I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. You can't ban every card that synergies with creatures because they are getting stronger... I really don't bite this power creep argument concerning the survival banning.
There is like what, 5000+ creatures in legacy and how many are a real problem with survival ? Yes, 1. To break survival, one creature have to be quite specific :
1/ it shouldn't be broken on his own. Such creatures dont need survival to rules the format (tarmo..). Either you play, reanimate or cheat them into play.
2/ it shouldn't be a part of a really strong combo. Again doesnt need survival to be broken (i'm not sure survival is the best shell for ooze combo for example -without vine backup-). Intuition, entomb, burried alive and other tutors may just do the job as well.
3/ it should have a strong synergy with graveyard to make an interesting use of survival with them. I mean, in legacy, vengevine is a free recursive hasty creature. Vengevine is close to the perfect creature to break survival and i'm really not sure we will get another one in the future.
Survival isn't a problematic card on its own, but only when paired with vengevine. I'm not sure what should be banned but the creature power creep really isnt an argument in favor of survival banning.
That said i may be wrong :) I'm trying at the moment to "create" a creature specifically to break survival while considering the points i made upon and it isnt that easy. Maybe you should try and show me an "i break survival" creature that could be printed nowadays by wizard. If you can show be some good ones, i may change my mind and consided Vengevine 2.0 is too come anyways and survival has indeed to be banned!
Matt,
That post was spot on. The nature of the Legacy SCG circuit is something I would like more commentator to speak to, as I think Matt's point goes overlooked by the majority. The lack of a functional hive mind, card availbility, and a casual approach to the format by many create the perfect storm for a very powerful strategy like Survival VV to take over the format.
The best counter argument to this train of thought is not pointing to the SCG results, but rather, to the collective disatisfaction of the masses who do not enjoy a format where they can't win with Merfolk or any other pet deck.
That one was for you Fish Lord ;)
Calls for banning are almost always the scrubs way out. Real men view a challenge as something to overcome, a puzzle to solve, an opportunity to be had, and the source of evolution.
The argument I keep seeing in favor of Vengevine is the mana count argument, how it doesn't really take any more mana to set up Vengevine insanity than it does to set up a Loyal Retainers or Necrotic Ooze combo.
The ENORMOUS difference is that Vengevine isn't dead weight at other times. Vengevine will occasionally do and is quite capable of doing broken shit without the Survival in play. The frequency of this, of course, depends largely on the decklist, but those of us who like doing stupid shit with Lion's Eye Diamond in our Survival Madness decks know. Even in UG, with a Mongrel, a Rootwalla(Or Memnite), one Vine, and counter backup? You've got a pretty strong contender for a winner.
Phyrexian Devourer, Triskelion, Loyal Retainers, and the big guys it Reanimates, however, are far less likely to be useful on their own.
For the last month I've been playing the decks I will build when one of these cards gets the axe. UG Madness sans Survival, and GW Survival sans Vengevine. Neither one is exactly format shattering, but both are strong. And head to head they're actually fairly close to even, but over the long run? I actually like the Vengevine deck better than the Survival one. I've had better results with it. I think, narrowly, it's a stronger deck.
Vengevine is what needs the ban. Nobody ever, ever, ever, ever once bitched about the power of Survival in Legacy, EVER, until Vengevine showed up. And when Vengevine goes away, it will take Wizards' design team slipping up (Seriously, Wizards? Design constraints my ass, stop printing things that are insanely broken in graveyards. We ARE smart enough to use the mechanic.) for anybody to bitch about the card again.
Interesting. I learn something new every day. I'll concede the point, because I wasn't around for that. Around here, I mean. I was still playing Legacy.
But aside from that early period when the metagame was still being largely fleshed out, I stand by the general gist of my point. Survival, for the most part and for the last like, four years, wasn't a problem until Vengevine.
The thing that makes the comparison relevant to Standard is that Fauna Shaman exists in a standard environment. Fauna Shaman does exactly what Survival does only slower with more vulnerability. No one cares in a much smaller pool of cards. Same interaction just the engine is tweaked to be more fair. Shaman discards vine, finds vine, and finds cards that make vine go. Seems to me that the repeatable engine is the thing that makes it unfair.
And again, Standard /= Legacy. Standard doesn't have Intuition, Basking Rootwalla or Quirion Ranger. T2 Fauna Shaman decks can't build entirely around Vine because they only have Shaman to dump VV into the yard and Squadron Hawk to provide fodder. Most of the Legacy ban list wouldn't cause problems in Standard. Unless you think there's a standard deck out there waiting to break MT or Bazaar of Baghdad...
West side
Find me on MTGO as Koby or rukcus -- @MTGKoby on Twitter
* Maverick is dead. Long live Maverick!
My Legacy stream
My MTG Blog - Work in progress
Give me Intuition in Standard and watch Vengevine go nuts.
It would seem to me that if Survival of the Fittest is a card that can make other cards broken, and Vengevine is just one of those cards, then obviously Survival of the Fittest is the card that should be the one to be banned if one of those two cards needs to be banned.
Because that's what several of the posts here seem to be saying. Vengevine on its own doesn't need to be banned. Survival of the Fittest on its own, without Vengevine - well, there's no proof that another card would be so empowered by it that a ban would be needed to fix the problem.
So either ban Vengevine, and maybe have to ban another card and another, until finally turning around and realizing that Survival of the Fittest was the real problem... or ban the right card in the first place.
Am I missing something?
Tacosnape put it very candidly before I think; no one was bitching about Survival being banned before Vengevine came around. So ask yourself, if this format did not have Vengevine in it, would Survival require a legitimate ban?
Survival may be the mind behind the madness, but Vengevine is the one who pulled the trigger.
Or ban nothing and unban some stuff.
I think you're missing the point of a banned list; it isn't to ban "problem cards" at all, it's to promote format diversity and fun. Banning either card fixes the problem, but banning Survival kills of a host of completely fair decks that people have put a lot of effort and money into. Banning Vengevine wouldn't have any collateral damage.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
Not that it's particularly relevent to the discussion at hand, but Survival decks (and primarily ATS) performed well in New England only. The West Coast metagame was full of San Diego Zoo and 4c Landstill and the Southwest was dominated by U/G Madness. There really wasn't much reporting on areas outside of the US so I can't comment on foreign metas. There were a lot of tier 2 decks running around everywhere but those were the ones winning consistently in the various regions of the US.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)