[Article] Unlocking Legacy - Lessons Learned

[Di]

Linky (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15065.html)

Just thought I'd throw this out there:


Aether Vial is a really good card... in a different metagame. In a world of Landstill and blue-based control decks, Aether Vial is incredibly good. The problem is that counters are only important to stop a few cards in the Goblins/Threshold matchup. Goblins loses most of its games when Threshold gets out a quick set of creatures before Goblins can stabilize, and Aether Vial really does nothing to stop that. Aether Vial slows the deck down a turn, but Chrome Mox and Ancient Tomb speed the deck up a turn. Seems good.

Seems good? No. Seems awful. I am no proponent of Goblins by any means and do not consider myself knowledgeable of the deck, but I am also no idiot. Apparently somebody doesn't have enough work under their belt to fully grasp what Aether Vial does for Goblins. Please, please, please do some more groundwork before throwing this stuff out to the public. Actually, I take that back. Please continue shedding this type of information to the format-dwellers. I would like nothing more than to go into the first round of the next large tournament and see that my Goblins opponent decided to cut Aether Vial. Oh holy day!

EDIT: I also bid you good luck ever casting a blue spell with the Faerie Stompy list. I was running 4 Chrome Mox along with 9 land-based blue sources and was still having difficulty with blue mana. Go go testing.

[Volt]

Goblins without Aether Vial? That's, umm... below average.

[xsockmonkeyx]

You know what card is really good? Stingscourger... sort of. Stingscourger fills an important role in the deck, which is mostly just being better than Gempalm Incinerator. In a world of Tarmogoyfs Gempalm is incredibly underwhelming. Naturally you keep the Gempalm Incinerators in the sideboard or the maindeck and switch them when appropriate.

:confused:

Incinerator is an incredibly underwhelming card but you should play it in your sideboard/maindeck? I dont get it.

[Aggro_zombies]

Linky (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15065.html)
Actually, I take that back. Please continue shedding this type of information to the format-dwellers. I would like nothing more than to go into the first round of the next large tournament and see that my Goblins opponent decided to cut Aether Vial. Oh holy day!
Still, it was more productive than reading this article. Thanks for writing it, but please test decks before you post about them. Goblins could use black, yes...but Mox?

Removed insults.

[Anusien]

Considering how hard I pushed for the traditional Goblins list, I know it's kind of weird for me to come out showing this list I've been testing/working on. And yes, cutting Aether Vial does horrible things to your Landstill matchup or your Prison matchup (for example). I've been aiming pretty exclusively at Threshold with these changes to see what you can do. That dictated the Stingscourger/Incinerator swap, or the Mox/Vial swap.

I'm not saying Chrome Mox is right; I don't have the testing to determine one way or another. All I know is that it's worth considering. Goblins clearly isn't perfect; if it was it would continue to dominate. All my testing with stock lists suggests that Threshold is now favored in the Goblins matchup, which means that it basically doesn't have any good prey except Cephalid Breakfast. Therefore I'm willing to do some silly things to swing the matchup. All I know is that turn 3 Ringleader, turn 4 Auntie Wort is kinda silly against Threshold, and unlike a comparable Aether Vial draw, that draw is fast enough to beat turn 2 reasonably sized Goyf.


xsockmonkeyx: Incinerator is really good in some places, but I feel like Stingscourger is a better maindeck call. That's what that quotation is trying to explain. When I tried to suggest a specific metagame call (Pyroclasm vs Swords to Plowshares in the maindeck of UWR, and the other in the sideboard) people jumped all over me for not being explicit about it, so I'm trying to clear that up.


As for Faerie Stompy; getting blue mana was a problem, but since Efreet is gone (which is clearly wrong in hindsight, since flight is so good), it wasn't as much of an issue.

[Lukas Preuss]

I don't have the testing to determine one way or another.

Don't want to flame here, but one question: Why don't you? I would love to read articles by authors that actually test the decklists they publish. Is this too much to ask?

[Silverdragon]

@all Why can Hi-Val write about aweful decks and Anusien can't without getting bashed? Seriously folks, he explicitely states that the decks are bad but serve to show concepts that didn't quite work out up to now.
Even the title of the article indicates that you will see bad decklists in there.
@Anusien One thing I'm always thinking when I see your testlists is: You are trying too hard to fit all the cool improvements into one list. Just go step after step. For example in the Goblins list, not only did you cut Ports (a very integral part of the original deck), you also cut Aether Vial (the namesake of the original deck) and Gempalm Incinerator. Even though Incinerator is not that important in the original deck you have no data whether it is or is not better than Stingscourger in your build. It's like you are saying all the people who want Port in the deck are wrong and all the people who want Aether Vial in the deck are wrong and on top of that why not tell all the people who want Incinerator that they are wrong.
Another big problem I see is that no matter how valid your testing is you have built up a bad reputation in the past when other people tested your decks and found your results to be wrong. Maybe you should try to find someone to do a play by play walkthrough of a match with one of your decks like the Goblins vs Threshold series.

So now let the bashing continue :wink:

[etrigan]

Conventional wisdom tells when to decide whether we want 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 copies of a card. In one of his articles about Long.dec he presented the theory that if you wanted to see a card in your opening hand every game, you wanted 7-8 "copies" of a card.

I assume the 'he' you are referring is Smmenen.

Why are you attributing this bit of theory to Smmenen? In fact, why are you attributing it to anybody? This is pretty common knowledge. 60 cards divided by 8 copies equals one copy every 7.5 cards. I figured this out at roughly the time I bought my fourth preconstructed deck, and needed to figure out how many swamps I needed if I wanted to see one in my opening hand.

[JACO]

I thought this article sucked. I'm not sure why SCG doesn't openly accept submissions anymore, and continue to post dreck like this, and like half the stuff written by their 'premium' writers.


That's actually not the quote I wanted to use to open this article. The downside of starting each article with a quotation is that the one I wanted to use, one about inspiration by Jack London, headlined an article five months ago. The upside is that I get to sound like an intellectual (or at least a pompous jerk!) without trying hard.No, you don't get to sound intellectual when you don't use the quoted source in a relevant way. Then it just sounds like you're namedropping, and have no other way to start an article besides some formula you thought would be good to repeat article after article.


It turns out that the Affinity concept is not nearly as strong with only 8 artifact lands and only Ravager as a cheap artifact. I made the mistake of thinking Affinity was still good, when clearly things have changed.Affinity can still be good, if you actually knew how to build it (http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/articlefinder.php?keyword=affinity). It's been a pretty long standing rule that, at a bare minimum, you need 12-14 artifact lands for Affinity to function correctly, with most decks playing 15 or 16. I hear that AEther Vial is a pretty good cheap artifact too.


I basically said, "Wow, the four-drops in Goblins are hundreds of times better than the two- and three-drops. How do we change the deck to basically just play four-drops?"When did Goblin Warchief, Goblin Piledriver, and Goblin Matron start being bad, or hundreds of times worse than Boggart Mob? You'll have to fill me in on that, and why in the hell you think Stingscourger is realistically better than Gempalm Incinerator, or even Tarmogoyf itself.


Aether Vial is a really good card... in a different metagame. In a world of Landstill and blue-based control decks, Aether Vial is incredibly good. The problem is that counters are only important to stop a few cards in the Goblins/Threshold matchup. Goblins loses most of its games when Threshold gets out a quick set of creatures before Goblins can stabilize, and Aether Vial really does nothing to stop that. Aether Vial slows the deck down a turn, but Chrome Mox and Ancient Tomb speed the deck up a turn. Seems good.No, it seems like you don't know what you're talking about, which I think we can all understand when you cut AEther Vial and Rishadan Port from the deck. Since you think that "Wasteland and Rishadan Port only help you against Landstill and sometimes against combo decks," let me give you a little run down on how to actually play Goblins.
1) Option 1, connect with a Goblin Lackey on turn 2, and drop something that's going to win you the game. The options for dealing with Goblin Lackey on turn 2 are dwindling in people's decks as they basically ignore Goblins at present. There is a reason that Goblin Lackey has been banned in Extended for so long. It is busted.
2) Option 2, resolve AEther Vial and then proceed to Wasteland an opponent's early land, and Rishadan Port them for a couple of turns to keep them off a relevant color until AEther Vial just wins you the game. This is so easy to do against so many decks, that if you actually played with Goblins for any significant amount of time, you probably wouldn't make terrible suggestions like cutting these cards. Cheating mana costs and disrupting the opponent are part of the inherent strategy in modern Goblins decks that make them so strong. There is a reason that AEther Vial has been banned in Extended for so long. It is busted.

If you are having trouble against Threshold, you can either attempt to do do options 1 or 2, or actually learn to play a tempo game with Goblins and try to beat Threshold in the mid to long game. Tarmogoyf is usually a bigger threat than anything you have, but Gempalm Incinerator can equalize or win you most fights if you play correctly, and cards like Goblin Matron, Goblin Ringleader, and Wort, Boggart Auntie can go a long way towards creating tempo and card advantage that will ultimately win you the game. Play any of those cards, get more threats, block an opposing Tarmogoyf if you're playing the defense role, and continue to drop threats until your card advantage and creatures can win you the game.

[Anusien]

Don't want to flame here, but one question: Why don't you? I would love to read articles by authors that actually test the decklists they publish. Is this too much to ask?
The unfortunate side effect of writing on a deadline is that the article submission date does not always coincide with the end of a run of testing.

Silverdragon: That's an interesting point, and you're right, I don't really do incremental testing. The problem here is that I basically made one change (inclusion of more 4-drops), but had to make a lot of other changes to accommodate it. Incinerator/Stingscourger can stand alone, so that is probably an interesting change to try on its own first.

etrigan: The math doesn't actually work out that way (statistics etc). In this case I attribute the thought to him because he's the one that I read it from first.

JACO: I think you're missing the point. I understand what a core Goblins list or a core Affinity list look like. Neither deck are putting up the numbers they should, so I'm hybridizing. A pure Affinity deck wouldn't do that well anyway, even with Tarmogoyf, because Threshold is just too much better of a creature deck now.

Why am I taking this hate though? I never said that was a finished decklist. I found the 4 drops extremely powerful, but I have yet to make claims about whether this is better than the typical Goblins list!

If beating Threshold was as easy as you say, the matchup would be in Goblins's favor, and Threshold wouldn't have dominated GenCon. Let's look at where you have the card (Vial, Force) and they don't have Force (you on the play) or Daze (you on the draw). That will happen roughly 0.40*(0.5*0.6+0.5*0.6*0.6) = 0.192% of the time. Even if you do pull it off, it's not impossible for Threshold to come back, especially with an early Tarmogoyf. The most prevalent build is also UGR which is extraordinarily hateful to the traditional Goblins deck.
The first scenario almost never happens. Goblin Lackey is an incredibly credible threat, but it connects very rarely. Even if it does hit, you can't really maximize the power. You have maybe 2 SGC as main threats, and 4 Goblin Ringleader + 4 Goblin Warchief as cards there that Threshold really cares about coming off a Lackey trigger. Threshold can still win through that. I still run Goblin Lackey, and it's a good card (due to the increased number of high-end threats I'd claim I make it better), but it's not enough.

The traditional way of beating Threshold simply doesn't work any more. It used to be that Threshold would have to develop its mana and not use Tropical Islands right away, since they had to hit 7 cards in the graveyard before dropping a Werebear. Now they can just go turn 1 Fetch->Island, Ponder; turn 2 Fetch->Tropical Island, Tarmogoyf and suddenly Wastelands and Rishadan Ports are much less relevant.

Incinerator doesn't work. It's too easy for Threshold, especially UGR, to nullify your Incinerators with removal. If you could get up to 5-6 Goblins, you'd be winning even without Incinerator. That's why I like Stingscourger, because it lets you play a tempo game.

I found that Tarmogoyf fundamentally changes the Threshold v Goblins matchup because it lets Threshold steal either role early on depending on what it wants. Half of the article is a natural progression of that.

[Bovinious]

Not to be condescending or anything, but I dont see the point at all in articles such as this that publish lists of established decks that are CLEARLY worse than already established lists, even though the article doesnt claim superiority. You speak of Threshold like its 'Big Brother' or as dominating as Flash was but thats simply not the case, you dont need to warp goblins or faerie stompy for them to viable, and the warpings didnt even make the decks better at all. On a positive note, I got many lulz from the article.

[TeenieBopper]

Does he have adept status?

Take it the fuck away.

Cut Aether Vial? Jesus christ. That card does so much in every single match-up. It's kind of like Goblin Lackey 5-8, in that it's a completely stupid fucking mana cheat.

Cut Aether Vial... please.

edit: I will, however, give you credit for Chrome Mox. It's a card that I've wanted to run in Goblins for a long time.

edit2: Boggart Mob is fucking awful. It's like if SGC and Piledriver had a lovechild. Except it has Downs Syndrome.

edit3: You know why Goblins isn't putting up the numbers like it used to? Because people learned how to play against it. Ask the Syracuse people, I used to rag on Goblins all the time, because it's easy to beat. People started dealing with turn one lackey, and running cheaper mass removal. And they printed Tarmogoyf (fuck that card). Goblins turns a lot of people away because it's stereotyped as an "easy" deck to play. Sure, the turn three nut draw plays itself. But it's a lot harder to play when you're staring down 'goyfs, Silver Knights, Jittes and 12 1/1's on turn one.

edit4: you're right, the Thresh v Goblins match-up has changed. Mana denial doesn't work anymore (shit, I cut Port months ago). You know what does? Fucking Smother. That's really all you need to deal with Tarmogoyf. It's better than Stingscourger because the Thresh player won't simply play out 'goyf again next turn.

[aTn]

The unfortunate side effect of writing on a deadline is that the article submission date does not always coincide with the end of a run of testing.

I can understand that, but then again, why not let someone else fill the article slot while you continue testing in order to write a more solid article later on.

I don't get off on reading theory alone; I'd rather read a post-testing explanation of why a card choice was good rather than a claim not backed by anything except theory.

I'm sorry but I don't like taking the time to read an article/post only to realize that the person who wrote it didn't test much (even if its content turns out to be true).

[hi-val]

@all Why can Hi-Val write about aweful decks and Anusien can't without getting bashed? Seriously folks, he explicitely states that the decks are bad but serve to show concepts that didn't quite work out up to now.
Even the title of the article indicates that you will see bad decklists in there.


Whoa, whoa. I'm going to take your word "aweful" and interpret that to mean "full of awe", and I agree with that. My lists are actually handed down to my by the ancient Sumerian god Uhura Mazda, full of insights and wisdom and tempered in the mind of a six thousand year old diety. So yes, it's actually an understatement to be awed by my lists, and I'm glad that you feel that way too.

And I test the hell of out of decks that I publish, because I'd be ashamed to put bad lists out there. If something is a concept and not a reality, I explicitly state that.

As for the Faerie Stompy list, did anyone else see the line about how it was a failed experiment? I think more reading comprehension and less skimming for decklists is in order so you don't look like a fool publicly.

Finally, I'd like to have seen some in-depth discussion about things like Wort. Can you give specific examples about when it's good? I see nothing wrong with questioning Aether Vial's inclusion, as long as testing and results back up cutting it from the deck. Sacred cows make the best hamburgers.

[So Annoying My Account Is Banned]

Great article man, keep up with thinking of those rough outlines for decklists! :smile:

[Machinus]

I guess the question is, do you readers want to hear about "failed experiments" or something more relevant to tournament Legacy?

[Phantom]

I guess the question is, do you readers want to hear about "failed experiments" or something more relevant to tournament Legacy?

Yeah, this pretty much hits it on the head. I almost think that if you are going to write an article like this, it shouldn't even include any lists so no one gets confused or angry. Throw out like 5 radical ideas (put Thorn in FS, cut Vial from Goblins, etc) and talk about the general theory behind them, then come to the table with a list when you have done the requisite legwork. I have no problem with challenging our assumptions, but this article seems to challenge them, and tell us to reverse our notions based on theory, not fact (or testing which is as close to fact as we can get).

I mean, vial in Goblins is as close to holy Legacy scripture as there is. if I were going to challenge it I would bring the Fury, not just the Sound.

On a more technical note, is Thorn really good in FS? I used to run Trini out of the board and found it lacking in non Combo matchups such as Thresh. Making a Brainstorm cost 2, and a Daze cost 1 sounds decent, but not backbreaking.

[Tacosnape]

My IQ drops every time I read one of these things.

Unchecked Aether Vials win. The end.

[AnwarA101]

@all Why can Hi-Val write about aweful decks and Anusien can't without getting bashed? Seriously folks, he explicitely states that the decks are bad but serve to show concepts that didn't quite work out up to now.


Presenting a terrible decklist does very little to improve deckbuilding except to show what is obviously wrong. I don't know many times someone would have to do this to realize that it exposes the same problems over and over again.



I can understand that, but then again, why not let someone else fill the article slot while you continue testing in order to write a more solid article later on.


This sounds like a great idea, but wouldn't the writers have already done this if it was going to happen?

I thought that this column would be really good for Legacy when it was started. It represented guaranteed Legacy coverage every week on SCG. In all honesty, I still read these articles but I question my decision every time. I fail to learn anything and feel that I'm reading about casual Legacy, which I guess is okay if you don't care about competitive tournaments.

[etrigan]

The unfortunate side effect of writing on a deadline is that the article submission date does not always coincide with the end of a run of testing.

I'd rather see more polished articles posted less frequently than articles like this one.

I see nothing inherently wrong with removing Aether Vial from Goblins (Extended Goblins does OK without it), but it's nonetheless is a big change. And you devote a single paragraph to explain it, summing up the change with "Seems good." That doesn't explain anything, and you certainly do not cite any testing to backup this claim.

If you dont have enough time to test, that's fine. But you should put more time and thought into your card choices, and then, in a later week, explain your testing results. This just looks like half an article on Goblins, and then a failed experiment that doesn't really prove any points, or teach any lessons.

[aTn]

I guess the question is, do you readers want to hear about "failed experiments" or something more relevant to tournament Legacy?

I think this sums up most of it. Personally, I don't mind hearing about failed experiments if there is actually something valuable to be learned from it. I guess my ideal would be for 100% tournament relevant Legacy articles.

Hi-Val, I don't think a lot of people here debate the fact that it's nice Kevin questioned some canonical choices made in Goblins. I just find the suggestions and arguments justifying them a bit lacking; I wouldn't have had a problem if the content of the article (concerning Goblins) were a post in a forum. Testing would obviously have supplied more arguments in favor or in opposition with some of the changes suggested.


I fail to learn anything and feel that I'm reading about casual Legacy, which I guess is okay if you don't care about competitive tournaments.

Same here. I would like it better if the articles aimed at competitive players. Casual players can learn from competitively minded articles, but it doesn't seem to work the other way around.

[hi-val]

Something I'd like to return to as a writer is looking at tournament results, which are always hit articles. So expect some crunching from me in my next article (which should be in two weeks) regarding national and international events. With Worlds coming up, we'll have a lot more to talk about as well.

Theory articles are fine when there isn't a whole lot going on event-wise, but I think it's time to return to results analysis again.

[TeenieBopper]

I see nothing inherently wrong with removing Aether Vial from Goblins (Extended Goblins does OK without it)

Yeah, they banned it for a reason.

[Horror Business]

Something I'd like to return to as a writer is looking at tournament results, which are always hit articles. So expect some crunching from me in my next article (which should be in two weeks) regarding national and international events. With Worlds coming up, we'll have a lot more to talk about as well.

Theory articles are fine when there isn't a whole lot going on event-wise, but I think it's time to return to results analysis again.

The leading up to GP Columbus was the best time I had reading SCG Legacy articles. The "budget" series still contained relavent decks(TES), match up analysis, and the Goblins primer come to mind.

I actually was into Pyroclasm.dec for about 5 minutes, but when we only get one article a week, having it used on articles about throwaway decks like Tron and questionable Goblin lists I might as well get a slot on the staff to talk about the time I tried to make Fruity Pebbles work in the modern meta.

[AnwarA101]

I actually was into Pyroclasm.dec for about 5 minutes, but when we only get one article a week, having it used on articles about throwaway decks like Tron and questionable Goblin lists I might as well get a slot on the staff to talk about the time I tried to make Fruity Pebbles work in the modern meta.

Maybe we could rename the column to "Casual Legacy" then.

[Cabal-kun]

The leading up to GP Columbus was the best time I had reading SCG Legacy articles.

You mean the ones that said Hulk Flash was a fair and balanced deck and wouldn't ruin GP Flash?

[hi-val]

You mean the ones that said Hulk Flash was a fair and balanced deck and wouldn't ruin GP Flash?

http://images.mccoveychronicles.com/images/admin/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[AnwarA101]

http://images.mccoveychronicles.com/images/admin/BeatDeadHorse.gif

That's exactly how I feel when I see another thread about "Unlocking Legacy".

[Cabal-kun]

Extremely over used cliched term in animated image form.

Hey now, I'm just asking for some clarification.

[DeathwingZERO]

Sadly I gotta go with Anwar on this one. I can't really see any reason to read the Unlocking Legacy stuff as of late. It's cut in half of things like theory/practice that are so basic they span all boundaries of formats and are pretty much common knowledge (thus not really "unlocking" anything), or making modifications to already upper/top tier decks to either beat each other or mirror matches.

I think so far the TES and Breakfast lists were the only "new" things to have been read about in a while now, and now it's so commonplace seeing fast combo decks that even that archetype isn't worth talking about in articles. I guess the articles are kinda reflecting the N&D section, there's really no innovation going on right now that's looking to be hitting the upper tiers anytime soon, just recycling already well established ideas with (sometimes) sub-optimal or differing choices.

[Jak]

You know what would be cool to read about? Write about how the metagame has changed and do a cycle of decks that used to be good (i.e. Red Death, Truffle Shuffle, Belcher, Solidarity, different Landstill variants, etc.), and explain how they could possibly be able to compete in the metagame. I would read that.

[Illissius]

You know, I had a similar idea -- Goblins has many awesome semi-expensive cards with lots of colorless mana in the costs, why not try a Goblin Stompy deck? -- something like half a year ago. But if you're going to do that, why half-ass it? Adding a couple of Tombs and Moxen is something you could do to a traditional Goblins list while keeping the same structure and Vials (and could be worth trying). If you're going to cut Vials, I'd compensate by going all out with the Tombs, Moxen, probably Cities, maybe Songs and Guides, some (but not too many) Thorns, Chalices, Moons, and/or Jittes, and then Goblins for the other half of the deck. The biggest annoyance, I think, would be Goblin Warchief's mana cost.

[ThoseWhoFearTomorrow]

You know, I had a similar idea -- Goblins has many awesome semi-expensive cards with lots of colorless mana in the costs, why not try a Goblin Stompy deck? -- something like half a year ago. But if you're going to do that, why half-ass it? Adding a couple of Tombs and Moxen is something you could do to a traditional Goblins list while keeping the same structure and Vials (and could be worth trying). If you're going to cut Vials, I'd compensate by going all out with the Tombs, Moxen, probably Cities, maybe Songs and Guides, some (but not too many) Thorns, Chalices, Moons, and/or Jittes, and then Goblins for the other half of the deck. The biggest annoyance, I think, would be Goblin Warchief's mana cost.

I think this idea is flawed. One of the best reasons to play a Stompy deck is to abuse chalice and I wouldn't cut Vial, Lackey and Fanatic so I can set a chalice at 1.

Going all out with Goblin Stompy (using moons, chalices, jittes, moxes, etc.) wouldn't cause an annoyance with Warchief. Dragon Stompy can regularly afford Arc-Slogger and Rakdos Pit Dragon because of Mox, SSG, Seething Song, and Blood Moons. The biggest annoyance would be playing a 2/2 hasted goblin for 3R and flipping Tomb, Mox, SSG, SSG.

[Illissius]

Well yeah, but my point was that I'd rather cut Vial to get Chalice in exchange than cut it for no good reason at all.

[URABAHN]

More feedback should be sent to outpost1@starcitygames.com

I've already asked them to stop publishing articles written by Anusien. Time and time again, he doesn't test whatever he's writing about and tells us so. Unlocking Legacy has been pretty weak for quite some time.

[Happy Gilmore]

You know what would be cool to read about? Write about how the metagame has changed and do a cycle of decks that used to be good (i.e. Red Death, Truffle Shuffle, Belcher, Solidarity, different Landstill variants, etc.), and explain how they could possibly be able to compete in the metagame. I would read that.

I really really love this idea. To Hi-val, Nightmare, and Machinus: Plz consider this for the furture.

[Whit3 Ghost]

I really really love this idea. To Hi-val, Nightmare, and Machinus: Plz consider this for the furture.
I'll third this.

[APriestOfGix]

I thought this article sucked. I'm not sure why SCG doesn't openly accept submissions anymore, and continue to post dreck like this, and like half the stuff written by their 'premium' writers.

+1

I wrote a WAY better artical than this, and was told, no, we don't want free good writing, we like paying people to post the same stale stuff week after week.

Please guys, lets not write for the sake of SCG's telling you to write, write because you have something to say. If you have no insights into the format, or anything really cool, give us a tournament report where you spend half the post talking about your buddies trying to hit on girls with ketchup on their nose...

This isn't ment as a flame, but seriously, lets get some good writing going here!

[Nihil Credo]

I wrote a WAY better artical than this

Forgive me for being skeptical.

[Tacosnape]

Forgive me for being skeptical.

Seconded. I can't even get through reading that post, much less an article.

Although, and I've said this before, what makes Anusien's articles so harmful to read is that they're vaguely hypnotic. They make you think doing something to a deck is a good idea much in the same way that a king cobra convinces its prey that watching it sway for a few minutes is a good idea.

[Bardo]

Does the Internet hate me, or have other people not been able to access SCG for the past two days?

[Nihil Credo]

Has been down for the last ~10 hours at least.

[Versus]

At least 24 for me.

[Lego]

Yeah, 24 hours or so for me, too.

[Cavius The Great]

Does the Internet hate me, or have other people not been able to access SCG for the past two days?

It's been down for two days for me as well.

[hi-val]

Craig says it will be down for today, as well.

Since TMD is on the same server, that'll be down too.

There's so many articles to write, but a once-a-month format for myself means that sometimes neat ideas get shelved. I've really wanted to do a Year In Review for Legacy. Maybe that'll be my January one, who knows. We've still got Lorwyn to integrate into Legacy, we've got new possible DCI unbannings, plus lots of other neat stuff going on.

[Bovinious]

That's right December first is coming up, another opportunity for WotC to neglect Legacy and not clean up the banned list...or maybe theyll actually clean it up finally.

[C.P.]

That's right December first is coming up, another opportunity for WotC to neglect Legacy and not clean up the banned list...or maybe theyll actually clean it up finally.

It's very wise of them not to do anything this time, because Legacy in Worlds is coming up. I don't see much to clean up anyway, and even if there is one, it's not worth it when there is a huge constructed fun coming.

Personally, I felt wizards has been good to us Legacy players since GP.

[Bovinious]

I dont mean to hijack this into a B&R thread, but I guess they probably wont make changes because theres is a big event coming up and I bet they dont want to ruin it like they did GP: Flash, but at some point they have to clean it up and they cant keep justifying not cleaning it up by saying theres an event in the near future because (hopefully)very often there will be an event soon. I mean some OBVIOUS things need to come off like Land Tax, and possibly Earthcraft, Hermit Druid, and Metalworker. To quote the hilarity over in the source card thread, apparently "Tormod's Crypt and Force of Will arnt enough to stop a dominating spell like Hermit Druid"...

[C.P.]

I dont mean to hijack this into a B&R thread, but I guess they probably wont make changes because theres is a big event coming up and I bet they dont want to ruin it like they did GP: Flash, but at some point they have to clean it up and they cant keep justifying not cleaning it up by saying theres an event in the near future because (hopefully)very often there will be an event soon. I mean some OBVIOUS things need to come off like Land Tax, and possibly Earthcraft, Hermit Druid, and Metalworker. To quote the hilarity over in the source card thread, apparently "Tormod's Crypt and Force of Will arnt enough to stop a dominating spell like Hermit Druid"...

I agree with you somewhat, but I think the word obvious is not right. All the cards there had fair reason to be there, including Land Tax. Sure, a good shakeup is a good thing, but how good?

[hi-val]

B&R discussions are healthy because they show that people are interested in a format, but they're murderously bad as articles. There are people who will listen to reasoned arguments, and there are people with agendas to push. Guess who shout louder in online B&R debates : )

[Machinus]

B/R articles have done a lot of good in Vintage and Legacy. A lot players like them. A lot of players also like to complain about them because they don't understand how the decisions are made.

I'll be talking more about the B/R after worlds when the list is open for discussion again.

[Fons]

More feedback should be sent to outpost1@starcitygames.com

I've already asked them to stop publishing articles written by Anusien. Time and time again, he doesn't test whatever he's writing about and tells us so. Unlocking Legacy has been pretty weak for quite some time.

That's harsh but somewhat true I don't think he should stop getting his articles published but maybe put a little more effort into it. I personally would love to see a budget deck article (for all us poor people out there). I know that alot of people won't like this idea but seriously not everyone has the money to spend for the top decks.

[etrigan]

B&R discussions are bad because 99% of what is said is conjecture. Everyone just guesses about what will and wont be good, without any decklists and any games played.

In fact, this (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14528.html) is the only good B&R article I can think of, because Machinus specifically refutes the point Aaron Forsythe made in justifying keeping Land Tax banned.

[TeenieBopper]

Brain on fire..

Must... lock.. thread...

Ok. Look. I'm only going to say this once. If you have any questions or rebuttals, keep them to yourself.

Oath Sucks. Ok? It's awful. Green is an awful color. Building a control deck around it doesn't make it any better. *see "Druids, Oath of" and "Psychatog" and "Junk, PT" (ok, so junk really isn't a control deck.. well, kinda) Come to think of it, building a combo deck around that color doesn't work too well either. *see "Aluren."

Know why suicide oath was winning in extended back two seasons ago? Extended does not have the following cards: Swords to plowshares, Force of Will. Believe it or not, those cards are powerful enough to be a constant presence in any metagame with the card pool they are legal in. In fact, you may play against those very cards in the next tournament you play in. Or you may even play them yourself. I need a /sarcasm tag really badly.

If you want to play the game where I name a combo, then you name one that stops it, then I name another one.. make a different thread. However, this point counterpoint thing is fucking pointless. Benzo would be moderately playable with entomb. In fact, I would probably play it. I recieve unhealthy pleasure from reanimating fatties. However, if you check my whole existance-of-cards-that-would-slightly-affect-the-extended-metagame-if-they-were-legal arguement above, you will notice that sometimes a big ass fatty isn't that hard to deal with. Also, Tormod's crypt isn't avalable to play in extended. You know, those things you have because you didn't want to lose to Dragon (yet you did anyhow, didn't you?)

Please stop drawing conjecture from extended. It's different cardpools. Ok? We're still more like type 1 than extended. Another thing: The bannings of replenish, skullclamp, etc just because they were banned in extended. Not too bringht. They missed survival of the goddamn fittest. No worries though, it's not like anyone played those cards in old 1.5 anyhow.

This brings us full circle to Oath of Druids, and the fact that green sucks. I know an aggro deck can't handle a turn 2 fatty. Know what? That aggro deck is probably playing green. They weren't going to win anyhow.

Mind twist is a very swingy card. In the absence of good acceleration, it's not that great turn 1. However, turn 4, it empties your opponent's hand. That's pretty frickin' swingy. Of course, this depends on your matchup. I know you aren't playing mind twist in suicide. Why? Because I know you aren't playing suicide. You are a better magic player than that. So I know you didn't just compare mind twist to hymn to tourach. While hymn to tourach is actually more cost effective than a mind twist, Mind Twist happens to be infinately splashable for such a devistating effect.

Metalworker is fine. Metalworker in the current card pool is at just about the right power level for the format. After all, goblin lacky is still legal. Guess what, it's also an artifact and a creature.

I refuse to comment on the very specualtion that a "broken replenish" deck exists. I believe that to be an oxymoron. If by boken you mean "slow and disruptable" then.. nevermind.

In conclusion,

- Discussing B/R changes just make you look dumb. It makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. I might have a thousand or more mistakes in what I have written above. I most likely do not.

- I blame people who discuss B/R changes like they are smarter than R&D for the change and seperation of the lists. You may be smarter than R&D. That's ok, so is my toaster. Just don't do it. Ok? Don't.

- Green sucks.

Honestly, who didn't see this coming?

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Mike, you probably don't want to quote a rant that talks about Oath before Forbidden Orchard was printed.

[TeenieBopper]

If people actually read that rant and actually believe it's about Oath of Druids or Green in general, then they're pretty dumb.

[Machinus]

FakeSpam's post there gets a few things wrong regarding the B/R, but this line has always stuck with me:


You may be smarter than R&D. That's ok, so is my toaster.

[APriestOfGix]

http://images.mccoveychronicles.com/images/admin/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[DeathwingZERO]

Welcome to The Source. Sorry it's about 581 posts too late :p