[Article] Be Aggressive

[Anusien]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/new...cle/14000.html

Previously, Kevin claimed that "aggro-board control is the new aggro-control." This week he steps up to try to prove it with aggressive strategies built around very powerful cards. As a bonus he talks about how to choose a deck for the Grand Prix and Grand Prix trials.

I feel that the material covered in this article is a lot better than some of the other stuff I've written, so I hope you like it, and I'm hoping it generates a lot of feedback and response.
Remember, I will also take Q&A!

[Zach Tartell]

What is confinement slide? Everytime I ask a team member what it is, everyone just says "It's bad," and tells me not to look into it. As a relitively accomplished solitary player, I wonder about every deck with "confinement" in the title. Can I get a list, or some discussion? Maybe this is better left for PM's or something, but I'm honestly left with a head scratcher here.

Also, you compared FOW and counterspell's drawbacks almost word for word three times.

[Bryant Cook]

Very well done. Although, I disagree with shoving Goblins in new player's faces because it's "The Best". I thought the whole point of these articles were to get tier 1.5-3 decks out there. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Anusien]

Although, I disagree with shoving Goblins in new player's faces because it's "The Best". I thought the whole point of these articles were to get tier 1.5-3 decks out there. Maybe I'm wrong.

Nope. While I focus a lot on developmental decks, perhaps disproportionately, at the end of the day Goblins is still the best deck in the format, and me not saying "Run Goblins unless you have a convincing reason" is sort of a lie.

What is confinement slide? Everytime I ask a team member what it is, everyone just says "It's bad," and tells me not to look into it. As a relitively accomplished solitary player, I wonder about every deck with "confinement" in the title. Can I get a list, or some discussion? Maybe this is better left for PM's or something, but I'm honestly left with a head scratcher here.

Also, you compared FOW and counterspell's drawbacks almost word for word three times.

Confinement Slide is a three color control deck with a lot of the tools you'd expect. I first write about it here. Since then the Sakura-Tribe Elders turned into Jotun Grunts, the StP turned into Orim's Chant and the SB is being overhauled. You're probably being told not to look into it because I keep scrubbing or losing to Goblins with it, despite testing against the same caliber (or better) opponents that I lose to. I think it has promise, but I'm the only one working on it anymore and it's not as interesting and fresh to me as it once was.
My articles actually stem from conversations I have with fellow magic players, either on AIM or IRC (so talk to me online and there's a good chance you'll make it into an article!) and in many ways my articles are written as if conversing with an imaginary player. Hence the repetition. Also, I think that point is worth repeating since it should have been included in my previous article. I find new ways to analyze things and to present new concepts that I feel are worth sharing.

[C.P.]

I do agree on the fact that goblins is the best pick for the ones who are not familiar with the format, but I don't think it is in the same position as the affnity in the mirrodin standard. At least goblins does not need a dedicated hate deck.

I think it is this kind of attitude the causes some fools to say 'see? goblins are problematic so lackey should be banned OMFG!!!!!1!!1111eleventeen'

It is the best deck, but other decks clearly have a chance and deck choice should come down to your playstyle and knowlegde on the archtype.


Nice job on the article, though.

[Finn]

Anusien, your decks are peachy keen as long as no one is playing combo. Especially for the first deck, you should read the Land Ho! thread to supplement your research. Everybody figured out how disgusting Dev Dreams is with Life from the Loam early, but we were never really comfortable against combo. It was so bad that I threw the towel in and went strait out against aggro and control only.

I like how you put Pikula's deck in focus. He taught us a lesson. true...true

[Cavius The Great]

I find it amusing that Anusien suggests everyone to play Goblins. Watch him enter the Grand Prix with Anti-Goblins.DEC and win the whole tournament.

[Anusien]

I find it amusing that Anusien suggests everyone to play Goblins. Watch him enter the Grand Prix with Anti-Goblins.DEC and win the whole tournament.

I find it insulting that you think I would sacrifice my integrity or the community for the sake of a tournament. If you think that the advice or strategy or analysis I give is wrong, post about it. I've shown in the past that I'm happy to discuss any sort of point, no matter how minute. But accusations that I'm screwing over the readership that I've worked hard to build is like a slap in the face. It is attitudes like this that give Legacy players the reputation they have as elitist and assholes. If you don't want to read my stuff, don't read it. But don't come on here and insult me or mislead others. Unlike you, I actually care about the format.

[Cavius The Great]

I find it insulting that you think I would sacrifice my integrity or the community for the sake of a tournament. If you think that the advice or strategy or analysis I give is wrong, post about it. I've shown in the past that I'm happy to discuss any sort of point, no matter how minute. But accusations that I'm screwing over the readership that I've worked hard to build is like a slap in the face. It is attitudes like this that give Legacy players the reputation they have as elitist and assholes. If you don't want to read my stuff, don't read it. But don't come on here and insult me or mislead others. Unlike you, I actually care about the format.

Wow, you really can't take a joke there, huh buddy? Lighten up man. It was a joke.

[Anusien]

Wow, you really can't take a joke there, huh buddy? Lighten up man. It was a joke.

You know how often I see this attitude? And not just about me, but other writers as well. Have some respect, if not for the articles and the subject matter and the time spent writing it, then at least for the community and SCG for posting them. Don't throw around accusations against people you've never met, even jokingly.

[Volt]

Great article, Kevin. I appreciate the contributions you and other writers make to Legacy.

[Cavius The Great]

You know how often I see this attitude? And not just about me, but other writers as well. Have some respect, if not for the articles and the subject matter and the time spent writing it, then at least for the community and SCG for posting them. Don't throw around accusations against people you've never met, even jokingly.

It wasn't an accusation. It was a freakin' joke. I know that you would never do such a thing, ever heard of sarcasm? It was meant to be funny and I obviously struck a cord of some sort. I never meant to be disrespectful, please get that out of your head. I'm a fan of your articles and I think that you're an articulate writer. I would never do anything to disrespect you.

[Bardo]

I thought the whole point of these articles were to get tier 1.5-3 decks out there. Maybe I'm wrong.

The whole point of the column is to generate and sustain interest in the Legacy format, not to hype and anti-hype (?) any deck or class of decks for any reason whatsoever.

[AnwarA101]

I find it insulting that you think I would sacrifice my integrity or the community for the sake of a tournament. If you think that the advice or strategy or analysis I give is wrong, post about it. I've shown in the past that I'm happy to discuss any sort of point, no matter how minute. But accusations that I'm screwing over the readership that I've worked hard to build is like a slap in the face. It is attitudes like this that give Legacy players the reputation they have as elitist and assholes. If you don't want to read my stuff, don't read it. But don't come on here and insult me or mislead others. Unlike you, I actually care about the format.

I find your outrage ridiculous. It was obvious that he was making a joke and the fact that you take such an offense to something so obvious is bizarre.

But if you want some real criticism, I will give you some. You start the article about how threats are better than answers and you follow that up with a deck that is full of nothing but answers. Your aggro-loam is nothing more than a board control deck which suffers the same problems in Legacy as all board control decks - they only play answers and very few threats. This is the reason they can't beat combo decks because they are relying on their opponent to play creatures. When that doesn't happen their answers are worthless. Your aggro-loam doesn't play any real threats at all against combo. 2 Duress and no relevant clock. I'm not sure you'll even beat Goblins unless you find Life from the Loam quickly as your manabase will be destroyed and their card advantage will come with the advantage of attacking as you scramble to find some board sweeper.

Your second deck seems to have just as many issues. While it plays creatures many of them don't make sense. How do you build Threshold to get Nantuko Monastery to be anything other than a wasteable, colorless source? You can discard your hand to Brushhopper but that seems less than ideal. There is no way to support Jotun Grunt as you can't build your yard. Are you planning to always play against Threshold? You don't have any answers to Lackey on the draw unless you count Llanowar Elves and Aether Vial makes your Trinisphere pretty bad especially considering their best Goblins (Ringleader and Siege-Gang are unaffected). Also your manabase looks like its ripe to be eaten by Rishadan Port and Wasteland. I could go on but I think you get my point.

Your final point about Threshold not being able to beat Goblins consistently seems to be without merit. I've personally beaten Goblins many times with UGW Threshold and I can say its definitely possible and not that unlikely. Threshold has continued to make Top8s and put 3 into the Top 8 at Grand Prix Philadelphia when the field was full of Goblins. Its Goblin matchup maybe even but you can't just say Threshold isn't recommended because you believe its behind. Perhaps you lack the ability to play it to a level that allows it to beat Goblins, but ask any competent Threshold player and they will tell you they can win the matchup. You would recommend Confinement Slide over Threshold even when you failed to beat Goblins with Confinement Slide? That hardly seems to make sense. Perhaps you should have more respect for the decks that achieved success and accept that they are better than you are willing to give them credit for before you tell people not to play a deck as successful as Threshold.

Given all these comments and others I have made before I have serious doubts about your ability to convey the Legacy format in any meaningful way. Its clear that me that you make assertions that make little sense and offer very little to a player that might be wanting to learn something about Legacy.

[hi-val]

I liked the article, not just because I was namechecked and an old article of mine was linked to. Woo!

The thing is that as writers, we aren't presenting things as completely finished works of art, ready to play, unless we explicitly say so. Nobody assumes Rizzo's 10 decks in one article are going to be solid, and nobody figures that Zac Hill's newest block decks are the freshest possible. Look at the legacy decks presented objectively and consider them as starting points for things you've been thinking about.

If the Loam deck isn't amazing, perhaps that illustrates that loam, taken to its logical conclusion in Legacy, isn't going to be amazing. That's really good to know, especially because it can save you time in deckbuilding. Looking at GW aggro can be an interesting starting point as well. Why is it good? Why does it fail? Where are its strengths and weaknesses?

The Legacy article series really rewards critical consumers of information. The goal is to get the reader thinking and get gears turning. As writers, we aren't married to the decks that we propose; instead, we want the reader to see the deck and think something about it.

[Anusien]

Anwar, even if I know he's making a joke (and I didn't), I've heard that same criticism being said earnestly about other people. And it's bullshit.

To answer your criticisms:
Regarding Loam: You're right, the deck has a lot of answers, and I'm up front about the game versus combo. But at the end of the day, Pernicious Deed is a real problem for Threshold. So is Tsunami, even if they don't deal damage. But imagine how different things get when you go to a full set of Cabal Therapy and turn the Smothers into something else (possibly Funeral Charm). Or maybe you hybridize the core with something else (Red Death?). While I do think the deck is awesome, and the 1.x builds do successfully roll with combo, I never tried to pass it off as a finished product.

Regarding the GW deck: You're right, the mana is bad. Possibly the Nantuko Monasteries need to go even though they're good in the abstract, and either I need to balance the creatures out or fit in X number of Chrome Moxen. However, you're dead wrong about Trinisphere. Please, just play one creature per turn out of Aether Vial. Let's match my single creature a turn which is going to be a 3/3 at the least, with your single creature a turn which is a 2/2. And I think you're wrong about the manabase; not only does it have a ridiculous amount of mana sources but every turn they're affecting my mana is a turn they're not developing their own board, and let's not forget I have some small number of outs to their pressure (Orim's Chant). Sure, they could go turn 1 Aether Vial, turn 2 waste, turn 3 port, etc. But why are you comparing the Goblins nuts draw to the average GW draw? What about the games where GW goes turn 2 4/4? That actually seems slightly more probable than Goblins's nut mana draw.

Your criticisms to the decks are "They don't beat everything". Well they were never intended to. I presented them here as interesting cores to advance from and as explanatory tools. Do you say Angel Stompy is completely worthless because it doesn't beat everything? It has fewer anti-combo tools than these decks do.

As for deck matchups, you notice something? Let's assume you're a better player than me (probably not a bad assumption). All your arguments about Threshold v Goblins hinge on you being able to win the matchup. There are two problems I see here
A) It's not that you say it's favorable, but that it's even or slightly behind. That's great. You're likely to face Goblins 3 or more times during the span of the GP. Do you really want to be behind in the matchup you're likely to face the most often.
B) Are you playing with players of equal caliber? Sure, you can go to a random tournament and smash the bad Goblins players, but my assumption has always been that you'll beat the bad players anyway, so build to beat the good players. When you look at good player versus good player, it tends to come out in favor of the Goblins player. If one player is significantly better than the other, it favors that player, otherwise Goblins has an edge. Sure, it's winnable, and you're more likely to win the matchup than win the lottery (from either side of the table), but "they can win the matchup" isn't a ringing endorsement. And this isn't even coming from my perspective; I'm leaning on the testing of Dan, Doug and others.

Let's leave the flames behind. We don't need to make allegations regarding whether I am a good player in any specific deck or matchup. I can talk bad draws or whatever (although it's worth noting that I misunderstood the way the triggered abilities worked in parts of the deck, which caused me to play sub-optimally), but at the end of the day the people who have tested the deck think it has game. The one problem I would identify, other than the pilot, is that it tends to lose to the more inevitable board control decks like Survival or Pernicious Deed decks.

[Citrus-God]

[You priceless rant]

You have officially (not being sarcastic here) became my all time hero, right next to Rachael Leigh Cook. But I am however sorry for putting you alongside with the "She's All That" star with you though.....

As for the article, it's true Threshold cant beat Vial Goblins, but it depends on the draws and playskill of both players usually. Vial Goblins players do well by being aggressive, but knowing what hands to keep when they dont have Vial or Lackey in it. Threshold players can answer Lackey almost through any hand, but what bothers me are the playser that keep hands that dont have cantrips to allow it to last the long game.

I have played Goblins many times, but I've lost tons of them through my own play mistakes and my lack of patience (i.e. doing an alpha strike at the worst time possible, or playing Needle on Ports instead of Gempalm when I had a Green source in my hand, etc, etc...). I'm getting better at managing my patience in this match up, and this MU and Solidarity is truely what tests the skill of the Threshold player.


@Anusien:

I love your article and everything, but I want to know more about your opinions on the decks you built and the format in general.

Your criticisms to the decks are "They don't beat everything". Well they were never intended to. I presented them here as interesting cores to advance from and as explanatory tools. Do you say Angel Stompy is completely worthless because it doesn't beat everything? It has fewer anti-combo tools than these decks do.

Were the decks that you presented intended to be metagame decks? I know Angel Stompy is a metagame deck.

A) It's not that you say it's favorable, but that it's even or slightly behind. That's great. You're likely to face Goblins 3 or more times during the span of the GP. Do you really want to be behind in the matchup you're likely to face the most often.

It depends, but accoridng to the Food Chain/Metagame Clock, Goblins is kinda screwed since the GP takes place at IGGy-Pop capital U.S.A.

Of course, you still need to pack answers to it in order to survive the first day of the tournament.

B) Are you playing with players of equal caliber? Sure, you can go to a random tournament and smash the bad Goblins players, but my assumption has always been that you'll beat the bad players anyway, so build to beat the good players. When you look at good player versus good player, it tends to come out in favor of the Goblins player. If one player is significantly better than the other, it favors that player, otherwise Goblins has an edge. Sure, it's winnable, and you're more likely to win the matchup than win the lottery (from either side of the table), but "they can win the matchup" isn't a ringing endorsement. And this isn't even coming from my perspective; I'm leaning on the testing of Dan, Doug and others.

Virginia is the center of the Big 3 (Think back when Solidarity was considered DTB). Parcher once said that their development of Threshold is designed through the field being heavy of Vial Goblins and Combo decks. I'm sure they wont be playing it if it had an awful Goblins match-up.

I'm also sure you didnt know that a person from Meandeck gave a list to Jason Portizo (I think) which he made Top 8 with, which is of Nothern Virginian design. That's where Anwar plays at, as well as the many Threshold advocates and David Gearhart. He didnt do so hot, and lost to Gekoratel(playing Vial Goblins) in the quarter-finals. He would've done better against him if he had that 4th Clasm and learned how to play that deck before hand.

Heres he's report:
http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=292713

1. That was probably his first time playing that list, so he probably didnt know how to side with that deck. His Sideboard also looked janky.

2. Probably didnt know how to play each match-up, especially the Goblins match up since he has Fire // Ice in the SB.

3. Probably sided Cantrips out for Control when Cantrips chain through eachother finding Pyroclasm (which is the best form of control against them).

Jesse Hatfield converted to Red just to make sure his MU against Goblins is stronger, but me however, am still running White until the dawn of time considering that I expect much more of the mirror on Day Two at GP Columbus. I might switch to Red though sicne I still won many games without the aid of Swords to Plowshares.


Playing against Goblins with Threshold is probably most likely like Heads-Up poker really. The most it can get up to is probably 50/50, or 60/40 in Goblins favor.

The one problem I would identify, other than the pilot, is that it tends to lose to the more inevitable board control decks like Survival or Pernicious Deed decks.

As for Survival, it's easy; get your Enforcer to swing 3 times and you win. If you play Red, get your Dragon to swing 2 times and you win. The whole Survival thing is a stupid debate because you ahve so much now to fight Survival decks. Get SDT to resolve.

I've beaten Deed-based decks before, like The Rock, Truffle Shuffle, and BWHC Landstill as well. Counterbalance and SDT are the best things to ever be in this list. But how you beat them game is is quite simple; get Needle on Deed, and play SDT midgame.

[freakish777]

My complaints with the article can be found here:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32693.0



I'd like to know if anyone else agrees on the "writing style" issue I have specifically. I'm less worried about subject matter here, as I'm sure every author/writer is going to some amount of the time write about something you're not interested in. If no one else has problems with Kevin's writing style, I'll chalk it up to me not learning how to read anything other than 1 or 2 styles. If so though, Kevin I'd like to request you vary your writing style occasionally, I wouldn't want what you have to say (regardless of whether or not I find it interesting that particular week) be lost on the reader because they find your writing distracting.

[Volt]

My complaints with the article can be found here:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32693.0



I'd like to know if anyone else agrees on the "writing style" issue I have specifically.

Actually, no, I don't agree with you. I think Kevin is a concise and articulate writer.

[Zilla]

Do you say Angel Stompy is completely worthless because it doesn't beat everything? It has fewer anti-combo tools than these decks do.

No it doesn't, actually. It just happens that most of its combo hate is in the sideboard. Angel Stompy is a metagame deck, and however popular combo may seem these days, it still comprises less than 10% of the field at most large tournaments. The deck is designed to smash aggro and aggro-control, which comprises by far and away the largest portion of most metagames. It has 10 or more cards to bring in from the sideboard for every combo matchup, which is equal to or greater than the amount of hate in your article's second decklist.

This is just picking nits, really, but I feel the clarification is necessary.

As for the article, I think it's pretty good. I think if people take the proposed decklists as being a strong suggestion for what to play at the GP, they're taking the article sorely out of context. These are simply ideas to get the ball rolling, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think Kevin presented these ideas in a misleading way, and to be overly critical of unfinished deck ideas is to miss the article's point entirely.

To touch on a couple of Anwar's points: I agree the manabase is horribly vulnerable. I suspect that Goblins will be able to successfully exploit it, which is a shame because the deck is otherwise jam packed with threats it can't answer. The manabase would be the first place to start in optimizing this list.

I disagree that Monastery is completely out of place here; Anwar's assessment completely ignores its synergy with Cataclysm, which is quite relevant. It's a very strong late game threat against board control and may warrant inclusion as a 2-of for that reason alone.

That said, the dissynergy between Monastery and Grunt is striking. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm pretty sure you need to go with either/or on this one. Frankly, I think Grunt is a terrible choice here. The deck isn't going to fill its yard near fast enough to support Grunt on its own, which means it's fully reliant on its opponent to stick around for more than a turn or two. The deck is already packed with fat; why are these guys necessary? You want maindecked Thresh hate? I'd take a look at Loaming Shaman. It's an unconditional threat that sets Thresh back immediately, without any anti-synergy with Monastery.

I also question Cataclysm's inclusion here. The is objectively fantastic, and it has wonderful synergy with Trinisphere, but the 3spheres are really the only way you get to abuse it. If you have no Trinishere, Cataclysm can often be totally symmetrical. This is particularly true when you're not packing any Swords to Plowshares to remove your opponent's remaining threat. If they are packing StP, there's a good chance you're winning the game for them when you cast Cataclysm. I don't necessarily think Cataclysm is wrong for the deck, I just think there needs to be a greater focus on abusing it if you're going to run it.