Go look at how many of those threads have had a post in the last month please, and then at how many of them have top 32'd an event recently. Legacy has been around like what, 10 years longer or more? And most of the "established" decks are completely dead. Even really solid tier 2-ish decks like Aluren and Food Chain get a post like once a month. Because serious legacy players play one of the 8 or so best decks and that is it.
There is much about your post I disagree with, but this is not the time nor the place. I would like to point out that unlike Modern, Legacy has a more dedicated forum outside these boards. On said forum, Aluren has had multiple posts in the last 24 hours.
Legacy is not a format where people just play the best thing always like a Zombie. In fact most Legacy players, like most Modern players, heavily specialise in a particular style of deck, or just one deck in general. I myself, I play Lands and Stax. The majority of the Stax talk and planing is done on Discord. For Modern I play Lantern and I barely ever post about it. I don't feel like there is a lot of discussion to really be had. That's not a slight against Lantern, more a statement of how few slots you have to play with in the deck.
That is also another truth about discussion boards, sometimes there really is very little to discuss, even with a very active deck.
If Legacy were a supported format like Modern, I guarantee almost all the things blue mages love about that format would get banned. Similarly, the format would be even more warped towards a few strategies, once pros dedicated time to solving it like they do for other formats like Modern and Standard.
I disagree with the first half of your statement. I feel like the change would be better overall but I do not think it would actually happen. Second half is true to a point. There is something to be said about your land base costing as much as a decent used car to stop mobility.
On topic.
I feel like Modern's identity is much more broad than Legacy's is. While it is true that a Xerox style deck is always going to had advantages over non Xerox, the rise of cards like Company in Modern or just the existence of Cryptic let's the format show a side that Legacy could never hope to replicate. G/W Company is a lovely pile of odd cards to watch in action, doing something you haven't seen in almost five years in Legacy. Its ability to derive scry and cantrips from its land base make it a lovely and odd sight. Too little credit is given to Modern by both its own players and players outside the format for its openness and capacity to breed new decks. A printing like Crucible Snake creates a new thread for Legacy and blasts a new deck into the top tables in Modern. This is something I love about Modern. That one new card, or in the case of Eggs no new cards, some ingenuity and a person with more creativity than most and bang, new deck.
This has happened in Vintage of late too, with Mentor and Outcome, but it happens so much more often in Modern. And while cards like Shadow will rise to the top, the issues I once saw of Modern not being able to deal with such situations seem to have faded in time. This format can and does regulate itself. Better than it use to as well. Grixis Shadow went from unbeatable to third place in less than four months.
What Modern needs, it I was god and could shape it a little, is a way to remove some of the dependence on sideboard cards to win Matches. If i was to point out a weakness, thats it. The identity of the format is locked in this binary duel, game one is often a toss up, then games two and three can depend on finding that Stony, that Fulminator or that Relic. While Modern is not alone in this (Vintage decks have it much much worse) its does feel like the biggest weakness to me. I also think that is why Grixis has taken off so much. Having a aggressive deck that forces you to have an answer, while having Discard and Counters of their own is a strong game plan that takes some of the weight off the sideboard. These effects are useful in the first game, but also hold value in the supplementary games. Add to that the removal of Shock lands in built drawback and you have something that is guaranteed to appeal.
All that said, I adore the place Modern is in right now. While I do not have access to Smokestack in Modern, therefore it can not be my favorite format, I have not enjoyed it more since the removal of DRS back when I played The Rock with 4 QG main. Its not perfect, but I have no issue with Modern current place and its current environment.
If I have a Thoughtseize against Burn game one, I will still cast it. Rather take two damage off a TS and strip out an Eidolon or second Guide early. I have also won games in the past where I Thoughtseized cards out of my own hand.
I can talk to the locals in Brisbane and find out who played the event. I know of at lest one Legacy player who took this deck, not sure how he did with it.
I don't have opening hands, I just have opponent's hands in my notes. If you like I can take better notes next week.
Edit:
Game two of burn I started with Leyline, followed up with Bridge and won. Game three I had a pair of Brutality. My opponent mulled after I kept seven and got torn apart.
Side-question: Is it true that if someone has zero outs left in their decks, a Judge can force a concession because «technical loss»? Hear that once, source unsure.
There are no rules that state an opponent must concede. Someone can have zero outs and play on, seeking a draw. You have the option to seek a concession, buy they are under no obligation to do so.
The rules in such a situation will normally come down to their actions from here. IPG section 3.3 lays out slow play, something that you can argue they are engaged in only if they are stalling. The correct course of action if you feel they have no outs and seek to stall for time is to:
Note time left in the round.
Raise your hand.
Call a judge.
To this judge explain that you believe your opponent is out of options, you seek to end the round before time concludes and you seek an extension of time equal to the amount of time expended since you paused to call. Then play out the game as you would normally at a rate you are comfortable with. If you feel you are being taken advantage of without the judge calling out your opponent, feel free to escalate to the head judge.
Judges, not players are the arbitrator's of the IPG. If someone is abusing the rules, you need to call for assistance as soon as you notice it. You can't buy back lost time due to your opponents actions if you can't prove they are abusing the situation. The simplest way to prove it is to call.
I played Crane on Wednesday. Won me a game against Infect as a blocker. It often missed as a search effect though. The bonus was the extra Blue was useful for Academy, but since that often a mid game effect anyway I don't think that's important. I often have the time to find Blue from one of the normal 8 sources.
I am going to test Baubles and Crucible, perhaps that will be the way to go as the recent bannings settle. But I expected people to not adapt with any great speed, slowly testing with their old decks before deciding if they should move on. Jumping all in on an anti Tron build right now may be premature. I expect Infect will still be a force in the short term.
There is a Legacy Podcast here in Australia (That I have guested on) called "The Salt Mine". The joke being obvious. I am a Prison player. I play other things sure, but Prison is my love. Stax, Lands or U/W Countertop in Legacy, (Energy Field, RIP, Moat and Humility ftw) Terra Nova, Stax and Shops in Vintage.
You have not seen someone truly salty until you have turn one played a Trinisphere into turn two Crucible/Strip Mine.
How much of an impact do you all think Spire will make? I am about to go into heavy testing before GP Brisbane and I am looking at these new cards with deep interest.
Ceremonious rejection could help vs tron matchup for those playing blue.
I like the GQ crucible plan too. That actually stops them from reaching 7 mana, and eventually locks them out.
If you GQ + surgical, they are off tron, but they still will probably have 7 mana by turn 7, since as you say, the whole deck is pretty redundant.
@dicebag disregard this post, this idea is a suggestion not backed by data.
Honest question. Do you think it's better to have a very conditional counter, or to have slightly less pinpoint but boarder answers? I ask because while a card like Thoughtseize is not as effective at answering something on the stack, it's more effective at answering a lot of other decks and a slight reduction in one situation could lead to a rise in a few others.
Again you missed the point, if you have an idea, present it in your list and be willing to defend it. As I am sure you saw I said I dislike playing Blue in this deck but recent printings are likely to change that. If I was unwilling to adapt, I would not hold that view.
If you really think a card is needed, make a list and defend your point. Your walking into an established concept, if you want to change that concept, you need to prove your case.
There is much about your post I disagree with, but this is not the time nor the place. I would like to point out that unlike Modern, Legacy has a more dedicated forum outside these boards. On said forum, Aluren has had multiple posts in the last 24 hours.
Legacy is not a format where people just play the best thing always like a Zombie. In fact most Legacy players, like most Modern players, heavily specialise in a particular style of deck, or just one deck in general. I myself, I play Lands and Stax. The majority of the Stax talk and planing is done on Discord. For Modern I play Lantern and I barely ever post about it. I don't feel like there is a lot of discussion to really be had. That's not a slight against Lantern, more a statement of how few slots you have to play with in the deck.
That is also another truth about discussion boards, sometimes there really is very little to discuss, even with a very active deck.
I disagree with the first half of your statement. I feel like the change would be better overall but I do not think it would actually happen. Second half is true to a point. There is something to be said about your land base costing as much as a decent used car to stop mobility.
On topic.
I feel like Modern's identity is much more broad than Legacy's is. While it is true that a Xerox style deck is always going to had advantages over non Xerox, the rise of cards like Company in Modern or just the existence of Cryptic let's the format show a side that Legacy could never hope to replicate. G/W Company is a lovely pile of odd cards to watch in action, doing something you haven't seen in almost five years in Legacy. Its ability to derive scry and cantrips from its land base make it a lovely and odd sight. Too little credit is given to Modern by both its own players and players outside the format for its openness and capacity to breed new decks. A printing like Crucible Snake creates a new thread for Legacy and blasts a new deck into the top tables in Modern. This is something I love about Modern. That one new card, or in the case of Eggs no new cards, some ingenuity and a person with more creativity than most and bang, new deck.
This has happened in Vintage of late too, with Mentor and Outcome, but it happens so much more often in Modern. And while cards like Shadow will rise to the top, the issues I once saw of Modern not being able to deal with such situations seem to have faded in time. This format can and does regulate itself. Better than it use to as well. Grixis Shadow went from unbeatable to third place in less than four months.
What Modern needs, it I was god and could shape it a little, is a way to remove some of the dependence on sideboard cards to win Matches. If i was to point out a weakness, thats it. The identity of the format is locked in this binary duel, game one is often a toss up, then games two and three can depend on finding that Stony, that Fulminator or that Relic. While Modern is not alone in this (Vintage decks have it much much worse) its does feel like the biggest weakness to me. I also think that is why Grixis has taken off so much. Having a aggressive deck that forces you to have an answer, while having Discard and Counters of their own is a strong game plan that takes some of the weight off the sideboard. These effects are useful in the first game, but also hold value in the supplementary games. Add to that the removal of Shock lands in built drawback and you have something that is guaranteed to appeal.
All that said, I adore the place Modern is in right now. While I do not have access to Smokestack in Modern, therefore it can not be my favorite format, I have not enjoyed it more since the removal of DRS back when I played The Rock with 4 QG main. Its not perfect, but I have no issue with Modern current place and its current environment.
The two I have up are:
http://gamifive.mobivillage.com.au/subscribe/?cr=73541&affiliateid=19484-cXKL0ZQ4GhphXXBQHPaa&clickid=jAU2564A07K4G01003V00PHO300J0S030MAN1OJ858WH008R00J0S00
http://offers.adsrevolution.net/93i45/mw0y9Vf63c0q/iA87/jR40_FT71sM/nBA49UXj1tosNuU/ghEz_E7L2N12NuJoDg?url=aHR0cDovL2Fkc3Jldm9sdXRpb24ubmV0LzkzaTQ1L21CbGcvbVJvai1FVHozTndvTWcvZ0Q0Q3F3T2lqZWxvYWQweEpVcWFTRHFwQ24yVzJKR3VYdDJJaXZpd2U5V1N4Zk5Ib2MtZmo3U2txTWNMM1I3V051U2dCTFItLVEvM1U0enFBLXQzWnBvYmE0elZSak9TM203Tktoa0xobHNMYnZ1LUFyLW4wSEIxdVBWR0E0VzFB&co=au
I apparently keep getting sent to offers.adsrevolution.net and then redirected onward. I can not capture the host address, I just don't get enough time. What I can do is this:
http://i.imgur.com/qP7ZENr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/TMB82XC.jpg
Of the two images, ABC is the only site that's not a ad.
Burn 2-1
Dredge 2-1
Infect 2-0
Valakut 0-2
I don't have opening hands, I just have opponent's hands in my notes. If you like I can take better notes next week.
Edit:
Game two of burn I started with Leyline, followed up with Bridge and won. Game three I had a pair of Brutality. My opponent mulled after I kept seven and got torn apart.
There are no rules that state an opponent must concede. Someone can have zero outs and play on, seeking a draw. You have the option to seek a concession, buy they are under no obligation to do so.
The rules in such a situation will normally come down to their actions from here. IPG section 3.3 lays out slow play, something that you can argue they are engaged in only if they are stalling. The correct course of action if you feel they have no outs and seek to stall for time is to:
Note time left in the round.
Raise your hand.
Call a judge.
To this judge explain that you believe your opponent is out of options, you seek to end the round before time concludes and you seek an extension of time equal to the amount of time expended since you paused to call. Then play out the game as you would normally at a rate you are comfortable with. If you feel you are being taken advantage of without the judge calling out your opponent, feel free to escalate to the head judge.
Judges, not players are the arbitrator's of the IPG. If someone is abusing the rules, you need to call for assistance as soon as you notice it. You can't buy back lost time due to your opponents actions if you can't prove they are abusing the situation. The simplest way to prove it is to call.
I am going to test Baubles and Crucible, perhaps that will be the way to go as the recent bannings settle. But I expected people to not adapt with any great speed, slowly testing with their old decks before deciding if they should move on. Jumping all in on an anti Tron build right now may be premature. I expect Infect will still be a force in the short term.
You have not seen someone truly salty until you have turn one played a Trinisphere into turn two Crucible/Strip Mine.
How much of an impact do you all think Spire will make? I am about to go into heavy testing before GP Brisbane and I am looking at these new cards with deep interest.
Does anyone else expect an uptick in Affinity and the requisite Hate therefore?
Honest question. Do you think it's better to have a very conditional counter, or to have slightly less pinpoint but boarder answers? I ask because while a card like Thoughtseize is not as effective at answering something on the stack, it's more effective at answering a lot of other decks and a slight reduction in one situation could lead to a rise in a few others.
Again you missed the point, if you have an idea, present it in your list and be willing to defend it. As I am sure you saw I said I dislike playing Blue in this deck but recent printings are likely to change that. If I was unwilling to adapt, I would not hold that view.
If you really think a card is needed, make a list and defend your point. Your walking into an established concept, if you want to change that concept, you need to prove your case.