PDA

View Full Version : [Article] Unlocking Legacy - The cruel Tutelage of Thich Nhat Hanh, Part 1



Zach Tartell
12-03-2007, 12:02 AM
Bardo's Back, Bitches! (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15100.html)


The key to success in any competitive endeavor is the Will to Win. This is a disposition of the mind to overcome obstacles, maximize incremental advantage and prevail victorious in the face of unfavorable odds. It is, in essence, a psychological mindset. A positive attitude to win comes more naturally to some people than others, but everyone has bad days and winning in the long run requires a certain mental training in this area.

Machinus
12-03-2007, 12:19 AM
Parenthetically, it is the insane cost of polychromatic Legacy manabases that will keep the format from enjoying widespread popularity.

Legacy decks are comparable in price to Extended and Standard decks. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of Legacy's popularity besides official support.


Unless Wizards does something dramatic and unexpected, there aren’t enough Revised dual lands in circulation to keep the format reasonably accessible if the demand for Legacy staples becomes too intense.

There are about 3,000,000 dual lands. Thats enough for 75,000 people to have a complete playset of dual lands.

There is no accessibility problem.

Sims
12-03-2007, 12:21 AM
First "Unlocking Legacy" that I've read in a while, and I'm glad that I took the time. I enjoyed the article, not so much because it was filled with tech or breaking out the next big thing, but because it was real. It showed the thought process of one of the formats most notible writers and players through deck selection and testing. The beginning part about the things you can learn and apply between video games, real life situations, and more strategic games like magic and chess is also golden.

Thanks for giving us, i.m.o, a solid article Dan.

Bardo
12-03-2007, 12:22 AM
There is no accessibility problem.
I stand by what I say. Though it pains me, I don't think the supply of A/B/U/R dual lands in the marketplace can support a PTQ circuit. We can talk about this in another thread if you'd like, but I don't want to get to side-tracked on my statement--it was parenthetical, as I mentioned.

Nydaeli
12-03-2007, 12:36 AM
I like that the article avoided the two standard pitfalls of the Unlocking Legacy series: a) spending too much time explaining elementary aspects of the format to Legacy beginners, and b) "innovation" from scratch that doesn't really go anywhere. Instead it shows you working seriously with several of the format's established decks in very specific detail. Great read. (Does this mean you're back in the Unlocking Legacy rotation again?)

TeenieBopper
12-03-2007, 12:47 AM
In case anyone's interested, the article that had to have been an inspiration (http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm)

Bardo
12-03-2007, 12:54 AM
On my word, I've never seen read before. The only Sirlin reference was to the Rock-Paper-Scissor World Championship that I linked to in there somewhere.

But thanks for the link--the guy's great. I'll read it tomorrow.

A section of Part II of this article will explore Yomi as it related to my experience playing Witch-Maw Thresh in a local tournament today.

Me: Playing the deck at the end of the article.

R1: 2-1 vs. R/g Goblins
R2: 2-0 vs. Angel Stompy
R3: 2-1 vs. U/G/w CounterTop Threshold
R4: 2-0 vs. Cephalid Breakfast

It was a small tournament, so I wouldn't take the results too seriously, but the deck I listed is very good.

TeenieBopper
12-03-2007, 01:04 AM
On my word, I've never seen read before. The only Sirlin reference was to the Rock-Paper-Scissor World Championship that I linked to in there somewhere.

But thanks for the link--the guy's great. I'll read it tomorrow.


Fair enough. It's a decent article, and one that I can honestly say completely changed the way that I approach competative magic. KK's Art of the Mulligan and an article by (I believe) Flores about still playing tight even after you've lost the game are the other two. Oh, the the mentioned Knutson article about the Boxer's Mentality.

APriestOfGix
12-03-2007, 01:33 AM
Thank you, first good artical i have read in a LONG while, please come back to writing...

JACO
12-03-2007, 01:58 AM
Hopefully this long post will serve as some constructed criticism for your future articles. I thought this was an interesting article, but would have been better served as two seperate articles. One that occupied the thoughts of the first half of the article, and then a second on your mish mash of decks, current testing style, and your experiences testing and playing the decks.


A. BHWC CounterTop Fish
I spend my first couple of testing hours with Jason Jaco’s, et al.’s CounterTop Fish...I don’t think this is Jaco’s list card-for-card, but it’s the version I like best and the one I built.You could have just asked me via email. I feel that in general, in most of the articles I read on SCG, the authors don't take time to speak to the players or deckbuilders of something they're referencing. I'm guessing this would have helped in your experiences building and playing the deck, as well as writing about it.


My wins against aggro seemed to be "skin-of-the-teeth" affairs and Counterbalance/Divining Top, together, were often garbage against some of the control decks I played against.Both of these statements are true. When blue based control or aggro control is pitted against aggro decks, they are often going to be close games. Also, as I wrote about elsewhere (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177038&postcount=23), the deck does not rely on any one thing, but is rather a collection of great cards that have great synergy. Play the tempo game, disrupt your opponent, and land a bomb or something else small that will swing the game in your favor when you're able to.


GoyfATog (http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=23765)I would really like to see less Mental Notes in this deck, and more Life From the Loams and Wastelands and cycling lands. This can be more broken if you push it in the LoamATog direction.


Parenthetically, it is the insane cost of polychromatic Legacy manabases that will keep the format from enjoying widespread popularity. Unless Wizards does something dramatic and unexpected, there aren’t enough Revised dual lands in circulation to keep the format reasonably accessible if the demand for Legacy staples becomes too intense.I strongly disagree. Once you have invested in Legacy duals, you can trade them for others you need, or for other cards you need. They don't depreciate, unlike T2/Standard cards constantly do. Take a simple, yet widely played T2 deck like Cryptic Relic, by Pat Chapin (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14806.html), or UB Teachings, by Gerard Fabiano (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14987.html), which are full of non rare cards, and you're already approaching $350 or more (street/eBay value, not the more expensive SCG prices), largely on the back of crap like Cryptic Command and River of Tears, which are going to drop like a rock as soon as they rotate in a year and X months. Other simple and common examples of this are KorlashX (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14900.html), (which cost $425+; low estimate street value at the time), the Rock in T2 (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14987.html) ($400 low street value currently, 2 colors), UGW Blink (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15098.html) ($330+ or more), etc. The common theme here is that all of these are 2 or barely 3 color decks, and all of them will rapidly depreciate when the cards rotate out of Standard, or simply when the cards are rendered unplayable by metagame shifts. This doesn't happen to Legacy staples such as Tropical Island, Force of Will, Nimble Mongoose, Goblin Lackey, etc. On your second point about card availability, I would be willing to bet there are more of each dual land in print, than there are of other Extended staple rares such as Meddling Mage, Dark Confidant, Devastating Dreams, Enduring Ideal, Tarmogoyf, etc. Revised was one of the most widely printed base sets of all time. There has never been a true issue with card availability. If you have trouble looking for something I suggest you consult eBay recently completed auctions, as you will see plenty of pretty much everything constantly being auctioned, and this doesn't even take into account vast dealer stocks and the stuff already in the hands of players using the cards.

Nihil Credo
12-03-2007, 02:37 AM
I fully intended to write an acid-dripping comment about the pitiful wankage that Parts I & II were, but then noticed you snuck an 8-Bit Theatre link in. I am now willing to clean your shoes every Thursday afternoon. With my tongue.

Part III was simply quality stuff. Concise and clear. Ideally, every article should be introduced by a piece like that.

Now for the decklists... Jaco has already commented on his deck, we've talked about GAT and Black Thresh before, MUC I know very little about, and... oh sweet fucking Muse, is that 4c Landstill? What have you done to it, you fucking pervert??!!! Seriously, while I can see bending Landstill from pure control to control/aggro, following the traces of classic Tog decks, I find it tremendously hard to believe that an unprotected 2cc critter works smoothlessly along with 3 EE and 3 Pernicious Deeds.

I re-read multiple times the paragraphs you wrote about him, and the hypothesis I came to was that -4 Goyf, +4 Shriekmaw should be nearly a strict improvement... it's almost as good as a finisher (3-power evader vs. 5-power dumb), but it dodges your own board clearers and, in the critical early game, it's a removal spell instead of a blocker, meaning it will do its job regardless of any of your opponent's StPs or Smother or fliers or Jittes.

Tacosnape
12-03-2007, 03:03 AM
This is an excellent Legacy article. Mad props to you for being the first person to ever use my first name in an article. I almost screamed when I read that you cut a Deed for an Explosives, though. This is like turning down Sushi at Shogun/Styx to go buy the cheap stuff at Target.

This is, however, an even better Street Fighter II article. This makes me want to go polish back up on my mad Sagat / E. Honda (I always wanted the E to stand for "Eddie Van", so he'd be Eddie Van Honda) skills.

AngryTroll
12-03-2007, 03:08 AM
What a freaking awesome article.

First of all, I look forward to Bardo's articles. Not only does he represent the Northwest, they are usually excellent. This one did not disappoint.

First, the game theory part of the article was entertaining and right on the money. The Testing Gauntlet was solid basics. Especially going over how many different viable decks there are, and the sheer amount of time required to test against just a fraction of the metagame, is a great point to interest people in the format.

I really liked looking over all of the lists. Briefly going over how the lists looked and how they actually played was great, and talking us through how you made your decisions to edit a decklist was a valuable insight into how to tackle customizing a list. I think that even just this part of the article, combined with the next part about playing with Landstill, was some of the most interesting Legacy writing I've read in a while.

Overall, for a very long article, I found all of it to be excellent. Keep up the good work!

*But maybe have amnesia about how terribly I played against you if you do end up writing up today's tournament, or some combination of this tournament and whenever else you play that deck.

Jak
12-03-2007, 03:12 AM
Cough format discusion Cough

xsockmonkeyx
12-03-2007, 04:57 AM
<3 Bardo articles. Didnt hurt that this one was about my favorite vidya game too.

BTW, Ghastly Demise can kill a Ravager. Just sayin.

Bardo
12-03-2007, 09:25 AM
oh sweet fucking Muse, is that 4c Landstill? What have you done to it, you fucking pervert??!!! Seriously, while I can see bending Landstill from pure control to control/aggro, following the traces of classic Tog decks, I find it tremendously hard to believe that an unprotected 2cc critter works smoothlessly along with 3 EE and 3 Pernicious Deeds.

I'll respond to other comments when I have more time later, but I'll do this one.

Since I don't know any other way to phrase it, Tarmogoyf is no less than the Philosopher's Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher's_stone)in this deck. It looks odd and out of place with Deed/Shackles, etc. but you need to test them. Regardless of how inelegant they appear, Tarmogoyf simultaneously makes your combo, aggro, aggro-control and control match better. Just like that. Seriously, fucking insane.

Reviewing my notes to write a mini-report for Part II of this article, I won almost every game with a 4/5 or 5/6 goyf + 1 manland. It would have taken far longer to reduce opponents to 0 w/o him. Anyway, I've given this a lot of thought, so I'll develop my points later.

If anyone has specific points about the deck, feel free to post them or PM me, I'd like to include a little Q&A section in the aforementioned article. :)
Thanks.

matelml
12-03-2007, 11:01 AM
I re-read multiple times the paragraphs you wrote about him, and the hypothesis I came to was that -4 Goyf, +4 Shriekmaw should be nearly a strict improvement... it's almost as good as a finisher (3-power evader vs. 5-power dumb), but it dodges your own board clearers and, in the critical early game, it's a removal spell instead of a blocker, meaning it will do its job regardless of any of your opponent's StPs or Smother or fliers or Jittes.

I would like to hear the answer to this too.

Anusien
12-03-2007, 11:09 AM
Shriekmaw is much less impressive in decks that cannot recur him. I think if the Landstill had more slots it would add Shriekmaw, but Tarmogoyf is just a better creature. I think you're fine to throw one out early and use it as a blocker if you need because you have enough cards to win the game with anyway.

Bardo
12-03-2007, 11:27 AM
This is, however, an even better Street Fighter II article. This makes me want to go polish back up on my mad Sagat / E. Honda (I always wanted the E to stand for "Eddie Van", so he'd be Eddie Van Honda) skills.

No, it's Edmund Honda, or Edomondo, depending on how it's translated. It was a revelation to me too.


I re-read multiple times the paragraphs you wrote about him, and the hypothesis I came to was that -4 Goyf, +4 Shriekmaw should be nearly a strict improvement... it's almost as good as a finisher (3-power evader vs. 5-power dumb), but it dodges your own board clearers and, in the critical early game, it's a removal spell instead of a blocker, meaning it will do its job regardless of any of your opponent's StPs or Smother or fliers or Jittes.

A few things (these are to be taken in their totality, not to be specifically dissected apart the rest):

1) Mainphase commitment of cards and mana in Landstill needs to be worth it, since the deck runs many reactive spells.

a) Stanstill = Draw 3 cards for 2 mana
b) Deed / EE = i) remove annoying/dangerous threats; gain card advantage; 3) powers up 'Gofy.
c) Tarmogoyf = Big freaking, game-ending monster, that beats, blocks and survives Geddon, B2B, BM, etc., etc.

2) Tarmogoyf is essentially a "removal spell" that beats your opponent bloody. Playing against Angel Stompy for instance, my opponent lead with a Silver Knight, swung, I took 2, then I dropped a Tarmogoyf, the Silver Knight stopped swinging. Helps race combo, diversifies threats vs. control. Basically, big, dumb, cheap.

3) Sorcery-speed 1B Terror effects are even more awful than Terror, which is really awful in this format.

4) True, Shriekmaw escapes Deed blow-age, but it still costs 5-freaking mana. Tarmogoyf costs two and hits twice as hard.

I played this deck ten games in a local tournament, and have put in a few other dozens hours testing the deck (for the article and the tournament) and I can honestly tell you that I've never once blown up my own dudes. You'll have to test it to believe me.

5) Parenthetically, you can't race an active Jitte with a 3/2 fear guy, but that is really a minor point.


BTW, Ghastly Demise can kill a Ravager. Just sayin.

Duh, thanks. :)

Lego
12-03-2007, 12:45 PM
I really enjoyed this article. Unfortunately, I have nothing really constructive to say about it. It was just overall a good read, and very enjoyable. Keep it up! :smile:

Nihil Credo
12-03-2007, 01:03 PM
Ok, I'll try the Goyf out, since you're swearing on it so much. I hope I don't end up swearing at it (and yeah, this is the best pun I could come up with).

URABAHN
12-03-2007, 04:14 PM
I would've liked more analysis on the suggested decklists. More about matchups, more about sideboarding strategies. Doing well at a 4 Round local tournament really doesn't tell me anything. I'm tired of "try this wacky decklist" articles. I suppose this is a decent introductory article to the format, but I think we're way past those articles at this point. I don't see nearly as many introductory articles about Extended, Vintage, or Standard.


It was a small tournament, so I wouldn't take the results too seriously, but the deck I listed is very good.

I'm not sure how we're supposed to believe the deck is very good when you don't provide us with much to support that belief. I don't believe you've done much to convince people it's a good deck, much less with your changes, and that comes from someone (me) who really likes BHWC Landstill.

frogboy
12-03-2007, 04:51 PM
1. I would imagine that you need to justify not playing Tarmogoyf given the easy ability to get green mana in this format.

2. I was looking at the Landstill list, wondered when people were going to start playing Fact, then saw three. I like that Deed and Explosives combine to give Needle the finger. Nimble Mongoose still concerns me. Slivers less so; EE is tight.

3. Have the manlands actually ever been good? They always just seem to turn my opponent's removal back on and never really trade for threats unless my opponent wants to trade for the mana denial.

4. Add a land.

5. All of my control decks tend to revolve around playing a ton of land and then doing stupid things with them. In the past that was a lot of removal and draw and then winning in some other fashion. Now I'm getting more attached to more modern archtypes like the T2 Tron and mono blue decks that play six drop go. I wonder what would happen if you just played attrition until turn six and then looked over and cast some retarded bomb. I messed with Haunting Echoes, but it wasn't bitchin' enough. Something more creature like might be more in line, especially since the first point implies opposing STPs have targets in the form of Tarmogoyf.

6. You are going to win this game.

7. Figure out how to do it; what the board will look like, what will happen, what needs to happen.

8. Do it.

Bardo
12-03-2007, 05:23 PM
I would've liked more analysis on the suggested decklists. More about matchups, more about sideboarding strategies.

The article wasn't about MUC, GAT, etc. it was about how one person (me, in this case) who follows and loves the format thinks about it and goes about testing it. I've written exhaustive articles on other decks and this was not one of those articles.

The outline was:

i. Thoughts about competition and the ways winners win
ii. Testing Legacy
iii. (Me) Choosing a Deck to Play (assembling lists; testing them all and seeing what works for me and what doesn't)
iv. Settling on Landstill
v. Tuning Landstill after 12+ hours playing it


Doing well at a 4 Round local tournament really doesn't tell me anything.

Realistically, I live in Portland, Oregon and am not about to board a plane to play against 40 players in Massachussets. If my results don't mean much to you, then don't listen--convincing you isn't my goal.

I will note that I've played in a lot of local 1.5 tournaments, and there are usually one or two decks that are total donkeys. Like, just unforgivable limited chaff. Yesterday, everyone had a highly tuned lists with no "why the **** are you playing that?" cards. Besides, going 4-0 against good lists and strong players isn't all that much different at T8'ing at a larger event. I'm just drawing a comparison here. :)


I'm tired of "try this wacky decklist" articles.

I know what you mean by "wacky decklist article" and I can assure you this is not one of them. Half of the article is about testing and exploring Tarmogoyf in Tacoscapes's excellent Landstill list, not "here's a bunch of shit I found in the back of my closet".dec.


I suppose this is a decent introductory article to the format, but I think we're way past those articles at this point. I don't see nearly as many introductory articles about Extended, Vintage, or Standard.

What indicates my article was for Legacy beginners? I've written that kind of article before (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13200.html) and was careful not to walk on that ground agains.


I don't believe you've done much to convince people it's a good deck, much less with your changes, and that comes from someone (me) who really likes BHWC Landstill.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- at least, I don't intend to come off that way. I think my changes are an improvement over Taco's list and you are welcome to discount them.

And now JACO's comments.


You could have just asked me via email.

I asked you questions in the thread about your deck and you were kind enough to give very detailed and thought-out answers. Emails and PMs didn't seem necessary.


I feel that in general, in most of the articles I read on SCG, the authors don't take time to speak to the players or deckbuilders of something they're referencing. I'm guessing this would have helped in your experiences building and playing the deck, as well as writing about it.


Compared to the regular SCG writer, I go far out of my way to engage deck-builders and other Legacy for the exact reason you mentioned. Cases in point:

"Angel Stompy (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13511.html)" - ZillA (Pat Maeder)
"Faerie Stompy (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13710.html)" - Eldariel (Jarno Porka)
"Terrageddon (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13855.html)," 49 Cents (Hugo van Dijke)

Not to mention interviewing nine other Legacy players (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14180.html) on their thoughts about Legacy.

So, while I understand this particular criticism, I don't think it fairly applies to me.

Regarding the lists in my new article:

i. GAT - My deck
ii. Akiba MUC - Japanese players (didn't feel like getting a translator)
iii. Fish - I've been playing Fish for years, way back to making T8 with U/w Fish for GPT Philadelphia. Since then I've tested it dozens of times; I've played it with Top, without Top and dozens of configurations. With all due respect here, I didn't feel it necessary to get additional "how to play the deck" info from anyone else, given my experience with it.


I like that Deed and Explosives combine to give Needle the finger. Nimble Mongoose still concerns me. Slivers less so; EE is tight.

Angry_Troll (Don) must still be sore after this sitution yesterday.

His board:

Pithing Needle (on Factory)
Nimble Mongoose
Nimble Mongoose
Vedalken Shackles (3 Islands in play)

My board:

Tarmogoyf (3/4 - land, instant, sorcery [Ponder])
Mishra's Factory
Mishra's Factory

He'd dropped the Shackles on his turn, no doubt hoping to steal the Goyf when he untapped (maybe playing Island if I boost Goyf to 4/5.

In my turn, I drop and detonate EE for one, whipping his board, boosting Goyf to 5/6 and attacking for tons. Ugly. :)

FoolofaTook
12-03-2007, 05:56 PM
Permanents are getting to the point that they over-rule non-permanent methods. Goyf is part of that as is Counterbalance, however something else is happening in the Legacy meta that I can't put my finger on.

I was playing a match against a very good Ugr Thresh deck a couple of weeks ago and I suddenly realized that he was milling himself at an extraordinary rate. The concept of getting to the best cards quickly and deploying them was still valid, however he was in real danger of running out of good permanents to deploy, given the 15 or so he had in his deck.

I was playing a bastardized UB Vial deck with not quite enough creatures and running Counterbalance/Top myself and I knew the deck was rough and not ready yet however it had enough permanent or reusable solutions that it was causing enormous problems for a deck that should have just walked all over it.

He beat me 2-1 in the end but he really had to sweat out games one and three because once I got rid of his big beaters he just didn't have enough damage to finish me well. If I'd had a good Mongoose solution I'd have swept him.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that something in the meta is very sorcery and instant unfriendly at the moment and it's not just a couple of cards.

frogboy
12-03-2007, 06:03 PM
You still get the W if you have no library when the other guy is at zero.

BreathWeapon
12-03-2007, 08:43 PM
I wish instead of saying dual lands are prohibitive to the growth of the format that people would take the time to point out that there are viable decks in the format that are based on basic lands, 2 mana lands, golden lands, artifact lands or even no lands that are competitive. Just because you can't play Threshold or Landstill out of the gates doesn't mean you can't play Legacy.

FoolofaTook
12-03-2007, 09:10 PM
I wish instead of saying dual lands are prohibitive to the growth of the format that people would take the time to point out that there are viable decks in the format that are based on basic lands, 2 mana lands, golden lands, artifact lands or even no lands that are competitive. Just because you can't play Threshold or Landstill out of the gates doesn't mean you can't play Legacy.

And as other people have pointed out it's not prohibitive to go get 16 dual-lands so you can play across the blue spectrum.

Bardo
12-03-2007, 09:34 PM
I wish instead of saying dual lands are prohibitive to the growth of the format that people would take the time to point out that there are viable decks in the format that are based on basic lands, 2 mana lands, golden lands, artifact lands or even no lands that are competitive.

Did you read my article?


I’ll add that monochromatic decks will always have a place in the format and, properly tuned, can be very successful in the right hands.

BreathWeapon
12-03-2007, 11:23 PM
Did you read my article?

Yes, but saying it and showing it aren't the same. I think an article covering the subject in and of itself is appropriate, Unlocking Legacy: "Decks with out Duals" etc. It just seemed to lead the article off on another tangent instead of ending the article on a constructive note.

AnwarA101
12-04-2007, 03:10 PM
(As I’ve said before, I don’t do combo. Never have; never will.)

I found this line somewhat puzzling. Are you simply unwilling to play any combo under any circumstances? What if that deck is Flash? I didn't play Flash at GP Columbus, but I realize that for the mistake that it is. I am sure all the players who didn't do well realize that as well.

Even outside extreme cases such as Flash, I think it limits you as player to refuse to play an archetype despite its strength. While I don't find view myself as a natural combo player, I have done so on occasion when I believed that it was the best deck for me to play. These experiences have not only helped me be a better player but have given me insight in how to beat the very same combo decks and combo in general. These experiences even helped me develop Permanent Waves (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7599), a combo deck based around High Tide, Candelabra of Tawnos, and Mind over Matter. I think the experience of playing different archetypes is invaluable and combo should be no different.

Deep6er
12-04-2007, 04:24 PM
Anwar's right. Limiting yourself as a player is not a good idea. I hate Threshold, and have repeatedly said that I will never play the deck. Realizing how limiting it was, I immediately went out and played a slightly modified (but still based on the same principles) variant. After playing the deck, I realized exactly how I should go about beating the deck when I was playing against it, and exactly why I dislike the deck as much as I do (previous to this, it was a mostly intuitive dislike, but now I can put words to it). Even if you hate combo, you should still give it a go a couple of times. It broadens your experience base and gives you information to how the deck (and others like it) work. There's only advantages to be gained.

freakish777
12-04-2007, 04:38 PM
I'll third that.

Saying "I won't play deck/archetype X ever" is the same thing in my opinion as the "I can't lose" attitude. If Goblins is the best deck in the format by a mile, you know how to play it well, and you have all the cards, you're basically giving away prizes by not playing it (presumably the rest of the decks in the format are fair and the difference in skill between you and the other players is less than the aforementioned "mile").

FoolofaTook
12-04-2007, 06:30 PM
I'll third that.

Saying "I won't play deck/archetype X ever" is the same thing in my opinion as the "I can't lose" attitude. If Goblins is the best deck in the format by a mile, you know how to play it well, and you have all the cards, you're basically giving away prizes by not playing it (presumably the rest of the decks in the format are fair and the difference in skill between you and the other players is less than the aforementioned "mile").

What about saying "I'm an X player" and then only playing variants of whatever X is?

I could see that being a very powerful choice in terms of actually piloting a deck at a world-class level.

Deep6er
12-04-2007, 06:34 PM
It's the same limiting factor. You voluntarily set aside learning aspects of the game, and refuse to accept them. Focusing on one deck to the exclusion of all others SOUNDS like a good strategy, but varying focuses allows you to learn the fundamentals of various decks, so that your CORE strategy becomes even stronger as you can adapt what you've learned playing those decks, to the deck you've chosen to play.

Why limit yourself? There's no real reason to just say, "Hey, I'd like to make it so I fucking suck at one aspect of the game, that sounds AWESOME!"

FoolofaTook
12-04-2007, 07:33 PM
I just see people make play mistakes all the time that are no-brainers to somebody who really knows how a deck works and how it draws.

I understand the value of playing multiple archetypes at high levels of competition, however I'm wondering about a tournament career that might consist of 1,000 games and whether or not playing 800+ of those with a single archetype might not be the wise move.

Nihil Credo
12-04-2007, 07:45 PM
You don't have to become a master of every archetype, but it's a no-brainer that you should at least practice any deck a bit in order to understand how it works and what it hurts.

For example, I'm still a terrible TES player, but after fooling around with that monstrosity for a couple dozen games I am now much better at picking which of its spells I should counter or Duress/Thoughtseize away.

Bardo
12-04-2007, 08:01 PM
I found this line somewhat puzzling. Are you simply unwilling to play any combo under any circumstances? What if that deck is Flash?

I'm perfectly happy to play combo on MWS and for the intellectual challenge, and because it's necessary to understand how a deck works to know how best to beat it; but I will never play a combo deck in a tournament. Ever. Basically, I like player interaction, and the quality of interaction that combo decks afford is not satisfying enough to sustain my interest over many rounds.


For example, I'm still a terrible TES player, but after fooling around with that monstrosity for a couple dozen games I am now much better at picking which of its spells I should counter or Duress/Thoughtseize away.

Exactly. This is why I'll test combo decks (personally, I like playing Belcher); though I wouldn't consider playing one in a tournament.


If Goblins is the best deck in the format by a mile, you know how to play it well, and you have all the cards, you're basically giving away prizes by not playing it

"Best decks" are rarely so cut and dry. Affinity in T2 and Block are exceptions. Flash is another. Otherwise, "best decks" are always in flux.

Like Thresh is widely acknowledged to be the "best deck" in Legacy, though it's quite easy to make a deck that smashes it and is still good against a number of other popular decks as well.

AnwarA101
12-05-2007, 12:04 AM
I'm perfectly happy to play combo on MWS and for the intellectual challenge, and because it's necessary to understand how a deck works to know how best to beat it; but I will never play a combo deck in a tournament. Ever. Basically, I like player interaction, and the quality of interaction that combo decks afford is not satisfying enough to sustain my interest over many rounds.


Why would you never play one in a tournament? What if like in the case of Flash it was simply the best deck by far to play at a tournament like GP Columbus? Would you still opt for the inferior choice? People make inferior choices, but only because they believe that their choice is not inferior. You've already made the decision in every case without the evidence. A combo deck could be the worst choice or the best choice, but your decision would still be the same. How can that possibly make sense?

freakish777
12-05-2007, 10:26 AM
"Best decks" are rarely so cut and dry. Affinity in T2 and Block are exceptions. Flash is another. Otherwise, "best decks" are always in flux.

Agreed, but I think the list is slightly longer than you seem to make it:

Goblins at GP Philly (Yes, I think Goblins was the best deck by a mile at GP Philly, Threshold had it's break-out performance, but at the time Goblins was still favored in that match-up).
Trix in old old Extended with Necro
Decks containing Tinker as opposed to Food Chain or Oath of Druids at PT New Orleans.
Mean Deck Oath at SCG P9 II (or III, or whichever it was when MD placed 4 players in the Top 8, and Orlove took the Lotus)

Notice how Flash, Tinker, MD Oath, Trix, and Affinity all are either combo decks, or have combo elements...

I'm sure there's more examples, and I would wager that over the course of Magic history the majority of "Best by a mile" decks would be categorized as combo.

The question becomes "What is more important to you, winning or how you win?"

mikekelley
12-05-2007, 10:57 AM
"What is more important to you, winning or how you win?"

How I win. This is because I win all the time anyway.

Bardo
12-05-2007, 02:01 PM
Why would you never play one in a tournament? What if like in the case of Flash it was simply the best deck by far to play at a tournament like GP Columbus? Would you still opt for the inferior choice? People make inferior choices, but only because they believe that their choice is not inferior. You've already made the decision in every case without the evidence. A combo deck could be the worst choice or the best choice, but your decision would still be the same. How can that possibly make sense?

If we look at the "best decks" across Magic's history, they were often the best, since the particular format's card pool didn't possess the tools to foil the "best deck" and not lose to too much of the rest of a particular field.

Take Affinity for a moment (we'll get to Urza Block Tinker/Jar later). Affinity tore Block and T2 to pieces, because its power level, even without Skullclamp, was so far and away more potent than the answers to the deck. It was "too good," and there was little reason to play anything except it if you wanted to win.

But when you import Affinity into Legacy, card for card, the deck is fair--far from dominating, and if it ever became too popular, the latent tools in Legacy would smash is to pieces (Meltdown and Energy Flux, for instance, which weren't Block or T2 legal; Deed isn't kind to Affinity either, to put it mildly).

So the card pool and the potency of Legacy answers (think StP, FoW, Duress, Cabal Therapy, Extirpate, Leyline, etc., etc.) assure that any truly "broken" interactions have to be very, very broken to be truly dominating in any sort of "OMG! This deck is so much better than everything else" way.

There have also been (far and way) best decks that were R&D blunders; think the Tinker/Jar deck in Urza's Saga era. That was at a time when Development was like one or two guys and they had no pros to discover massive, massive blunders. These decks had amazing tutoring power (Tinker, etc.), busted engines (Bargain, Jar) and, well, Tolarian Academy.

Note that all of the tools that powered the Tinker decks (including other under-costed Draw 7s) are banned in Legacy.

In Legacy, Flash was an exception, since it was truly broken, fast and so resilient that it just out-classed the format and was a negative force. When the power-level of an interaction begins to adversely affect the metagame, that is exactly when the ban-hammer falls. (And so far, it's only happened once).

Regardless, it's certainly possible (and perhaps even inevitable) that a new Best Deck will emerge in Legacy. I think it's just a matter of time, honestly. But the Banned List plus the potency/efficiency of Legacy's "answer cards" make theoretical "best decks" not so "best" that there's no sane reason to play anything else (unlike Tinker, Affinity, etc.) if you want to win. There's no one deck that has something like a 20% advantage over the field; it's like 2%, at best.

Ultimately, I think Legacy is very powerful, but it's also very fair too.


The question becomes "What is more important to you, winning or how you win?"

Winning, of course. I'm not a Johnny.

freakish777
12-05-2007, 02:17 PM
Winning, of course. I'm not a Johnny.

Then it flat out shouldn't matter if you're killing your opponent on turn 1 with Tendrils/Belcher/Karmic Guide/etc, or if it takes 6 turns to find and attack with Goyf/Siege-Gang/Tog/etc.

Bardo
12-05-2007, 02:40 PM
I thought I made it pretty clear above that Legacy doesn't really lend itself to having a "Clearly Best Deck" environment and where you need to play a particular deck to completely maximize your odds of winning a particular tournament.

Pointedly, are there any decks in Legacy that are the Absolute Best, and which are so good there's no compelling reason to play anything else? I don't think so.

Apart from the abstract "play the best deck mantra," you also need to play a deck that plays to your skills; which is why I would always prefer to play control and aggro-control.

FakeSpam
12-05-2007, 02:50 PM
...Basically, I like player interaction...

That's what the other 40 minutes in the round are for.

AnwarA101
12-05-2007, 10:20 PM
In Legacy, Flash was an exception, since it was truly broken, fast and so resilient that it just out-classed the format and was a negative force. When the power-level of an interaction begins to adversely affect the metagame, that is exactly when the ban-hammer falls. (And so far, it's only happened once).


My question is pretty simple. Given that you accept that Flash was obviously broken and there was only one real choice for GP Columbus, would you have played it? I'm letting you have the benefit of hindsight something the players who played at Columbus did not have. I am more than willing to admit that my choice of deck at GP Columbus was strictly inferior to Flash because it wasn't Flash.

freakish777
12-05-2007, 11:24 PM
I thought I made it pretty clear above that Legacy doesn't really lend itself to having a "Clearly Best Deck" environment and where you need to play a particular deck to completely maximize your odds of winning a particular tournament.

How about best deck/archetype for a particular tournament scene?

For instance, the weekly tournaments in Rochester NY (that got between 15 and 30 people each week) 2 years ago was essentially ripe for playing combo. Non regulars brought jank that combo steam-rolled, most of the regulars brought Goblins, Angel Stompy, and Loam decks and RG Survival Advantage, which combo still basically steam-rolls.

Again "I will never play deck/archetype X" as an attitude is limiting, and at some point you will be just handing away prizes that you should be winning instead, if you'd properly analyzed the metagame. It's like being a horse with blinders on and not being able to see that "The Promised Land" is to your left because you can only go forward and you end up starving to death. I'm not trying to bash you here, I just can't get over the fact that anyone proclaiming to be a spike would limit themselves into what they will and won't play based on how the deck wins as opposed to whether or not the deck is "good enough" to win.

Nihil Credo
12-06-2007, 09:55 AM
It seems no one is mentioning archetype skill. You might discover at some point that one metagame is going to be full of Landstill, and thus Solidarity is the best deck choice for a given tournament. But if you haven't already mastered the deck (because, before that, there had been little value in testing Solidarity), and don't have the time to do that before the tournament, playing Solidarity with little skill can be a worse choice than playing a deck you know very well, even though it has somewhat worse matchups.

Flash is probably the one example where the EV difference between decks is high enough that it was practically impossible for any difference in experience to make up for that... i.e. you should have played Flash even if you had done nothing but practice Rifter for the last three years.

Bardo
12-06-2007, 01:09 PM
My question is pretty simple. Given that you accept that Flash was obviously broken and there was only one real choice for GP Columbus, would you have played it?

At the risk of losing the respect here: no, I would not have played Flash at GP Columbus.

I wasn't positive that I couldn't make the trip to Columbus until about two weeks before the tournament, so I tested in April and May as though I were attending. As you could guess, I figured on taking White-Splash Threshold, since I have more experience with that deck than anything else. Testing against teammates, other good players and randoms alike on MWS, my record against Flash was outrageous. It was in fact odd to lose to it. I'm not talking something like 6-4 here, I mean 8-2. My MU was that good after I retrofit Thresh for a Flash environment (out went Enforcer and CSpells which also freed up a land slot); in went Spells Snares and Stifles.

So, just from logic and experience I didn't see why I should play Flash, when the deck I knew inside and outside thrashed it mericlessly. If I had attended the GP (family and conflicting vacation plans got in the way), I'm certain that I would have placed higher playing Thresh than Flash.


Again "I will never play deck/archetype X" as an attitude is limiting, and at some point you will be just handing away prizes that you should be winning instead, if you'd properly analyzed the metagame.

Metagaming should always be a consideration, even in a wide open format like Legacy. It's also incumbent on players to familiarize themselves with all archetypes and strategies, if for no other reason than to understand how best to beat the decks you don't really want to play.

However, I don't mind admitting that I'm a specialist and I understand that it may work against me in certain cases. So, while I see this as a weakness on one hand, I also think that archetype mastery will ultimately reap more rewards--rather that devoting my energy to being more of a generalist, and thus losing some games where I'll need a very slim margin to win, and one that only knowing a deck inside and out can offer.

In general, no Legacy deck has something like 20% on the field. If ever there was one, I might change my tune. Flash doesn't really count, since I would have bet $50 with 1-2 odds that it would get the Hammer on the 6/1 B&R update.

Tacosnape
12-06-2007, 03:23 PM
Off topic, what the hell is the title of this thread / your article from?

freakish777
12-06-2007, 03:49 PM
Metagaming should always be a consideration, even in a wide open format like Legacy. It's also incumbent on players to familiarize themselves with all archetypes and strategies, if for no other reason than to understand how best to beat the decks you don't really want to play.

However, I don't mind admitting that I'm a specialist and I understand that it may work against me in certain cases. So, while I see this as a weakness on one hand, I also think that archetype mastery will ultimately reap more rewards--rather that devoting my energy to being more of a generalist, and thus losing some games where I'll need a very slim margin to win, and one that only knowing a deck inside and out can offer.

I think/feel it's possible for dedicated players to have both a broad/general understanding of how to play each archetype (not necessarily each deck, I'm awful with TES for example, but much better with IGGy) at the very least while maintaining an intimate/masterful knowledge of a particular deck/archetype.

I would imagine you think/feel differently to an extent. Oh well, I'm probably done "harassing" (lack of a better word?) you on this topic.

hi-val
12-06-2007, 04:29 PM
Off topic, what the hell is the title of this thread / your article from?

When I first read the title, I cracked the hell up. It's only funny if you know both sides of the reference, though.

I'll let Bardo explain it.

Bardo
12-06-2007, 06:14 PM
I think/feel it's possible for dedicated players to have both a broad/general understanding of how to play each archetype (not necessarily each deck, I'm awful with TES for example, but much better with IGGy) at the very least while maintaining an intimate/masterful knowledge of a particular deck/archetype.

Oh, yeah, I absolutely agree. I haven't said otherwise.


Off topic, what the hell is the title of this thread / your article from?

Okay, this is a strange one. In earlier drafts, every section (I., II., etc.) had a sub-title, but only the first two were all that amusing.

I. "You Must Defeat Sheng Long To Stand A Chance."

This is what Ryu says in Street Fighter 2 whenever he wins a match. Since the first part of the article related to competitive psychology from playing a lot of SF2 in the arcade every lunchtime, I thought that was an amusing reference, and it's not too obscure in context of that section. Certainly much less obscure than...

II. The Cruel Tutelage of Thich Nhat Hanh

This is an amalgamation of the title of Chapter 8 of Tarantino's Kill Bill, Volume 2 with the the Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Nhat_Hanh), who is one the kindest, most compassionate human beings to walk the face of the earth in the last two hundred years.

In Kill Bill, the chapter begins right after the heroine of the film, Beatrix Kiddo, is bound and buried alive in a grave on the outskirts of Barstow, CA. Beatrix has to rely on her intense training with Pai Mei to punch her way through the coffin and make it to the surface.

Anyway, the juxtaposition made me laugh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pai_Mei

It was MattH who suggested I use it as the title for the article, for the "wtf" factor and to save me the grief of coming up a title with Part 2 of the article. :)

AnwarA101
12-06-2007, 07:31 PM
At the risk of losing the respect here: no, I would not have played Flash at GP Columbus.

I wasn't positive that I couldn't make the trip to Columbus until about two weeks before the tournament, so I tested in April and May as though I were attending. As you could guess, I figured on taking White-Splash Threshold, since I have more experience with that deck than anything else. Testing against teammates, other good players and randoms alike on MWS, my record against Flash was outrageous. It was in fact odd to lose to it. I'm not talking something like 6-4 here, I mean 8-2. My MU was that good after I retrofit Thresh for a Flash environment (out went Enforcer and CSpells which also freed up a land slot); in went Spells Snares and Stifles.

So, just from logic and experience I didn't see why I should play Flash, when the deck I knew inside and outside thrashed it mericlessly. If I had attended the GP (family and conflicting vacation plans got in the way), I'm certain that I would have placed higher playing Thresh than Flash.


Many people thought they could beat Flash and that their deck had an amazing matchup against Flash, but in reality most of those players were playing at the bottom tables. I know this because that is where I was playing after round 4. You could look around at the bottom tables and see various Fish, Threshold, Suicide, Deadguy, and other decks metagamed to beat Flash but you would hardly find much Flash.

I am positive that you are grossly overestimating your Threshold deck's matchup with Flash. Even if you had a slight advantage against it, which I sincerely doubt, it wouldn't be offset by the fact that you probably lost to virtually everything else. Goblins probably destroyed you and any type of control deck like Landstill was also ahead because you had to play so many narrow cards to maintain a decent matchup against Flash.

This isn't to mention that Flash was simply the best win condition of any deck available at GP Columbus by a mile. A two card combo which requires you only to cast 1 card and that card only costs 2 mana. That makes cards like Meddling Mage pale in comparison to Flash. To not see that now baffles me. I can admit that I failed to see Flash in quite those terms before Columbus, but I don't see how anyone who understands Legacy could not view it like that now.

Bardo
12-06-2007, 08:03 PM
I'm not going to argue that Flash was the best deck at GP: Columbus. That shouldn't require any discussion. By all accounts, Flash was everywhere--if so, shouldn't it have taken more than 3 of the T8 slots?

The T8, you'll recall:

Flash (w/ CounterTop)
Goblins (R/g)
MBA (Monoblack Aggro-Control)
HanniFish
Flash
Threshold (U/G/r)
Flash
B/w Aggro-Control

The T8 went:

Quarterfinals:

Fish beats Flash
Goblins beats Threshold
MBA beats B/w
Flash beats Flash

Semifinals:
Goblins beats Fish
Flash beats B/w

Finals:
Flash beats Goblins

I don't disagree that many overstated their win % over Flash, but we can only go by our testing experience, intution and skill and I know what I would have done better playing a deck that consistently beats Flash (in my testing) than playing Flash mirrors all day.

AnwarA101
12-06-2007, 08:14 PM
I don't disagree that many overstated their win % over Flash, but we can only go by our testing experience, intution and skill and I know what I would have done better playing a deck that consistently beats Flash (in my testing) than playing Flash mirrors all day.

While I am sure you are sincere in your belief that you would have done better playing Threshold than the Flash, it most likely isn't true. Let's say Flash has about 50% matchup with itself and for the sake of argument its slightly behind your Threshold list. Flash beats virtually everything else. Threshold is slightly favored against Flash, even with the mirror or pseudo mirror (Fish, etc.), but behind a great deal of decks such as Goblins, Landstill, and other more random decks. Threshold is simply not the deck to play even if its slightly ahead of the best deck. Those odds are much worse for Threshold than for Flash.

But my main question is, would you play a combo deck if it gave you the best chance of winning? Lets just say you found the next deck that was a 2 card combo for 2 mana. No one knew about it and you were taking it to the next big Legacy tournament. Lets even suppose that this deck crushes Threshold and Landstill and any other deck with Force of Will and Meddling Mage. Would you play this mythical deck?

Phantom
12-06-2007, 08:25 PM
Wasn't Flash a very small percentage of the field? I could be wrong but I thought I remembered hearing 10-15%.

FoolofaTook
12-06-2007, 08:31 PM
Wasn't Flash a very small percentage of the field? I could be wrong but I thought I remembered hearing 10-15%.

As I recall Flash was said to be about 15% of the field. The matchups that they posted of the late 1st day rounds and the 2nd day rounds seemed to match Flash against Flash or Flash against Fish almost wherever the matchups could theoretically occur.

That was just amazingly random and it probably suppressed the overall results of the Flash decks on both days some.

Bardo
12-06-2007, 10:06 PM
While I am sure you are sincere in your belief that you would have done better playing Threshold than the Flash, it most likely isn't true. Let's say Flash has about 50% matchup with itself and for the sake of argument its slightly behind your Threshold list. Flash beats virtually everything else. Threshold is slightly favored against Flash, even with the mirror or pseudo mirror (Fish, etc.), but behind a great deal of decks such as Goblins, Landstill, and other more random decks. Threshold is simply not the deck to play even if its slightly ahead of the best deck. Those odds are much worse for Threshold than for Flash.

While I agree in principle, I also resent the notion that everyone who didn't play Flash wasn't Playing to Win. Basically, everyone who made T8/T4/T2 not playing Flash would still have placed in the T8 had they been playing Flash too? That seems unlikely.

In the end, you play the deck that you feel affords you the best chances of attaining the goal you set out to accomplish (be it winning the whole thing, making T8, T16--if you're playing odds and playing for ratings instead). I feel I would have done better playing the deck I understand (for 12 or so cumulative hours) better than any other.


But my main question is, would you play a combo deck if it gave you the best chance of winning? Lets just say you found the next deck that was a 2 card combo for 2 mana. No one knew about it and you were taking it to the next big Legacy tournament. Lets even suppose that this deck crushes Threshold and Landstill and any other deck with Force of Will and Meddling Mage. Would you play this mythical deck?

This is a hard question to answer in Real Life, for the reasons I've explained above. But given the qualities of the "mythical deck" you've laid out here, I would likely play that deck. 'Seems bitchin'. :)


Wasn't Flash a very small percentage of the field? I could be wrong but I thought I remembered hearing 10-15%.

I thought it was closer to 20%, but I don't think anyone on the coverage staff for the GP did a metagame breakdown, so we'll never know.

AnwarA101
12-06-2007, 10:27 PM
While I agree in principle, I also resent the notion that everyone who didn't play Flash wasn't Playing to Win. Basically, everyone who made T8/T4/T2 not playing Flash would still have placed in the T8 had they been playing Flash too? That seems unlikely.

In the end, you play the deck that you feel affords you the best chances of attaining the goal you set out to accomplish (be it winning the whole thing, making T8, T16--if you're playing odds and playing for ratings instead). I feel I would have done better playing the deck I understand (for 12 or so cumulative hours) better than any other.


I never said anyone who didn't play Flash wasn't playing to win. I said they didn't make the optimal deck choice for Grand Prix Columbus. I did not play Flash, but I was playing to win. The problem was that my deck didn't afford me the best opportunity to do that. The same was true for virtually anyone else who passed up on Flash. While you could make T8 and even T2 (Owen Turtenwald did with Goblins) without playing Flash its hard to argue that he shouldn't have been playing Flash.



This is a hard question to answer in Real Life, for the reasons I've explained above. But given the qualities of the "mythical deck" you've laid out here, I would likely play that deck. 'Seems bitchin'. :)


So you would play combo under this condition? What other conditions might you play combo? I'm just curious because your other statements were absolute.

Amon Amarth
12-06-2007, 10:31 PM
I was so happy I got to read another Bardo article. It was great. Also the SF stuff was awesome.

Also, I don't give a flying fuck what you play. This is a GAME. You know, to have FUN.

That is all.

Di
12-06-2007, 11:07 PM
Also, I don't give a flying fuck what you play. This is a GAME. You know, to have FUN.

Out of curiosity, how many people actually have fun when they lose? I'm not saying I don't, because I can accept a great loss and have a good time with it, but I'm fairly certain a majority of these people play to win, and it is because you win that you are having fun, not the other way around.

Bovinious
12-06-2007, 11:44 PM
Out of curiosity, how many people actually have fun when they lose? I'm not saying I don't, because I can accept a great loss and have a good time with it, but I'm fairly certain a majority of these people play to win, and it is because you win that you are having fun, not the other way around.

Kind of like you said, if the game was well-played out from both ends and it just doesnt happen to end in my favor it can still be fun, but losing to bad luck or a mistake isnt fun at all, usually. Basically winning is almost always more fun but losing can be fun sometimes too.

Bardo
12-06-2007, 11:55 PM
Out of curiosity, how many people actually have fun when they lose?

While I have lost and said/thought "good fucking game, man!" and meant it, those games would always be better if I won.


So you would play combo under this condition? What other conditions might you play combo? I'm just curious because your other statements were absolute.

In order:

Well, you made some up some pretty absurd conditions for me to play combo, which I really couldn't ignore.

I'll answer the rest with the following:

Basically, I just don't have much confidence in Legacy combo, and my reasons for playing it for (at least) three reasons:

I have played against combo decks exactly ten times in the last eleven tournaments I have played in and have lost to said combo decks exactly zero (0) times. So, my experience would not suggest that I not play an archetype of Legacy deck that I have consistently beat.

Reviewing the results of historical T8 thread indicates that combo decks do pretty shitty, compared to hybrid decks with an aggressive strategy.

I don't enjoy playing combo decks, in general.

In beating combo every tournament, not having objective results that suggest that I should play a particular brand of deck and not especially trusting my ability or enjoy myself when I play combo, I generally don't.

So, when would I play combo? When the conditions for doing so were such that I had no good reason for not playing it.

AnwarA101
12-07-2007, 12:04 AM
While I have lost and said/thought "good fucking game, man!" and meant it, those games would always be better if I won.



In order:

Well, you made some up some pretty absurd conditions for me to play combo, which I really couldn't ignore.

I'll answer the rest with the following:

Basically, I just don't have much confidence in Legacy combo, and my reasons for playing it for (at least) three reasons:

I have played against combo decks exactly ten times in the last eleven tournaments I have played in and have lost to said combo decks exactly zero (0) times. So, my experience would not suggest that I not play an archetype of Legacy deck that I have consistently beat.

Reviewing the results of historical T8 thread indicates that combo decks do pretty shitty, compared to hybrid decks with an aggressive strategy.

I don't enjoy playing combo decks, in general.

So, in beating combo every tournament, not having objective results that suggest that I should play a particular brand of deck and not especially trusting my ability or enjoy myself when I play combo, I generally don't.

Flash was pretty absurd in my opinion, but I was just trying to see how far you would take your argument of never playing combo. Something better than Flash would have to come along for you to play combo.

If you want to make a different argument about combo just being weak against aggro-control and specifically Threshold that is a fine argument to make. That is a very good argument why not to play combo in Legacy, but your statement in the article and your other responses did not use this reason.

You merely suggested that you wouldn't play combo because it was combo. That in my view is not a competitive player's outlook on the situation. Competitive players don't start out with ideas like "I won't play combo", "I will play aggro-control". What if the archetype you want to play is bad? This will lead to people losing and wondering why. The real reason would be that they didn't pick a deck that allowed them to win, instead they opted for some strange notion of picking an archetype instead of a deck. That is the type of attitude your article suggests. Picking an archetype seemed to be more important than picking a deck. This doesn't make any sense as people win with real decks, archetypes are just classifications for the decks that we play.

URABAHN
12-07-2007, 07:46 AM
You merely suggested that you wouldn't play combo because it was combo. That in my view is not a competitive player's outlook on the situation. Competitive players don't start out with ideas like "I won't play combo", "I will play aggro-control". What if the archetype you want to play is bad? This will lead to people losing and wondering why. The real reason would be that they didn't pick a deck that allowed them to win, instead they opted for some strange notion of picking an archetype instead of a deck. That is the type of attitude your article suggests. Picking an archetype seemed to be more important than picking a deck. This doesn't make any sense as people win with real decks, archetypes are just classifications for the decks that we play.

I think you're mistaking Bardo for a competitive player and, no, I'm not throwing Bardo under the bus. Remember, Bardo doesn't get a lot of time to play in tournaments. He stopped writing the Unlocking Legacy articles because he got busy with school, work, or something else. When he does play Magic with other people, it's on MWS, or at his local tournaments. I'm not sure he's ever traveled out of state to play Legacy.

Bardo, drawing conclusions about the strength of combo based on your local Legacy event and looking at Top 8 lists from afar suggests you're not looking at combo decks objectively. Especially with the latter, I'm not sure how you can take combo so lightly.

xsockmonkeyx
12-07-2007, 08:49 AM
Bardo doesnt play combo because he lacks the combo gene.

Anyway, criticism of someones personal preference for deck choice is pretty lame. That's like criticizing what a guy has for breakfast. If he has been successful playing what he feels comfortable playing then who cares?

freakish777
12-07-2007, 09:23 AM
Anyway, criticism of someones personal preference for deck choice is pretty lame. That's like criticizing what a guy has for breakfast. If he has been successful playing what he feels comfortable playing then who cares?

To make an ass of myself, what if the guy is eating steak and eggs every morning for breakfast, and is 400 pounds, and you don't want him to die of a heart attack?

The only reason I'm wondering why Bardo made the "I will not do X" statement, is that he says it in an article all about having the right mindset and the will to win. As far as I'm concerned that statement runs contradictory to having the right mindset to win consistently (unless you substitute in the word cheat for X, in which case you'll get caught sooner or later, and cut off your potential to win greater than anything else would have). It's like saying "I will not call the judge over when my opponent presents a 61 card deck that was 60 cards last time because I'm a nice guy." Sometimes you just have to suck it up, be a jerk, and take the win. Obviously this gets really gritty really fast, but so does the "I will not play combo" statement (sometimes you just have to suck it up, and play the best deck for a particular tournament/field even when you know it doesn't suit your playstyle).

FoolofaTook
12-07-2007, 09:38 AM
I just don't see what the problem is with sticking to a basic archetype in a meta that has no dominant deck.

The closest thing that I have seen to a dominant deck, with the exception of the brief Flash idiocy, is Goblins, and Goblins just rolls over and dies to most combo decks without much of a fight.

In that context I think the average player would probably be better off learning the ins and outs of whatever archetype they are most comfortable playing and then sticking with it.

Obviously if a clearly dominant deck, like the Balance decks of the mid-90's or Flash-Hulk, were to emerge then that argument goes out the window. But I don't see that deck now.

The reason I think Threshold is likely to be the most played Legacy deck over the next year or so is that it combines aggro and control in about their purest current forms and most players are comfortable playing it because of it's consistency and low mulligan ratio.

freakish777
12-07-2007, 10:55 AM
stuff

My arguments tend to try and lead people along. Here's the logic:

There has existed a "Best Deck" at some point in the past.
You have said "I will not play X."

Therefore, it is possible that at one point (in the past) you didn't do as well as you should have out of stubbornness/refusal to play the "Best Deck."


Next, there exists an upcoming tournament with a metagame in which deck Y is the "Solution" to the metagame and "just wins."

It is possible that X = Y.

Therefore it is possible that at some point in the future you will again not do as well as you should have out of stubbornness/refusal to play the "Solution."

I'm actually not particularly concerned with the "Best Decks" until they actually show up in a format. I'm far more concerned with predicting what the "Solution" to a particular field at a tournament is, to maximize my prizes. Again, if your local metagame never changes, and people play card for card lists week in and week out, and you haven't lost a game of Magic in 5 years by playing your metagames solution, Hallejuh! Guess what doesn't happen in real life. As such, you will need to be flexible when your metagame shifts. My preference? To play aggro decks with Hymn to Tourach, Dark Ritual, and Hypnotic Specter. When my local metagame is 3 Goblin decks, 1 Angel Stompy deck, 2 Affinity decks, 1 White Weenie deck, 10 people playing really bad aggro decks, and 1 person playing Force of Will... you can bet my personal preference goes out the window in favor of something involving Tendrils of Agony or Brain Freeze so I maximize my chances of winning. None of this helps you become a better player (you won't all of a sudden punt less games), it will only help you increase your prizes. This is the epitome of what it means to be a Spike.

FoolofaTook
12-07-2007, 11:35 AM
I've seen very few "best" decks that were anything more than 10% more likely to win than any other good deck in the format in question.

There are some exceptions, like the relatively lengthy period of time in which Balance decks dominated the old single format and never lost to anything but another Balance deck, but realistically Magic is just not predictable enough to support constantly changing horses to try to get ahead in the race.

The thing that does make sense is finding a strong and stable archetype and then playing and constantly tuning decks that fit in the rather broad confines of that archetype. This allows you to learn from your mistakes and profit from not making those mistakes in the future and it creates an ever-widening gap in the knowledge stream present in each game, as your knowledge of the deck vs its matchups becomes broader and deeper than your average opponent's applicable knowledge.

I've only played Magic for six months at this point after a decade long layoff and it still surprises me to see people with years of current experience struggling with play decisions on fairly regular basis. There's no reason that anybody should sit down to a competitive match and wind up spending 5 minutes agonizing over whether to remove Counterbalance or an Aether Vial with the Krosan Grip in their hand. Unless they just haven't played enough with Threshold to know which one is going to kill them for sure (Aether Vial) and which one is just an unholy nuisance.

freakish777
12-07-2007, 12:25 PM
I've seen very few "best" decks that were anything more than 10% more likely to win than any other good deck in the format in question.

I'm not talking about "Best Decks" anymore. The entire reason that was brought up was to talk about being able to leverage your ability to metagame into more wins.



The thing that does make sense is finding a strong and stable archetype and then playing and constantly tuning decks that fit in the rather broad confines of that archetype. This allows you to learn from your mistakes and profit from not making those mistakes in the future and it creates an ever-widening gap in the knowledge stream present in each game, as your knowledge of the deck vs its matchups becomes broader and deeper than your average opponent's applicable knowledge.

There's no reason you can't do this while still leveraging your metagame knowledge into more wins.


Time for more examples, this time with interaction, answer each of the questions below, with your reasoning as to why. Let's say you go to 10 tournaments this year. And you have a clear read on the metagame at each one.

You know that 6 of those tournaments (say they are 30+ players) are going to be really diverse, with every archetype represented, and several different decks in each archetype. Everything is present.

What do you play?

You know that 1 of those tournaments (say another 30+ players) is going to be half or more combo players (a new Storm Combo deck 1st placed the last tournament and everyone's really excited about it) and the other half will be playing Aggro-Control decks like Threshold or Fish. Aggro is not present at all.

What do you play?

You know that 2 tournaments (say these are small local events at a shop you don't normally go to, 10~20 players) will consist of 2 Goblins decks, 1 Goyf Sligh deck, 2 Affinity Decks, 1 mono white Angel Stompy/Cataclysm deck, 1 RGB Survival of the Fittest deck, 1 43 Lands.dec and the rest of the people playing will have subpar aggro decks. No one is playing Force of Will.

What do you play?

You know that the last tournament (30+ players), will feature predominately Landstill (25%), Goblins (25%), Threshold (25%), and then subpar aggro decks (25%). Combo is not present at all.

What do you play?




I fully believe that there are correct answers here, under the assumption that you're attempting to maximize your winnings/prizes.

FoolofaTook
12-07-2007, 12:50 PM
Time for more examples, this time with interaction, answer each of the questions below, with your reasoning as to why. Let's say you go to 10 tournaments this year. And you have a clear read on the metagame at each one.

You know that 6 of those tournaments (say they are 30+ players) are going to be really diverse, with every archetype represented, and several different decks in each archetype. Everything is present.

What do you play?

The deck that I know best and that I have tuned to handle the widest range of possibilities in a given sitting. This is the toughest question in the list because by definition the deck I play is probably going to be barely (or under) 50% aganst the average deck before SB comes into play, since it is the variant that is designed to be resilient against the widest range of foes.


You know that 1 of those tournaments (say another 30+ players) is going to be half or more combo players (a new Storm Combo deck 1st placed the last tournament and everyone's really excited about it) and the other half will be playing Aggro-Control decks like Threshold or Fish. Aggro is not present at all.

What do you play?

Much easier question: I play the variant that is designed to blow out combo, win 35-40% of the time against good aggro-control and then tunable to dominate aggro-control game 2.


You know that 2 tournaments (say these are small local events at a shop you don't normally go to, 10~20 players) will consist of 2 Goblins decks, 1 Goyf Sligh deck, 2 Affinity Decks, 1 mono white Angel Stompy/Cataclysm deck, 1 RGB Survival of the Fittest deck, 1 43 Lands.dec and the rest of the people playing will have subpar aggro decks. No one is playing Force of Will.

What do you play?

My assumption is that you are looking at combo as the answer here. I would instead play the deck I know best, tuned to deal with aggro and aggro-control with a surprise in the sideboard, given that the maindeck already handles the less divergent meta well. The point would be to win 60%+ of the first games and then morph the deck to try to get a knockout in the second game.


You know that the last tournament (30+ players), will feature predominately Landstill (25%), Goblins (25%), Threshold (25%), and then subpar aggro decks (25%). Combo is not present at all.

What do you play?

I'd play the variant of the deck designed to handle aggro-control and control with a sideboard seeded with anti-Goblin and anti-aggro answers. It's a lot tougher winning two straight against Landstill after losing game 1 than it is to shutdown Goblins and subpar aggro.





I fully believe that there are correct answers here, under the assumption that you're attempting to maximize your winnings/prizes.

I agree that there are correct answers here, but I think they're widely applicable and not necessarily limited to changing archetypes and playing decks you are less familiar with. One mistake at the wrong time due to lesser familiarity with a deck is just as damaging as having a deck that is 5% less effective against the meta, particularly in a 5 round tournament.

Bardo
12-07-2007, 01:33 PM
'Just got into work and there's a lot for me to respond to (going back to post #66).

For now, I'll just say I'm amused that the discussion thread for this article has more than 70 posts and about 2000 views here, and like 5% of that on SCG. :)

MTS: Your Source for Legacy, indeed!

freakish777
12-07-2007, 01:52 PM
#1: Whatever you are least likely to make mistakes with. In truly diverse metagames (which usually appear at larger tournaments), your playskill will make more difference than your deck choice assuming each deck you would choose is "reasonable."

#2: A Landstill (or other control deck that has the ability to kill creatures and counter spells) deck here (assuming the combo deck isn't High Tide - Reset) is probably in order, although potentially a Bgw aggro control "good stuff" deck could be concocted (Thoughtseizes, Hymns, Confidants, Goyfs, Dorans, Swords, Jittes, etc). With a deck like Landstill however, your Combo match should be favorable (where as the aforementioned deck has a less favorable one), while still being able to manhandle decks that rely on a relatively small number of creatures.

#3: Combo combo combo. Again, there's no reason you can't have intimate knowledge of a particular deck while still leveraging your metagame knowledge into more wins. Your comment on "One mistake at the wrong time due to lesser familiarity with a deck is just as damaging as having a deck that is 5% less effective against the meta" while true, isn't applicable here. In a meta with 0 (or close to 0) Force of Will, and your only real problem is discard coming from RGb Survival, there is no reason to not take the combo deck which will far and away have more than a 5% gain over whatever other archetype you were going to play. You really have no excuse for not at least knowing how to play a particular deck in the archetype. Your 5% is way off. The times I played combo decks in my weekly tournament last year when it was like this, my records were: 5-0 (Belcher, right before Flash showed up, played against FoW once, and won), 4-1 (IGGy, lost to Tide Reset, FoW + Remand), 4-1 (IGGy, lost to Threshold, FoW + Daze + CSPell). 86% against the field? If you think Threshold could have come out at anything above 75% in that field, I think you're smoking crack. One of the Goblins player (Jeff Folinius) T16'd GP Columbus and took 1st at the first TML. Most of the rest of the other Goblins players were teammates of his. The Angel Stompy player (friendly Phil Stolze) went 10-0 with the deck at Philly before losing a whole bunch in row (and T8'd several other Dual Land Tournaments). He still got an invite to PT Honolulu. The Survival player is Dave Price, who hasn't played any other deck competitively in God knows how long (3~4 years?). Each of these players I would wager to guess had these decks mastered (there were several other players who had high ratings in our weekly tournament, however they didn't play the same deck week in and week out). And yet I was the one winning the match despite play mistakes when I metagamed properly, unless I randomly get unlucky and paired against Force of Will (and even then with Belcher, I won the match).

Threshold in that metagame (before Goyf)? Welcome to Goblins eating your manabase and dropping SGC. Oh, hi there Mr. Ravager, meet Force of Will. Disciple, meet Swords to Plowshares. Oh crap, you have a zero mana 2/2, and a zero mana 4/4, and I don't have counters or StPs anymore. My 4/4 costs 2 mana, and sometimes he's a 1/1. I don't have another counter for your Cranial Plating? Opponent: "I name Force of Will with Cabal Therapy, then I wait until I have 3 mana to drop Survival of the Fittest, I win this game right?" You: ".... I guess so..." 55% if you're lucky. 65% at best if you're good and lucky.


Aggro in that metagame? 50/50. The rest of the field is aggro...

Control in that metagame? Lost cause.


#4: My guess is that a Loam based deck (like 43 lands) would wreck here. Landstill & Threshold should both get screwed by unstoppable Wasteland and Manland recursion. Aggro decks should get shut down by Maze of Iths and infinite blockers (if 43 lands) or something like Devastating Dreams (if Aggro-Loam).

Artowis
12-07-2007, 05:56 PM
You guys are making a mountain out a molehill here. In takes an extreme metagame / tournament where deciding 'well combo just doesn't do it for me and I can play another deck much better' and it's wrong in a sense that you can actually tell without BS'ing. Affinity and Flash are likely the best examples. Since even during combo winter with Academy, a Fish deck made T2 and at Memory Jar / High Tide / Fluctator dot Grand Prix a Sligh deck won the whole thing. In almost all metagames people are guessing and this is only a question you can even try to call somebody out on with hindsight.

There's a decent number of pros that just play what they feel comfortable with and seem to do quite fine from tournament to tournament. Now there's obviously the other side which is Kai, who hated aggro, but played Goblins at a PT because he believed it to be the best deck.

AnwarA101
12-07-2007, 06:25 PM
I just don't see what the problem is with sticking to a basic archetype in a meta that has no dominant deck.


The problem with this attitude is that it doesn't accept what a competitive tournament is about. The goal of players in competitive tournaments is to win. For any given tournament there is a deck or set of decks that make up the optimal choice for that tournament. If you don't make such a choice you put yourself at a severe disadvantage. In many cases the optimal deck or set of optimal decks is not known until after the tournament has occured, but the goal has to be to try and determine that and to play one of those decks. This only applies to competitive tournaments.

If you want to play your homebrew at your local tournament you are more than welcome to. This deck may not give you the best chance to win, but that is obvious and that isn't the main goal here anyway. Its to try some weird deck choices and just chill out and have fun. I have nothing against this type of attitude and it can be fun to just mess around like this. My only point is that this is not a competitive player's attitude and this casual environment doesn't represent what is going on at more competitive tournaments.



In that context I think the average player would probably be better off learning the ins and outs of whatever archetype they are most comfortable playing and then sticking with it.


An average player is better off playing one of the decks that is an optimal choice for that tournament. This will give the average player the best chance to win because the deck they are playing gives them the best chance to win. Every player is better off playing one of the optimal decks.

Bardo
12-07-2007, 06:25 PM
If you want to make a different argument about combo just being weak against aggro-control and specifically Threshold that is a fine argument to make. That is a very good argument why not to play combo in Legacy, but your statement in the article and your other responses did not use this reason.

I was making some short-cuts, I'll admit that the pithiness of my comment in the article ("I don't do combo") struck me as more amusing than it has been publicly received. :) My logic, as I've explained (I hope in good enough detail), should suggest that my thought process is a little more involved than that.

If I thought I had a better chance of taking first place at a local tournament, I would change my mind.


I think you're mistaking Bardo for a competitive player and, no, I'm not throwing Bardo under the bus.

Honestly, that's just offensive.


I'm not sure he's ever traveled out of state to play Legacy.

Well, I drove to Washington to play in a tournament last week. 'Sayin.


He stopped writing the Unlocking Legacy articles because he got busy with school, work, or something else.

In general, my articles go over well. They're well-received, people enjoy reading them, etc. Do you know why? Because it takes me an insane amount of time to write them. I'll spare you the details, because it wouldn't be that worthwhile, but each of my articles takes a staggering amount of time to research, draft and edit. Even writing one article a month (most of mine ran 6000 - 10000 words) was getting to be such a ridiculous drain on my time, especially when I was just starting a bitching new job.


Bardo, drawing conclusions about the strength of combo based on your local Legacy event and looking at Top 8 lists from afar suggests you're not looking at combo decks objectively. Especially with the latter, I'm not sure how you can take combo so lightly.

So let me get this straight, using my own personal tournament experience, dozens of hours of testing time, analyzing objective tournament results from around the world, gauging my local metagame and selecting decks which play to my strenths as a player is poor rationale for choosing a deck? Interesting.

Just to step back here, my entire argument can be summed up in something I said last page:

"In the end, you play the deck that you feel affords you the best chances of attaining the goal you set out to accomplish."

I choose to develop and play particular decks because I feel they best afford me the chance to win. As I've said, I have ten tournament reports filed away on my zip drive and going through them, my cumulative tournament match record since I've started playing Legacy is: 25-6-3. That is... Not bad.


The only reason I'm wondering why Bardo made the "I will not do X" statement, is that he says it in an article all about having the right mindset and the will to win.

You can extrapolate sections I & II in the article to encompass deck selection, but that really isn't what I was going for. The point I was making was about 'in-game competitive psychology.' It's about remaining focused in the thick of battle and maintaining a positive an optimistic outlook, looking for outs, and exploiting weaknesses in your opponent's play by being observant, and not spacing out. That was the connection to SF2, which is actually a slow game and one that lends itself to studying your mind.


There has existed a "Best Deck" at some point in the past.
You have said "I will not play X."

Therefore, it is possible that at one point (in the past) you didn't do as well as you should have out of stubbornness/refusal to play the "Best Deck."

I think this is an oversimplification. Let's ignore Flash for the moment, since that was an anomoly and moot since the key combo piece has been banned for the last five months.

In the absence of a clear best deck, which one is either foolish or deluding themselves if they choose not to play it (Affinity in block, for instance), one should play the deck they expect to perform the best with and which plays to one's skills.

There is a reason, for instance, why pros gravitate toward control decks: because those deck give them greatest potential to outplay their opponents and maximize small margins to eek out wins against lesser opponents. Without sounding like a pompous ass here (I hope), I choose to play the decks that work for the same reason: I trust in my ability to play a tight game of Magic and choose decks that best allow this.

Let me just close by saying that apart from Urabahn's comment about not being a "competitive player," this is a good discussion and is giving me a lot of good ideas for Part 2 of this article. Thanks for keeping it civil.

xsockmonkeyx
12-07-2007, 06:26 PM
To make an ass of myself, what if the guy is eating steak and eggs every morning for breakfast, and is 400 pounds, and you don't want him to die of a heart attack?

Then that would be an example of someone not being successful and it throws my point out the window. In that case the guy should probably metagame against cholesterol and switch to cornflakes or cheerios.

Obfuscate Freely
12-07-2007, 06:47 PM
The point that Anwar and Dave are trying to get across is that having preconceived notions about what "type" of player you are or what kind of "playstyle" you have is antithetical to a competitive mindset, and can only hurt your chances of winning tournaments.

It seems pretty clear that you begin preparing for tournaments fully expecting to play Threshold, which can easily prevent you from evaluating your deck choice objectively.

GP: Flash seems like a pretty good example of this. Had you gone into your preparations objectively, you would have been much more likely to come to the correct conclusion that Flash was the best deck to play, and thus would have ultimately had a better chance of winning the tournament had you gone.

The fact that you remain defensive about the choice not to play Flash, even in hindsight, really drives the point home further. How could you possibly be making wise deck choices in typical Legacy tournaments if you couldn't make the correct choice in the most "obvious" metagame the format has ever seen?

URABAHN
12-07-2007, 07:01 PM
So let me get this straight, using my own personal tournament experience, dozens of hours of testing time, analyzing objective tournament results from around the world, gauging my local metagame and selecting decks which play to my strenths as a player is poor rationale for choosing a deck? Interesting.

I'd like to know about your testing methods. Is your idea of testing double-fisting on MWS a couple hours a day?


I have played against combo decks exactly ten times in the last eleven tournaments I have played in and have lost to said combo decks exactly zero (0) times. So, my experience would not suggest that I not play an archetype of Legacy deck that I have consistently beat.

Reviewing the results of historical T8 thread indicates that combo decks do pretty shitty, compared to hybrid decks with an aggressive strategy.

I think you're being incredible naive if you think combo decks are shitty (compared to hybrid decks with an aggressive strategy) and that's a reason you won't play combo. Either you're not "sufficiently analyzing objective tournament results from around the world", or there's something wrong with your local metagame.


I choose to develop and play particular decks because I feel they best afford me the chance to win. As I've said, I have ten tournament reports filed away on my zip drive and going through them, my cumulative tournament match record since I've started playing Legacy is: 25-6-3. That is... Not bad.

Sorry, Bardo, I cannot take you seriously as a competitive Legacy player. What's worse is that because you write for a major magic website, a lot of people take you for an expert on Legacy! Your personal tournament experience is lacking, I think Coppola and Barnello combine to play in more than 10 tournaments every month. If you're offended that I don't think you're a competitive Legacy player, it's because you don't have the pedigree of some of your fellow writers or most of my peers in New York or Virginia. You want me to take you seriously and start valuing your opinion on MtG?

Play more magic.

Phantom
12-07-2007, 07:07 PM
To defend Bardo, who I have grown fond of through his writing and general demeanor, there is a counterexample to GP Flash. At the Legacy Champs last year, that one guy (I want to say Ronald Chang?) won it all with a deck that was clearly NOT the best deck (UG Madness). Still he fought through the whole field due to his familiarness with his creation as well as his general playskill.

Still, I have to admit that GP Flash was such an extreme example that the power of the deck might outweigh any degree of familiarity with it and even a combo player of my quality would have to consider playing it.

Bardo
12-07-2007, 07:08 PM
there's something wrong with your local metagame.

Sweet! The "Your metagame sucks" argument. 'Been a while.

@ Ob Freely - If I responded to your post, I would only be repeating what I've already gone to great lengths to explain.

Cait_Sith
12-07-2007, 07:23 PM
Honestly, URABAHN, people take Bardo seriously for reason. Probably because he has the nasty tendency to be correct.

1) Hybridized decks are less likely to randomly lose to themselves. How much less likely? Unlike with Combo, decks like Suicide-Black and Thresh cannot create a situation where they cannot win (when goldfishing). Combo decks are perfectly capable of doing this.

2) Combo decks tend to be much less forgiving when it comes to mistakes: make one big one and it is good game for you (4+ turns for a solid recovery? Bleh).

3) Combo has historically not done as well as Control or Aggro-Control (or Goblins, which is pretty much Aggro-Combo-Control).

4) GP: Columbus was an exercise in strange affairs. I still see conflicting reasons on why Flash didn't do as well as was expected from all over the place. No matter how much anyone continues to reference it, the fact will not change: it was a once-in-a-lifetime absurd situation and probably will not repeat itself. It seems to be becoming the Godwin's Law of this thread. People did well by hating the haters.

5) URABAHN, what do you seriously hope to gain be endlessly boasting of how amazing and special you are while how much Bardo sucks? I would honestly like to know, since you insist on doing it. I hope you have actual proof that he lacks experience, because otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

AnwarA101
12-07-2007, 07:47 PM
I was making some short-cuts, I'll admit that the pithiness of my comment in the article ("I don't do combo") struck me as more amusing than it has been publicly received. :) My logic, as I've explained (I hope in good enough detail), should suggest that my thought process is a little more involved than that.

If I thought I had a better chance of taking first place at a local tournament, I would change my mind.


I think including comments like the one about combo only muddles your point. The article started off with the "will to win" which I will agree is an interesting topic, though I wish your discussion included one of the most important parts of winning, picking a deck. The striking discontinuity between people should have the will to win but by the way I don't play combo ever is hard to reconcile. In a attempt to make a joke, you made it harder for me to understand your point. Humor has to be secondary to the overall goal of writing a serious article.

frogboy
12-07-2007, 09:06 PM
1. Bardo is probably the best regular Legacy player within a hundred miles or so of Portland.

2. Richard Feldman said that he was happy playing Elves and not Flash at Columbus. Given that he is better at deckbuilding and metagaming than every single person reading this post, saying "not playing Flash at Columbus was incorrect" is not automatically true.

3. Back when I played a lot of Magic and was actually winning and qualifying, 80% of my testing was double-fisting Apprentice. Don't knock it.

4. Bardo not playing very often does not imply that Bardo is not good at Magic. His articles are excellent, and his hit to miss ratio on the lists he provides is way better than any other Legacy author.

5. re: best deck argument: the best deck for any tournament is the deck that you have the highest percentage chance of winning with. A relatively new player will almost certainly have more percentage with something like Zoo than with a hideously complicated combo, control, or Survival deck. Personally, I played Greater Gifts* at a Team Constructed PTQ in April 2006 because I wasn't winning enough matches with Heartbeat. We 7-0'd the Swiss and barely lost in the semifinals to a team we'd already beaten. I'm pretty confident I wouldn't have won some of those matches with Heartbeat.

*there was probably a better deck to play than Gifts, but we realized that I shouldn't play Heartbeat on the drive to the PTQ and built Gifts that night; options were limited. And no, no one else on my team felt qualified either.

DeathwingZERO
12-07-2007, 10:17 PM
I'm honestly surprised at all the bitching about someone's decision not to play the most volatile archetype in Magic. Bardo has listed great reasons as to why combo isn't for him, and he's also listed plenty of support for his playtesting and play skills.

Playing to your preference is something I've heard many pros talking about, this isn't something radical going on here. Some will play to shut down their opponents asap, some to win before their opponents get a land drop. Others like to have an actual game, yet still have a deck that's going to do very well against those previous decks, and still have a hell of a match against an unknown field.

If anything, Bardo coming into tournaments around here and damn near sweeping anytime he's shown up (including a couple that had a majority of the Sourcers that post here, including admins), would make me to believe he's got game to match most players that post here, regardless of their records or locations. It's not like a lack of tournaments is going to make you dense, or else maybe you should be talking to Frogboy and Godzilla about their Legacy abilities as well.

And stop talking about GP:Flash like you knew what was going to happen. That had probably the most unpredictable outcome that Legacy will ever see. Flash might have been the hands down best deck, but it obviously lost to some decks that still had good enough game to Top 8 alongside it.

freakish777
12-07-2007, 11:41 PM
The point I was making was about 'in-game competitive psychology.'

And what of "out-of-game competitive psychology?" Certainly there's something to be said for mentally preparing and having an attitude that will render the largest rewards from your, testing, tuning, deck-building, reading up on the format (memorizing every card in the format if it's draft) metagaming, etc. Not having your in-game and out-of-game attitudes sync up is what's hard for me to understand.


I think this is an oversimplification.

It is. I try and construct some of my statements so as many people can understand them, occassionally this works against me when the only people left reading the thread are the one's who want some "real meat" so to speak. If you'd like a less simplified version, I'd be happy to construct it and attempt to keep it coherent.

Bardo
12-08-2007, 12:11 AM
And what of "out-of-game competitive psychology?" Certainly there's something to be said for mentally preparing and having an attitude that will render the largest rewards from your, testing, tuning, deck-building, reading up on the format (memorizing every card in the format if it's draft) metagaming, etc.

Of course. It's called preparation, and unless you're a genius with this game (which I am far from), you obviously need to test, work out sideboard plans in advance and generally maximize every advantage you can gain before you sit down across from someone.


If you'd like a less simplified version, I'd be happy to construct it and attempt to keep it coherent.

I don't think that's necessary. You've made your point and I've made mine.


In the absence of a clear Best Deck, ... you should play the deck you expect to perform the best with and which plays to your skills.

I don't think I can state my position any clearer than that.

MattH
12-08-2007, 11:03 AM
Bardo,

A. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play black.
B. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play with counterspells.
C. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play with creatures.
D. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play a sixty-card deck.
E. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play combo.

Can you see why people are having trouble understanding why you somehow feel that E is not fundamentally the same as A, B, C, and D?

There's a big difference between saying, "Well there's a tournament today, what should I play?" (where it is entirely appropriate to decide "I'm not going to play combo") and deciding "I won't play combo ever." When you're talking about one specific event, you have to take into account that maybe you haven't logged enough hours with a deck to be able to play it, and so in your deck-choosing-calculus you have to reject the combo option. That is understandable.

But that isn't what you've been saying - you've seem to be saying that you're even against putting in the time to learn. THAT is where people are (justifiably IMO) concluding that you aren't displaying the "will to win" you talk about. Which again would be fine if you'd own up to it.

Aggro-control may be your best choice today, because you've played it the most. But if you never force yourself to try to learn other things (and part of that means learning in a tournament context), it will always be the archetype you've played most, and so you're de facto ruling out every other deck, forever.

AnwarA101
12-08-2007, 12:42 PM
Bardo,

A. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play black.
B. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play with counterspells.
C. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play with creatures.
D. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play a sixty-card deck.
E. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play combo.

Can you see why people are having trouble understanding why you somehow feel that E is not fundamentally the same as A, B, C, and D?

There's a big difference between saying, "Well there's a tournament today, what should I play?" (where it is entirely appropriate to decide "I'm not going to play combo") and deciding "I won't play combo ever." When you're talking about one specific event, you have to take into account that maybe you haven't logged enough hours with a deck to be able to play it, and so in your deck-choosing-calculus you have to reject the combo option. That is understandable.

But that isn't what you've been saying - you've seem to be saying that you're even against putting in the time to learn. THAT is where people are (justifiably IMO) concluding that you aren't displaying the "will to win" you talk about. Which again would be fine if you'd own up to it.

Aggro-control may be your best choice today, because you've played it the most. But if you never force yourself to try to learn other things (and part of that means learning in a tournament context), it will always be the archetype you've played most, and so you're de facto ruling out every other deck, forever.

I agree with everything MattH just said and its very similar to what I've been saying. The will to win doesn't come with preconceived notions about which strategies you will employ to win.

Bardo
12-08-2007, 12:43 PM
If not for cut/paste, I'd have to do a lot more typing.


But that isn't what you've been saying - you've seem to be saying that you're even against putting in the time to learn. THAT is where people are (justifiably IMO) concluding that you aren't displaying the "will to win" you talk about. Which again would be fine if you'd own up to it.


I'm perfectly happy to play combo on MWS and for the intellectual challenge, and because it's necessary to understand how a deck works to know how best to beat it. ... This is why I'll test combo decks (personally, I like playing Belcher);


I thought I made it pretty clear above that Legacy doesn't really lend itself to having a "Clearly Best Deck" environment and where you need to play a particular deck to completely maximize your odds of winning a particular tournament.

Pointedly, are there any decks in Legacy that are the Absolute Best, and which are so good there's no compelling reason to play anything else? I don't think so.

Apart from the abstract "play the best deck mantra," you also need to play a deck that plays to your skills; which is why I would always prefer to play control and aggro-control.


I also think that archetype mastery will ultimately reap more rewards--rather that devoting my energy to being more of a generalist, and thus losing some games where I'll need a very slim margin to win, and one that only knowing a deck inside and out can offer.

In general, no Legacy deck has something like 20% on the field. If ever there was one, I might change my tune.


This is a hard question to answer in Real Life, for the reasons I've explained above. But given the qualities of the "mythical deck" you've laid out here, I would likely play that deck. 'Seems bitchin'.


Basically, I just don't have much confidence in Legacy combo, and my reasons for playing it for (at least) three reasons:

I have played against combo decks exactly ten times in the last eleven tournaments I have played in and have lost to said combo decks exactly zero (0) times. So, my experience would not suggest that I not play an archetype of Legacy deck that I have consistently beat.

Reviewing the results of historical T8 thread indicates that combo decks do pretty shitty, compared to hybrid decks with an aggressive strategy.

In beating combo every tournament, not having objective results that suggest that I should play a particular brand of deck and not especially trusting my ability or enjoy myself when I play combo, I generally don't.

So, when would I play combo? When the conditions for doing so were such that I had no good reason for not playing it.


In the absence of a clear best deck, which one is either foolish or deluding themselves if they choose not to play it (Affinity in block, for instance), one should play the deck they expect to perform the best with and which plays to one's skills.

There is a reason, for instance, why pros gravitate toward control decks: because those deck give them greatest potential to outplay their opponents and maximize small margins to eek out wins against lesser opponents. Without sounding like a pompous ass here (I hope), I choose to play the decks that work for the same reason: I trust in my ability to play a tight game of Magic and choose decks that best allow this.

Zuriya
12-08-2007, 01:19 PM
Bardo,

A. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play black.
B. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play with counterspells.
C. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play with creatures.
D. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play a sixty-card deck.
E. It's important to have the will to win. But I won't play combo.



How about playing Lands.dec ? ;)
But seriously, people only have a limited amount of time at their disposal. I think it is quite valid to specialize unless their is evidence that Combo can win large tournaments.

Pinder
12-08-2007, 03:16 PM
1. Bardo is probably the best regular Legacy player within a hundred miles or so of Portland.


Yeah.

MattH
12-09-2007, 12:00 AM
How about playing Lands.dec ? ;)
But seriously, people only have a limited amount of time at their disposal. I think it is quite valid to specialize unless their is evidence that Combo can win large tournaments.

Oh it's totally valid. But what is not valid is specializing like that while lecturing about having the discipline to do what it takes to win.

Happy Gilmore
12-09-2007, 01:14 AM
I have only a couple of questions for you Bardo then I will duck out of the conversation and let it be.

Why do results from your local metagame cary more weight than the major tournaments played around the world? Is it correct to value results from a tournament with less than twenty people more than a tournament with over 33? When was the last time you took part in a legacy tournament that included more than 33 people?

Yes I am well aware that a Portland doesn't exactly have a lot of major tournaments. I simply want to know when was the last time you have taken part of a tournament bigger than one we would consider for results in the DTB forum. I personally feel that any legacy writers should base their findings on results we can all agree on. Every other format has this, why can't legacy?

AnwarA101
12-09-2007, 01:30 AM
The only thing that I can gather from Bardo's responses is that he would play combo if it was completely unbeatable. I wonder if he applies the same standards to aggro-control or control.

SpatulaOfTheAges
12-09-2007, 01:39 AM
This is stupid. It's like saying Kurosawa would have been a better director if he had done more comedies.

Recognizing that time and money are restraining resources, not every player has the resources or the inclination to master every playstyle. Bardo never advocated that all the little Hulkamaniacs out there never play combo and eat their vitamins. All he said was he didn't play combo in tournaments.

What the fuck drug are you people on?

Machinus
12-09-2007, 02:05 AM
Recognizing that time and money are restraining resources, not every player has the resources or the inclination to master every playstyle.

So why are we taking advice from them?

Jak
12-09-2007, 02:12 AM
So why are we taking advice from them?

When has Bardo given us advice on combo? He talks about the decks he plays. He has also stated numerous times that he does playtest combo. Can we stop discussing this stupid shit. People are way to desperate to argue and resort to this.

Pinder
12-09-2007, 02:12 AM
So why are we taking advice from them?

I don't think the advice Bardo meant for people to take away from this was 'don't ever play combo ever because I don't play it and it sucks lol'. He was stating a personal preference. That was it. Why are people harping on this so much?

Sims
12-09-2007, 02:19 AM
So why are we taking advice from them?

So don't take their advice... Which he was never giving in regards to combo, btw.... Same thing as a radio: Don't like what you're hearing, or in this case reading, change the channel.

You're starting to drive me nuts with the constant cynicism and yammering "that if you aren't perfect than it's not worth listening to you." You never seem to have a positive opinion of anything that someone (that isn't you) writes or says is worth testing and you constantly belittle those whom don't agree with your points of view even when you lose ground to stand upon. I respect Bardo as a writer, player, and therefore respect his opinion. I'm willing to give his suggestions in an archtype and playstyle that he is intimate with a go. That doesn't mean he is infallible, and neither are you. Get off your fucking high and mighty egotrip, because it's getting fucking old.

Peter_Rotten
12-09-2007, 09:00 AM
This is stupid. It's like saying Kurosawa would have been a better director if he had done more comedies.

Recognizing that time and money are restraining resources, not every player has the resources or the inclination to master every playstyle. Bardo never advocated that all the little Hulkamaniacs out there never play combo and eat their vitamins. All he said was he didn't play combo in tournaments.

What the fuck drug are you people on?

Simply put, I agree.

Anyway, this thread is seven pages long belaboring a rather minor (to most people, I believe) point.

I'm afraid we are at a point where one would be afraid to write an article lest the Watchdogs of Legacy enter play with A Petty Bitching Counter and two Copycat Tokens (Treat these tokens as copies of Watchdogs of Legacy but with Weaker Arguments).

Seriously, remember the days when we used to bitch about ppl NOT writing articles? But now that we have ppl writing articles, I've witnessed a campaign against Anus, multiple Mach bashing, and now the beginning of a Bardo bash. (Hi-Val has taken a pummeling too.) There really won't be anyone left to write about "your" format.