[article] Survival Doesn't Need To Be Banned

[frogboy]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...Be_Banned.html

tl;dr: I mean.

[dontbiteitholmes]

I don't agree with this logic...

Think about the repercussions if Vengevine gets banned. Someone buys a pack, opens a Vengevine. "Oh, great, here's a card that I can't play with." Vengevine is here to stay. If Wizards bans a card, it'll be Survival of the Fittest.

That is total caveman logic. First off, let's be fucking real. The only place Vengevine is a $40 rare is Starcitygames.com. It's a $25-$30 rare fresh out the pack. It's value is mainly driven by T2 and Extended like every other card currently in T2 and Extended. There is no reason WoTC should give 2 shits about banning Vine over Survival for after market value because one would maybe lower the value of a T2 rare $3-4 if that and the other would lower the value of a Legacy card by at least $15-20.

[Scatterbrain]

As I commented at SCG, I think the real issue here is that there is no real data for what an adapted metagame looks like, since basically every skilled player at the SCG tournaments just played Survival rather than try beating it, whereas in the European metagame everybody is just sticking with their old decks, so there is nothing to adapt to.

I also completely agree that banning Vengevine is stupid, but for a different reason. Banning it would mean that the mechanic of green creatures coming back from the graveyard when more creatures are cast would have to be scrapped. And this is a mechanic that is not only great in Standard, but feels green, and beats control handily. It achieves everything that both Wizards and the players want green to be.

I am still on the side of banning Survival though. The reasoning is simple - as more, better creatures get printed, Survival gets EXPONENTIALLY better. Even though it is probably not completely broken now (just a little format warping), how do we know it won't Flash a GP right after the next set comes out? How about two sets from now? The card can ONLY GET BETTER. Banning it now really just covers their ass in case they print another Vengevine, or maybe a better one.

[IsThisACatInAHat?]

I read the tl;dr of your article to be:
"Now that there's a combo deck that actually beats everything not hate.dec (as opposed to before, where it was just a bunch of johnny combo players in the ANT thread jerking each other off over how good their decks were), we should all be playing its only natural foil because that's the only deck left that doesn't have to become said hate.dec in order not auto 0-2."

Sooo...
2 powerful, resilient combo decks at the top of the meta, beating each others' bad matchups out of contention so eventually we're all just playing Vintage without power? Check.
Two-thirds of the archetype pie objectively inferior to the remaining third, even when they dedicate said strategy around a base of maindecked hate cards? Check.

Sounds reasonable.

[Nessaja]

How many more articles are going to be written about this subject? Are all the article writers just cashing in?

The article was fine, but you didn't really say anything new, would be nice if people would stop beating the horse.

[Nidd]

How many more articles are going to be written about this subject? Are all the article writers just cashing in?

The article was fine, but you didn't really say anything new, would be nice if people would stop beating the horse.

Would be nice if people would stop acting stubborn and adjust to the deck.

Jesus...

[majikal]

I agree it doesn't need to be banned. UWBx Lansdstill-ish decks have a pretty decent matchup against it as long as they're packing Spell Snare. Peacekeeper also does double duty keeping Merfolk in check so it's not like they're putting in cards specifically for Survival either.

My local meta has started adapting pretty well, honestly. For a couple of weeks there had been a glut of Survival decks, but now we're seeing more Tendrils and more heavy control, along with disruption decks like Death n Taxes with Suppression Field, etc. For instance the top8 tonight had Reanimator, Goblins, Merfolk, only 1 Survival deck, Landstill, 2 CB/Top, and Tendrils. I'm actually kind of shocked that the SCG Open meta hasn't started correcting itself by now, but I guess people would rather play the cool new deck than try to actually metagame.

[Just me]

Just played the Dutch Open Legacy, 207 players.

Top 8 (in order of final standing);
Tendrils combo
Tendrils combo
Lands
Sneack Attack / Show and Tell
Tempo ********
Survival Ooze
Goblins (mono R)
Rock (ish)

See also the Dutch legacy community site for lists; http://www.benelegacy.nl/viewtopic.p...sd=a&start=405

Just 1 Survival in the top 8 with 11 in the field. I played it twice with Enchantress and won both matches easily (see aslo report in Enchantress thread if interested). Tendrils was easily the dominant deck in this tournament, not Survival.

[QQQ]

Survival Doesn't Need To Be Banned

tl;dr:=

This is a deck with a robust, extremely powerful, and fast engine. It has the most resiliency of any deck in the format due to said engine. Here are examples of all the many, many tournaments it has dominated. Here are examples of the few cards that possibly stop it. And here are more examples of the myriad cards that it uses to just ignore, play around, or simply blank all the aforementioned cards. And a list of cards that should stop it, but don't

But Survival doesn't need to be banned because LED based Storm combo exists.
(3 year-old Survival list)

Good to know.

[rleader]

And this is a mechanic that is not only great in Standard, but feels green, and beats control handily

But why do Spirits have to suck compared to weeds? It really doesn't feel green to me; seems like a stretch, especially since haste is mostly a peripheral green ability. Vengevine feels like a mythically overpowered Bloodghast, a card that was kind of deliberately underpowered because of history (spirits being weak) and WOTC philosophy (better to let a deck attack with tons of free creatures than let someone play control by being able to block with one free one).

Think about the repercussions if Vengevine gets banned. Someone buys a pack, opens a Vengevine. "Oh, great, here's a card that I can't play with."

Yeah, I doubt many people are busting packs deliberately for legacy playable. Also, someone ripping open a vengevine doesn't think "I'm gonna play this card" -- they think, ok, now I have an incentive to blow another $100 to finish a playset. Or not. Either way, it doesn't get you that much closer to actually playing Survival.dec.

FTR, I'm not for banning, I just think that point was silly.

OTOH, I'm also not sold on the "but they'll just print more and more good creatures in the future." That's an argument for banning Show and Tell or Reanimate, I'm not sure what survival has to do with it because only madness/free creatures benefit survival; generic undercosted fatties and utility silver bullets don't so much count imo (the ones we have now are pretty good at doing what they do, from tarmogoyf to gaddock to big game hunter). Vengevine was more of a perfect storm situation than a direct example of power creep. I mean, how many hasty self-reanimating creatures that can be hardcasted in green are coming down the pipe? Probably not many more. And even if there were, there might not be room for them in the deck anyway since that aspect is covered.

[GGoober]

I think in the article, the brokenness of Flash wasn't just due to it being 1U instant, it was mainly due to it's ability to be run in a heavy counterspell package boasting 4 FoW, 4 Pact of Negation, 4 Summoner's Pact. It wasn't easy to beat the deck and the deck could beat any deck that still hated it. Even though Survival is putting out obscene results that command higher penetration in top8s, the deck is nowhere as resilient compared to Flash which was able to win through the toughest counterwars, win at instant speed, win without the combat phase, and be as efficient as just 1U mana instead of all that nonsensical GGGGGGG....

You know what's interesting? If Legacy was less aggro-focused and people did not adjust to hate Lackey (too bad lackey is in an environment with too much removal but assume that Legacy was not aggro-dominant), then Lackey would be stealing much more games than Survival. Survival just hasn't been hated and fully adapted-against, but it doesn't help when Vengevine is a curious beast that makes the SurvVine engine hard to hate: requires BOTH GY-hate and neutering Survival

[DragoFireheart]

I am still on the side of banning Survival though. The reasoning is simple - as more, better creatures get printed, Survival gets EXPONENTIALLY better. Even though it is probably not completely broken now (just a little format warping), how do we know it won't Flash a GP right after the next set comes out? How about two sets from now? The card can ONLY GET BETTER. Banning it now really just covers their ass in case they print another Vengevine, or maybe a better one.

I am still on the side of banning Force of Will though. The reasoning is simple - as more, better blue cards get printed, FoW gets EXPONENTIALLY better. Even though it is probably not completely broken now (just a little format warping), how do we know it won't Flash a GP right after the next set comes out? How about two sets from now? The card can ONLY GET BETTER.

I am still on the side of banning Tarmogoyf though. The reasoning is simple - as more, better creatures get printed, Tarmogoyf gets EXPONENTIALLY better. Even though it is probably not completely broken now (just a little format warping), how do we know it won't Flash a GP right after the next set comes out? How about two sets from now? The card can ONLY GET BETTER.

I am still on the side of banning Lion's Etye Diamond though. The reasoning is simple - as more, better TES cards get printed, LED gets EXPONENTIALLY better. Even though it is probably not completely broken now (just a little format warping), how do we know it won't Flash a GP right after the next set comes out? How about two sets from now? The card can ONLY GET BETTER.

I am still on the side of banning Lord of Atlantis though. The reasoning is simple - as more, better merfolk get printed, LoA gets EXPONENTIALLY better. Even though it is probably not completely broken now (just a little format warping), how do we know it won't Flash a GP right after the next set comes out? How about two sets from now? The card can ONLY GET BETTER.

Anyone see a pattern of flawed logic?


Edit: Oh wait, I got a better one!

I am still on the side of banning Islands though. The reasoning is simple - as more, better blue cards get printed, Islands gets EXPONENTIALLY better. Even though it is probably not completely broken now (just a little format warping), how do we know it won't Flash a GP right after the next set comes out? How about two sets from now? The card can ONLY GET BETTER.

[DragoFireheart]

I think in the article, the brokenness of Flash wasn't just due to it being 1U instant, it was mainly due to it's ability to be run in a heavy counterspell package boasting 4 FoW, 4 Pact of Negation, 4 Summoner's Pact. It wasn't easy to beat the deck and the deck could beat any deck that still hated it. Even though Survival is putting out obscene results that command higher penetration in top8s, the deck is nowhere as resilient compared to Flash which was able to win through the toughest counterwars, win at instant speed, win without the combat phase, and be as efficient as just 1U mana instead of all that nonsensical GGGGGGG....

This isn't aimed at you but at others...

Anyone that compares an enchantment that needs several activations and about GGGGG or more green mana to kill on turn 4 through the conbat phase to a deck that can kill with a blue instant for only 1U on turn 1 with FOW and Pact of Negation counter protection and claims they are on the same level of power or brokenness automatically made their opinions, logic and arguments null and void. You are essentially comparing a 16th Century Cannon with a ICBM.

Stop comparing Flash Hulk with Vengevival. It's illogical and idiotic.

[AriLax]

As I commented at SCG, I think the real issue here is that there is no real data for what an adapted metagame looks like, since basically every skilled player at the SCG tournaments just played Survival rather than try beating it, whereas in the European metagame everybody is just sticking with their old decks, so there is nothing to adapt to.

I also completely agree that banning Vengevine is stupid, but for a different reason. Banning it would mean that the mechanic of green creatures coming back from the graveyard when more creatures are cast would have to be scrapped. And this is a mechanic that is not only great in Standard, but feels green, and beats control handily. It achieves everything that both Wizards and the players want green to be.

I am still on the side of banning Survival though. The reasoning is simple - as more, better creatures get printed, Survival gets EXPONENTIALLY better. Even though it is probably not completely broken now (just a little format warping), how do we know it won't Flash a GP right after the next set comes out? How about two sets from now? The card can ONLY GET BETTER. Banning it now really just covers their ass in case they print another Vengevine, or maybe a better one.

So your argument is that because Legacy isn't a format that people care about enough to adapt, nothing should be banned? That's unreasonable at more levels than I can count.

[SpikeyMikey]

As I commented at SCG, I think the real issue here is that there is no real data for what an adapted metagame looks like, since basically every skilled player at the SCG tournaments just played Survival rather than try beating it, whereas in the European metagame everybody is just sticking with their old decks, so there is nothing to adapt to.

I also completely agree that banning Vengevine is stupid, but for a different reason. Banning it would mean that the mechanic of green creatures coming back from the graveyard when more creatures are cast would have to be scrapped. And this is a mechanic that is not only great in Standard, but feels green, and beats control handily. It achieves everything that both Wizards and the players want green to be.

I am still on the side of banning Survival though. The reasoning is simple - as more, better creatures get printed, Survival gets EXPONENTIALLY better. Even though it is probably not completely broken now (just a little format warping), how do we know it won't Flash a GP right after the next set comes out? How about two sets from now? The card can ONLY GET BETTER. Banning it now really just covers their ass in case they print another Vengevine, or maybe a better one.

The problem isn't the mechanic, it's the size. Bloodghast is just as easy if not easier to trigger and yet no one runs Ghastvival. In fact, if Venges were 4/2's, or if they didn't have haste, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And the logic of better creatures making Survival better over time is fallacious. It was once a widely held opinion in the T1 community that Keeper would get stronger with every set because it could access the best cards of all 5 colors. And yet, as time went by, the deck pared down to 4 colors, then to 3, then disappeared entirely in favor of Control-Slaver. Survival was a stronger card 5 years ago then it was just prior to the printing of Vengevine. It's a fundamentally slow card. Survival decks died out relatively early on in the history of Legacy because the decks running it just weren't fast enough. Take Vengevine out of the equation and this becomes the case again. Ooze isn't strong enough to push the card back to tier 1 status. As strong as Iona is, she wasn't enough to push the deck towards dominance.

[Michael Keller]

The problem isn't the mechanic, it's the size. Bloodghast is just as easy if not easier to trigger and yet no one runs Ghastvival. In fact, if Venges were 4/2's, or if they didn't have haste, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And the logic of better creatures making Survival better over time is fallacious. It was once a widely held opinion in the T1 community that Keeper would get stronger with every set because it could access the best cards of all 5 colors. And yet, as time went by, the deck pared down to 4 colors, then to 3, then disappeared entirely in favor of Control-Slaver. Survival was a stronger card 5 years ago then it was just prior to the printing of Vengevine. It's a fundamentally slow card. Survival decks died out relatively early on in the history of Legacy because the decks running it just weren't fast enough. Take Vengevine out of the equation and this becomes the case again. Ooze isn't strong enough to push the card back to tier 1 status. As strong as Iona is, she wasn't enough to push the deck towards dominance.

Actually, it's not fallacious - it's quite linear. Survival of the Fittest at its core remains a permanent tutor that allows you to get any creature the history of the game has provided. As sets go on, so does the increase in the vast card pool that is Legacy. With each new subsequent release, the potential for newer, more powerful interactions becomes a reality. The intricacies with Survival and other creatures starts to dilute even further, because what you're doing is expanding the card pool and giving Survival the opportunity to thrive off what is and not what once was.

Essentially, as time goes on and sets are released, more intricate and potent card-combinations come to fruition. The level of power of Survival might not increase dramatically with each subsequent release, but you have to look at it in the bigger picture: you're opening up more possibilities as time goes on and you have to accept the fact that sometimes those possibilities which people stumble across dramatically increases the card's basic fundamental power-level in the given state. Because Survival - while it hasn't always been the "best" deck in the format - has always lurked in the shadows and has always remained a contender. That's what makes the card more frightening.

[majikal]

Because Survival - while it hasn't always been the "best" deck in the format - has always lurked in the shadows and has always remained a contender. That's what makes the card more frightening.

That's right, we can't have cards lurking in our format! Ban the shit out of it!

[Michael Keller]

That's right, we can't have cards lurking in our format! Ban the shit out of it!

Sarcasm aside, my point was that Survival has always been a competitive deck long before the format's inception. As time goes on, stronger, more degenerate interactions can occur - and they have. I don't feel the deck, or the archetype as a whole for that matter, warrants neutering; all I'm suggesting is that people need to understand Survival has always gotten progressively better with time. From ATS to RecSur all the way to Vengevival, the archetype has always been a competitor. But the card itself - not necessarily an entire deck built around it - always gets stronger as time goes on. The card feeds off interactions between itself and other creatures, which can't get any worse because more cards always means better things for a card predicated on any and all creature interactions it can find.

[ddt15]

This isn't aimed at you but at others...

Anyone that compares an enchantment that needs several activations and about GGGGG or more green mana to kill on turn 4 through the conbat phase to a deck that can kill with a blue instant for only 1U on turn 1 with FOW and Pact of Negation counter protection and claims they are on the same level of power or brokenness automatically made their opinions, logic and arguments null and void. You are essentially comparing a 16th Century Cannon with a ICBM.

Stop comparing Flash Hulk with Vengevival. It's illogical and idiotic.

Survival is a great engine, Oath is broken, Flash was just a mistake.

I don't think they need to but I think they will ban it. Then again I like the meta shifting every couple of months.

[majikal]

So Survival will get some cool interactions. Big deal! As long as they actually have to cast and resolve spells other than Survival in order to win, it will never be a problem. So it might be good - why is that an issue? Lots of decks are good. Just because Vengevine is dominating right now is no excuse to ban a whole bunch of different archetypes into oblivion. It's the fact that Vengevine is free that is the root of the problem here, not the fact that Survival can grab some creatures, spend a bunch of mana to dump a few things in the graveyard, and then cast a 4-drop.

Also, this has been bothering me: Saying that Survival, rather than Vengevine, should be banned, and invoking the DCI's philosophy about tutors and not banning creatures is disingenuous, because it dodges the actual heart of the argument, which is that Vengevine really is the culprit. We could sit down and argue all day long about whether or not the DCI would actually ban Vengevine, and we wouldn't get anywhere, but that's not the point. The point is that Vengevine is not "just a creature". It is a free, huge, hasty, uncounterable creature that does not play nicely with all the graveyard manipulation in the format. It is a fluke of design that is unlikely to be repeated, and it has absolutely no fair applications. As long as there is a way to dump a bunch of creatures into the graveyard, it will be abused. Let's face it - banning Survival is not magically going to make people want to hard-cast their hasty plants. If anything should be banned (and I'm not saying anything should be at this point), Vengevine is the correct target. Whether or not it will be is another issue.

You can't just go, "But... tutors!" There is over a decade of empirical evidence that shows us that Survival plays fairly when it has to cast spells. It's really not that hard to see. Suvival without Vengevine? Top 8s occasionally, probably less than CB/Top. Format-devouring monster? Hardly. Survival with Vengevine? Well... we're having this discussion, right?

Stop parroting the DCI and use your brain.