Can someone justify the statement "It takes skill to play reanimator"?

[Mr. Froggy]

I used to play Reanimator on MTGO, and I've found myself on autopilot a couple of times.. I find its one of the easiest decks to play (maybe because I played it a lot though..) albeit one of the best, too.

My basic opening used to be: Entomb into Jin, Reanimate. Hold counters in hand. Not the most complicated line of play in the world, but one of the most powerful I saw.

[slave]

I come up against reanimator frequently - quite common round me it seems.

I'm surprised how often peeps who have just sewn up game 1 will continue to game 2 without any SBíng at all. I mean, sure you won, but don't you expect me to respond?

I see reanimator as a very strong deck, and easy to pilot, but really - half the peeps I play against aren't seasoned players just by what they let me get away with, and the errors they make - that's fine - we all have to learn somewhere, but Reanimator does attract noobs.
FACT.
The deck still wins in the hands of noobs though, and I'll bet it's one of the most net-decked options new players to legacy look for.

[BWM]

Who needs skills when you can just win instead?

I played Reanimate on GP Ghent, with less than ten games of testing, after starting at 1-1 I proceeded to go to 6-1 without any resistance (I either played against unlucky or bad players or I had the shiznit), in the last two rounds I had two tight matches in which I lost game 3.

This deck can autopilot itself, but why is that a problem? I don't mind not having to think during a tournament if I get to keep the prizes ;-)

[k2thej]

Who needs skills when you can just win instead?

I played Reanimate on GP Ghent, with less than ten games of testing, after starting at 1-1 I proceeded to go to 6-1 without any resistance (I either played against unlucky or bad players or I had the shiznit), in the last two rounds I had two tight matches in which I lost game 3.

This deck can autopilot itself, but why is that a problem? I don't mind not having to think during a tournament if I get to keep the prizes ;-)

I just think a good rule of thumb is that if a deck's mirror match isn't determined by skill, then it's usually not great for the format. I think if you're playing a reanimator mirror, skill certainly helps, but it doesn't have nearly as high an impact as it does in maverick stoneblage, RUG, gobs, elves, merfolk, etc.

[Grand Superior]

I just think a good rule of thumb is that if a deck's mirror match isn't determined by skill, then it's usually not great for the format. I think if you're playing a reanimator mirror, skill certainly helps, but it doesn't have nearly as high an impact as it does in maverick stoneblage, RUG, gobs, elves, merfolk, etc.

I personally think the Reanimator mirror is pretty interesting and skill-intensive. You have to be very careful with your enablers because your opponent can just untap and Reanimate your Griselbrand, you have to fight through blue countermagic and black discard, and you have to remember the little things like Entombing a creature in response to their Exhume to beat or legend rule their fatty, using Thoughtseize as an enabler, etc etc.

Certainly more skill-intensive than something like the Sneak and Show mirror or the Belcher mirror.

[ColeM]

It's probably best to relate the influence of skill on a game's outcome to the amount of interaction between the two participating decks in a given game. The more interactions the more skill matters. So, Reanimator deck probably benefits greatly from a skilled pilot in a matchup against hate + other disruption, but benefits a lot less against mono red burn or something.

This should be pretty much true for any deck.

[catmint]

I agree with ypkon. Same stuff was told (is true) about Show&Tell. You can win games by itself without knowing the deck/beeing a good player. But over a number of games/tournaments an experienced/good pilot has a HUGE edge over a bad player.

And altough this statement is less true about other decks, keep in mind also the decision heavy decks have a powerlevel to enable draws that autopilot themselves so anybody can win. RUG on the play with a nut draw: Delver, Daze, FoW, Bolt your face happens just like turn 1 chalice against RUG or Maverick winning with exalted Thalia beats while wasting dual lands versus storm.

It's probably best to relate the influence of skill on a game's outcome to the amount of interaction between the two participating decks in a given game. The more interactions the more skill matters.

Not only. Knowing how to board, how to mulligan is a huuuge factor for every deck and is only interactive in the sense of knowing what your opponent does, but basically a very skill dependant non-interactive decision making process.

[ColeM]

I agree with ypkon. Same stuff was told (is true) about Show&Tell. You can win games by itself without knowing the deck/beeing a good player. But over a number of games/tournaments an experienced/good pilot has a HUGE edge over a bad player.

And altough this statement is less true about other decks, keep in mind also the decision heavy decks have a powerlevel to enable draws that autopilot themselves so anybody can win. RUG on the play with a nut draw: Delver, Daze, FoW, Bolt your face happens just like turn 1 chalice against RUG or Maverick winning with exalted Thalia beats while wasting dual lands versus storm.

Not only. Knowing how to board, how to mulligan is a huuuge factor for every deck and is only interactive in the sense of knowing what your opponent does, but basically a very skill dependant non-interactive decision making process.

One could probably argue that sideboarding and mulligans are part of increasing or decreasing interaction. You do allude to a few things I didn't mention, however.

It is true that it takes some skill just to goldfish a deck. Decks with less clear (or more ) lines of play are more difficult to operate in an optimal manner. Storm is more difficult to operate than mono red burn. However, I feel that it's important to understand that the influence of skill level can be a function of opposing matchup. Reanimator is much easier to play if your opponent is piloting 40-lightning-bolt.dec than when he/she is piloting RUG.

[FieryBalrog]

Well, if it's any consolation Show & Tell makes Reanimator look hard.

Deckls Mav and Miracle Top tend to have way more interesting, interactive decision trees than these clowns. Storm isn't all that much for the interaction but has some complex internal decision making. Combo has gotten a lot less cool now that much of it consists of "get card X and card Y". Show & Tell is a terrible, boring card.

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

It takes skill in an absolute sense, but relative to many other Legacy archetypes it is as dumb as can be. No combat math, no tricky decisions on what to remove/counter, no complicated board states, no spell chains, no Doomsday piles, no Upkeep triggers to manage, no tricky stack shenanigans, relatively little room as far as tuning for the meta (compared to something like SI, Maverick, Enchantress, Blue Tempo, ). And the decision faced by the opponent boils down to "Do I have the specific answer to his haymaker-critter, Force, or the right yard hate fast enough?". What engrossing gameplay....

[Esper3k]

Meh, I've had plenty of games where opponents playing Storm combo claimed to have great skill and they just sat and died to a Thalia + Mom. So much skill on both sides!