the card, theoretically only 2 things can happen in regard to "blue based" decks.
1) Blue decks get worse.
2) Blue decks stay the same.
If Blue decks stay the same then there is no point in banning the card as it has no effect on the format other than to just remove a card from it that people don't like.
So the only logical conclusion is that blue decks get worse.
Okay, now there are 2 options with non blue decks.
1) The get better
2) The stay the same
They can't get worse because by removing Brainstorm you've worsened blue decks. So by definition, non blue decks have to get better.
Okay, so now that we have that scenario (blue decks worse, non blue decks better) by how much?
If a typical non blue deck's matchup against a blue deck is say 45-55, where the blue deck has a slight advantage (we're assuming it does) how much better does the matchup get for the non blue deck?
50-50?
Let's say it in fact becomes 50-50.
Do you see what you've just done?
You've turned Magic into a coin flip. There is no more meta gaming. No deck has to worry about having worse than a 50-50 matchup. You can play just about anything and have just as good a chance as any other deck.
This is where personal preference comes in.
Personally, I would hate that kind of Magic. I like the excitement of knowing that by bringing something like Belcher, I'm going to have a hell of a time against blue decks but if I'm fortunate enough to run into something like Elves or DnT or Maverick or Jund, I've got a great chance.
And while we're on the subject of weakening blue decks, if that happens, a lot of players may abandon them because they don't have the consistency they once had. If that happens, combo will begin to take over the format. We will essentially have gone from one "problem" to another.
I mean why should I play a deck with FoW if I don't have Brainstorm to almost ensure myself of having something to pitch to it when I need it? I might as well play a deck that's more consistent. Hell, I might as well just play Belcher.
And if none of this actually does happen, if the same amount of people play blue, and it's just as good at stopping combo as it was before and it has the same advantage over non blue as it did before, then what was the point of the ban?
Finally, there are the decks that play Brainstorm that might as well just not play at all anymore. How is Miracles going to survive without it? Pithing Needle on Top means no way to fix their hand. No way to get Miracle cards out of it.
And no, I'm not going to go through each Brainstorm based deck to determine which ones will survive and which ones will die.
But more importantly, will any decks suddenly become tier 1? Is Goblins going to suddenly become a deck? It wasn't Brainstorm that killed Goblins. It was DRS and TNN.
What deck is going to suddenly get so much better and enter the meta that isn't already a winning deck anyway?
Okay, somebody here show me in detail exactly what a Brainstorm ban will do. Show me what decks get better, what decks get worse and how much better the format will be because of it and why?
The way I see it, the only thing Brainstorm is going to do is piss off a lot of players who enjoy the consistency that the card provides for them.
In a game where there is so much luck involved, something so many players complain about and actually don't like about the game, I don't see how removing consistency from a dozen or so decks makes this a better game.
My question is, when since the 1.0/1.5 split has a card been banned to marginalize certain strategies or balance color distribution, and not for removing an oppressive card? Even if it has been done in the past, one could argue that it shouldn't be done again, but you said that the banned list has been used in this way, and I'm not seeing an example of that.
I guess it is a matter of perspective. Every card on the ban list except for ante, dexterity, and Conspiracy cards are on there to balance the game. The vast majority are on there to marginalize combo, with a couple to limit control. If I point to a card like Oath of Druids, and say it is on there to limit combo, I think you'd say it is on there because it would be oppressive otherwise? But I don't think there is a distinction between the two.
In the past year, in 100-player minimum tournaments, decks with Brainstorm got first place 53 times, and decks without Brainstorm got first place 14 times. It's worth noting that 5 of these 12 months involved a now-banned Treasure Cruise, so the rate of decks with Brainstorm getting 1st is probably lower now. It's also worth noting that the number of 1st place finishes is an unreliable measure, for several reasons. The prize pool is often split before the matches, sometimes a player will even forfeit once everything's split up, and the small number of games in the knockout rounds is pretty random, and less statistically meaningful than going 7-1 or something before that. For most purposes, a deck finishing in 2nd or 7th is very similar. It's probable, though, that the percentage would be similar if I counted BS Top 8 participants vs. non-BS participants [edit: I'd have to count each tournament, but from a limited count, 14 compared to 53 doesn't seem representative. Top 8 participation had a comparably higher percentage of decks without BS]. It also has to be said that even simple Top 8 tabulation isn't fault proof, as often decks with the same exact records miss out because of tiebreakers.
It also has to be said that there are so many more decks with Brainstorm winning because there are so many more good decks with Brainstorm, not because the BS ones win at a higher rate than the ones without BS. And as you can see in my first list above, there are tons of different decks without Brainstorm that achieve success. And all the date I've seen, including the second list I posted above, demonstrates that good decks without Brainstorm don't have a lower win percentage than good decks with Brainstorm. There really are so many viable options with or without, especially compared to other formats. About the only concern is if it really bothers someone to play against decks with Brainstorm in a large amount of their rounds.
You've turned Magic into a coin flip. There is no more meta gaming. No deck has to worry about having worse than a 50-50 matchup. You can play just about anything and have just as good a chance as any other deck.
This is where personal preference comes in.
Personally, I would hate that kind of Magic.
Wait. Isn't a meta where any deck is viable the ideal? Doesn't that turn Magic into the opposite of a coin flip and turn it into a true game of skill? I don't know if you follow Modern or the discussion some pros are having about it right now, but it seems like that's the kind of format you're wanting here. Where meta-gaming is (supposedly) more important than each individual game.
But whatever, I'd love a format where every match-up was within a few points of 50-50 and winners were determined by play skill.
SCG's old Too Much Information series with a much bigger sample size was years ago, but told a similar story, with some decks being overplayed and some underplayed based on win percentage, and good decks with Brainstorm not outperforming good decks without Brainstorm.
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing how many first place decks were running BS and how many weren't, if you have those statistics easily available.
I think you are missing the point. A decks frequency in the top eight (or in first) is increased the more that deck is played. That's a fact of math! Miracles may have more first place finishes than Burn, but it has a lower win-rate is is therefore a weaker deck; propped up only by it's popularity and it's perceived quality.
It's definitely unbalanced...
...Lots of Brainstorms
There are nine decks in that list with a win-rate above 50% (aka, winning decks). Five of those decks run Brainstorm, four do not (including the strongest deck in the format - R/G Lands)! Is that a lot of Brainstorms? I guess, but it's hardly as if you need to run the card if you are trying to win (as some have suggested). It's well known that Brainstorm is the most versatile spell in the game, so being in 55% of the winning decks is hardly cause for a ban! Especially when those 5 decks are 2x midrange, 2x tempo, and 1x combo. Note that the other four winning decks are 2x prison, 1x aggro, and 1x control. I think this is more diverse and better balanced than any other format!
I guess it is a matter of perspective. Every card on the ban list except for ante, dexterity, and Conspiracy cards are on there to balance the game. The vast majority are on there to marginalize combo, with a couple to limit control.
No no no! Cards have been banned to keep combo from marginalizing everything else! Combo has always been allowed to be strong, just not dominant or oppressive. It's never been marginalized in Legacy like it is in Modern.
Wait. Isn't a meta where any deck is viable the ideal? Doesn't that turn Magic into the opposite of a coin flip and turn it into a true game of skill? I don't know if you follow Modern or the discussion some pros are having about it right now, but it seems like that's the kind of format you're wanting here. Where meta-gaming is (supposedly) more important than each individual game.
Bolded text is a bit rich coming from somebody who statedly wants to marginalize entire play-styles!
Surely you don't want a format where any random 60 card mix is equally viable! That would make deck construction/selection completely meaningless. What's ideal is a format where many different decks (of different styles) are viable; preferably close to evenly strengthed. But note that 'evenly strengthed' does not mean all your matches are close to 50/50! You can have a set of top decks which have very skewed match-ups but all have a similar average win-rate considering all the decks in the field. This way any deck is in theory viable, but at any given event some decks will be better positioned than others. If you can predict what other people will play, you can exploit that knowledge.
A simple example of the last idea is a meta with three decks - combo, aggro, and control. Aggro is 65/35 against control, but 35/65 against combo. Combo is 35/65 against control. Each deck is equally well positioned with an average win-rate of 50%, but meta-gaming is still paramount. Expand this to allow for many more decks (in may different styles), and we have an ideal meta! Just don't expect all the decks to have an average win-rate of exactly 50%! That's not realistic, plus some decks can have a (much) lower than 50% average win-rates but still potentially crush the right meta (therefore keeping the format in check and contributing to diversity.
It sounds like you want a format where fair and creature centric decks reign supreme, and where the best decks don't have any bad matches which they are soft to. I'm honestly not sure why you are drawn to Legacy in the first place? Legacy has never been like that!
I've only heard from a few people so far, but so far: silly, pointless, aggravating and "proves nothing" are the responses.
Pretty typical from the, "I'm always right and you're always wrong" crowd.
That's funny. We haven't heard from you at all since BasqueRootwalla posted actual data on win-rates (which s far more revealing than top eight lists which are heavily skewed by a deck's density in the field).
My question is, when since the 1.0/1.5 split has a card been banned to marginalize certain strategies or balance color distribution, and not for removing an oppressive card? Even if it has been done in the past, one could argue that it shouldn't be done again, but you said that the banned list has been used in this way, and I'm not seeing an example of that.
I guess it is a matter of perspective. Every card on the ban list except for ante, dexterity, and Conspiracy cards are on there to balance the game. The vast majority are on there to marginalize combo, with a couple to limit control. If I point to a card like Oath of Druids, and say it is on there to limit combo, I think you'd say it is on there because it would be oppressive otherwise? But I don't think there is a distinction between the two.
In the past year, in 100-player minimum tournaments, decks with Brainstorm got first place 53 times, and decks without Brainstorm got first place 14 times. It's worth noting that 5 of these 12 months involved a now-banned Treasure Cruise, so the rate of decks with Brainstorm getting 1st is probably lower now. It's also worth noting that the number of 1st place finishes is an unreliable measure, for several reasons. The prize pool is often split before the matches, sometimes a player will even forfeit once everything's split up, and the small number of games in the knockout rounds is pretty random, and less statistically meaningful than going 7-1 or something before that. For most purposes, a deck finishing in 2nd or 7th is very similar. It's probable, though, that the percentage would be similar if I counted BS Top 8 participants vs. non-BS participants [edit: I'd have to count each tournament, but from a limited count, 14 compared to 53 doesn't seem representative. Top 8 participation had a comparably higher percentage of decks without BS]. It also has to be said that even simple Top 8 tabulation isn't fault proof, as often decks with the same exact records miss out because of tiebreakers.
It also has to be said that there are so many more decks with Brainstorm winning because there are so many more good decks with Brainstorm, not because the BS ones win at a higher rate than the ones without BS. And as you can see in my first list above, there are tons of different decks without Brainstorm that achieve success. And all the date I've seen, including the second list I posted above, demonstrates that good decks without Brainstorm don't have a lower win percentage than good decks with Brainstorm. There really are so many viable options with or without, especially compared to other formats. About the only concern is if it really bothers someone to play against decks with Brainstorm in a large amount of their rounds.
You've turned Magic into a coin flip. There is no more meta gaming. No deck has to worry about having worse than a 50-50 matchup. You can play just about anything and have just as good a chance as any other deck.
This is where personal preference comes in.
Personally, I would hate that kind of Magic.
Wait. Isn't a meta where any deck is viable the ideal? Doesn't that turn Magic into the opposite of a coin flip and turn it into a true game of skill? I don't know if you follow Modern or the discussion some pros are having about it right now, but it seems like that's the kind of format you're wanting here. Where meta-gaming is (supposedly) more important than each individual game.
But whatever, I'd love a format where every match-up was within a few points of 50-50 and winners were determined by play skill.
First of all, in 50-50 matchups, winners would not be determined by play skill. They'd be determined by who got the better hand. I know this from personal experience and am not going to start going into details.
Secondly, and Crim explained this better than I ever could, the excitement of Legacy is positioning yourself against the rest of the field.
Let's take a deck like Belcher. I know if I bring it to an event that I'm going to get murdered by any deck packing FoW. But if I suspect a heavy "fair deck" meta, I may just do very well.
Let's take burn. Burn has great matchups against those very FoW decks. But heaven forbid burn runs into Reanimator and a turn 2 Iona or Sneak and Show or any deck that can simply kill it before it's even possible to do 20 damage. That is the risk you take running burn.
let's take DnT. The deck has a lot of good matchups but Elves is almost an auto loss. Very hard deck to beat.
And on and on. Every deck has its good and bad matchups. Take that away and what you're left with is who has the better hand. As Crim said, that is never what Legacy was about and if that's the kind of format you're looking for why are you even attracted to Legacy at all?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here is the list of decks I have already played that don't run Brainstorm.
Affinity
Belcher
Burn
Cheerios
Deadguy Ale
Death And Taxes
Dredge
Enchantress
Jund
Lands
Maverick
MUD
Oops All Spells
Pox
Spanish Inquisition
On any given day, I have just as good a chance piloting any of those decks as I do piloting a deck with Brainstorm.
Sure, I can make any deck in legacy, too...
But don't just discount my challenge for any reason, actually play a non-BS deck for an extended period of time.
That's the challenge...
I've played nothing but Maverick, Dredge, and MUD for my entire time in Legacy (4 years) and I still think Brainstorm is fine.
Card Dominance % of Decks # Played
1 Brainstorm 76.99% 76.99% 4.0
2 Force of Will 71.98% 82.01% 3.5
3 Ponder 56.49% 59.88% 3.8
4 Dig Through Time 30.53% 53.10% 2.3
5 Swords to Plowshares 29.94% 31.86% 3.8
6 Lightning Bolt 29.72% 31.56% 3.8
7 Gitaxian Probe 27.95% 30.09% 3.7
8 Flusterstorm 25.07% 60.77% 1.7
9 Daze 23.23% 24.78% 3.8
10 Abrupt Decay 22.35% 30.68% 2.9
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/legacy
Tarmogoy is running at #22, with 14% of decks running 3.9 Goyf's on average.
Looks like brainstorm kinda *is* the most played card in the format. It's buddy ponder trails behind only it and Force of Will. 76% of the Meta isn't running 4x brainstorm because it's intrinsically a fun card. They're playing it because it's the BEST card. If you're playing to win in Legacy, you're playing brainstorm. If you aren't playing brainstorm, you're probably playing for fun, or playing what you have. There's nothing wrong with that (hell, I play affinity half the time), but to pretend that brainstorm isn't the way to go to win in legacy is absurd.
@LandboySteve: It isn't some tunnel vision leading players to talk about Brainstorm. It's Math.
I prefer to play any deck (in all formats) that currently isn't being played often.
So who's up for "The no-BS Challenge?"
Start today, no money down, and no cheating with some BS deck on the side...
Okay, I've been playing Legacy in league competition now for over 2 years. In that time, I have played over 30 different decks. I do not enjoy playing the same deck all the time. That to me is not fun. I played Lands this past week and did pretty well with it. I could play Lands every week if I wanted to and be very competitive. Depths is a pretty great win con. I don't play it every week because I'd be bored doing so. It has nothing to do with having to play Brainstorm.
Your challenge proves nothing. A good pilot can take almost any deck and do well with it.
I play what I enjoy. Sometimes it's a deck with Brainstorm and sometimes it isn't.
You sir, have succeeded! Who's next?
But to be accurate, this isn't about who is a good pilot.
This is about BS in the top 75% decks and the meta being "diverse" and "healthy".
That fact that it is used in most strategies does not make it a requirement to be used. Nor near one. It makes it an option. An easy option, similar to how if one wants removal, red or white provides an easy plash.
Brainstorm is the highway. It's an easy splash for a powerful effect. That effect is card quality and card advantage, that effect is the domain of blue. Other decks achieve that through other avenues. To do that one must necessarily use different strategies.
Yes, but the enabler to their power would be hone. Countertop as a package is pretty terrible without brainstorm.
Which I personally don't care for.
That's unfortunate. The supposed problem with color balance is not one I take issue with, because I don't particularly care about that, I care about the diversity of strategy. Which legacy has.
I will not dwell long on Modern. I would however ask you to really look at the supposed color and strategy diversity in modern, the land of little interaction.
That's the wrong issue. I play 93/94 (online of course, because I'm a scrub) and the real difference is not the lack of force and brainstorm, but the lack of things like Delver and TNN, which push Blue out of its color position. I believe firmly that what causes the problematic color distribution you see is because blue doesn't really just deal with CA and Countermagic, but also has two of the best creatures, and probably the most aggressive creature in the format.
I agree, though I find our current situation preferable to the lowering to other colors, as I have little faith in WoTC's ability to actually manage a format without being hamfisted.
Why? That's a bit of a pointless and aggravating challenge.
I really hope you see the silliness here. Some people enjoy Brainstorm, some people don't. Those who don't like brainstorm are able to not play it.
I ask again, with more gusto, Why?
Besides, I firmly assert that WeaponX's Parfait is one of the most fun in the format.
Pretty typical from the, "I'm always right and you're always wrong" crowd.
So far, "ZERO" takers for the no-BS challenge...
How's this? How about over the course of the next 4 months I play all those decks I listed and nothing with Brainstorm and I tally up my record with those decks. And then I play the next 4 months with decks that have Brainstorm in it and tally up my record with those.
I guarantee you that the difference in my won loss record will be negligible.
How do I know this? Because I can almost predict how I'm going to do from week to week regardless of what I play. My skill level puts me around the middle of the pack. I'm better then some and not as good as others. And it doesn't matter if I'm playing the best deck in the format.
Proof of that is when I played the GPNJ winner the week after. My record that week was 1-2-1. About what I normally do.
Give any of the top players any competitive deck and they'll do well with it as long as they've had time to test it. It isn't the deck. It's the player. This is proven over and over by the same players being on top all the time.
Or is that all luck?
But sure, I'll call your bluff. It proves absolutely nothing but as I enjoy playing just about any deck in Legacy (except Elves) I'll give this a whirl.
Again, it proves absolutely nothing.
Did you miss the part where I said I've played nothing but Maverick, Dredge, and MUD for 4 years (and counting) in Legacy and that I think Brainstorm is fine?
What point are you trying to make here?
How's this: I have blue duals, I've tried decks with Brainstorm in the past, and I found that hand sculpting with cantripping instants and sorceries isn't my style. I appreciate others' appreciation and like it being in the format, but play style is a very personal thing, and it's a general thing I don't go for, along with heavy creature combat and some other things. For three years, I've exclusively played Legacy, and exclusively played decks without Brainstorm, a variety of decks, in big events and small events. I've never felt at a disadvantage or constricted. I don't even know where my Brainstorms are, and I'm happy it's in the format. I've been naturally doing your challenge effortlessly for years.
These are the decks without Brainstorm that have Top 8'ed 100-player minimum tournaments in the past year. I chose Top 8, 100 players, and 1 year because they're round numbers; if you want different parameters, I can get those too.
Death & Taxes
Elves
MUD
Junk Depths
Burn
RG Combo Lands
Maverick
Merfolk
Goblins
LED Dredge
Lands
Pox
Jund
Moggcatcher Stompy
Nic Fit
U/B Tezz
Turbo Depths
Junk
Manaless Dredge
Imperial Painter
Belcher
Oops, All Spells
Deadguy Ale
Aggro Loam
Blue & Taxes
Mono Green 12-Post
Affinity
Lot of people and lot of decks winning without Brainstorm. In case you think that--after seeing that plenty of decks without Brainstorm actually do win--that they usually lose, and lose more because they're not playing Brainstorm, and they're just sneaking through, take a look at these win percentage statistics from the three SCGs after Treasure Cruise was banned (non-mirror matches and match win percentages excluding draws for all archetypes with at least 20 matches against known decks). It's a fairly small sample, but it's the best we have right now. As always, pilot skill is a huge factor. Do these numbers give you the impression that piloting a good deck without Brainstorm gives you worse odds of winning than piloting a good deck with Brainstorm? I'll sort it by win percentage, alphabetically if tied. Decks with Brainstorm are bolded. 12-Post is italicized because the decks probably have Brainstorm, but might not.
RG Lands: 20-7-2, (74%)
Shardless BUG: 46-29-4, (61%)
Team America: 38-29-3, (57%)
Dredge: 22-17, (56%)
Canadian Thresh: 36-29-2, (55%)
Burn: 16-14, (53%)
Esper Blade: 35-32-5, (52%)
Lands: 11-10-2, (52%)
Storm: 45-44-4, (51%)
Death and Taxes: 48-49-6, (49%)
Miracles: 49-52-13, (49%)
Sneak and Show: 40-42-1, (49%)
UWR Delver: 20-21-3, (49%)
12-Post: 15-16-1, (48%)
Elves: 39-46-1, (46%)
Reanimator: 25-32-1, (44%)
Maverick: 22-29-3, (43%)
Omnitell: 8-14, (36%)
U/R Delver: 8-15, (35%)
High Tide: 6-15, (29%)
SCG's old Too Much Information series with a much bigger sample size was years ago, but told a similar story, with some decks being overplayed and some underplayed based on win percentage, and good decks with Brainstorm not outperforming good decks without Brainstorm.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/legacy-type-1-5/661941-list-of-stores-that-support-legacy
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?28892-Compilation-Of-Legacy-Streams
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
So then all these players taking down tournaments with decks like DnT, Maverick and Lands must be idiots then, is that it? Because the way I see it, based on results, you do NOT have to play Brainstorm to win.
Okay, but that does not translate to "you must play Brainstorm to win" which is what people here who are advocating the banning of the card are essentially saying. If you don't play Brainstorm, you don't win. And that is nonsense.
Any sample size will be small, as the meta is new. But this is by far the superior type of data to look at if we want to measure how well positioned the top decks are!
Not at all! Many grinders are good at tactical problem solving on their feet, but less good at analyzing a bigger system. They are good at playing, but not capable of determining which decks are best positioned. So they just look at recent winning decks. If they looked at win rates instead, they might be making different choices!
according to the posted win-rates, D&T wins more than Miracles! You play D&T because you want to win and you have more vision than the players who blindy swear by top8s!
You are drawing the wrong conclusion from the data! There are more options for deck selection if you are willing to play Brainstorm, but that does not mean that any of those individual decks is better positioned than the individual decks not running BS.
In "good stuff" decks, playing the cards which are the most powerful on their own merit is the way to go. Of course playing Brainstorm has a cost - blue doesn't have enough good cards to make a mono-coloured deck, so if you run the best card in the format you need to run a vulnerable manabase. Good stuff decks like Burn and D&T forgo Brainstorm in exchange for the consistency offered from a stable manabase. As you can see from the data above (win-rates) both decks are highly competitive.
In Synergy based decks, you don't necessarily need "the best cards". Lands and Affinity don't run BS because there are better choices for those decks! The problem is that many players want to play mid-ranged or aggro/control good-stuffs, and those decks only.
To these players, it's a play-BS-or-go-home format because they are not interested in control (including prison), combo, or linear aggro. Then they make sweeping statements about the entire format as though midrange and aggro/control are the only decks which matter (or matter the most).
Agreed! But let's be clear - Burn, D&T, Lands, Elves, are not intrinsically less powerful than any given BS deck. They just happen to be of a play-style that the majority of players do not like and/or does not play into their strengths. Maybe you need to play Brainstorm to have a chance, but that says more about you as a player (or even the "average player") than about actual archetype balance within the format.
For the record, I think this is by far the best and most productive Brainstorm discussion I've ever seen in this thread.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Well, the phrase "nanny state" has a lot of negative connotation to it. I wouldn't describe my ideas with those words, but yes, I do think the format would be better if the deck types you mentioned were marginalized. A Lotus Petal ban seems like the best way to me to slow fast combo by a turn without killing it. I don't have any particular grudge against the card, though.
I think I can understand your perspective, and it makes sense. If you're honestly interested, I'll try to give you an idea where my philosophy stems from.
Anyway, T1 was always skewed in blue's favor, but the format's guiding philosophy was that you could always play every card in Magic (other than the cards that caused insurmountable logistic problems, like ante and dexterity cards). Nothing could be banned for power level reasons. Even when Yawgmoth's Will was considered to be unbeatable and Time Vault was re-re-re-errata'd to provide a simple 2 card infinite combo any and every deck could play, nothing could be banned. Blessing or curse, it is the defining philosophy of the format.
When the B&R list for T1.5 was separated, Legacy was legitimized as an independent entity. It was no longer some sort of afterthought or parasitic twin of Vintage. It had it's own distinct philosophy. We would still be able to play *almost* every Magic card printed, but the cards that warped the game in the most egregious ways could be removed. The game could finally be balanced, despite a few ultra-powerful cards or combos being printed through the years. As we know, this turned out to be a pretty popular decision.
With that in mind, I do support using the ban list to bring a balance to the format that can never exist in Vintage. That's the point of the ban list, and it has been used very successfully over the years. It has not been perfect, but WotC has done a pretty good job of handling it since Legacy's inception. The idea of Legacy being "self-policing" feels anywhere from inaccurate to dangerous to me. For a long time, Force of Will was referred to as "the glue" that holds the format together. I think that is antithetical to the very concept of Legacy. The ban list is what keeps the format healthy.
Now, I understand that my personal opinion is just that... personal. And I certainly understand that there are a lot of differing opinions out there. People like to play the game in different ways. But over the years, WotC has been moving the game away from fast combo, prison, hard counters, etc. Their actions have been guided by a lot of market research and player feedback. And the game has been growing more than ever. That makes me feel that it's been the right decision to marginalize those kinds of decks and cards and to balance out the power level of the colors.
For what it is worth, Prison is probably my favorite deck type. That's followed by aggressive strategies with a good amount of disruption. (Whether you want to call that aggro, tempo, aggro-control, or even midrange, I don't know. There's too much difficulty in categorizing decks.)
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing how many first place decks were running BS and how many weren't, if you have those statistics easily available.
It's definitely unbalanced.
Because you haven't explained yourself, given reason or motive! You've asked everyone to give up their current hobby for 4 months and make a multi-thousand dollar investment, do you see why people wouldn't do such based solely on your whim? The only people to actually take that option have already taken it, as they already have made those non-brainstorm decks. I already have.
You aren't being reasonable, and you really should be, and you really need to move out of the script style of conversation, adapt to reactions. You've been given the answer to your challenge, it's mostly "We already are!"
Yes, in the sense that the two are not equal, but in the qualitative sense of importance, they aren't very unbalanced.
That doesn't make it better though, merely more straightforward possibly, if one agrees with your observation.
I'm definitely interested, and thanks for explaining from where you're coming.
The question of if the banned list should be used to marginalize certain strategies and balance color distribution is a matter of opinion, so I'll put that to the side. My question is, when since the 1.0/1.5 split has a card been banned to marginalize certain strategies or balance color distribution, and not for removing an oppressive card? Even if it has been done in the past, one could argue that it shouldn't be done again, but you said that the banned list has been used in this way, and I'm not seeing an example of that.
In the past year, in 100-player minimum tournaments, decks with Brainstorm got first place 53 times, and decks without Brainstorm got first place 14 times. It's worth noting that 5 of these 12 months involved a now-banned Treasure Cruise, so the rate of decks with Brainstorm getting 1st is probably lower now. It's also worth noting that the number of 1st place finishes is an unreliable measure, for several reasons. The prize pool is often split before the matches, sometimes a player will even forfeit once everything's split up, and the small number of games in the knockout rounds is pretty random, and less statistically meaningful than going 7-1 or something before that. For most purposes, a deck finishing in 2nd or 7th is very similar. It's probable, though, that the percentage would be similar if I counted BS Top 8 participants vs. non-BS participants [edit: I'd have to count each tournament, but from a limited count, 14 compared to 53 doesn't seem representative. Top 8 participation had a comparably higher percentage of decks without BS]. It also has to be said that even simple Top 8 tabulation isn't fault proof, as often decks with the same exact records miss out because of tiebreakers.
It also has to be said that there are so many more decks with Brainstorm winning because there are so many more good decks with Brainstorm, not because the BS ones win at a higher rate than the ones without BS. And as you can see in my first list above, there are tons of different decks without Brainstorm that achieve success. And all the date I've seen, including the second list I posted above, demonstrates that good decks without Brainstorm don't have a lower win percentage than good decks with Brainstorm. There really are so many viable options with or without, especially compared to other formats. About the only concern is if it really bothers someone to play against decks with Brainstorm in a large amount of their rounds.
What's unbalanced about it to you?
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/legacy-type-1-5/661941-list-of-stores-that-support-legacy
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?28892-Compilation-Of-Legacy-Streams
By banning the card, theoretically only 2 things can happen in regard to "blue based" decks.
1) Blue decks get worse.
2) Blue decks stay the same.
If Blue decks stay the same then there is no point in banning the card as it has no effect on the format other than to just remove a card from it that people don't like.
So the only logical conclusion is that blue decks get worse.
Okay, now there are 2 options with non blue decks.
1) The get better
2) The stay the same
They can't get worse because by removing Brainstorm you've worsened blue decks. So by definition, non blue decks have to get better.
Okay, so now that we have that scenario (blue decks worse, non blue decks better) by how much?
If a typical non blue deck's matchup against a blue deck is say 45-55, where the blue deck has a slight advantage (we're assuming it does) how much better does the matchup get for the non blue deck?
50-50?
Let's say it in fact becomes 50-50.
Do you see what you've just done?
You've turned Magic into a coin flip. There is no more meta gaming. No deck has to worry about having worse than a 50-50 matchup. You can play just about anything and have just as good a chance as any other deck.
This is where personal preference comes in.
Personally, I would hate that kind of Magic. I like the excitement of knowing that by bringing something like Belcher, I'm going to have a hell of a time against blue decks but if I'm fortunate enough to run into something like Elves or DnT or Maverick or Jund, I've got a great chance.
And while we're on the subject of weakening blue decks, if that happens, a lot of players may abandon them because they don't have the consistency they once had. If that happens, combo will begin to take over the format. We will essentially have gone from one "problem" to another.
I mean why should I play a deck with FoW if I don't have Brainstorm to almost ensure myself of having something to pitch to it when I need it? I might as well play a deck that's more consistent. Hell, I might as well just play Belcher.
And if none of this actually does happen, if the same amount of people play blue, and it's just as good at stopping combo as it was before and it has the same advantage over non blue as it did before, then what was the point of the ban?
Finally, there are the decks that play Brainstorm that might as well just not play at all anymore. How is Miracles going to survive without it? Pithing Needle on Top means no way to fix their hand. No way to get Miracle cards out of it.
And no, I'm not going to go through each Brainstorm based deck to determine which ones will survive and which ones will die.
But more importantly, will any decks suddenly become tier 1? Is Goblins going to suddenly become a deck? It wasn't Brainstorm that killed Goblins. It was DRS and TNN.
What deck is going to suddenly get so much better and enter the meta that isn't already a winning deck anyway?
Okay, somebody here show me in detail exactly what a Brainstorm ban will do. Show me what decks get better, what decks get worse and how much better the format will be because of it and why?
The way I see it, the only thing Brainstorm is going to do is piss off a lot of players who enjoy the consistency that the card provides for them.
In a game where there is so much luck involved, something so many players complain about and actually don't like about the game, I don't see how removing consistency from a dozen or so decks makes this a better game.
Convince me that I'm wrong.
I guess it is a matter of perspective. Every card on the ban list except for ante, dexterity, and Conspiracy cards are on there to balance the game. The vast majority are on there to marginalize combo, with a couple to limit control. If I point to a card like Oath of Druids, and say it is on there to limit combo, I think you'd say it is on there because it would be oppressive otherwise? But I don't think there is a distinction between the two.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Lots of Brainstorms
Wait. Isn't a meta where any deck is viable the ideal? Doesn't that turn Magic into the opposite of a coin flip and turn it into a true game of skill? I don't know if you follow Modern or the discussion some pros are having about it right now, but it seems like that's the kind of format you're wanting here. Where meta-gaming is (supposedly) more important than each individual game.
But whatever, I'd love a format where every match-up was within a few points of 50-50 and winners were determined by play skill.
There are nine decks in that list with a win-rate above 50% (aka, winning decks). Five of those decks run Brainstorm, four do not (including the strongest deck in the format - R/G Lands)! Is that a lot of Brainstorms? I guess, but it's hardly as if you need to run the card if you are trying to win (as some have suggested). It's well known that Brainstorm is the most versatile spell in the game, so being in 55% of the winning decks is hardly cause for a ban! Especially when those 5 decks are 2x midrange, 2x tempo, and 1x combo. Note that the other four winning decks are 2x prison, 1x aggro, and 1x control. I think this is more diverse and better balanced than any other format!
No no no! Cards have been banned to keep combo from marginalizing everything else! Combo has always been allowed to be strong, just not dominant or oppressive. It's never been marginalized in Legacy like it is in Modern.
Bolded text is a bit rich coming from somebody who statedly wants to marginalize entire play-styles!
Surely you don't want a format where any random 60 card mix is equally viable! That would make deck construction/selection completely meaningless. What's ideal is a format where many different decks (of different styles) are viable; preferably close to evenly strengthed. But note that 'evenly strengthed' does not mean all your matches are close to 50/50! You can have a set of top decks which have very skewed match-ups but all have a similar average win-rate considering all the decks in the field. This way any deck is in theory viable, but at any given event some decks will be better positioned than others. If you can predict what other people will play, you can exploit that knowledge.
A simple example of the last idea is a meta with three decks - combo, aggro, and control. Aggro is 65/35 against control, but 35/65 against combo. Combo is 35/65 against control. Each deck is equally well positioned with an average win-rate of 50%, but meta-gaming is still paramount. Expand this to allow for many more decks (in may different styles), and we have an ideal meta! Just don't expect all the decks to have an average win-rate of exactly 50%! That's not realistic, plus some decks can have a (much) lower than 50% average win-rates but still potentially crush the right meta (therefore keeping the format in check and contributing to diversity.
It sounds like you want a format where fair and creature centric decks reign supreme, and where the best decks don't have any bad matches which they are soft to. I'm honestly not sure why you are drawn to Legacy in the first place? Legacy has never been like that!
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
That's funny. We haven't heard from you at all since BasqueRootwalla posted actual data on win-rates (which s far more revealing than top eight lists which are heavily skewed by a deck's density in the field).
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
First of all, in 50-50 matchups, winners would not be determined by play skill. They'd be determined by who got the better hand. I know this from personal experience and am not going to start going into details.
Secondly, and Crim explained this better than I ever could, the excitement of Legacy is positioning yourself against the rest of the field.
Let's take a deck like Belcher. I know if I bring it to an event that I'm going to get murdered by any deck packing FoW. But if I suspect a heavy "fair deck" meta, I may just do very well.
Let's take burn. Burn has great matchups against those very FoW decks. But heaven forbid burn runs into Reanimator and a turn 2 Iona or Sneak and Show or any deck that can simply kill it before it's even possible to do 20 damage. That is the risk you take running burn.
let's take DnT. The deck has a lot of good matchups but Elves is almost an auto loss. Very hard deck to beat.
And on and on. Every deck has its good and bad matchups. Take that away and what you're left with is who has the better hand. As Crim said, that is never what Legacy was about and if that's the kind of format you're looking for why are you even attracted to Legacy at all?