[Article] Eternal Europe: To Ban or Not To Ban

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

With Brainstorm repeatedly brought up for the Legacy chopping-block, I thought something about the general reasoning why to ban was in order to get the discussion to move away from "Brainstorm is br0kenZ0rz" and more towards "what's best for the format". As to why I'm posting a link here, just imagine a "restrict/restricted/restriction" in place of every ban(ing, etc) and this is, imo, very applicable to Vintage.

Enjoy!

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/23136_Eternal_Europe_To_Ban_Or_Not_To_Ban_That_Is_The_Question.html

[DubDub]

This is a really excellent article.

[JuzamDjinn]

Printing this so I have something to read on my way home from work... Nice length

[diopter]

First half of article: Terrific layout of banning motivations that completely support the banning of Brainstorm, given the role in Legacy that I've been made to understand it fills.

Second half of article: Confusing. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Brainstorm shouldn't be banned.

I'm particularly put off by this statement:

Combine this with the fact that a large fraction of the best players in the game has a decided bias towards decks that can a) win every matchup ... You see why a large percentage of the better players at any given tournament will be sporting decks with a significant blue core

Emphasis mine. If a deck or strategy or core or whatever you call it can produce consistent W's across a metagame as "diverse" as Legacy then it's a huge problem, and your format isn't actually as diverse as you think it is.

[Marske]

First half of article: Terrific layout of banning motivations that completely support the banning of Brainstorm, given the role in Legacy that I've been made to understand it fills.

Second half of article: Confusing. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Brainstorm shouldn't be banned.

Agreed!

I'm particularly put off by this statement:

Combine this with the fact that a large fraction of the best players in the game has a decided bias towards decks that can a) win every matchup ... You see why a large percentage of the better players at any given tournament will be sporting decks with a significant blue core

Emphasis mine. If a deck or strategy or core or whatever you call it can produce consistent W's across a metagame as "diverse" as Legacy then it's a huge problem, and your format isn't actually as diverse as you think it is.

I think this is called "denial" as people keep bringing up the "diversity" reason whenever I talk about how that simply isn't true.

[DubDub]

Edit: Nuked.  Marius and I have moved our discussion to PM.

[Jo84]

Nice article and absolutely agree with it.
Brainstorm doesn´t fulfill any requirements for a ban.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

Happy some of you enjoyed it, thanks for the props.

@Marske and DubDub: It seems I stole some heavy dispute from a different thread, did I not? I'll answer to marske because I haven't followed the discussion DubDub is quoting from:

First half of article: Terrific layout of banning motivations that completely support the banning of Brainstorm, given the role in Legacy that I've been made to understand it fills.

Second half of article: Confusing. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Brainstorm shouldn't be banned.

Agreed!

Because Brainstorm is neither degenerate nor reducing strategic variety from the format, on the contrary (not too mention it neither produces a negative impact on skill and a ban would cause a massively negative reaction from the playerbase). I thought I was quite clear that color-variety is something totally different from strategic variety.

I'm particularly put off by this statement:

Combine this with the fact that a large fraction of the best players in the game has a decided bias towards decks that can a) win every matchup ... You see why a large percentage of the better players at any given tournament will be sporting decks with a significant blue core

Emphasis mine. If a deck or strategy or core or whatever you call it can produce consistent W's across a metagame as "diverse" as Legacy then it's a huge problem, and your format isn't actually as diverse as you think it is.

I think this is called "denial" as people keep bringing up the "diversity" reason whenever I talk about how that simply isn't true.

[/quote]
No, this is called a misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say. I should have been more clear. When I say "can win every matchup" I mean has close to at least even matchups across the board (every matchup ranging in the 40-60 to 60-40 range, with rare exceptions. That's what I'd call "decks that can win any matchup") compared to more "all-in" decks that boast a large number of 80-20 or 70-30 matchups but also a significant number of 30-70 or 20- 80 matchups (what I'd call decks that can't win every matchup). Over all, both decks will win a similar number of matches in the long run, they're just more evenly distributed for one of them. As it is much easier to influence close matchups with (superior) playskill than extremely lopsided ones, it makes sense that a large number of good players has a bias for choosing the decks that makes their superior playskill matter the most.  

If you think having decks with more equally distributed win-percentages in a format is degenerate, yes, there's trouble in Legacy. If that's your opinion, though, you could also just ban everything that enables decks that aren't combo or non-interactive aggro and maybe Prison because those are the decks that have extremely lopsided matchups. Doesn't seem like the most fun format to play in, though. A format of glass-cannons only sounds horrible, actually.

[Marske]

@MGC,
I really really enjoy reading your stuff (although I didn't mention it the first

Because Brainstorm is neither degenerate nor reducing strategic variety from the format, on the contrary (not too mention it neither produces a negative impact on skill and a ban would cause a massively negative reaction from the playerbase). I thought I was quite clear that color-variety is something totally different from strategic variety.

Just saying I agree that it gets confusing for the people reading it, not that I disagree with what you are stating there. As I have said numerous times before in other threads, I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing either way, I just feel both sides of the coin deserve equal attention and that players should do well to remove all emotion and look at cards objectively. I also appreciate the time you took to form a reply as you did. You are totally correct in your statement regarding the fact that it doesn't diminish strategic Variety, it does however diminish the color variety and all I ever wanted to state was that neither should be diminished. Which one is a bigger offense? no Strategic variety or no the color variety? And I'm not talking about blue decks splashing 2-3 colors here.

No, this is called a misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say. I should have been more clear. When I say "can win every matchup" I mean has close to at least even matchups across the board (every matchup ranging in the 40-60 to 60-40 range, with rare exceptions. That's what I'd call "decks that can win any matchup") compared to more "all-in" decks that boast a large number of 80-20 or 70-30 matchups but also a significant number of 30-70 or 20- 80 matchups (what I'd call decks that can't win every matchup). Over all, both decks will win a similar number of matches in the long run, they're just more evenly distributed for one of them. As it is much easier to influence close matchups with (superior) playskill than extremely lopsided ones, it makes sense that a large number of good players has a bias for choosing the decks that makes their superior playskill matter the most.   

If you think having decks with more equally distributed win-percentages in a format is degenerate, yes, there's trouble in Legacy. If that's your opinion, though, you could also just ban everything that enables decks that aren't combo or non-interactive aggro and maybe Prison because those are the decks that have extremely lopsided matchups. Doesn't seem like the most fun format to play in, though. A format of glass-cannons only sounds horrible, actually.

Playing in a format where everybody has a 50/50 shot at beating everybody else (flip a coin why won't you) isn't similar worse? (not saying Legacy is like that now, just curious about your opinion regarding it)

[diopter]

A format where there is a widely played strategy/gameplan that does not have some critical strategic or tatical weakness is broken in half.

Here is how it looks to me: you play Brainstorm. This defines your gameplan through the first three turns - that is, to select among your first ~11 cards a line of play tailored to beat your opponent.

That in itself is degenerate. Players in the real formats have to constantly innovate to get this edge against the expected field of decks.

What does it really matter that Brainstorm can be played ubiquitously? You're getting your minimum 40-60 matchups no matter what larger set of cards you employ, and have the benefit of bending your entire sideboard to the matchups you aren't outright crushing G1. Practically speaking, choices made in your other cards just do not matter to the end result. Your gameplan of "reposition and beat down" has no strategic foil and no tactical foil.

[Smmenen]

Here are my two cents:

I generally oppose banning cards in Legacy.   However, I think the DCI should have banned Brainstorm instead of Mental Misstep.

Brainstorm's chief problem is that it  dramatically increases the opportunity cost of not running blue.  Banning Brainstorm would reduce the opportunity cost of not running blue, and increase the marginal utility of other colors.  If Brainstorm were banned, then players would be more likely to choose other colors as a secondary or tertiary color over blue.

Brainstorm's unparalleled ability to put good cards into your hand and put garbage back ontop makes it an auto-include in any combo deck in the format.  Brainstorm is the one card you can find throughout every major combo deck in the format: from Hive Mind, to Natural Order, to TEPS, to Ad Nuaseam, to HIgh Tide, etc.  Force of Will is not as important to those decks as Brainstorm is.  Force of Will can be replaced by Thoughtseize or Duress.  Brainstorm is the only card that can turn superfluous Pacts into the right mixture of mana acceleration. 

To reiterate: banning Brainstorm should make the format more diverse in terms of color selection, since it is the best blue card in the format, it will reduce the opportunity cost of not running blue. 

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

@MGC,
I really really enjoy reading your stuff (although I didn't mention it the first

Because Brainstorm is neither degenerate nor reducing strategic variety from the format, on the contrary (not too mention it neither produces a negative impact on skill and a ban would cause a massively negative reaction from the playerbase). I thought I was quite clear that color-variety is something totally different from strategic variety.

Just saying I agree that it gets confusing for the people reading it, not that I disagree with what you are stating there. As I have said numerous times before in other threads, I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing either way, I just feel both sides of the coin deserve equal attention and that players should do well to remove all emotion and look at cards objectively. I also appreciate the time you took to form a reply as you did. You are totally correct in your statement regarding the fact that it doesn't diminish strategic Variety, it does however diminish the color variety and all I ever wanted to state was that neither should be diminished. Which one is a bigger offense? no Strategic variety or no the color variety? And I'm not talking about blue decks splashing 2-3 colors here.

Strategic variety is massively more important than color variety. Imagine they reprinted every single Magic card in Green. Would it really make the play experience much worse from a five-color format? The mana gets easier but other than that the games play out quite similarly, actually.
Now compare that to a format in which only a single kind of strategy is viable. Every player that prefers a different strategy is screwed. Every round plays out exactly the same. You tell me which one is worse.

Obviously a format with massive strategic variety AND color variety is strongly preferable to one where either is limited but if someone promotes color variety at the cost of strategic variety he is doing the format a disservice.

No, this is called a misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say. I should have been more clear. When I say "can win every matchup" I mean has close to at least even matchups across the board (every matchup ranging in the 40-60 to 60-40 range, with rare exceptions. That's what I'd call "decks that can win any matchup") compared to more "all-in" decks that boast a large number of 80-20 or 70-30 matchups but also a significant number of 30-70 or 20- 80 matchups (what I'd call decks that can't win every matchup). Over all, both decks will win a similar number of matches in the long run, they're just more evenly distributed for one of them. As it is much easier to influence close matchups with (superior) playskill than extremely lopsided ones, it makes sense that a large number of good players has a bias for choosing the decks that makes their superior playskill matter the most.  

If you think having decks with more equally distributed win-percentages in a format is degenerate, yes, there's trouble in Legacy. If that's your opinion, though, you could also just ban everything that enables decks that aren't combo or non-interactive aggro and maybe Prison because those are the decks that have extremely lopsided matchups. Doesn't seem like the most fun format to play in, though. A format of glass-cannons only sounds horrible, actually.

Playing in a format where everybody has a 50/50 shot at beating everybody else (flip a coin why won't you) isn't similar worse? (not saying Legacy is like that now, just curious about your opinion regarding it)

A format in which all decks are matched up pretty close to 50-50 would severely limit the efficiency of metagaming, which is its own problem, admittedly. From a pure gameplay perspective, though, it would be ideal. Note that I mean matchup win percentages based on decks assuming perfect play on both sides when I'm giving  numbers. If all matchups are close to 50-50 (assuming there are relevant decisions to be made and the 50 - 50 doesn't come up independent of playskill based on pure luck of the draw), almost every tournament would be won by the person making all the best plays (because that's essentially the only way you can pull matchup percentages of the expected value) independent of the pairings-god favoring you today.  

A format where there is a widely played strategy/gameplan that does not have some critical strategic or tatical weakness is broken in half.

If that's what you think what Legacy is like, you should play it more. Every deck has strategic weaknesses, though some less so than others (that usually make up for it by being someone elses massive strategical weakness).
As for not having a tactical weakness, you should play some Tempo against Zoo, Fish or Goblins sometime. You'll encounter a multitude of situations involving tactical weaknesses on the blue side. The same is true for every single other blue deck but that's were they are most evident.

Here is how it looks to me: you play Brainstorm. This defines your gameplan through the first three turns - that is, to select among your first ~11 cards a line of play tailored to beat your opponent.

That in itself is degenerate. Players in the real formats have to constantly innovate to get this edge against the expected field of decks.

First your plan assumes that you always have Brainstorm and play it early (in itself generally not a very good play). Second the very same thing could be said about Ponder, Preordain, Sleight of Hand and just about every other library-manipulating cantrip. Third, if you think that is how most Brainstorm decks work I have to ask you: how many games have you actually played with the card, especially outside of Vintage were every relevant gameplan is easy to set up with flexible cards like tutors and abundant true draw effects?

Finally what "real formats" are you talking about, exactly?  And how is it an edge to be able to build something that is essentially mediocre against (most) of a format instead of  having strongly pronounced weak and strong matchups? It's more of a disadvantage, really. If you don't manage to outplay your opponents, you're going to end up somewhere in the middle of the pack while a deck with lopsided matchups is likely to get you to Top 8 with the right matchups even if your opponents actually play better than you do.

What does it really matter that Brainstorm can be played ubiquitously? You're getting your minimum 40-60 matchups no matter what larger set of cards you employ, and have the benefit of bending your entire sideboard to the matchups you aren't outright crushing G1. Practically speaking, choices made in your other cards just do not matter to the end result. Your gameplan of "reposition and beat down" has no strategic foil and no tactical foil.

I call pure theorycraft here. First, you cannot ever devote your entire sideboard to the matchups you aren't outright crushing game 1 because being in the 40-60 range everywhere means you don't have any matchups you crush game 1. Every Brainstorm deck that has the ability to outright crush some strategies game one has paid for that ability by making moving a number of other matchups out of the 60-40 range. This is actually where, contrary to what you claim, the choices you've made in your other cards define the end result.
In addition, the reason blue is popular among skilled players (the fact that blue (aggro)-control decks, in general, exhibit less variance in their matchwin percentages) is largely independent from Brainstorm. It's based on the fact that blue has the most flexible but also generally least efficient answers (countermagic - which cost either additional cards or needs to be available before the opponent's threat). It so happens that the infinite ease of splashing in Eternal formats alleviates this by allowing blue decks to access the most efficient answers from other colors to compensate for the low efficiency of its own solutions. The "problem" (I don't see it as one, but I'm admittedly biased) you describe has its roots in the color-fixing available, not  in Brainstorm. Essentially what your argument boils down to is that the color blue (not Brainstorm) is better than the other colors (you call it "degenerate") in Eternal formats. I said as much in the article and there simply isn't a way to fix it short of turning Legacy into Modern II by getting rid of Force of Will, among other things - and I and just about every other person I know playing Legacy would much prefer for that not to happen.

This effect is reinforced in Stifle-based Tempo-decks in particular because the Stifle-Waste mana denial plan gives you a significant baseline winpercentage against just about anything (almost every deck needs mana and if you draw double Waste double Stifle, your opponent isn't getting any). Then again, you can counteract that by running a low curve and a lot of mana (say by running 22 lands, Zenith and a set of manacreatures) so even that isn't set in stone.

There are a number of ways to beat a "reposition and beatdown" strategy you claim has no tactical foil. You can go over the top by presenting threats the opponent isn't prepared to deal with (regularly involves blue and thereby Brainstorm because that is much easier to implement if you have countermagic of your own). You can stop the beatdown part and kill them when their answers run out (almost always involves blue and therefore Brainstorm because running a deck that plans to go to the lategame and not having countermagic in a format that contains combo-decks is very risky). You can win before they've had time to reposition sufficiently to stop you (this is the strategy that often doesn't involve blue).

All this is ignoring that different decks running Brainstorm have actually very different gameplans and "reposition and beatdown" covers only a small part of the spectrum. That, in itself, is the reason why there are so many Brainstorms in so many Top 8s. There are so many widely different decks following totally different strategies incorporating Brainstorm that even if the "reposition and beatdown" strategy you see as "the Brainstorm strategy" is being hated out, the other types of Brainstorm strategies will make their way in anyway.

Again, your problem isn't with Brainstorm. It's with how blue works in Eternal formats in general.

@Smmenen:
As I argued, the value of color variety essentially pales in comparison to the value of strategic variety. I don't think one color (whichever color) being disproportionately popular is in itself a reason to disrupt a metagame that has an unprecedented amount of strategic variety (which might and probably will falter significantly if you remove Brainstorm, considering how many decks making up these different strategies are running it. No that is not definite but has a decent probability and if it happens a good format has been replaced with a much worse one only to try to balance something of secondary importance to an enjoyable game experience - not a risk worth taking). Defining variety through the colors decks use instead of the strategy they employ is a limiting and short-sighted concept that shouldn't be applied to B/R decisions.

Your argument concerning combo-decks also completely ignores the fact that these decks are in blue because they either are base blue (Hive Mind, High Tide), have an midrange-control strategy simply backed by the combo-kill and will therefore want to run blue simply for the countermagic (NO) - I go into why you want countermagic and not discard in comparatively slow decks above - or run blue because what they want is high velocity library manipulation (TES, ANT) and no other color can provide that because that's blue's part of the color pie, Brainstorm or no. Just look at Modern (no Brainstorm yet all the combo-decks were based on blue cantrip shells) if you want proof.

/edit: Not to mention your argument totally ignores the impact on the playerbase and the likely backlash from the same. Do you honestly not understand what banning Brainstorm did to Vintage as a format? The ragequits and player backlash damn near killed it because so many involved players just quit. And please don't roll out the "the dominance of blue control in the form of Tezz did the damage. As I said in the article, if that were the case Gifts and Gush would have achieved that goal much earlier and the opposite was the case then.

[Smmenen]

@Smmenen:
As I argued, the value of color variety essentially pales in comparison to the value of strategic variety.

I don't agree that it 'pales' in comparison. It might not be as important, but it's still improtant.

I think diversity (i.e. Meaningful Choice) is the underlying value, and it is equally applicable to strategies, tactics, and colors.

Let me put it in terms I've already articulated in articles I've written for SCG:

1. Non-Diverse formats are unfun because you lack meaningful choices.  

It follows as a derivation of (1) that:

2) Formats where players have few meaningful choices in terms of deck options are unfun.

3) Formats were players have few meaningful choices in terms of color combinations are unfun.

Both color diversity and strategic diversity count.  Now, of course, you want to maximize both because formats where either is lacking are unfun.

I don't think one color (whichever color) being disproportionately popular is in itself a reason to disrupt a metagame that has an unprecedented amount of strategic variety (which might and probably will falter significantly if you remove Brainstorm, considering how many decks making up these different strategies are running it.

If the consequence you predict would occur, I would agree with you.  But i don't think that will happen.  I think that banning Brainstorm would enhance both color and strategic diversity.  

Your argument concerning combo-decks also completely ignores the fact that these decks are in blue because they either are base blue (Hive Mind, High Tide), have an midrange-control strategy simply backed by the combo-kill and will therefore want to run blue simply for the countermagic (NO) - I go into why you want countermagic and not discard in comparatively slow decks above - or run blue because what they want is high velocity library manipulation (TES, ANT) and no other color can provide that because that's blue's part of the color pie, Brainstorm or no. Just look at Modern (no Brainstorm yet all the combo-decks were based on blue cantrip shells) if you want proof.

That can all be true, but that doesn't address my essential claim:

Banning Brainstorm would reduce the opportunity cost of not running blue, and increase the marginal utility of other colors.  If Brainstorm were banned, then players would be more likely to choose other colors as a secondary or tertiary color over blue.

Your argument has to devolve into: Banning Brainstorm may improve color diversity, but at the cost of reducing strategic diversity.  I don't think your argument is well founded, factually.   I dont' think its likely that banning brainstorm would reduce strategic diversity of the format. 

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

First up, sorry, I was editing my post above while you were posting so if you'd like to address my additional comment it'd be appreciated.

@Smmenen:
As I argued, the value of color variety essentially pales in comparison to the value of strategic variety.

I don't agree that it 'pales' in comparison. It might not be as important, but it's still improtant.

I think diversity (i.e. Meaningful Choice) is the underlying value, and it is equally applicable to strategies, tactics, and colors.

Let me put it in terms I've already articulated in articles I've written for SCG:

1. Non-Diverse formats are unfun because you lack meaningful choices.  

It follows as a derivation of (1) that:

2) Formats where players have few meaningful choices in terms of deck options are unfun.

3) Formats were players have few meaningful choices in terms of color combinations are unfun.

Both color diversity and strategic diversity count.  Now, of course, you want to maximize both because formats where either is lacking are unfun.

I would argue that while both count, the ability to play decks that work towards totally different goals following totally different angles of attack is significantly more valuable than the ability to implement the same strategy using a wider array of colors. As such valuing both equivalently when making decisions in how to shape the format is a flawed approach. Color diversity should be promoted only if it can be done without endangering strategic diversity.

I don't think one color (whichever color) being disproportionately popular is in itself a reason to disrupt a metagame that has an unprecedented amount of strategic variety (which might and probably will falter significantly if you remove Brainstorm, considering how many decks making up these different strategies are running it.

If the consequence you predict would occur, I would agree with you.  But i don't think that will happen.  I think that banning Brainstorm would enhance both color and strategic diversity.  

You don't think it will happen, I do. Considering the possible consequences should I be right (the format becomes significantly worse) and the consequences should you be right (a great format becomes even better), the expected benefits simply don't justify the risk. If it ain't broken don't fix it comes to mind.

Your argument concerning combo-decks also completely ignores the fact that these decks are in blue because they either are base blue (Hive Mind, High Tide), have an midrange-control strategy simply backed by the combo-kill and will therefore want to run blue simply for the countermagic (NO) - I go into why you want countermagic and not discard in comparatively slow decks above - or run blue because what they want is high velocity library manipulation (TES, ANT) and no other color can provide that because that's blue's part of the color pie, Brainstorm or no. Just look at Modern (no Brainstorm yet all the combo-decks were based on blue cantrip shells) if you want proof.

That can all be true, but that doesn't address my essential claim:

Banning Brainstorm would reduce the opportunity cost of not running blue, and increase the marginal utility of other colors.  If Brainstorm were banned, then players would be more likely to choose other colors as a secondary or tertiary color over blue.

Your argument has to devolve into: Banning Brainstorm may improve color diversity, but at the cost of reducing strategic diversity.  I don't think your argument is well founded, factually.   I dont' think its likely that banning brainstorm would reduce strategic diversity of the format.  

The point of that segment of my post was simple: you listed a number of decks using Brainstorm when making the point that removing Brainstorm would increase the marginal utility of other colors. I showed you that, as far as the decks you used as an example are concerned, you are wrong. Brainstorm or no these decks either will be using blue or simply won't be viable at all. Clarifying that not a single one of your examples actually supports your conclusion seems quite important to me as it makes it obvious that it is, as far as your arguments so far are concerned, essentially baseless speculation.

You're saying my argument is not well founded, factually. Neither is yours. Considering that is the case, taking a huge risk for a, in comparison, minor reward is a bad allocation of resources, a bad bet or whichever metaphor you'd like to use. You provided no conclusive evidence that the strategic variety would not be impacted (while the amount of decks running Brainstorm makes it likely we'll lose some of them) and you haven't even given us any reason to believe that your theory of increased marginal utility for other colors thanks to axing Brainstorm will even result in increased play of other colors - other than the fact that you believe in it. If that's your foundation for wanting to ban Brainstorm, my believe is as good as yours and taking a huge risk simply not advisable.  

[Smmenen]

If the consequence you predict would occur, I would agree with you.  But i don't think that will happen.  I think that banning Brainstorm would enhance both color and strategic diversity.   

You don't think it will happen, I do. Considering the possible consequences should I be right (the format becomes significantly worse) and the consequences should you be right (a great format becomes even better), the expected benefits simply don't justify the risk. If it ain't broken don't fix it comes to mind.

But given that the lack of color diversity makes the format unfun for some players, I think you have the burden of proof here.

 Also, both experience and logic seem to go against your position that banning brainstorm would reduce strategic diversity. 

 Increasing color diversity has a byproduct of increasing strategic diversity.   It's very unlikely that you can increase color diversity without also increasing strategic diversity.   I can create an inductive proof mathmatically, but won't. 

The point of that segment of my post was simple: you listed a number of decks using Brainstorm when making the point that removing Brainstorm would increase the marginal utility of other colors. I showed you that, as far as the decks you used as an example are concerned, you are wrong. Brainstorm or no these decks either will be using blue or simply won't be viable at all. Clarifying that not a single one of your examples actually supports your conclusion seems quite important to me as it makes it obvious that it is, as far as your arguments so far are concerned, essentially baseless speculation.

Except that those illustrative examples were not essential to my argument.   Knock them down, and my essential argument still holds. 

Banning Brainstorm does decrease the opportunity cost of other colors.   This is indisputable since:

1) there are only 5 colors in Magic

2) most Legacy decks run 1, 2, or 3 colors

3) the best blue card is Brainstorm

Banning Brainstorm increases the chance that another color would be selected instead of blue as a secondary or tertiary color. 

More specifically, as players decide which colors to include, they look for a mixture of characteristics.  With Brainstorm banned, players would be more likely to rely on substitutes for some of the functions that blue offer (such as choosing Thoughtseize over Force). 

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

If the consequence you predict would occur, I would agree with you.  But i don't think that will happen.  I think that banning Brainstorm would enhance both color and strategic diversity.  

You don't think it will happen, I do. Considering the possible consequences should I be right (the format becomes significantly worse) and the consequences should you be right (a great format becomes even better), the expected benefits simply don't justify the risk. If it ain't broken don't fix it comes to mind.

But given that the lack of color diversity makes the format unfun for some players, I think you have the burden of proof here.

 Also, both experience and logic seem to go against your position that banning brainstorm would reduce strategic diversity.  

 Increasing color diversity has a byproduct of increasing strategic diversity.   It's very unlikely that you can increase color diversity without also increasing strategic diversity.   I can create an inductive proof mathmatically, but won't.  

But given that the lack of Brainstorm would make the format unfun for a large number of players, I think you have the burden of proof here. Especially because I'm quite sure the number of people made unhappy by a ban on Brainstorm even assuming strategic variety isn't touched largely outnumbers those that feel Legacy is unfun because of Brainstorm being present. Honestly, we can do this for hours. The whole "burden of proof is on you" thing doesn't get us anywhere as it is infinitely malleable. Just give your arguments and prove your points so that we can have a constructive discussion instead of playing rhetoric-games.

In the same vein, how do experience and logic seem to go against my position that banning brainstorm would reduce strategic diversity? You haven't at all elaborated on that, which should be especially easy if based on experience as you should be able to show me examples, while my point is pretty clear and simple:
There are a ton of different decks covering a large spectrum of different strategies that run Brainstorm right now. Without Brainstorm, some number of these decks might and probably will disappear. Considering some strategies rely on Brainstorm quite heavily (e.g. Stifle-Tempo decks) the likelihood for some decks disappearing is actually very high. Result: reduced strategic variety.
Now, we might assume that other different strategies will be able to compete with Brainstorm gone or that different cards can be used to implement the same or similar strategies but that's just that: an assumption. So far everything you say is based on your own assumptions as to what a ban on Brainstorm will do, nothing else. Either that or you're not sharing your actual corroborating evidence.

Color diversity necessarily leading to increased strategic diversity: It doesn't and I'd like to see your inductive proof because there clearly has to be a misconception in there somewhere. Proof? Here you go: One drop White Weenie, classic Green Stompy and Sligh as well as fast Zoo are, strategically speaking, (extremely close to) the same deck implemented with different cards. As these decks are in totally different colors but their presence in the metagame doesn't increase strategic diversity, increasing color diversity does not by necessity increase strategic diversity. The same is true for Mono White and Mono Black board-control decks, Storm decks using Rituals based in different colors and a wide slew of midrange decks that are called the rock if they happen to be base BG but carry different names if they're not.  

The point of that segment of my post was simple: you listed a number of decks using Brainstorm when making the point that removing Brainstorm would increase the marginal utility of other colors. I showed you that, as far as the decks you used as an example are concerned, you are wrong. Brainstorm or no these decks either will be using blue or simply won't be viable at all. Clarifying that not a single one of your examples actually supports your conclusion seems quite important to me as it makes it obvious that it is, as far as your arguments so far are concerned, essentially baseless speculation.

Except that those illustrative examples were not essential to my argument.   Knock them down, and my essential argument still holds.  

Banning Brainstorm does decrease the opportunity cost of other colors.   This is indisputable since:

1) there are only 5 colors in Magic

2) most Legacy decks run 1, 2, or 3 colors

3) the best blue card is Brainstorm

Banning Brainstorm increases the chance that another color would be selected instead of blue as a secondary or tertiary color.  

More specifically, as players decide which colors to include, they look for a mixture of characteristics.  With Brainstorm banned, players would be more likely to rely on substitutes for some of the functions that blue offer (such as choosing Thoughtseize over Force).  

Your proof here is faulty.

1.) Agreed, five colors.
2.) Actually, most decks run at least two colors, but that is not essential to the argument.
3.) What does that have to do with the other two points? And while Brainstorm is probably the best blue card, it isn't  the most important one. That card is Force of Will.

"Banning Brainstorm increases the chance that another color would be selected instead of blue as a secondary or tertiary color."
Here's where the error sneaks in. Blue is almost never a secondary color outside of combo-decks because it is used to support Force of Will to provide on-stack interaction, a role Thoughtseize cannot fill with similar reliability in anything but Suicide Black/Junk style aggro-control decks (gameplans that take longer to implement simply cannot adequately protect themselves with only discard because the general powerlevel of the format makes quasi-lethal topdecks a definite reality). As these decks are already viable strategic choices, no color diversity or strategic diversity is gained by banning Brainstorm in this context.  
I'm reasonably sure you're aware of all that because you chose the only remaining group of decks to pull your examples from: combo. In combo-decks however blue is either a base-color that cannot be replaced or used to provide high velocity library manipulation, an ability not available to other colors. Therefore these decks would still use blue, even if Brainstorm were to be banned. Again neither strategic nor color diversity is gained.

In short, your assumptions are wrong and your arguments as advanced so far don't stand up under scrutiny because they are either based on nothing but personal believe or even faulty in their reasoning. Again we are reduced to a contest whose believes are "better". In such a case staying with the safe play (aka not banning) is definitely the right decision considering the possible consequences of both choices.

[Smmenen]

If the consequence you predict would occur, I would agree with you.  But i don't think that will happen.  I think that banning Brainstorm would enhance both color and strategic diversity.  

You don't think it will happen, I do. Considering the possible consequences should I be right (the format becomes significantly worse) and the consequences should you be right (a great format becomes even better), the expected benefits simply don't justify the risk. If it ain't broken don't fix it comes to mind.

But given that the lack of color diversity makes the format unfun for some players, I think you have the burden of proof here.

 Also, both experience and logic seem to go against your position that banning brainstorm would reduce strategic diversity.  

 Increasing color diversity has a byproduct of increasing strategic diversity.   It's very unlikely that you can increase color diversity without also increasing strategic diversity.   I can create an inductive proof mathmatically, but won't.  

But given that the lack of Brainstorm would make the format unfun for a large number of players, I think you have the burden of proof here.

The DCI has a duty to create healthy format, the primary constitutive element of which is a diverse format.

The lack of color diversity complained of suggests that something is wrong with the format.   Certainly, the solution cannot be worse than the problem.

Banning Brainstorm has been proposed as a solution to the lack of color diversity.  To that extent, it seems eminently reasonable.  Your rejoinder is that it would reduce strategic diversity.

Since you are advancing that argument, it is incumbent upon you to establish it.  Otherwise, why should anyone accept your argument?

Since you are advancing an argument to counter a commonly made argument, it is your burden to establish the validity of your argument. 

In the same vein, how do experience and logic seem to go against my position that banning brainstorm would reduce strategic diversity?

Experience: Can you name a single deck that would be outright killed by banning Brainstorm?

I've played lots of Legacy, and I don't think that banning Brainstorm would reduce strategic diversity at all.   Brainstorm is a ubiquitous card, and not the engine of a major deck. In fact, I don't think banning Brainstorm would kill a single deck.     And, even if you could establish that, you'd have to show that even if you kill some decks, you wouldn't make more decks viable than were killed.   

Logic: It is my view that increasing color diversity is very likely, if not necessarily likely, to increase strategic diversity. I  will elaborate on this below.

 You haven't at all elaborated on that, which should be especially easy if based on experience as you should be able to show me examples, while my point is pretty clear and simple:
There are a ton of different decks covering a large spectrum of different strategies that run Brainstorm right now. Without Brainstorm, some number of these decks might and probably will disappear. Considering some strategies rely on Brainstorm quite heavily (e.g. Stifle-Tempo decks) the likelihood for some decks disappearing is actually very high.

Completely disagree.   Those decks would still be quite viable in this environment.  Tarmogoyf plus blue counterspells is going to be an amazing Legacy strategy regardless of whether Brainstorm is legal or not.   

Color diversity necessarily leading to increased strategic diversity: It doesn't and I'd like to see your inductive proof because there clearly has to be a misconception in there somewhere. Proof? Here you go: One drop White Weenie, classic Green Stompy and Sligh as well as fast Zoo are, strategically speaking, (extremely close to) the same deck implemented with different cards.

Those are different strategies.  They each use creatures, but they each use creatures in different ways, with different tactics and disruptive plans.   

My inductive proof:


As for my inductive proof, it's really simple:

There are a finite number of color combinations in magic:

1 Color: U, R, W, G, B
2 Color: UR, UW, UB, UG, RW, RB, RG, WB, WG, and BG,
3 color: URW, URB, URG, UWB, UWG, UWR, Etc.
4 color: 5 possibilities -- each missing a color
5 color: UWRBG

I believe there are actually just 36 different color permutations in magic (I forget what the 3c possibilities are).

Mathmatically speaking, if you weaken blue by banning it's best card, then you increase the likelihood that other color combinations become more viable relative to blue combinations.  The increase in the combinations/permutations of colors played in Legacy will increase strategic diversity.  Of course, you and I disagree on how we define strategic diversity.  Stompy is a different strategy, in my view, than Sligh, with a different plan for winning.

Banning Brainstorm does decrease the opportunity cost of other colors.   This is indisputable since:

1) there are only 5 colors in Magic

2) most Legacy decks run 1, 2, or 3 colors

3) the best blue card is Brainstorm

Banning Brainstorm increases the chance that another color would be selected instead of blue as a secondary or tertiary color.  

More specifically, as players decide which colors to include, they look for a mixture of characteristics.  With Brainstorm banned, players would be more likely to rely on substitutes for some of the functions that blue offer (such as choosing Thoughtseize over Force).  

Your proof here is faulty.

1.) Agreed, five colors.
2.) Actually, most decks run at least two colors, but that is not essential to the argument.
3.) What does that have to do with the other two points? And while Brainstorm is probably the best blue card, it isn't  the most important one. That card is Force of Will.

It's simple: If you take out the best card from any color, you increase the liklihood that a player would choose a non-blue secondary or tertiary color over blue.   

That's because all decisions regarding color inclusions are cost/benefit.  If the benefit of blue declines slightly, by diminishing the power of blue, then people are, at the margin, more likely to pick blue as a secondary or tertiary color.   I know I've been forced to make those kinds of decisions in Legacy  before.

"Banning Brainstorm increases the chance that another color would be selected instead of blue as a secondary or tertiary color."
Here's where the error sneaks in. Blue is almost never a secondary color outside of combo-decks because it is used to support
 Force of Will to provide on-stack interaction,

Nonsense.  Blue if often a secondary, tertiary, and even 4th color in lots of decks.   The reason it doesn't appear that way is because once the decision is made to play blue with 4 Braintorm, you generally will want to run 4 Force, and then include enough blue spells to support Force.

Yet, at the decision moment, of whether to run, say black, instead of blue, in your GR deck, you have to decide among black spells or blue spells, and Brainstorm is often going to be a tipping point decision.   

This is one of the reasons that Aggro Loam disappeared: black is simply a worse tertiary color than blue.   If Brainstorm were to be banned, the BG and BGW and BGR decks would become much better -- decks that used to exist in Legacy in large numbers. 

a role Thoughtseize cannot fill with similar reliability in anything but Suicide Black/Junk style aggro-control decks

Of course it's not as reliable.  Most Substitutes are imperfect.  A shitty phone is not a perfect substitute for an Iphone, but it still  makes calls.

I also think you overrate Force of will in Legacy, which is not nearly central in that format as it is in Vintage.  Lots of people sideboard out Force of Will in lots of matchups.   

Force of Will is more reliable in lots of situations, but imposes steep costs: much run lots of blue spells etc.   If Brainstorm is banned, Force will see less play, and it will dramatically increase the marginal/relative value of non-blue as a secondary, tertiary, and 4th color.

In short, your assumptions are wrong and your arguments as advanced so far don't stand up under scrutiny because they are either based on nothing but personal believe or even faulty in their reasoning. Again we are reduced to a contest whose believes are "better". In such a case staying with the safe play (aka not banning) is definitely the right decision considering the possible consequences of both choices.

I am not a strong pro-banning advocate.  I am not opposed to it either.

I generally oppose bannings.  I think that bannings are generally, to quote Sirlin, the scrubs way out.

That said, I support bannings chiefly in the context of improving the diversity of the format.

My main position is that  I would have banned Brainstorm instead of Mental Misstep, and I think the DCI made a mistake there.

In any case, I think our argument ultimately differs on how you define strategic diversity.  I define it more broadly than you do, and I have a fairly detailed definition of strategy in my Gush book.  Because of how I define strategic diversity and understand that term, I definitely believe that banning Brainstorm would NOT reduce the strategic diversity of the format, and to the extent it promotes greater color diversity, it would very likely increase strategic diversity.

But since our disagreement seems to hinge on a definition of strategic diversity, I guess I'll agree to disagree. 

[DubDub]

My inductive proof:


As for my inductive proof, it's really simple:

There are a finite number of color combinations in magic:

1 Color: U, R, W, G, B
2 Color: UR, UW, UB, UG, RW, RB, RG, WB, WG, and BG,
3 color: URW, URB, URG, UWB, UWG, UWR, Etc.
4 color: 5 possibilities -- each missing a color
5 color: UWRBG

I believe there are actually just 36 different color permutations in magic (I forget what the 3c possibilities are).

Mathmatically speaking, if you weaken blue by banning it's best card, then you increase the likelihood that other color combinations become more viable relative to blue combinations.  The increase in the combinations/permutations of colors played in Legacy will increase strategic diversity.

I don't think the bolded part follows.

There's more to strategic diversity than color combinations.

Let's suppose that currently there's more than one strategically distinct deck that plays the color combination , say, tempo thresh versus NO-RUG.  A potential outcome from banning Brainstorm is the weakening of the first and the disappearance of the second (not competitive without the ability to put Prog. back with Brainstorm, etc.).  Independent of any/all other decks in other color combinations strategic diversity within has been reduced, right?  If so, an increase in the permutations of colors played is not alone sufficient to claim that strategic diversity would increase.

[Jo84]

Stephen, I am not sure about your position.

Mental Misstep is banned, so should Brainstorm be banned too or only if they unban Mental Misstep in return?

I totally agree, that banning of Brainstorm will decrease the number of the color blue represented in the metagame, but looking at the current Legacy card pool, I think that blue has to be the most common color in the metagame.
Combo decks that aim at a turn 1/turn 2 kill are only kept at bay by Force of Will (now with Misstep banned). If the DCI bans Brainstorm in order to reduce the number of blue in the metagame they also reduce the number of Force of Wills. This means that "turn 1 kill" combo decks like Belcher have a much much better shot at dominating Legacy.

From this point there are two possible paths I see:
1) People will play more blue again to combat the uprising of Belcher & Co. which means that color diversity will increase again, so the effect of banning Brainstorm will be nullified.
2) People will play more and more combo and Legacy faces the same fate as Modern.

If 1) occurs, then what´s the point of banning Brainstorm? The only reason I can understand is to weaken the presence of blue, but without cards like Mental Misstep I think the presence of blue needs to be kept at its current level.
2) is obviously the worse path, let´s hope this never happens.

So I think the current level of color variety in Legacy is fine, as it keeps Belcher & Co. away. I think the level should only be lowered if non-blue decks can defend themselves against turn1/2 combo decks (i.e. with Mental Misstep). At the moment they cannot.

[Smmenen]

My inductive proof:


As for my inductive proof, it's really simple:

There are a finite number of color combinations in magic:

1 Color: U, R, W, G, B
2 Color: UR, UW, UB, UG, RW, RB, RG, WB, WG, and BG,
3 color: URW, URB, URG, UWB, UWG, UWR, Etc.
4 color: 5 possibilities -- each missing a color
5 color: UWRBG

I believe there are actually just 36 different color permutations in magic (I forget what the 3c possibilities are).

Mathmatically speaking, if you weaken blue by banning it's best card, then you increase the likelihood that other color combinations become more viable relative to blue combinations.  The increase in the combinations/permutations of colors played in Legacy will increase strategic diversity.

I don't think the bolded part follows.

It's inductive logic, not deductive.  That's the implicit step.

There's more to strategic diversity than color combinations.

Yes, but as you increase color combinations, you are more likely increase strategic diversity.  If you make non blue permutations viable by weakening blue, it follows inductively that you will likely increase strategic diversity.

Let's suppose that currently there's more than one strategically distinct deck that plays the color combination , say, tempo thresh versus NO-RUG.  A potential outcome from banning Brainstorm is the weakening of the first and the disappearance of the second (not competitive without the ability to put Prog. back with Brainstorm, etc.). 

Too extreme: Jace exists to put those cards back, and it's not valid to assume that bannig Brainstorm would make Natural Order uncompetitive.   

[DubDub]

Let me try again:
It's possible that banning Brainstorm will reduce the strategic diversity currently present within a color combination containing blue.
Therefore it cannot be proven that strategic diversity will weakly increase over the set of all color combinations, even if strategic diversity weakly increases in some of those combinations.

Suppose there are only two color combinations, with the following counts of viable strategically distinct decks:

- 7
- 0

Then we ban Brainstorm and the numbers become:

- 4
- 1

In that case you're right that more color combinations contain viable decks, but overall strategic diversity has been reduced from 7 decks to 5 decks.

Perhaps you want to make a separate claim that 'you think' strategic diversity would increase overall, or perhaps you want to claim that the second metagame is preferable to the first on measures besides strategic diversity?

[Smmenen]

I already answered that: banning Brainstorm would not make any blue deck that currently exists unviable.  That is my premise.

Brainstorm is a ubiquitous tactical card.   It is not an engine like Hive Mind or Survival of the Fittest.  Banning either card kills an archetype.  Banning Brainstorm does not.  

RUG Tempo would continue to be viable, as would everything else that currently uses Brainstorm.  Banning Brainstorm will only increase strategic diversity and color diversity of the format.