I agree that people need to stop complaining about blue. Nothing is broken right now.
As someone that plays all three archetypes depending on the expected metagame, but prefers Zoo (disclaimer), I disagree that aggro players are the only ones whining. I've seen control players bitch about Vial quite often on this forum, and I've seen combo players rage about Force of Will (on here and in real life).
I'm not trying to flame anyone or be classless. This is just how I talk. I'm from the streets. Get it?Originally Posted by Lemnear
Why are you telling someone who has gone 10-1 in 2 tournaments to add cards to their deck to shore up their bad matchups? Obviously it has no bad matchups! Thus it negates his entire argument about blue being not busted.
I don't know if blue is busted or not, but the best way to argue against it is definitely not by calling people whiners OR by posting a BLUE draw-go deck that completely crushed your local scene.
To all those who enjoyed the article, happy to hear it. Feels good to get props :)
Some answers:
@Lemnear: The deck developed out of trying to port CawBlade to Legacy, so I had Mystics originally. I was less than impressed with them, though that was before Batterskull. The problem is that you really don't want to cut cantrips, otherwise you find ways to abuse the Hawks to seldomly and Batterskull is a lot worse as your anti-aggro plan than Moat, at least in my experience. If I built the deck with SFM, I'd probably get rid of the Hawk engine, actually, which changes the whole deck.
Concerning Vintage: The problem is, I only really get excited about Magic if there is a possibility to play in tournaments, just getting together to jam games of Vintage is fine but as long as it doesn't mean I'm testing for an actual tournament by doing so, it just doesn't provide the same kick.
@Metalwalker: Actually, in my experience, Fish is horrible in the lategame once you've managed to trade their original resources away. They don't have relevant advantage-cards at that point and dealing with one creature at a time is pretty easy.
@Starscream:
I happen to have been playing control for more than ten years, so I guess I'm more proficient with that archetype than most of my opponents, to be honest. The deck isn't busted, just very good, and the fact that I know better how to play it better than most opponent know how to play their decks (again, experience is useful) has a lot to do with why I did well.And somehow this is innovative, adaptive, and skill-intensive? You should probably find some better players in your area because either draw-go is totally busted or you are one of the best players ever!!!
I don't have any disdain for people who like to turn creatures sideways. I have a lot of it for people that like to turn creatures sideways AND think no other strategies should be viable so they immediately start calling for bans every time the metagame changes in a direction that allows decks to succeed that are not focused on that facet of the game. They should try to figure out how to beat that kind of deck instead. It's what I did when I got into Legacy and the best decks in the format where predominantly aggressive decks. The card pool in Legacy is huge, if you need a plan to beat a particular kind of strategy, it's generally out there just waiting to be discovered.You seem to have a disdain for people who like to turn creatures sideways, but it really seems like you don't like you just really don't want your opponent to be able to do anything. Winning is winning, though, I guess.
And yes, I enjoy battling for control of the game (or as you call it, making my opponent unable to do anything). How is that any less valuable than enjoying attacking (or more so, for that matter)?
I'm happy you enjoyed the article up to that point. There's a reason why the part about Caw Cartel was labeled "Bonus Section". It isn't a part of the actual article.I actually really liked your article, until it got to your tournament report. I really think it completely negated everything you said prior to it.
The reason I play that deck is that I love playing control, which is why that's what I brought to the tournament. The deck is expensive, no question (though I don't see how that matters) and in my opinion very good - otherwise I wouldn't play it. The deck is far from invincible and just another part of the metagame (a minor one at that). The reason I'm not playing aggro isn't because I don't think it's well positioned - it's because I don't like it. Don't confuse player preference with the question if a deck is good or not.
So yes, I'm obviously saying "do as I say, not as I do" - if everybody did as I do, Magic would be a lot more boring because I know what kind of deck I like to bring to the table and that's what I do. I'm under the impression that there are people that don't like playing this kind of deck (you, for example), so they obviously shouldn't. A lot of players that don't like control seem to feel that Mental Misstep forces you to play something like it. They're mistaken and there is no need for any bans to make that a reality, and that's why I wrote the article.
See, that's the problem. You don't like a certain kind of deck so you think it shouldn't be good. That's just wrong, there should be a version of just about any strategy that is good enough to play, from aggro through prison, aggro-control, combo, discard to mana denial and dredge. For example I hate Fish (I think it's boring and annoying to play with and against), but you won't see me clamor for the banhammer to get rid of it just because of that. Instead I make sure my decks have game against it.Also bear in mind I play u/w tempo with missteps, and merfolks so i'm definitely not anti-blue. I'm just anti-not letting your opponent play ANYTHING.
SlopeJ: The reason you should play anything but blue is the same reason why you should play blue: because you enjoy that kind off deck. Post Misstep there is that huge misconception that you can't play anything but blue if you want to win, which is what the article was supposed to rectify. There are many ways for all kinds of decks to adapt to the new meta and some of the aggressive decks, Goblins in particular, are actually extremely good against what people are playing.
Happy you still took the time to answer to what I was saying/read the article.
To clarify, when I talk about whining I specifically refer to the syndrome of going "OMG card/deck X is good, ban something" whenever something different from aggressive/midrange decks succeeds without even trying to adapt/waiting how the metagame shakes out.
Yeah, the people complaining about force aren't the people that would have the most reason to do so (combo players), though.You're kidding right? People complain about Force. People complained about Vial and Lackey too.
Not everyone thinks that the status quo is God. You may not agree with their opinion of the optimal format configuration, but presuming that you do think that some cards should be banned/restricted, it's nonsensical to go into big angry rants that someone wants this one particular card you like banned.
People were also clearly wrong complaining about Vial and Lackey, considering how Legacy turned out, don't you think?
As for the status quo being god, no, it isn't. Wanting cards banned just because you don't enjoy them (instead of them breaking the format) without first taking steps to be able to beat the kind of strategy they enable and seeing if that works is intellectually lazy and really bad for the format should the DCI listen to them. Legacy is great and successful because there is a deck for every kind of player, sacrificing that because a certain kind of player prefers to whine instead of adapting would be really bad for its future. As such that kind of attitude irks me enough to rant about it.
Note that what I call whining wouldn't include a single one of your posts in the latest two threads devoted to complaining about blue. You were making rational arguments, even if I don't have the same point of view. What annoys me is people going "ban Time Spiral" when the deck is successful twice or "Ban Brainstorm" mere weeks after Misstep gets printed. The people that come from the position "I hate that deck/that deck is boring - ban it now! There mustn't be any successful decks I don't like."
I'd argue hard control gained the most from it, which also seems to be the impression of those complaining. If you're right, that makes it even weirder that it's the midrange players that seem to be complaining about it the most...Midrange decks gained the most from Misstep so I honestly have no idea what in the Hell you're talking about.
There's another possibility: You don't get what I'm saying. I'll pick that.There's two possibilities here. Either you want to unban Black Lotus, Bargain, Time Walk et. al., in which case you're dumb, or you're just a hypocritical douchebag.
Your pick.
Get back to me.
Lemme know which.
How is the fact that I consider combo, prison, hard control and all the other strategies that aren't about creature combat as as valuable as dedicated creature decks a sign that I would want to unban Time Walk, Bargain or any other ridiculous cards? I didn't say the format should be about nothing but creatureless strategies. I said it's about ALL strategies being viable. If that isn't the impression you got, reread the passage you quoted.
Uhm, yeah. You're numbers showed blue as the most played color almost consistently once Goblins wasn't the best deck any more, at least that's the impression I got. I also know from personal experience that even years ago you had a 50% chance of playing against a deck with blue in it whenever you sat down at a table and as far as I remember all the Legacy GPs after the first were won by blue decks (in the hands of Pro Players). Sounds like I'm right and blue was better than the other colors for years while people loved the format to pieces and the whole boom happened. Thing is, one color will always be best, it being blue doesn't matter as long as the other colors are able to compete.I've been over these numbers before. It is not true that blue has always dominated the top tables.
Your entitled to your personal opinion. I didn't expect everybody to like the rant but felt like the ban something choir had earned it's rant anyway.The rest of the article was actually fairly competent and had some insightful comments, but this rancid shit on top just kills, my opinion.
Oh, the decklist at the end also annoyed me. As long as we're all ranting I'm really tired of people packing Legacy nuts&bolts cards into whatever the hottest Standard deck of the moment is and calling it a brilliant invention that's going to destroy the meta.
As for the deck not being innovative, again a matter of opinion. What's the problem with T2 cards making it into Legacy, though? It isn't like Goblin Warchief & Company, Goyf, Noble Hierarch, Nacatl and the whole Affinity-deck weren't good in T2. Also, the deck is rather different from Caw Blade by now, even if they share the Hawks.
Others complaining: Honestly, I haven't heard combo-players calling for bans on FoW before and sure, people said it was sad that control didn't work, even going as far as saying that Vial was annoying as hell. I don't remember anybody seriously demanding a ban on vial - I might be mistaken though and probably are (there are so many people, somebody has to have done it). What I know is that the success of Zoo wasn't accompanied by the instant demand to ban Wild Nacatl and the rise of Fish didn't cause cries for the banning of Vial after mere weeks.
@Finn: Thanks for the warning *g* Luckily I have interacted with or read posts by IBA before and was therefore aware not to take his aggressive attitude seriously.
As for Misstep being too good, I definitely concede that it's a possibility. We haven't seen the metagame shake out yet. I'm absolutely convinced that calling for a ban on something now, only weeks after a card that should influence the format at least as much as Counterbalance did (probably more) was printed, is ridiculous, though. If we end up with a totally blue metagame six months from now, you'll probably see me calling for action against it myself, to be honest.
I also disagree with you that it's mMM is much worse in the other colors/strategies, though. All the non-blue decks gain a lot against strategies other than those blue gains value against. Goblins has a much better chance of beating combo-decks, for example, by being able to play MM maindeck and Mindbreak Trap in the sideboard. They just gain their value in other matchups than blue does (also: stopping Vial is extremely valuable in aggro on aggro matches). I have been testing MM in Zoo and while topdecking it is a problem, having it in your opening hand is sick against controlish strategies. Negating that first Swords to Plowshare translates into so much extra-damage compared to just playing another guy, it isn't even funny.
@StarScream: clearly anybody who manages to go 10:1 has an unbeatable deck. Tell that to Nick Patnode who 10-0ed a likely much harder metagame with Goblins.
I don't have low self-esteem, I have low esteem for everyone else. -Daria
Proud member of Team CAB
High Priest of the Church of BLA
CAB JaceTM
My articles
I'm still waiting to hear from IBA how Batterskull might actually be good in Legacy. Not holding my breath.
Tom? Is that you? I thought you were going to go work on DnD?
I love how the old guard of The Source constantly tries to warn us about Jack, however we choose to ignore and we feed his trolling.
Excellent article, I enjoyed the entire thing. Especially the idiot-smashing rant at the beginning, actually - it sums up my thoughts on the matter rather eloquently. The decklist also looks good, surprisingly - I greatly underestimated the potential of Squadron Hawk in Legacy, it seems. I would play it for sure if I enjoyed playing blue control (and owned Moats, lol). I am greatly amused by the accusations of hypocrisy regarding the list though - anyone who's actually read a bunch of your articles understands how much of a boner for blue control you have :P.
LOL.
Lord of the Chalice
Stompy Discord: https://discord.gg/6cesvkz
I agree. I mostly play decks that benefit greatly from it, but I'd still say that printing it was a total disaster.
Anyway, nice article!
I would agree for most parts because Mental Misstep is naturally fitting as a powerful card in Legacy, but I would avoid to think that it is an absolutely wrong mistake or a disaster. It has a powerful effect on the meta, just as the printing of Counterbalance/Goyf/Pridemage/Progenitus/Emrakul/Iona all had its powerful effect in actually changing metagames. Take a step back, and one really feels awe at how this eternal format has been moved by individual standard cards.
I would tend to avoid the conclusion that Misstep is a total blowout mistake. It's definitely a format defining card, probably much more than any of the cards ever printed, but despite the fact that most tier lists or performing tournament lists are packing 4 Mental Misstep, the diversity of decks is still seen in these various Top 8s.
At least, let's not get us in the situation where we go "Time Spiral is overpowered, Candelabra made Spiral Tide the best deck, ban something!". Look where Spiral Tide is at now. The deck is still good, but it was never format breaking. Even without Mental Misstep, I'd argue that there were decks that can beat it. But most people in Legacy just enjoy their pet decks/archetypes or refuse to adapt, hanging onto old beliefs that they have the best collection of decks that could answer the format.
Decks that I care about:
Steel Stompy
UWx Landstill
Dreadstalker
DDFT (10% practice)
Mangara on MWS? You must be masochistic. -kiblast
Idiot Magic Player Syndrome is alive and well, despite attempts to eradicate it.
Lord of the Chalice
Stompy Discord: https://discord.gg/6cesvkz
I'll get back to the rest of this in a bit, but as a quick side note, dominance is not the same as simply being the best performer. If a top 8 has 18 instances of a color, 5 of which are blue, 4 green, 4 white, 3 black and 2 red, then blue is the best performing color but not dominant. Dominance would be, say, 7/8 of the metagame being blue, or every winning deck at big tournaments for five, seven, ten tournaments in a row.
Blue hasn't really been dominant in Legacy before except for brief periods that were nearly always followed by bannings; the Hulk-Flash era and the height of Tutor-enabled ANT/Reanimator, mainly.
The rest of the time blue is best or second best of the colors, but not particularly disproportionate.
Also, in general, Mon, if you mean to dismiss/insult a very narrow subset of people you want to take careful aim. Use broad terms and it's pretty easy to insult people that might actually agree with your fundamental points (this is why I rankle at the use of terms like white/male privilege, for an example).
Your article comes across as saying that basically anyone who ever suggests a banning must be enfeebled. I'm glad you didn't intend that, but that's the meaning I read from it.
I actually already said that I hadn't anticipated the Turtenwald list, aka, just upgrading Angel Control. I don't think it's the best way to build UW Control, but it's something at least.
In decks actually playing creatures, which is what the thread had been about primarily, Batterskull is completely suboptimal. I think there's an increasing recognition of this as people remember, oh yeah, people play decks besides Merfolk.
Also, for the record, I do like blue-based control, I just don't play it in tournaments that often. I've always been a big proponent of Landstill, for instance, even if some of these manabases give me cold sweats.
Also, while I won't say I don't ever do both, playing devil's advocate or simply taking a contrary position is not trolling. As I mentioned to Patrick last night, and going back to the use of Standard cards, my stance is to, for example, just start out with the assumption that any deck/card that's super-hot in Standard right now sucks, and let it prove itself through testing, as we go through this phenomenon nearly every year. I don't think Caw-Blade is good in Legacy, I didn't think Jund was good in Legacy, I didn't think Faeries was good in Legacy, I sure as fuck didn't think Pickles was good in Legacy, or Ghazi-Glare or Solar-Flare, or whatever the Hell we were on before that.
Beach House, admittedly, I kind of liked.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
excellent article, totally agree
Mon,
I read the entirety of your responses, and everything you wrote seemed lucid and well thought out. Even if I may not agree with you, there's no point in arguing personal opinions. However, I don't think that what you wrote above is a correct assessment of what I stated. I think all playstyles should be valid and represented in Legacy. I don't personally like decks that A: don't allow you to interact, or B: are absolutely not phased by your interactions because they are playing their own game against themselves (most combo), but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be good. I just don't think they should be dominate
I do however believe that those who are completely happy with blue the way it is right now are actually the ones who want to stifle (pun intended) the other archetypes. They think that decks that attack with creatures are "boring and annoying to play against," and sure are glad that (aside from merfolk) those decks are really no longer viable. But then they point to 1 tournament where someone somehow went all the way with a zoo deck and say "See! See! I told you the metagame is fine!"
It's difficult to aim a rant narrowly - the language just doesn't go with being that precise. ;)
As for the amount of blue we see winning, I'm pretty sure a lot of it has to do with people believing the hype MM has gotten. There are so many people with a massive internet presence shouting "MM is the end of aggro, Goblins is dead" that a large number of people just won't even consider playing the deck any more or testing it. The same is true for a huge number of other non-blue decks and imo the main reason for blue doing so well - there just is so much more of it because of the hype.
Also most people simply don't know what'll work against Misstep, similar to how they didn't know what would work against CB for something like a year.
@StarScream: I just don't think blue is actually as good as these few tournaments immediately following MM's release seem to indicate. See the above. Almost all decks will have to change massively to compensate and that'll take time, but that's how things are when a card has a massive impact on the metagame. The new blue doesn't actually invalidate much (my opinion, obviously), it just forces it to evolve.
I don't have low self-esteem, I have low esteem for everyone else. -Daria
Proud member of Team CAB
High Priest of the Church of BLA
CAB JaceTM
My articles
Nice... So people are idiots because they don't want to "play blue or lose?"
Or maybe there's a magic deck type that will be the bane of 18x FOW, DAZE, MM, BRAINSTORM, JACE + <insert other color here> and everyone who isn't playing blue is too busy whining to try and figure out what this super new secret tech is? Is that what you're saying? Has it ever occured to you that maybe blue is now just TOO strong, and there is no super secret tech capable of A: beating the above package and B: beating anything else consistently?
Seems like that package is turning into wasteland: Run it; don't run it and lose; or be completely immune to it.
But maybe I'm just an idiot.
Essentially, yes.
Mon, this is the best article you've written, and I agree 100%
TIME POLICE
So then you're cool with Legacy becoming 18 of the same cards and then <insert splash/win condition here> ala vintage?
Oh, my mistake. I should have said that it has a diminished benefit in fighting back against the blue decks already running it. My figuring was that since they are ubiquitous, it was essentially the same thing, but I should have come out and said so.
Jeepers. I have always been kind of a maverick. I suppose we all tend to think of ourselves that way around here. Either that or if you stick around long enough, even U2 gets played on the soft rock stations.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
You have no idea what IMPS is, don't ya? Carsten described it as "yell'n for bans instead of metagaming", or to quote Arzar (and my sig) for the 5th time this year (yeah, I count XD):
"...rather than adapt and metagame to beat a deck they/their pet deck loses to, players will cry for said monstrous, unfair deck to be banhammered. Thus, they remove the need for themselves to excercise their inadequate gray matter and can return to playing *insert bad aggro deck* here without fear of combo-rape..."
So, no ... People are no idiots if they don't want to "Play blue or loose"; they are indeed idiots if they blindly believe that shit and want the DCI to do their deckbuilding, if you know what I mean.
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Eh, I could take or leave blue. It's role in the color wheel is important and adds balance to the game. I just wish WotC would stop blatantly promoting blue counter-based control over any other control strategy.
In all the years gone by and sets released, Counterspell has been entirely outclassed while Hymn to Tourach and Sinkhole have not.
You really think people complain about blue cards because they don't like them and can't adapt? Cmon that is like the stupidest argument ever. The complain is more about blue placing more cards in top8 than all other colors together. Which is not really a surprise when every top8 has between 24 and 32 FOW...
Blue players thinking they are winning because they are smarter or better players outplaying their opponent are just riduculous. Stop dreaming, the only reason you win more than others is because you are playing better cards. Is it so hard to admit that some blue spells are just TOO good at what they do ?
Why do you think people complained about lackey or vial ? Because they were using blue only weakness : turn 1 on the play. Then you could play threats throught counters and beat the blue. Now that this weakness has been solved by MM there is no need to complain anymore.
The creature power creep that started in 2006 also helped a lot about lackey.Whereas brainstorm, force, daze and co effects were tuned down a lot since wizard decided to power up creatures strategies. Lackey was not killed by metagame shifts or genious inovations but by better creatures being printed...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote