[Free Article] It's an article about Legacy.

[Hanni]

For example, a Thopterbalance deck with Enlightened Tutor and access to both maindeck Moat and maindeck Ensnaring Bridge (think the list from St. Louis) will be able to beat both Zoo and Merfolk.

I disagree. The Thopter deck still runs into the problem of resolving Moat through their tempo setbacks. This is the primary reason why they are capable of doing well against Landstill, and it doesn't change any for Thopter. Also, Ensnaring Bridge is great if they have a bunch of Lords in play... but since Thopter is a control deck, chances are it will have enough cards in hand that the Merfolk player can still attack. Hell, they can even pop their own Standstill for a big game winning alpha attack if they had to. And again, that's if the Thopter deck can even resolve the Bridge, before dying, in the first place.

Even if you resolve Thopter/Sword against them, if they have Lord of Atlantis on board, you're not blocking them. More often than not, they can still race you through the lifegain.

You are right about dependance on builds though, since the Merfolk builds running Echoing Truth make the matchup even better for Merfolk.

I'm not saying Thopter cannot beat Merfolk, especially if it dedicates alot of sideboard space to its Vial Aggro matchups, but it suffers against Merfolk just the same as Landstill. Plus, let's not be humble... most of the Thopter decks I've seen run 1 Moat and 2 Enlightened Tutor, which the Merfolk player is capable of easily racing you before you even find one, let alone resolve it.

I can also gauruntee you that the Zoo matchup is much easier for you than Merfolk, so my point is still valid.

Furthermore, the concentration of Merfolk's curve makes a resolved Counterbalance positively devastating in the absence of Aether Vial (or its loss due to EE or Needle).

Are you serious? The truth is actually the exact opposite. Merfolk runs a large amount of 3cc spells, which is above the average Counterbalance curve, and Aether Vial completely invalidates Counterbalance.

Let's also not forget that Merfolk will probably board in its own Pithing Needles, which can hit both EE and Thopter.

Go ask CounterTop players what their most boarded out card against Merfolk is. I'm speculating that you will hear the word "Counterbalance" more than once.

Merfolk also has the ability to sideboard Cold-Eyed Selkie to completely dominate the CounterTop matchup, if it felt it needed more tools for doing so.

The point is that blue decks built to handle Zoo will be able to fight Merfolk decks, though not as well as if they'd been built specifically to battle Merfolk decks.

On terms of running creature removal spells like Firespout, I agree.

However, Zoo doesn't employ any manabase denial or tempo tricks, which makes battling it much different. Firespout is great against Zoo when you can cast it on turn 3, but is much less when you are finally able to sucessfully resolve it on turn 5 against Merfolk. I'm not saying Firespout isn't good against Merfolk, don't misunderstand my point; I'm simply explaining a major difference. Also, with the varied curve that Merfolk has, EE is not nearly as devastating against them as it is against Zoo, and if they run Stifle, it gets even worse against them in comparison.

In terms of answering Merfolk in terms of creatures, like Rhox War Monk especially, those answers are much worse against Merfolk than Zoo.

Except this version of the deck isn't playable, because it loses to Zoo.

Why would anyone who was worried about winning sleeve up Merfolk for a metagame where Zoo was considered to be a big presence? I'm not a pro, and I don't attend tournaments, but I know if I was about to play in a major event and my scouting showed that my worst matchup was a large field presence, I'd sleeve up a different deck. I don't see why the presence of a bad matchup like Zoo makes a card that's great against other decks unplayable. Zoo has a horrible matchup against ANT, but I didn't see people cutting their 'unplayable' Knight of the Reliquary's for maindeck Ethersworn Cannonists, did they?

Without quoting a bunch of the other stuff you wrote, my point was that Merfolk has a better combo matchup than Zoo. Do you deny this?

I would consider metagame decks to be bad deck choices for large tournaments unless the metagame is extremely well-defined;

I agree with this to an extent. Some decks are metagame decks against enough different decks that they are still playable. Canadian Threshold was a metagame deck that preyed on vulnerable manabases, and during it's height in popularity, was many different decks, which made it a great metagame deck for large events. If you disagree with that, there are alot of results to prove otherwise.

I also feel as though Zoo is a metagame deck, too. While yes, it can do well against a random field, it's niche has been preying on the Vial Aggro decks like Goblins and Merfolk. If the field is nothing but Counterbalance and Combo (which I'm not saying it would be), Zoo would be a horrible deck to play in a metagame like that.

Also, I don't understand why the popular belief is that Zoo pushes out CounterTop. CounterTop has a good Zoo matchup, as long as it is prepared for that matchup. Before it's major swing in popularity, it used to be R/g Goyf Sligh. CounterTop was one of that decks worst matchups. They printed some much stronger cards, but the only one which has swung the favorability around is Qasali Pridemage, which is still not enough. Unless Zoo can get a super fast start that races the CounterTop player, CounterTop shuts down Zoo.

The reduced presence of combo predicted for the GP

My discussion/arguments have all been made assuming the pre-ban, where Mystical Tutor was legal. People are calling Merfolk a garbage deck, and I'm explaining why it wasn't. Post banning changes things alot, and whether or not Merfolk will continue to make Top 8's is entirely dependant on how the metagame shifts. Since speculation is the only actual way to determine how the metagame will shift, I'm will not switch my discussion/argument's to something I have no control over.

Merfolk folds to active Xantid Swarm out of the board. My testing has not shown the combo matchup to be favorable for Merfolk--it usually only wins when it has a fast clock (t4-5 kill) backed up by multiple fows.

How many combo players board Xantid Swarm? Mystical Tutor didn't grab Xantid Swarm, and I don't think Reanimator ran Xantid Swarm. I agree that an early Xantid Swarm can make the Merfolk matchup extremely favorable for the combo player, though.

[Aggro_zombies]

On an extremely narrow "Merfolk does better than Zoo against combo pre-Mystical ban" basis, yes, I agree with you.

However, "does better" is a relative term. You're still working pretty hard to try to beat combo relative to a blue deck that actually beats combo.

Regardless, the discussion right now is whether Merfolk is still a good deck. The answer is generally no, since the format has shifted in such a way that the most popular deck is openly hostile to it, while the decks gunning for the most popular deck have ways to deal with it. At the end of the day, Merfolk is still a creature deck, and stopping creatures from attacking will stop Merfolk just as well (better, in fact) as it stops Zoo.

Also, a point on Ensnaring Bridge and Thopterbalance: these decks should be running four E Tutor, as it is far and away the best card in the deck. I specifically brought up the list from St. Louis because I consider it to be near optimal given what the projected meta will be. As for Bridge: Thopterbalance is not a control deck like the ones you work on; cards in hand aren't very valuable, and the old idea of "card advantage = more cards drawn" is basically irrelevant to this deck. It wins by setting up engines and then protecting them with a counter or two until they take over the game. In that sense, card disadvantage elements like E Tutor are not only fine, but actively desirable; you don't give a shit about how big your grip is when you've got Counter-Top or Thopter-Sword going. Therefore, Bridge works quite well because the deck is indifferent to emptying its hand out, and will do so anyway in the course of the game. An aside: I still don't understand why people put such stock in card advantage in Legacy. Card advantage sucks in Legacy unless you use some super broad definition like, "how good the cards you draw are relative to something," which is more card quality (something that matters very much in this format). It's a large part of why control decks like Landstill are irrelevant to everyone besides career control players.

Also, I'm not sure what the hypothetical tempo-heavy Merfolk builds you're talking about are. You probably don't want to run all four Wastelands in the 14-16 lord versions because of how many awkward costs you have to meet, and the more you skew towards tempo control, the harder you lose to Zoo. Like, the builds that do best against Zoo have hardly any tempo elements at all (I'm not counting Force here).

EDIT: Zoo's metagame niche is "preying on decks that aren't consistent and/or are cute." That's pretty fucking broad. The fact that Zoo has dominated the last several 5ks despite a diverse field should tell you something about whether it's a metagame deck - unless you mean "metagame deck" in the sense of "a deck that exists in a metagame" or "a deck that defines a metagame." Zoo is pretty freaking good and is about to single-handedly wrap the meta around its presence. No meta will ever be warped around Merfolk.

[Hanni]

On an extremely narrow "Merfolk does better than Zoo against combo pre-Mystical ban" basis, yes, I agree with you.

It wasn't narrow. All of the articles or things I've read that have been saying Merfolk is a horrible deck, have been in relation to legal Mystical Tutor. We haven't had any large tournaments since the banning to draw results from. Speculation is what it is: speculation.

Regardless, the discussion right now is whether Merfolk is still a good deck.

I agree with you, but this isn't something I want to discuss. I'm not Nostradamus, I'm not going to try and predict the metagame in an argumentative discussion. If it was a friendly "so what do you think," I'd give my opinion, but I don't want to put my foot in my mouth. You may be right that Merfolk will drop in numbers. If Combo sees less play, and CounterTop sees less play, sure.

The thing is, though, is that CounterTop is a format defining combo. It is, in my honest opinion, the most broken combination of cards in the format. Sensei's Divining Top is the king of card quality, and I'd argue that it is the best card in/for any control deck. Counterbalance, on the other hand, is a card advantage machine that, when combined with Top, can prevent alot of decks from playing magic. In light of this, I'd say Merfolk is always going to be existant, because it keeps CounterTop in check. Of course, things can change this though, like new cards seeing print, etc etc

Also, a point on Ensnaring Bridge and Thopterbalance: these decks should be running four E Tutor

It's not my place to discuss what is and isn't optimal for that deck, since I've only played against it and not with it. I was simply basing my information off of what I have most commonly seen, which has been 2 E Tutor's. I'd agree that 4 E Tutor's would make alot more sense, but that's beside the point.

As for Bridge: Thopterbalance is not a control deck like the ones you work on; cards in hand aren't very valuable, and the old idea of "card advantage = more cards drawn" is basically irrelevant to this deck.

Therefore, Bridge works quite well because the deck is indifferent to emptying its hand out, and will do so anyway in the course of the game.

I know how the deck works, but when you run reactive cards like Daze and/or Counterspell, etc... you will still have cards in hand sometimes. I didn't say that Bridge was awful in the deck, I said that there will be times when Merfolk is still capable of pushing its creatures through one. That's all I was getting at.

An aside: I still don't understand why people put such stock in card advantage in Legacy. Card advantage sucks in Legacy unless you use some super broad definition like, "how good the cards you draw are relative to something," which is more card quality (something that matters very much in this format). It's a large part of why control decks like Landstill are irrelevant to everyone besides career control players.

Card advantage is extremely important. Some decks eschew card advantage for tempo, which is a great strategy when they are capable of sealing the game before the tempo becomes irrelevant and the necessity of gaining card advantage takes over.

For other decks, especially control, card advantage is fundamental and absolutely crucial. You cannot make constant 1-for-1 trades and not gain any sort of resource advantage and expect to win the long haul.

If you are talking about card drawing specifically, then that's a different story. Raw card drawing is worthless without card quality, because having a full grip of cards in hand when none of them are what you need is worthless. Creating card advantage from something like CounterTop is not only equivilant in terms of out-resourcing an opponent in number values, it's actually better at creating card advantage because it's also a means of controlling the gamestate.

I am fully agreeing with you here. However, I do want to say that I still value cards that actually draw cards. While generating card advantage from CounterTop is amazing, I still like to keep my hand full of answers, too. Especially in a control deck with redundancy (x removal spells, y countermagic spells, etc), drawing cards makes sure that you never run out of answers, and that your opponent cannot out-resource you. I think a blend of card advantage engines is the best route, rather than to eschew card drawing altogether, unless of course your deck is reliant on having a low amount of cards in hand (like Thopter w/ Bridge).

On that note, that's why I've been nothing short of impressed with Predict. Top + Predict is such a savagely strong card advantage engine because it is very mana effecient and generates a massive amount of card quality in addition to generating card advantage, rather than just pure draw like Standstill. That's another discussion entirely, though.

Also, I'm not sure what the hypothetical tempo-heavy Merfolk builds you're talking about are. You probably don't want to run all four Wastelands in the 14-16 lord versions because of how many awkward costs you have to meet, and the more you skew towards tempo control, the harder you lose to Zoo. Like, the builds that do best against Zoo have hardly any tempo elements at all (I'm not counting Force here).

It has only been just recently that builds have been running lord heavy versions. Look at most of the Merfolk Top 8 tournament results, most of them aren't lord heavy.

Again, I disagree with convorting and twsting Merfolk to try and salvage a horrible matchup against Zoo. I think it's wiser to assume that it's a bad matchup, and focus on everything else. I've always been the same with Zoo*, I never ran combo hate in the sideboard because it was a matchup that wasn't worth trying to fix. This is all personal opinion though, and Merfolk players will continue to weaken their decks to try and improve the Zoo matchup. I'd simply play a different deck if I expected alot of Zoo, but that's just me.

EDIT: Zoo's metagame niche is "preying on decks that aren't consistent and/or are cute." That's pretty fucking broad. The fact that Zoo has dominated the last several 5ks despite a diverse field should tell you something about whether it's a metagame deck - unless you mean "metagame deck" in the sense of "a deck that exists in a metagame" or "a deck that defines a metagame." Zoo is pretty freaking good and is about to single-handedly wrap the meta around its presence. No meta will ever be warped around Merfolk.

I think I made my metagame point poorly. I'll try to say it differently.

I think Zoo is a metagame deck. It's primary niche is that it has a great game against Vial/Tribal Aggro decks. However, it's stength corrolates to other matchups, where having a fast aggressive strategy can beat unprepared opponent's. However, against matchups that can handle an all-in aggressive strategy, Zoo loses by running out of gas. So it's a metagame deck, but it has a broad amount of decks that it is good against. That's why I made the point of mentioning Canadian Threshold, during its heyday; it was a metagame deck, but it had a broad amount of decks that it was good against.

I do agree that no metagame will be warped around Merfolk. I'm also not trying to compare the two decks to prove which is the better deck. I'm just tired of seeing all of these articles calling it a bad deck, when it is not. There was a time in Legacy when CounterTop was dominating the format, and Merfolk was the response to it. Merfolk is still capable of keeping CounterTop in check, so until something drastic happens, like Sensei's Divining Top getting banned, Merfolk will have a niche.

* I've played with Zoo only a few times. I don't play Zoo is because I prefer Naya (Cat) Sligh. Always have, personal preference. This could be one reason I never ran sideboard hate for combo; Naya Sligh could often just race ANT, and running combo hate just wasn't worth it.

[SpikeyMikey]

I think admitting that Zoo is actually a legitimate deck goes a long way towards convincing people that you're not just dripping little golden drops of knowledge from your Cup of I'm So Good At Magic because you pity the slavering masses of peons who shamble around the 5k tables, embarrassing you by playing the same game you do.

I mean, Zoo is a fine deck, even a good deck; it amazes me that pros dismiss it because they apparently don't have the skill to outmaneuver their opponents and think their way out of difficult situations, so they play combo decks so they don't have to interact but instead get to show off how good they are at solving logic puzzles and memorizing decision trees.

And yeah, Merfolk isn't that great. It's a deck that's still a metagame deck, but which continues to exist because the pros like Brainstorm and Force of Will.

I've always said that being good at control is not the same as being good at aggro (or combo for that matter). They require different mentalities. What control players may think are the biggest threats may not be, etc.

But I'm not sure why being a meta deck is bad. If a deck looks like a pile of shit and plays like a drunken sailor on a week long bender and WINS, it's a good deck. When Zvi (I think it was him, this is ancient history now) built "The Solution", people didn't go "Galina's Knight is trash and he only won because everyone else was bad and made themselves vulnerable to it" like that other guy from ChannelFireball said about Fish. They talked about how visionary and clever it was. Maybe that's the difference between old school and new school Magic.

[Aggro_zombies]

But I'm not sure why being a meta deck is bad. If a deck looks like a pile of shit and plays like a drunken sailor on a week long bender and WINS, it's a good deck. When Zvi (I think it was him, this is ancient history now) built "The Solution", people didn't go "Galina's Knight is trash and he only won because everyone else was bad and made themselves vulnerable to it" like that other guy from ChannelFireball said about Fish. They talked about how visionary and clever it was. Maybe that's the difference between old school and new school Magic.

Playing a metagame deck isn't bad per se; what most authors take issue with is that Merfolk loses to the most popular deck instead of beating it (which is what metagame decks are usually supposed to do). Furthermore, the most popular deck can be tuned to beat the same decks Merfolk is preying on. Combo is on the down and out until another easy-to-play combo deck crops up, so there's less push to play blue now. And finally, many of the generic hate cards for aggro strategies that blue decks now use to beat Zoo will also beat Merfolk.

In short, Merfolk is a metagame deck for a metagame that doesn't exist right now. That's why people are bashing on it for being bad (I mean, it was always kind of janky, but it used to be a defensible choice).

It may go back to being an okay deck at some point in the future, but for now I don't think you can just completely blow off how awful your matchup against the most popular deck is if you have any intention of trying to win a tournament whatsoever.

[Forbiddian]

Watching this game. I can't get over how horrible these players are and how SLOW THEY ARE.

The game 1 ends at 14:30.

The player decides to mulligan at 22:00.

[Piceli89]

Watching this game. I can't get over how horrible these players are and how SLOW THEY ARE.

The game 1 ends at 14:30.

The player decides to mulligan at 22:00.

Half of the SCG Legacy videos like this show horrible players, and poorly-Legacy-knowing commentators. I hope the format's level in America is not represented by these people.

[Aggro_zombies]

Half of the SCG Legacy videos like this show horrible players, and poorly-Legacy-knowing commentators. I hope the format's level in America is not represented by these people.

I hate to break it to ya, but...

[dahcmai]

It's pretty sad, but true. The majority of Legacy players are pretty bad. What's funny is how much luck plays into these tournament results anymore. We watch players in the top 8's of these SCG matches and I watch people screaming in the chat at plays and even the judges are missing it and all you can do is facepalm and laugh about it. It's scary really.

When one of the sourcers goes to a larger tournament (I have met quite a few of you even if you didn't know it), they tend to have some shitty luck. We really need one of our guys to place heavy in Columbus. I'm tired of all these bad players getting this far ahead and posting dumb articles later because they got the ten minutes of fame.