[Article] Bardo's Legacy Deck Bazaar

[Bardo]

Article (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14037.html)

'Not sure what to say about this one.

Enjoy. :)

[Xero]

That was like the longest Legacy article ever (good thing). I liked most of the decks, though that "UGW Thereshold" deck seems kind of janky.

[Lego]

Was there a Standstill in that last deck? Sweet :) Good article :)

[URABAHN]

I didn't really like this article. It reminded me of what not to do in the Open Legacy Forum.


For "finished" decks: Decks which are optimized and thoroughly tested. A deck is not required to have proven itself in a competitive tournament environment to be included in the Open Forum, but it is recommended. A thorough writeup including card choices, strategy, and matchup descriptions is required.

I'd really like to get away from the recent string of Legacy Article that just casually throw out a few decks and say, "Here are some neat decks! Try them!" I want to see articles that are the caliber of some of the stuff I see on SCG Premium and Brainburst. Articles that really get into the meat and potatoes of Legacy strategy. The article on the Euro Metagame was a step (just a step, mind you) in the right direction because while it showcased a few of the more interesting decks from Top 8s, it posed interesting questions about aggro control and combo strategies in that meta.

[Nihil Credo]

Urabahn's point has its merits, but I would like to note that the SCG articles are meant more to spread the knowledge of Legacy among players of other formats. Going into a sophisticated Feldman-style analysis of the format, while enjoyable for us who are already familiar with the basics, would probably bore most of the other SCG readers. Those same readers might, instead, become interested in the format after reading about some cool concoction that would never work in Vintage or Extended (then again, I fear most of them would get bored after reading about yet another 4 Brainstorm/4 FoW/4 Daze/12 Good Creatures aggro-control deck).

My comments regarding Bardo's decks are over at the SCG thread, if anyone is interested.

[Di]

I wish I could write an article about all the decklists I randomly come up with and post them in an article on Star City too.

meh, Idk about this one.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

On the other hand, I do think deck design is the most effective way to market to potential Legacy players.

Although an article with an analysis of why the top decks are built the way they are, and what in their design makes them succesful would be interesting. I guess what I'd like is more focus on [X Deck]'s strategy and card choices than just waxing about different decks without much analysis beyond general match-ups.

[Bardo]

Was there a Standstill in that last deck? Sweet :)

I'm not sure how many different cards I went through before I settled on Standstill: Parallax Wave, Serum Visions, Whipcorder, Psionic Blast, White Knight, True Believer, Glowrider, Old Man of the Sea, Knight of the Holy Nimbus, Azorius First-Wing, Kira, Great Glass-Spinner, among others.

Aggro-Still is a cool idea, if you ask me.


I'd really like to get away from the recent string of Legacy Article that just casually throw out a few decks and say, "Here are some neat decks! Try them!"

You're looking at things holistically, re: the column and its cumulative content. Truth is, we don't always know what we're each writing about, so this is just going to happen from time to time.

Looking at my past articles, here's what I've covered.

Legacy Mail Bag
Some Tier 1.5 decks (BHWC Landstill, IGGy Pop, Angel Stompy)
Other Tier 1.5 decks (B/W Confidant, Faerie Stompy, HanniFish)
Tier 1 Decks (Goblins, Threshold, Solidarity)
A two-part, 11,000 word analysis of Goblins vs. Threshold
Loam/Tog
Metagame Analysis for an SCG event
Five articles on Threshold
Legacy Fish

So, I can literally do nothing about, a "recent sting of these kinds of articles," I can only write what I write and try not to overdue things that have been beat to death. But I'll usually start my articles 3-4 weeks in advance of a deadline, so even then, there's only so much I can do.


I wish I could write an article about all the decklists I randomly come up with and post them in an article on Star City too.

In a lot of ways, this article is like my mail bag thing, where I used some material to talk about things I wanted to address. In the Mail Bag, it was submitted questions. In this article, I used some of my own homebrews to talk about Loaming Shaman vs. Jotun Grunt, Chalice of the Void, Extirpate, maindeck Engineered Plague in Psychatog and a ton of other stuff.

The way not to read this article, is to quickly skim the lists and comments. I agonized over every paragraph to make a lot of points outside of the things I was apparently talking about.


Although an article with an analysis of why the top decks are built the way they are, and what in their design makes them succesful would be interesting. I guess what I'd like is more focus on [X Deck]'s strategy and card choices than just waxing about different decks without much analysis beyond general match-ups.

As far as I'm concerned, I've already written the article you're talking about. Here (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13200.html). Where I devote a few thousand words on how and why Goblins is such a strong deck and why it keeps on winning. Someone else is free to pick up that torch as well, but that was my attempt, supported by tournament data, etc.

Summing up, I think this article is far more on the subtle side than the things I usually write. It's meant to be read slowly--as Wittgenstein would say.

[C.P.]

This article much better then the one on the last week. I like how this show a lot of tier 2 decks that does not get much sportlight. nice article.

[Anusien]

On the other hand, I do think deck design is the most effective way to market to potential Legacy players.

Although an article with an analysis of why the top decks are built the way they are, and what in their design makes them succesful would be interesting. I guess what I'd like is more focus on [X Deck]'s strategy and card choices than just waxing about different decks without much analysis beyond general match-ups.
To clarify, what are you looking for out of this that isn't covered by Chris's Goblins Primer Part I or Chris and Dan's Tales of Lackey and Mongoose Part I & II.

[Zach Tartell]

To clarify, what are you looking for out of this that isn't covered by Chris's Goblins Primer Part I or Chris and Dan's Tales of Lackey and Mongoose Part I & II.

I may get another referal for this, but here it goes:

How about an analysis of what the decks aren't good against? Previous to the LMF shake down, I'd suggest just the big three. But with solidarity having been ostristrized to the open forum, I guess just like the laundry list of decks that the Source recigonizes as around tier one. Not necessairly in one article - you boys write thorough ones, of late - just like, at all.

I mean, like, explore how a psuedo-rogue Enchantress made it into 3 top eights in gigantic legacy tournaments. Or why goblins was less than it's usual 20 or so percent of the field of TMDO:II. I personally don't want to hear why good decks are good, I want to hear why little-known decks are viable. I mean, look at Dead Guy, which is a pretty good but little-discussed archtype. Or Red death! Anwar made two pretty big splashes with that shit.

I could care less about the history of or reasoning for playing goblins - you play goblins because you're unfamiliar with the meta, or because it's cheap. Why would somebody play alluren over, say, TES? Or white gro? Why would Watcher's 4-color 3Duce dominate a control and combo field at TMDO:II? I'm pretty new to legacy myself, so I reallly appreciate how much work the two (three?) writers have been doing lately. (well, there's bardo, hi-val, and Ausnsoin. so, three, I guess) But I don't want to hear stuff that anyone could come up with ("Play goblins"). Tell me why I shouldn't play goblins. Tell me about the meta game.

Tell me, friends, about Enchantress.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

To clarify, what are you looking for out of this that isn't covered by Chris's Goblins Primer Part I or Chris and Dan's Tales of Lackey and Mongoose Part I & II.

An analysis of how a deck plays out, what its gameplans are, what are general foils to those gameplans, how does said deck overcome those foils, what are its strategic strengths and shortcomings, etc.

Goblins Primer Part 1 was a good start, and Lackey and Mongoose was an ok read, though I think any sampling of games you can fit into an article is going to be inadequate.

I guess I'd like to see something with more strategic analysis but not so comprehensive as a primer. Sort of a "figuring out the strategies of the meta-game" article.

I'd like to clarify that it wasn't meant as a criticism, btw. I've mostly enjoyed these articles.

[gustoh]

The thread deserves kudos just for having a GAT list...

LT...

[Machinus]

I'm pretty new to legacy myself, so I reallly appreciate how much work the two (three?) writers have been doing lately. (well, there's bardo, hi-val, and Ausnsoin. so, three, I guess)

I was going to respond to your concerns, but then I read this. I'm not sure if you're trying to say something about my writing or if you're really just ignorant about the format, but either way I'm disappointed.

[frogboy]

I want to see articles that are the caliber of some of the stuff I see on SCG Premium and Brainburst.

I havn't even read the rest of the thread but I literally lol'd.

[Artowis]

I don't get it. If everyone doesn't like these articles so much (And this seems to be the common theme every week) why doesn't someone from here write something? The legacy group would accept guest writing I figure, especially considering the time-frame many of these articles are made in.

Just saying.

And I laughed at the Brainbust comment as well.

[Bardo]

I don't get it. If everyone doesn't like these articles so much (And this seems to be the common theme every week) why doesn't someone from here write something?

Well, it's much, much easier to gripe about something, than do something about it. And yeah, from the beginning of this thing, we've said we've been open to and hopeful for guest writers.

As for criticism, it's funny what people will like or dislike. Personally, this has been my favorite article to write and I think it's the best, once you get past the surface of it. So, shit, go figure.

[Machinus]

I don't get it. If everyone doesn't like these articles so much (And this seems to be the common theme every week) why doesn't someone from here write something? The legacy group would accept guest writing I figure, especially considering the time-frame many of these articles are made in.

Actually, no, the other writers would have to yield their spots to make space for guest content. So, it would take more than writing a good article. There are several excellent pieces (and more that could be written) that may never get published due to the way SCG has chosen it's writers.

[Bardo]

Actually, no, the other writers would have to yield their spots to make space for guest content. So, it would take more than writing a good article. There are several excellent pieces (and more that could be written) that may never get published due to the way SCG has chosen it's writers.

The fact that SCG ran your 'Legacy on a Budget' column this Monday, shows they're open to alternate ways of representing Legacy content. From the start, too, Pete has said that they run "alternate" material on Tuesdays (or Mondays?) and Thursdays--so it's not like their weekly content is written in stone.

@ All - If you have a good Legacy article in you, I'm pretty sure SCG can fit it in to their schedule, talk to Chris about it.

[Di]

I havn't even read the rest of the thread but I literally lol'd.

Oh man that is awesome. Who's responsible for that one?

[Machinus]

The fact that SCG ran your 'Legacy on a Budget' column this Monday, shows they're open to alternate ways of representing Legacy content. From the start, too, Pete has said that they run "alternate" material on Tuesdays (or Mondays?) and Thursdays--so it's not like their weekly content is written in stone.

@ All - If you have a good Legacy article in you, I'm pretty sure SCG can fit it in to their schedule, talk to Chris about it.

I didn't have anything to do with that. They came to me, not the other way around. I have already tried to negotiate with them about guest content and they are not interested in anything other than the regular, no-guarantees submssion process. I can work with people on making some interesting pieces, and I am already doing that, but I don't think it does much to elevate publication potential. So basically, there will not be guest spots in our lineup unless someone wants a break.

[Zach Tartell]

I was going to respond to your concerns, but then I read this. I'm not sure if you're trying to say something about my writing or if you're really just ignorant about the format, but either way I'm disappointed.

No offence intended - I just kind of mentally grouped the two orange-ish avatars together.

[frogboy]

Oh man that is awesome. Who's responsible for that one?

Urabahn.

[bigbear102]

Don't we have an article tab on the opening page here? If people write articles that don't get accepted at SCG, couldn't we post them here?

Obviously a mod would read it first, to make sure it's not complete shit.

[Nightmare]

Well, it's much, much easier to gripe about something, than do something about it. And yeah, from the beginning of this thing, we've said we've been open to and hopeful for guest writers.

As for criticism, it's funny what people will like or dislike. Personally, this has been my favorite article to write and I think it's the best, once you get past the surface of it. So, shit, go figure.2 things: First, I've officially gotten off my ass to do something, and got myself accepted to write for Salvation (since SCG isn't taking new writers). I'm no longer part of the silent majority. W00t!

Second, don't let the haters get you down. I still love you.

[URABAHN]

You're looking at things holistically, re: the column and its cumulative content. Truth is, we don't always know what we're each writing about, so this is just going to happen from time to time.

Wouldn't it make more sense to talk to each other about what you're going to write about? Y'know, email, phone, MySpace, Facebook, IM, MSN. It would also avoid the off chance you guys write about the exact same thing 2 weeks in a row.

[Bardo]

Wouldn't it make more sense to talk to each other about what you're going to write about? Y'know, email, phone, MySpace, Facebook, IM, MSN. It would also avoid the off chance you guys write about the exact same thing 2 weeks in a row.

We sorta do, but not everyone knows their topic, in many cases, until a week before their slot. I'm sorta manic about it and have my article topics chosen until August, unless I go to the GP, where one of my articles would be a tourney report or a "here's the weird shit I saw at the GP"* kind of article.


* Assuming I scrubbed out.

[Phantom]

Well first of all, this is two SCG articles I've been mentioned in, much to the chagrin of my fourth grade teacher who said I'd never amount to anything.

Second, I liked the article, but I think people had a problem with its lack of focus. It had several good points, but there were spread out and difficult to find or summarize. My only complaints, and I always preface these with the utmost admiration for the writers, whose job I don't envy, were that is was a tad long (there are worse crimes) repetitive (way too much tog/control/deed) and the actual lists. I understand the need to throw in your imperfect list and discuss it for something like the Trinket Mage deck, but for something like AggroStill (which I agree is an idea with merit) why not discuss the vastly underrated Blue Skies list? Anyway, these are all minor complaints. Here are my thoughts on the article:


1) Power vs. Synergy - Great point that a lot of people don't understand and perfectly illustrated with your deed and clasm examples. I went through this argument a ton in the early stages of ERA, and people really have trouble grasping why you would run cards that kill each other.

2) Serendib vs. Serra - I liked this breakdown even though I disagree with it. I have had nothing but problems with Serendib except in ultra aggressive aggro decks like Faerie Stompy. While that is merely a difference of opinion, I had a minor problem with the statement "both are exceptional at carrying a Jitte or a Sword". Assuming that any flying fattie is exceptional at carrying a Jitte or a Sword, Avenger is simply beyond exceptional.

3) Pithing vs. Extripate - I like this comparison, and actually wouldn't mind seeing an article written about individual cards and their current and possible uses. Blood Moon is a card I've always been interested in using for example, and I never understood why Null Rod hasn't taken off. Etc.

4) T Crusade - I've been on this bandwagon for a long time now. I'm glad someone is with me. Crusade is a terrible card, and should not eat up board slots. It's almost mind bogglingly narrow, difficult to cast, and doesn't ensure a victory over the deck in question. I'd rather have Stifle coming out of the board for the love of god.

5) Smother - I notice you throw this in a few decks, but fail to mention that this leaves you open to Lackey -> SGC on the draw.

Once again, good work!

[TheAardvark]

2 things: First, I've officially gotten off my ass to do something, and got myself accepted to write for Salvation (since SCG isn't taking new writers). I'm no longer part of the silent majority. W00t!

Second, don't let the haters get you down. I still love you.

I have done the same thing. I used my first 2 articles to discuss Extended for various reasons, but I have been working and retooling a Legacy-based article for my next piece at Salvation. However, I am sort of stuck on the piece and can't work my way around it, so I may have to start from scratch. Blah. Although, Nightmare, I am happy to see what your first "assignment" is. At least Salvation is open to, you know, interesting pieces.

I really do like Finn's Interview series, including the Bardo installment. It's an enjoyable and informative method for a piece, and I just really think they're fun reads.

As for Bardo's SCG article...it wasn't ZOMGhfs balls awesome or anything, but I liked it. It was at least interesting on the surface, and there are worthwhile ideas within the meat of the article. Overall I think everyone has done a fine job so far.

[hi-val]

2 things: First, I've officially gotten off my ass to do something, and got myself accepted to write for Salvation (since SCG isn't taking new writers). I'm no longer part of the silent majority. W00t!

Second, don't let the haters get you down. I still love you.

I look forward to reading your articles!


For people who want to write instead of just kvetching about people who do write, MTGSalvation and, I think, Londes accept material still, and I think Brainburst does as well. There are enough venues to write in that the loss of SCG as a platform won't really affect aspiring writers.

[Ewokslayer]

I look forward to reading your articles!


For people who want to write instead of just kvetching about people who do write, MTGSalvation and, I think, Londes accept material still, and I think Brainburst does as well. There are enough venues to write in that the loss of SCG as a platform won't really affect aspiring writers.

Londes will even promise to pay you. Though they won't actually do so.

[MattH]

Man Londes tried to get ME to write for them. How desperate.

[Whit3 Ghost]

2 things: First, I've officially gotten off my ass to do something, and got myself accepted to write for Salvation (since SCG isn't taking new writers). I'm no longer part of the silent majority. W00t!

Second, don't let the haters get you down. I still love you.

<3 teh avatar Nightmare.

It was a generally interesting concept and an interesting read. I agree with Spat, that a complete matchup analysis plan would be very interesting.