DCI update 12/20/10 - Survival banned; Time Spiral unbanned

[Koby]

Over half of the top 60% or so of the top 8's feature the same engine card. It's obvious.

And Force of Will was in the top 4 decks prior to July. Ban FoW?

Merfolk, CBtop, and Reanimator (27/72 = 37.5% penetration in top 3 decks)
Survival in Top 5 (23/56 = 41.1%)*

37% is not enough penetration, but 41%* is?

And here's my point: DCI has no clue what they're doing and throwing darts at a wall to come with their decisions. They are neither consistent nor equal.

*EDIT: Whoops, forgot Bant Survival at the bottom, +1.
**EDIT: Just for funsies. DCI has banned a green combo card and replaced it with a blue combo card. Please ban Island too.

[dschalter]

Erik Lauer states: "[Survival] has caused the competitive format to become significantly less diverse."

Compare SCG Top 8s from before August, and after August. AKA Breakout of the U/G Survival Madness.

Pre-UG Survival-Madness: (time period 1/1/10 to 6/27/10)
Sample size: 72 decks

Merfolk			12	16.67%
Zoo			11	15.28%
Reanimator		8	11.11%
CounterTop		7	9.72%
Goblins			5	6.94%
New Horizons		4	5.56%
Lands			3	4.17%
Belcher			3	4.17%
Ad Nauseam Tendrils	2	2.78%
U/W Tempo		2	2.78%
Threshold		2	2.78%
Bant			2	2.78%
B/W Aggro		1	1.39%
Tezzerator		1	1.39%
Team America		1	1.39%
U/G Survival		1	1.39%
Dredge			1	1.39%
Landstill		1	1.39%
Mono Black Control	1	1.39%
Aggro Loam		1	1.39%
Show and Tell		1	1.39%
Enchantress		1	1.39%
Painter's Grindstone	1	1.39%

Post-UG Madness: (time period 8/22/10 to present)
Sample size: 56 decks

U/G Survival		13	23.21%	New deck
Goblins			5	8.93%	
G/W Survival		5	8.93%	New deck
Ad Nauseam Tendrils	4	7.14%	
Ooze Survival		4	7.14%	New deck
Merfolk			4	7.14%	
Countertop		3	5.36%	
Dark Horizons		3	5.36%	New deck
Aggro Loam		2	3.57%	
Team America		1	1.79%	
Sneaky Tell		1	1.79%	
Painter's Grindstone	1	1.79%	
Zoo			1	1.79%	
U/W Aggro		1	1.79%	
Threshold		1	1.79%	
Bant Survival		1	1.79%	New deck
Burn Deck Wins		1	1.79%	
Faeries			1	1.79%	New deck
Dreadstill		1	1.79%	New deck
BUG Control		1	1.79%	New deck
Lands			1	1.79%	
GWB Rock		1	1.79%	New deck

Aside from changing the strangehold of Merfolk, CBtop and Zoo, along with introducing several new decks; how has the diversity been reduced?

Yes.

[menace13]

Yes.

Maybe.

[Rico Suave]

U/G Survival		13	23.21%	New deck
Goblins			5	8.93%	
G/W Survival		5	8.93%	New deck
Ad Nauseam Tendrils	4	7.14%	
Ooze Survival		4	7.14%	New deck
Merfolk			4	7.14%	
Countertop		3	5.36%	
Dark Horizons		3	5.36%	New deck
Aggro Loam		2	3.57%	
Team America		1	1.79%	
Sneaky Tell		1	1.79%	
Painter's Grindstone	1	1.79%	
Zoo			1	1.79%	
U/W Aggro		1	1.79%	
Threshold		1	1.79%	
Bant Survival		1	1.79%	New deck
Burn Deck Wins		1	1.79%	
Faeries			1	1.79%	New deck
Dreadstill		1	1.79%	New deck
BUG Control		1	1.79%	New deck
Lands			1	1.79%	
GWB Rock		1	1.79%	New deck

Aside from changing the strangehold of Merfolk, CBtop and Zoo, along with introducing several new decks; how has the diversity been reduced?

Do we really need to explain how Survival making up 40% of the metagame reduces diversity?

Perhaps you need a video illustrating the problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNi1N0H_K00

[Jak]

Lame. Disappointed. Annoyed.

[Koby]

Do we really need to explain how Survival making up 40% of the metagame reduces diversity?

Big difference between % of the metagame and % of Top 8. But thanks for disregarding all the notes that make that obviously clear.

[Jak]

I don't think there is really anything to argue about dominance. Survival decks were overpowered, strong, resilient, and could hit from multiple different angles. A banning did need to happen. Sadly, I feel they got it wrong because they took a card that has been a cornerstone of Legacy since its creation out of the format. Only in the early days of Legacy was it considered too strong and ever since was a fair card that spawned multiple decks. Now, it is banned. Not something to be happy about in my books.

[Rico Suave]

Big difference between % of the metagame and % of Top 8. But thanks for disregarding all the notes that make that obviously clear.

No, the big difference is someone who is making a valid point and someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing, and you are the latter.

[jrsthethird]

And Force of Will was in the top 4 decks prior to July. Ban FoW?

Merfolk, CBtop, and Reanimator (27/72 = 37.5% penetration in top 3 decks)
Survival in Top 5 (23/56 = 41.1%)*

37% is not enough penetration, but 41%* is?

**EDIT: Just for funsies. DCI has banned a green combo card and replaced it with a blue combo card. Please ban Island too.

FOW is not an engine card, it's a utility card. Decks with FOW don't win when FOW is cast. Survival decks do. Have you ever played against a Survival deck when it doesn't resolve? The difference is huge.

DCI is trying to liven up the format. Removing things that don't work and adding things that do. In the past 15 months, they unbanned 3 artifact combo cards, 2 blue combo cards, and a black combo card. Have any of those broken the format? No.

[AngryTroll]

Perhaps you need a video illustrating the problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNi1N0H_K00

"Look, it's some guy playing Tendrils. I think it is Max McCall." I laughed.

[KevinTrudeau]

Survival didn't need to be banned, but the format will be healthy regardless, so it doesn't really matter. The only negatives that can really come out of this are WotC becoming more trigger happy with bannings in the future, or Evan Erwin gaining more influence.

Once Mana Vault gets unbanned, I can finally live my dream of playing Time Spiral, Mind Over Matter, and Dream Halls in one deck again. How I miss those days...

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Ugh, this makes me sad. Survival was such a great engine. I wouldn't have been sad to see Vengevine go, but Survival? It was good but not good enough before Vengevine...

Ah well. I don't think either one needed the axe, really, but losing Survival seems really unfortunate to me. On the bright side, I guess we can pick a few up fairly cheap for when it gets unbanned.

[Fossil4182]

I posted this on the WotC forums, but figured I would post it here as well.

The problem with Survival being banned is it is only symptomatic of the larger problem with Legacy as a format; R&D does not design cards with eternal formats in mind. Granted, there are some cards designed which are "playable" in enteral formats (though I doubt a lot of testing went into them and few are defining). It would also be a logistical challenge to test in formats with plus 10,000 cards (in reality though there is probably less than 500 "playable" cards in the eternal formats). The printing of Iona made Reanimator as powerful as it was and Vengevine and Ooze made Survival powerful.

All that said, Legacy (and to a lesser extent Vintage) will likely always be the subject of cards being banned due to unforeseen interactions. While WotC doesn't observe the secondary market, it actually disincentives innovation in Legacy because if you find the "best" deck like Mystical Tutor/Survival decks, odds are it will be banned which tanks the financial investment Spike's make.

Additionally, while it is true that Survival decks have seen their share of dominance the past quarter in recent 5K's, there are several problems with this as a warrant to ban Survival.

First, the banning of Survival seems inconstant given that Jund was allowed to proliferate top 8's of 5K's for nearly a year. Survival hasn't dominated for even half as long as Jund did and its numbers are relatively comparable.

Second, it assumes that Survival decks are not beatable. The problem with Legacy is that with a limited number of large events and a small number of dedicated pros, there is not a lot of innovation in the format and if there is, it is slow to happen. If the "top tier" decks cannot seem to win, then maybe people should start over by designing a new deck with a given meta game in mind. Instead you see the same decks trying to add cards to their main deck or add more sideboard cards to improve the match up. The irony here is that there is probably some thought that banning Survival opens up space for other decks to be competitive; however all it will end up doing is allowing the same decks to compete that did before hand. A good historic example of how innovation can solve is when Counterbalance and Threshold decks were overtaken by Aggro Loam and Dragon Stompy. The Survival meta game, having only been around for three months, really didn't have time to develop new decks to take down Survival. Even most of the articles that have talked about Survival have only talked about how terrible current decks are against Survival. Again, rather than attempt to innovate and beat Survival, most authors and players have just assumed the deck is not beatable.

If anything, the sign of a healthy format is not one in which there is the absence of a "dominate" deck, rather it is a format in which innovation is rewarded and meta games and decks shift. This ban does not promote innovation, rather it reverts the format to what it was. The notion that there are decks that have "unwinnable" match ups are accurate observations to make. The problem is that writers talk about these decks with an implied assumption that they "should" be able to compete with Survival. If the traditional decks in the format cannot compete then they should be relegated to the sidelines as new decks rise to take their place. At least, that would seem to be a healthy format.

Overall, I find it disheartening that WotC really gives eternal formats the shaft most of the time. There is little support and attention given the formats outside of B&R updates. The lack of R&D foresight when designing cards causes terrible ripples in the secondary market and makes for an unstable format when there is a risk of a ban. The two cards that have been unrestricted this year have had almost zero impact on the format. The flip side is that WotC has banned two cards effectively killing at least three deck types (Reanimator, Survival, and nurfed Combo). WotC has done more to stifle creativity in the format than promote it this past year. As an alternative, WotC could of issued an errata to Phyrexian Devourer which would of nurfed the Ooze Survival decks or at least made Survival slow down significantly if it was going for a combo finish. I suggest this because the Ooze version of Survival was cited as a reason for banning...

[sdematt]

I think they acted to quickly on this one, or were afraid to change their minds. Again, they didn't want to admit they were wrong (either by banning Mystical, or in the creation of Vengevine). I think trying Mystical out against VV would have been fine in my books. Again, they can always pull an emergency ban if it got WAY too overpowered, but at least then they'd have proof.

I think we should have given Survival more of a chance being Survival. Survival with no Vengevine doesn't abuse the mechanic. Vengevine broke Survival more than it should, giving you free creatures and haste without having to cast them, cycle multiple creatures, or use Anger. THAT'S why the deck is good: it takes everything that makes Survival slow and gets rid of them, turning one Survival activation into another and into multiple recursion. It would be like having a permanent anger in the yard with Tarmogoyfs with madness. Again, VV needs the ban, sorry DCI. I don't like you now for taking my cornerstone of Legacy and my favourite card and first deck in 1.5 almost 10 years ago. Shame on you.

-Matt

[jazzykat]

Cool they unbanned Time Spiral even if it's useless. Very sad to see SotF go as I felt Ooze was handleable without the VV threat.

[Rood]

If the traditional decks in the format cannot compete then they should be relegated to the sidelines as new decks rise to take their place. At least, that would seem to be a healthy format.

Sounds like a meta warp to beat target deck to me.

[Shabbaman]

Meh.

I was playing Legacy because of Survival. I think an eternal format deserves broken cards. Apparently Wizards rather has us play in "extended plus", where zoo and merfolk are the dominant decks. That's not my format. Back to vintage it is. As for legacy: I plan to annoy wizards by strictly playing combo from now on.

[Tacosnape]

It is what it is. I don't think either Survival or Vengevine would break the format without the other.

I'm actually quite sad to lose an entire archetype I've played for years and years and years. But I gain the Intuition/Vengevine archetype to practice and grow with, so we'll see where it goes.

[Fossil4182]

Sounds like a meta warp to beat target deck to me.

Meh.

I was playing Legacy because of Survival. I think an eternal format deserves broken cards. Apparently Wizards rather has us play in "extended plus", where zoo and merfolk are the dominant decks. That's not my format. Back to vintage it is. As for legacy: I plan to annoy wizards by strictly playing combo from now on.

I think Shadbbaman is just right here. There really isn't ever a "meta" in Legacy unless there is a competitive deck beating a significant part of the field. Post this, we go back to the same boring mix of tribal, counterbalance and Zoo decks with the occasional combo deck. At least with Survival in the mix, it would of forced a shift in the meta game. Three months was not enough time for an adjustment to happen. Additionally, "meta warps" are non unique in that they happen all of the time. Standard saw decks running Spreading Seas in the main deck in an attempt to dethrone Jund less than a year ago yet that wasn't an unhealthy meta-game. In Legacy, the Goyf era when Threshold and Counterbalance decks were dominating the meta game, no one complained with Aggro Loam and Dragon Stopmy created a "warp'd meta game". The notion that decks go in and out of popularity seems more natural. Decks like Canadian Threshold actually post positive match-ups against Survival decks, but would of been unplayable in the meta before hand. Again, people didn't seemingly do the work to find decks that can compete with the dominate deck in the format (or even if they did, the results were posted fast enough).

[luckme10]

Well, I'm for one am relieved. We can all get back to those ban tarmogoyf threads that have eluded us for the last 6 months. Seriously 1G for a 4/5... what were they thinking?!?

Now I'm off to ebay to give 3 dollar "Best Offers" to 4x sets of survival with buy it now prices over $160. Oh merry day!