[Article] Be Aggressive

[Anusien]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14000.html

Previously, Kevin claimed that "aggro-board control is the new aggro-control." This week he steps up to try to prove it with aggressive strategies built around very powerful cards. As a bonus he talks about how to choose a deck for the Grand Prix and Grand Prix trials.

I feel that the material covered in this article is a lot better than some of the other stuff I've written, so I hope you like it, and I'm hoping it generates a lot of feedback and response.
Remember, I will also take Q&A!

[Zach Tartell]

What is confinement slide? Everytime I ask a team member what it is, everyone just says "It's bad," and tells me not to look into it. As a relitively accomplished solitary player, I wonder about every deck with "confinement" in the title. Can I get a list, or some discussion? Maybe this is better left for PM's or something, but I'm honestly left with a head scratcher here.

Also, you compared FOW and counterspell's drawbacks almost word for word three times.

[Bryant Cook]

Very well done. Although, I disagree with shoving Goblins in new player's faces because it's "The Best". I thought the whole point of these articles were to get tier 1.5-3 decks out there. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Anusien]

Although, I disagree with shoving Goblins in new player's faces because it's "The Best". I thought the whole point of these articles were to get tier 1.5-3 decks out there. Maybe I'm wrong.
Nope. While I focus a lot on developmental decks, perhaps disproportionately, at the end of the day Goblins is still the best deck in the format, and me not saying "Run Goblins unless you have a convincing reason" is sort of a lie.


What is confinement slide? Everytime I ask a team member what it is, everyone just says "It's bad," and tells me not to look into it. As a relitively accomplished solitary player, I wonder about every deck with "confinement" in the title. Can I get a list, or some discussion? Maybe this is better left for PM's or something, but I'm honestly left with a head scratcher here.

Also, you compared FOW and counterspell's drawbacks almost word for word three times.
Confinement Slide is a three color control deck with a lot of the tools you'd expect. I first write about it here (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11870.html). Since then the Sakura-Tribe Elders turned into Jotun Grunts, the StP turned into Orim's Chant and the SB is being overhauled. You're probably being told not to look into it because I keep scrubbing or losing to Goblins with it, despite testing against the same caliber (or better) opponents that I lose to. I think it has promise, but I'm the only one working on it anymore and it's not as interesting and fresh to me as it once was.
My articles actually stem from conversations I have with fellow magic players, either on AIM or IRC (so talk to me online and there's a good chance you'll make it into an article!) and in many ways my articles are written as if conversing with an imaginary player. Hence the repetition. Also, I think that point is worth repeating since it should have been included in my previous article. I find new ways to analyze things and to present new concepts that I feel are worth sharing.

[C.P.]

I do agree on the fact that goblins is the best pick for the ones who are not familiar with the format, but I don't think it is in the same position as the affnity in the mirrodin standard. At least goblins does not need a dedicated hate deck.

I think it is this kind of attitude the causes some fools to say 'see? goblins are problematic so lackey should be banned OMFG!!!!!1!!1111eleventeen'

It is the best deck, but other decks clearly have a chance and deck choice should come down to your playstyle and knowlegde on the archtype.


Nice job on the article, though.

[Finn]

Anusien, your decks are peachy keen as long as no one is playing combo. Especially for the first deck, you should read the Land Ho! thread to supplement your research. Everybody figured out how disgusting Dev Dreams is with Life from the Loam early, but we were never really comfortable against combo. It was so bad that I threw the towel in and went strait out against aggro and control only.

I like how you put Pikula's deck in focus. He taught us a lesson. true...true

[Cavius The Great]

I find it amusing that Anusien suggests everyone to play Goblins. Watch him enter the Grand Prix with Anti-Goblins.DEC and win the whole tournament. :wink:

[Anusien]

I find it amusing that Anusien suggests everyone to play Goblins. Watch him enter the Grand Prix with Anti-Goblins.DEC and win the whole tournament. :wink:
I find it insulting that you think I would sacrifice my integrity or the community for the sake of a tournament. If you think that the advice or strategy or analysis I give is wrong, post about it. I've shown in the past that I'm happy to discuss any sort of point, no matter how minute. But accusations that I'm screwing over the readership that I've worked hard to build is like a slap in the face. It is attitudes like this that give Legacy players the reputation they have as elitist and assholes. If you don't want to read my stuff, don't read it. But don't come on here and insult me or mislead others. Unlike you, I actually care about the format.

[Cavius The Great]

I find it insulting that you think I would sacrifice my integrity or the community for the sake of a tournament. If you think that the advice or strategy or analysis I give is wrong, post about it. I've shown in the past that I'm happy to discuss any sort of point, no matter how minute. But accusations that I'm screwing over the readership that I've worked hard to build is like a slap in the face. It is attitudes like this that give Legacy players the reputation they have as elitist and assholes. If you don't want to read my stuff, don't read it. But don't come on here and insult me or mislead others. Unlike you, I actually care about the format.

Wow, you really can't take a joke there, huh buddy? Lighten up man. It was a joke.

[Anusien]

Wow, you really can't take a joke there, huh buddy? Lighten up man. It was a joke.
You know how often I see this attitude? And not just about me, but other writers as well. Have some respect, if not for the articles and the subject matter and the time spent writing it, then at least for the community and SCG for posting them. Don't throw around accusations against people you've never met, even jokingly.

[Volt]

Great article, Kevin. I appreciate the contributions you and other writers make to Legacy.

[Cavius The Great]

You know how often I see this attitude? And not just about me, but other writers as well. Have some respect, if not for the articles and the subject matter and the time spent writing it, then at least for the community and SCG for posting them. Don't throw around accusations against people you've never met, even jokingly.

It wasn't an accusation. It was a freakin' joke. I know that you would never do such a thing, ever heard of sarcasm? It was meant to be funny and I obviously struck a cord of some sort. I never meant to be disrespectful, please get that out of your head. I'm a fan of your articles and I think that you're an articulate writer. I would never do anything to disrespect you.

[Bardo]

I thought the whole point of these articles were to get tier 1.5-3 decks out there. Maybe I'm wrong.

The whole point of the column is to generate and sustain interest in the Legacy format, not to hype and anti-hype (?) any deck or class of decks for any reason whatsoever.

[AnwarA101]

I find it insulting that you think I would sacrifice my integrity or the community for the sake of a tournament. If you think that the advice or strategy or analysis I give is wrong, post about it. I've shown in the past that I'm happy to discuss any sort of point, no matter how minute. But accusations that I'm screwing over the readership that I've worked hard to build is like a slap in the face. It is attitudes like this that give Legacy players the reputation they have as elitist and assholes. If you don't want to read my stuff, don't read it. But don't come on here and insult me or mislead others. Unlike you, I actually care about the format.

I find your outrage ridiculous. It was obvious that he was making a joke and the fact that you take such an offense to something so obvious is bizarre.

But if you want some real criticism, I will give you some. You start the article about how threats are better than answers and you follow that up with a deck that is full of nothing but answers. Your aggro-loam is nothing more than a board control deck which suffers the same problems in Legacy as all board control decks - they only play answers and very few threats. This is the reason they can't beat combo decks because they are relying on their opponent to play creatures. When that doesn't happen their answers are worthless. Your aggro-loam doesn't play any real threats at all against combo. 2 Duress and no relevant clock. I'm not sure you'll even beat Goblins unless you find Life from the Loam quickly as your manabase will be destroyed and their card advantage will come with the advantage of attacking as you scramble to find some board sweeper.

Your second deck seems to have just as many issues. While it plays creatures many of them don't make sense. How do you build Threshold to get Nantuko Monastery to be anything other than a wasteable, colorless source? You can discard your hand to Brushhopper but that seems less than ideal. There is no way to support Jotun Grunt as you can't build your yard. Are you planning to always play against Threshold? You don't have any answers to Lackey on the draw unless you count Llanowar Elves and Aether Vial makes your Trinisphere pretty bad especially considering their best Goblins (Ringleader and Siege-Gang are unaffected). Also your manabase looks like its ripe to be eaten by Rishadan Port and Wasteland. I could go on but I think you get my point.

Your final point about Threshold not being able to beat Goblins consistently seems to be without merit. I've personally beaten Goblins many times with UGW Threshold and I can say its definitely possible and not that unlikely. Threshold has continued to make Top8s and put 3 into the Top 8 at Grand Prix Philadelphia when the field was full of Goblins. Its Goblin matchup maybe even but you can't just say Threshold isn't recommended because you believe its behind. Perhaps you lack the ability to play it to a level that allows it to beat Goblins, but ask any competent Threshold player and they will tell you they can win the matchup. You would recommend Confinement Slide over Threshold even when you failed to beat Goblins with Confinement Slide? That hardly seems to make sense. Perhaps you should have more respect for the decks that achieved success and accept that they are better than you are willing to give them credit for before you tell people not to play a deck as successful as Threshold.

Given all these comments and others I have made before I have serious doubts about your ability to convey the Legacy format in any meaningful way. Its clear that me that you make assertions that make little sense and offer very little to a player that might be wanting to learn something about Legacy.

[hi-val]

I liked the article, not just because I was namechecked and an old article of mine was linked to. Woo!

The thing is that as writers, we aren't presenting things as completely finished works of art, ready to play, unless we explicitly say so. Nobody assumes Rizzo's 10 decks in one article are going to be solid, and nobody figures that Zac Hill's newest block decks are the freshest possible. Look at the legacy decks presented objectively and consider them as starting points for things you've been thinking about.

If the Loam deck isn't amazing, perhaps that illustrates that loam, taken to its logical conclusion in Legacy, isn't going to be amazing. That's really good to know, especially because it can save you time in deckbuilding. Looking at GW aggro can be an interesting starting point as well. Why is it good? Why does it fail? Where are its strengths and weaknesses?

The Legacy article series really rewards critical consumers of information. The goal is to get the reader thinking and get gears turning. As writers, we aren't married to the decks that we propose; instead, we want the reader to see the deck and think something about it.

[Anusien]

Anwar, even if I know he's making a joke (and I didn't), I've heard that same criticism being said earnestly about other people. And it's bullshit.

To answer your criticisms:
Regarding Loam: You're right, the deck has a lot of answers, and I'm up front about the game versus combo. But at the end of the day, Pernicious Deed is a real problem for Threshold. So is Tsunami, even if they don't deal damage. But imagine how different things get when you go to a full set of Cabal Therapy and turn the Smothers into something else (possibly Funeral Charm). Or maybe you hybridize the core with something else (Red Death?). While I do think the deck is awesome, and the 1.x builds do successfully roll with combo, I never tried to pass it off as a finished product.

Regarding the GW deck: You're right, the mana is bad. Possibly the Nantuko Monasteries need to go even though they're good in the abstract, and either I need to balance the creatures out or fit in X number of Chrome Moxen. However, you're dead wrong about Trinisphere. Please, just play one creature per turn out of Aether Vial. Let's match my single creature a turn which is going to be a 3/3 at the least, with your single creature a turn which is a 2/2. And I think you're wrong about the manabase; not only does it have a ridiculous amount of mana sources but every turn they're affecting my mana is a turn they're not developing their own board, and let's not forget I have some small number of outs to their pressure (Orim's Chant). Sure, they could go turn 1 Aether Vial, turn 2 waste, turn 3 port, etc. But why are you comparing the Goblins nuts draw to the average GW draw? What about the games where GW goes turn 2 4/4? That actually seems slightly more probable than Goblins's nut mana draw.

Your criticisms to the decks are "They don't beat everything". Well they were never intended to. I presented them here as interesting cores to advance from and as explanatory tools. Do you say Angel Stompy is completely worthless because it doesn't beat everything? It has fewer anti-combo tools than these decks do.

As for deck matchups, you notice something? Let's assume you're a better player than me (probably not a bad assumption). All your arguments about Threshold v Goblins hinge on you being able to win the matchup. There are two problems I see here
A) It's not that you say it's favorable, but that it's even or slightly behind. That's great. You're likely to face Goblins 3 or more times during the span of the GP. Do you really want to be behind in the matchup you're likely to face the most often.
B) Are you playing with players of equal caliber? Sure, you can go to a random tournament and smash the bad Goblins players, but my assumption has always been that you'll beat the bad players anyway, so build to beat the good players. When you look at good player versus good player, it tends to come out in favor of the Goblins player. If one player is significantly better than the other, it favors that player, otherwise Goblins has an edge. Sure, it's winnable, and you're more likely to win the matchup than win the lottery (from either side of the table), but "they can win the matchup" isn't a ringing endorsement. And this isn't even coming from my perspective; I'm leaning on the testing of Dan, Doug and others.

Let's leave the flames behind. We don't need to make allegations regarding whether I am a good player in any specific deck or matchup. I can talk bad draws or whatever (although it's worth noting that I misunderstood the way the triggered abilities worked in parts of the deck, which caused me to play sub-optimally), but at the end of the day the people who have tested the deck think it has game. The one problem I would identify, other than the pilot, is that it tends to lose to the more inevitable board control decks like Survival or Pernicious Deed decks.

[Citrus-God]

[You priceless rant]

You have officially (not being sarcastic here) became my all time hero, right next to Rachael Leigh Cook. But I am however sorry for putting you alongside with the "She's All That" star with you though.....

As for the article, it's true Threshold cant beat Vial Goblins, but it depends on the draws and playskill of both players usually. Vial Goblins players do well by being aggressive, but knowing what hands to keep when they dont have Vial or Lackey in it. Threshold players can answer Lackey almost through any hand, but what bothers me are the playser that keep hands that dont have cantrips to allow it to last the long game.

I have played Goblins many times, but I've lost tons of them through my own play mistakes and my lack of patience (i.e. doing an alpha strike at the worst time possible, or playing Needle on Ports instead of Gempalm when I had a Green source in my hand, etc, etc...). I'm getting better at managing my patience in this match up, and this MU and Solidarity is truely what tests the skill of the Threshold player.


@Anusien:

I love your article and everything, but I want to know more about your opinions on the decks you built and the format in general.



Your criticisms to the decks are "They don't beat everything". Well they were never intended to. I presented them here as interesting cores to advance from and as explanatory tools. Do you say Angel Stompy is completely worthless because it doesn't beat everything? It has fewer anti-combo tools than these decks do.

Were the decks that you presented intended to be metagame decks? I know Angel Stompy is a metagame deck.


A) It's not that you say it's favorable, but that it's even or slightly behind. That's great. You're likely to face Goblins 3 or more times during the span of the GP. Do you really want to be behind in the matchup you're likely to face the most often.

It depends, but accoridng to the Food Chain/Metagame Clock, Goblins is kinda screwed since the GP takes place at IGGy-Pop capital U.S.A.

Of course, you still need to pack answers to it in order to survive the first day of the tournament.


B) Are you playing with players of equal caliber? Sure, you can go to a random tournament and smash the bad Goblins players, but my assumption has always been that you'll beat the bad players anyway, so build to beat the good players. When you look at good player versus good player, it tends to come out in favor of the Goblins player. If one player is significantly better than the other, it favors that player, otherwise Goblins has an edge. Sure, it's winnable, and you're more likely to win the matchup than win the lottery (from either side of the table), but "they can win the matchup" isn't a ringing endorsement. And this isn't even coming from my perspective; I'm leaning on the testing of Dan, Doug and others.

Virginia is the center of the Big 3 (Think back when Solidarity was considered DTB). Parcher once said that their development of Threshold is designed through the field being heavy of Vial Goblins and Combo decks. I'm sure they wont be playing it if it had an awful Goblins match-up.

I'm also sure you didnt know that a person from Meandeck gave a list to Jason Portizo (I think) which he made Top 8 with, which is of Nothern Virginian design. That's where Anwar plays at, as well as the many Threshold advocates and David Gearhart. He didnt do so hot, and lost to Gekoratel(playing Vial Goblins) in the quarter-finals. He would've done better against him if he had that 4th Clasm and learned how to play that deck before hand.

Heres he's report:
http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=29271 (http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=292713)3

1. That was probably his first time playing that list, so he probably didnt know how to side with that deck. His Sideboard also looked janky.

2. Probably didnt know how to play each match-up, especially the Goblins match up since he has Fire // Ice in the SB.

3. Probably sided Cantrips out for Control when Cantrips chain through eachother finding Pyroclasm (which is the best form of control against them).

Jesse Hatfield converted to Red just to make sure his MU against Goblins is stronger, but me however, am still running White until the dawn of time considering that I expect much more of the mirror on Day Two at GP Columbus. I might switch to Red though sicne I still won many games without the aid of Swords to Plowshares.


Playing against Goblins with Threshold is probably most likely like Heads-Up poker really. The most it can get up to is probably 50/50, or 60/40 in Goblins favor.


The one problem I would identify, other than the pilot, is that it tends to lose to the more inevitable board control decks like Survival or Pernicious Deed decks.

As for Survival, it's easy; get your Enforcer to swing 3 times and you win. If you play Red, get your Dragon to swing 2 times and you win. The whole Survival thing is a stupid debate because you ahve so much now to fight Survival decks. Get SDT to resolve.

I've beaten Deed-based decks before, like The Rock, Truffle Shuffle, and BWHC Landstill as well. Counterbalance and SDT are the best things to ever be in this list. But how you beat them game is is quite simple; get Needle on Deed, and play SDT midgame.

[freakish777]

My complaints with the article can be found here:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32693.0



I'd like to know if anyone else agrees on the "writing style" issue I have specifically. I'm less worried about subject matter here, as I'm sure every author/writer is going to some amount of the time write about something you're not interested in. If no one else has problems with Kevin's writing style, I'll chalk it up to me not learning how to read anything other than 1 or 2 styles. If so though, Kevin I'd like to request you vary your writing style occasionally, I wouldn't want what you have to say (regardless of whether or not I find it interesting that particular week) be lost on the reader because they find your writing distracting.

[Volt]

My complaints with the article can be found here:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32693.0



I'd like to know if anyone else agrees on the "writing style" issue I have specifically.

Actually, no, I don't agree with you. I think Kevin is a concise and articulate writer.

[Zilla]

Do you say Angel Stompy is completely worthless because it doesn't beat everything? It has fewer anti-combo tools than these decks do.
No it doesn't, actually. It just happens that most of its combo hate is in the sideboard. Angel Stompy is a metagame deck, and however popular combo may seem these days, it still comprises less than 10% of the field at most large tournaments. The deck is designed to smash aggro and aggro-control, which comprises by far and away the largest portion of most metagames. It has 10 or more cards to bring in from the sideboard for every combo matchup, which is equal to or greater than the amount of hate in your article's second decklist.

This is just picking nits, really, but I feel the clarification is necessary.

As for the article, I think it's pretty good. I think if people take the proposed decklists as being a strong suggestion for what to play at the GP, they're taking the article sorely out of context. These are simply ideas to get the ball rolling, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think Kevin presented these ideas in a misleading way, and to be overly critical of unfinished deck ideas is to miss the article's point entirely.

To touch on a couple of Anwar's points: I agree the manabase is horribly vulnerable. I suspect that Goblins will be able to successfully exploit it, which is a shame because the deck is otherwise jam packed with threats it can't answer. The manabase would be the first place to start in optimizing this list.

I disagree that Monastery is completely out of place here; Anwar's assessment completely ignores its synergy with Cataclysm, which is quite relevant. It's a very strong late game threat against board control and may warrant inclusion as a 2-of for that reason alone.

That said, the dissynergy between Monastery and Grunt is striking. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm pretty sure you need to go with either/or on this one. Frankly, I think Grunt is a terrible choice here. The deck isn't going to fill its yard near fast enough to support Grunt on its own, which means it's fully reliant on its opponent to stick around for more than a turn or two. The deck is already packed with fat; why are these guys necessary? You want maindecked Thresh hate? I'd take a look at Loaming Shaman. It's an unconditional threat that sets Thresh back immediately, without any anti-synergy with Monastery.

I also question Cataclysm's inclusion here. The is objectively fantastic, and it has wonderful synergy with Trinisphere, but the 3spheres are really the only way you get to abuse it. If you have no Trinishere, Cataclysm can often be totally symmetrical. This is particularly true when you're not packing any Swords to Plowshares to remove your opponent's remaining threat. If they are packing StP, there's a good chance you're winning the game for them when you cast Cataclysm. I don't necessarily think Cataclysm is wrong for the deck, I just think there needs to be a greater focus on abusing it if you're going to run it.

[Ewokslayer]

Angel Stompy is a metagame deck, and however popular combo may seem these days, it still comprises less than 10% of the field at most large tournaments.

18.83% of the metagame to be exact.

[Citrus-God]

18.83% of the metagame to be exact.

Damn.... expect it to be more like 35-45% at GP Columbus, since your in well.... Ohio...

Also, congratz on your 666th post.

[Nihil Credo]

That said, the dissynergy between Monastery and Grunt is striking. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm pretty sure you need to go with either/or on this one. Frankly, I think Grunt is a terrible choice here.
GodzillA is spot on here. You only have four fetchlands and four cheap nonpermanent spells in the deck - not nearly enough to support Grunt.

The most obvious candidate for its spot, to me, seems to be Werebear. Aside from the chance of a 4/4 (which could be improved by raising the number of fetchlands), the deck certainly loves having another accelerator in the deck. It can enable Turn 3 Cataclysm without Ancient Tombs, after which you'll have two mana and likely a 4/4 on board.

[hi-val]

I'm also sure you didnt know that a person from Meandeck gave a list to Jason Portizo (I think) which he made Top 8 with, which is of Nothern Virginian design. That's where Anwar plays at, as well as the many Threshold advocates and David Gearhart. He didnt do so hot, and lost to Gekoratel(playing Vial Goblins) in the quarter-finals. He would've done better against him if he had that 4th Clasm and learned how to play that deck before hand.


I just want to clarify something here. Although it seems Ashok did give this person the deck or decklist, it didn't come from our team. None of us test or refine Threshold and haven't for at least a year now, and upon checking our forum, I don't see any threads about the deck, and UGR in particular. So yes, it came from a meandecker, but that doesn't specifically mean that it is one Mean Deck.

[Bardo]

As writers, we aren't married to the decks that we propose; instead, we want the reader to see the deck and think something about it.

I actually arranged a common-law wedding with my GAT list a few weeks ago. We're still on our honeymoon; everything is beautiful.

As for the criticism on Kevin's article--there's a lot to be learned by analyzing what's wrong with things, it's how we learn, etc. So, even if things are off, breaking them apart and thinking about them achieves the same purpose as stating things perfectly and accurately, which requires very little interactive thought. I hope that makes sense, I'm really hung-over today. A total skull-fuck in my brain. 'Sucks.

Regarding Kevin's writing style, I like it--it's clear and concise and I don't find it distracting.

[AnwarA101]

To answer your criticisms:
Regarding Loam: You're right, the deck has a lot of answers, and I'm up front about the game versus combo. But at the end of the day, Pernicious Deed is a real problem for Threshold. So is Tsunami, even if they don't deal damage. But imagine how different things get when you go to a full set of Cabal Therapy and turn the Smothers into something else (possibly Funeral Charm). Or maybe you hybridize the core with something else (Red Death?). While I do think the deck is awesome, and the 1.x builds do successfully roll with combo, I never tried to pass it off as a finished product.


Sure this deck might be fine against Threshold. But it has no game against combo and while you admit that, you don't admit that it is a real problem. Why do you think Mono-White Control doesn't win in Legacy? Its because it can't beat anything but creatures. Aggro-loam's game against Goblins is suspect as you can still be beat by their creatures and their card advantage.



Regarding the GW deck: You're right, the mana is bad. Possibly the Nantuko Monasteries need to go even though they're good in the abstract, and either I need to balance the creatures out or fit in X number of Chrome Moxen. However, you're dead wrong about Trinisphere. Please, just play one creature per turn out of Aether Vial. Let's match my single creature a turn which is going to be a 3/3 at the least, with your single creature a turn which is a 2/2. And I think you're wrong about the manabase; not only does it have a ridiculous amount of mana sources but every turn they're affecting my mana is a turn they're not developing their own board, and let's not forget I have some small number of outs to their pressure (Orim's Chant). Sure, they could go turn 1 Aether Vial, turn 2 waste, turn 3 port, etc. But why are you comparing the Goblins nuts draw to the average GW draw? What about the games where GW goes turn 2 4/4? That actually seems slightly more probable than Goblins's nut mana draw.


You have no answer for Mountain, Lackey, go. That is not a god hand, it happens all the time. You have absolutely no answer for it outside of a 1/1 creature that can be destroyed by 8 Goblin cards on turn 2 (Mogg Fanatic and Gempalm Incinerator). Trinisphere is terrible against an active Aether Vial because Goblins will still have the option of Porting your Tomb or Wasting your Savannah, but at least you admit the mana base is bad. In addition to the fact that all their best creatures cost 3 or more mana and trinisphere doesn't do anything about that. Plus this deck could easily lose to combo without drawing any of its 8 disruption spells. Looks like you have a recipe for a shaky game against Goblins as well as the same for combo.




Your criticisms to the decks are "They don't beat everything". Well they were never intended to. I presented them here as interesting cores to advance from and as explanatory tools. Do you say Angel Stompy is completely worthless because it doesn't beat everything? It has fewer anti-combo tools than these decks do.


My criticism is that these decks don't beat anything. They seem suspect against Goblins and they are terrible against combo. Angel Stompy has the ability to beat Goblins and while its weak against combo at least it admits as much and sideboards for those matchups. Angel Stompy also has the added bonus of playing actual threats something your aggro-loam deck fails to do.



As for deck matchups, you notice something? Let's assume you're a better player than me (probably not a bad assumption). All your arguments about Threshold v Goblins hinge on you being able to win the matchup. There are two problems I see here
A) It's not that you say it's favorable, but that it's even or slightly behind. That's great. You're likely to face Goblins 3 or more times during the span of the GP. Do you really want to be behind in the matchup you're likely to face the most often.
B) Are you playing with players of equal caliber? Sure, you can go to a random tournament and smash the bad Goblins players, but my assumption has always been that you'll beat the bad players anyway, so build to beat the good players. When you look at good player versus good player, it tends to come out in favor of the Goblins player. If one player is significantly better than the other, it favors that player, otherwise Goblins has an edge. Sure, it's winnable, and you're more likely to win the matchup than win the lottery (from either side of the table), but "they can win the matchup" isn't a ringing endorsement. And this isn't even coming from my perspective; I'm leaning on the testing of Dan, Doug and others.


I believe the players at both Grand Prixs have proven you wrong. They played through massive amounts of Goblins and still arrived at Top8 tables. How did this happen? Its likely that these players were at least equal to those of their Goblin opponents and were able to win these matchups. If you are telling people they aren't good enough to beat Goblins with Threshold then just say that. But I'm telling you that many people have and will beat Goblins with Threshold because they are good enough to do so.



Let's leave the flames behind. We don't need to make allegations regarding whether I am a good player in any specific deck or matchup. I can talk bad draws or whatever (although it's worth noting that I misunderstood the way the triggered abilities worked in parts of the deck, which caused me to play sub-optimally), but at the end of the day the people who have tested the deck think it has game. The one problem I would identify, other than the pilot, is that it tends to lose to the more inevitable board control decks like Survival or Pernicious Deed decks.

I only brought up the example of you losing to Goblins with Confinement Slide to prove the point that Confinement Slide can lose to Goblins. This is the same reason you cited for claiming that Threshold isn't an acceptable deck. Yet you playing a deck that you claimed had a good matchup against Goblins wasn't able to win.

I'm criticizing your understanding of the format and your ability to convey meaningful information. If I wanted to attack you personally I could have, but I reserved my criticism for what you wrote and not who you are.

[Ewokslayer]

One of the problems I run into with many of my decks is something I call the Tools 'n' Tubbies (TNT) Problem, named after the Vintage German Workshop Survival Deck of the same name. That deck was basically half a Workshop Aggro deck, with Mishra's Workshop, Juggernaut, Su-Chi and other high-end creatures, and half a RG Survival deck sporting Welder, Flametongue Kavu and similar creatures. When the deck got rolling it was... let's be honest, it was bad Workshop Aggro. More frequently the pilot would mulligan a hand sporting Survival of the Fittest but with only Mishra's Workshop for lands. And good luck trying to cast Juggernaut with a fistful of Forests. I use the term to denote any deck where there is a serious risk of not drawing the right half of the deck to pair with each other. A more modern example is many Standard and Extended UrzaTron decks where your opening hands have a tendency to complete the Urza set with only Remand to spend it on, or where you are stuck with Sundering Titan, looking at three lands and a Signet. With this deck there is a tendency to just not get the mana you need; maybe this is a lack of tuning, but I assert there is an inevitable risk running Ancient Tomb and Rishadan Port next to Watchwolf. In the end you just have to decide whether the possibility of turn 2 Iwamori of the Open Fist (LIVE THE DREAM!) is worth the risk.

Don't you think you should actually address the problem in your deck design as opposed to just giving it a nice name and ignoring the problem with the statement LIVE THE DREAM!?

[outsideangel]

Though it's been said, I think it bears repeating that both of the decks you posted just lose when Goblins goes Mountain -> Lackey on the play. (unless Orim's Chant you so you can't attack a turn is an answer...) Even if you can immediately whipe the board (and you can't) they can recover quickly, and God help you if they dropped a Ringleader and filled their hand.

Anyway, the first deck needs more Devastating Dreams, since that's probably the best card in the deck. I will say that I do like Smallpox, though.

We've actually been working with a Grb Loam deck, and I'm sure it'll get posted once we feel comfortable with it. It's not easy trying to make the deck relevant vs. combo while preserving the strong Goblins matchup. So far black disruption + a quick Terravore has been the best play vs. combo.

[Anusien]

Don't you think you should actually address the problem in your deck design as opposed to just giving it a nice name and ignoring the problem with the statement LIVE THE DREAM!?
Sure, if I were trying to produce a deck for you to play in the GPs. This was about presenting an idea and an emphasis in deck design. Simply pointing out what I feel is the proper approach for a deck like that to take.

Anwar: The specific decklists are irrelevant. I'm only talking about the way I think the deck should be positioned in specific metagames/matchups. The fact that you consider Angel Stompy worthwhile suggests that while the decklist itself is wrong, the deck is positioned properly. From here we're just talking card choices.

Regarding Thresh v Goblins, I think it's fair to say the jury is out. Yes, I'm sure the Hatfields can beat the average and even above average Goblins players. But if you go Alix Hatfield versus Chris Coppola one hundred times, who wins more? My money is on Chris Coppola, simply because from all the research done, it seems like Goblins has a slight edge when the players are equal. At the end of the day, maybe this section of the article isn't for you Anwar. You probably are going to play Red Death or something else. This part of the article is for me first off, because it was the thought process I was going through trying to decide what to take to the GPT if I play (and I'm not sure yet). And it's for people that haven't played that need to be told "Just Play Goblins". And maybe it's for some people that aren't as good as you are. If you've tested Threshold v Goblins with a player better than you are and are still winning the majority of the time, good for you. But that's deviating from Goblins because you have a specific reason to do so. Note that I was only saying "Here are the decks I feel good enough to take." It seems like I have different criteria than you do. I'd stress two things here and point out a third. #1) I talked up the importance of playtesting. If my playtesting wasn't showing me beating up on Goblins, then I wouldn't recommend it. #2) I stressed the importance of GPTs as a precursor to the GP. If you go to the GP and lose with Confinement Slide, you still have time to get something like Goblins together.
But I notice that no one is balking at either Aluren or UWR Pyroclasm when I included them as strong deck choices. And I think that says something about where we are in the format.

[Artowis]

Though it's been said, I think it bears repeating that both of the decks you posted just lose when Goblins goes Mountain -> Lackey on the play..

Devastating Dreams down? Pretty sure Goblins just loses when you blow up 2 of it's land and it's board. They don't run -that- many.

[Ewokslayer]

I am confused. It could be the cold medicine I am on now.

So

Sure, if I were trying to produce a deck for you to play in the GPs. This was about presenting an idea and an emphasis in deck design. Simply pointing out what I feel is the proper approach for a deck like that to take.

So your goal wasn't to produce or present a deck that is actually good in any Legacy metagame that exists? Was its sole purpose to demonstrate an example of your "TNT Problem"? If your goal was to use a decklist to demonstrate a point then you should have used decklists from actual tournaments such as in Anwar's article (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11600.html). If you can't find actual Legacy decklists that help make the deckbuilding point you are trying to make then perhaps your point is irrelevant.


Anwar: The specific decklists are irrelevant. I'm only talking about the way I think the deck should be positioned in specific metagames/matchups. The fact that you consider Angel Stompy worthwhile suggests that while the decklist itself is wrong, the deck is positioned properly. From here we're just talking card choices.
You were the one that first mentioned Angel Stompy, so I don't know how Angel Stompy being good in certain metagames means this deck is "positioned properly" considering Angel Stompy and this deck have massively different matchups.
The GW decks seems to be in the losing position in any relevant matchup.
Goblins - behind
Combo - behind
Threshold - well you have beef and grunt but they have STP and good cards so I don't think it is the blow out you seem to believe it is.

It seems odd that in the same article that you mention that Goblins is the deck to beat that you list a decklist that has virtually zero chance of beating Goblins.

[Caboose]

If Goblin's had a penis, it would be firmly down your throat. You infer that FoW is a shitty card at least four times in your article, and that Threshold is a shitty deck because it can't beat Goblins all the time. I'm glad you're not staying with me for the GP. :rolleyes:

[Anusien]

You're right. I probably could have demonstrated 1.x Trinket Tog versus the older Tog builds and demonstrated why constantly putting pressure on the opponent was a good idea. And I could have mentioned 1.x Aggro Loam decks. I could have linked Tomii's T2 Flare list with 3 Castigate, 2 Persecute in addition to all its amazing tools as a way to constantly apply pressure without actually having to swing with creatures (in addition to the 2 Akroma, 3 Angel, 4 Court Hussar, 2 Body Double). But I thought demonstrating the concept with Legacy deck ideas had some value, since I could provide some deck shells and some ideas that the concept might take in Legacy. Yeah, I could have just presented Angel and explained its positioning, but I thought that going back to Ancient Tomb and the bigger creatures helped illustrate the fundamental advantage when your creatures are bigger at each spot on the curve. Judging from feedback, you all don't want me to present fully tuned deck ideas, which was one of the reasons I didn't wait to present these decks until they were finalized. I actually have a long history of presenting experimental decks to help illustrate my points, and no one has complained before.


If you can't find actual Legacy decklists that help make the deckbuilding point you are trying to make then perhaps your point is irrelevant.
Or perhaps no one has built a successful Aggro Loam port? Would you say the same thing to Zilla before he made all the changes he made to Angel Stompy? The lack of a thing is not evidence that the thing does not exist.

While the deck may be behind in certain matchups due to lack of testing/tuning, it's not strategically behind. You're positioned the same way Angel Stompy is, but with better outs maindeck to Threshold game 1 and better combo game preboard as well. I think that current Legacy creature deck reliance on equipment is compensating for running fundamentally underpowered creatures. So what if the deck right now has problems with Wasteland? Take this approach. Max out the power level of the deck, then scale down the curve or run better 1 and 2 drops until you beat Goblins more than 50%. I'd make some comment about not doing all the work, but even when I do all that work no one seems to believe me, so just accept the theoretical point or don't, and you can mentally substitute Angel Stompy whereever you see the arguments about the GW deck, and "Extended Aggro Loam" wherever you see the Aggro Loam. And I suppose you can translate the other decks in the first section to Extended decks (and for what it's worth, 1.x Aggro Loam beats Heartbeat (and isn't too bad off versus Ritual Desire). EDIT: Apparently Duress was favored v Ritual Desire.


It seems odd that in the same article that you mention that Goblins is the deck to beat that you list a decklist that has virtually zero chance of beating Goblins.
If I said that those decks were decks you could take to GP Columbus tomorrow, that would be odd. But instead I was trying to illustrate a fundamental deck aspect illustrated by several winning decks.

[Mad Zur]

I actually have a long history of presenting experimental decks to help illustrate my points, and no one has complained before.
The problem is when your decks don't illustrate your points. Your points in this article are not invalid, but they fail to come through clearly. In the first case, you say that threats are better then answers, yet you give us a control deck. In the second, you say that large, efficient creatures are good, but go on to overlook the fact that there already exists a highly successful Legacy deck containing creatures as efficient as 4/4 for two mana or 6/6 for four. In the end, you talk about the importance of beating Goblins, yet your decks don't seem to be built with that in mind.

It seems to me that your predisposition toward board control as well as the fact that you consistently overlook and/or underestimate ***** have a habit of getting in the way of whatever point you are trying to convey. Or perhaps I misunderstand what your point actually is. In either case, I think there's an issue of clarity.

[outsideangel]

Devastating Dreams down? Pretty sure Goblins just loses when you blow up 2 of it's land and it's board. They don't run -that- many.

Uhhh....the list he posted doesn't run Mox Diamond, so Dreams is only an answer to Lackey when Goblins is on the draw. Also if they follow the Lackey up with an Aether Vial, well, they can recover pretty easily especially since you have very little hand left. Also, Lackey -> Ringleader gives them a whole lotta options in terms of what to beat your face in with.

And they don't run that many what? Lands? Because 23 is a decent number. Threats? Because everything in the deck that's not a land or Vial is a threat.

Don't get me wrong, Devastating Dreams is friggin' amazing against Goblins, but turn 2 isn't the best time to play it, and if you don't quickly follow it up with something relevant, like a Terravore, Goblins will recover.

EDIT: And Anusien, no one balked at you listing your Pyroclasm deck as playable because a) we all pretty much expect you to, and b) it wouldn't really accomplish much, and c) that's kinda off-topic to the article. If you want, I'm sure we could manage, though my pitch-fork arm is a little tired right now.

[Artowis]

Uhhh....the list he posted doesn't run Mox Diamond, so Dreams is only an answer to Lackey when Goblins is on the draw. Also if they follow the Lackey up with an Aether Vial, well, they can recover pretty easily especially since you have very little hand left. Also, Lackey -> Ringleader gives them a whole lotta options in terms of what to beat your face in with.


Realistically when using Dreams,why should he care if he gets hit by a Lackey once if he's just going to clean the board and rape the lands anyway? If they have Vial + Lackey I can see the argument, but otherwise I fail to see the overwhelming need to kill Lackey before it hits once when odds are greatly on your side that they'll be dropping nothing relevant into play.

Also 23 lands, once two get blown up, really isn't that many when the deck's curve spans such a large chunk like Goblins. It's a crapshoot whether or not you'll be able to draw enough relevant drops.

[AnwarA101]

Anwar: The specific decklists are irrelevant. I'm only talking about the way I think the deck should be positioned in specific metagames/matchups. The fact that you consider Angel Stompy worthwhile suggests that while the decklist itself is wrong, the deck is positioned properly. From here we're just talking card choices.


You should tell your readers in your article that decklists are irrelevant. At least this way they would know not to take your decklists too seriously or even your deckbuilding suggestions. You suggest a deck that seems worse than Angel Stompy against Goblins and only marginally better against combo. For someone who is obsessed with beating Goblins (as Threshold isn't good enough) you offered us something worse than Angel Stompy. Angel Stompy might be a debatable choice in Legacy, but I doubt something worse than it is.



Regarding Thresh v Goblins, I think it's fair to say the jury is out. Yes, I'm sure the Hatfields can beat the average and even above average Goblins players. But if you go Alix Hatfield versus Chris Coppola one hundred times, who wins more? My money is on Chris Coppola, simply because from all the research done, it seems like Goblins has a slight edge when the players are equal. At the end of the day, maybe this section of the article isn't for you Anwar. You probably are going to play Red Death or something else. This part of the article is for me first off, because it was the thought process I was going through trying to decide what to take to the GPT if I play (and I'm not sure yet). And it's for people that haven't played that need to be told "Just Play Goblins". And maybe it's for some people that aren't as good as you are. If you've tested Threshold v Goblins with a player better than you are and are still winning the majority of the time, good for you. But that's deviating from Goblins because you have a specific reason to do so. Note that I was only saying "Here are the decks I feel good enough to take." It seems like I have different criteria than you do. I'd stress two things here and point out a third. #1) I talked up the importance of playtesting. If my playtesting wasn't showing me beating up on Goblins, then I wouldn't recommend it. #2) I stressed the importance of GPTs as a precursor to the GP. If you go to the GP and lose with Confinement Slide, you still have time to get something like Goblins together.
But I notice that no one is balking at either Aluren or UWR Pyroclasm when I included them as strong deck choices. And I think that says something about where we are in the format.

Are you aware that 2 Grand Prixs occurred with tons of Goblins? Are you aware that Threshold put multiple players in the Top8 including winning a Grand Prix? I doubt the jury is out. Sure Goblins can beat Threshold, but you know what Threshold can and does beat Goblins. The fact that it doesn't do it everytime may not be acceptable to you, but it is not a reason to dismiss the deck. I mean even Confinement Slide can lose to goblins and your aggro-loam and your GW deck can lose to Goblins. Nothing is guarantee, but Threshold has a long line of success even in tournaments filled with Goblin decks.

You are welcome to lie to yourself, but your readers deserve better. They need real information about Legacy. They don't need your unsubstantiated claims. They need to know that Threshold is a very good deck and that its success is undeniable. They need to know that board control hasn't done as well in Legacy because it has issues with combo and it sometimes even loses to Goblins (as your loss with Confinement Slide to Goblins proves). These are important issues that you are either unwilling or incapable of discussing.

[Tacosnape]

For the record, this is the first article of Anusien's that I've agreed with. It's a fantastic article and the point about the theory of "You may have the answer, but if you don't, I win." is as spot on as a point can be.

I didn't agree with all the points in the article, but on the whole, your theories are solid and your writing style is both blunt and crisp. So congratulations on an excellent article.

[Citrus-God]

You are welcome to lie to yourself, but your readers deserve better. They need real information about Legacy. They don't need your unsubstantiated claims. They need to know that Threshold is a very good deck and that its success is undeniable. They need to know that board control hasn't done as well in Legacy because it has issues with combo and it sometimes even loses to Goblins (as your loss with Confinement Slide to Goblins proves). These are important issues that you are either unwilling or incapable of discussing.

Weird.... Threshold is a Midgame deck. It controls the board through board dominance, has a clock, and answers creature decks well. Basically, The Rock has Pernicious Deed. Threshold has Pyroclasm (or Stifles and Hydroblasts, or even Chills for that matter). Come to think of it, Angel Stompy is a good solution deck in our format to combat aggro because the creatures and bombs and Angel Stompy are proactive threats that allow you to control the board. Umezawa's Jitte, Sword of Fire and Ice, and Cataclysm in general does this.

[hi-val]

There is a difference between winnable and favorable matches with Threshold vs. Goblins. I have a hard time buying the idea that threshold is favored in the Goblins match. It can certainly win, but it can do it only under specific circumstances, and Goblins has a lot more killer topdecks than Threshold has. Needless to say, it's a topic to be discussed forever, since people still disagree about it, but in short, I'd rather sit down with Mountains than Tundras in that match.

[Citrus-God]

There is a difference between winnable and favorable matches with Threshold vs. Goblins. I have a hard time buying the idea that threshold is favored in the Goblins match. It can certainly win, but it can do it only under specific circumstances, and Goblins has a lot more killer topdecks than Threshold has. Needless to say, it's a topic to be discussed forever, since people still disagree about it, but in short, I'd rather sit down with Mountains than Tundras in that match.

Letting Goblins stall you through chumb blocking and mana denial until a bomb resolves is how Goblins beats Threshold. I stopped playing Stifles and Hydroblasts in the board because if they keep playing this game of where they try and outlast my removal and chumb blocking me endless, they'll drain me. Running Pyroclasm and Tivadar's Crusades (or Chill for that matter) is good at fighting them because it punishes them for playing Beatdown or Control against you. Clasm can just keep them from continuing their chumb blocking sessions, or can keep them from going broken on you while you go for the throat before they can recover.

Pre-Board is probably 45/55. I've seen Goblin players go through a lot go get a decent hand in general, which signals that they're usually weaker at that point in the game. They'll also eventually have trouble topdecking their bombs sometimes. Usually the MU is 50/50 because of the Post-Board matches. Threshold usually runs more narrow, but efficient cards against Goblins, while Goblins just runs the most flexible cards it can run within a consistent number to side in against Threshold (Crypt hits IGGy and Thresh, while Chalice/REB hit Threshold and Combo). I'm not completely sure about this statement and assumption about this MU, but this is an opinion. I would love to hear disagreements.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It's not as extreme as 45/55, but assuming players of competent and equal skill, Goblins is probably slightly favoredg G1. It remains an extremely close matchup. However, unlike Goblins, Threshold dominates most Tendrils decks- whereas the former gets crushed routinely. So dismissing Threshold for being slightly unfavored G1, maybe, against 20% of the field seems ridiculous. Roland Chang managed to dodge Goblins entirely, and while it's not an approach I would advise relying on, it is true that I have never heard of anyone successfully dodging everything except Goblins.


RE:
I have to say that it seems like you simply don't actually understand or play the Legacy metagame enough. We have a number of decks that "Live the Dream" in Faerie Stompy, Angel Stompy, Junk Pile... Darwin's Revenge... but they all stay essentially Tier 2 because they can't handle, in a competitive environment, the pressure from better decks. Likewise, we've had really agressive decks that try to put constant pressure onto an opponent, which you completely ignore in your article, such as 9-Land Stompy, GoblinSligh, and probably the best of the bunch in Red Death, but the same problem occurs. While Faerie Stompy and Red Death have had some success, they're not emerging to dominance, but hovering on the fringe. Ditto to TES.

I think part of Anwar's annoyance comes from the general pose you take throughout this article, your other articles, and a lot of your posting. To be blunt, you're not a Legacy guru. I'm not familiar with any noteworth performance or new or impressive deck designs that you've made. Yet your writing stile is unconsciously but remarkably arrogant. You've taken back up Smennen's 2005 talks about how no one in the format knows how to build a deck, but you'll show them how it's done... minus, of course, the part where you actually show how it's done.

You say that your writing is highly theoretical, but every theory in it is rehash or common knowledge. I'm kind of with Anwar: What was the point of this article? I don't have a problem with the prose itself, but just casually striding in, condescendingly denouncing the metagame, and tossing a couple decks out with an implied, "Here. I haven't tested these at all and they're probably really bad, but they're at least better than that trash you're playing- they must be, for they were designed by I, Anusien, who am like unto the Pope of Legacy."

And you might say that I really shouldn't be talking about arrogance, but when David Gearhart and I wax on about our own greatness, we're largely making fun of ourselves. I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise than you truly believe, for whatever unknown reason, that it is your destiny to oversee the Legacy metagame. And while I might dismiss it from a personal standpoint, it seems extremely unfair to those who might actually believe you and take your advice to heart. For instance, this guy;


If the Loam deck isn't amazing, perhaps that illustrates that loam, taken to its logical conclusion in Legacy, isn't going to be amazing. That's really good to know...

Made me drop my jaw. Because Anusien, Marquis of Every Good Deck Ever (Except For Those That Have Actually Won Tournaments), failed to make a good Life from the Loam deck (with almost no testing of his own, no less), he's ready to declare the archetype dead and debunked, despite the fact that people with completely different builds of Life from the Loam have done very well for themselves in a number of American and European tournaments. How sad is this? How depressing to someone who actually has an interest in seeing new and innovative deck designs. Is this an attitude we have any reason to encourage?

[Anusien]

LIVE THE DREAM! stems from when Extirpate came out and people were dreaming of going nuts with it + Duress. I was originally using it to mock people who wanted to pull off an extremely complicated (like turn 1 Duress, turn 2 Extirpate something worthless, or Wasteland + Extirpate), but now I'm just using it to refer to pulling off something unlikely, like turn 2 Iwamori.

[MattH]

That phrase considerably predates Extirpate, even in a Magic context.

[hi-val]

Made me drop my jaw. Because Anusien, Marquis of Every Good Deck Ever (Except For Those That Have Actually Won Tournaments), failed to make a good Life from the Loam deck (with almost no testing of his own, no less), he's ready to declare the archetype dead and debunked, despite the fact that people with completely different builds of Life from the Loam have done very well for themselves in a number of American and European tournaments. How sad is this? How depressing to someone who actually has an interest in seeing new and innovative deck designs. Is this an attitude we have any reason to encourage?

Don't hold back, sunshine, tell me how you really feel.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Don't hold back, sunshine, tell me how you really feel.

I think that reading a few Mike Flores articles and memorizing a few buzz words gives an inordinate number of people the unjustified sense that they understand how this game works and how good decks are made.

[Machinus]

I think that reading a few Mike Flores articles and memorizing a few buzz words gives an inordinate number of people the unjustified sense that they understand how this game works and how good decks are made.

IBA...is.....correct.......aaarhrrgghghh

[Nihil Credo]

I think that reading a few Mike Flores articles and memorizing a few buzz words gives an inordinate number of people the unjustified sense that they understand how this game works and how good decks are made.
Boy, you are so sigged.