[Feature Article] – The Legacy of Brainstorm

[diopter]

Brainstorm + fetchland as mini Ancestral is the early gameplan. What line of play in the first couple of turns are you building your deck around that trumps this line of play?

Please say "Tarmogoyf" so that I can ask you why you're not playinc Careful Study instead.

[diopter]

'm pretty sure that if you and other Legacy players have had this attitude about Brainstorm being your crutch *now*, then you've had it for years and Brainstorm has been a problem for years.

Blaming New Phyrexia and Innistrad for your problems is like Necropotence enthusiasts blaming Lotus Petal and Mana Vault. They thought they didn't have problems either and that Necropotence was perfectly fine.

[DubDub]

Brainstorm + fetchland as mini Ancestral is the early gameplan. What line of play in the first couple of turns are you building your deck around that trumps this line of play?

Please say "Tarmogoyf" so that I can ask you why you're not playinc Careful Study instead.

If I don't need to Brainstorm, then I'd probably save it and advance toward some strategic end instead.  Delver of Secrets, Stoneforge Mystic, Entomb, Standstill.  You know, the many and sundry things that distinguish decks?

'm pretty sure that if you and other Legacy players have had this attitude about Brainstorm being your crutch *now*, then you've had it for years and Brainstorm has been a problem for years.

Is this directed at me?  Where did I refer to Brainstorm as my crutch?  I think I can say that a card's presence has a stabilizing effect on the metagame and engenders more interactivity and more fun without declaring it a crutch.

Blaming New Phyrexia and Innistrad for your problems is like Necropotence enthusiasts blaming Lotus Petal and Mana Vault. They thought they didn't have problems either and that Necropotence was perfectly fine.

Necropotence is an engine.  Brainstorm is not.

You really don't think it's an issue that Dismember exists?  That Surgical Extraction exists?  That Delver of Secrets exists?  That Snapcaster Mage exists?

When CorpT says this at MTGTS:

Since Innistrad:

SCG decks with 10% of a color:
Blue: 82
Green: 56
White: 47
Black: 40
Red: 30

Total: 96

Blue is in 85% of the winning decks. Red is in 31%. But I'm sure that's ok with you.

He must also say this:

Go ahead and look at the data yourself. And I actually run it for 1% for non-Black colors. Black gets set at 10% just because of Dismember. There is no manipulation or vagueness. You stated that Green was as represented as Blue. I convincingly proved you wrong and you only respond that I manipulate the data without providing any of your own.

These are the real numbers. But feel free to go check yourself.

The point is that the format is only shifting towards more blue domination. How long before 90%? 95%? Each color does not need to be equally represented. But it is crazy to think that one color being 85% and another being 30% is acceptable. That's no where close to balance.

CorpT's posts from this thread:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22547-Ban-on-Brainstorm-Yes-or-No-%28Post-Snapcaster-Mage%29

Post #34.  Post #42.  Bolded emphasis mine.

It is the case that recent printings have bolstered Blue because they address Blue's weaknesses.  They're colorless like Dismember and Surgical Extraction, or they're mistakenly Blue like Delver and Snapcaster.

Or look at the 'top five cards from GP Amsterdam' from the coverage.  (LINK.)  Delver and Surgical Extraction show up.  Snapcaster gets an honorable mention in the text describing each, and doesn't appear itself because it was expected to be so prevalent.  And Dismember probably only wasn't mentioned because it was in New Phyrexia, and was good right away.

[diopter]

DubDub: Your opinions on how Brainstorm functions appear to me to be equal parts internally contradictory, and naïve

Internally contradictory: At times you have claimed how Brainstorm is the critical piece in achieving good matchups against the majority of strategies (an end goal that you have failed to acknowledge as undesirable) and almost in the same breath claim that it is not a crutch for lazy players to lean on. Please, I would like for you to choose one and stick to it.

Naïve: we're not really conversing in the same terms - to me it is clear as day that Brainstorm's ability to totally reposition yourself in a matchup, game after game, is in and of itself a strategy, and a dominant one if I am to believe what you say about its role in matchups. In real formats, often you must continually playtest, tweak, back-to-drawing-board, etc. in order to find or refine a strategy that positions itself with respect to a metagame in a way that favors you winning.

At this point I'm not sure how to continue this debate. You view engines in a very narrow way (in my opinion), the "thing" that makes your deck "unique" and what other decks cannot easily copy. Whereas I view metagames in terms of gameplans and how they interact with other gameplans - never in a vacuum. Furthermore you desire a metagame with no discernable pressures upon it to change, whereas I view that as utterly boring.

[DubDub]

@diopter
In reviewing this whole thread, it seems like you're more interested in twisting my words or making them seem absurd by extending them to extremes than making substantive claims of your own.  I'm not going to do an endless dance with you as you seize upon each minute imprecision in my arguments in turn.  It is absolutely not worth my time.

Aside: Why isn't it worth my time?  Because I heavily doubt that Brainstorm will be banned, regardless of the ravings of the few.  Look at my first post in this thread, a pretty innocuous post I'd think, but it somehow became part of a labyrinthine and torturous thread.

Let's take a look at what you've actually said of substance.

I'm familiar with the Brainstorm reasons, arguments, excuses, apologies, whatever. I've uttered them a hundred times myself, when Brainstorm was restricted, when my pet strategy died, when WotC killed my darling.

It took 2 years but Vintage reached new levels of kick-assery. Don't know if the same would happen in Legacy, obviously the context is different without the presence of big P power but I wonder how different it really is.

So, basically, you're willing to sacrifice the current Legacy metagame for the possibility of 'new levels of kick-assery' in two years.  Oh, except that you have no idea whether that would obtain, because you admit Legacy and Vintage are quite different.

I don't know what the Legacy metagame looks like anymore but generally we should be against being able to attack a wide variety of strategies without exerting a bit of effort.

Players should be forced to pick a direction and a set of strategies, tactics, matchups etc. they want to attack, and a similar set to which they're willing to concede. In many formats, this has resulted in the development of metagaming as a real skill and the encouragement of continuous innovation.

I responded to this before, but I think I should have just said "Why?"  Why isn't it okay that the majority of decks be from a spectrum of interactive decks and for the non-interactive decks to be relegated to the fringes of the metagame?  The power level of Legacy is such that if I can't create a deck able to interact with my opponent playing wildly different decks I might as well play a non-interactive deck myself.  I think the burden is still on you to show that metagaming is not done in Legacy now.

And, of course, as long as there are frequent huge Legacy tournies (like the SCG Open Series) there will be continuous innovation.  It's a pretty ridiculous claim for you to say that there is not metagaming being done now, that there is not innovation being done now, when you simultaneously say "I don't know what the Legacy metagame looks like anymore."

This I think was a fine response to your next post:

...

...
But you also say that it's miserable to metagame against a field because the field is so wide open.

You misunderstand my position.  First off, I don't think it's miserable to metagame against a wide open field.  I think it would be less manageable to do so without access to Brainstorm.  This is not because of addressing the majority of decks that are from the interactive spectrum, but from the few fringe decks that are not interactive or are interactive on a starkly different dimension.  (Enchantress, Storm, Lands, Dredge.)

I think it would be miserable to have specific matchups to which I'd be willing to concede.  In Vintage one can run the 'Dredge Gambit'; spending sideboard space shoring up the matchups besides Dredge and hoping not to run into Dredge.  However, there are a number of viable decks in Legacy that are interact in similarly unusual ways upon similarly unusual axes.  There are too many such decks to 'Gambit' on all of them.  With many more such auto-wins and auto-losses, I think probably a consequence to some extent of banning Brainstorm, tournament experience would be less enjoyable.

But you yourself imply that Brainstorm is a critical tool to solving a wide variety of matchups.

This is a misunderstanding.  I think Brainstorm is a critical tool in addressing the fringe matchups where opponents will be trying to skew interaction to some unusual axis.

This is another fine response in my opinion:

...

And here:

"Screw it, I'll play generic good card X instead of a singleton answer card Y.  If I run into the specific matchup where I might have wanted card Y that'll just be too bad for me."

DubDub: I don't see this as a problem at all. This in fact should be the goal. Make the players get off the fence.

So you find it desirable to reduce deck diversity in Legacy, which you seem to agree would be a consequence of banning Brainstorm?  That's the first time I've seen an argument for having fewer viable decks.

Most of the rest of what you've said goes further down the path after the misunderstanding I addressed above.  I hope this clarification helps.  We have half again as many posts discussing this article (or, in the thread meant to discuss the article) as the corresponding thread on MTGTS.  I plan to move on just like Sourcers have.

[diopter]

DubDub: I am grateful you have recognized that your own words and positions are absurd. Unfortunately you have decided this is somehow my doing, I assure you it is not. Your position is unreasonable on its face, or by examination from any and all angles.

A final note: I think you should lose, and lose hard, to fringe matchups that you don't prepare for. Frankly if you believe you deserve to win in every "axis of interaction" as you put it, you are being selfish. Cold, perhaps, but the truth.

[bluemage55]

It seems that a fundamental dividing line between the two camps here is what consititutes a 'strategy' or 'engine', vs. a 'tactic' or 'supporting card'.

So for the sake of reasonable discussion, can people please define whether or not Brainstorm is a 'strategy' or 'engine', in a way that groups it with cards such as Survival of the Fittest or Dark Rtiual, as opposed to 4x cards such as FoW, Duress, or Goyf?

[MaximumCDawg]

I may not be up to speed on the theory here, but here's my two cents on distinguishing "strategy" from an "engine." 

"Engine" implies something that makes a particular kind of deck run, and usually but not always warps the deck around it to a degree where the deck has a critical weakness without it.  Survival of the Fittest was an Engine because it made the whole deck work; without Survival, it was just a deck full of expensive creatures.  When it was on-line, the deck was a monster.  Necropotence was an Engine in Ice Age standard, because without it, you were just running a bunch of black weenies into a Wrath of God.  When it was on-line, the CA made those weenies potent.  In Mirage, Cadaverous Bloom was an engine; without it, you could not combo out with Prosperity.

"Strategy" implies something that helps a wider variety of decks operate, but does not really warp the deck around it.  Brainstorm goes in everything that can generate U.  It warps decks insofar as it demands fetchlands, but those are so good on their own that you'd see them even without BS.  If you don't draw a BS, whatever, your deck does what is doing.  BS doesn't function as a critical combo piece.  It isn't required for the deck to operate.

In short: I propose the distinction between engine and strategy, as you guys are using it, is a scale between cards that are crucial / overwhelming in a particular kind of deck, and those that are good in general in a variety of decks.

[bluemage55]

In short: I propose the distinction between engine and strategy, as you guys are using it, is a scale between cards that are crucial / overwhelming in a particular kind of deck, and those that are good in general in a variety of decks.

Err, I might have been unclear.

What i meant is that a strategy/engine would be one group (Survival, Ritual, Drain, Bazaar, etc.), while tactic/supporting 4x would be another (FoW, Duress, Goyf, Bob, etc.).

So which group does BS belong with, and why?

[Odd mutation]

Decks without Brainstorm:
Maverick
Zoo (or are we counting Blue Zoo in which case you move that straight up there with the Brainstorm decks)
Dredge

I don't agree -from testing- with this list. I think you should add Merfolk, Enchantress, Lands and Goblins to this list. I believe these decks are also valid threats in this metagame. Maybe some form of Aggro Loam also belongs on this list but I didn't build/find the right version yet.

Robrecht

[Marske]

Decks without Brainstorm:
Maverick
Zoo (or are we counting Blue Zoo in which case you move that straight up there with the Brainstorm decks)
Dredge

I don't agree -from testing- with this list. I think you should add Merfolk, Enchantress, Lands and Goblins to this list. I believe these decks are also valid threats in this metagame. Maybe some form of Aggro Loam also belongs on this list but I didn't build/find the right version yet.

Robrecht

Robrecht, can we drop this discussion? It's pointless, the decks you mention have a shot at beating other decks (even the top ones) correct. I won't argue that... do they have any form of dominance or shot at winning multiple events in a row? Highly unlikely. There's a fine line between a deck being viable and a deck being tier 1. Most people have different criteria for decks being viable, mine always has been: "It's viable if I don't get curbstomped into the x-2 bracket" this doesn't mean I think Viable decks are "good" decks.

[Odd mutation]

Decks without Brainstorm:
Maverick
Zoo (or are we counting Blue Zoo in which case you move that straight up there with the Brainstorm decks)
Dredge

I don't agree -from testing- with this list. I think you should add Merfolk, Enchantress, Lands and Goblins to this list. I believe these decks are also valid threats in this metagame. Maybe some form of Aggro Loam also belongs on this list but I didn't build/find the right version yet.

Robrecht

Robrecht, can we drop this discussion? It's pointless, the decks you mention have a shot at beating other decks (even the top ones) correct. I won't argue that... do they have any form of dominance or shot at winning multiple events in a row? Highly unlikely. There's a fine line between a deck being viable and a deck being tier 1. Most people have different criteria for decks being viable, mine always has been: "It's viable if I don't get curbstomped into the x-2 bracket" this doesn't mean I think Viable decks are "good" decks.

Well, I thought it was important to your point and again, I think you underestimate the power of these decks in capable hands. I believe they have more then "a shot at beating other decks". But ok, I won't pursue it further.

Robrecht

[Marske]

@Robrecht,
So why aren't capable pilots playing them now?

[voltron00x]

Good players don't play Merfolk?  Really?  Granted the deck is a bit loose atm just b/c Grim Lavamancer is so popular, but there's a long and lengthy list of people who have made similar arguments to yours and been proven wrong.

Anyway, I wouldn't bother to push this issue from either side.  Marius has very, very strongly held opinions about Legacy that you won't be able to change.

[Marske]

Good players don't play Merfolk?  Really?  Granted the deck is a bit loose atm just b/c Grim Lavamancer is so popular, but there's a long and lengthy list of people who have made similar arguments to yours and been proven wrong.

Anyway, I wouldn't bother to push this issue from either side.  Marius has very, very strongly held opinions about Legacy that you won't be able to change.

This isn't about changing my opinions regarding Legacy though. Merfolk isn't seeing tons of play and most of the top players are on other decks at the moment. This isn't about which deck(s) should or shouldn't see more / less play. That entire argument is invalid.

[diopter]

An excerpt from BKibler's most recently free article:

... I think it's important to have the ability to take a proactive stance in today's era of Magic. Gone are the days of 32-counterspell decks that have the ability to counter whatever you throw at them—decks these days attack from so many angles that it's important to be able to advance your own position rather than simply answer what your opponent does.

This is post Innistrad standard.

However, when it comes to Legacy, it apparently needs needs NEEEEEEDS Brainstorm to answer any and every strategy from any and every angle, because picking one's position and trying to advance it doesn't seem to be "fun" enough.

[bluemage55]

However, when it comes to Legacy, it apparently needs needs NEEEEEEDS Brainstorm to answer any and every strategy from any and every angle, because picking one's position and trying to advance it doesn't seem to be "fun" enough.

Bad strawman.  The idea is not that BS is needed to answer every strategy (nor does it), the idea is that BS helps slow down the opponent while advancing your own position.

A much better candidate for the answer to any and every strategy in Legacy would be FoW.  Do you want to ban FoW?  Why not?  Assuming your answer is (rightfully) that FoW makes for a better format, then consider that BS is the main card supporting FoW.

Regardless, no one has advanced any argument concerning the most important point: why is BS being considered ban-worthy due to being a powerful and highly prevalent 4x, whlie cards like Bob, Duress, Wasteland, Goyf, Bolt, and the aforementioned FoW are not?

[Marske]

@Bluemage55,
I'm pretty sure the level of play Brainstorm sees dwarfs the amount of the other cards you mention (with the exception of Force of Will). The fact that brainstorm gives you the ability to answer most strategies with just a few copies of cards against it in your deck was the point.

[bluemage55]

I'm pretty sure the level of play Brainstorm sees dwarfs the amount of the other cards you mention (with the exception of Force of Will). The fact that brainstorm gives you the ability to answer most strategies with just a few copies of cards against it in your deck was the point.

FoW is not only as prevalent, but serves as a more effective answer to most strategies than BS.  Yet we permit FoW because it enables a healthier, skill-intensive format.

I'd argue that BS does the same, by basically serving as FoW's little helper.  Take away BS, and all you really do is lower the skill-ceiling, nerf blue, and strengthen combo, all for the sake of opening up 4 card slots that will simply be replaced by a similar cantrip (in other words, pretty much what happened in Vintage).

I think BS serves as a confounding variable to the real issue.  While it's true that BS is very prevalent, the problems that have arisen in Legacy involve the rise of dominant blue tempo decks in particular, not decks that merely run BS.  Though it appears that too many decks running 4x FoW and 4x BS are showing up in Top 8s, BS has always been around.  Don't you think that more recent changes are responsible?  Why not consider banning powerful recent printings that have led to the increasing dominance of blue, such as Jace?

[Marske]

@Bluemage55,
Because if we talk about banning recent offenders you have to ban at least:

Jace, TMS
Snapcaster Mage
Delver of Secrets

were if we take away brainstorm, all the above cards get worse... And do we really want to ban a 1/1 Wizard insect and a 2/1 Wizard to keep Brainstorm around? Feels like faulty logic to me.

[diopter]

1.) It has been discussed many times how Brainstorm functions in the context of the early gameplan (i.e. it is the early gameplan).

2.) The difference between Brainstorm and Force of Will is pretty apparent. Both are metagame warping. Force of Will warps it away from turn 2 combo. Brainstorm warps it towards Brainstorm.

3.) The fact that Brainstorm and Force of Will have been dominating for a long time means they've been problems for a long time. It would be nice to get rid of Force of Will but clearly you can't (some variety of Ritual combo would likely dominate). Brainstorm has no such limitations - it is the limitation.

[nineisnoone]

However, when it comes to Legacy, it apparently needs needs NEEEEEEDS Brainstorm to answer any and every strategy from any and every angle, because picking one's position and trying to advance it doesn't seem to be "fun" enough.

Bad strawman.  The idea is not that BS is needed to answer every strategy (nor does it), the idea is that BS helps slow down the opponent while advancing your own position.

A much better candidate for the answer to any and every strategy in Legacy would be FoW.  Do you want to ban FoW?  Why not?  Assuming your answer is (rightfully) that FoW makes for a better format, then consider that BS is the main card supporting FoW.

Regardless, no one has advanced any argument concerning the most important point: why is BS being considered ban-worthy due to being a powerful and highly prevalent 4x, whlie cards like Bob, Duress, Wasteland, Goyf, Bolt, and the aforementioned FoW are not?

Just to throw more gas on the fire, I disagree that FoW makes formats "better." I have no problem with it, but what broke-ass combo decks do we encounter that *don't* run FoW? I'm not up to date on Legacy, but I don't think the only think keeping belcher from dominating Vintage is FoW... People just love saying that, but the fact is FoW hasn't stopped most of the broken decks from forming and has been a part of most of them.

Brainstorm > Bob, Duress, Wasteland, Goyf, Bolt, and FoW (kinda... counters have relative power compared to what they counter, so sometimes yes, sometimes no). Do you disagree?

And the argument is Brainstorm = Ancestral Recall if your deck supports card advantage (control) or speed (combo) because the fact that the fact that you do not gain actual card advantage is irrelevant if you hand is already saturated with the necessary plays or the game is shortened to where you do not need more actual cards.

[nineisnoone]

3.) The fact that Brainstorm and Force of Will have been dominating for a long time means they've been problems for a long time. It would be nice to get rid of Force of Will but clearly you can't (some variety of Ritual combo would likely dominate). Brainstorm has no such limitations - it is the limitation.

I disagree, but in any case unban Mental Misstep and problem solved.

[voltron00x]

Good players don't play Merfolk?  Really?  Granted the deck is a bit loose atm just b/c Grim Lavamancer is so popular, but there's a long and lengthy list of people who have made similar arguments to yours and been proven wrong.

Anyway, I wouldn't bother to push this issue from either side.  Marius has very, very strongly held opinions about Legacy that you won't be able to change.

This isn't about changing my opinions regarding Legacy though. Merfolk isn't seeing tons of play and most of the top players are on other decks at the moment. This isn't about which deck(s) should or shouldn't see more / less play. That entire argument is invalid.

"at the moment" - GT said CB/Top was garbage even before Misstep came out, but played it at the last SCG.  Legacy is a very dynamic format.  Decks fluctuate in strength and popularity.  Last year, people said Merfolk sucked and good players didn't play it right before it won a GP... and then subsequently it went on a long-lasting streak of solid performance.  You're just repeating the same mistakes other writers have made in the past by focusing on a snapshot of the format and making over-reaching statements about what the format is.

Anyway, as I said, I don't intend to debate this with you bc as I have noted on our team boards, we fundamentally disagree about the format.  You have previously noted your strong dislike for the format and general disinterest in it, and I believe those feelings color your writing and debate about Legacy.

[Commandant]

Anyway, as I said, I don't intend to debate this with you bc as I have noted on our team boards, we fundamentally disagree about the format.  You have previously noted your strong dislike for the format and general disinterest in it, and I believe those feelings color your writing and debate about Legacy.

Not that I need to tell you this but it's good to point out that this is true of the inverse as well.

[voltron00x]

Anyway, as I said, I don't intend to debate this with you bc as I have noted on our team boards, we fundamentally disagree about the format.  You have previously noted your strong dislike for the format and general disinterest in it, and I believe those feelings color your writing and debate about Legacy.

Not that I need to tell you this but it's good to point out that this is true of the inverse as well.

Oh, absolutely.  Example, I hate mushrooms.  It'd be tough for me to have a reasonable debate about the differences between types of mushrooms and proper use in cooking, because I hate them all.  That's ok, it's my opinion, but it makes reasonable debate about them with someone who is knowledgeable on the subject rather difficult.

[Stormanimagus]

I think it is about time I chimed in on this topic.

You see, I am relatively new to Legacy, and already I can tell that Brainstorm warps the format in an unhealthy way that has definitely reached a critical mass.

First off, since I HATE banning cards let me first explain which cards could come off the Legacy banned list and why that still wouldn't solve the Brainstorm problem. Here is the current Legacy Banned list:

Amulet of Quoz
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Bazaar of Baghdad
Black Lotus
Black Vise
Bronze Tablet
Channel
Chaos Orb
Contract from Below
Darkpact
Demonic Attorney
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
Earthcraft
Falling Star
Fastbond
Flash
Frantic Search
Goblin Recruiter
Gush
Hermit Druid
Imperial Seal
Jeweled Bird
Land Tax
Library of Alexandria
Mana Crypt
Mana Drain
Mana Vault
Memory Jar
Mental Misstep
Mind Twist
Mind's Desire
Mishra's Workshop
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mystical Tutor
Necropotence
Oath of Druids
Rebirth
Shahrazad
Skullclamp
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
Survival of the Fittest
Tempest Efreet
Time Vault
Time Walk
Timetwister
Timmerian Fiends
Tinker
Tolarian Academy
Vampiric Tutor
Wheel of Fortune
Windfall
Worldgorger Dragon
Yawgmoth's Bargain
Yawgmoth's Will

I am first going to assume that we know what the no-brainers are (A. Recall, Moxen, Yawg. Will) so I'll move on to the juicier cards.

1. Earthcraft — Problem with this little 2 card combo enabler is that it would definitely be busted in conjunction with Brainstorm. Heck, it might be pretty dang busted without brainstorm. Vote: Leave Banned.

2. Land Tax — Not entirely sure why this is still banned, but guess what? Brainstorm allows you to put those extra lands back. Throw in a shuffle effect and you are talking serious CA. Vote: Unban if Brainstorm is Banned.

3. Mystical Tutor — This card is the broken nuts when combined with Brainstorm and would unleash ANT in a serious way. I don't think so. Vote: Leave Banned.

4. Skullclamp — Enables Kobold Clamp as a Turn-1 Kill deck that is probably more consistent than Belcher and can "go off" multiple times. Turn 1 Kills are quite scary in a format that only has FoW realistically to stop them. Vote: Leave Banned.

5. Gush — Without fastbond being available, I'm not sure this card is too too scary. I'm sure someone could brew a crazy Exploration deck. Problem is that such a deck with full fetches might become busted with Brainstorm. Vote: Unban if Brainstorm is Banned.

6. Goblin Recruiter — Isn't this guy just too slow for Legacy now? He can also be Spell Snared? I realize Food Chain Goblins can abuse the heck out of him, but really? Is that deck even good? Vote: Unban even if Brainstorm stays.

So, those are the 6 candidates for unbanning in my opinion and 2 of them should probably come off if Brainstorm is banned. Conclusion from this? Ban Brainstorm.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Now I am going to talk about what nixing Brainstorm would do to help existing archetypes.

1. Storm combo would get a bit shot in the arm because now blue decks can't skirt around your Duresses and hide their most important cards. Storm would still have Ponder, Preordain and Gitaxian Probe so no problem there. This would be good for the format because right now combo is on a huge decline. Reanimator wouldn't gain as much as it would lose because Brainstorm often helped them to put fatties back when they needed to entomb them. This would also not be bad for the format as I believe Reanimator to be overpowered at present.

2. BUG would cease to be a deck as is. I know this is a bold statement but hear me out. I think Faeries does everything BUG does except for the clock (Tarmogoyf is the central defining difference between the two decks. Look at a list sometime of each side by said. Their maindecks - excluding lands - are like quite similar on many fronts) and Eva Green does much of what BUG does except for the Blue. I don't think BUG could adequately support its manabase without Brainstorm at the helm and the deck would slowly decline until it died.

3. RUG would cease to be a deck as is. This is more subtle and perhaps less true, but I think U/R would become a more stable version of RUG. The reason I am more hesitant to make this claim is because RUG needn't have UU up for basically any of its spells. RUG would still be a deck, but Delver would no longer be the house it currently is and the deck would have to "play fair" a bit more.

4. Maverick could compete as a more widely played and legitimate aggro strategy. Maverick would still probably see little success (as Combo would be a lot better and combo preys on Maverick) but in the right metagame Maverick could thrive. A totally non-blue deck thriving. Wouldn't that be nice?

5. Without the crutch of Brainstorm, decks featuring Blood Moon would become a more real threat to greedy manabases. I firmly believe that Blood Moon is only living on the outskirts of Legacy right now because Brainstorm can dig you into fetches early (which find you basics) OR into a FoW or some such to counter the Moon. Without Brainstorm Moon is scarier. On that note:

6. Enchantress becomes closer to tier 1. No brainstorm to find your answer now? Enchantress will bury you in CA. Enchantress also tends to prey on aggro, tribal or zoo and those decks get a boost from Brainstorm's banning.

7. Lands becomes closer to tier 1 again. Similar reason to Enchantress.

8. Stax might even be playable again. Never thought I'd hear myself say that LOL.

Anyway, I could go on and on about the positives that banning Brainstorm would bring to the format and I really can't think of any negatives off the top of my head.

My vote? BAN BRAINSTORM!

-Storm

ADDENDUM: Here's some food for thought as well. Imagine more and more 2-color decks becoming tier 1 in Legacy vs. Green 3-color decks with $1000 + mana bases. Now imagine yourself with no wallet and wanting to break into Legacy. Now imagine a more popular format for newcomers. Just sayin!