Eternal Europe: Stop Whining Already, Or How To Beat The New Blue

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It is fundamentally important not to neglect that a lot of the top Legacy players at tournaments still spend most of their time on other, better-supported formats, for the record. It's not unreasonable to suspect that Caw-Blade like decks are better right now not because of any objective strengths vs. the field, but because the better players are already more familiar with the archetype, and upgrading the list with better nuts and bolts cards doesn't fundamentally change the way the deck functions.

[Koby]

Too much talk, not enough play.

Just playtest ad infinitum and you'll win (eventually). Simple as that :D

[SpikeyMikey]

Seriously dude, you're just digging a hole for yourself. Just put an end to this inept attempt to defend your favorite deck type which is dominating. Really, Goblins is very well positioned right now, when pretty much all testing shows that MM was the nail in its coffin as a top-tier deck?

So one minute you say you're in it for the "fun", the next you're offering to play an "unfun" deck if you get paid to do it, which just shows where your real EV calculations are.

BTW, there's a difference betweeen viable and good. Stop conflating the two.

The only person with a shovel in their hand is you. You'd have to pay me to play Goblins too, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect it. I just don't like playing it. Even if Goblins was hands down the best deck in the format, I'd be playing some kind of midrange tuned to try and beat it. Because that's what I play. When Vengevival was running rampant, I was playing BGW Rock with MD Extirpates. I know Survival was posting 60%+ against the field. It just wasn't my style.

In Indy, I was playing the same Bant variant I always play. It was a poor choice for the field. I knew it and admitted it. I had emailed a friend 3 weeks prior and told him that Zoo was strongly positioned and I spent most of the weekend there talking about how strong I felt NO RUG was. But neither deck is what I wanted to play that weekend, so I didn't play them.

[SMR0079]

The point is, people who want to ban ANYTHING without sufficient testing are whining. Maybe MM is broken, but it's too soon to tell. Furthermore, some of the arguments in favor of banning misstep ("Goblins and Zoo are dead") are patently untrue.

The fact that the author likes playing blue is irrelevant. Yes, he could be biased. No, he's probably not.

If I were you, Mon, I'd be totally sick of this fruitless debate. In fact, if I were me I would be too. Props for having more patience than me.

QFT! Outside of cards like Mind's Desire, nothing should be even considered for banning without 3 months of data and not actually banned until the 6 month, and even that is probably to soon.

What I find amusing is that according to our data a correctly built Zoo list is actually a good choice in the current Metagame. Yes, there are games where control goes: Mistep, Snare, Counter, StP, SFM, FoW - but if Zoo can get the tempo for even a minute, it can be very difficult for Stoneblade to recoup. Pridemage and Grips are not cards that deck wants to face with Batterskull trending control to perhaps abandon SFM for sweepers, which open up cards like Price and Fbalst as finishers.

[DragoFireheart]

QFT! Outside of cards like Mind's Desire, nothing should be even considered for banning without 3 months of data and not actually banned until the 6 month, and even that is probably to soon.

I agree with that. Lets revisit this issue 3 months at least before deciding what should be done, if anything.

[Koby]

What I find amusing is that according to our data a correctly built Zoo list is actually a good choice in the current Metagame. Yes, there are games where control goes: Mistep, Snare, Counter, StP, SFM, FoW - but if Zoo can get the tempo for even a minute, it can be very difficult for Stoneblade to recoup. Pridemage and Grips are not cards that deck wants to face with Batterskull trending control to perhaps abandon SFM for sweepers, which open up cards like Price and Fbalst as finishers.

There's also the issue of removal on SFM stranding the Batterskull in hand between turns 3-5+. Zoo has the necessary tools for being great in the metagame. At the same time, and in the same metagame, MM-resilient combo is also good (such as Show and Tell combos), which typically crush fair decks.

I think NO RUG is one of the stronger decks in the metagame, having some great tools to fight to the top. (Jace, 1mana removal/reach, Pro-trump, countermagic, red-blasts).

[TooCloseToTheSun]

There's also the issue of removal on SFM stranding the Batterskull in hand between turns 3-5+.

You mean turns 3-8 if you don't want it to just die to Pridemage the turn it comes out.

[Mordel]

I am very surprised that IBA just mentioned that career players (aka: ringers etc) are likely playing a role in perceived dominance of things. For a few years, I only had any contact with mtg at all was due to an obsession with competing in a large 1.5 tournament because the format was so engrossing. There is also the extremely linear nature of 1.5 where being a fundamentally good player is of obvious importance, but if someone has spent about fifteen years filling their head with otherwise worthless competitive history/theory/lore/whatever-the-fuck, they get a pretty distinct advantage.

Don't worry if the latter bit seems like a ridiculous digression because it will make sense in a second:

An example of how a tragically large amount of nuanced mtg knowledge and skill are different can be seen if you imagine each as a rpg-style stat. There are other "stats", but they don't really matter in the example....

Player 1=
Skills: 98/100
"Wisdom": 30/100

1 knows staples and some tech cards, but he is unlikely to understand how humility works etc.

Player 2=
Skills: 60/100
"Wisdom": 95/100

2 knows a depressingly huge number of tricks, cards and lines of play that relate to 1.5 from when he played in prehistoric formats.



Each of those players have a distinct advantage, but Player 1 is likely to win by virtue of his competitive skills that go beyond formats, like reads, risks etc.
Player 2 has a higher total, but his knowledge won't help if he is extremely unlucky etc etc. The disadvantage lessens if player 2 has a lots of experience with his deck, which is pretty unique in how it wins and is under the radar...still not favored against 1, but improved.

Now, if 2 has actually tested against 1's deck and knows the match well, there is a chance for parity.

That example relates to why some players, like Gerry Thompson will gravitate toward playing a deck with mystics and counters. In the last while, standard has become similar to legacy in how the game is paced and standard's competitive skill set is become increasingly transferable to 1.5's. Adjusting to FoW, wastelands, first turn discard et al. isn't a big leap, but there is some stuff that is pretty nuanced and not really worth learning if one's main concern is winning the 1.5 open in a week or so. I can say for sure that getting value out of mystics in standard is pretty similar to 1.5. Standstill is proactive and, in many circumstances, will only require thought in playing it and once it is on the table, the opponent is liable to be left with the dangerous decisions that lead to game loss.


Mystics, equipment and Standstills are a pretty sensible combination...one of the oldest tips of the top players have been to play what you are comfortable with, so it should go without saying that 1.5 is pretty capable of adapting to cards, like misstep, survival, and sdt+cb.

I was able to see the sdt+cb thing happen and it warped the format in a very obscene way, but things settled after a while. I see banning cards that are not flash-broken as more harmful than letting the format adapt. Look at the leap backwards that the format took with Survival getting the axe. It's kind of like an ecosystem of power cards and one getting pulled out of the mix has a domino effect. Misstep seems like a card that should be given a chance; the odds of the format not being able to adapt are slim...a card pool of almost 19k cards. I would be more inclined to guess that misstep needing to be banned down the road is a result of shitty/lazy players.

People bitching about blue is hilarious. If blue is ruining mtg for someone and they tend to search for ways to rationalize their failing, looking into another hobbies is always good. I know that if I ever decide that I don't enjoy playing magic anymore, but enjoy arguing about how terrible it is with unwavering persistence, I would probably just pursue arguing and bitching on their own...subjective things, like philosophy and politics are especially good.