Message to all SCG grinders finding Show and tell dumb or just wanting to win

[Tammit67]

If you can head through a 8-9 round tourney and always sack into (1) and only (1) white leyline in the discard match presumably after mulliganing to it then you are either a savage cheater or you truly deserve to be champion.

I'm assuming he's talking about postboard more than anything.

[Arsenal]

Sneak and Show can combo out on turn 0 given the correct hand, is fairly redundant, and it obviously runs Brainstorms (and even Misdirection if things get really dicey), so I'm unclear as to why discard is the #1 way to beat Sneak and Show.

[Worldslayer]

Sneak and Show can combo out on turn 0 given the correct hand, is fairly redundant, and it obviously runs Brainstorms (and even Misdirection if things get really dicey), so I'm unclear as to why discard is the #1 way to beat Sneak and Show.

That's because discard isn't. It isn't the way to beat any Show and Tell strategy, because we all run ~12 cantrips, 4 of which are brainstorm and the rest which manipulate our good cards within reach but out of our hand anyway. Disruption is better than no disruption, but if I'm asking I'll take a flusterstorm over a thoughtseize any day since at least then they're spending their resources and turns on a futile effort instead of me. If anything, Omnitell variants and Show and Tell in general are just here to remind Legacy players that yes, Virginia, you do still need to play counterspells and clocks. Quit it with your Vindicates. They're silly.

[Koby]

remind Legacy players that yes, Virginia, you do still need to play counterspells and clocks. Quit it with your Vindicates. They're silly.

QF-motherfucking-T

Enough of these silly 3 Force of Will maindeck shenanigans. Man up. Play Blue decks like you mean it. Otherwise we mise well all just play Modern Jund.

[feline]

Yea I'm surprised at how discard has gone up and counter's have gone down, but I'm ok with that because you can't cast sorceries when I Time Spiral and on top of that, Brainstorm doesn't help against counterspells, but against discard, it's yet another helpful spell.

[Lejay]

Yea I'm surprised at how discard has gone up and counter's have gone down, but I'm ok with that because you can't cast sorceries when I Time Spiral and on top of that, Brainstorm doesn't help against counterspells, but against discard, it's yet another helpful spell.

You already said and implied all that last page.

[phazonmutant]

The bit about "there just aren't many good American combo players", aside from being a regional assertion/bias I may or may not personally disagree with, does fly directly in the face of the "ban" argument which is more or less "This deck requires no thought or skill to pilot to a Top 8". It gives you a LOT of leeway to win despite mistakes just based on how silly strong SnT is, but it's also kind of bulky - there's not much room for maneuvering your way out of a prepared opponent who draws reasonably well. You're consistent, and strong, and armed to the teeth, but you still have to resolve "big clunky blue spell" to do anything. If they don't let you do that, there isn't much of a damn thing you can do about it. RUG Delver or the American Geist list from Baltimore seem pretty well prepared to take the fight there, and if Omniclash gets huge they'd be my first choices for retaliation.

Deathblade is a grinder deck. It's solid, has a bunch of little decisions and incremental value, and has a lot of different bases covered. It's one of the better "51%" decks I've seen, but at the end of the day it's still a 51% deck. I imagine it'll be around for awhile and just balance out its board position vs. stack dominance as the metagame progresses until they print....whatever does to Deathrite what Deathrite did to Snapcaster Mage, I'd suppose.

That's a good analysis for both decks.

You're right that the assertion that there's not many good American combo players seems a little...ambitious, but it really does seem like most of people that are just good at magic tend to play control here, whereas it seems like good European players are more likely to choose combo. Could be a regional bias though.

[Lejay]

I find the analysis bad actually :

The bit about "there just aren't many good American combo players", aside from being a regional assertion/bias I may or may not personally disagree with, does fly directly in the face of the "ban" argument which is more or less "This deck requires no thought or skill to pilot to a Top 8".

This is obvious, but first realize this isn't about making top8 or not making top8 but rather on the overall power level. I don't particularly want to make things worse for the omniclash player that was on camera, so I'll just quote phazonmutant :
"From what it looked like based on the match that was on camera, a player that clearly was inexperienced either with tournaments or the Infinite Cunning deck managed to make it to X-2. The guy made a pretty obvious mistake, which makes me think that the deck must be pretty powerful to make it this deep in the tournament."
Yes a busted deck gives you more than your fair share of win, but it won't always win it all for you.

It gives you a LOT of leeway to win despite mistakes just based on how silly strong SnT is

:)

but it's also kind of bulky - there's not much room for maneuvering your way out of a prepared opponent who draws reasonably well

I'm not sure what bulky means, but the rest of the sentence can be applied to any deck in legacy.

You're consistent, and strong, and armed to the teeth, but you still have to resolve "big clunky blue spell" to do anything.

When the whole deck is dedicated to that it's not really an issue. And don't tell me it's significantly harder to find the big clunky blue spell than having a normal game of magic with another deck because if that was true I would run full playsets of these.

If they don't let you do that, there isn't much of a damn thing you can do about it. RUG Delver or the American Geist list from Baltimore seem pretty well prepared to take the fight there, and if Omniclash gets huge they'd be my first choices for retaliation.

RUG Delver is a very good match-up. I don't have as much data for UWR but do not feel afraid neither.

[Worldslayer]

I find the analysis bad actually :


This is obvious, but first realize this isn't about making top8 or not making top8 but rather on the overall power level. I don't particularly want to make things worse for the omniclash player that was on camera, so I'll just quote phazonmutant :
"From what it looked like based on the match that was on camera, a player that clearly was inexperienced either with tournaments or the Infinite Cunning deck managed to make it to X-2. The guy made a pretty obvious mistake, which makes me think that the deck must be pretty powerful to make it this deep in the tournament."
Yes a busted deck gives you more than your fair share of win, but it won't always win it all for you.


:)

I'm not sure what bulky means, but the rest of the sentence can be applied to any deck in legacy.


When the whole deck is dedicated to that it's not really an issue. And don't tell me it's significantly harder to find the big clunky blue spell than having a normal game of magic with another deck because if that was true I would run full playsets of these.


RUG Delver is a very good match-up. I don't have as much data for UWR but do not feel afraid neither.

Point by point:

1) Your first bit's end, "won't always win it all for you", again completely flies in the face of banning Show and Tell. If I play a powerful card like SnT in a metagame that just refuses to adapt to its presence to any reasonable degree and would prefer to carry on like its Jund-era Modern, why am I the one that should be punished by a ban? Especially if raw power alone STILL isn't enough to take down a large tournament and I still have to play reasonably well?

2) No, it does not apply to any deck in legacy. Plenty of the lists running around are just "generic okaystuff.dec" without a solid enough game plan to just CRUSH with some sideboard tech. You can face a prepared opponent who draws reasonably well, and still do the same to be in it. They can't just "have it" and steamroll you, or "not have it" and completely die (or, at the very least, "having it" or "not having it" is a mashup of cards and plays over a wide spectrum instead of, say, "A bunch of goddamn counterspells"). There's almost zero room for maneuvering in Show and Tell lists, because Show and Tell is a gimmick deck like Dredge, or OopsAllSpells/Belcher, except no one is bringing more than 2/3 Leylines or pitch counters to the party. You resolve Show and Tell (or a SnT proxy like Sneak or Dream Halls), or you don't. Period. There's not playing Confidant to their Stoneforge to achieve better late game. There's no Lightning Bolt their face or blocker choices that can sway things. You resolve Show and Tell before you die, or you die before you resolve Show and Tell. It's a gimmick deck, that's exactly how these things work, and exactly why there's choices other than "generic okaystuff.dec" in the format. You're on a 51% variant or a gimmick.

3) "When the whole deck is dedicated that isn't an issue" - Plenty of "whole decks" are "dedicated" to resolving one card or interaction in several formats. See "gimmick deck", above. When your lists are running more counterspells than the "control" decks floating around, even after sideboard in some cases, it becomes apparent that it probably isn't an issue not because Show and Tell is banworthy, but because plenty of blue players simply don't want to dedicate the slots to properly fight the matchup, and would instead prefer to call it "dumb" on message boards after they lose to it. Do they still have to draw the proper cards when they run it? In the proper order? Will they sometimes fail to do that and you win anyway? Absolutely. Welcome to playing a "fair" deck in an Eternal format.

4) If RUG delver is a "very good" matchup that you feel like you're stomping on, then something is flawed in your testing. You'll still beat Fish when you resolve the Tinker, and that happened in Baltimore in Top 8, but should not have the matchup consistently that favorable. They have a first or second turn threat backed by countermagic (you know. if they execute their game plan at all), they should be winning the matchup more than they're losing it. Note that it's pretty similar to how you make storm miserable, and how sometimes Storm is still just going to Turn 1 you to death. It happens.



I'll leave you to your thread here, since I'm not really sure what else to say other than the notion of banning the card is ludicrously awful. More broken decks can still race, fair decks can still interact with you if they choose to (tip: they really, REALLY haven't been), and there's variants OF show and tell that can cannibalize each other's position and shift which one is the dominant type in the metagame, and so keep the necessary "anti-best SnT" cards changing, which keeps the "best SnT" changing. The past few SCGs see more fair decks with Storm thrown in for Top 8s than anything, though, which leads me to believe Show and Tell is probably going to be fine the minute people stop running Vindicate in the maindeck.


Congratulations on Omniclash, though. It is a monster of a list, the time put in shows, and I enjoy it (and playing against it).

Since I doubt either of us are ever swaying each other here, I can only say I respectfully hope you never get your way (but that people DO try to play Omniclash to the fullest. I don't mind the matchup so much ;) ).

-SZ

P.S. To everyone who just wants to call it dumb until it's banned: seriously, stop running Vindicate maindeck. You'll be happier in the morning. Either that or go out, find a vintage community, find a Fish player, and talk to them. They've been dealing with basically an identical gameplan to Show and Tell for years with what largely looks like Legacy cards plus an Ancestral Recall. They will also tell you to stop running Vindicate maindeck, but might have more advice besides.

[Arianrhod]

On the floor, it looked like I was in a sea of people releasing ants in the morning. That drastically fell off as the rounds went on, though.

The deck IS powerful. It's a Show and Tell deck. Powerful is what they do.

The bit about "there just aren't many good American combo players", aside from being a regional assertion/bias I may or may not personally disagree with, does fly directly in the face of the "ban" argument which is more or less "This deck requires no thought or skill to pilot to a Top 8". It gives you a LOT of leeway to win despite mistakes just based on how silly strong SnT is, but it's also kind of bulky - there's not much room for maneuvering your way out of a prepared opponent who draws reasonably well. You're consistent, and strong, and armed to the teeth, but you still have to resolve "big clunky blue spell" to do anything. If they don't let you do that, there isn't much of a damn thing you can do about it. RUG Delver or the American Geist list from Baltimore seem pretty well prepared to take the fight there, and if Omniclash gets huge they'd be my first choices for retaliation.

Deathblade is a grinder deck. It's solid, has a bunch of little decisions and incremental value, and has a lot of different bases covered. It's one of the better "51%" decks I've seen, but at the end of the day it's still a 51% deck. I imagine it'll be around for awhile and just balance out its board position vs. stack dominance as the metagame progresses until they print....whatever does to Deathrite what Deathrite did to Snapcaster Mage, I'd suppose.

^This. Very much this.

I didn't actually play against any of the OmniTell decks (though I played vs 2 Sneaks, one of which knocked me out of top 8 contention in r7 and took 2nd on the day), and I somehow managed to avoid Deathblade, which I actually wanted to play against [unlike OmniTell]. OmniTell was very much in evidence, however.

I'll strongly echo Seth here and note that Deathblade is 100% grinder deck. I'll be perfectly blunt and say I don't even consider it a "real" deck. It's like all of the SCG pros just took their favorite cards and decided to jam them into the same deck without any ethos for actual deckbuilding. Good players play it in a field of bad players. The moment it gets a top 8 at something like an upstate New York event or a Grand Prix, then we'll talk. Until then, I consider it purely a Starcity phenomenon.

As for my thoughts on OmnomnomiTell, speaking from the peculiar perspective of the designer of Scapewish Nic Fit, I view the problem as being Leyline of Sanctity. The best way to interact with OmniTell is to tear their hand apart with Cabal Therapy (inefficient to counter, at best), and to supplement that by tearing their deck apart with Slaughter Games (which is uncounterable, and hits key cards like Cunning Wish, Omniscience, etc). Leyline stops both of these things, and completely removes the ability of the discard decks to prey on the archetype -- which they should be able to from a nativistic perspective. I think that without Leyline of Sanctity, I would actually consider the matchup favorable -- hell, I am able to beat Leyline-less Sneak/Show 2-0 in most circumstances.

While Noble Fish is definitely able to bear the brunt of defeating Oath in vintage (an apt comparison), it is able to do so because it has both a relative immunity to the particular countersuite situation that Oath finds itself in and because it has a general lack of natural predators when compared to a similar archetype's desire to exist in legacy. Noble Fish is immensely strengthened by the format's reliance on Mental Misstep, for example -- a card which Oath often packs 3-4 copies of (2-drops > Misstep); in addition to the fact that until very recently, Swords to Plowshares was next to unknown in Vintage, with the premier removal spell being Lightning Bolt.

I'm sure that a "Noble Fish-esque" list could be created for legacy specifically to devour OmniTell -- likely something like a Bant Maverick with 4 maindeck Flusterstorms -- but I'm highly skeptical that it would have the ability to actually stave off the rest of the field.

[Tammit67]

4) If RUG delver is a "very good" matchup that you feel like you're stomping on, then something is flawed in your testing. You'll still beat Fish when you resolve the Tinker, and that happened in Baltimore in Top 8, but should not have the matchup consistently that favorable. They have a first or second turn threat backed by countermagic (you know. if they execute their game plan at all), they should be winning the matchup more than they're losing it. Note that it's pretty similar to how you make storm miserable, and how sometimes Storm is still just going to Turn 1 you to death. It happens.

Here is where my issue with your logic is: How is the RUG player disrupting your game plan? Here is how they disrupt most combo...

• Mana disruption, in the form of wasteland/stifle
• Soft counters, in the form of daze and spell pierce
• Fast clock, in the form of delver/goyf
• Hard counters, in the form of pyroblast/Force/Sometimes envelop and stifle/spell snare depending on the combo
• Sideboard tech (think gilded drake or in our case K. grip)

And here is how the Omnitell deck avoids or makes insignificant most of these respectively...

• 19-20 lands, most are basics. Stifle can be annoying but will never cut us off colors, only quantity. Sol lands such as ancient tomb and city of traitors reverse the damage dealt by a single stifle.
  
• Their soft counters rely on us stumbling on mana, something that should be rare in a 19+ land deck with 12 or more cantrips. Not playing Sol lands until the combo turn further invalidates the dazes/pierce.
  
• T1 delver hands are for sure 'fast' in a sense, but unlike other combo decks we do not care if we go off at 5 life or 50 life. We have around 6 turns +/- bolts or other creatures/ not turn 1 delvers.
  
• We also run hard counters, between 6-7 usually that all are free and help overload their 4 preboard, as we ignore Stifle and Spell snare during the combo turn. Wishing for additional protection is not unreasonable either.
  Postboard: REBs are annoying, envelop is also annoying but defense grid mitigates much interaction they have. They need 2 hard counters available during the combo turn, perhaps more.
  
• There are very few things outside of REBs/flusterstorm that concern me out of RUG. Gilded drake does next to nothing except on niche hands where you go all in on emrakyl (which is often boarded out if my understanding is correct). A K. Grip on omniscience can be avoided by casting a second once you have the opportunity. Even if Enter the Infinite resolves after Omni is K grip'd, you have your entire deck in your hands for next turn- if they stop you know I don't know what to say.

Sometimes they have the hand of turn 1 delver flips into double REB backup + force + pierce for defense grid. I find they cannot have both pressure and disruption often enough postboard to make up for their lack of interaction game 1. I think it is close to 60%+ in Omni's favor, especially now while RUG has to worry about jund and esper and death & taxes and the other show and tell and elves and everything else.

[Ellomdian]

Quote Originally Posted by Worldslayer - "remind Legacy players that yes, Virginia, you do still need to play counterspells and clocks. Quit it with your Vindicates. They're silly."

QF-motherfucking-T

Enough of these silly 3 Force of Will maindeck shenanigans. Man up. Play Blue decks like you mean it. Otherwise we mise well all just play Modern Jund.

QFT^2. Also, when did we disable nested quotes. Sad times.

Also, I feel it is a disservice to talk about Sneak'n'Show and Omni-tell in the same context without actually highlighting the differences. While both decks are capable of T2 SnT with reasonable consistency, Omni occasionally actually just casts Dream Halls, and that beats out a LOT of the discard hate.

[nedleeds]

There's also the fact that some not-insignificant portion of the player base just isn't interested in playing a droll, herp derp deck like Omnitell. That fact helps hold quite a few decks (Belcher, Storm) in check; among other factors (FoW, Consistancy).

[Lejay]

Point by point:

1) Your first bit's end, "won't always win it all for you", again completely flies in the face of banning Show and Tell. If I play a powerful card like SnT in a metagame that just refuses to adapt to its presence to any reasonable degree and would prefer to carry on like its Jund-era Modern, why am I the one that should be punished by a ban? Especially if raw power alone STILL isn't enough to take down a large tournament and I still have to play reasonably well?

wut ?
Do you really expect the deck to be played only by bad players forever ? Of course you can be punished when you do crazy mistakes like this one. And that could happen with all decks that had some bannings at any point. How is that an answer ?
About adapting to it, as I said in the opening post, either you'll adapt by playing match-ups that are all vulnerable to grave hate, or you'll adapt by too many, too targeted cards, and your win rate will suffer from the rest of the field. Both possibilities lead to an unhealthy metagame. An unhealthy metagame where diversity drops dramatically is a sufficient justification for me and most legacy players. I don't know anybody that thinks like you that there are only bans for decks that just auto win any match-up despite any mistake.

2) No, it does not apply to any deck in legacy. Plenty of the lists running around are just "generic okaystuff.dec" without a solid enough game plan to just CRUSH with some sideboard tech. You can face a prepared opponent who draws reasonably well, and still do the same to be in it. They can't just "have it" and steamroll you, or "not have it" and completely die (or, at the very least, "having it" or "not having it" is a mashup of cards and plays over a wide spectrum instead of, say, "A bunch of goddamn counterspells"). There's almost zero room for maneuvering in Show and Tell lists, because Show and Tell is a gimmick deck like Dredge, or OopsAllSpells/Belcher, except no one is bringing more than 2/3 Leylines or pitch counters to the party. You resolve Show and Tell (or a SnT proxy like Sneak or Dream Halls), or you don't. Period. There's not playing Confidant to their Stoneforge to achieve better late game. There's no Lightning Bolt their face or blocker choices that can sway things. You resolve Show and Tell before you die, or you die before you resolve Show and Tell. It's a gimmick deck, that's exactly how these things work, and exactly why there's choices other than "generic okaystuff.dec" in the format. You're on a 51% variant or a gimmick.

We just don't have the same opinion on what's considered a prepared opponent. To my mind a prepared opponent isn't just a guy that has 4 or 6 or whatever classic number of sideboard slots for the match-up. I consider a prepared opponent someone who has got a real game plan, and that even often starts with choosing the right deck in the right meta like playing shardless in a field of TT or playing miracles in a field of elves. So the fact that targeted hate is more effective against focused archetypes doesn't account for as much imo than yours.
I considered the deck very easy to play, but seeing other people play it made me completely change that mind. People have a lot of problems playing well with cantrips (or just with basic situations like we've seen together). At the same time I disagree with your philosophy of "having room to manoeuver". It has been a while I didn't reason this way playing magic except for things outside of technical play. To my mind it's just about making the best choice or making another choice. Some plays are worse than others, but there is only one right play at each point of the game.
Unless someguy targets the deck heavily and specifically (this is a reserve I emetted several times in the recent discussions) I think what you call "51%" is almost as fittable for omniclash than it is for deathblade. By the way I don't know what's the right percentage is for deathblade, but for omniclash it's definitely higher.

3) "When the whole deck is dedicated that isn't an issue" - Plenty of "whole decks" are "dedicated" to resolving one card or interaction in several formats. See "gimmick deck", above. When your lists are running more counterspells than the "control" decks floating around, even after sideboard in some cases, it becomes apparent that it probably isn't an issue not because Show and Tell is banworthy, but because plenty of blue players simply don't want to dedicate the slots to properly fight the matchup, and would instead prefer to call it "dumb" on message boards after they lose to it. Do they still have to draw the proper cards when they run it? In the proper order? Will they sometimes fail to do that and you win anyway? Absolutely. Welcome to playing a "fair" deck in an Eternal format.

First I am not talking about bad decks. This is a deck I designed and I only refer to competitive decks.
Why argue like if that was a duel. If you are posting on a forum I guess you should be aware of metagame considerations. Someone with 12 situational hard counters sideboard and 4 delver 3 clique as a clock certainly has the upside against me but how is it supposed to make a decent performance in a tournament ? Same with playing a deck with 12 pyroclasms effects against goblins etc...
My own reference to "dumb" rather points out the game of non thoughts the S&T player generally can have while still winning than the brokeness of the spell/archetype.

4) If RUG delver is a "very good" matchup that you feel like you're stomping on, then something is flawed in your testing. You'll still beat Fish when you resolve the Tinker, and that happened in Baltimore in Top 8, but should not have the matchup consistently that favorable. They have a first or second turn threat backed by countermagic (you know. if they execute their game plan at all), they should be winning the matchup more than they're losing it. Note that it's pretty similar to how you make storm miserable, and how sometimes Storm is still just going to Turn 1 you to death. It happens.

Tammit67 answered for the most part. You can also watch what I wrote in the other thread since it has been discussed a lot. But I don't appreciate someone providing 0 test and 0 precise match-up analysis is arguing against my conclusions after months of testing against the format and TT in particular.

Peace.

There's also the fact that some not-insignificant portion of the player base just isn't interested in playing a droll, herp derp deck like Omnitell. That fact helps hold quite a few decks (Belcher, Storm) in check; among other factors (FoW, Consistancy).

I actually created this topic asking them to sacrifice for a cause they should logically support.^^

[Megadeus]

There's also the fact that some not-insignificant portion of the player base just isn't interested in playing a droll, herp derp deck like Omnitell. That fact helps hold quite a few decks (Belcher, Storm) in check; among other factors (FoW, Consistancy).

This. Storm is a difficult deck to pilot, but sometimes you play against a non blue deck and shit on their face without worry and that got dull after awhile for me. I can't even imagine playing SnT.

[Tammit67]

Tammit67 answered for the most part. You can also watch what I wrote in the other thread since it has been discussed a lot. But I don't appreciate someone providing 0 test and 0 precise match-up analysis is arguing against my conclusions after months of testing against the format and TT in particular.

Cross post of his specific thoughts on RUG vs Omniclash for the lazy:

I have 6+ months of testing the deck behind me so I would have liked critics backed-up by some testing results, but I don't mind answering the first ones as it's inevitable and testing results didn't have much time to occur. I confirm you what I wrote. My playtesting was either against myself, or mostly against Tristan polzl who played tempo thresh a lot and top8ed both the GP Ghent and 2012 BoM. Yes the match-up is favourable as you run more hardcounters than them and can play around a ton of cards (taxing effects, wasteland, stifle, snare is dead if played). When not running intuition your opponent can only counter cantrips which is pretty weak considering the number you have.
Sure results againt TT will decrease with people knowing the deck better, but we already took that into account.
I don't know why you seem surprised by the defense grid influence in the match-up. Yes it saves you from the multitude of conditional hardcounters they will bring in and without them the match-up becomes pretty bad post sb.
About the time needed to find the 3 cards combo there are several things to consider. First Tempo thresh absolutely needs turn 1 delver to be faster than what I need to find the 3 card combo. Second even if they do I can still be faster than them. Third this isn't always a 3 cards combo. Show and tell + omniscience + cantrips very often gets there. There are different 3 cards combo in the deck, dream halls+enter while not the main plan is a 2 card+ blue card combo, and against tempo thresh Show Emrakul is valid without using pacts.
I am not overestimating the TT match-up. TT is always the first deck against which I playtest when building. For me it's the thermometer of legacy deckbuilding. If a deck doesn't pass the TT with at least 50% win I just stop working on it.
I didn't say the deck would always win against TT but I can assure you that if the omni player knows what he's doing he'll win about 2/3 of the time. And I realize it's pretty high for a match-up percentage, there are much closer match-ups. Only a TT player tuning his deck specifically to beat show and tell can change that.

Full context found here: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post725343

[catmint]

About adapting to it, as I said in the opening post, either you'll adapt by playing match-ups that are all vulnerable to grave hate, or you'll adapt by too many, too targeted cards, and your win rate will suffer from the rest of the field. Both possibilities lead to an unhealthy metagame. An unhealthy metagame where diversity drops dramatically is a sufficient justification for me and most legacy players. I don't know anybody that thinks like you that there are only bans for decks that just auto win any match-up despite any mistake.

You still believe that non-sense lejay. Since you started your 2 threads, which also contain a lot of good content you posted your point of view and no matter what people say you don't seem to reconsider and just repeat your stuff. Even in your decklist you are so stubborn playing a Leyline maindeck because it "is so tough to find a sideboard slot". Good players cannot afford not to question old believes.

to the point:
How is playing a fast combo deck like storm or sneak which have a positive omniclash matchup vulnerable to graveyard hate?

Why would changing a couple of slots in the 75 of RUG, Esper, BUG,... turn the meta upside down? If those decks are weaker to whatever like elves, affinity, burn, reanimator, enchantress, dredge,... well nice some tier2 deck has a chance to shine on a given day or it will be easier for the junds and mavericks to punish the blue decks.

Adapting also means knowing how to play against the deck best. I don't know if canadian players know that they can relatively safely tap out turn 2 (if on the play) because it is unlikely to be killed whereas the clock of 2 creatues provides enough pressure to make daze and pierce not dead. Against sneak you would not do that - you would leave pierce open because the turn 2 show is much more likely. Or that people know to play and board grudge. Also Flusterstorm is a card that is very good versus esper, rug any combo and obviously nuts versus omniclash. How can haveing more flusterstorms in sideboard wrap the meta into an unhealthy state?

I think it is safe to say that sneak will stay around so in fact omniclash increases the diversity. I don't see the legacy diversity not at all in danger. If the overall show&tell % in the meta increases that will only be temporarily.

[nedleeds]

I actually created this topic asking them to sacrifice for a cause they should logically support.^^

Yeah, I get it; but we could ask the same thing of a narrow powerful deck (Belcher being the poster child of that archetype). If belcher was 45% of a field of a large tourney you can absolutely be sure some portion would be banned. It wouldn't prove Belcher was too powerful; it would demonstrate ubiquity of a whole deck and showcase a format where there was little actual Magic the Gathering being played. Also ubiquity of one card and its power level is clearly not enough to get a card banned or Brainstorm would have left years ago. So the Show and Tell decks would all need to be of the cunning variety or sneak variety I think to get SnT banned.

I think Omnitell is more powerful than Belcher, mostly because the answers to it are very narrow and I feel like games 2 and 3 become mulligan contests.

[Lejay]

You still believe that non-sense lejay. Since you started your 2 threads, which also contain a lot of good content you posted your point of view and no matter what people say you don't seem to reconsider and just repeat your stuff. Even in your decklist you are so stubborn playing a Leyline maindeck because it "is so tough to find a sideboard slot". Good players cannot afford not to question old believes.

to the point:
How is playing a fast combo deck like storm or sneak which have a positive omniclash matchup vulnerable to graveyard hate?

Why would changing a couple of slots in the 75 of RUG, Esper, BUG,... turn the meta upside down? If those decks are weaker to whatever like elves, affinity, burn, reanimator, enchantress, dredge,... well nice some tier2 deck has a chance to shine on a given day or it will be easier for the junds and mavericks to punish the blue decks.

Adapting also means knowing how to play against the deck best. I don't know if canadian players know that they can relatively safely tap out turn 2 (if on the play) because it is unlikely to be killed whereas the clock of 2 creatues provides enough pressure to make daze and pierce not dead. Against sneak you would not do that - you would leave pierce open because the turn 2 show is much more likely. Or that people know to play and board grudge. Also Flusterstorm is a card that is very good versus esper, rug any combo and obviously nuts versus omniclash. How can haveing more flusterstorms in sideboard wrap the meta into an unhealthy state?

I think it is safe to say that sneak will stay around so in fact omniclash increases the diversity. I don't see the legacy diversity not at all in danger. If the overall show&tell % in the meta increases that will only be temporarily.

First I never said storm and sneak show are negative match-ups. Those are 50-50 match-ups.
I'll keep on playing one main deck leyline as long as there are enough discard decks in the metagame. That number can even rise up to 4. So sideboard considerations isn't the only one.

I playtested against Tristan Polzl and against myself considering RUG player had knowledge of the deck's existence, so my testing already takes that into account. I also fail to see how is flusterstorm very good against esper or rug. That's not the kind of card I'd consider when trying to improve match-ups against those.

Time will tell, or time will show.

Yeah, I get it; but we could ask the same thing of a narrow powerful deck (Belcher being the poster child of that archetype). If belcher was 45% of a field of a large tourney you can absolutely be sure some portion would be banned. It wouldn't prove Belcher was too powerful; it would demonstrate ubiquity of a whole deck and showcase a format where there was little actual Magic the Gathering being played. Also ubiquity of one card and its power level is clearly not enough to get a card banned or Brainstorm would have left years ago. So the Show and Tell decks would all need to be of the cunning variety or sneak variety I think to get SnT banned.

I think Omnitell is more powerful than Belcher, mostly because the answers to it are very narrow and I feel like games 2 and 3 become mulligan contests.

That wouldn't work with belcher since people couldn't expect to win reasonably often. Here Omni is also the best objective choice.

[catmint]

First I never said storm and sneak show are negative match-ups. Those are 50-50 match-ups.
I'll keep on playing one main deck leyline as long as there are enough discard decks in the metagame. That number can even rise up to 4. So sideboard considerations isn't the only one.

I playtested against Tristan Polzl and against myself considering RUG player had knowledge of the deck's existence, so my testing already takes that into account. I also fail to see how is flusterstorm very good against esper or rug. That's not the kind of card I'd consider when trying to improve match-ups against those.

Time will tell, or time will show.

Myself and other people have different results and opinions on the storm and Sneak matchup. You claim again it is 50:50 without providing any explanation of why a slower deck with only 4 FoW would have an even matchup against the faster combo deck with more disruption. Especially sneak attack where you cannot really use your own show&tells.

Flusterstorm against Canadian reads: "counter half of your opponents deck. ~ can't be countered". Protecting your creatures, countering their cantrips, countering their stifles, countering their counters... all very potent plays. If you play Canadian flusterstorm is better than REB against Esper, because it hits removal and souls while jace is sided out. Only thing that it does not hit is vendilion clique & sncapcster mage (but at least it hits what is flashed back). In any non combo deck flusterstorm is usually better than FoW against RUG and Esper.

Since fluster is a very potent card (also against sneak attack, storm, elves,...) it might be played more and people can adapt to omniclash without ruining the meta right? But fluster is just one example. If omnishow influences the meta you can cut some stuff that is needed less and dedicate 2 SB slots to Omniclash right? Why would that significantly decrease the format diversity?

The example of knowing that you can tap out turn 2 (which does not only affect canadian by the way) was also just one example of how it affects the win% if people know how to play correctly against omniclash. Of course you already considered that in your testing session - who would ever question that your testing is not perfect. Your testing sessions must be very special indeed if you not only create "the best deck" but are also single-handedly able to answer the big question of how the metagame will develop.