[Article] "The healthiest constructed format in Magic" feat. Thomas Enevoldsen

[screallix]

First Snapcardster.com article about: Legacy being "The healthiest constructed format in Magic" and how the format looks after Sensei's Divining Top being banned.

+ Interview with Thomas Enevoldsen about his newest brew.


https://snapcardster.com/blog/the-he...rmat-in-magic/

[Lava Snacks]

I'm always happy to see new Legacy writers, and thanks for getting Enevoldsen's thoughts on his Death & Taxes variant.

Just a heads up: You might get some flak towards "As you can see, the event was won by a spicy version of Death and Taxes in the hands of 'Scabs' – the online handle of Thomas Enevoldsen – the Godfather of the deck", so brace yourself

[Griselpuff]

Death and Taxes is crap, Thomas is one of the few people who I would be scared to play against.

Okay, the deck certainly isn't crap, but I think the skill required to play it well is soooooo much higher than almost every other deck in the format. Furthermore, since the release of CN2 it has been on everybody's radar and it's not that hard to hate out.

Great to see his insights on the format too, thanks for the share.

[Zombie]

I'd say Pauper is a great contender as well, though it's lacking a real combo deck.

[Undomian]

the Godfather of the deck

[Claymore]

I also don't think he's the innovator of Ancient Tomb in Taxes but whatever.

[Crimhead]

Just have a look at that top 8 and let it sink in. There is no way that this much diversity would’ve found its way into the top 8 of a Legacy tournament just a few months ago.

This is outright false. Yes, Legacy is very diverse these days, but this particular top8 is almost entirely good-stuff fair decks. We have six aggro/control decks, one aggro/combo deck, and one good-stuff control deck. This is not a good example of diversity in Legacy.

We can very easily find more diverse top8s - now or "a few months ago".

Otherwise, I liked the article.

[ramanujan]

I'd say Pauper is a great contender as well, though it's lacking a real combo deck.

I love Legacy, but Pauper is a fantastic format as well. I totally agree with your post.

[Ellomdian]

This is outright false. Yes, Legacy is very diverse these days, but this particular top8 is almost entirely good-stuff fair decks. We have six aggro/control decks, one aggro/combo deck, and one good-stuff control deck. This is not a good example of diversity in Legacy.

We can very easily find more diverse top8s - now or "a few months ago".

Otherwise, I liked the article.

Second'd - a 'diverse' metagame is one where there are as many people incentivized to play dedicated combo as there are control or aggro. 3 different MidrangeGoodCards.dec are not automatically more 'diverse' than half the room deciding that Marvel to cast dumb shit is the best thing to be doing.

Arguing whether DRS should be used to cast White cards or Red cards alongside the Blue ones isn't diversity.

[juzamjimjams]

Second'd - a 'diverse' metagame is one where there are as many people incentivized to play dedicated combo as there are control or aggro. 3 different MidrangeGoodCards.dec are not automatically more 'diverse' than half the room deciding that Marvel to cast dumb shit is the best thing to be doing.

Arguing whether DRS should be used to cast White cards or Red cards alongside the Blue ones isn't diversity.

I don't really feel that this is what he was trying to say, I mean sure, the top 8 was cluttered with Deathrite Shaman. The tournament didn't end with a Miracles mirror match - and THAT is a breath of fresh air. Regardless of the deck-building constraints that DRS presents; the statement sounded more like "oh look, the top 8 wasn't cluttered with Miracles and whatever other decks were built to thrive in Miracles-defined terrain", rather than "this is what diversity looks like".

Thank you for the content Andreas, it was enjoyable to read regardless of your unwillingness to trash talk standard.

[Crimhead]

I don't really feel that this is what he was trying to say...

He said the top8 was diverse. It really isn't. That top8 makes Legacy look like a fair-deck format.

the statement sounded more like "oh look, the top 8 wasn't cluttered with Miracles and whatever other decks were built to thrive in Miracles-defined terrain"

I don't think you can call a spread of decks less diverse because of the environment those decks happen to thrive in. Most of us measure diversity by a variety of play-styles and strategies.

You could use that argument to call any post SDT top8 diverse - literally regardless of the placing archetypes!

There are three plenty of very diverse top8s to be found in this format. This one is a bit of a dud.

[juzamjimjams]

"There is no way that this much diversity would’ve found its way into the top 8 of a Legacy tournament just a few months ago."

Sounds comparative to me, but idk, at this point it seems we're arguing interpretation.

[Crimhead]

And how exactly is that top8 more diverse than this top8?

http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=15222&d=292389&f=LE

This top8 boasts a better mix of combo vs fair decks, and a vastly broader range of synergies and strategies, and a better range of individual cards played. Just have a look at this top 8 and let it sink in.

2 Tempo decks (1 good-stuff and 1 synergy based)
2 control decks
2 combo decks
1 aggro/combo deck
1 ramp deck

I get that people are happy with the shake-up (I'm rather enjoying it myself). But let's be objective when looking at individual tournament results. eg, 2x D&T in a top8 is not inherently more diverse than 2x Miracles.
7/8 fair decks with little to no synergy ranks among the least diverse top8s I've ever seen.

[sjmcc13]

Most of us measure diversity by a variety of play-styles and strategies.

I think the problem is that there is a large segment of the player base (possibly even the majority) who do not look at playstyles within archetypes like combo/control/aggro/etc, but look at different decks, and different colors.

Strategic diversity of one of the things that made Magic really good, but the design focus for standard and limited is so narrow allow of players do not know what real diversity is anymore.

[Crimhead]

Agreed I think there are a lot of players who measure diversity almost entirely by the range of options for fair or good-stuff decks.

[Stuart]

I'd say Pauper is a great contender as well, though it's lacking a real combo deck.

The other issue with Pauper is that Aggro too easily rises to the top. The current meta is, what, like 40-50% Aggro? When the combo decks get banned and there aren't any true sweepers (just stuff like Nausea and Evincar's Justice), it's hard to keep decks like Stompy, Affinity, and U/UR Delver in check. Personally, I put its format-health on par with Modern and Vintage.

Of course, if you incorporate price into your considerations of health (and maybe we should!) Pauper is hands-down the healthiest constructed format.

[Crimhead]

Of course, if you incorporate price into your considerations of health (and maybe we should!) Pauper is hands-down the healthiest constructed format.

I think it would be better to incorporate accessibility rather than price. Pauper is affordable, but that's not much help if you can't find players and events.

[btm10]

This is outright false. Yes, Legacy is very diverse these days, but this particular top8 is almost entirely good-stuff fair decks. We have six aggro/control decks, one aggro/combo deck, and one good-stuff control deck. This is not a good example of diversity in Legacy.

We can very easily find more diverse top8s - now or "a few months ago".

Otherwise, I liked the article.

Not to get too far into the weeds here, but the difference in diversity between the two top 8s being discussed is largely taxonomic. For instance, Post and Big Red are at least as closely related to each other as linear big mana decks as Grixis and UR Delver, and suggesting that Elves and Death and Taxes are 'good stuff' decks makes little sense when the alternative seems to be 'synergy' decks.

There's also the possibility of too much diversity (as happens in Modern) that's not being discussed. While having a metagame constrained by having too few options with constructed-playable power (as in Standard), or by excessively powerful effects (as in Vintage) isn't good, neither is having a metagame so poorly defined that appropriate interactive elements or axes of interaction can't be identified, since the correct response to an excessively diverse metagame like that is simply to eschew interaction entirely. I get that you in particular aren't particularly Spikey, but wanting a boundless, anything goes format substantially undermines the competitive integrity of the format by giving outsize weight to deck selection and tournament pairings as determinants of success relative to tight play.

[Crimhead]

For instance, Post and Big Red are at least as closely related to each other as linear big mana decks as Grixis and UR Delver, and suggesting that Elves and Death and Taxes are 'good stuff' decks makes little sense when the alternative seems to be 'synergy' decks.

Elves was the single deck in the list I noted as not being "good-stuff". 1/8 is not a good show.

Not much synergy in D&T I think. Not in the way Symbiot, Heritage Druid, etc, synergise with other Elves. Not in the way pumps (particularly Invigorate) synergise with Infect creatures.

Big Red and 12 Post are very different, one being a combo deck and beatable with combo hate. Also Big Red brings Moons and CotV, so it has a bit of a prison element going.
Maybe I'm biased because (as a Lands player) one deck is very hard to beat while the other I can hardly lose to?

I get that you in particular aren't particularly Spikey...

I like to take the competitive challenge very seriously, even if I'm relaxed about doing so. But I do value deck and card selection (and shrewd side-boarding) as much as I value in-game decisions (tight play). I think it's a good thing if you have to actually think about what to play relative to your meta. The wider the meta, the less a player can coast on net-decking an established list.

but wanting a boundless, anything goes format substantially undermines the competitive integrity of the format by giving outsize weight to deck selection and tournament pairings as determinants of success relative to tight play.

Increased significance of tournament parings only increases variance - tight play still prevails in the long run (if your meta-gaming is average or better). Enjoyment of high variance =/= less "spikey". Would you say a pot limit omaha player is inherently less spikey than a texas hold 'em player? Or that a big tournament (poker) player is less spikey than a ring game grinder?

Some spikes want to minimise variance to increase the consistency of their winning (these guys only care about winning). Other spikes primarily want to be challenged with difficult strategic decisions - and to test our ability to compete. A wide open meta is fantastic for the latter type of spike, but not so good for the former.

I get that some people prefer a specific type of game. If you love the nature of fair deck value matches, you might prefer a format where this is the focus. Nothing wrong with that. But if I want a format which emphasises a wider skill set and the ability to change (drastically) strategies, I am not therefore less "spikey". It's kind of analagous to a decathlon vs a single sporting event.

I can also understand how people might prefer a less diverse meta and thereby a lower variance format. There's a certain appeal to a format where the more skilled player is favoured to win any given match. But I disagree that that sort of format has more competitive integrity. I'm an older dude from Generation X, and I'm less fixated with instant gratification. I'm happy to win in the long run. I also was a (low-mid stakes) professional poker player before I really got into competitive MTG, so high variance and competitive integrity can co-exist nicely in my experience.

What does compromise competitive integrity is money - and the need to meta-game does exacerbate that problem. So does the need for dual lands though.

There's also the possibility of too much diversity (as happens in Modern) that's not being discussed...
...neither is having a metagame so poorly defined that appropriate interactive elements or axes of interaction can't be identified, since the correct response to an excessively diverse metagame like that is simply to eschew interaction entirely.

I don't follow Modern closely, but perhaps the issue is a lack of versatile answers? Legacy has quality counter-magic and Wasteland, so you can disrupt a wide range of strategies pre-board.

I'd rather avoid the non-interactive argument.