[Feature Article] – The Legacy of Brainstorm

[Marske]

I would add Bant Stoneblade to that list of Legacy decks. It has been winning and placing a lot and it utilizes some powerful card interactions. Knight of the Reliquary is a house in that deck and many decks simply do NOT have an answer to him. I'd include Bant in your list.

-Storm

Like really? We're gonna argue about which list should / shouldn't be mentioned? I could have listed whatever else I wanted, point was, there are about 4-5 decks in both formats that are actually worth playing, you can play other decks, maybe even get some success with those if the moon alligns just right and the tide is good etc. but basically, legacy is about as "diverse" of a format as Type 2, Vintage or Modern. It's ongoing Myth that it's the most diverse format in the game is a fallacy.

[DubDub]

I don't think it's appropriate to draw parallels between Legacy and Vintage.  Vintage's metagame is quite narrow compared to Legacy.  Indeed the reason why a single Hurkyl's Recall is sufficient in Vintage, despite the high power level of Workshops, is that only a narrow window is sufficient for Big Blue to take control and/or win.

This simply isn't true, Legacy's meta game is evenly narrow as the Vintage meta. For example, the only "real" decks (decks that have a shot at winning an event instead of just showing up and not getting stomped) are:

Legacy:
BUG with Hymn (or without)
Tempo Thresh            
Reanimator        
ANT    

Let's look at how the four decks you identified did at GP Amsterdam:

BUG (including Team America); 170% persistence from day one into day 2.  95% penetration from day two into the top 32.
Reanimator; 68% persistence from day one into day 2.  0% penetration into top 32.
ANT; 130% persistence, 38% penetration
Tempo Thresh (branded as Canadian Threshold in the coverage); 295% persistence, 95% penetration.

Very respectable showings indeed.

And let's look at some other decks:

Maverick; 138% persistence, 43% penetration.
UW Stone Blade; 145% persistence, 161% penetration.
Zoo; 40% persistence, 545% penetration.
Sneak Attack; 71% persistence, 362% penetration.
Dredge; 155% persistence, 103% penetration.
Bant; 266% persistence, 121% penetration.

I don't really see a distinction between the four you identified and the other six that performed very well.  If anything the outlier appears to be Reanimator, which despite being the most prevalent deck on day one in the sample did not place anyone into the top 32.  So if we're talking about ten more or less equally metagame-competent decks with additional viable fringe strategies, I think that's in line with my claims of a diverse format.

Or did the moon and tides just align for all 13 of the players who made the top 32 playing one of the six successful decks I listed that you did not list?

Sources:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Events.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gpams11/day1#13
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gpams11/day2#2
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck_search_result.asp?Location=2011%20GP%20Amsterdam%20-%2010/22

The first source appears to be based on a sample of the 1,800+ decks present on day one.  I was too lazy to look for the details of that sample, but I'm trusting it's more or less representative.
The top 32 lists number only 31, so one must be missing, not that that would change much of anything.

[Marske]

.................... blurb

Eh, mind sharing how you calculated those numbers there slugger?? Also just to make another point clear:

Decks featuring Brainstorm:
BUG
Reanimator
ANT
Tempo Thresh
Bant
Sneak Attack
UW Stone Blade

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

Nope, Brainstorm is definitely NOT warping this metagame at the slightest....

In other news, I'm pretty sure if you take a single SCG open you can get even other decks that sneaked into Top 32, doesn't mean jack shit either.... you need numbers across different tournaments for something to really mean anything.

PS EDIT:
Also the fact that even ZOO decks are now splashing Blue for Brainstorm and / or Daze / Jace etc isn't a tell tale sign of things getting a little out of control?

PS EDIT 2:
People should do well to read more and know wtf they are talking about before spewing nonsense numbers at people that actually do math for a living.

[DubDub]

.................... blurb

Eh, mind sharing how you calculated those numbers there slugger??

Um, I listed the three URLs used for sources.  It's all open source information that's freely available.

Decks featuring Brainstorm:
BUG
Reanimator
ANT
Tempo Thresh
Bant
Sneak Attack
UW Stone Blade

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

Nope, Brainstorm is definitely NOT warping this metagame at the slightest....

This is a completely different claim from "there are only four decks even worth consideration."  You're kinda a moving target at this point.  Do I have to aim ahead of you?

In other news, I'm pretty sure if you take a single SCG open you can get even other decks that sneaked into Top 32, doesn't mean jack shit either.... you need numbers across different tournaments for something to really mean anything.

Ok, your turn to provide numbers then.  Support your claim with sourced numbers like I did when I refuted you above.

PS EDIT:
Also the fact that even ZOO decks are now splashing Blue for Brainstorm and / or Daze / Jace etc isn't a tell tale sign of things getting a little out of control?

Are you going to provide sourced results to demonstrate that this is even something worth discussing, or are you just going to talk about Blue Zoo like it's very existence, at all, is damning?

PS EDIT 2:
People should do well to read more and know wtf they are talking about before spewing nonsense numbers at people that actually do math for a living.

Now you look kind of ridiculous.  Recap: you make a claim without any support whatsoever, I refute it providing some evidence (the evidence immediately at hand, because, I'm writing this while at work (where I'm using math ZOMG!)).

Let me just put my work projects on hold (but who will do all the math if not me?  ZOMG!) so that I can get you a complete workup of Legacy's metagame and results.  Hold on, just.  A.  Second.  OK?

[Marske]

@DubDub,
Lets not get into this and turn the thread into a discussion about this instead of the article?

Screw it,

Um, I listed the three URLs used for sources.  It's all open source information that's freely available.

I meant the actually calculations not the source data.

This is a completely different claim from "there are only four decks even worth consideration."  You're kinda a moving target at this point.  Do I have to aim ahead of you?

I still think there are but 4-5 real decks you "should" be playing in Legacy, I did mention I was trying to prove a different point.

In other news, I'm pretty sure if you take a single SCG open you can get even other decks that sneaked into Top 32, doesn't mean jack shit either.... you need numbers across different tournaments for something to really mean anything.

Ok, your turn to provide numbers then.  Support your claim with sourced numbers like I did when I refuted you above.

Are you going to provide sourced results to demonstrate that this is even something worth discussing, or are you just going to talk about Blue Zoo like it's very existence, at all, is damning?

No, I'm not.

Now you look kind of ridiculous.  Recap: you make a claim without any support whatsoever, I refute it providing some evidence (the evidence immediately at hand, because, I'm writing this while at work (where I'm using math ZOMG!)).

You provided zero evidence as you totally ignore the fact that those decks getting there could have been a case of Standard deviation in the entire sum. It could have been good pairings, good matchups, opponents fumbling etc. Consistent performances over multiple tournaments is the only real number you should be calculating.

Let me just put my work projects on hold (but who will do all the math if not me?  ZOMG!) so that I can get you a complete workup of Legacy's metagame and results.  Hold on, just.  A.  Second.  OK?

I'm also posting from work, idk what you do for a living but I can pretty easy multitask during breaks or delay posting till I get home. If you REALLY want to discuss things like this you really DO need a complete workup.

Final point: So we both to jobs involving math, you should know better that those numbers don't mean anything (the sample size is to small)

[DubDub]

@DubDub,
Lets not get into this and turn the thread into a discussion about this instead of the article?

So we both to jobs involving math, you should know better that those numbers don't mean anything (the sample size is to small)

Yeah sure.  I recognize that the penetration into top 32 is more liable to be influenced by luck and individual player skill.  But the day one-day two rates are reasonably credible.

I think the conclusion I still draw is: Legacy is diverse in an absolute sense.  And, Legacy is more diverse than other formats.  (I would make the claim about Vintage, since I have zero playing experience with Extended/Modern/Standard/Block.)

And if that's a fair thing to say, then I kinda say 'so what?' to Brainstorm's ubiquity.  I don't see attendance suffering and games are interactive.  Pas de problem.

[diopter]

Looks like a false diversity to me.

If Brainstorm were more critical to winning against the field than strategy selection (which is my ultimate takeaway from your comments), then strategies don't matter all that much. It's "diverse" but I will turn it around, "so what?". There is no pressure to innovate, players pretty much play whatever and do whatever, there is no meaning behind metagame shifts. It's all noise which makes for a great kitchen table format. Let's not give out thousands of dollars for it though.

If Brainstorm were less critical to winning against the field than strategy selection, then we're both wrong. You should be telling me how a Brainstorm ban is dumb because it wouldn't change anything (instead of telling me how it'll make everything so much worse).

Somehow I think we're both not wrong.

[nineisnoone]

Mad props for having the courage to say what is true, but no one wants to admit. Brainstorm definitely should be banned in Legacy, and it's Vintage restriction was more than appropriate (and this is coming from someone who basically wants to unrestrict almost everything).

The truth is that blue doesn't make things more fair, it just makes things more blue. And making things more blue doesn't make things more diverse, it just makes them more blue. Brainstorm doesn't makes broken things less broken, it just makes them more broken.

Is that a problem? Not necessarily. But with card draw it is just too ubiquitous to everything. In any vaguely healthy format, one mana to draw 3 cards is insane. The only way it would not be amazing is if the format is so powerful that the card is too slow or that the format is so weak that the better cards you see are a waste. Vintage isn't that good, and Modern isn't that bad.

The only reason why you don't see it is because some people don't want to play it or their deck demands 60 cards to implement the strategy.

And really, what does Legacy lose? Brainstorm takes a hit, but there are tons of great 1 drops that can step into supplement those old strategies. None of those decks will go away, they'll just depowered and honestly, most probably not to the point of non-viability. Tourney players will learn to suck it up, just like every other time they get something B/R'ed that they were playing. Casual players can play whatever the hell they want because they are casual.

[Commandant]

This is a completely different claim from "there are only four decks even worth consideration."  You're kinda a moving target at this point.  Do I have to aim ahead of you?

No offense Charlie but this is a classic Steve M. move, I think you have been spending too much time chatting with him.

Brainstorms prevalence and the subsequent restrictions it places on Legacy diversity was and is my point and I'm positive is the point of Marske's article. Granted he should have made that distinction in his posts, I do not believe it's too difficult to follow the logic tree he is trying to convey. If you want the best chance to win in Legacy you play Brainstorm. Period.

Quite frankly I'm rather tired of the pro Brainstorm arguments I read on various forums as the majority of them revolve around "Brainstorm is cool and super interactive". While Rich made a point that this can be critera for the removal of a card from a format, it does not change the fact that Brainstorm warps the meta. Just because there are a large amount of Tarpan decks you could play doesn't mean you should.

The diversity of Legacy is an artifical one and it's one that keeps me from spending any significant time on the format. If you weaken Blue it allows people who are unable to enter the format with a Blue deck to actually compete.

[Marske]

@nineisnoone,
Thanks dude!

@Commandant,
You got it spot on, it's hard for me to convey everything with all the nuances in English, I try my best to do so but sometimes there's some interpertation needed from the reader. Most get what I'm trying to say, other don't or just refuse to. I suspect DubDub is the latter.

[nataz]

BUG (including Team America); 170% persistence from day one into day 2.  95% penetration from day two into the top 32.
Reanimator; 68% persistence from day one into day 2.  0% penetration into top 32.
ANT; 130% persistence, 38% penetration
Tempo Thresh (branded as Canadian Threshold in the coverage); 295% persistence, 95% penetration.

can you define persistence and penetration for me? What does that actually mean/What calculation did you use?

Did you make those terms up or are they a legitimate statistical test that I've never heard of?

[Marske]

BUG (including Team America); 170% persistence from day one into day 2.  95% penetration from day two into the top 32.
Reanimator; 68% persistence from day one into day 2.  0% penetration into top 32.
ANT; 130% persistence, 38% penetration
Tempo Thresh (branded as Canadian Threshold in the coverage); 295% persistence, 95% penetration.

can you define persistence and penetration for me? What does that actually mean/What calculation did you use?

Did you make those terms up or are they a legitimate statistical test that I've never heard of?

Didn't you deduce that from the links he included?! So I'm not alone in my confusion!

Honestly, I tried asking for it already, I think we're both wasting our time.

[nataz]

Sources:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Events.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gpams11/day1#13
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gpams11/day2#2
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck_search_result.asp?Location=2011%20GP%20Amsterdam%20-%2010/22

The first source appears to be based on a sample of the 1,800+ decks present on day one.  I was too lazy to look for the details of that sample, but I'm trusting it's more or less representative.
The top 32 lists number only 31, so one must be missing, not that that would change much of anything.

from what I can tell the first link is useless. There is no mention of total number of decks, no mention of how many decks he sampled (no raw numbers at all, just %), and you can't just assume that its statistically significant in any what. Unless there is more information I'm missing you have to throw that data out.

Links 2/3 are fine for what they are, but it would be nicer if we had card breakdowns so you could actually measure things like correlation of card combinations -> top 32 appearance, but even that would be suspect because of the low number of observations. I suppose you could do a chi-squared test...but how helpful is that?

This is what I'd do if I had the time. 1) scatter plot all the deck to see if we have a fairly normal distribution. 2) add a dummy variable in for decks with Brainstorm. 3 run simple ANOVA regression on decks with brainstorm -> top 32. Make sure P and R values are relevant. 4) start doing breakdowns with muli-variant regression using different categories of cards (say Brainstorm + some kind of functional deck category). 2-4 coefficients in each analysis. 4) look for coefficients with high P value (significance) whos equation has a high R value (prediction). Use that to ID most successful strategies.

or

stop using numbers that people don't understand and just use qualitative analysis instead.

Qualitative analysis is fine. Its what happens most of the time on these boards. Adding weird numbers to qualitative analysis, when you don't use even minimal statistical rules, is a trap.

Now, if persistence and penetration are some kind of statistical test that I've never heard of, I apologize.

[DubDub]

Wow, I went to lunch and this thread blows up.  (So much math left undone while I ate, travesty.)

Persistence:
From link #1 Reanimator made up 8.5% of the day one metagame.  (Or a sample therefrom according to the coverage author's cryptic comments.)
From link #2 Reanimator made up 5.78% of the day two metagame.

5.78 / 8.5 = 68% 'persistence'.

Persistence is an English word meaning "continued existence or occurrence."

Penetration is calculated in the same way except using appearance in the top 32 as the numerator and prevalence at the beginning of day two as the denominator.  The terms are interchangable I only used the two to try to distinguish between which inputs were being used for convenience.

I apologize profusely that it was not clear to you guys I divided one number by another.

@Marske
You're demanding rigor that you're not willing to adhere to yourself.  I'm sorry I don't have all ~1,800 decklists in front of me.  In fact I am just disheartened that I don't have the play by play from every game in every match to do the analysis you require.

@Diopter

If Brainstorm were more critical to winning against the field than strategy selection (which is my ultimate takeaway from your comments), then strategies don't matter all that much.

I said "I think that yes, having equal access to the tactic of Brainstorm->answer makes negligible impact on which strategies are viable, and even less than negligible impact on determining which strategies are best."

@nataz
The numbers from the sample are the only ones available to me as of yet.  I would be happy to recalculate if someone could point me to a full day one metagame breakdown.  It's just some simple division after all.

@Commandant
None taken, though the last time I talked to Steve was at TMD Open 15 and that was only briefly.  Perhaps we're both naturally obstinate. 
I don't think it's unfair of me to respond to the claim that there are only four "real" decks with evidence (however slight it's perceived to be) that six other decks did approximately as well or better in a major tournament.  I don't think it's unfair for me to point out that when Marske reframed his claim to be about decks-with-Brainstorm versus those without that was instead a completely different claim.

[nataz]

well there is the problem.

like I said above, the first link is garbage. You can't use those numbers with a straight face.
The second/third data sets you can use, but I'd use raw numbers instead of %'s

Persistence is an English word meaning "continued existence or occurrence."

You know what persistence doesn't mean? Divided the percentages from a day 1 sample of unknown quality with the total population of day 2.

not my fault you are using made up terms w/o explaining what they mean.

[diopter]

DubDub: I do not buy what you're selling. You cannot in one breath argue that the absence of Brainstorm would affect deck selection, and in the next breath argue that the presence of Brainstorm does not affect deck selection.

It is either one or the other.

Based on your comments along the lines of "Brainstorm is the only way you can have a solid good gameplan against the entire field", Brainstorm needs to go, and the attitude that Legacy players are entitled to reasonable matchups across the entire field needs to go.

[DubDub]

@Marske
Fundamentally I did not recognize the counterclaim "No, there are more than four real decks in Legacy.  What about these other six decks that performed approximately as well at GP Amsterdam?" as one needing statistical rigor.  I mean, if you're just offering your opinion that's fine.  So it's your opinion that there are only four real decks.  By extension it's your opinion that Legacy's metagame is narrow.  So, the opposite, that Legacy's metagame is diverse is, in your opinion, a myth.  And, in your opinion, Brainstorm is responsible for this lack of diversity.

Ok, so, I qualitatively disagree.  In my opinion there are more than four real decks in Legacy.  In my opinion Legacy's metagame is diverse.  In my opinion Brainstorm is not shackling the Legacy metagame, because nothing is shackling the Legacy metagame, because the Legacy metagame is not shackled, because clearly the Legacy metagame is like a dove, flying free.

[Marske]

@DubDub,
Lets agree to disagree then, as this entire conversation is leading nowhere. The goal of my article was simply to offer a counter argument to Caleb's. Nowhere in the article did I ever offer any statement that would have made me have to back it up with tons of data. I'm offering my honest observations, the amount of decks Brainstorm enables is staggering, the ease with which brainstorm enables decks to beat decks without brainstorm is even more alarming, should this be claims for the cards banning? Was all I stated.

Live in magical chrismas land all you want, Legacy isn't "diverse" by any means. The kind of Attitude you displayed in this thread is exactly what's wrong with Legacy, people feeling great for playing a "rogue" format where anything CAN and more importantly SHOULD be free game, especially casting awesome spells. Well, 2K Grand Prix disagree with the format being "rogue" and a special snowflake and X thousand dollars in prize money clearly indicates there's a real need for a balanced format (which legacy isn't atm)

Basically for me, Legacy doesn't feel diverse at all because every decklist I play (if I want to win) HAS to start with 4x Brainstorm, (FoW is optional, see ANT/TES) then I'd fill in the remaining 56 cards.... playing anything else is just foolish (unless you have a REALLY good reason)

[DubDub]

Basically for me, Legacy doesn't feel diverse at all because every decklist I play (if I want to win) HAS to start with 4x Brainstorm, (FoW is optional, see ANT/TES) then I'd fill in the remaining 56 cards.... playing anything else is just foolish (unless you have a REALLY good reason)

It's just that I see the differences between this:

4  Flooded Strand
4  Island
1  Karakas
3  Misty Rainforest
1  Plains
1  Polluted Delta
1  Scalding Tarn
3  Tropical Island
4  Tundra

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 lands

2  Snapcaster Mage
4  Tarmogoyf
2  Vendilion Clique

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 creatures

 4  Brainstorm
4  Counterbalance
4  Force of Will
3  Jace, the Mind Sculptor
1  Oblivion Ring
1  Repeal
4  Sensei's Divining Top
3  Spell Snare
4  Swords to Plowshares
2  Vedalken Shackles

And this:

1  Flooded Strand
2  Misty Rainforest
1  Polluted Delta
1  Scalding Tarn
3  Tropical Island
4  Volcanic Island
4  Wasteland
2  Wooded Foothills

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 lands

4  Delver of Secrets
3  Nimble Mongoose
4  Tarmogoyf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 creatures

 4  Brainstorm
4  Daze
2  Dismember
1  Fire // Ice
4  Force of Will
4  Lightning Bolt
4  Ponder
4  Spell Snare
4  Stifle

Whereas you seem only to see '4 Brainstorm' listed twice.  (And to a lesser extent, 4x Tarmogoyf, 4x Force of Will, 3 Spell Snare and whatever else I might have missed that overlaps, lands of course).  Those are two of the top 8 decks from GP Amsterdam by the way, selected just because they were listed first in the coverage.

So we have differences in perception.  I think you're right that we should agree to disagree.

[nataz]

Ok, so, I qualitatively disagree. ...because clearly the Legacy metagame is like a dove, flying free.

bwahaha

I present the legacy metagame analyzed through interpretive dance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU&feature=related

[Marske]

@DubDub,
Check the lists below for the same comparison! I must be insanely stupid for not seeing it. See, ones Aggro the others Combo, TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANIMALS. in no way shape or form does this mean Survival is a bad card, far from it, you see, there's tons of possible decks. Aggro control (with survival), Aggro (with survival), Combo (with survival), Combo Control (with survival).... see it's totally diverse meta!

3  Bayou
2  Forest
1  Island
4  Misty Rainforest
1  Polluted Delta
3  Tropical Island
3  Underground Sea
3  Verdant Catacombs
20 lands

2  Basking Rootwalla
4  Birds of Paradise
4  Fauna Shaman
3  Necrotic Ooze
1  Phyrexian Devourer
1  Quirion Ranger
1  Triskelion
3  Vengevine
1  Wonder
20 creatures

4  Brainstorm
3  Cabal Therapy
2  Daze
4  Force of Will
3  Intuition
4  Survival of the Fittest
20 other spells

Sideboard
1  Dryad Arbor
3  Faerie Macabre
2  Krosan Grip
1  Llawan, Cephalid Empress
3  Natural Order
1  Progenitus
1  Shriekmaw
3  Spell Pierce

========================
Business (41)
4 Brainstorm
2 Ponder
4 Force of Will
3 Spell Snare
4 Swords to Plowshares
4 Survival of the Fittest
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Rhox War Monk
2 Spellstutter Sprite
2 Qasali Pridemage
1 Trygon Predator
1 Eternal Witness
1 Kira, Great Glass-Spinner
1 Loyal Retainers
1 Iona, Shield of Emeria
1 Squee, Goblin Nabob

Mana Sources (19)
4 Misty Rainforest
3 Windswept Heath
1 Flooded Strand
4 Tropical Island
2 Savannah
1 Tundra
2 Forest
1 Plains
1 Island

Sideboard A (15)
3 Spell Pierce
2 Path to Exile
2 Krosan Grip
2 Relic of Progenitus
1 Faerie Macabre
1 Ethersworn Canonist
1 Gaddock Teeg
1 Meddling Mage
1 Rhox War Monk
1 Loxodon Hierarch


Yes, I went there.....

[DubDub]

Yes, I went there.....

Le sigh.  <I literally facepalmed looking at this argument.>

Survival is an engine.  Brainstorm is not.

Survival trivializes 'the kill' because it finds and executes whatever kill you desire.  Brainstorm enables a whole host of strategic endgames.

Survival was a dominant strategic decision.  Brainstorm is a dominant tactic.

No one is playing Vengevine, Necrotic Ooze, or Loyal Retainers without Survival.  Tarmogoyf, Snapcaster Mage, Stoneforge Mystic, etc. would still see play without Brainstorm.

Surely you admit there are differences, yes?

[diopter]

When has Brainstorm not been an engine (or more precisely, strategy)?

I only conceded that it was a tactic because I wanted to debate on your turf. You kept insisting it was just a tactic for finding answers for every matchup (which, I will reiterate over and over, is still horrible).

[Commandant]

Really interesting post at The Source.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22582-A-brief-but-instructive-analysis-of-Brainstorm-s-performance-in-SCG-Opens

[voltron00x]

Bit too short a period of time to assign much significance, in my opinion.  But, yes, still interesting.

[Commandant]

Bit too short a period of time to assign much significance, in my opinion.  But, yes, still interesting.

Agree, though I really liked the visuals.

[nataz]

Iba's post at the source was wicked. I especially loked his analysis which mentioned trends, the limits of his data,  and the idea that this indicates BS is something to keep a close eye on,  but still needs more data. 

Something i really liked was the excellent progression of total decks/top16/8/4/2.  Very effective use of data to tell a story.  Deserves brownie points.

[bluemage55]

When has Brainstorm not been an engine (or more precisely, strategy)?

I only conceded that it was a tactic because I wanted to debate on your turf. You kept insisting it was just a tactic for finding answers for every matchup (which, I will reiterate over and over, is still horrible).

When has it been a central part of any deck's game plan?

Just because many different decks play BS x4 doesn't mean it's a strategy or engine.  That's like saying FoW, Goyf, or Duress are strategies/engines.

[nataz]

@ anyone

if someone can give me a breakdown of which decks played BS AND I can get someone to make the names used in the top 32 = names in the total breakdown I'll run a quick and dirty ANOA analysis.

IBA inspired me, so I started tonight, and then realized that I was missing that information which is kind of critical.

[DubDub]

What changed between pre-Misstep and post-Innistrad?  New Phyrexia and Innistrad.  Dismember and Surgical Extraction gave new tools to Blue.  Delver of Secrets erases a weakness in Blue.  Snapcaster Mage bolsters Blue across the board.

The one thing that didn't change is whether Brainstorm saw play or not in given decks.  The decks Brainstorm was already appearing became more prevalent and more successful because of these other changes.

If one wants to disparage the dominance of Blue it seems like one shouldn't be targeting a classically Blue spell like Brainstorm, one should be targeting the complete lack of adhering to the color pie.