last edited by Smmenen
@mike-noble said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:
Ok. Then ignore that sentence and refute my meme instead of making this a matter of semantics.
a) I don't know what meme you are referring to.
b) I'm not trying to refute any claim you made. I am clarifying my point that banning a card in Vintage after just a month is not enough time.
There are so many upsides to what Lurrus provides Vintage.
It has broadened the card pool considerably. Cards like Dead Weight and Seal of Fire now actually see play.
As Matt said in his original tweet shown above, Lurrus doesn't just come down and win immediately, it's a grindy card that takes a few turns of recursive advantage to dominate.
I really wanted to see the PO v. TX Breach battle play out. Now that's cut short by a lame duck format.
It's driven Dredge to the margins.
I have thoroughly enjoyed playing in the Lurrus metagame. I recognize that others haven't, and the numbers certainly warrant a discussion on possible banning, but I think this is premature to pull the trigger.
First, the problem has not been fully analyzed to my satisfaction for such a momentous decision. As I said before, "Lurrus" isn't a strategy like PO or Oath. The two best Lurrus decks are incredibly different strategies. And they exist just fine without Lurrus existing at all, as they preexisted Lurrus, and will presumably exist as upper tier decks without Lurrus.
Unless we can disentangle exactly how much of a boost Lurrus provides to specific decks, then we can't know whether banning Lurrus is actually the right thing to do to address these deck's individual performance. Instead, perhaps restricting something else is better to address the problem of the dominance and win rates.