Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

  1. #61

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by C.P. View Post
    Burning wish was a pile before Coldsnap and TS block. If ETW, Rite, SSG was not printed, Red based storm combo deck will not exist, making burning wish marginal at best. The example of yours works only because Wizards printed those cards. If they did not, Bomholmn would still be right on the burning wish in Legacy combo. If you think you were insightful for not giving up on Burning wish, you are wrong. You were just lucky.

    Any cards can be argued the same. The Ideas can get better with new cards, but that does not make the idea better at the time.
    There's some amount of truth to that, but even if the original Burning Wish based combo decks were inferior to IGGY POP at the time, if we didn't invent them or continue to develop them, then TES wouldn't exist. Even tho' modern TES is built around ETW, Rite of Flame and SSG, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the original lists and conclude that Mike Bomholmn would have been right. Knowing what I know about Burning Wish based combo now, I could go back to the summer of 06 and build a 5c based Burning Wish combo deck that still defeated aggro and had a better game against Landstill and Threshold than IGGY POP.

    I wont argue that luck was involved, but saying insight wasn't involved isn't fair either. The funny thing about Magic is, is that you can't afford to throw away any idea or deck list that has potential, even if it isn't viable or competitive, because you never know when a new card is going to be printed. Look at Ichorid, people disregarded that deck in this format since its inception, and now it's a significant threat. No one can argue that it's not because of Future Sight, but saying that there was never any potential there to begin with is a dubious argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by wastedlife View Post
    Breathweapon, I regret saying this but ... I've been liking you more and more every day.

  2. #62
    Undefined Fantastic Object

    Join Date

    Oct 2006
    Location

    Waterloo, Canada
    Posts

    810

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by BreathWeapon View Post
    Look at Ichorid, people disregarded that deck in this format since its inception, and now it's a significant threat. No one can argue that it's not because of Future Sight, but saying that there was never any potential there to begin with is a dubious argument.
    There are lots of cards like that. Goblin Lackey would still be funny jank if it was not for Onslaught block. Didgeridoo will be broken as hell if there was good minotaurs that will back it up. Sure you never know, but that does not justify putting efforts on the deckbuilding. We are playing the format right now, and being the best in the present format is the goal that we need to persue.

    So what if Burning Wish or Ichorid had potential? Does that mean that those cards should have been considered back when they sucked? No. Developing an idea when it is clearly not good is not insightful, it is just having too much time to spare. At least in the competitive magic, that is.

    EDIT: Bit more on Ichorid. Ichorid works differently when you have efficient ways of putting your library to graveyard,which clearly did not exist back then. you say that you could build 5c tendrils based on Burning wish an year ago, but burning wish will never work the same way when you don't have ETW, nor Red in the deck will work same without Rite or SSG.
    She said, "You're broken."
    "So is your face." replied the Tarmogoyf.

  3. #63

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by C.P. View Post
    There are lots of cards like that. Goblin Lackey would still be funny jank if it was not for Onslaught block. Didgeridoo will be broken as hell if there was good minotaurs that will back it up. Sure you never know, but that does not justify putting efforts on the deckbuilding. We are playing the format right now, and being the best in the present format is the goal that we need to persue.

    So what if Burning Wish or Ichorid had potential? Does that mean that those cards should have been considered back when they sucked? No. Developing an idea when it is clearly not good is not insightful, it is just having too much time to spare. At least in the competitive magic, that is.

    EDIT: Bit more on Ichorid. Ichorid works differently when you have efficient ways of putting your library to graveyard,which clearly did not exist back then. you say that you could build 5c tendrils based on Burning wish an year ago, but burning wish will never work the same way when you don't have ETW, nor Red in the deck will work same without Rite or SSG.
    That wasn't the issue in either case tho', Burning Wish was good in combo before ETW, Rite of Flame and SSG were printed, but it became great in combo after those cards were printed. Burning Wish was being used in Nausea as an engine card, and yes, I know how awful Nausea was, just on the basis of being able to Burning Wish + LED for Diminishing Returns, tutor for removal or find the second Tendrils to good affect. There was never a point at which the card "sucked" in combo, that was just the "hype" of Mike Bomholmn.

    At what point has this format never had efficient outlets for Ichorid? Cephalid Coliseum, Lion's Eye Diamond, Tolarian Winds, Breakthrough and Putrid Imp existed just as much at the separation of the banned list as they do now. If you would have said dredge didn't have the power level to compete before Future Sight, I would have agreed with you, but saying Ichorid didn't have the outlets to compete doesn't make any sense.

    Edit: Are you talking about Ichorid as in the card or Ichorid as in the deck? I meant the deck if we've accidentally skewed our arguments here.
    Quote Originally Posted by wastedlife View Post
    Breathweapon, I regret saying this but ... I've been liking you more and more every day.

  4. #64
    Undefined Fantastic Object

    Join Date

    Oct 2006
    Location

    Waterloo, Canada
    Posts

    810

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by BreathWeapon View Post
    At what point has this format never had efficient outlets for Ichorid? Cephalid Coliseum, Lion's Eye Diamond, Tolarian Winds, Breakthrough and Putrid Imp existed just as much at the separation of the banned list as they do now. If you would have said dredge didn't have the power level to compete before Future Sight, I would have agreed with you, but saying Ichorid didn't have the outlets to compete doesn't make any sense.

    Edit: Are you talking about Ichorid as in the card or Ichorid as in the deck? I meant the deck if we've accidentally skewed our arguments here.
    Ichorid as a card and a deck. It did not exist before dredge. Even after the dredge, it was not a viable strategy in legacy. Only because they printed 3+ cards that works with the deck in TS block, it became a viable deck in Legacy.
    She said, "You're broken."
    "So is your face." replied the Tarmogoyf.

  5. #65

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by C.P. View Post
    Ichorid as a card and a deck. It did not exist before dredge. Even after the dredge, it was not a viable strategy in legacy. Only because they printed 3+ cards that works with the deck in TS block, it became a viable deck in Legacy.
    Ichorid existed before Dredge, it was part of a deck that used Zombie Infestation, Wild Mongrel and Hermit Druid along with Squee, Goblin Nabob and Krovikan Horror (Wild Zombies was the name, I think). That was a long, long time ago, but Ichorid had a precedence before the Dredge engine was developed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wastedlife View Post
    Breathweapon, I regret saying this but ... I've been liking you more and more every day.

  6. #66
    Undefined Fantastic Object

    Join Date

    Oct 2006
    Location

    Waterloo, Canada
    Posts

    810

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by BreathWeapon View Post
    Ichorid existed before Dredge, it was part of a deck that used Zombie Infestation, Wild Mongrel and Hermit Druid along with Squee, Goblin Nabob and Krovikan Horror (Wild Zombies was the name, I think). That was a long, long time ago, but Ichorid had a precedence before the Dredge engine was developed.
    And it sucked. Also, I meant Legacy, not 1.5.

    What I want to assert is that An idea that is not worth your time can be good by seeing a new card, but that does not justify you insisting on a bad idea.
    She said, "You're broken."
    "So is your face." replied the Tarmogoyf.

  7. #67
    Member

    Join Date

    Jun 2004
    Location

    Madison, WI
    Posts

    1,601

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cait_Sith View Post
    Yea, since the Summer of '06 totally had SSS.



    Part of the problem is that there aren't people who can make constructive criticism. When someone goes "I don't think this idea will work" and leaves it at that, what are you supposed to do? I ended up getting angry when several people did that to me; they told me it wouldn't work, they never said why. Even worse is when people explain to you how your metagame deck loses to a metagame its not designed to win in. You assume that people always make intelligent comments and only their opponents are idiots.
    See, I get the constructive criticism, but it's often wrong. People have strange ideas about what is or isn't good, I remember when everyone in T2 thought that Memory Lapse/Predict was just titties and mai tais. Budde runs AK/Intuition at a high profile Extended event(no, I'm not looking up what it was, I'm too lazy), and now the two are irrevocably linked in people's minds. For the longest time, people in T1 repeatedly told me that Pernicious Deed was strictly worse than Powder Keg. While I will admit that keeping an open mind does not mean, and cannot mean, accepting any trash as equally viable until you've thoroughly tested it, but people need to be a little more open minded sometimes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Draener View Post
    You know who thinks it's sweet to play against 8 different decks in an 8 round tournament? People who don't like to win, or people that play combo. This is not EDH; Legacy is a competitive environment, and it should reward skill - more so than it does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Borealis View Post
    Plow their Mom every chance you get!

  8. #68

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by C.P. View Post
    And it sucked. Also, I meant Legacy, not 1.5.

    What I want to assert is that An idea that is not worth your time can be good by seeing a new card, but that does not justify you insisting on a bad idea.
    It was a PT deck that did quite well for itself as I recall, Legacy or 1.5 had nothing to do with it.

    The point is, I don't think you're in any position to state that "Burning Wish sucked" in combo before those three cards were printed as a truism, because no one even bothered to develop a wish based combo deck before then. Burning Wish for Diminishing Returns was degenerate by itself, and it still is. If you want to meet up on MWS and play Bardo's 2006 Threshold vs one of the original Burning Wish lists, feel free to PM me and I'll prove the point.
    Quote Originally Posted by wastedlife View Post
    Breathweapon, I regret saying this but ... I've been liking you more and more every day.

  9. #69
    Arbitrary Wielder of Justice

    Join Date

    Oct 2003
    Posts

    3,195

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    BreathWeapon: PM sent. (actually two because my internet died and I dunno if the first went through.)
    When in doubt, mumble.

    When in trouble, delegate.

  10. #70

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by BreathWeapon View Post
    The point is, I don't think you're in any position to state that "Burning Wish sucked" in combo before those three cards were printed as a truism, because no one even bothered to develop a wish based combo deck before then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breathweapon
    Burning Wish was being used in Nausea as an engine card, and yes, I know how awful Nausea was,...
    Apparently even you acknowledge that Burning Wish was tried before and that it was bad.
    People bothered they just failed.
    Granted their work probably made it easier to develop good Burning Wish decks once SSS, ETW, and Rite were printed.

  11. #71

    Re: [Discussion] How much is the format driven by theory?

    @Frogboy,

    We can arrange something, it has to be on a Sunday tho', and I'm camping this weekend.

    @Ewokslayer

    That quote is sort of out of the context of what I meant,

    Nausea being bad and thus Burning Wish being bad isn't a given conclusion. Nausea used inconsistent cards from Helm of Awakening, Spheres and Eggs, Spoils of the Vault, Meditate, Land Grant, Ancient Tomb etc. and didn't use disruption, which is what made it so bad. Nausea's wins were coming from tutor/wish + LED into an enabler, at which point people started to recognize that fact and build Burning/Death Wish and Grim Tutor based Long decks that were the progenitors of TES.

    People are just assuming that Burning Wish was bad, but there was never enough time to prove that it was good before Empty the Warrens made it great. Right of Flame and Simian Spirit Guide were important to, but less so, because even Elvish Spirit Guide and Tinder Wall can simulate their effects approximately.
    Quote Originally Posted by wastedlife View Post
    Breathweapon, I regret saying this but ... I've been liking you more and more every day.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)