[Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

[SpikeyMikey]

The more I watch the boards, the more I decide that the format is, in large part, driven by theory, not actual results. For example, combo's presence in the format is often overstated, people consider Tendrils/ETW combo to be a force in the format that you must handle well to be successful, but the numbers just don't pan that out. Combo of any stripe sees limited play, in comparison to just about any other archetype, only prison is less played. Yet people consider it important to have a good combo matchup, and worry incesantly about the lack of versatile anti-combo board options.

Or, to give another example, why was Thresh a tier 1 deck? Objectively, I don't think Thresh has ever really been that amazing in 1.5. It only became popular originally as a response to the Solidarity threat, which, while Solidarity was a very solid deck, was an overhyped threat to begin with. Against most aggro decks, it's creatures are underpowered. Yes, Goose and Bear are good, but even in a dedicated thresh deck, they take a few turns to come online. The counters are too limited, in large part because Goblins requires any control deck to run at least 3xDaze, which is just a terrible counter after turn 1. It has a poor Gobbo matchup, which, up until recently, was enough to make it uncompetitive by itself.

Why did Goblins fly under the radar for so long while everyone was oohing and aahing over SotF? It was winning, and everyone kept dismissing it as a fluke deck until the evidence just became overwhelming.

Are we so certain of the power of our own brains that we refuse to pay attention to the reality of the situation?

[Nightmare]

Lack of significant tournaments leads to a basis in theory, rather than a foundation of event results. There simply aren't enough events to do a fine statistical analysis. Alongside that phenomenon, there are too many viable decks and metagame factors to accurately measure the results we do have.

[4eak]

The more I watch the boards, the more I decide that the format is, in large part, driven by theory, not actual results. For example, combo's presence in the format is often overstated, people consider Tendrils/ETW combo to be a force in the format that you must handle well to be successful, but the numbers just don't pan that out. Combo of any stripe sees limited play, in comparison to just about any other archetype, only prison is less played. Yet people consider it important to have a good combo matchup, and worry incesantly about the lack of versatile anti-combo board options......Are we so certain of the power of our own brains that we refuse to pay attention to the reality of the situation?


What is theory? What is wrong with theorizing?

I bet you'll end up finding that even the results are driven by theory. It is the point of metagaming. Innovation ceases to exist when you don't theorize.

I think you might want to say that: a lot of unnecessary and counterproductive theorizing happens (of course, this would just be a theory *cough). But, would any good theorizing happen if we didn't also have bad theories to work through?

Honestly, I can't think of an aspect of true competitive gaming that doesn't have everything to do with theorizing and using your brain. It is only ignorance and the lack of theory that prevents us from using all factors in determining the mathematically correct metagame. You yourself are theorizing about howto reach and understand the mathematically correct metagame by suggesting that we also need to include physical results (and this is a form of metagaming). Sounds like you are theorizing to me.

The mental aspect of gaming is dominated by that one principle: thinking and theorizing. I see nothing wrong with theory or theorizing...I just see that a lot of gamers are bad at it.

peace,
4eak

[SpikeyMikey]

Yeah, I'm not saying that theory is a bad thing, obviously, any innovation has to stem from theory, but that innovation is only vindicated, can only really be considered an innovation, if the real world testing bears out that theory.

To rephrase then, how much is this format driven by hype?

[kirdape3]

Threshold was the absolute best deck at the GP level for the first two Grands Prix. Flash was the Columbus deck, and if it hadn't have been unerrataed then Threshold would have had a much greater presense there. It has been de facto the best deck in the format since the rotation; not even Goblins has done that well.

Combo is the sort of archetype that will dominate a set of matchups that isn't prepared for it. Even now, a prepared metagame is not invulnerable to the newer combo decks out there (Belcher is now absurd and had limited pre-Flash results in the one tournament that I can recall, it took 6 of 8 slots). Being prepared for combo is becoming more and more of a necessity.

[Silverdragon]

@OP Do you have prove that this is true currently? What you are describing may have been true in the beginnings when there was no clear metagame because the format was just introduced and everybody had to use theoretical thoughts as a base to build a usable deck. Today most (if not all) decks I see on these boards start with a possitive Goblins matchup or are tweaked until they reach a possitive Goblins matchup (of course there may be differences between what the author claims and what really happens during the match).
Although I agree Combo is not widely played and therefore not a big concern but why shouldn't you look to improve your matchup against combo when you have covered most of the other matchups between maindeck and sideboard already?
Those claiming that "this and that deck" is the new deck of choice because it beats combo but not Goblins are either uninformed about the current meta or just miles ahead in development (or just dumb but I think you can clearly see when this is the case).
Overall as I see it the metagame is in constant flux with something like a rock-paper-scissors system in development. First people identified Survival and Landstill components as the last broken pieces left in the new format and build decks abusing them (this was purely theoretical as no relevant tournament results were there at the beginning). Then people realized how to beat them and build appropriate decks (Goblins and Solidarity especially). Now Goblins is the biggest concern and people are building decks to beat them again (fast combo for example). This in turn should strengthen Threshold (and Fish) to rise above all of them. (and here you may be able to close the circle as Survival and Goblins have the tools to post a good Thresh matchup). Threshold imo is a special case here because it is so adabtable and therefore had solid placings since its first appearance at the end of the "Survival era".
In the end this is just my theory about what has happened on a larger scale in Legacy over the years and maybe I'm wrong so take it however you want.

edit to answer the rephrased question:
Legacy is not driven more by hype than any other format (look at Dredge in Standard for example) however because there are fewer players, events and sources for this format compared to others it is harder to calm the hype down. Additionally there are a lot of local metagames playing with "outdated" decks making it even harder to get a nationwide or global metagame. Which in turn makes it harder to confirm or deny hype about certain cards or decks as not everybody is on the same page in development.

[SpikeyMikey]

Being prepared for combo is a good thing, but it makes up a small %age of the field, and is therefore not a necessary thing. I think the most important thing, which people are moving away from, is the ability to handle random cheap aggro/aggro-control, because everyone and their mother has some pet deck like Zoo, Red Death, Meathooks, etc. that works off efficient 1/2/3cc creatures with a little disruption. If I go to a 5 round tournament, at least 3 of those rounds are almost certainly going to be against some sort of cheap aggro control. The chance of me seeing 3 combo decks is pretty low. It's not unthinkable that I go all 5 rounds without seeing a single combo deck. It *is* unthinkable that I'll go all 5 without seeing some variant on Zoo, Thresh, Fish or whatever. Despite it's loss in popularity, I think I'm more likely to see a dedicated aggro deck like Goblins or Affinity than I am to see combo.

This is what makes me wonder if we're becoming victims of our own hype. There are very few competent combo players out there, and they do put up some numbers, but it's just such a small part of the overall field, that unless I had nothing better to do with my slots, I'm not going to dedicate them to beating it.

[4eak]

Yeah, I'm not saying that theory is a bad thing, obviously, any innovation has to stem from theory, but that innovation is only vindicated, can only really be considered an innovation, if the real world testing bears out that theory.

To rephrase then, how much is this format driven by hype?

Yet another theory about theorizing. Innovation isn't really innovation, it is simply revealing the mathematical reality that already existed. Real world testing does not make innovation any more revealing, it only makes us more likely to comprehend the reality of the situation. We might say that real world testing is a part of innovation and theorizing though...

I like how you rephrased it. Why? Because, hype is associated with a lack of good theory. Hype is about irrational belief and ignorance. Hype is poor theory.

Again, I just see that a lot of gamers are bad at theorizing. With respect to your rephased question, I think it is in part answered for you by the very definition of hype.

I think it is an interesting question to ask: how much of what is said is good theory, and how much of it is bad? However, finding an answer could prove difficult, and it might be missing the point entirely. You'd need to know what the mathematically correct metagame is in the first place, and then you'd need to compare it to what we have (a difficult thing to know as well) in order to even deduce how much of what we have is correct and how much isn't.

Again, it might be the case that good theories wouldn't have been theorizied if we didn't have to go through a bunch of bad theories in the first place. Thus, If bad theory and hype are necessary to the good theorizing, then wouldn't bad theories be somewhat relevant and important for us to continue innovating?

If we were omniscient computers, then obviously bad theories wouldn't need to be a part of the process of innovation (not that innovation could happen at all, the truth is already revealed to us if we knew everything). Assuming we are mentally limited, and that we are forced to learn from our mistakes, then bad theory is actually a necessary part of innovation and good theorizing.



peace,
4eak

[Ewokslayer]

The more I watch the boards, the more I decide that the format is, in large part, driven by theory, not actual results. For example, combo's presence in the format is often overstated, people consider Tendrils/ETW combo to be a force in the format that you must handle well to be successful, but the numbers just don't pan that out. Combo of any stripe sees limited play, in comparison to just about any other archetype, only prison is less played. Yet people consider it important to have a good combo matchup, and worry incesantly about the lack of versatile anti-combo board options.

Or, to give another example, why was Thresh a tier 1 deck? Objectively, I don't think Thresh has ever really been that amazing in 1.5. It only became popular originally as a response to the Solidarity threat, which, while Solidarity was a very solid deck, was an overhyped threat to begin with. Against most aggro decks, it's creatures are underpowered. Yes, Goose and Bear are good, but even in a dedicated thresh deck, they take a few turns to come online. The counters are too limited, in large part because Goblins requires any control deck to run at least 3xDaze, which is just a terrible counter after turn 1. It has a poor Gobbo matchup, which, up until recently, was enough to make it uncompetitive by itself.

Why did Goblins fly under the radar for so long while everyone was oohing and aahing over SotF? It was winning, and everyone kept dismissing it as a fluke deck until the evidence just became overwhelming.

Are we so certain of the power of our own brains that we refuse to pay attention to the reality of the situation?

There seems to be a number of errors in your Theory that Legacy is driven by theory over actual results.

1)Combo is an overstated threat and sees limited play
Combo makes up about 20% of the metagame and due to its nature is very hard to combat using cards that are generally first included in the MD but is also very vulnerable to a subset of cards. I don't see why you wouldn't worry about a matchup that you will see at least once in a 5 round tournament.

2)Threshold sucks, etc.
Threshold has strong matchups throughout the metagame. It does not have a poor Goblins matchup. Despite the number of times that "fact" is posted it doesn't make it true. Threshold decks do very well against almost all forms of aggro because its creatures are better, not underpowered. From the sounds of your analysis it sounds like you are trying to beat down with Threshold against aggro which isn't the way that matchup should play out.

3)Solidarity was an overhyped threat.
Solidarity while generally underplayed for what it matchups dictated was warranted was still about 11.7% of the metagame at large tournaments.

4)Goblins flew under the radar and was dismissed as a good deck.
Dismissed by who? By the roughly 17% of the people that played it at any given time? By the people that considered it to be a Tier 1 deck and one of if not the best deck in the format?

[BreathWeapon]

Do people base their SBs on the swiss rounds or the cut? I think that makes the difference on whether or not preparing for combo is a luxury or a necessity. Theoretically in a 500+ tournament you can avoid any match up, but when you play in a 50+ tournament or even an 8+ tournament, your priorities are radically different.

If you look at how cheap and powerful Belcher and Ichorid are, it's a wonder that so few people play either of them. I could argue that the format isn't defined by theory, but people's reluctance to play combo. If combo was as popular as Goblins, could you imagine how radically different the format would be?

[Phantom]

Lack of significant tournaments leads to a basis in theory, rather than a foundation of event results. There simply aren't enough events to do a fine statistical analysis. Alongside that phenomenon, there are too many viable decks and metagame factors to accurately measure the results we do have.

I think you hit it right on the head here. I am a huge fan of the LMForum changing from a theory based collection to a results based one.

@SpikeyMikey: It's strange how you comment on theory or hype, then fall prey to it yourself. Threshold not tier 1? The only way to measure the tiers free of hype or theory is with results, and the results clearly prove you wrong. You really need to offer up facts to back up your statements about goblins and Solidarity as well. Who was dismissing Goblins? and when? I fell into Legacy about the time of the Philly GP, and from then till now, almost no one has ever dismissed it.

As for the larger topic of hype, I think combo falls prey to the most hype and theory mistakes. I'm not 100% sure why this is (i think it has something to do with goldfishing and ignoring bad hands while loving your good ones, or overstatiing "auto wins" vs. decks like Goblins). I try to base my deck building and sideboards on results rather than hype (allthough it's tough to ignore ETW).

This discussion just gets me more angry about the Flash fiasco. GP Columbus would have put a lot of the hype to rest (or proved it just).

[Mad Zur]

(Belcher is now absurd and had limited pre-Flash results in the one tournament that I can recall, it took 6 of 8 slots).I don't remember hearing about that. Do you have any more info on that tournament?


Why did Goblins fly under the radar for so long while everyone was oohing and aahing over SotF? It was winning, and everyone kept dismissing it as a fluke deck until the evidence just became overwhelming.
Goblins first appeared in the top eight of a large Legacy tournament (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3996) on July 16, 2005. The next large Legacy tournament was on August 13, 2005. Goblins was the most popular deck. By the next major tournament five days after that, Goblins was considered one of the best decks in the format, and was unquestionably the most prevalent.

I don't think there's a particularly strong correlation between the hype surrounding a deck and that deck's presence. Some of the most talked about decks on this site (Faerie Stompy, Red Death, Stax) are extremely unpopular in most real tournaments. Sometimes, though, I think the hype can be relevant. It (along with a difficult Goblins matchup) may have had a hand in Landstill's loss of popularity following Gen Con '05. Location might be relevant to the influence of online hype, as well. At a tournament in Syracuse, for example, a large number of players are involved with and get information from The Source, so the hype on this site may have a bigger impact. This is not as true at a Duel for Duals or something like Gen Con.

It will be interesting to see how the recent hype regarding combo affects the format. It's true that TES and Belcher were relatively unpopular in the short time that they existed before Flash made them temporarily irrelevant, but the hype we've seen since then could influence their popularity. At this point, I think it's irresponsible to state anything as fact regarding the popularity of combo in future tournaments.

One interesting thing about the current hype is that people aren't really telling everyone to play combo because it's good, they're telling everyone to play something that beats combo because combo will be everywhere. We might see a greater rise in combo hate than in combo itself.

[Ewokslayer]

If combo was as popular as Goblins, could you imagine how radically different the format would be?

You mean like if Goblins made up about 17% of the metagame and Combo made up 20%?

That would be some werid radical format indeed.

[BreathWeapon]

You mean like if Goblins made up about 17% of the metagame and Combo made up 20%?

That would be some werid radical format indeed.

Where are these statistics coming from? No offense, but pulling numbers out of your ass that have no clear historical trend and conflict with the current consensus isn't helping. Flash is an irrelevant consideration, and I've never seen combo with a comparable percentage to Goblins in a 50+ tournament outside of Europe. If you actually have the data that you used to calculate those statistics, I'd be far more willing to believe you. We all play in different metagames, but I think we can all agree that combo isn't as prolific as Goblins across the board. It may be some day, but it certainly isn't right now.

[Tacosnape]

The format is completely driven by Hype. The End.

[Iranon]

There are 2 rational reasons to overprepare against combo, given their actual prevalence:

1) It works.

Sideboard cards tend to upset the dynamic of whatever deck we play, otherwise we'd run them in the main: We just hope to screw our opponent more than ourselves. Most of the time, we are replacing threats... meaning while we slow aggro decks down with our hate, we don't increase our chances to race that much because we slow down our own game plan. An anti-counter-device will either turn out to be unnecessary... or it will be countered (ok, I'm exaggerating a little here... but you get the drift).

Most combo, however, is quite hateable. A single chalice, stifle or whatnot can turn a turn-1-kill into 5 turns of doing nothing, and often does.



2) They will eat you alive otherwise.

Many non-combo decks are competitive not because they utterly dominate any given deck, but because they have many many mildly positive match-upss. I'd much rather play against Fish or Stax with fast combo than playing against fast combo with Goblins or R/G beats... the latter is practically an autoloss without dedicated hate.

[Ewokslayer]

Where are these statistics coming from? No offense, but pulling numbers out of your ass that have no clear historical trend and conflict with the current consensus isn't helping. Flash is an irrelevant consideration, and I've never seen combo with a comparable percentage to Goblins in a 50+ tournament outside of Europe. If you actually have the data that you used to calculate those statistics, I'd be far more willing to believe you. We all play in different metagames, but I think we can all agree that combo isn't as prolific as Goblins across the board. It may be some day, but it certainly isn't right now.
Sigh,
Duel for Duals 3 (7-8-06)
Goblins 14/75 = 18.7%
Combo 11/75 = 14.67%
Duel for Duals 4 (7-9-06)
Goblins 8/64 = 12.5%
Combo 18/64 = 28.13%
Gen Con (8-11-06)
Goblins 35/139 =25.18%
Combo 28/39 = 20.14
Dual Land Draft (8-06)
G: 6/57 = 10.53%
C: 9/57 = 15.79%
TMLOpen 1
G: 9/77 = 11.69%
C: 1/77 = 22.08%
Duel for Duals 5 (10-7-06)
G:12/72 = 16.67%
C:15/72 = 20.83%
Duel for Duals 6 (10-8-06)
G:11/55 = 20
C:9/55 = 16.36%
TMLOpen2 Day 1 (3-3-07)
G:10/60=16.67%
C:12/60=20%
TMLOpen2 Day 2 (3-4-07)
G: 7/52 = 13.46%
C: 9/52 = 17.31%
Dual Land Draft (4-8-07)
G:10/55 = 18.18%
C:13/55 = 23.64%
TOTAL
G: 17.28%
C:19.97%

For this analysis Combo included
Solidarity
Tendrils Combo
Aluren
Enchantress
43 Land
Reanimator
Belcher
Salvagers Game
Magistrate Combo

[BreathWeapon]

That's what I thought, non Storm combo and decks that are questionable under the designation of combo, 43 Land, Enchantress, Reanimator, Magistrate Combo (?) were padding the numbers. If you break that down into just Brain Freeze/Hunting Pack, Tendrils of Agony/Empty the Warrens, Goblin Charblecher/Empty the Warrens or even just Tendrils of Agony/Empty the Warrens and Goblin Charbelcher/Empty Warrens the percentage is smaller and more relevant to people's actual considerations. Gamekeeper/Salvagers and Aluren aren't bad decks, but I don't think either of them are on people's minds when they plan for combo.

You could argue for LED based Ichorid, but the sets of hate cards for Storm combo and Ichorid are significantly different (sans Trinisphere maybe).

[Ewokslayer]

That's what I thought, non Storm combo and decks that are questionable under the designation of combo, 43 Land, Enchantress, Reanimator, Magistrate Combo (?) were padding the numbers. If you break that down into just Brain Freeze/Hunting Pack, Tendrils of Agony/Empty the Warrens, Goblin Charblecher/Empty the Warrens or even just Tendrils of Agony/Empty the Warrens and Goblin Charbelcher/Empty Warrens the percentage is smaller and more relevant to people's actual considerations. Gamekeeper/Salvagers and Aluren aren't bad decks, but I don't think either of them are on people's minds when they plan for combo.

You could argue for LED based Ichorid, but the sets of hate cards for Storm combo and Ichorid are significantly different (sans Trinisphere maybe).

Do you try to be difficult or does it just come naturally? Hunting Pack, WTF?
So, combo is now just decks with storm?
Using your definition of combo, that being only combo that you feel like playing (Solidarity,Tendrils, Belcher), the total is about 15%
That amount is still at about the range of Goblins and makes the statement:


We all play in different metagames, but I think we can all agree that combo isn't as prolific as Goblins across the board. It may be some day, but it certainly isn't right now.
silly.

[thefreakaccident]

sorry mate, but Ewok has you there... combo does and will have either the same amount of goblins or maybe even slightly moreso.. goblins cannot survive in a meta full of combo, but thrives in a meta of control. That's where the balance lies in our format.

[Honoluluicecaps]

I haven't taken the time to comb through every thought on here so I apoligize if I step on someone elses toes... but the format is driven by hype and combo is present (in various forms) at most major tournaments.

Hulk-Flash was hyped up on the internet to all hell. And every deck prepared for it. And those decks that didn't prep for it got their asses kicked... So for those of us that played at the GP thank goodness for that hyping.

[Machinus]

Legacy is not affected by theory or "hype." Competitive players play the best decks they can build.

Tournaments are a lot different than forums.

[kirdape3]

I was in error, it was 1st, 2nd, 9th. IIRC they were the only three players playing the deck.

GPT Montreal, 04-07-07.

[Zilla]

Legacy is not affected by theory or "hype." Competitive players play the best decks they can build.
This presupposes that the one logically follows from the other, which it does not. Legacy as an entity does not consist solely of competitive play. Nor is it a truism that competitive players always play "the best deck they can build", particularly since "the best deck" is purely subjective.

What's the purpose of one-line rhetoric of this kind?

[Mad Zur]

Legacy is not affected by theory or "hype." Competitive players play the best decks they can build.

Tournaments are a lot different than forums.
Non-competitive players play in tournaments, and competitive players take this into account.

[Machinus]

This presupposes that the one logically follows from the other, which it does not. Legacy as an entity does not consist solely of competitive play. Nor is it a truism that competitive players always play "the best deck they can build", particularly since "the best deck" is purely subjective.

What's the purpose of one-line rhetoric of this kind?

It's not rhetoric. Any accurate definition of the format must come from tournaments, regardless of their level of competitiveness. Hype is something that exists in message boards and articles but not in tournaments - precisely and absolutely not part of the definition of the format. Those things are the community, but they aren't "Legacy."


Non-competitive players play in tournaments, and competitive players take this into account.

Of course - that is just metagaming. This is precisely my point. It is the opposite of theory to take an empirical look at an environment and play a deck designed to beat it.

[Mad Zur]

If those non-competitive players are influenced by theory, and their decisions have an impact on Legacy, then Legacy is affected by theory.

[Machinus]

But they aren't. They play Goblin sligh for two years because that deck is cheap and fun. Or, they play BW Sui because they are copying Chris Pikula. If it were theory, the competitive players wouldn't have to resort to tournament analysis in the first place.

[nightshade81]

This format is completely defined by hype.

Lets go to the beginning:

I remember a thread with the title of something around "Survival & Fact or Fiction the only way to top 8 in Legacy." And people bought into that shit like crazy and a large portion of US Legacy tournaments top 8's were dominated by those decks mainly because a significant number of people played them, not because they were the best.

If everyone starts to believe bullshit, bullshit becomes truth.

Then soon after both Landstill and Survival became taboo, and no one would be caught dead playing either deck. Landstill has been considered a poor choice for the majority of this format’s reign, not because of fact but because of hype. Only until recently has Landstill gained back some of it’s former respect.

My favorite example of hype interfering in our format is ThunderBluff.


Our formats current hype:

This is UBER good:
TES, the color red

This is UBER bad:
Solidarity, Rifter, and Terragedon

TES – mainly only by those whom created it, claim it to be the best deck ever. This is far from the truth. The deck will never have a positive Thres match-up. For every Orim/Duress you but in the SB Thres can bring in just as many Stifles and Spell Snares.

Hype like “Why play Iggy Pop when there is TES” – a thread started by an admin btw – implies the direct superiority of TES. Which is not true, Iggy Pop does have some advantages over TES. Don’t get me wrong I 100% believe TES to be a better deck but hype like “Is there any good reason to play such and such deck” spoken by competent legacy players is going to sway metagames. What was it… 3? month before that thread Iggy Pop has made approximately 6 Top 8’s at previous major tournaments? And now Iggy it’s completely gone? Humm… someone ate some hype there.

The color red – is now currently being super hype up. I’m not saying is not the strongest color but what I am saying is that many skilled legacy players are all in unison bowing down and praising it like it’s our great gift from the DCI gods. That is going to change shit. I think the biggest shift will be Thres players swapping in Meddling Mages for Lightning Bolts. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, or a poor choice but it’s my guess at the hype’s impact.

Rifter/Terragedon – The format’s glass cannons. I’m going to focus on Rifter here because my experience with Terragedon is limited but I’m assuming the argument probably still applies. Simply put they stomp everything in format but combo. Which is the least played archetype. That means they beat 90% of any decks at a given tournament. That is good. Just because a deck has an ankles heel doesn’t mean is bad, it means it isn’t Tier 1.

Solidarity – I’m going to be lazy and just quote someone



...similarly to how the myth of Landstill's demise got spread enough that people stopped playing it, even though it actually put up strong numbers, people have bashed on Solidarity significantly to the point where people didn't want to be seen to be playing a "bad deck". People's behavior in Magic, as in aspects of life, is shaped to some extent by a desire for image and to appear cool. For lack of a better term, Solidarity isn't seen as cool- a lot of people on websites I'm not allowed to name regularly bash on it for little apparent reason, as it's been much more successful when it was played than decks that remain perennial favorites despite sucking in terms of performance.

We talk about fast combo, but really, Goblins is much worse there, and gets nowhere near the same flak. Fast combo isn't that widely played, and everyone's begun packing sideboard cards for it- cards that tend not to hit Solidarity at all.


Even though I spent this whole post arguing that the format is controlled by hype I’m not necessarily convinced that theorizing is bad overall. Our format is grossly underplayed and our card pool is significantly larger then that of more popular formats. Theorizing becomes necessary to explain trends and develop ideas because there just aren’t enough of us to test everything.

The problem with theorizing comes when people mistake theory for fact. This is an extremely common occurrence, and the reason why our format is ruled by hype. People need to wake up and come to their own conclusions regarding deck choices and card choices. We need to not be conformist and challenge ideas. Also adepts need to not be so condescending regarding choices outside the norms, because many of the norms are held in place by hype.

In ending vote Mystical Tutor for President.

[Bryant Cook]

TES is sooo 2 months ago, god, where have you been? You completely missed the hype on Mike Herbig, Street Wraith and the current hype on the card ETW and ETWBelcher.

Iggy is gone because TES lived up to it's hype, as did Belcher. Also, who are you to stay TES/Belcher can't go more than 50% against Threshold? It's not that hard.

[The Rack]

Iggy is gone because TES lived up to it's hype, as did Belcher.



TES – mainly only by those whom created it...

Huh...

[outsideangel]

Who are you to say TES can't go more than 50% against Threshold?

Having tested it quite a bit, no, it doesn't.

And I think a lot of the reason the combo matchup gets brought up when discussing decks like Rifter, etc. is because unlike many decks, where a bad matchup is, say 40-60, board control tends to just get blown away by combo, such that even after sideboarding you still have very little chance of winning, barring luck.

People don't like going into a matchup without a prayer, so having poor game vs. combo seems more signifigant because you just feel helpless. Games where combo wins tend to be over very abruptly as well, and that just intensifies the feeling of impotence in the face of a bad match.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

For example, combo's presence in the format is often overstated, people consider Tendrils/ETW combo to be a force in the format that you must handle well to be successful, but the numbers just don't pan that out. Combo of any stripe sees limited play, in comparison to just about any other archetype, only prison is less played.

I just want to jump in quickly and say that there's an important qualification that needs to be made in that post: there's a significant difference between "big" tournaments and local metagames. Legacy's local metagames are all over the map and include quite a lot of cannon fodder. The metagames at the larger tournaments, however, are far more... well, polished. From one local metagame to the next, I expect to see little combo. As far as the "events" go, however, combo's enjoyed increasingly large showings. The format is obviously still dominated by non-combo decks, but the higher up you go in the ladder standings, the more important a strong (storm) combo matchup becomes.

I think it's fair to say that Legacy is pretty well divided into two similar formats: the one that applies to local metagames, and the one that applies to the larger tournament scene.


How important is theorizing? Obviously, there's a strong interplay between theory and reality. Theory clearly has a greater impact on larger tournaments--largely because the people who go there are the kind who read Legacy articles and bring something that they think has a chance of doing very well, whereas local scenes (barring a few hyper-developed areas--mostly in Eastern Canada and USA, I think) seem to be dominated by players who will just bring whatever deck they feel like playing.

Lastly, and I think that this has been teased out in the discussion already (it's just worth articulating), it's important to distinguish between theory and hype. Hype is probably more what you (the original poster) were referring to. Theory, on the other hand, has to do with bettering our MTG playing skills (ex. articles on how to play certain decks, how certain decks need to adapt to face other decks, general magic articles such as 'The Danger of Cool Things,' etc.).

How significant is hype? Again, I think that it's only really relevant at significant events--meaning well-developed playing areas and large tournaments.

[BreathWeapon]

Do you try to be difficult or does it just come naturally? Hunting Pack, WTF?
So, combo is now just decks with storm?
Using your definition of combo, that being only combo that you feel like playing (Solidarity,Tendrils, Belcher), the total is about 15%
That amount is still at about the range of Goblins and makes the statement:

silly.

No, but it's important to have a strict definition for combo, otherwise all sorts of questionable shit gets added in under an undefined definition for combo that isn't either competitive or format defining. Hunting Pack was just added for the sake of completeness, since it's Cunning Wish's other win condition and it's run in Instant High Tide or Sorcery High Tide as "training wheels." I'd go one step further and eliminate all of the non Tendrils of Agony and non Goblin Charbelcher decks, since High Tide doesn't affect the fundamental turn of the format and see what's left from there.

I'm not being difficult, I'm just looking for a specific sub set of decks that are both Storm based and affect the fundamental turn. If you lump every combo deck together, you don't get an accurate assessment of the metagame. The deviations in combo decks are far more radical than the deviations in other archetypes, so when some one says combo, you have to significantly narrow down the criteria.

If the numbers are there, then the numbers are there, but by and large I don't think combo has as much of a presence at local metagames as it does at large tournaments. Goblins can be seen in force at any level, but combo doesn't tend to trickle down as much.

[nitewolf9]

I think in order to properly analyze this issue we must look at the word "combo" itself. It is shorthand for "combination". So, in reality, all decks are "combo" decks as they rely on a "combination" of approximately 60 cards to play the game of "magic: the gathering". The 15 cards in the sideboard only serve to augment this concept of a "combination".

I know what you're thinking: "But there is no "o" in combination?!". I've asked myself that question over and over again and have come to what I believe is a satisfactory conclusion. That is, the "o" in "combo" must be the missing link we have all been looking for: "organ".

[4eak]

Combo refers to a deck that seeks the least amount of interaction possible. It is the sort of deck that you goldfish a lot. It is the sort of deck that tends not to care as much as other decks about what the opponent is doing. On the other hand, a control deck would be something that seeks out interaction. Each general archetype has some degree of interaction it anticipates. Combo is designed to limit interaction.

This does not mean that combo decks don't have interaction, it is simply the scope and the aim of the deck to limit such interaction. Whether you are playing ichorid, storm, belcher, etc...you seek to win with no interaction on the table. You only include certain tools (that limit your actual combo consistency, but let you overcome interactions) because you anticipate that other decks will require interaction (maybe they run permission?). In this case, combo scoots across the spectrum towards control slighty...but that is, of course, at the sacrifice of elements of comboness for other purposes. The point is: pure combo is about non-interactive wins.

peace,
4eak

[Nightmare]

My favorite example of hype interfering in our format is ThunderBluff. A two day joke had a major impact on our format? News to me.


Hype like “Why play Iggy Pop when there is TES” – a thread started by an admin btw – implies the direct superiority of TES.There are a multitude of wrongs in this statement. First, and foremost, I'm not an admin. Second, I was looking for people more familiar with the deck in question (Iggy Pop) to give me legitimate set of reasons why you would play one over the other. Objectively, they are very similar decks, one having a distinct set of advantages over the other, with distinct drawbacks, too. It was (and remains) a completely legitimate question, and I do not apologize if you believe it contributed to some sort of false hype.


“Is there any good reason to play such and such deck” spoken by competent legacy players is going to sway metagames.Only if the answer to that question is "no."


What was it… 3? month before that thread Iggy Pop has made approximately 6 Top 8’s at previous major tournaments? And now Iggy it’s completely gone? Humm… someone ate some hype there.Those prior three months were before the printing of Empty the Warrens. Iggy can't utilize the card to the same degree that TES can, nor can it fight through hate as well. That has had much more to do with it's decrease in popularity than any hype has.

[nightshade81]

A two day joke had a major impact on our format? News to me.

I never said it was a major impact, my specific word was “interfering.” Many people went out and bought the cards to make the deck. My argument was “this format is completely defined by hype” and ThunderBluff was an excellent example of the sheep in this format.

Adepts presented bullshit for dinner claiming it was ice-cream. Our format opened wide and shoveled shit down its throat with a smile on its face.



There are a multitude of wrongs in this statement. First, and foremost, I'm not an admin. Second, I was looking for people more familiar with the deck in question (Iggy Pop) to give me legitimate set of reasons why you would play one over the other. Objectively, they are very similar decks, one having a distinct set of advantages over the other, with distinct drawbacks, too. It was (and remains) a completely legitimate question, and I do not apologize if you believe it contributed to some sort of false hype.

I apologize in regards to identifying you as an admin. I thought all members with red names were admins.

I do not believe all the hype you presented to be false. Actually I specifically stated in my argument that I believe TES to be the superior deck.

But your argument was similar to “Why play any other versions of Landstill but BHWC.” Yes BHWC has put up the best results but that doesn’t mean that the others don’t have advantages over BHWC.

So essentially your thread was hype and contributed to the complete obliteration of Iggy Pop. Iggy Pop is still not a bad deck but hype will keep it from probably ever seeing play again.


Only if the answer to that question is "no."

I disagree. If the true answer is yes or no it really doesn’t matter. I hold to my statement

“Is there any good reason to play such and such deck” spoken by competent legacy players is going to sway metagames.

People eat bullshit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Answers given by competent legacy players are mistaken for fact continuously.

[herbig]

TES is sooo 2 months ago, god, where have you been? You completely missed the hype on Mike Herbig, Street Wraith and the current hype on the card ETW and ETWBelcher.

Iggy is gone because TES lived up to it's hype, as did Belcher. Also, who are you to stay TES/Belcher can't go more than 50% against Threshold? It's not that hard.

Mike Herbig lives up to the hype. The Filipinos have no idea whats coming.

The American metagame may have suffered an incredible loss with my departure, but that doesn't mean I can't still affect it from across the pond. I have a number of major innovations in the works that will soon be unleashed upon the unsuspecting populace.

And when I'm done thrashing the people here for every last peso I will return, in two years time, to reclaim my rightful place as King of Legacy, and my kingdom shall have no end.

[Hanni]

This thread is funny... what do I answer? I've seen so much shit brought up in individual posts that I can't even respond to those directly... this would be a 50 page essay.

How much is the format driven by theory?

I theorize on everything. Before I even bother testing something, I theorize with it first. Luckily for me, I can add many different situations to a theorizing session. Another thing too is, many decks are close relations to other decks... the major question is: why is this better than the other deck and what bad matchups does this improve on compared to the other deck in question. All good points.

Theory, in the world itself, drives innovation. Beyond M:tG, beyond all that shit. Theory is the beginning of innovation. Theory drives all designs. First you think things out as well as you can, then you build something on it if it shows promise, then you test it. M:tG is no different... you theorize an idea for a while, build it up, and test it. Testing is a vague term anyway; what do you define as testing? My testing involves many, many games against the randomest shit possible on MWS. I'll play vs R/G Belcher, U/R Landstill, and Mono Green Elves in a row. This still gives you perfect results though........

There are 4 major archtypes in the field:

Stack Control / Board Control

Aggro/Control

Aggro

Combo

There can be variations based on those. That has been happening more and more often in this format. However, those are the 4 basic archtypes you will see in a given test session. Therefore, those can be generalized into popular Tier 1 and Tier 2 archtypes that have performed well, consistently, based on tournmanent performances (and personal playtest experiences). Keeping those strategies and gameplans in mind through the entire theorize, building, and playtesting time period, is important.

Maybe I was being too vague? A BIG breakdown:

Fast decks:

Fast Aggro (Goblins/Affinity, maybe some variants of Zoo or Boros... these decks typically create a ton of permanents extremely fast and overwhelm with a horde of some sort... tends to have a strong game against decks that aren't prepared for fast permanent creation or overly aggressive strategies... even Burn can be thrown in here).

Fast combo (these combo decks go all out... LD is less of a concern here, they like to burn up all their resources quick for an explosive win... Belcher does this, for example, but can seal a win on turn 1).

Tempo/Mid Range decks:

Tempo decks (this includes any deck that wants to win after gaining time advantage... this includes everything from Fish to Thresh to Slivers to B/r Red Death to B/w Deadguy to whatever, typically aggro/control... there a few other decks that win after gaining tempo advantage too, though).


Mid Range decks (these decks like to win with larger stuff but doesn't play out as long as control normally would... Survival and some Loam variations play into this, I find Madness also filling a Mid Range role, and also a few others).

Slow decks:

Stack Control decks (like U/B Tog, even 4c Landstill can be included in this after it boards up against combo and such... Counterbalance controls the stacks, as does quite a few other cards).

Board Control (decks that like to keep permanents off the table... anything from Rifter to Landstill tries to do this, threw a number of ways... typically horrible combo matchups but relatively strong aggro/control and control matchups).

Those are just a few examples. From those, many different decks can be classified as hybrids. Many of the decks used for examples in the above shit are hybrids and fit into multiple categories. It's really difficult to define something directly... usually it focuses one of those designs, splashes another, and maybe somehow tweaks another into it. For example, Goblins is often classified as aggro/combo/control. These sort of innovations are not anomolies, are not impossible, and do in fact exist. Does that mean they are superior to other decks because of this? Not necessarily. Finding a deck that answers all of the archtypes extremely well between the 75 cards is always going to be The Holy Grail of Legacy.

On a completely different note... any deck can win a tournament. What were the pairings? The playskills of the players? The luck involved? I've seen decks with extremely unfavorable matchups win, and vice versa. I've won matchup after matchup and then proceeded to go on a loosing streak. Does this quantify as results? I think real results compile after thousands and thousands of playtesting sessions/matches. What actually wins at an event matters. Magic is an extremely complex game, even in a format as narrowed down as Legacy. In this format especially, you're going to see anything and everything. If you want a good chance at winning, grab a deck that either has solid matchups across the field, or... if you know the majority of the predicted field, something that's strong against the field.

What am I getting at? What is this thread getting at? Is there really a point? What do YOU really want me to say? What I think the best deck in the format is, or something? No one EVER takes me seriously, anyway. Go look at B/w/g Deadguy Rock, that deck is going to break the format in half when it eventually catches on...

PS - I just got home from the bar.

[Adan]

Legacy is not affected by theory or "hype." Competitive players play the best decks they can build.

Tournaments are a lot different than forums.

Well, in my opinion you are wrong. I remember the discussions about Ur Landstill, or where I suggested BTS in NQGr.
People just looked at the lists and said: "UR landstill is junk, it don't runs S2P" and/or "BTS+Fetchland = Bombo!!!", not thninking about how versatile a removal such as Lightning Bolt can be or that BTS is insanley good against Landstill and Rifter, 2 decks which were heavily played here.

Aw, anyways, I think it's a lot influenced by theory and hype where people decide whether this deck is good or bad.

A new deck only gets interesting when someone rocks a big tournament with it. That's the point.

[thefreakaccident]

@ Hanni -

I am confused... you start with the question, how much of the format is driven by theory?

and then you break down the archtypes for no apparent reason?

I hope I am not the only one hear that wants to say this, but stuff like this turns my brain into swiss cheese (fries holes in it).

[Hanni]

@ thefreakaccident

Well... I'm drunk, the topic is vague as fuck. Looking at the other replies in this thread, the thread itself confuses me into oblivion. Factor in that I've had a shitload of beer and smoked a bunch of weed. Then we get to my actual post. I was just posting something that seemed like it had a valuable content to this thread. The original question is about theory and maybe hype. I never even touched hype. My position on the archtypes helps direct the theory and hype into an explanation of the origins of theory and hype. Build off of that content. Hype? I never follow hype but I like to playtest as much as I can. Hype definitely occurs on these boards. I always investigate. My hype is never heard because I am not part of a team and I'm not an Adept. Regardless... what was I getting at...? Hmm... yea, my post may have scrambled your brains. I'm sorry. My brain is pretty scrambled right now too... yet I'm typing like an English major... awesome sauce.

[SpikeyMikey]

I haven't taken the time to comb through every thought on here so I apoligize if I step on someone elses toes... but the format is driven by hype and combo is present (in various forms) at most major tournaments.

Hulk-Flash was hyped up on the internet to all hell. And every deck prepared for it. And those decks that didn't prep for it got their asses kicked... So for those of us that played at the GP thank goodness for that hyping.

That wasn't hype though. Hype implies unwarranted attention, and HF definitely warranted the attention. Post FS, it would have been almost completely unstoppable. The pacts increased the consistancy and protection to a point where the red zone board strategy wasn't necessary, the deck could win 9 times out of 10 by turn 2 with at least 1 counter backing it up, and usually 2.

Hype would be like oh, I dunno, when the format first split from the T1 B/R list and everyone went ga ga over LED and Petal being 4 of's. OMG BELCHER AND LONG ARE SO BROKEN!!! That was hype. It drove the forums for the first couple months, before people realized that Belcher and Tendrils decks just weren't performing up to expectations. Hype, combined with over-inflated self reporting made the decks seem more solid than they were, and as a result, the people playing things like Landstill were packing 4xNull Rod in board and 4xStifle main.

To an extent, that was warranted, because combo saw heavyish(for combo in 1.5 anyway) play, but it was still a choice driven by hype, not by a credible threat to the metagame. To be fair, for a little while, a few months down the road, that Severance Belcher/Landstill hybrid(I forget the name and the deck's author, and I apologize) with Humility did quite well for itself. I'm getting off topic though, my point is, there are at least a few points that I can recall where hype on the forums actually warped the format, despite no real evidence to back up the hype.

Belcher is has been resurrected now, but that's because of ETW, not because Belcher on it's own was a tier 1 deck that everyone had just forgotten about or something. Belcher of old was just a hype deck, bred of poor theory on how the accleration of LED and Petal and the poor man's moxen was going to magically overcome the massive card disadvantage they generate and make the format as fast and broken as T1.

I started the topic because I think a lot of the players that feel like they are pillars of the format tend to get too far ahead of themselves. It doesn't help that everyone is in love with Flores(don't get me wrong, I like Flores too, but like any writer, you have to digest what he writes, not just swallow it whole) and wants to build the deck that beats the deck that beats the deck to beat. The way I see it, the way hype warps the format is like this:

Deck X is strong. The strong players go to work figuring out how to beat deck X, then assume that that is what everyone else will play. We'll call this deck Y. Then they figure out what beats deck Y, while still having a matchup against X, and tell everyone how wonderful it is. For a while, the deck(deck Z) actually stands up, because it's being piloted by players that are just that much better than everyone else in their area. As the deck sees wider play, people realize that it's really not that strong. The deck's author(s) insists that the poor track record is because it's a deck that takes a lot of skill to pilot(as if there's a deck that doesn't get better the more skilled the pilot is). After a while, the deck finally falls off the radar, but in the meantime, the format has been stifled because everyone is still trying to build with deck Y in mind, even though it's seen limited play, because the good matchup against decks X and Y is what made deck Z so good in the first place.

In real world terms, and this doesn't follow the path exactly, but it's close enough:

Goblins is strong. Solidarity is created. Solidarity stomps the piss out of Goblins, whose only real answer is the 8 Blast board, weakening all it's other matchups with dead board slots. Solidarity has a few high finishes(no first places that I can recall, but a few T8s), but it's really underplayed for it's power level. Nonetheless, Threshold and Fish are touted as tier 1 decks, because they beat Solidarity and still have a Gobbo matchup. The decks are good, but not the be all and end all of the format, and in many places, only the best pilots can consistently play them to T4, because they have some real weaknesses. Fish falls off the radar, Thresh loses popularity(but since most strong players gravitate towards control, and traditional UW Landstill and Duckhunt are too weak to win with consistently for ANYONE, it never dies completely), but now, the format is trying to create decks that handle Goblins and Thresh, even though Thresh was just a meta response, and not seriously a tier 1 deck in it's own right.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now, as an aside, I know I'm going to hear the argument that if the best players are playing a deck and winning with it, it is therefore the best deck. I disagree with this opinion, although I see how alluring it can be. If some of the best snipers in the world favor gun X, and are incredibly accurate with gun X, but gun X is a pile of shit in the hands of anyone but those select few, then gun X is not a good sniper rifle, it just happens to be a fluke, an abberation. I knew a guy on my track team in middle school that was damn good at shotput. Thing is, he'd just stand there and do pops. If he tried to actually spin and get some momentum going, he'd lose distance. So he'd just stand there and throw it. Best shot put on the team, probably in southern Wisconsin, but that doesn't mean that his method was the best method for shot put, it was actually an inferior method, it just worked best for him.

Obviously, it's never possible to have 2 players with *exactly* the same skill level, but that's really what we should be shooting for when we try and determine what's strong against what. If some guy with Thresh and a 2k eternal rating beats a 1600 rated Goblins player playing 1.5 for the first time, that is not a strong indication that Thresh beats Gobbos, it's an indication that the better player won. From watching my roomate, I've realized that playskill counts for a lot more than a few points in favor of one deck or the other in a matchup. In fact, I had a hard lesson in this in the first round of the tournament I went to on vacation in SD. Round 1, I got paired against Angel Stompy, which is a good matchup for me, but I kept when I should've mulled both games, and favorable matchup or not, I got 2-0'd.

[frogboy]

most strong players gravitate towards control

Most strong players want to play the best deck in the format and don't actually give a damn what archtype it is. Further, those that do tend to want to play decks like UGR Threshold, because it constantly interacts with it's opponents and sooner or later those opponents will make mistakes.

Personally, I only do theorizing about the metagame. I sit down and test matchups.

[SpikeyMikey]

Most strong players want to play the best deck in the format and don't actually give a damn what archtype it is. Further, those that do tend to want to play decks like UGR Threshold, because it constantly interacts with it's opponents and sooner or later those opponents will make mistakes.

Personally, I only do theorizing about the metagame. I sit down and test matchups.

I have to disagree with you there. Blue has been weak in T2 for a long time now, and it still sees a lot of play. People will always play with counterspells. People will always refer to themselves as "control players".

[frogboy]

Blue has been weak in T2 for a long time now, and it still sees a lot of play.

lol, no. See also Block Constructed.


People will always play with counterspells. People will always refer to themselves as "control players".

People will always scrub out at tournaments, too, particularly people like this.

[Obfuscate Freely]

As long as you're highlighting Threshold as a deck made popular by hype, your hypothesis is going to break down. The fact is that Threshold, by its own merit, has been one of the strongest decks in the format pretty much since its inception.

Arguing otherwise is pretty silly. We have three Premier-level Legacy events to consider, and Threshold has made it to the elimination rounds of each one of them. In those top eights, Threshold outnumbered Goblins twice (arguably, in the only two events that are even relevant), and has almost twice as many appearances overall.

Obviously, the deck has enjoyed tons of success at the amatuer level, as well, but that's just because the best players play it, right?

Honestly, considering the deck's performance record, it's a wonder it isn't more popular. Maybe it's a victim of negative hype? Like this thread?

[Bane of the Living]

Honestly, considering the deck's performance record, it's a wonder it isn't more popular. Maybe it's a victim of negative hype? Like this thread?

I think your right. I saw two Thresh decks at the Sea Drake tournament. Thats out of 44 participants.

[ninjabear]

All formats are driven by hype, performance and trends.

Every now and then there's a new deck that smashes every other deck, just to become a new archetype. Many of those decks fall into oblivion eventually. But they always return as well.

So, yes, the novelty and the reports from people are relevant. Very few people has such a high knowledge of the metagame to know most decks played around and a tournament, even a local store one. So if someone comes and tell you about this "broken" deck that will make card X become banned and how it kills in turn 1/2 and how it totally smashes all other decks, people believe them and build them.

The fact that a lot of people, who don't really know a deck (like me!) tells you something "looks" bad does not mean it is, and the other way around.

The same happen to cards. Some start really low and suddenly boom when people actually realize how to exploit them (the most spectacular case, imho, being Reset), and others make people say "OMG! Broken" and fall into oblivion really fast, when people realize it may have a niche but it's not as useful as it looks (like Browbeat, I know you pros/experts knew it was not such a big thing the second you saw it).

So, yes, Legacy is driven by "theory", but that theory is normally backed up by actual testing. Hype is for one or two months. If a deck survives that, normally the deck has something behind.

[Machinus]

So if someone comes and tell you about this "broken" deck that will make card X become banned and how it kills in turn 1/2 and how it totally smashes all other decks, people believe them and build them.

Talented players don't do this. And it's a shame that no one calls out these charlatans on their bullshit.

[Whit3 Ghost]

Talented players don't do this. And it's a shame that no one calls out these charlatans on their bullshit.
It happens, but the people doing the calling out usually get beaten down by the followers of said charlatans. Not naming any names here, but the problem with the internet is that things degenerate into ego battles and flame wars incredibly easily.

[BreathWeapon]

It happens, but the people doing the calling out usually get beaten down by the followers of said charlatans. Not naming any names here, but the problem with the internet is that things degenerate into ego battles and flame wars incredibly easily.

The thing is that it's often a matter of perspective. I remember in the summer of 06, when Wastedlife and I were both starting to work on Burning Wish based combo, how Mike Bomholmn made it his personal mission in life to see that no one would bother testing Burning Wish because when he did it, it "sucked," and now in retrospect he made himself out to be a complete ass.

Despite being wrong 99% of the time, I think it's more important to investigate radical ideas than to dismiss them, because if people aren't willing to evaluate whatever is waiting in the winds, then the format will revolve around U/g/w Threshold and Goblins until the end of time. Even the good ideas, like figuring out how to abuse Phyrexian Dreadnought, either get way more flak than they really deserve or go totally unnoticed.

[Iranon]

Speaking of Dreadnaught... rough lists can win matches and tournaments too. It becomes doubly confusing if said rough list isn't worth refining once it got the job done ('Thresh with maindecked Stifle should beat the field... might as well throw in Dreadnaughts for a laugh').

I think a lot of confusions arises when it's not clear whether the object of speculation is supposed to be a good deck in its own right or a metagame-killer.

[cheddercaveman]

So, here is what I notice. Innovation in a format that has a near inifinite supply of cards is very tough. Do I think that Threshold is the best deck? No, personally I feel like U/W/b Fish is a much better deck all around. It has the same permission, both have meddling mage, only difference is that Fish doesnt need to wait for a couple of turns for threshold to kick in to be effective. Along the same lines I'd say that CounterSliver has similar advantages while having few of the disadvantages of Threshold.

However, there is a LOT of groupthink in Magic. Someone says the best decks are goblins and threshold, then that'll see play. The better players will say "i want a good deck to play" they play threshold because they hear its good. They top 8, someone else is like "well it top 8'd so i'll play it". This doesnt just happen in Legacy, but in every format in magic basically. Innovation doesnt come around all that often until it top 8's some tournament of note.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The thing is that it's often a matter of perspective. I remember in the summer of 06, when Wastedlife and I were both starting to work on Burning Wish based combo, how Mike Bomholmn made it his personal mission in life to see that no one would bother testing Burning Wish because when he did it, it "sucked," and now in retrospect he made himself out to be a complete ass.

Is this the kind of retrospect where we retroactively pretend that Empty the Warrens was existing in the Summer of '06?

But yeah, there's a lot of scrubs who play Legacy who don't want to hear why any given idea won't work. This is why people don't get challenge on bogus claims more often, because other forums are wastelands of bad ideas where challenging said ideas gets you banned. This is why the Source is the sole bastion of intelligent discussion on the Legacy format, at least in English; every other forum has buried itself beneath the weight of poor speculation and bad decks that "break the format".

[C.P.]

Although I hate to do so, I have agree with BW here. Radical ideas have to be tested, no matter how ridiculous it looks in the first place. However, you also have to know when to quit with an idea that does not work, like IBA said.

[BreathWeapon]

Is this the kind of retrospect where we retroactively pretend that Empty the Warrens was existing in the Summer of '06?

But yeah, there's a lot of scrubs who play Legacy who don't want to hear why any given idea won't work. This is why people don't get challenge on bogus claims more often, because other forums are wastelands of bad ideas where challenging said ideas gets you banned. This is why the Source is the sole bastion of intelligent discussion on the Legacy format, at least in English; every other forum has buried itself beneath the weight of poor speculation and bad decks that "break the format".

Whether or not ETW existed in the summer of 06 isn't the relevant issue, disregarding ETW, Rite of Flame and Simian Spirit Guide the shell of the deck was based on being able to combo with Diminishing Returns as a second Storm engine. Bomholmn argued that Burning Wish was fundamentally bad in combo, because it couldn't tutor for mana and it didn't have access to Yawgmoth's Will, but his first point was irrelevant (more or less) and his second point was misguided by his inexperience with Burning Long. Even tho' the deck is built around ETW, Right of Flame and Simian Spirit Guide now, it wasn't always that way, and it was still just as capable of winning a game against the same range of decks as IGGY POP. I'm not arguing that those three red cards didn't have a tremendous impact on combo, because they did, but Burning Wish wasn't the pile that Mike Bomholmn made it out to be, and if we had quit then, TES wouldn't exist.

There's a difference between people who refuse to listen to criticism and people who refuse to use constructive criticism. While the format is full of people with their pet decks, I'd argue the internet is full of even more people that can't construct a counter argument that contains more than a one liner or a flame.

@Samshire, in the interests of not derailing this thread, let's not start.

[Cait_Sith]

Yea, since the Summer of '06 totally had SSS.


There's a difference between people who refuse to listen to criticism and people who refuse to use constructive criticism. While the format is full of people with their pet decks, I'd argue the internet is full of even more people that can't construct a counter argument that contains more than a one liner or a flame.

Part of the problem is that there aren't people who can make constructive criticism. When someone goes "I don't think this idea will work" and leaves it at that, what are you supposed to do? I ended up getting angry when several people did that to me; they told me it wouldn't work, they never said why. Even worse is when people explain to you how your metagame deck loses to a metagame its not designed to win in. You assume that people always make intelligent comments and only their opponents are idiots.

[C.P.]

I'm not arguing that those three red cards didn't have a tremendous impact on combo, because they did, but Burning Wish wasn't the pile that Mike Bomholmn made it out to be, and if we had quit then, TES wouldn't exist.

Burning wish was a pile before Coldsnap and TS block. If ETW, Rite, SSG was not printed, Red based storm combo deck will not exist, making burning wish marginal at best. The example of yours works only because Wizards printed those cards. If they did not, Bomholmn would still be right on the burning wish in Legacy combo. If you think you were insightful for not giving up on Burning wish, you are wrong. You were just lucky.

Any cards can be argued the same. The Ideas can get better with new cards, but that does not make the idea better at the time.

[BreathWeapon]

Burning wish was a pile before Coldsnap and TS block. If ETW, Rite, SSG was not printed, Red based storm combo deck will not exist, making burning wish marginal at best. The example of yours works only because Wizards printed those cards. If they did not, Bomholmn would still be right on the burning wish in Legacy combo. If you think you were insightful for not giving up on Burning wish, you are wrong. You were just lucky.

Any cards can be argued the same. The Ideas can get better with new cards, but that does not make the idea better at the time.

There's some amount of truth to that, but even if the original Burning Wish based combo decks were inferior to IGGY POP at the time, if we didn't invent them or continue to develop them, then TES wouldn't exist. Even tho' modern TES is built around ETW, Rite of Flame and SSG, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the original lists and conclude that Mike Bomholmn would have been right. Knowing what I know about Burning Wish based combo now, I could go back to the summer of 06 and build a 5c based Burning Wish combo deck that still defeated aggro and had a better game against Landstill and Threshold than IGGY POP.

I wont argue that luck was involved, but saying insight wasn't involved isn't fair either. The funny thing about Magic is, is that you can't afford to throw away any idea or deck list that has potential, even if it isn't viable or competitive, because you never know when a new card is going to be printed. Look at Ichorid, people disregarded that deck in this format since its inception, and now it's a significant threat. No one can argue that it's not because of Future Sight, but saying that there was never any potential there to begin with is a dubious argument.

[C.P.]

Look at Ichorid, people disregarded that deck in this format since its inception, and now it's a significant threat. No one can argue that it's not because of Future Sight, but saying that there was never any potential there to begin with is a dubious argument.

There are lots of cards like that. Goblin Lackey would still be funny jank if it was not for Onslaught block. Didgeridoo will be broken as hell if there was good minotaurs that will back it up. Sure you never know, but that does not justify putting efforts on the deckbuilding. We are playing the format right now, and being the best in the present format is the goal that we need to persue.

So what if Burning Wish or Ichorid had potential? Does that mean that those cards should have been considered back when they sucked? No. Developing an idea when it is clearly not good is not insightful, it is just having too much time to spare. At least in the competitive magic, that is.

EDIT: Bit more on Ichorid. Ichorid works differently when you have efficient ways of putting your library to graveyard,which clearly did not exist back then. you say that you could build 5c tendrils based on Burning wish an year ago, but burning wish will never work the same way when you don't have ETW, nor Red in the deck will work same without Rite or SSG.

[BreathWeapon]

There are lots of cards like that. Goblin Lackey would still be funny jank if it was not for Onslaught block. Didgeridoo will be broken as hell if there was good minotaurs that will back it up. Sure you never know, but that does not justify putting efforts on the deckbuilding. We are playing the format right now, and being the best in the present format is the goal that we need to persue.

So what if Burning Wish or Ichorid had potential? Does that mean that those cards should have been considered back when they sucked? No. Developing an idea when it is clearly not good is not insightful, it is just having too much time to spare. At least in the competitive magic, that is.

EDIT: Bit more on Ichorid. Ichorid works differently when you have efficient ways of putting your library to graveyard,which clearly did not exist back then. you say that you could build 5c tendrils based on Burning wish an year ago, but burning wish will never work the same way when you don't have ETW, nor Red in the deck will work same without Rite or SSG.

That wasn't the issue in either case tho', Burning Wish was good in combo before ETW, Rite of Flame and SSG were printed, but it became great in combo after those cards were printed. Burning Wish was being used in Nausea as an engine card, and yes, I know how awful Nausea was, just on the basis of being able to Burning Wish + LED for Diminishing Returns, tutor for removal or find the second Tendrils to good affect. There was never a point at which the card "sucked" in combo, that was just the "hype" of Mike Bomholmn.

At what point has this format never had efficient outlets for Ichorid? Cephalid Coliseum, Lion's Eye Diamond, Tolarian Winds, Breakthrough and Putrid Imp existed just as much at the separation of the banned list as they do now. If you would have said dredge didn't have the power level to compete before Future Sight, I would have agreed with you, but saying Ichorid didn't have the outlets to compete doesn't make any sense.

Edit: Are you talking about Ichorid as in the card or Ichorid as in the deck? I meant the deck if we've accidentally skewed our arguments here.

[C.P.]

At what point has this format never had efficient outlets for Ichorid? Cephalid Coliseum, Lion's Eye Diamond, Tolarian Winds, Breakthrough and Putrid Imp existed just as much at the separation of the banned list as they do now. If you would have said dredge didn't have the power level to compete before Future Sight, I would have agreed with you, but saying Ichorid didn't have the outlets to compete doesn't make any sense.

Edit: Are you talking about Ichorid as in the card or Ichorid as in the deck? I meant the deck if we've accidentally skewed our arguments here.

Ichorid as a card and a deck. It did not exist before dredge. Even after the dredge, it was not a viable strategy in legacy. Only because they printed 3+ cards that works with the deck in TS block, it became a viable deck in Legacy.

[BreathWeapon]

Ichorid as a card and a deck. It did not exist before dredge. Even after the dredge, it was not a viable strategy in legacy. Only because they printed 3+ cards that works with the deck in TS block, it became a viable deck in Legacy.

Ichorid existed before Dredge, it was part of a deck that used Zombie Infestation, Wild Mongrel and Hermit Druid along with Squee, Goblin Nabob and Krovikan Horror (Wild Zombies was the name, I think). That was a long, long time ago, but Ichorid had a precedence before the Dredge engine was developed.

[C.P.]

Ichorid existed before Dredge, it was part of a deck that used Zombie Infestation, Wild Mongrel and Hermit Druid along with Squee, Goblin Nabob and Krovikan Horror (Wild Zombies was the name, I think). That was a long, long time ago, but Ichorid had a precedence before the Dredge engine was developed.

And it sucked. Also, I meant Legacy, not 1.5.

What I want to assert is that An idea that is not worth your time can be good by seeing a new card, but that does not justify you insisting on a bad idea.

[SpikeyMikey]

Yea, since the Summer of '06 totally had SSS.



Part of the problem is that there aren't people who can make constructive criticism. When someone goes "I don't think this idea will work" and leaves it at that, what are you supposed to do? I ended up getting angry when several people did that to me; they told me it wouldn't work, they never said why. Even worse is when people explain to you how your metagame deck loses to a metagame its not designed to win in. You assume that people always make intelligent comments and only their opponents are idiots.

See, I get the constructive criticism, but it's often wrong. People have strange ideas about what is or isn't good, I remember when everyone in T2 thought that Memory Lapse/Predict was just titties and mai tais. Budde runs AK/Intuition at a high profile Extended event(no, I'm not looking up what it was, I'm too lazy), and now the two are irrevocably linked in people's minds. For the longest time, people in T1 repeatedly told me that Pernicious Deed was strictly worse than Powder Keg. While I will admit that keeping an open mind does not mean, and cannot mean, accepting any trash as equally viable until you've thoroughly tested it, but people need to be a little more open minded sometimes.

[BreathWeapon]

And it sucked. Also, I meant Legacy, not 1.5.

What I want to assert is that An idea that is not worth your time can be good by seeing a new card, but that does not justify you insisting on a bad idea.

It was a PT deck that did quite well for itself as I recall, Legacy or 1.5 had nothing to do with it.

The point is, I don't think you're in any position to state that "Burning Wish sucked" in combo before those three cards were printed as a truism, because no one even bothered to develop a wish based combo deck before then. Burning Wish for Diminishing Returns was degenerate by itself, and it still is. If you want to meet up on MWS and play Bardo's 2006 Threshold vs one of the original Burning Wish lists, feel free to PM me and I'll prove the point.

[frogboy]

BreathWeapon: PM sent. (actually two because my internet died and I dunno if the first went through.)

[Ewokslayer]

The point is, I don't think you're in any position to state that "Burning Wish sucked" in combo before those three cards were printed as a truism, because no one even bothered to develop a wish based combo deck before then.


Burning Wish was being used in Nausea as an engine card, and yes, I know how awful Nausea was,...


Apparently even you acknowledge that Burning Wish was tried before and that it was bad.
People bothered they just failed.
Granted their work probably made it easier to develop good Burning Wish decks once SSS, ETW, and Rite were printed.

[BreathWeapon]

@Frogboy,

We can arrange something, it has to be on a Sunday tho', and I'm camping this weekend.

@Ewokslayer

That quote is sort of out of the context of what I meant,

Nausea being bad and thus Burning Wish being bad isn't a given conclusion. Nausea used inconsistent cards from Helm of Awakening, Spheres and Eggs, Spoils of the Vault, Meditate, Land Grant, Ancient Tomb etc. and didn't use disruption, which is what made it so bad. Nausea's wins were coming from tutor/wish + LED into an enabler, at which point people started to recognize that fact and build Burning/Death Wish and Grim Tutor based Long decks that were the progenitors of TES.

People are just assuming that Burning Wish was bad, but there was never enough time to prove that it was good before Empty the Warrens made it great. Right of Flame and Simian Spirit Guide were important to, but less so, because even Elvish Spirit Guide and Tinder Wall can simulate their effects approximately.