[Feature Article] – The Legacy of Brainstorm

[Marske]

Marius continues the discussion about the role of Brainstorm in Legacy, and also brings out some new decklists!

The Link

Again it's focussed mostly on Legacy but with a Vintage Decklist, I hope you guys enjoy.

[MaximumCDawg]

Article was fine (Channel Fireball trolls notwithstanding) as your personal thoughts, but I thought you could have made a stronger case if you took a more analytical approach to the whole deal.  I mean, in your whole article, you never really come out and say "Brainstorm should be banned because of X."  You just say "it's only a matter of time before it gets out of hand enough to be banned."  That's wishy-washy language.  Take a position!

As I gather, you do agree with banning it, and you claim the problem with Brainstorm is that it is ubiquitous.  That it is wrong not to play it.  That may be true, but the same is true of Force of Will, Fetchlands, Tarmogoyf, etc.  There are Best Cards in every format.  Virtually all Vintage lists start with the same 10 - 30 cards, for pete's sake.  If you banned Brainstorm, you might get a bump in diversity as a result of people trying out Ponder or Preordain.  Would it be worth it?  

Here's the thing: your arguments are totally correct and totally miss the point being raised by the anti-banning crowd.  The fundemental point is to ban cards that make the format less fun.  When Affinity was raging, the format wasn't fun.  When Cawblade was king, the format wasn't fun.  Is Legacy really less fun with Brainstorm around?  Really?  If so, why do commentators keep saying things like, "he actually lost to Brainstorm, but he didn't know it at the time?"  You call it "personal bias" that someone may enjoy casting Brainstorm.  Sure, but whether a format is fun is the sum total of the personal biases of the players in it!  How many people out there have a personal bias AGAINST Brainstorm?

When one talks about banning Brainstorm, it's really a discussion about variance.  Brainstorm is a 1 for 1; it is not CA in and of itself.  It is a smoothing tool; a mini-tutor.  It allows decks to more reliably operate the way the operators want them to.  In other words, it allows people to play more like they intended to play, and lowers variance.  I suggest this is a big reason why people find it "fun."  So if you're taking aim at Brainstorm, you're really asking for increased variance in the format.  

Can you back up the claim that Legacy needs more variance to be healthy?  Certainly that was true of Vintage in 2008.  Vintage lets you play with such broken nonsense that increasing variation is sometimes the only way to allow "fair" games between decks.  Does Legacy really have that problem?  I'd agree with you if combo decks were still stomping everything else consistently.  But the format is still diverse and lots of decks have a shot at the top.  What would the format gain with an increase in variation?

[Marske]

@MaximumCDawg,
Sorry for the late reply but I was doing this discussion on multiple fora including the comments section

Article was fine (Channel Fireball trolls notwithstanding) as your personal thoughts, but I thought you could have made a stronger case if you took a more analytical approach to the whole deal.  I mean, in your whole article, you never really come out and say "Brainstorm should be banned because of X."  You just say "it's only a matter of time before it gets out of hand enough to be banned."  That's wishy-washy language.  Take a position!

I didn't take a position on purpose! I hate articles that forcefeed the authors position as the only one. I tried to outline several points and let it be the reader who decides what to do with it. Without my personal preference interfering with it.

As I gather, you do agree with banning it, and you claim the problem with Brainstorm is that it is ubiquitous.  That it is wrong not to play it.  That may be true, but the same is true of Force of Will, Fetchlands, Tarmogoyf, etc.  There are Best Cards in every format.  Virtually all Vintage lists start with the same 10 - 30 cards, for pete's sake.  If you banned Brainstorm, you might get a bump in diversity as a result of people trying out Ponder or Preordain.  Would it be worth it? 

It's NOT true for any other card but Force. You can play non-goyf decks and non-fetchland decks (5c Storm or mono blue) and be very competitive. Making a case for FoW is stupid as if that goes you get a belcher format. Brainstorm on the other hand draws a very clear line in the sand regarding play me or play against me. There's no middle ground, when people start saying:

Finally, this is a question we already know the answer to. Dear deck, I’m drawing too many blanks moving into the mid-late game and need a cheap way to draw some gas. What should I play?

Oh, yeah, the best spell in the format. Cool.

Yes, Merfolk wants to tap out to cast guys. Trust me, moving late you will find room to get a fetch in and Brainstorm away all that trash. Everyone else does it.

It's a clear cut signal that you're either with or really against playing it. If you are playing Blue in your deck, you better be packing Brainstorm.

Here's the thing: your arguments are totally correct and totally miss the point being raised by the anti-banning crowd.  The fundemental point is to ban cards that make the format less fun.  When Affinity was raging, the format wasn't fun.  When Cawblade was king, the format wasn't fun.  Is Legacy really less fun with Brainstorm around?  Really?  If so, why do commentators keep saying things like, "he actually lost to Brainstorm, but he didn't know it at the time?"  You call it "personal bias" that someone may enjoy casting Brainstorm.  Sure, but whether a format is fun is the sum total of the personal biases of the players in it!  How many people out there have a personal bias AGAINST Brainstorm?

We ban a card that makes a format less fun true (case: Trinisphere) we also ban a card that makes a format less diverse (Case: Thirst for Knowledge, Gush, Brainstorm, Survival of the fittest). Brainstorm (and with it the dominance that is blue) is really drawing a pretty strong line regarding it's place in Legacy.

on personal bias:
How many people cried out when Brainstorm was restricted in Vintage? (everybody) for the exact same reasons Legacy players are crying out when it gets mentioned now. Did Vintage get better after brainstorm left? No doubt about it. Did we realize it at the time? Hell no.

When one talks about banning Brainstorm, it's really a discussion about variance.  Brainstorm is a 1 for 1; it is not CA in and of itself.  It is a smoothing tool; a mini-tutor.  It allows decks to more reliably operate the way the operators want them to.  In other words, it allows people to play more like they intended to play, and lowers variance.  I suggest this is a big reason why people find it "fun."  So if you're taking aim at Brainstorm, you're really asking for increased variance in the format. 

So because you run Blue and Brainstorm you get to operate your deck the way you like and because I run Savannah and Wild Nacatl I don't? See the unfairness? Sure, it's within the color pie and flavor to have blue be able to draw / sculpt better then other colors. There's a case to be made for drawing vs filtering (or mini-tutoring like you said). I've been stating for years that we in Vintage are to high up on the "drawing" and ignore the "filtering" part. That's also why most people didn't understand Watskeburt (Almost blue) because it didn't "draw extra cards" but merely went through a ton of cards in a very short time span. Filtering is stronger then actually drawing more cards in some decks and we're beginning to see that in Forbidden Alchemy (and in the past with Strategic planning) finding it's home in Vintage as well (read this for a great example of a deck that filters instead of draws) Looking at that list you'll notice that a staggering amount of cards in that deck actually give you CA but Virtual CA (yes there's a difference).

Can you back up the claim that Legacy needs more variance to be healthy?  Certainly that was true of Vintage in 2008.  Vintage lets you play with such broken nonsense that increasing variation is sometimes the only way to allow "fair" games between decks.  Does Legacy really have that problem?  I'd agree with you if combo decks were still stomping everything else consistently.  But the format is still diverse and lots of decks have a shot at the top.  What would the format gain with an increase in variation?

Sure I can, people are going to disagree with me however (at least hopefully) I think Legacy DOES have this problem but people are to busy denying the fact that it's true. Blue wasn't dominant because of Mental Misstep, it was (or at least should've) been dominant way before it.  A lot of decks are viable yes, this doesn't mean they have a true shot at winning a big event.

[DubDub]

I don't play much Legacy now, but I would probably play even less if Brainstorm were banned.  I also expect it would be harder for me to find enough willing opponents if Brainstorm were banned.  That would be a shame.

The case can be made that Brainstorm is 'too good'.  I think there are lots of things that are subjectively 'too good' in Legacy, and that they all have a habit of balancing out.  Lion's Eye Diamond is Black Lotus!  Ad Nauseam is Yawgmoth's Bargain!  Jace2.0 is protection from game!  Survival of the Fittest is free hasty Tarmogoyfs!  Time Spiral = win target game!

The argument against Brainstorm, for me, is pretty meh.  The reason WotC ultimately acted (way too late from a dominance standpoint) against Jace+Stoneforge was that tournament attendance was really starting to suffer.  I don't see that in Legacy, so even if there's a 'problem', there's not a 'Problem', and there's certainly not a 'PROBLEM'.

[Troy_Costisick]

Lion's Eye Diamond is Black Lotus!  Ad Nauseam is Yawgmoth's Bargain!  Jace2.0 is protection from game!  Survival of the Fittest is free hasty Tarmogoyfs!  Time Spiral = win target game!

Yeah, but all of these are made better by Brainstorm.  The DCI could justifiably ban Brainstorm.  It's the best spell in Legacy by far and gives blue the biggest advantage over other colors.  But if they did ban it, the playerbase would revolt.  It would be like what happened to Modern after they banned Cloudpost and GSZ.

[Commandant]

I don't play much Legacy now, but I would probably play even less if Brainstorm were banned.  I also expect it would be harder for me to find enough willing opponents if Brainstorm were banned.  That would be a shame.

The case can be made that Brainstorm is 'too good'.  I think there are lots of things that are subjectively 'too good' in Legacy, and that they all have a habit of balancing out.  Lion's Eye Diamond is Black Lotus!  Ad Nauseam is Yawgmoth's Bargain!  Jace2.0 is protection from game!  Survival of the Fittest is free hasty Tarmogoyfs!  Time Spiral = win target game!

The argument against Brainstorm, for me, is pretty meh.  The reason WotC ultimately acted (way too late from a dominance standpoint) against Jace+Stoneforge was that tournament attendance was really starting to suffer.  I don't see that in Legacy, so even if there's a 'problem', there's not a 'Problem', and there's certainly not a 'PROBLEM'.

I get what you are saying here although, I disagree that banning Brainstorm would make the format implode.

People who play Legacy herald it as a format of diversity, I find it to be quite the opposite. I've played Legacy off and on since it's inception and everytime I come back I find nothing has really changed. There really is no reason to -not- play Brainstorm and I have come to the conclusion that the majority of people who do not play Brainstorm in Legacy are attached to one pet deck or another and despite doing mediocre in the face of Brainstorm continue to play said pet decks for no reason other then being bad at this game. I feel as though banning Brainstorm would actually lead to the real diversity people think this format has.

[DubDub]

Lion's Eye Diamond is Black Lotus!  Ad Nauseam is Yawgmoth's Bargain!  Jace2.0 is protection from game!  Survival of the Fittest is free hasty Tarmogoyfs!  Time Spiral = win target game!

Yeah, but all of these are made better by Brainstorm.  The DCI could justifiably ban Brainstorm.  It's the best spell in Legacy by far and gives blue the biggest advantage over other colors.  But if they did ban it, the playerbase would revolt.  It would be like what happened to Modern after they banned Cloudpost and GSZ.

That's fair, but Underground Sea/Tropical Island etc. also make all those 'better', and they're just part of the format.  Also, Survival was often U/G without Brainstorm (unnecessary since you can turn any creature into the combo-chain and nothing is dead in hand when it can be pitched to Eladamri's Call) and there was a very successful W/G variant.  It seems unjust to ban a really good (not dominant, in my opinion) non-blue engine that requires more than just a single mana that can be splashed for, and then start saying that Blue is too good.  (Not that you're doing that, but some people are.)

...

I get what you are saying here although, I disagree that banning Brainstorm would make the format implode.

People who play Legacy herald it as a format of diversity, I find it to be quite the opposite. I've played Legacy off and on since it's inception and everytime I come back I find nothing has really changed. There really is no reason to -not- play Brainstorm and I have come to the conclusion that the majority of people who do not play Brainstorm in Legacy are attached to one pet deck or another and despite doing mediocre in the face of Brainstorm continue to play said pet decks for no reason other then being bad at this game. I feel as though banning Brainstorm would actually lead to the real diversity people think this format has.

I don't think it would implode.  I think it would lose some luster and popularity though.

I see the Legacy metagame as being comprised of a wide number of decks that are all at roughly the same level of competency for playing the game.  I think removing Brainstorm would have varying levels of impact on the decks that play it now, and that the metagame would settle into a lower level of deck competency, with some decks being not impacted or only slightly impacted, and others being heavily impacted or invalidated.

I even see Brainstorm as a force encouraging interactivity in the format.  Because Brainstorm is so good at finding the things you need and getting rid of the things you don't it's relatively costless to prepare your deck for a wide range of opponents.  If decks become less consistent and you can't find the answer you need when you need it then suddenly you're asking yourself, what's the point of including singleton Diabolic Edict, or Krosan Grip?  I should just run another Tarmogoyf/Stoneforge/Jace.  Things that are generically good will rise in demand within the metagame.  Maybe you want to claim that Tarmogoyf/Stoneforge/Jace/generic-good-cards are already saturated in the format and that this additional demand would lead to increased diversity in card selection.  Maybe so.  I don't know.  Maybe you want to claim that Brainstorm is just as good at enabling deliberately non-interactive strategies like Storm Combo.  Again, I don't know.  It doesn't seem like Storm Combo, or High Tide combo are winning right now, right?  So maybe the tempo/midrange creatures+spells meta that exists now should just be accepted and enjoyed for what it is.

It's all going to change with the next set anyway.  WotC has no filter anymore.  Things like Delver of Secrets, Snapcaster, Misstep, Stoneforge, Jace etc. are getting printed.  The biggest limitation on diversity over the next ten years, setting aside card availability issues, is that due to power creep a small number of printings are going to invalidate large swaths of cards currently seeing play.

[MaximumCDawg]

Power creep it may be, but I think they're doing this in a very clever way.  They're not printing Moxen-level mistakes.  They're printing very careful, calculated and powerful cards with (perceived) narrow utility.

In other words, they're making cards that rival some of the old standards in power level - the old "mistake" cards - and yet they are not leading to degenerate metagames.  Well, not all of them are.  Jace and Stoneforge ran amok in Standard, but they're not really breaking Legacy or Vintage.  Misstep was not exactly too powerful, just too useful and effective for its own good.  I like how Vintage is now getting crops of new competitive cards with each set.

[DubDub]

Power creep it may be, but I think they're doing this in a very clever way.  They're not printing Moxen-level mistakes.  They're printing very careful, calculated and powerful cards with (perceived) narrow utility.

In other words, they're making cards that rival some of the old standards in power level - the old "mistake" cards - and yet they are not leading to degenerate metagames.  Well, not all of them are.  Jace and Stoneforge ran amok in Standard, but they're not really breaking Legacy or Vintage.  Misstep was not exactly too powerful, just too useful and effective for its own good.  I like how Vintage is now getting crops of new competitive cards with each set.

Stoneforge Mystic - Banned in Standard.  Banned in Extended.  Banned in Modern.  Undercosted, too many abilities, printed alongside the semi-mistake Batterskull.

Jace the Mind Sculptor - Banned in Standard.  Banned in Extended.  Banned in Modern.  Too many abilities, deliberately pushed in power level in order to sell an otherwise underwhelming set.

Mental Misstep - Banned in Extended.  Banned in Modern.  Banned in Legacy.  Undercosted, too versatile.

Preordain - Banned in Extended.  Banned in Modern.  Better than Ponder, which is restricted in Vintage.

I mean, if they wanted to change Legacy they could have put these cards into the Commander release so that they wouldn't destabilize three other constructed formats.  "Careful and calculated" seems wildly inaccurate.  I like that Vintage is getting these cards too, but we're getting full use out of Flusterstorm, which didn't have to be banned in Extended and Modern because it was never legal in those formats (not that I think it would be ban worthy, it's just an example of a very powerful card).

Plus there's their complete abolishment of the color pie, see Delver (Black, should have had a Carnophage type drawback once flipped) and Snapcaster (unbelievable how much he should have been Red).

Edit: added 'once flipped.'

[voltron00x]

I have felt for a long time that based on other Bans in Legacy, that Brainstorm should be banned. 

But, I'm happy that it isn't. 

[diopter]

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.

[diopter]

DubDub said:

Because Brainstorm is so good at finding the things you need and getting rid of the things you don't it's relatively costless to prepare your deck for a wide range of opponents.  If decks become less consistent and you can't find the answer you need when you need it then suddenly you're asking yourself, what's the point of including singleton Diabolic Edict, or Krosan Grip?  I should just run another Tarmogoyf/Stoneforge/Jace.

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.

[DubDub]

DubDub said:

Because Brainstorm is so good at finding the things you need and getting rid of the things you don't it's relatively costless to prepare your deck for a wide range of opponents.  If decks become less consistent and you can't find the answer you need when you need it then suddenly you're asking yourself, what's the point of including singleton Diabolic Edict, or Krosan Grip?  I should just run another Tarmogoyf/Stoneforge/Jace.

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.

That sounds pretty miserable.

I mean, you can talk about 'metagaming as a real skill,' but the Legacy metagame is SO wide open and SO diverse that I wouldn't want it to become any more matchup dependent.  A tournament like a GP: Legacy shouldn't be 17 rounds of Rock-Paper-Scissors-Spock-Car-Yeti-Handgun etc. where you have to choose ahead of time.  There's a reason why matches are played out now, because deck choice isn't the sole determinant.  If not, we should just list out everyone's decks and run the pairing software until we have a winner.

[diopter]

Let me pose a question: Why is it acceptable, nay, desirable for players in the other, "real" formats to have metagames where some strategies are just stone dead against some other strategies?

Maybe you are right that the Legacy metagame, as of right now, is so uniquely fragmented, that forcing players to make real cost/benefit decisions as to their strategic and tactical selections is just way too onerous.

If so, then my opinion would be that Legacy is already a horrid, unplayable format. They didn't even need the help from WotC.

I'm sure nobody shares this opinion. Perhaps then, DubDub could provide an explanation as to why Legacy is so unique that players should not have to metagame, at the strategic level at very least.

[Marske]

Let me pose a question: Why is it acceptable, nay, desirable for players in the other, "real" formats to have metagames where some strategies are just stone dead against some other strategies?

Because legacy has the ongoing myth that it's "in the spirit of the format" for "everything to be playable", now read that outloud and hear how stupidly it sounds as a major GP format.

Maybe you are right that the Legacy metagame, as of right now, is so uniquely fragmented, that forcing players to make real cost/benefit decisions as to their strategic and tactical selections is just way too onerous.

If so, then my opinion would be that Legacy is already a horrid, unplayable format. They didn't even need the help from WotC.

This is true by factor of people either:

A) Are not being able to play the best decks because of monetary reasons
B) Are unwilling to play the best decks because of some arbitrary "feelings" factor being involved (aka the Pet Deck Syndrome)

I'm sure nobody shares this opinion. Perhaps then, DubDub could provide an explanation as to why Legacy is so unique that players should not have to metagame, at the strategic level at very least.

See my above points, in essence a LOT of legacy players are still at the kitchen table level of thinking about things instead of at the "GP" level.

[DubDub]

Let me pose a question: Why is it acceptable, nay, desirable for players in the other, "real" formats to have metagames where some strategies are just stone dead against some other strategies?

That sounds to me like an unfortunate consequence of those other formats having more limited card pools that don't provide all the answers necessary that can fit into a variety of decks.  Legacy, with its enormous card pool dating back to Alpha, does not have that problem.

Maybe you are right that the Legacy metagame, as of right now, is so uniquely fragmented, that forcing players to make real cost/benefit decisions as to their strategic and tactical selections is just way too onerous.

If so, then my opinion would be that Legacy is already a horrid, unplayable format. They didn't even need the help from WotC.

I'm sure nobody shares this opinion. Perhaps then, DubDub could provide an explanation as to why Legacy is so unique that players should not have to metagame, at the strategic level at very least.

This is starkly at odds with reality.  Mystical Tutor was banned because people didn't metagame.  Survival of the Fittest was banned because people didn't metagame.  Time Spiral was threatened with a re-ban because people weren't metagaming (until Misstep came in and did it for them).  There are ongoing cries to ban Natural Order and Show and Tell and Hive Mind and many other things all on the back of desire not to metagame.

I want people to have been metagaming, to be metagaming now, and to continue in the future to metagame, but taking away one of the major reasons why the field has a modicum of predictability, and one of the major tools for making any given strategy viable against the diverse field is not the way to do it.  You can't give people even less of a chance to handle variously Emrakul and Hive Mind out of the same deck, let alone handle anything that Legacy as a whole can throw at you.  It's precisely because Legacy is already enormously diverse that Brainstorm is so useful.

MTGTheSource has seven 'decks to beat' listed right now.  Three of them do not play Brainstorm.  There are a whole host of viable strategies right now, so really, what the heck is the problem?  Are you really going to claim that we're just the banning of Brainstorm away from having eleven equally viable decks to beat?  Ohmygosh however could we have lived with such little diversity?!

[diopter]

The problem I have is less with Brainstorm (my recent relevant experience is only with Vintage) and more with this pervasive attitude of late (only in Vintage I thought, but now it appears in Legacy too) that decks should have game against the entire field.

I don't really care if there's 7 or 11 or 100 "decks to beat" - it still sounds like a gong show.

Where is the incentive to innovate if the decks to beat can all beat the other decks to beat? Are you going to do better than "beats everything"?

Anyroad. I don't actually know if Brainstorm causes this kind of staleness in the Legacy metagame - I have my suspicions but they're founded in the context of Vintage. What disturbs me more is the vociferous defense of Brainstorm on the basis that it enables this staleness, as if that were the great and ultimate goal in Legacy.

[DubDub]

The problem I have is less with Brainstorm (my recent relevant experience is only with Vintage) and more with this pervasive attitude of late (only in Vintage I thought, but now it appears in Legacy too) that decks should have game against the entire field.

I don't really care if there's 7 or 11 or 100 "decks to beat" - it still sounds like a gong show.

Where is the incentive to innovate if the decks to beat can all beat the other decks to beat? Are you going to do better than "beats everything"?

Anyroad. I don't actually know if Brainstorm causes this kind of staleness in the Legacy metagame - I have my suspicions but they're founded in the context of Vintage. What disturbs me more is the vociferous defense of Brainstorm on the basis that it enables this staleness, as if that were the great and ultimate goal in Legacy.

I literally do not understand your position or how you are supporting it.  If not by diversity of decks how do you measure a format?  You think it is good for there to be decks in the meta that auto-lose to other decks.  Why?

And, I have to ask, WHAT STALENESS?

Besides the seven decks in the deck-to-beat area, the following decks have threads in MTGTS's Established Deck forum that have been active in the last week:

Aluren
Zoo
Affinity
Meandeck MUD
Spanish Inquisition
Sligh
Countersliver
Next Level Threshold
UWx Landstill
Burn
Team Italia
The Four Horsemen
Dreadstalker
The Gate
Imperial Painter
Elves
Deadguy Ale
Aggro Loam
Bant Aggro
Cephalid Breakfast
Countertop
Spiral Tide
Fetchland Tendrils
Mono Blue Control
UWb Esperblade
Solidarity
Countertop Thopter
TGIF (Past in Flames Combo)
Solitaire (Enchantress)
The Rock
Sneak and Show
Manaless Ichorid
Vial Goblins
BUG Control
Ascension
ANT
TES
Tempo Thresh

You are criticizing the format for having a problem is does not have.  Legacy is not stale.

[The Atog Lord]

My argument in favor of Brainstorm is simple. It's the most fun card to cast in Legacy. It's powerful, no doubt. But it sees less play than Force of Will, because of Merfolk decks. And if I wanted to play a format without powerful cards like Brainstorm, I would just go play Standard. Brainstorm is, to me, one of the main reasons to play Legacy.

As for Vintage. I have never enjoyed Vintage nearly as much after they restricted Brainstorm. It's a much less fun format. Think about it this way. With five cards in hand (including the Brainstorm itself), there are 42 ways to resolve that Brainstorm. And any potential shuffle effects increase this even more. That's a skill-intensive card. Brainstorm can be rewarding, and it can also be risky -- it's often best to hold it rather than cast it right away.

I realize that I'm mostly discussing card enjoyment here. And that's valid criterion for banning and restricting -- see Trinisphere. Banning Brainstorm in Legacy would do what restricting it did in Vintage -- lead to a much less enjoyable format.

[diopter]

My argument is based on your statements.

You say that Legacy is diverse. No doubt, that's a lot of decks.

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

Why is that? Hypotheses from two extremes arise:
- Every Legacy player is either switching decks constantly or innovating like crazy. Not to beat any strategies in particular (as you say, what's the point? You have the option of Brainstorming into answers to consistently have game against everyone) but just for the hell of it. The sum total of these innovations is a wide open field.
- Every Legacy player is just playing one deck week after week. Not because it's a dominant strategy or particularly well positioned (as you say, there's no such thing) but because it's their favorite. The sum total of these pet decks is a wide open field.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
A reasonable person could easily conclude it is closer to the latter than the former.

What is the point of diversity if there is also no flux? I'm sure there are players who just play new decks every week just for shits and giggles but what is the motivation to change for the average player if there is no edge to be gained by doing so?

Does strategy selection even matter when more than half the field can just deploy the same tactic (Brainstorm into ubiquitous answers) and leverage that into reasonable odds of winning against everyone?

I literally derive my argument from things you're saying. If you disagree, please tell me where you and I jointly erred.

[DubDub]

My argument is based on your statements.

You say that Legacy is diverse. No doubt, that's a lot of decks.

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

My statement about 'sounding miserable' was directed at the prospect of having specific matchups to which I concede, to which I am 'stone-dead.'

I think despite Legacy's wide diversity currently metagaming is manageable, in part because of having access for singletons through Brainstorm.
I think that same diversity would be daunting if, without access to variance reducing cards like Brainstorm, we were all at the mercy of our deck choice and whatever said deck decided to cough up in any one game.  Without Brainstorm I fear metagaming against Legacy's wide diversity would be unmanageable.

Why is that? Hypotheses from two extremes arise:
- Every Legacy player is either switching decks constantly or innovating like crazy. Not to beat any strategies in particular (as you say, what's the point? You have the option of Brainstorming into answers to consistently have game against everyone) but just for the hell of it. The sum total of these innovations is a wide open field.
- Every Legacy player is just playing one deck week after week. Not because it's a dominant strategy or particularly well positioned (as you say, there's no such thing) but because it's their favorite. The sum total of these pet decks is a wide open field.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
A reasonable person could easily conclude it is closer to the latter than the former.

This is a really reductionist view, and one that I can't accept.  The truth is indeed a combination of your two extremes, because the Legacy playerbase (at least in the US) is not homogeneous.  There are SCG Open grinders and players who follow the flavors of the week and month fervently, and then there are players stuck in small scale regional metagames that have played the same deck for years at a time. 

What is the point of diversity if there is also no flux? I'm sure there are players who just play new decks every week just for shits and giggles but what is the motivation to change for the average player if there is no edge to be gained by doing so?

There is flux.  The snapshots I provided above show great diversity, but you must understand that the metagame competency of those decks (all thirty plus of them) is constantly in flux.  Every time a SCG Open result is posted the metagame shifts, as a combination of people switching decks or tweaking their existing deck to be better positioned.  I think your premise that there 'is no edge to be gained by [switching decks, more broadly, metagaming]' is incorrect.  I think your conclusion that there is 'no flux' is incorrect.

Does strategy selection even matter when more than half the field can just deploy the same tactic (Brainstorm into ubiquitous answers) and leverage that into reasonable odds of winning against everyone?

You're even yourself distinguishing between strategy and tactics.  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.

I think you're hard pressed make the claim that Brainstorm->answer suppresses deck diversity considering how much diversity there is.  I don't think it's a supportable claim and moreover I think the reaction of many people would be "So what?  There are still forty five different tier 1 or tier 1.5 decks to choose from.

[diopter]

I think your premise that there 'is no edge to be gained by [switching decks, more broadly, metagaming]' is incorrect.

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

And that without it, people are "forced" to play narrower strategies with more weaknesses - totally untenable in the typically wide open field of a large tourney.

So, I don't see how we jointly are incorrect. Your argument is that the contribution of the Brainstorm tactic so totally dominates the contribution of one's own larger gameplan, or the selection of other short-term tactics, insofar as it relates to your aggregate W% against the field.

From that I easily conclude that selecting a strategy is not going to get me an edge against any metagame, and from there it's no great leap to conclude that deck selection (which is really just strategic and tactical choices) is unimportant.

[diopter]

In any case, the point I tried to make originally was that Brainstorm, if it indeed is a ubiquitous tactic for getting an edge against the entire metagame - if true, this fact should not be celebrated.

The same could be said for Force of Will and I'd dearly love it if 4x FoW wasn't sucha a ubiquitous tactic but the alternative is probably a lot of easy 1st/2nd turn kills.

[Aside: that's part of why I like Dredge in Vintage. FoW is no longer a ubiquitous tactic. It is made unplayable in a matchup with a totally different set of critical weaknesses]

What is the alternative to 4x Brainstorm? You say total chaos in Legacy, and maybe you're right. Based on your comments that its a ubiquitois tactic to gain % against the entire field, I'm thinking it would force more innovation of strategies and the killing of old darlings upon the playerbase, which would probably be good.

[nataz]

serious question from someone who doesn't play a lot of legacy:

how much of the "diversity" in legacy is due to not having a talented, motivated, player base willing to seriously play test the heck out of the format? In other words, if there were more pro tour/GP style events, would we see a winnowing of the field as the real top decks (and not just commonly played pet decks) rose to the top? Add money (incentive) + the top minds/players in the game (pros) = less diversity?

Not trying to rag on the source and other legacy "name" players, just wondering if its still somewhat of an under developed format.

[DubDub]

I think your premise that there 'is no edge to be gained by [switching decks, more broadly, metagaming]' is incorrect.

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

But 'that a deck has Brainstorm in it' is not deck defining.  Players can metagame in different ways than deciding whether to include Brainstorm or not.

And that without it, people are "forced" to play narrower strategies with more weaknesses - totally untenable in the typically wide open field of a large tourney.

So, I don't see how we jointly are incorrect. Your argument is that the contribution of the Brainstorm tactic so totally dominates the contribution of one's own larger gameplan, or the selection of other short-term tactics, insofar as it relates to your aggregate W% against the field.

You're taking my argument to extremes to which I'm not intending it to extend.  I think decks' weaknesses would be exaggerated.  I think increased variance would lead people to decide more often "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."

And I certainly do not think the 'Brainstorm tactic totally dominates the contribution of one's own larger gameplan.'  In fact, the small footprint of the support system of 'Brainstorm and answer cards' makes for more deckspace with which to delineate different decks.

From that I easily conclude that selecting a strategy is not going to get me an edge against any metagame, and from there it's no great leap to conclude that deck selection (which is really just strategic and tactical choices) is unimportant.

Strategic choice is of paramount importance in determining viability.  If you plan to win behind Moat and with Morphling you are going to lose, no matter whether you're playing Brainstorm or not.  Qasali Pridemage will screw you up and Morphling will lose the race to Tarmogoyf.  Or you'll get Jace'd out as your opponent thanks you for dropping Moat.

serious question from someone who doesn't play a lot of legacy:

how much of the "diversity" in legacy is due to not having a talented, motivated, player base willing to seriously play test the heck out of the format? In other words, if there were more pro tour/GP style events, would we see a winnowing of the field as the real top decks (and not just commonly played pet decks) rose to the top? Add money (incentive) + the top minds/players in the game (pros) = less diversity?

Not trying to rag on the source and other legacy "name" players, just wondering if its still somewhat of an under developed format.

The SCG Open series has had a significant impact on the side of homogenizing the format.  Yet, there is still a very wide range of viable decks.

It's probable that a PTQ season (feeding a Legacy PT) would have an additionally winnowing effect.  I doubt that that additional effect would be as significant as the one SCG's series has already had.  Many pros (Chapin, Saito was a GP winner I think, etc) focus attention on Legacy because it is so justifiably diverse and so resistant to methodical attack.  Moreover, this question is largely irrelevant because Wizards will never sanction Legacy as a PTQ format.  Doing so would expose to an even greater degree the serious card availability issues.  If card availability issues were magically erased and the format became used for PTQs for a season, I think the metagame changes would be more the result of the change in card availability than in greater hive mind streamlining.

Additionally, when decks have been even marginally overperforming cards have been banned: Mystical Tutor, Survival of the Fittest, Mental Misstep.  While those bans were debatably necessary, the end result is still the metagame that exists today.  It seems very difficult for Wizards to seriously jeopardize Legacy.


Edit: I fear that my position is becoming more muddled over time.  To be perfectly clear I would summarize as follows:

Legacy does not have a problem, of any sort, right now.

[Onslaught]

Ancestral Recall should be unrestricted because it's so fun to cast. When you draw three new cards, you have so many new options for how you can play out the turn. That's a skill intensive card. If you don't unrestrict Ancestral Recall then I might as well play Standard. I have never enjoyed Magic as much as I did in Shandalar, where you could play as many copies of a card as you wanted. Restricting Ancestral Recall has made Vintage a much less enjoyable format.

[diopter]

"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.

I trust you'll correct me if I'm wrong but it appears this Brainstorm tactic is just a really lazy way of approaching matchups. It seems entirely akin to the Drain decks of old and their plans against Shops - which in essence boiled down to "Chain of Vapor or Echoing Truth main? Hurkyl's or Rebuild main?". How boring.

[DubDub]

"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.

I trust you'll correct me if I'm wrong but it appears this Brainstorm tactic is just a really lazy way of approaching matchups. It seems entirely akin to the Drain decks of old and their plans against Shops - which in essence boiled down to "Chain of Vapor or Echoing Truth main? Hurkyl's or Rebuild main?". How boring.

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.

I am not acting like banning Brainstorm will be catastrophic (although, if players revolt it could be), but even an effect like this would be a poor outcome I think:

Previously, 17 rounds of Legacy at a GP, 13 of which are decided in three close games, 2 of which one player is at a slight disadvantage in the matchup, 2 of which one player is at a huge disadvantage in the matchup.

After a Brainstorm ban, 17 rounds of Legacy at a GP, 9 of which are decided in three close games, 4 of which one player is at a slight disadvantage in the matchup, 4 of which one player is at a huge disadvantage in the matchup.

[Marske]

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    

Vintage:
Dredge
Shops
Gush
Control decks (Landstill, slaver etc)

The fact that people in Legacy play Painter, Affinity, Goblins and what not is card availibility and "pet deck syndrome" more then anything. Sure these decks can win against some decks (the other bad ones) but I'd not take any of them to a GP... We saw those decks leave Vintage once Proxies made a splash on the scene because everybody played "real" decks instead. If every player would have access to all the legacy cards they needed (like Modern, Type 2) you'd very very quickly see how narrow this format really is.

I am not acting like banning Brainstorm will be catastrophic (although, if players revolt it could be), but even an effect like this would be a poor outcome I think:

Previously, 17 rounds of Legacy at a GP, 13 of which are decided in three close games, 2 of which one player is at a slight disadvantage in the matchup, 2 of which one player is at a huge disadvantage in the matchup.

After a Brainstorm ban, 17 rounds of Legacy at a GP, 9 of which are decided in three close games, 4 of which one player is at a slight disadvantage in the matchup, 4 of which one player is at a huge disadvantage in the matchup.

Like, have you played without Brainstorm at all in the real world?! The world you are sketching out here won't exist at all, I think you highly underestimate how this works.

[Stormanimagus]

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