[Article] Unlocking Legacy: Fit To Survive

[Di]

If you don't want to argue a point, you let it drop. You don't sneak in your own diatribe and THEN declare the fight over.

I am letting it drop. Yes, in a rather childish manner, but that's how I see this argument. The fight isn't over, because other people can chime in if they like, but I'm just not discussing it.

I agree with Bongo in that automatically making any assumptions about any deck is indicitave that you don't know what you're doing, and you're just repeating what you've seen/done before. Anger is obviously very synergistic with the deck, but if you've never even thought about dropping it from the deck, you're probably doing something wrong.

Did you read this? From me a couple posts above:

I will admit that I did not test this deck, and I did dismiss it rather quickly. For this I will apologize to you because I am basing a lot of my theory on speculation, but I personally can't imagine running a Survival deck without red. I think this is perhaps because we have a greatly different view of Survival. Now that I think, pretty much both of our arguments are entirely void at this point, because we are basically discussing two entirely different decks. You look at ATS and RGBSA, they are aggro-control decks. Emphasis on aggro. Anger is an aggro card. Your GBW build is purely control. Without the aggro aspect of the deck, I suppose I can understand why Anger is unnecessary (although I don't like that logic, I see your point). Regardless, it's showing innovation for Survival from all sides, which is a good thing

I'm not sure if that entirely answers what you're saying, but I figured I'd stick it back out there.

[Tacosnape]

I agree with Bongo in that automatically making any assumptions about any deck is indicitave that you don't know what you're doing, and you're just repeating what you've seen/done before. Anger is obviously very synergistic with the deck, but if you've never even thought about dropping it from the deck, you're probably doing something wrong.

QFT. On both counts. No two Survival decks run the same, and a lot of Survival is running what you're comfortable with.

Anger, like Valor in white builds, is awesome when he's working, but he's a weak card without Survival and just one more reason for graveyard hate to actually be effective.

The only two creatures I consistently run in any Survival build are Squee and Genesis, and I don't always run Genesis in my more aggro builds (Zenigata and Twilight, the latter of which I have yet to post.)

I thoroughly like the black splash in most Survival decks as black addresses Survival's two biggest weaknesses. How not to get wrecked by combo decks, and how not to get completely overrun by Goblins. The combo slots for Survival in black should obviously be Duress and Therapy, and for slots 9-12 I prefer Mesmeric Fiend, as this gives you 12 heat-seeking missiles, the latter four of which can be dug up with Survival.

Also, I don't agree with the assessment that 2-color Survival is automatically better than 3+ color Survival. I've won many a tournament with 4C builds, which are admittedly risky, but feasible due to the options they present. I've also seen many 3-color builds work (I myself had an excellent GWB version.)

[hi-val]

I thought the article was well written, and would have been persuasive if it didnt fold to one idiom that I thought has become very common in reference to Survival: Dont have half of your deck made of techy one-ofs. If you do, and for any reason are denied the full use of SotF, then you will lose.

Is the fault with the idiom? Because it seems more than reasonable to me...

I don't mean to sound like a douche but did you actually read my article? I spent a thousand words talking about this very point.

The only really survival-dependent cards are Squee and Anger.

I specifically talk about how bad it is when you try to tech the deck too much.


On the topic of Anger, are we talking about a card that:

-when you don't have Survival out, it's mediocre
-When you do have Survival out, your deck goes INSANE, more than any other card you could possibly run in the deck

and we're playing a deck that's made to get Survival out?

That's like saying you shouldn't run STP in UW Landstill because it's bad if you don't have a Plains on the board. That's a really, really weak argument.

On the topic of Genesis, it's the reason why you beat so many decks; the inevitability it and only it grants is too much to sacrifice in a deck where you depend on dominating the long game.

On the topic of aggro Survival, I think it's terrible. Take out the Survivals and replace them with Skyshroud War Beasts or River Boas.

I still don't really see what 3 or 4-color Survival builds really give you. They don't give you any disruption that's better than Chalice. Blue gives you bouncing and creaturekill (Red and Green kill permanents and creatures), Black gives creature-based discard (which is why I would run a splash of it) and white gives you Hierarch and Glowrider (both don't impress me enough to run white). Like you CAN run 3 or 4 or 5-color builds but I've yet to see a persuasive, synergistic reason to run more colors when you don't have to. It think that's getting in danger of Cool Things.

Black doesn't win you the first game against Goblins unless you're running Gloomdrifter main and Pyromancer is just fine in that slot anyway. Black doesn't really win you the first game against combo either because combo decks don't fold to 1-for-1 discard.

For the GWB Survival players, what do you think your deck's advantages are over GWB Control (Truffle Shuffle)? I'm honestly curious here.

[iOWN]

I don't mean to sound like a douche but did you actually read my article? I spent a thousand words talking about this very point.

The only really survival-dependent cards are Squee and Anger.

I specifically talk about how bad it is when you try to tech the deck too much.

I hope I'm not just misreading what you are saying and reposting what's been said, but I think that what Mirrislegend was trying to say you're build looks like it's large toolbox of creatures may sometimes be a burden. Sylvan Library looks great as an alternate consistency engine to Survival that can't be Needled, however you still have 10 one-of creatures as opposed to 12 total grouped in playsets. I'll admit I haven't tested your list yet, but it would seem like it would suboptimal when Survival is not active to end up drawing somewhat useless one-ofs (well, " somewhat useless" most of the time) when you could increase consistency with more multiples of cards you want to get when lacking SotF.

They don't give you any disruption that's better than Chalice.

While that is true, 3+C builds offer additional disruption that is better than Pillar, thus improving the combo match more. (As in disruption in the form of Creatures.)

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

On the topic of Anger, are we talking about a card that:

-when you don't have Survival out, it's shitty

Fixed.

-When you do have Survival + Taiga + Rofellos/lots of lands out, your deck goes INSANE, more than any other card you could possibly run in the deck

Fixed.

That's like saying you shouldn't run STP in UW Landstill because it's bad if you don't have a Plains on the board. That's a really, really weak argument.

Hyperbole is pretty awesome, I agree.

StP is a card that stands alone. It's not a card that needs a certain land to stick around in your tertiary color that otherwise adds very little to the deck.

I mean, really, what in that "analogy" makes you think that it's even remotely similiar?

A)2 colors vs 3 colors - I don't think anyone suggested that in a G/R Survival build, you shouldn't run Anger. We're talking about versions that don't run red, quite obviously, so comparing these two things as mana-base issues is just ridiculous.

B)StP requires only a single white mana for one turn to work. Anger requires Survival + Taiga + Rofellos to abuse Anger. It's a two turn set-up that requires a couple things sticking around to get busted. This is perfectly feasible, but not ideal or necessary in every Survival build.

I still don't really see what 3 or 4-color Survival builds really give you.

I don't think anyone else gets what it takes away.

They don't give you any disruption that's better than Chalice. Blue gives you bouncing and creaturekill (Red and Green kill permanents and creatures), Black gives creature-based discard (which is why I would run a splash of it) and white gives you Hierarch and Glowrider (both don't impress me enough to run white). Like you CAN run 3 or 4 or 5-color builds but I've yet to see a persuasive, synergistic reason to run more colors when you don't have to. It think that's getting in danger of Cool Things.

In a format defined by fetch-lands and dual-lands, running more than 2 colors is hardly "cool things". It's an accepted and incredibly easily obtained norm.

Black doesn't win you the first game against Goblins unless you're running Gloomdrifter main and Pyromancer is just fine in that slot anyway. Black doesn't really win you the first game against combo either because combo decks don't fold to 1-for-1 discard.

It can give you some time to set up your card advantage engine, and it gives you cheap redundancy in creature kill. We're not looking for cards that single-handedly win the game vs combo turn 1, because no card does that.

[Bongo]

Whoa, a lot of points to discuss here!
Although there are some disagreements about how Survival should be built, that's not a reason to get angry. Let's keep it civil, because I think there are some really important things to learn here.

Just because I'm not attacking until turn 4 or so doesn't mean the deck isn't aggro. It will take a small amount of time to set up, and then by turn 4-5 when you send 10+ damage at their face I'm pretty sure I could define that as aggro.

By that rationale, Vintage Gifts would be aggro. It also sets itself up for a turn where it sends in 10+ damage with Colossus/Timewalk, but that doesn't make the deck aggro. It's not the win condition that defines if a deck is aggro or not, it's the way a deck functions.

This statement is irrelevant because Threshold is nearly a 70% win percentage for basically every Survival variant, and Zoo is an incredibly weak (not to mention underplayed) archtype. They play small men, like 2/2s or 2/3s or maybe some 3/2. I'm unsure where the idea came that a Survival deck wasn't able to deal with a weenie deck like Zoo, because it's basically designed to deal with aggro, and that is one that is 10x worse than Goblins.

I don't want to nitpick here, but against competent Threshold players, I wasn't getting anywhere near 70% with the old Survival builds.
You're also underestimating Zoo. If I recall correctly, the 1st Source Tourney and the Finnish Legacy Championship were won by a Zoo build. They put a lot of early pressure on you, and Dark Confidant is not effective defense against Zoo and Goblins. You're really dependant on Survival here.
Pernicious Deed improved both matchups significantly. Why not make favorable matchups even more in your favor?

If they believe a Cataclysm will win them the game when I still tutor up mana accelerants and 4/4 Werebears for the rest of the game, let them. The only time, only time I would honestly fear the Cataclysm would if I was without Survival facing a creature with Umezawa's Jitte on it. That can certainly happen, but the odds of it happening are worse than me drawing a Survival.

Cataclysm is even worse than Parallax Wave for the Survival player. Tutoring up mana accelerants and playing them costs you a few turns, which are effectively Timewalks for the Angel Stompy player until you have blockers. Even in the optimal scenario where you have Squee & Anger in the grave and a Taiga in play, you need 1GGG to cast a meaningful blocker (G for tutoring Birds, G to play them, tap them to search for Werebear, 1G to play Werebear).
If one of the components are missing you need even more time. SoFI or Jitte make recovering even more difficult. If the remaining creature is Priest or Angel, you can't even block effectively. There are so many "if"s for the Survival player.
Angel Stompy was by no means an easy matchup with the old Survival builds (the new version with Cataclysm even more so).

And honestly, I don't think Therapy is the correct choice here, even backed by Duress. Even with 4 of each in the deck, they're quick uneffective against combo unless they're backed by a fast clock, which most Survival decks are lacking.

After trying various solutions, Therapy and Duress gave me the best results. The are two big advantages that the discard spells have over Chalice:

1. They take the best spell out of the hand.
This effectively slows down the combo player by a turn. Chalice can be bounced, and the Solidarity player can proceed to go off. There are also decks like Aluren that aren't hosed by Chalice.
Once the spells are in the graveyard, only a topdecked IGG can get them back. Furthermore, Eternal Witness+Duress/Therapy allows you to constantly attack their hand, which gives you the time you need to finish the game.

2. The cost.
Duress and Therapy can be played beginning at turn 1. While Chalice can also be played for 0, this is only effective against IGGY (and they still have the Ritual route). Most of the time, you set Chalice for 1, which is a turn 2 play in Survival. This is a huge difference, as now Chalice can be countered via Remand/Force from Solidarity or discarded by Therapy/Duress from Salvagers.
Recurring Chalice with Witness also costs 3GG. Solidarity can go off in response to Chalice by then.

For the GWB Survival players, what do you think your deck's advantages are over GWB Control (Truffle Shuffle)? I'm honestly curious here.

A card advantage engine in the form of Survival, faster clock, tutor power&versatility, decreased vulnerability to Wasteland, fewer dead cards maindeck, better sideboard options, better matchup against aggro like Goblins, Deadguy, Zoo, Burn.

Of all the GWB decks like TruffleShuffle & Rock/white, GBW Survival puts up the best results. When I tried the aforementioned decks and tried to improve some matchups, the end resuls was always something similar to GBW Survival.

[hi-val]

Spatula, I was responding to this post:

Anger, like Valor in white builds, is awesome when he's working, but he's a weak card without Survival and just one more reason for graveyard hate to actually be effective.

My point is that if you're going to run one shitty Survival-dependent creature, then Anger is the one, and that having it be shitty when you don't have Survival out is overwhelmingly overruled by how good it is when you have it out.

Kind of like how STP is shitty when you don't have white mana but amazing when you do have it out. See how that works?

And Anger hardly needs Rofellos and lots of land to be insane. Do you play your Baloths and FTKs and then not attack out of kindness for the opponent? Anger is quite strong when you have to race stuff like combo or combo-like objects.

To put it another way, I'd rather run Anger than Squee if it was an either/or decision.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Spatula, I was responding to this post:



My point is that if you're going to run one shitty Survival-dependent creature, then Anger is the one, and that having it be shitty when you don't have Survival out is overwhelmingly overruled by how good it is when you have it out.

Kind of like how STP is shitty when you don't have white mana but amazing when you do have it out. See how that works?

And Anger hardly needs Rofellos and lots of land to be insane. Do you play your Baloths and FTKs and then not attack out of kindness for the opponent? Anger is quite strong when you have to race stuff like combo or combo-like objects.

To put it another way, I'd rather run Anger than Squee if it was an either/or decision.

Not at all the same thing, and I think that if you stopped and thought for about 10 seconds you'd see that.

Anger isn't just a dead slot without Survival, and it's not just a requirement to have a mountain in play. It's a color investment that's pretty situational.

When you're developing a Survival list, most people start with threats/answers they want to run. The problem is, that sometimes that list doesn't include any red cards. In that case splashing red ONLY for Anger is probably bad.

And spending 2 mana then 3 mana then 4 mana for a hasty 4/4 isn't the hot sauce. Anger *needs* Rofellos to be worthwhile. Any other Anger-related play before the late-game is mediocre.

[hi-val]

OK, I'm seeing what you're saying. I hold that Anger is a worthwhile card to run obviously in decks running Red already as well as decks that need to use something that taps for great justice, things like Tradewind. Anger is also a worthwhile card to run in a deck where you are attacking ftw, obvobv, but I think we're in agreement that if your Survival deck is purely based on control, then Anger is less necessary. Do you agree or am I putting words in your mouth?

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

OK, I'm seeing what you're saying. I hold that Anger is a worthwhile card to run obviously in decks running Red already as well as decks that need to use something that taps for great justice, things like Tradewind. Anger is also a worthwhile card to run in a deck where you are attacking ftw, obvobv, but I think we're in agreement that if your Survival deck is purely based on control, then Anger is less necessary. Do you agree or am I putting words in your mouth?

I think we agree.