[Discussion] The Role of Theory in Legacy

[Deep6er]

[Originally to Anusien -Nightmare]

I think it would be a good idea to examine exactly WHY the best deck in the format IS the best deck in the format. A detailing of the concepts Tempo, Card Selection, Card Advantage and how they apply to Threshold's devastatingly effective gameplan would be enormously helpful to the people who play Threshold poorly. Now mind you, I don't know if YOU'RE one of those people, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Seriously, there are a bunch of people you can reference here and there's been a fair bit done on it in the past so you can use historical references too. I don't particularly care if you favor one color of Threshold as opposed to another, but I do know that Threshold is the best deck in the format, and people tend to gloss over that fact with broad, and reasonably inaccurate statements. Was that clear enough? I want something that people can read, that will help them not suck at playing the best deck of the format. I'm not asking for game by game analysis, I'm asking for you to tell people what concepts they should be striving to achieve in a game of Threshold vs. Any other deck in the format. Simple. Talk about how Tempo, and Card Selection mean a steady stream of threats and answers. Talk about adaptability to situations through the intelligent use of Card Filtering. Seriously, I've seen WAY too many poor Threshold players. I feel that if people make the committment to play the best deck in the format, they should fucking play it well. Now, the reason I ask YOU to write this, is because of your ability to reach more people than I can. Also, this would sort of prove that YOU understand these as I remember arguments about this topic in the past. I know it sounds arrogant as all fuck, but I'd like to give you a chance to prove that you are as good at Magic Theory as you claim to be. Feel free to go tell your friends about that douchebag on the Source.

[Anusien]

That's not a bad idea. Legacy players as a whole tend to not understand theory. However I'm worried that a Legacy player's guide to theory, covering stuff like Card Advantage, Tempo, Momentum, Inevitability, Strategic Superiority, Deck Advantage, Philosophy of Fire would be too dry and boring. I was going to do one or two an article as addendums. However, putting in context of a deck is a good idea, and worth considering.

[Anusien]

Is this addressed to me, or Anusien?
It's a decent idea for anyone, but he's probably addressing part of it to me. This is in part because I tend to favor card advantage over card selection, and partly because I think shotgunning turn 1 Brainstorm is wrong in every case that doesn't have an opposing Duress/Cabal Therapy, or an upkeep Mental Note.

There might be another exception or two, like digging for FoW against an opposing combo deck, but not many.

[Zilla]

There might be another exception or two, like digging for FoW against an opposing combo deck, but not many.
This is getting off-topic, but making your second land drop tends to be a pretty good reason too.

[Nihil Credo]

If you have a 1-land, Brainstorm hand, then by the love of Satan don't EOT Brainstorm: mainphasing the Brainstorm lets you see one extra card.

[AnwarA101]

That's not a bad idea. Legacy players as a whole tend to not understand theory.

What information do you base such an attack on the community at large? Is it your astute knowledge about our skill level or our understanding about Magic? I imagine that you have nothing to backup such a charge. Its merely thrown out there to denigrate a group of people so that you can look better by comparison. Its easy to attack people by claiming they don't understand, but its very hard to write meaningful articles that people find useful. You are unable to write such articles so you throw around terrible assertions such as this one to make yourself look more knowledgeable than you really are.

This arrogance is what I find worst about your writing. Your arrogance isn't even based on anything other than your own assertions. I find this nearly intolerable and your attitude is unlikely to change given your contempt for the other players of this format. You are exactly what we don't need in Legacy.

[hi-val]

Wow, that was a pretty harsh reaction to something that's probably just worded poorly.

Anyway, I really like Nihil's idea. I think you could synergize and use it to illustrate concepts like Tempo. For example, MBC can't make tempo while it simultaneously gets tooled by tempo-rich decks, so what may seem like a good matchup ends up being bad.

OH EDIT: On the topic of the article, when Spencer and I proofread it on TMD, we were both really glad that the article wasn't public yet so we didn't have to face it at a tournament : ) I think this points to Mr. Barnello's compelling style. I'm thinking of a matchup analysis for Breakfast and another deck as an informative piece. I was considering UG Threshold, as it seems to have a strong combo match and well, it did just win worlds.

[AnwarA101]

Wow, that was a pretty harsh reaction to something that's probably just worded poorly.


Not as harsh as trashing a whole community in one sentence.

[Artowis]

Not as harsh as trashing a whole community in one sentence.

Pretty much. Anus should have just said players period and not tacked on the Legacy tag.

[DeathwingZERO]

What information do you base such an attack on the community at large? Is it your astute knowledge about our skill level or our understanding about Magic? I imagine that you have nothing to backup such a charge. Its merely thrown out there to denigrate a group of people so that you can look better by comparison. Its easy to attack people by claiming they don't understand, but its very hard to write meaningful articles that people find useful. You are unable to write such articles so you throw around terrible assertions such as this one to make yourself look more knowledgeable than you really are.

This arrogance is what I find worst about your writing. Your arrogance isn't even based on anything other than your own assertions. I find this nearly intolerable and your attitude is unlikely to change given your contempt for the other players of this format. You are exactly what we don't need in Legacy.

To be frank, Anwar, he's right. This format is the only one that doesn't have absolutely apeshit number of theorists, mainly because we're still the bastard child format. Standard and Extended are one trick ponies, that are prepared to rotate when new blocks come in, or a new broken card is printed. Vintage is basically following the "same old, tried and true" philosophy, which is pretty much "everyone here runs 35-45 broken 1 ofs then changes the decks on how each abuse them", whereas we don't really have that. If anything, we should be the breaking ground of new theories and development, because we are techically the most unique. Everyone knows what the definied Tier decks are in Extended/Standard once the dust settles, and Vintage really only develops new decks when the big brains in the format get bored with their latest pet deck. Again, we're not like either of those, which is greatly to our benefit.

Being that we're a whopping 2 (correct? or was B&R 04? Shit, have I been playing Legacy that long? Doesn't matter) years old, our population as a whole isn't really that of former high-level tournament players. And for the most part, the casual guys wouldn't even have a clue where to start in Magic theory, most would just say that Goblins win because "they're fast".

Put it this way, he didn't say "The Source" was the Legacy community as a whole. Nor did he name names. I can't say I've sided by him in either most of his writings or anything he's said here, but I can say that this community definitely could use the greatest boost when it comes to Magic Theory 101. Maybe then, eventually the idea of a Scrub deck would be that of Solidarity, not WhiteWeenieFTL.dec

If anything, I think it should be open for debate WHAT type of Magic Theory (or multiples) people think this format needs to take a look at. I actually want to bring this forth as another "Adept" question. Put it simply, "What theory (if any) do you think is the greatest asset to a "Newbie Guide to Legacy?"

[Machinus]

I think there has been some very insightful theory work done on this format. Go read my articles on the subject of tempo vs. card advantage in this format. You will find the ideas copied by a lot of players and other writers. The community deserves credit for tackling a new problem like this format and quickly adopting answers when they find them.

[DeathwingZERO]

I think there has been some very insightful theory work done on this format. Go read my articles on the subject of tempo vs. card advantage in this format. You will find the ideas copied by a lot of players and other writers. The community deserves credit for tackling a new problem like this format and quickly adopting answers when they find them.

The problem I have with the writings is that they still hit a very small amount of people, typically the ones that are only interested in reading up on the format. I would prefer people to actually link prominent theories (card advantage, tempo loss/gain, the momentum vs tempo debate, etc) to decks we have that solidify them.

I think that's where we're going to get the reputation of a format of thinkers. People that know us from other communities know we're capable of dishing it out like any other format. However, the average scrub just getting in thinks we're nothing more than some format that's not good enough at being broken, like Vintage.

[hi-val]

Not as harsh as trashing a whole community in one sentence.

Have you read the Legacy forums on WOTC or SCG? Sadly, they're part of the community as well...

[AnwarA101]

To be frank, Anwar, he's right. This format is the only one that doesn't have absolutely apeshit number of theorists, mainly because we're still the bastard child format. Standard and Extended are one trick ponies, that are prepared to rotate when new blocks come in, or a new broken card is printed. Vintage is basically following the "same old, tried and true" philosophy, which is pretty much "everyone here runs 35-45 broken 1 ofs then changes the decks on how each abuse them", whereas we don't really have that.

Being that we're a whopping 2 (correct? or was B&R 04? Shit, have I been playing Legacy that long? Doesn't matter) years old, our population as a whole isn't really that of former high-level tournament players. And for the most part, the casual guys wouldn't even have a clue where to start in Magic theory, most would just say that Goblins win because "they're fast".

Put it this way, he didn't say "The Source" was the Legacy community as a whole. Nor did he name names. I can't say I've sided by him in either most of his writings or anything he's said here, but I can say that this community definitely could use the greatest boost when it comes to Magic Theory 101. Maybe then, eventually the idea of a Scrub deck would be that of Solidarity, not WhiteWeenieFTL.dec

He isn't right. There are many players in Legacy who understand Magic theory just fine. I don't think you can count casual players at Legacy tournaments as people who don't understand Magic theory. Those people don't count because they don't care to understand competitive Magic.

His attack is a baseless charge meant to lower us so that he can look better. His lack of understanding is apparent from his articles and so his only option is to imply that we know less. I'm unwilling to admit that I or other players on this site or in the community at large know less than Anusien. It simply isn't true. Anyone who has read his articles knows that he understands very little about Legacy.


Have you read the Legacy forums on WOTC or SCG? Sadly, they're part of the community as well...

I don't read WOTC forums and very infrequently visit SCG forums. The only thing I can see from your post is that you agree with such a ridiculous attitude.

[DeathwingZERO]

He isn't right. There are many players in Legacy who understand Magic theory just fine. I don't think you can count casual players at Legacy tournaments as people who don't understand Magic theory. Those people don't count because they don't care to understand competitive Magic.

His attack is a baseless charge meant to lower us so that he can look better. His lack of understanding is apparent from his articles and so his only option is to imply that we know less. I'm unwilling to admit that I or other players on this site or in the community at large know less than Anusien. It simply isn't true. Anyone who has read his articles knows that he understands very little about Legacy.

When it comes right down to it, The Source is really the only place where we have even remotely competent players. So yes, we should all know the same (if not more) than he does. I won't argue that. But as Hi-Val said, there's a high number of our community that's not grasping this, especially those at SGC and Wizards forum. It should be up to us to start putting out writings that actually gets these people to want to learn how to play in Legacy, not "What deck will stomp the competition?"

What I will argue is that what we've said so far hasn't done much. The only real times we've had high volume tournaments was due to broken shit going on. I merely stated that if we wanted to see a surge in people, we should put the things we know on the line. Discuss various aspects of top decks that can easily show basics of Magic Theory, and use that to lure the curious in. It's like the Dark Side having candy slogan.

And to be honest, understanding Theory and understanding Legacy aren't two different things. If you understand Theory, you will be good at any formats (unless your one of those theorists who for some reason can't put principles to practice...an odd group they are). While I believe a lot of what Anusien says is also pretty biased and rather self-gratifying, I can't say he doesn't have at least a good point in saying we've got untrained savages (sorry, too much Dynasty Warriors) in our midst. They are also more prominent than the other formats, who have successfully weeded out people advocating shit decks, mainly because they get crushed at tournaments left and right. And a number of casual scrubs start out wanting to know more, they just don't know where to look. What's the harm in putting out some articles that they can go to, and learn valuable information that's good for all formats?

While it may actually be a baseless attack on the community, I say it's all the more reason to prove it wrong. My impression from these types of debates is that I'm sure a majority of you Adepts would love to put Anusien in his place, as it were. Here's your chance.

[Anusien]

Pretty much. Anus should have just said players period and not tacked on the Legacy tag.
Good call. I just see it more in Legacy because I play Legacy.


I would prefer people to actually link prominent theories (card advantage, tempo loss/gain, the momentum vs tempo debate, etc) to decks we have that solidify them.
This is a good idea.

By the way, the notions I have regarding what people do and do not understand about theory is based on reading what people post, talking to people I play and seeing what decks people suggest. Concepts like "Strategic superiority" and "tempo" are thrown about all the time when people don't understand them. I mean, I'm sure all the LAs understand tempo and CA, but you know how many people have told me that Solidarity has strategic superiority over Goblins (it doesn't really), or that turn 1 Wasteland, Waste is tempo (it definitely isn't)? The general populace doesn't understand theory.

[Machinus]

how many people have told me that Solidarity has strategic superiority over Goblins

Most of those theory terms are just useless vocabulary made up by sensationalist authors. They serve little purpose at actually building and playing decks succesfully. If people have spent their time in tournaments instead of learning the meme of the week, I would say they are better players for it.

[AnwarA101]

And to be honest, understanding Theory and understanding Legacy aren't two different things. If you understand Theory, you will be good at any formats (unless your one of those theorists who for some reason can't put principles to practice...an odd group they are). While I believe a lot of what Anusien says is also pretty biased and rather self-gratifying, I can't say he doesn't have at least a good point in saying we've got untrained savages (sorry, too much Dynasty Warriors) in our midst. They are also more prominent than the other formats, who have successfully weeded out people advocating shit decks, mainly because they get crushed at tournaments left and right. And a number of casual scrubs start out wanting to know more, they just don't know where to look. What's the harm in putting out some articles that they can go to, and learn valuable information that's good for all formats?

While it may actually be a baseless attack on the community, I say it's all the more reason to prove it wrong. My impression from these types of debates is that I'm sure a majority of you Adepts would love to put Anusien in his place, as it were. Here's your chance.

Anusien is the "untrained savage" (to use your term) that is masquerading as a Legacy master. It simply isn't the case. He doesn't know much more than many of the players on this very site. In fact he knows much less and his articles prove it.



Good call. I just see it more in Legacy because I play Legacy.


Where do you play Legacy? When? At what tournaments?



By the way, the notions I have regarding what people do and do not understand about theory is based on reading what people post, talking to people I play and seeing what decks people suggest. Concepts like "Strategic superiority" and "tempo" are thrown about all the time when people don't understand them. I mean, I'm sure all the LAs understand tempo and CA, but you know how many people have told me that Solidarity has strategic superiority over Goblins (it doesn't really), or that turn 1 Wasteland, Waste is tempo (it definitely isn't)? The general populace doesn't understand theory.


Is this sort of like saying winning now is important and then presenting Scepter-Chant as a deck that wins now? Or maybe its like where you talked about threats being better than answers, but then presented a Loam deck virtually devoid of threats. Is it something like that?

[Anusien]

Most of those theory terms are just useless vocabulary made up by sensationalist authors. They serve little purpose at actually building and playing decks succesfully. If people have spent their time in tournaments instead of learning the meme of the week, I would say they are better players for it.


Q: I have a simple question for you, Zvi: What and how would you recommend becoming a better player? I am already the person that everyone knows and fears, and I managed to Top 8 Regionals this year, but what are the critical steps I need to take to be good enough to play and place in big tournaments like a Grand Prix?
A: That question is far from simple, and I get asked it often. The short answer is: Read everything you can, especially theory, play a lot against good players and always keep a critical eye. Every game, ask yourself if you made mistakes, if your opponent made mistakes, why you won or lost the game, how your deck could improve and anything else you can think of. The more you understand the game, the better you will play. Concentrate on long term knowledge rather than format-specific knowledge until you're ready to compete.

But there's no such thing as "not ready for a Grand Prix." You might not be ready to take a plane to a Grand Prix, which is fine, but if it's in your area then there's no better way to gain experience. Get in the car!
AKA Zvi thinks theory is important.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10033.html
Just saying...

[Machinus]

Most of that response is "play Magic," not "read the internet."

Magic theory five years ago was a different object than it is today. If you go back far enough it becomes fundamental and crucial. I highly doubt that the writings of modern "theorists" will ever become relevant to general magic. Even many classic pieces are only tangentiall relevant, in that they provide inspiration for developing real knowledge about the game.

No one cares what the beatdown technically means or what exactly qualifies as a time walk. They just want to win this game of magic, and the next one, and maybe even improve their deck. If the idea isn't simple, obvious, intuitive, and immediately applicable to these things, it's probably useless and isn't going to make anyone better at Magic.

[Deep6er]

Maybe then, eventually the idea of a Scrub deck would be that of Solidarity

What the FLYING FUCK does that mean?

[hi-val]

I don't read WOTC forums and very infrequently visit SCG forums. The only thing I can see from your post is that you agree with such a ridiculous attitude.

That's a laughably preposterous conclusion to come to. You're going to make a hell of a federal judge one day!

So in summation, because you have no idea about vast swathes of the legacy community, your ignorance makes you a superior judge of the community over actually being educated about it? zOMG elitism? You're right, I ain't got time fer that fancy book lernin' or reeserch neither.

There's plenty of theory out there still to be written. Richard Feldman is one of the shining examples; his articles about being a greedy deckbuilder or making a good manabase are excellent as well as recent.

[DeathwingZERO]

Most of that response is "play Magic," not "read the internet."

Magic theory five years ago was a different object than it is today. If you go back far enough it becomes fundamental and crucial. I highly doubt that the writings of modern "theorists" will ever become relevant to general magic. Even many classic pieces are only tangentiall relevant, in that they provide inspiration for developing real knowledge about the game.

No one cares what the beatdown technically means or what exactly qualifies as a time walk. They just want to win this game of magic, and the next one, and maybe even improve their deck. If the idea isn't simple, obvious, intuitive, and immediately applicable to these things, it's probably useless and isn't going to make anyone better at Magic.

For a game based on nothing short of theories and probabilities, the last statement seems hopelessly naive. Just because you want to win doesn't make you deserve it. That's what the difference of casual vs competitive players comes down to. A casual player will go "How do I achieve my goal of defeating my opponent?", where a competitive person will go "How do I take what I have in my deck's shell, and construct it to gain every possible advantage over any opponent?" At the very least, there is no harm in putting out the information that will teach those willing to learn. Theory is a crucial aspect in at least understanding the fundamentals of Magic, especially the basic ones (card advantage vs tempo advantage, for starters).

If something is simple, obvious, and immediately applicable, it's not going to be coming from a top player, it's going to be a netdecker. Otherwise, it's taken time to build into a deck, practice and playtesting vs other game plans, and devising new strategies. Maybe theory isn't the best word for it, but that could just as easily morph your argument into "just because I want to win, I'm competitive", which is just naive. Most real competitive players will at least attempt understanding WHY their deck has better averages against other decks.

@Deep6er: No offense, I was just taking a readily former Tier 1 deck that fell out of contention due to a change in the format's overall structure. It's basically the equivalent of calling Dragon a "scrub" deck in Vintage (a deck I placed high with many times). People aren't caring much for it anymore, but it's power level is still substantial enough to randomly win a tournament here and there. That's the point I was driving at, Legacy should one day be on par with this type of a structure, unlike where it is now (more akin to Extended).

@Anwar: If Anusien is actually what you claim him to be (and I'm not going to put myself in the middle of one of these arguments), then by all means his point is even more valid. Because now we have people claiming to understand theory actually talking to people about it, and spreading decks and ideas that are invalid to our format. I'm seeing a fucking avalanche of reasons to support my idea of providing decks and theories to back them, and that's really all I'm looking for. What Anusien and the rest of you Adepts want to argue about is totally irrelevant to my request. I'll concede that you might very well be right about him, but wouldn't that just further the fact that we've got bad players being vocalists of the format, in it's current state?

[Machinus]

For a game based on nothing short of theories and probabilities, the last statement seems hopelessly naive. Just because you want to win doesn't make you deserve it. That's what the difference of casual vs competitive players comes down to. A casual player will go "How do I achieve my goal of defeating my opponent?", where a competitive person will go "How do I take what I have in my deck's shell, and construct it to gain every possible advantage over any opponent?" At the very least, there is no harm in putting out the information that will teach those willing to learn. Theory is a crucial aspect in at least understanding the fundamentals of Magic, especially the basic ones (card advantage vs tempo advantage, for starters).

If something is simple, obvious, and immediately applicable, it's not going to be coming from a top player, it's going to be a netdecker. Otherwise, it's taken time to build into a deck, practice and playtesting vs other game plans, and devising new strategies. Maybe theory isn't the best word for it, but that could just as easily morph your argument into "just because I want to win, I'm competitive", which is just naive. Most real competitive players will at least attempt understanding WHY their deck has better averages against other decks.

I can't really make sense of your post. Why are you invoking mathematics? What is a netdecker?

You are assuming that what some people like to call "theory" matters to tournament players. This is rarely the case, and the exceptions don't make the majority any more informative.

Also, please explain how I am being naive by asking magic theories written on the internet to be relevant to tournament magic. It seems quite the opposite to me.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Have you read the Legacy forums on WOTC or SCG? Sadly, they're part of the community as well...


So this is represntitive of the Vintage community? (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=919412)

Don't be absurd. Every bored child wandering onto the WotC board and posting some 70 card Bird tribal deck is not automatically a part of the Legacy community, simply because he randomly chose that forum to dump his monstrosity on.

Nothing in my experience leads me to think Legacy players are particularly more ignorant of the rules or strategy than players of other formats, though they're less likely to steal your stuff.

[DeathwingZERO]

I can't really make sense of your post. Why are you invoking mathematics? What is a netdecker?

You are assuming that what some people like to call "theory" matters to tournament players. This is rarely the case, and the exceptions don't make the majority any more informative.

Also, please explain how I am being naive by asking magic theories written on the internet to be relevant to tournament magic. It seems quite the opposite to me.

I'm invoking mathematics because they lend themselves to theory (example: the number of threats in your deck being greater than the number of answers in your opponents deck raises potential of you winning, assuming they are 1-for-1 in all instances, and seeing more cards greatly improves your chances of seeing answers or threats, etc).

And you seem to completely discount "theory" just because most of the time now, it's accepted as the norm. In a control matchup, in theory the person with the better card advantage should have the win. In practice, this is nearly always the case. It's just a matter of what once was a theory is now a golden rule.

How can you not know what a netdecker is? It's a prime example of a person not understanding theory, merely going with what's good and just playing it enough to attempt wins. They'll just luck out, get better matchups, and win. Otherwise, they get stomped by players that actually understand the game, and develop meta calls. I've seen far too many instances of this when I had a shop, and all a majority of the players did was play whatever they saw on the latest tournament reports, card for card, with no innovation whatsoever on their part. If you ever got into a card vs card argument with them, they'd almost never have a solid argument, other than "Well, it was played in this deck, which won this tournament. So it MUST be good, and you must be wrong."

This brings up another point. Metagame decks. Things like Deadguy Ale, Rifter, etc. They are perfect examples of theory in action. Deadguy achieved card advantage via discard or destruction spells that were often x-for-1, and creating a counterintuitive plan in Goblins SB by having to put in Grips, rather than playing a threat (threats vs answers). E.Plague greatly diminished the chance of tempo advantage by Goblins. Rifter would up it's threat density draws via Dragon to thin out lands, and also keep up the pace with hitting land drops repeatedly. Maindeck Humility + Slice and Dice gained board dominance vs aggro, and Decree of Justice was a card replacement + board advantage piece in a single card.

So to clarify, just because theory is now practice doesn't nullify the need for it. In fact, it'd be nice to see theories hit practice more often, so people understand what they are playing, and work on developing new ideas, rather than just going after what wins, with no concept of how. That is hopelessly naive of me, yes, but it'd make every player a better player, rather than just who's done more work practicing the mirror matchups.

As for writing it on the internet, that's only naive because people don't come here for that anymore. They go straight to what deck they want to play at the next tournament, and wonder why they lose (or don't give a damn if they win, until they get stomped). I'd be near certain if more people understood the game, in time that would create more viable decklists, and more challenging atmospheres.

And to be fair, there's been plenty of theory talk in the Standard environment, by some of the game's best players to ever hit a tournament. The fact we have links in "required reading" that talk about theories and practices also backs my case. A lot of those writers and players have good records for a reason.

[frogboy]

I'll make a longer post tomorrow addressing most of this, but I wanted one quick thing before I crash out:


Go read my articles on the subject of tempo vs. card advantage in this format.

Link?

[Machinus]

I'm invoking mathematics because they lend themselves to theory (example: the number of threats in your deck being greater than the number of answers in your opponents deck raises potential of you winning, assuming they are 1-for-1 in all instances, and seeing more cards greatly improves your chances of seeing answers or threats, etc).

And you seem to completely discount "theory" just because most of the time now, it's accepted as the norm. In a control matchup, in theory the person with the better card advantage should have the win. In practice, this is nearly always the case. It's just a matter of what once was a theory is now a golden rule.

How can you not know what a netdecker is? It's a prime example of a person not understanding theory, merely going with what's good and just playing it enough to attempt wins. They'll just luck out, get better matchups, and win. Otherwise, they get stomped by players that actually understand the game, and develop meta calls. I've seen far too many instances of this when I had a shop, and all a majority of the players did was play whatever they saw on the latest tournament reports, card for card, with no innovation whatsoever on their part. If you ever got into a card vs card argument with them, they'd almost never have a solid argument, other than "Well, it was played in this deck, which won this tournament. So it MUST be good, and you must be wrong."

This brings up another point. Metagame decks. Things like Deadguy Ale, Rifter, etc. They are perfect examples of theory in action. Deadguy achieved card advantage via discard or destruction spells that were often x-for-1, and creating a counterintuitive plan in Goblins SB by having to put in Grips, rather than playing a threat (threats vs answers). E.Plague greatly diminished the chance of tempo advantage by Goblins. Rifter would up it's threat density draws via Dragon to thin out lands, and also keep up the pace with hitting land drops repeatedly. Maindeck Humility + Slice and Dice gained board dominance vs aggro, and Decree of Justice was a card replacement + board advantage piece in a single card.

So to clarify, just because theory is now practice doesn't nullify the need for it. In fact, it'd be nice to see theories hit practice more often, so people understand what they are playing, and work on developing new ideas, rather than just going after what wins, with no concept of how. That is hopelessly naive of me, yes, but it'd make every player a better player, rather than just who's done more work practicing the mirror matchups.

As for writing it on the internet, that's only naive because people don't come here for that anymore. They go straight to what deck they want to play at the next tournament, and wonder why they lose (or don't give a damn if they win, until they get stomped). I'd be near certain if more people understood the game, in time that would create more viable decklists, and more challenging atmospheres.

And to be fair, there's been plenty of theory talk in the Standard environment, by some of the game's best players to ever hit a tournament. The fact we have links in "required reading" that talk about theories and practices also backs my case. A lot of those writers and players have good records for a reason.

Copying decks that win tournaments is the best thing you can do. That's how you win them yourself. I don't see how theory makes any contribution towards actually winning the game in any of these scenarios. You keep referencing how people feel and their ignorance - none of the makes a difference. We're measuring success and you don't need very much theory to do that. In fact, most theory about Magic is self-evident, and it's just better for players to practice and follow their intuition with "netdecks" than try to apply cute words to building new ones.

[Nightmare]

I'll freely admit that I'm relatively shitty at deckbuilding, and that I have a ton of assistance to get from point A (an initial idea) to point B (writing a list in an article). I may not even be that good when it comes to theory, and I know I couldn't be one of the writers who drones on for pages on tempo.

On the other hand, I seem to do pretty well at this game nonetheless.

[AnwarA101]

That's not a bad idea. Legacy players as a whole tend to not understand theory.


What information do you base such an attack on the community at large? Is it your astute knowledge about our skill level or our understanding about Magic? I imagine that you have nothing to backup such a charge. Its merely thrown out there to denigrate a group of people so that you can look better by comparison. Its easy to attack people by claiming they don't understand, but its very hard to write meaningful articles that people find useful. You are unable to write such articles so you throw around terrible assertions such as this one to make yourself look more knowledgeable than you really are.

This arrogance is what I find worst about your writing. Your arrogance isn't even based on anything other than your own assertions. I find this nearly intolerable and your attitude is unlikely to change given your contempt for the other players of this format. You are exactly what we don't need in Legacy.


Have you read the Legacy forums on WOTC or SCG? Sadly, they're part of the community as well...


I don't read WOTC forums and very infrequently visit SCG forums. The only thing I can see from your post is that you agree with such a ridiculous attitude.


That's a laughably preposterous conclusion to come to. You're going to make a hell of a federal judge one day!

So in summation, because you have no idea about vast swathes of the legacy community, your ignorance makes you a superior judge of the community over actually being educated about it? zOMG elitism? You're right, I ain't got time fer that fancy book lernin' or reeserch neither.

There's plenty of theory out there still to be written. Richard Feldman is one of the shining examples; his articles about being a greedy deckbuilder or making a good manabase are excellent as well as recent.

Your implication is obvious. Anusien trashes Legacy players and their lack of understanding. I disagree with this characterization. You point out that WOTC and SCG forums count as part of the community. Your point is that WOTC and SCG posters are as clueless as Anusien stated they are. You agree with him. What other point can you be making?

I have visited SCG and I know that many of the lists there are not refined, but I didn't make generalizations about the community at large. Anusien did that and you agreed with him.

If I become a federal judge some day, I pray that I never become as arrogant as you and Anusien.

[hi-val]

Arrogant is a pretty big word to toss around there. My point is that if you don't actually know about a broader legacy community, regardless of their deckbuilding skills or whatever, you're not putting yourself in a position to be an accurate judge of the truthiness of someone else's statement. So while my attitude, which you admit is more informed, is ridiculous, your ignorant attitude is enlightened. How gracious!

The point I am making is that if you take MTSers as the gold standard of the community, you cannot make assertions based on a larger community unless your assumption is that MTSers are the only Legacy community. My goal was to bring in contrary evidence, which is just that, evidence. I do hope you can see the difference between bringing up evidence and supporting his position. In any case, this is a pedantic battle of egos so I don't feel like talking about it anymore. And federal judges have a requirement to be arrogant ; )

And for the record, I really disagree with Anusien. Most Legacy players seem to know a bit about theory. They just don't care because theory doesn't have a lot of impact on Legacy games at the usual level. I'm going to use theory to describe this here : ) but to say, play Goblins at 80% efficiency, you don't really have to know much other than play threats, port ya lands. You don't need to know that the power curve of the deck against Threshold dips on turns 3-6 and you'll still win anyway. To get to that 90% or 95% efficiency though, knowing theory (or practicing a lot) really pays off.

[Bardo]

We're getting a bit off track here. If someone wants to start a thread on the constituency of the "Legacy Community," by all means, do so.

Let's keep this thread to the applicability of theory in the Legacy environment.

[AnwarA101]

Arrogant is a pretty big word to toss around there. My point is that if you don't actually know about a broader legacy community, regardless of their deckbuilding skills or whatever, you're not putting yourself in a position to be an accurate judge of the truthiness of someone else's statement. So while my attitude, which you admit is more informed, is ridiculous, your ignorant attitude is enlightened. How gracious!

The point I am making is that if you take MTSers as the gold standard of the community, you cannot make assertions based on a larger community unless your assumption is that MTSers are the only Legacy community. My goal was to bring in contrary evidence, which is just that, evidence. I do hope you can see the difference between bringing up evidence and supporting his position. In any case, this is a pedantic battle of egos so I don't feel like talking about it anymore. And federal judges have a requirement to be arrogant ; )

And for the record, I really disagree with Anusien. Most Legacy players seem to know a bit about theory. They just don't care because theory doesn't have a lot of impact on Legacy games at the usual level. I'm going to use theory to describe this here : ) but to say, play Goblins at 80% efficiency, you don't really have to know much other than play threats, port ya lands. You don't need to know that the power curve of the deck against Threshold dips on turns 3-6 and you'll still win anyway. To get to that 90% or 95% efficiency though, knowing theory (or practicing a lot) really pays off.

I don't use the word arrogant lightly. Its based on what I've observed of Anusien over a period of time. While you maybe more knowledgeable about WOTC forums, I am still aware of other forums like TMD or SCG. I think I have a good grasp of the Legacy forums in general. Throwing around statements like Legacy players tend not to understand theory is just false. Its so broad its bound to be incorrect. The worst part is that it comes from someone who understands so little about Legacy.

I'm glad to see that you disagree with Anusien just as I do. At least we can agree that Anusien is wrong.

[zulander]

Legacy players as a whole tend to not understand theory.


Theory: A particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

Everyone that plays more than 2 games of MTG will understand the technical theory. And as for game theory you wont find people that will tell you card advantage doesn't win games, because it's a basic theory of magic covered long ago and has been implemented ever since. Therefor I don't think the legacy community needs more articles written on theory. What I believe is a large problem is that people don't play enough magic to realize the differences in sub-optimal cards.

The most basic example of this is new/casual players in legacy. For example let's pretend John Doe is a type2 player and he's interested in playing with his cards in a format that doesn't involve power. He can chose to either play extended or 1.5, lets say he chose 1.5 because he enjoy's the larger card pool. The only problem however is that the closest weekly tournaments are held about 50 miles away from him and since it's only a $5 tournament the prize support isn't worth his traveling an hour away. Now his only viable legacy resources are forums and the local casual crowd that base their games on the 1.5 banned list. Then he hears about the huge Dual for Duals tournament coming up in a week at that store 50 miles away and decides that the prize support and social networking with fellow legacy players is worth the trip so he takes his untested mono red burn deck and 0-4 drops. Now everyone will call John Doe a scrub because he went 0-4; is he a scrub because he doesn't know about card advantage and tempo? No. He's a scrub because of the sub-optimal 'testing' and inefficient resources at his disposal.

In essence, we don't need articles about theory and the likes, we just need more support from players to help new players out. And imho unfortunately this is unlikely to happen because of 2 things.

1. Most good players play where 1.5 is big so there is no 'recruitment'

2. There isn't enough support from players to hold more events due to the lack of people that actually want to play this format.

Just my $0.02

[frogboy]

It's my long-standing opinion that pretty much everyone is bad at Magic save the people who have ten or so lifetime pro points. People are just terrible; you see it in every format. People rarely have a strategy and don't really understand tactics. (strategy defined as how you plan to win the game i.e. bash him with fliers and tactics defined as actually doing things that win you the game i.e. two for ones.) People play the wrong land, they block with the wrong creature, they attack with the wrong creature, they pick the worst spell with Duress, etc. Even the people I think are good at Magic (disclaimer: I'm not one of them.) make mistakes; they're just more subtle and usually not as significant.

It's not limited to Legacy players at all.

You can cheat your way to getting better by testing, because then you see patterns emerge and determine better decisions empirically. That works, but tends to suck when you have to think on the fly because the reasons those decisions are correct is not always obvious.


I may not even be that good when it comes to theory, and I know I couldn't be one of the writers who drones on for pages on tempo.

On the other hand, I seem to do pretty well at this game nonetheless.

If you've tested and have a good list and understand your matchups and don't make egregious errors you should probably be posting an x-2 record most of the time. Plus people throw games away all the time. Besides, some decisions are intuitive even if you can't really explain why.


Most of those theory terms are just useless vocabulary made up by sensationalist authors. They serve little purpose at actually building and playing decks succesfully. If people have spent their time in tournaments instead of learning the meme of the week, I would say they are better players for it.

I would tend to agree with you but understanding strategic superiority and why it's relevant is actually fairly important. It sure beats going to tournaments and getting smashed and not understanding why. Quicker, too.

Crucifying Anusien's writing should be done in another thread.

edit:


Everyone that plays more than 2 games of MTG will understand the technical theory. And as for game theory you wont find people that will tell you card advantage doesn't win games, because it's a basic theory of magic covered long ago and has been implemented ever since.

There are a lot of circumstances where card advantage doesn't win the game. As for understanding technical theory, I can just about promise you that you are making between two and five mistakes in pretty much every game of Magic you play, and you don't even realize it.

[Happy Gilmore]

Theory in Magic should follow a deck concept proven in tournament play. Any deck list that is "speculative" is useless in understanding or explaining theory. Players that intend to define theory needs to play the format pertaining to it. Anusien fails at all of the above, and any theorist that makes "suggestions" in this manner is just as guilty as he is. Every established theory in Magic such as the "Philosophy of Fire" originated from the application of a concept in constructed play. Anusien, start making the effort to play in tournaments. Then talk to us about theory.

[Artowis]

Theory in Magic should follow a deck concept proven in tournament play.

You do realize most of the theories in Magic are pretty much key in making good decks in the first place right? Stuff all the good cards into a deck hasn't been the optimal strategy in any format for the past couple of years.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Is the Philosophy of Fire really that important and difficult? One card = two damage. I only know the basic concept, but what else is there?
Stuff all the good cards into a deck hasn't been the optimal strategy in any format for the past couple of years.I think that in Kamigawa/Ravinca standard good stuff decks were the best, for example (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mf95). This was due to the small number of powerful cards and lack of synergy from Kamigawa and the mana fixing from Ravnica. You could just choose two or three colours and play the best of those colours.

[Ewokslayer]

You do realize most of the theories in Magic are pretty much key in making good decks in the first place right? Stuff all the good cards into a deck hasn't been the optimal strategy in any format for the past couple of years.

So, Threshold/Gro didn't exist before Flores' wrote about the theory of Velocity?

Magic Theories do a very good job of looking at winning decks and trying to simplify and explain the mechanics of how they win.

However, the theories tend to be too contrary or specific to be of great use in the initial deck building stages.

[hi-val]

Is the Philosophy of Fire really that important and difficult? One card = two damage. I only know the basic concept, but what else is there? I think that in Kamigawa/Ravinca standard good stuff decks were the best, for example (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mf95). This was due to the small number of powerful cards and lack of synergy from Kamigawa and the mana fixing from Ravnica. You could just choose two or three colours and play the best of those colours.

The POF goes a little deeper. It talks about things like when to burn out creatures vs. burning the head, etc.

[nitewolf9]

I'd still like to see an article that explains the basic strategies of a few of the top tier decks (preferably an aggro/control deck like threshold, a combo deck like TES or Belcher, and a control deck like landstill for starters) and their Achilles heels.
That way if someone actually wants to be original and make their own deck they can at least be rewarded somewhat for predicting a given meta-game by actually knowing how to beat the decks they expect to face. Maybe an overview of a couple of "tier 2" decks in the same article would be interesting (like an aggro-loam variant or survival) complete with the archetypes they do well against and why.
Also if someone is new to this format it also helps to put in the spotlight some staple cards along with an explanation of why they are the most efficient; remember not everyone knows about cards that have long since rotated out like humility, portent, etc. Write something to an audience that you expect doesn't read the source.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Most of those theory terms are just useless vocabulary made up by sensationalist authors. They serve little purpose at actually building and playing decks succesfully. If people have spent their time in tournaments instead of learning the meme of the week, I would say they are better players for it.

This is true.

However, in a roundabout way, Anusien is right and Frogboy substantially more so, although the ten pro points thing is only a rough guide. But I think Anwar is only pissed off because it's Anusien making the point. This is somewhat reasonable, as Anusien should really be the last person accusing others of not understanding theory, since he's pretty much the poster child for Floresites everywhere; essentially only repeating memes and jargon while not actually understanding the fundamentals of what makes the game tick. This is clearly demonstrated by the general formula for his articles, which can be briefly surmised as;

Part A:Quote, paraphrase or plagiarize some bit of Magic theory from a famous article, usually Mike Flores. Explain why this is good.

Part B: Post a deck that completely ignores whatever the crucial lesson of magic theory being discussed just was.

Part C: Talk about how it beats everything (although it's not a final list and you haven't tested it much).

But in a way, that only really serves to reinforce Anusien's point; the vast majority of people don't understand Magic theory, even or especially those that think they do. This is why Pre-Releases are such slaughters, and why Extirpate was 20$ coming out of the gate and Jitte and Tarmogoyf could still be bought for ten bucks a playset a week or two after their respective prereleases. Or why so many people thought that it was as unreasonable to call for Flash's banning as Aether Vial's.

Hell, even R&D and pro players often fail to understand the fundamentals of the game. Look at Skullclamp and Tarmogoyf, cards that were clearly busted irrespective of their environment. Or how Randy Buehler talks about how control decks don't win tournaments.

[Artowis]

So, Threshold/Gro didn't exist before Flores' wrote about the theory of Velocity?


Gro wouldn't of existed without the old work and original articles on tempo and what it could do for you. Alan Comer also made the original discovery of cantrips over land and the balancing ratios back in his Xerox blue decks.

Like haha, funny joke, you referenced a bad Flores piece in regards to theory. Typically when I refer to it, I'm talking about the older stuff, especially EDT's when it comes to tempo.



I think that in Kamigawa/Ravinca standard good stuff decks were the best, for example. This was due to the small number of powerful cards and lack of synergy from Kamigawa and the mana fixing from Ravnica. You could just choose two or three colours and play the best of those colours.

Kamigawa block Gifts was the best deck and in Rav, nobody knows for sure, because team constructed skews how you build decks for that format.

[Ewokslayer]

Like haha, funny joke, you referenced a bad Flores piece in regards to theory. Typically when I refer to it, I'm talking about the older stuff, especially EDT's when it comes to tempo.


What can I say, I am a funny guy.

[Zilla]

What can I say, I am a funny guy.
Funny looking. HA! Okay, back on topic.

[DeathwingZERO]

I'd still like to see an article that explains the basic strategies of a few of the top tier decks (preferably an aggro/control deck like threshold, a combo deck like TES or Belcher, and a control deck like landstill for starters) and their Achilles heels.
That way if someone actually wants to be original and make their own deck they can at least be rewarded somewhat for predicting a given meta-game by actually knowing how to beat the decks they expect to face. Maybe an overview of a couple of "tier 2" decks in the same article would be interesting (like an aggro-loam variant or survival) complete with the archetypes they do well against and why.
Also if someone is new to this format it also helps to put in the spotlight some staple cards along with an explanation of why they are the most efficient; remember not everyone knows about cards that have long since rotated out like humility, portent, etc. Write something to an audience that you expect doesn't read the source.

This is EXACTLY what I've been driving at the entire time. I didn't want people droning on for days about multiple theories, I wanted "Theories in Practice". Taking decks like Gro, CRET/TES, Landstill, etc....and explaining what they abuse, and what can get around the theories/practices they abuse the most. Simple understandings, nothing in depth.

Thanks for putting this out there, again. I'm hoping this clarifies what my personal idea of Theory in Legacy should be about.

[Happy Gilmore]

This is EXACTLY what I've been driving at the entire time. I didn't want people droning on for days about multiple theories, I wanted "Theories in Practice". Taking decks like Gro, CRET/TES, Landstill, etc....and explaining what they abuse, and what can get around the theories/practices they abuse the most. Simple understandings, nothing in depth.

Thanks for putting this out there, again. I'm hoping this clarifies what my personal idea of Theory in Legacy should be about.


I'm in complete agreement with Deathwing and Nightwolf. A series of articles like that would be a great read. But it will never come from Anusien because he is in complete diagreement with the fact that these decks are good. Anusien still questions fundumental aspects such as the Cantrip base in Thresh. The series would have to be written by an author or authors who have both played the deck in question and understand the concepts. Machinus has done a great job in this respect talking about goblins in the past.

[Anusien]

I'm in complete agreement with Deathwing and Nightwolf. A series of articles like that would be a great read. But it will never come from Anusien because he is in complete diagreement with the fact that these decks are good. Anusien still questions fundumental aspects such as the Cantrip base in Thresh. The series would have to be written by an author or authors who have both played the deck in question and understand the concepts. Machinus has done a great job in this respect talking about goblins in the past.
Please avoid putting words in my mouth. I never disputed that Threshold was good or that it was almost definitely the #1 deck in Legacy right now. I believe I made that claim on TMD a week before my article went up, but I could be thinking of IRC. I don't object to the cantrip base in Threshold. That is the way the deck is built and the deck is successful. I have in fact recommended the deck as-is to friends. What I object to is the notion that because cantrips are good in Threshold, they are automatically good in every deck. It is my belief that a slightly slower and more controlling aggro-control deck can beat Threshold effectively on card advantage.

Analogy: It's as Threshold is Intuition->Deep Analysis Tog decks, where I'm trying to build Intuition->Cycling package Tog (or even Intuition->AK? Depends on where the analogy goes). Take a little bit more time, spend a little bit more mana, but be able to to win the game in a different way.

[zulander]

Take a little bit more time, spend a little bit more mana, but be able to to win the game in a different way.
It is a different way, it's worse by all means but still different. Now you're going to ask why it's worse, I want you to read your quote and tell me why spending more time and resources is worse than spending less time and less resources. Can you figure that one out?

[Anusien]

It is a different way, it's worse by all means but still different. Now you're going to ask why it's worse, I want you to read your quote and tell me why spending more time and resources is worse than spending less time and less resources. Can you figure that one out?
Is 3 mana for 3 cards worse than 1 mana for 1 card? Compare, for example, Thirst for Knowledge to Portent.

[DarkAkuma]

I for one would love to see some good articles about Legacy theory. I've been playing MTG since 93, and in that time i've certainly learned ALOT from acctualy playing the game. But the last time I learned something from a book/article was probly the official stratigy guide that came out around 5th edition (was realy helpful for my skill level way back then).

I've always understood Card Advantage and Tempo, and i'm one of the best Agro players I know. But when I play Agro/Control, Control, or Combo, while I can do well and win tourneys, I feel theres alot I could learn. I've been haveing a hard time reaching the next level in my skill development for a LONG time. Feels like ive been stuck in a rut for years. So some good, well polished articles from some of the best players in the Legacy community might be a big help for me. Even if I already know/understand the theorys, seeing them in print might help me refine my understanding of them.

[Citrus-God]

It is my belief that a slightly slower and more controlling aggro-control deck can beat Threshold effectively on card advantage.

It depends on how much tempo they wish to invest in their card draw, because chances are, they will lose to Thresh if they invest too much time, mana, and effort trying to draw. This is why FoF and Intuition dont do well against Threshold. Threshold is strong because one of the ways the deck beats you is when you're under the state of exhaust, and this is because every cantrip translate a draw step into a revelent card used to slow you down.


Analogy: It's as Threshold is Intuition->Deep Analysis Tog decks, where I'm trying to build Intuition->Cycling package Tog (or even Intuition->AK? Depends on where the analogy goes). Take a little bit more time, spend a little bit more mana, but be able to to win the game in a different way.

Tog wins after you're under exhaust. Threshold wins now when you are in that state.

If I were to thank someone for teaching me how to play Threshold right who is a theorist, it will be Oscar Tan. I dont recall Who's the Beatdown ever helping me with my game much, but the philosophy does deserve tons of credit for most decks.

[AnwarA101]

Please avoid putting words in my mouth. I never disputed that Threshold was good or that it was almost definitely the #1 deck in Legacy right now. I believe I made that claim on TMD a week before my article went up, but I could be thinking of IRC. I don't object to the cantrip base in Threshold. That is the way the deck is built and the deck is successful. I have in fact recommended the deck as-is to friends. What I object to is the notion that because cantrips are good in Threshold, they are automatically good in every deck. It is my belief that a slightly slower and more controlling aggro-control deck can beat Threshold effectively on card advantage.

Analogy: It's as Threshold is Intuition->Deep Analysis Tog decks, where I'm trying to build Intuition->Cycling package Tog (or even Intuition->AK? Depends on where the analogy goes). Take a little bit more time, spend a little bit more mana, but be able to to win the game in a different way.




I hate the cantrip base that Threshold runs. I think Nihil explained it best when he called it a necessary evil. Obviously Brainstorm is ridiculous because it has the ability to take bad cards from your hand and replace them. I really have issues with the rest of the cantrip base Threshold traditionally runs. Those spells are decent at helping to filter away bad cards, but they are generally pretty poor.


You most certainly did call the cantrips a "necessary evil" and "pretty poor". No one is putting words in your mouth when they mention your criticism of non-Brainstorm cantrips in Threshold. You said as much in the quote above. Your criticism which is disproven by multiple top8 appearances over the past 2 years but you still cling to this irrational criticism. You can't even describe what is wrong with them other than to denigrate them as "pretty poor".



What about Threshold? I enumerated a list online of decks that I considered strong choices, and that list looked something like: Goblins, UWR Pyroclasm, Aluren, Confinement Slide, Reset High Tide, TES, Iggy, Faerie Stompy. Not all of those are equal choices, and they obviously do not take into account decks that are still in the development phase, but in certain metagames I would not be surprised if those decks took a Top 8 berth or won. But I did not mention Threshold. Until Future Sight comes out, Threshold still does not consistently beat Goblins, which I consider a chief criterion in choosing a deck. There are just too many decks with similar matchups that also beat Goblins for me to recommend Threshold. The U/G/R Threshold list that made Top 8 at the last The Mana Leak Open tournament with Pyroclasm to beat Goblins and Counterbalance to win the mirror has promise, but I do not know enough about yet. This is not to say that other decks cannot win, just that it makes sense to play the deck with the best matchups against the field, and I do not feel that Threshold does that.


Your criticism of Threshold as an archetype is well-known. You have some issue with it. You claimed it can't beat Goblins, but it some how found a way to continually Top8 at tournaments filled with Goblins.

Your misunderstanding of the format is profound and almost shocking considering how much you claim to know about the format. Your arrogance is unbearable because you simply don't understand and are unwilling to admit that.

[frogboy]

Until Future Sight comes out, Threshold still does not consistently beat Goblins, which I consider a chief criterion in choosing a deck. There are just too many decks with similar matchups that also beat Goblins for me to recommend Threshold. The U/G/R Threshold list that made Top 8 at the last The Mana Leak Open tournament with Pyroclasm to beat Goblins and Counterbalance to win the mirror has promise, but I do not know enough about yet. This is not to say that other decks cannot win, just that it makes sense to play the deck with the best matchups against the field, and I do not feel that Threshold does that.

Pre-Goyf, the Goblins matchup was a valid concern. That accusation is unfair.

"necessary evil" implies that the evil is necessary.

One for ones are generally not something to get excited about. It's neat that you get to run less land but that's about it.

Fact or Fiction is actually insane against Threshold assuming they're not going to just kill you next turn, and even then it's probably still good. The deck has a really hard problem beating two for ones. Even one for one attrition is problematic because if Threshold doesn't make a threat, the other guy has a window to further his gameplan.

People who think their game has plateaued should play more with better people, particularly drafting. Or just rail the top tables at PTQs and ask people about plays afterwards.

[DeathwingZERO]

Pre-Goyf, the Goblins matchup was a valid concern. That accusation is unfair.

"necessary evil" implies that the evil is necessary.

One for ones are generally not something to get excited about. It's neat that you get to run less land but that's about it.

Fact or Fiction is actually insane against Threshold assuming they're not going to just kill you next turn, and even then it's probably still good. The deck has a really hard problem beating two for ones. Even one for one attrition is problematic because if Threshold doesn't make a threat, the other guy has a window to further his gameplan.

People who think their game has plateaued should play more with better people, particularly drafting. Or just rail the top tables at PTQs and ask people about plays afterwards.

I couldn't agree more. People saying that their game is tight haven't played against better players. The golden rule I always follow in Magic (anything competitive really), is "There is always someone better than you".

I think the problem with people that don't want theory being discusses is because they honestly don't care to get better at the game itself. They just want to get better with whatever pet deck they have, and ride it to as many victories as possible. That's just not going to take you very far when the game itself becomes stagnant, much like we've seen repeatedly with Legacy since the B&R split.

[AnwarA101]

Pre-Goyf, the Goblins matchup was a valid concern. That accusation is unfair.


What do you mean by valid concern? What accusation is unfair? How do you account for the success of Threshold at GP Philly and GP Lille before the printing of Goyf?

[Nihil Credo]

Since I was the source of that quote in the article, I thought I'd clarify: what I told Anusien was more or less "Cantrips are what saves Threshold from getting bad draws, despite its awful mana base and light threat density".

Also, card advantage is definitely the most proven way to beat Threshold, as long as you slow down their beats either alongside (Landstill) or while (Train Wreck) accumulating the CA.

[cheddercaveman]

I think that what we're getting at should be the opposite. It shouldnt be "why is threshold the best deck in the format", but rather, why is [deck] not the best deck in the format? Or why does [deck] not see play, or why does it lose. I think too often in magic (all formats) we get into this "groupthink" mindframe. This is really how it seems to work at a certain point...

Player A needs a deck to play.
Player B, C and D all tell player A that threshold is the best deck.
Player A plays threshold at the next tournament
Now, Players B through ZZZZZ all see, wow Threshold took first place at that tournament, it must be a good deack, so now they all build it and test it. You see how this goes.

In the same breath player A says "Goblins are dead" after no goblins decks plaec in ONE event. People then start not playing goblins. Has it fallen from being a good deck? Probably not, its just some others have caught up. To often rather than thinking for ones self they just look at tournament reports and decklists and then just listen to what they hear rather than find out.

Lets look at goblins ... why are people saying its dead?

-didnt place at gencon
-tarmogoyf

Ok, what they DID NOT take into account is. That was only one tournament. Most people expected goblins to be massively played and had lots of sideboard hate for it. More people prefer to play something like threshold because it is a more middle of the ground deck that has a fairly good matchup against everything and is more customizable (hell every splash color is tried and played).

[frogboy]

What do you mean by valid concern? What accusation is unfair? How do you account for the success of Threshold at GP Philly and GP Lille before the printing of Goyf?

They probably didn't play Goblins fourteen rounds in a row. I mean, the general consensus was that Threshold was a little soft in the Goblins matchup until the printing of Tarmogoyf, so it's pretty unfair to quote a pre-Tarmogoyf article saying that the Goblins matchup is weak.

[AnwarA101]

They probably didn't play Goblins fourteen rounds in a row. I mean, the general consensus was that Threshold was a little soft in the Goblins matchup until the printing of Tarmogoyf, so it's pretty unfair to quote a pre-Tarmogoyf article saying that the Goblins matchup is weak.

Well they probably played it to some degree considering 20% of the field at Philly was Goblins. How did they beat their Goblin opponents if they were behind? Its probably because Threshold was never really that far behind if at all against Goblins. Ewokslayer and I wrote an article about a year ago about the metagame and our testing in Northern Virginia showed the matchup to be very close to even. No one was able to refute those numbers and the results of major tournaments seems to suggest that those numbers are probably very close to true.

You are welcome to throw around conjecture, but the facts disagree with your assessment of the situation.

[Artowis]

How did they beat their Goblin opponents if they were behind?

Probably the same way everyone plays bad matches, they try to play tight and hope the opponent punts the game away. Or try to get the game placed into a situation in which your favored due to the inherit characteristics of your deck. Obviously it won't happen all the time, but with the right draws even outright poor matches can be saved in a single match setting because you gain tactical (board and resource) superiority long enough to win.

Like just because your a slight underdog in a match doesn't mean you'll automatically get rolled that amount of the time of matches in tournaments.

I get that you said Thresh could beat Goblins, but Max's general point stands you could still be a bit weak to some match and not lose to it at a tournament.

[Machinus]

Probably the same way everyone plays bad matches, they try to play tight and hope the opponent punts the game away. Or try to get the game placed into a situation in which your favored due to the inherit characteristics of your deck. Obviously it won't happen all the time, but with the right draws even outright poor matches can be saved in a single match setting because you gain tactical (board and resource) superiority long enough to win.

...or they just sideboard Pyroclasms and enjoyed a huge post-board advantage.

[Anusien]

...or they just sideboard Pyroclasms and enjoyed a huge post-board advantage.
Which incidentally is what I suggested, back when this whole thing started.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12735.html

I think we're way off-topic, and as much fun as everyone has been having bashing me, we were talking about theory. It is my belief that a strong grasp of theory makes you a better player and deckbuilder. You see this a lot with someone like Zvi... or even Flores. For all his bad decks, Flores has built a lot of solid decks. Or a more recent example is Feldman and his past three decks (Tron, Teachings, GB).

[AnwarA101]

Probably the same way everyone plays bad matches, they try to play tight and hope the opponent punts the game away. Or try to get the game placed into a situation in which your favored due to the inherit characteristics of your deck. Obviously it won't happen all the time, but with the right draws even outright poor matches can be saved in a single match setting because you gain tactical (board and resource) superiority long enough to win.

Like just because your a slight underdog in a match doesn't mean you'll automatically get rolled that amount of the time of matches in tournaments.

I get that you said Thresh could beat Goblins, but Max's general point stands you could still be a bit weak to some match and not lose to it at a tournament.

Threshold was never at a severe disadvantage, but a slight one could be argued for. The main problem is that Anusien was not recommeding Threshold based on this slight disadvantage despite its impressive results. He was instead recommending the powerhouse that is GW beats.

[Anusien]

If you check the article, I suggested UGR Threshold for its improved Goblin game. I then go on to suggest UGwb which turned out to be a bust because you can play Loaming Shaman and not need to splash an entire color, however I remain enamored of Meddling Mage in the deck. I don't believe I've ever said, "Here take this GW deck and go to a tournament tomorrow." In fact, I believe the list of decks I've recommended:
Goblins
Threshold (It's almost as if I've called this deck the deck to beat in at least two separate articles)
Confinement Slide
UWR Pyroclasm
Scepter Chant
Flame Vault Stasis Stax
Flash
...
and probably some sort of Tendrils combo in there. I don't know if I've actually ever suggested a combo deck before because it's not the kind of deck I would take to a Legacy tournament, but I've definitely felt like it was a strong option.

A ha! Here we go.

What about Threshold? I enumerated a list online of decks that I considered strong choices, and that list looked something like: Goblins, UWR Pyroclasm, Aluren, Confinement Slide, Reset High Tide, TES, Iggy, Faerie Stompy. Not all of those are equal choices, and they obviously do not take into account decks that are still in the development phase, but in certain metagames I would not be surprised if those decks took a Top 8 berth or won. But I did not mention Threshold. Until Future Sight comes out, Threshold still does not consistently beat Goblins, which I consider a chief criterion in choosing a deck. There are just too many decks with similar matchups that also beat Goblins for me to recommend Threshold. The U/G/R Threshold list that made Top 8 at the last The Mana Leak Open tournament with Pyroclasm to beat Goblins and Counterbalance to win the mirror has promise, but I do not know enough about yet. This is not to say that other decks cannot win, just that it makes sense to play the deck with the best matchups against the field, and I do not feel that Threshold does that.
Emphasis mine. In other words, my position has been that anywhere from a 40/60 to even a 55/45 matchup against Goblins is not solid enough for me to recommend it. I never said it was a bad deck, but that I felt Goblins would be too omnipresent for Threshold to have the best EV for the average player.

[AnwarA101]

If you check the article, I suggested UGR Threshold for its improved Goblin game. I then go on to suggest UGwb which turned out to be a bust because you can play Loaming Shaman and not need to splash an entire color, however I remain enamored of Meddling Mage in the deck. I don't believe I've ever said, "Here take this GW deck and go to a tournament tomorrow." In fact, I believe the list of decks I've recommended:
Goblins
Threshold (It's almost as if I've called this deck the deck to beat in at least two separate articles)
Confinement Slide
UWR Pyroclasm
Scepter Chant
Flame Vault Stasis Stax
Flash
...
and probably some sort of Tendrils combo in there. I don't know if I've actually ever suggested a combo deck before because it's not the kind of deck I would take to a Legacy tournament, but I've definitely felt like it was a strong option.

A ha! Here we go.

Emphasis mine. In other words, my position has been that anywhere from a 40/60 to even a 55/45 matchup against Goblins is not solid enough for me to recommend it. I never said it was a bad deck, but that I felt Goblins would be too omnipresent for Threshold to have the best EV for the average player.

I am talking about this article -

Unlocking Legacy - Be Aggressive (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14000.html)

Where you state the following about GW beats

So what makes this deck amazing? People's fascination with artifact prison decks (which is partially my fault and I'm sorry) obscured the fact that Trinisphere is just a really good card. If you play a turn 2 Trinisphere on the play, your opponent basically cannot win. Even if the Goblins opponent has Aether Vial out, they are slowed down such that you can match them drop for drop, except that yours are three sizes bigger. The other principle that makes this deck really unique is that every creature is either ahead on the curve at that spot or very good for the cost. How do you lose to Threshold if you land Iwamori? That man eats every single Threshold creature but Mystic Enforcer, and even then you're in a fine position to race. Never mind the fantastic Cataclysm end-game.


You discuss why this deck is amazing, but I pointed out to you all the problems with this deck. Your response was the following -



Anwar: The specific decklists are irrelevant.


You can back track now if you would like, but you presented that decklist and then admitted later that the list didn't matter. I only wish that you were as honest about that decklist in the article as you were in your forum response to my criticism.

The fact that you can't recommend a deck (Threshold) whose past performance is unassailable defies reason.

[Ewokslayer]

In other words, my position has been that anywhere from a 40/60 to even a 55/45 matchup against Goblins is not solid enough for me to recommend it. I never said it was a bad deck, but that I felt Goblins would be too omnipresent for Threshold to have the best EV for the average player.


I have in fact recommended the deck as-is to friends.

So you can both recommend and not recommend a deck at the same time?

Cool.

[Anusien]

So you can both recommend and not recommend a deck at the same time?

Cool.
The metagame changed pretty significantly in between those two statements. Actually, I think I went "Recommend Threshold, Don't Recommend It, Recommend It Aagain".

Edit: Actually, I think in the early days when it was being developed I loved it. Then people starting building Goblins optimally and I disliked it and later started throwing my support behind UGR. Then the mirror became important/Grunt became significant and UGR was no longer that amazing of a metagame choice (good luck in the mirror) and then Tarmogoyf was printed.

Guess which one Tarmogoyf caused!

I feel like we're going increasingly off-topic here, but ignoring that risk, you're missing the point Anwar. Sure, I used the word "amazing" when I probably shouldn't have. I described the deck and the principles I used to build it, because I feel an implementation of those principles is worthwhile. It's a real question whether Faerie Stompy, with its small creatures and heavier drawbacks, is just plain better because their men fly. Almost no other creatures in Legacy fly. Anyway, you'll notice I never called the deck Tier 1, though I did say that some implementation of the strategy probably is Tier 1. I don't recommend the deck as an actual deck choice. I presented it both as a starting point (Iwamori was so ridiculous pre-Goyf) and as an interesting exercise. I was not interested in discussing the decklist in that thread, because I was not working on the specific decklist. I was presenting a concept of why just beating down works. Your analysis was, "These decks are flawed in the implementation of an idea." And my response was, "The specific implementation is not the issue, but I'm pointing you towards the concept. I believe this concept, with a better implementation, is fundamentally strong."

[AnwarA101]

I feel like we're going increasingly off-topic here, but ignoring that risk, you're missing the point Anwar. Sure, I used the word "amazing" when I probably shouldn't have. I described the deck and the principles I used to build it, because I feel an implementation of those principles is worthwhile. It's a real question whether Faerie Stompy, with its small creatures and heavier drawbacks, is just plain better because their men fly. Almost no other creatures in Legacy fly. Anyway, you'll notice I never called the deck Tier 1, though I did say that some implementation of the strategy probably is Tier 1. I don't recommend the deck as an actual deck choice. I presented it both as a starting point (Iwamori was so ridiculous pre-Goyf) and as an interesting exercise. I was not interested in discussing the decklist in that thread, because I was not working on the specific decklist. I was presenting a concept of why just beating down works. Your analysis was, "These decks are flawed in the implementation of an idea." And my response was, "The specific implementation is not the issue, but I'm pointing you towards the concept. I believe this concept, with a better implementation, is fundamentally strong."

Your flawed implementation did nothing but confuse any point you were trying to make. Wouldn't it have been better to show a successful deck that implemented the concept you wanted to discuss? And wouldn't it be better not to describe highly flawed decks as amazing?

[URABAHN]

I think to further Theory's role in Legacy, Anusien should stop writing articles and recommending his wacky homebrews. Legacy needs more quality people writing quality stuff about Legacy. Anusien isn't the former and can't seem to do the latter.

[Bardo]

Unless someone wants to PM me with a compelling reason to reopen this, I'm going to lock it for now--at least for a cool-off period. The discussion is far from productive. If you don't like Anusien's articles don't read them. If you think you can do better, write your own articles. - Bardo