[Free Article] Legacy Mini-Primer

[Artowis]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/17137_Deconstructing_Constructed_A_Legacy_Mini_Primer_for_Grand_Prix_Chicago.html

Some of the sections might be a bit simplistic for the people here, but writing an article specifically for just MTS members is too much work.

[quicksilver]

Yes. Silvestri is Artowis. - Bardo

[mercenarybdu]

Good introduction article without all the vocab, but I still notice some misconceptions embedded within the article itself.

[Anusien]

Good introduction article without all the vocab, but I still notice some misconceptions embedded within the article itself.
Really? I don't. Could you give an example?

[frolll]

That's so my Threshless Thresh list in this article. But with the Thomas sb, I don't run crappy white enchantments in mine. Actually, it's Toad maindeck, but hey, the deck is nice. And I dare say you turn the list into a kinda grotesque one, though a working one, so it's ok with me. ;)

Nice article, really. The Dragon Stompy section is right on spot. And the Elves section too; people should fear this deck, in both forms. Natural Order Thresh seems a little too cute too be really good to me...

And I say it again : the first Thresh list is really really strong, in the right meta and played the right way. sb is obviously to be made up to your tastes and meta, so I won't nitpick here.

All in all, a pretty solid read. Good work ! :) Your ideas are well articulated, it isn't untested as sometimes it is (I won't drop name), it isn't cluttered with words that are way too long to be readable by non-English primary reader, so all in all it is one of the best Legacy-related readings I've done in some times.

EDIT : Just for the record, I had a really similar list of "Thresh" back in 2007 but w/out Seize (wasn't printed yet) - Duress instead) and no 3/3/3 on Stifle/Daze/StP, since there was no Stifle at all, it was 4 Daze 4 StP 4 Duress w/ 3/3 top/CB and the same creature base. It was a freaking 16 months ago. It never cease to amaze me. ^^

[Genericcactus]

The speed in which he dismisses one of the oldest and most consistent decks in the format (Landstill) is puzzling.

[Kuma]

The single exception is Faerie Stompy, which is currently very strong


Dragon Stompy [B3]
The deck is trash; do not play it if you want to win. I’d sooner run the Extended version of All-In Red before playing such a horrible underpowered and inconsistent deck.

I'd like to hear your definition of inconsistent. And of underpowered.

[Artowis]

If you can't figure out the definition, you clearly aren't up to the point of reading magic articles. :laugh:

As I posted to Nihil though in response - I think it's underpowered depending on what you think wants to do. If you think it's just an all-in, OMG I WIN deck, then storm combo or breakfast seems much better. If you think of it as a super disruption + play hard to deal with threats deck, I think NO Threshold / Team America does it better. No matter what way I classify the deck, I can think of at least one deck that does what it wants to do better than it can.

Like I said, I fully believe the Extended version of the deck plays scarier threats despite not having the use of Ancient Tomb and such.

[bowvamp]

It is more of a combination of both. Like an uber-advanced Vintage Dredge list (like mine) it strives to combo out in order to disrupt the opponent to the point of no return. Chalice at 1 allows it to gain huge tempo nullifying a large portion of their deck. Then it also has huge threats that come out of nowhere with the best accel of any stompy. 8 possible moon effects are what pushes this deck to the extreme. And to top it off it runs trinisphere.

I know, I sound like I'm an add worthy of the mothership, but this is one of my fav archetypes.

[dahcmai]

I can accept the fact that a few arch-types are missed, after all he does only have so much space. Though Landstill, Aggro Loam, and Dredge surely deserved a mention. They WILL be there for sure.

Dismissing Dragon Stompy seems a little odd. It's still a huge pain in the butt to a lot of the decks that were listed in the article. Team America has a hell of a time with it. It's like a coin flip race. I personally hate Dragon Stompy and think it's inconsistent, but I played the crap out of it and am normally a blue player so you'd expect that anyway.

My biggest thing would be that not all Counterbalance decks use those cards, and some not even close. That's ok though, guess that means I have an advantage in boarding.


I am getting kind of tired of these "intro to Legacy" style articles though. It's all nothing new in my book. Luckily, this one's not premium. You'd think someone would go in depth by now.

[etrigan]

Dragon Stompy [B3]
The deck is trash; do not play it if you want to win. I’d sooner run the Extended version of All-In Red before playing such a horrible underpowered and inconsistent deck.

Then why bother mentioning it?

Saying things like the above, or that 3Top/3CB makes you "actively vomit" is fine for a post a message board, but I find it, for lack of a better term, un-article-like. I dont know, but I expect a certain refinement from an article, and I think yours was lacking.

[Anusien]

He was funny and true. Seems good to me.

[Nessaja]

You missed a couple of really huge decks (Landstill, Dreadstill, Merfolk, Aggro Loam) and mentioned a couple of rather insignificant decks (Survival Elves, Team America, Goyf Sligh). For some reason you do make mention of Dragon Stompy, only to shoot it down, might as well name every random deck in the format to shoot it down.

For a complete overview, I'd mention the aforementioned decks together with Ichorid whose hate has been dying down with the recent need to hate tribal (elves goblins and merfolks) and the Rock which has been fairly consistent lately. In that aspect, the article is slightly lacking it doesn't give that good of an idea of what chicago top tables will look like. If you care, I'd also work on your writing style; some of your humor seems rather misplaced.

I do like the mention of Natural Order, I think its pressence will be significant as well.

[Artowis]

Then why bother mentioning it?

Saying things like the above, or that 3Top/3CB makes you "actively vomit" is fine for a post a message board, but I find it, for lack of a better term, un-article-like. I dont know, but I expect a certain refinement from an article, and I think yours was lacking.

Because I'm actively telling people not to play it. Hence it was worth the mention to perhaps stop someone from picking said deck up. Just like where I single out Fae Stompy as being not shit, even though I didn't have the time or patience to go in-depth on it, because I want people to at least look for the deck and see what it's about.

As for refinement, we're writing about a fucking card game.



My biggest thing would be that not all Counterbalance decks use those cards, and some not even close. That's ok though, guess that means I have an advantage in boarding.

Yes, and those decks are likely worse than the ones not using them. Hence my main contention about having a core. Certainly you could choose not to run them and still win, but it just makes winning so much damn easier, why NOT run them?



I am getting kind of tired of these "intro to Legacy" style articles though. It's all nothing new in my book. Luckily, this one's not premium. You'd think someone would go in depth by now.

It isn't worth the effort.

The metagame is even bigger than the one in Extended right now and there's so many variations on known decks that testing almost becomes a joke. You would have to do at least 8 decks just to have remotely tested against a decent chunk of the format. It used to be Dragon, Landstill, Goblins and Workshop decks and that was your gauntlet. Now it's more like 4 versions of Counterbalance decks, bug sinkhole 'i die to misdirection'.dec, Goblins, Storm, some deck packing Natural Order, some Ancient Tomb deck and that only covers like 3/5ths of the decks you might run into.

Add to this that the information for most people is only going to be relevant for a single event and how bitchy Legacy regulars are unless you have all your ducks in a row and it just isn't happening for most authors.


You missed a couple of really huge decks (Landstill, Dreadstill, Merfolk, Aggro Loam)

The article was 10 pages already, you're insane if you think I'm doing a write-up for every decent deck in the format. I could write 5 normal articles with that kind of time investment.

EDIT: Just to add, I'm pretty sure more people will be playing Team America at the GP than Merfolk or Aggro Loam, so I question calling that insignificant. HTH though.

[Aggro_zombies]

I can accept the fact that a few arch-types are missed, after all he does only have so much space. Though Landstill, Aggro Loam, and Dredge surely deserved a mention. They WILL be there for sure.
This. Merfolk also deserved a mention, certainly more than something like Goyf Sligh or Dragon Stompy which see very little play anyway.


I am getting kind of tired of these "intro to Legacy" style articles though. It's all nothing new in my book. Luckily, this one's not premium. You'd think someone would go in depth by now.
There's not enough cohesiveness in the format for dedicated Legacy articles in the same way there is for Extended or Standard. When there are a half dozen tier one decks and literally dozens of playable decks in the tier 1.5-2 range, on top of regional metagame differences, it's difficult to speak in concrete terms about specific things. Combine this with Legacy's much smaller audience and the fact that the bulk of the work done in the format is done on this site, and you end up with very little real reason to write something Flores-esque every week or month or whatever. The best you can get are primers for specific decks or articles like this that are just general (and incomplete) overviews.

As for the article itself, I can't say I liked it, though it was nice to finally be able to read an article on SCG. You were oddly dismissive of a number of things and didn't even consider that there might be valid reasons for not running four Tops and four Balances (there are!). Mentioning decks that you promptly dismiss seems like a waste of space, and not really going into specifics on decks like Landstill, which do well, seems sloppy. Regardless of whether their card allocations are correct, simply dismissing them offhand so you can talk about some sort of Counterbalance Metadeck seems poor (say what you want about it, but UW Landstill does well in Europe). The tone is grating after a while and makes it seem like you're writing an opinion column instead of an objective analysis - which you were, but it's better to advertise it up-front so the reader doesn't have to go into the article with an objective mindset. If I wanted stridently presented opinions, I'd ring Jack Elgin.

I appreciate the time and coughing you put into this, but in such a crowded "Intro to Legacy" field, your article wasn't anything special.

in b4 "WELL U TRY RITIN 1 LOL"

[Artowis]

and didn't even consider that there might be valid reasons for not running four Tops and four Balances (there are!).

All the reasons I've seen to not run 4-of the best part of playing the deck in the first place aren't compelling. So yes, in that sense I 'didn't consider them'. I don't think drawing 2 is a big deal.


The tone is grating after a while and makes it seem like you're writing an opinion column

Well, yeah, I am. That's sort of what magic writers do. I don't even get the 'objective' comment. I'm somehow bias because I thought pet deck A was more worthwhile than pet deck B? :shrug:


your article wasn't anything special.

Totally fair. My Legacy article is definitely not mind-shattering innovations or a 20 page-epic, it's just my take on the format right at this second.


"WELL U TRY RITIN 1 LOL"

If anyone tried that, I'd probably brick them in the face for you. Or at least go +ignore. Seriously, one of the worst arguments ever. I will gladly acknowledge that I did not list every deck in the pantheon of the Legacy format due to time and sanity constraints.

Also, I thought I saw a touhou reference somewhere in your post, but can't find it now.

On a side-note, I had a short piece for David Gearhart mentioning David Gearhart about David Gearhart, but Craig edited it out. Sad panda.

[Nessaja]

I will gladly acknowledge that I did not list every deck in the pantheon of the Legacy format due to time and sanity constraints.


I don't think that is anyones point. The point would be that you mentioned inferior decks over already established decks; goyf sligh, survival elves and team america over aggro loam, dreadstill/landstill, merfolk. Unless the point of mentioning those decks was that those are the big underdogs of the upcomming tournament - and if it was you didn't make this clear - it makes the article less credible as a metagame run down.

[frogboy]

It's not like people live under a rock for three years, wake up, and go to a Grand Prix completely unaware of the format. God.


Keep in mind I’m not going to go in-depth on any of these except for those that I’ve actually had the time and inclination to test.

Merfolk is a Daze aggro deck. Dreadstill is a Counterbalance deck. Aggro Loam is asking to get raped by a combo deck. Etc.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

As for refinement, we're writing about a fucking card game....

It isn't worth the effort....

...Add to this that the information for most people is only going to be relevant for a single event and how bitchy Legacy regulars are unless you have all your ducks in a row and it just isn't happening for most authors...

From the sounds of it, it seems like you feel you would have been better off not writing an article at all. As it happens, this is an area in which we can find agreement. Perhaps, next time, you should listen to your own inner guidance and not do something you don't care enough about to do right.

Unless, of course, you're just dishonestly putting on a pretext to deflect legitimate criticisms of a poorly thought out article.

But I'm not going to jump to any irrational conclusions.

[Aggro_zombies]

All the reasons I've seen to not run 4-of the best part of playing the deck in the first place aren't compelling. So yes, in that sense I 'didn't consider them'. I don't think drawing 2 is a big deal.
Drawing two Counterbalance isn't that bad, because they tend to have shorter battlefield life expectancies in games two and three. Drawing two Tops, on the other hand, is not unlike just skipping a draw. A second Top is rarely if ever useful and can't even be pitched to Force.

I'd say from testing (a year ago, sadly) that 4 CB, 3 Top is probably about right. CB is arguably the more important part of that combo anyway since it can act as disruption on its own and always works with Brainstorm.

(Speaking of which, my last testing partner fell off the face of the planet some time ago. Where do you usually play again?)


Totally fair. My Legacy article is definitely not mind-shattering innovations or a 20 page-epic, it's just my take on the format right at this second.
It wasn't, and shouldn't be, because if it was it would probably be boring as hell. I'm just thinking that some of the decks you did discuss were odd, and some of the exclusions were also odd. But...different folks, different strokes, I guess.


If anyone tried that, I'd probably brick them in the face for you. Or at least go +ignore. Seriously, one of the worst arguments ever. I will gladly acknowledge that I did not list every deck in the pantheon of the Legacy format due to time and sanity constraints.

Also, I thought I saw a touhou reference somewhere in your post, but can't find it now.
IIRC Anusien has used that argument before when people reamed him for his articles, so I figured I'd head it off at the (cliched) pass.

Also, I mentioned Box Reisen being sad, then decided it was totally gratuitous and edited it out.

[frogboy]

I've always been confused by people who don't want to draw two Tops. How is that even possible? Like, sure, maybe you have two in your opener? Okay, now do you have, I dunno, fetchlands or Brainstorms in your deck?

[Skeggi]

Nice article, smooth read. Good job! :smile:


I can’t see running a non-Tarmogoyf Blue deck unless it involves some ridiculous early game defense.
I've seen a pretty strong UWB-hanni-fishish list with maindeck Jotun Grunts as bigbody and maindeck Meddling Mages naming Goyfs (yeah, I know you vommit upon maindeck MM's :wink:). It also runs Trinket Mages with a toolbox and Dark Confidant for some extra draw.


I've always been confused by people who don't want to draw two Tops. How is that even possible? Like, sure, maybe you have two in your opener? Okay, now do you have, I dunno, fetchlands or Brainstorms in your deck?
The fact that you can fix it doesn't negate the fact that you may have preferred to have drawn a Counterbalance.

[Eldariel]

This article covered present archetypes in the present Legacy-format with modern builds. For that alone, I approve. Too many Legacy-articles seem to be written by people playing the format 12 months ago; as should be obvious, a crapton has changed since. So yea, applause for an up-to-date Legacy Article.

Omission of something as consistently performing as Landstill is somewhat odd, but as it clearly is an opinion, I don't see it as too big of a problem. That said, a word or two on Loam-decks couldn't have hurt. But I digress, what's written is on the spot and what's not written...well, let's not worry about what isn't there.

[frogboy]

The fact that you can fix it doesn't negate the fact that you may have preferred to have drawn a Counterbalance.

Sure, but they only let you play four.

[Anusien]

I've always been confused by people who don't want to draw two Tops. How is that even possible? Like, sure, maybe you have two in your opener? Okay, now do you have, I dunno, fetchlands or Brainstorms in your deck?
I'm pretty sure I'd run at least 6, possibly 8 if I could.

Some of the people that argue for 4 Top/3 Counterbalance are the same people that argued for 3 Top/3 Counterbalance, and this amuses me.


IIRC Anusien has used that argument before when people reamed him for his articles, so I figured I'd head it off at the (cliched) pass.
So your analysis here is that you have a right to criticize what you get for free, and you're going to proactively be a dick about it? Must be nice...

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

So your analysis here is that you have a right to criticize what you get for free, and you're going to proactively be a dick about it? Must be nice...

Welcome to America/The Internet/Humanity.

Hope you enjoy your stay, comrade.

[Shugyosha]

The "Goyfburn" list is a joke right? Not a single Price of Progress and bad cardchoices all over the place like Jungle Lion and Unwilling Recruit!

Most other lists seem strange or wrong too but the Goyfsligh list is simply crap.

[Hoojo]

I enjoyed the article, as I'm a regular reader of your articles. I may not agree with everything, but it does give me stuff to think about and other points of view to ponder. I look forward to anything you write further, as I enjoy your style.

[C.P.]

Well, I was quoted. That alone makes this article good.

Joke aside, I also want to know your grounds for judging Dragon Stompy as utter crap while Faerie Stompy is a good, solid deck. They both share a skeleton and mulls a lot. Is it just because you did not want to judge somthing recklessly when you did not have enough testing with FS?

Most list seems to be fairly recent and solid, and you did set boundary on the things you will cover and you kept it reasonably. Well done.

[Kuma]

If you can't figure out the definition, you clearly aren't up to the point of reading magic articles. :laugh:

Don't patronize me. I thought my point was obvious from the parts I quoted, but I guess I have to spell it out. How can you say Dragon Stompy is "inconsistent" yet sing Faerie Stompy's praises? Consistency is usually used to refer to how often a deck needs to mulligan and/or how often the deck can execute its gameplan in a reasonable amount of time.

Faerie Stompy mulligans more often than Dragon Stompy, which is why I wanted to hear your definition of inconsistent.

I agree that Faerie Stompy is the better deck, but Dragon Stompy and Faerie Stompy have too much in common for one to be "very strong" and the other to be "horrible".


As I posted to Nihil though in response - I think it's underpowered depending on what you think wants to do. If you think it's just an all-in, OMG I WIN deck, then storm combo or breakfast seems much better. If you think of it as a super disruption + play hard to deal with threats deck, I think NO Threshold / Team America does it better. No matter what way I classify the deck, I can think of at least one deck that does what it wants to do better than it can.

This kind of black and white thinking misses the point. Dragon Stompy can be both an "OMG I WIN" deck and a "super disruption + threats" deck depending on the situation. Dragon Stompy has a much better matchup against blue based decks than storm combo or Breakfast because of its ability to shut off their $400 manabase from turn one. Versus decks like ITF, 4 color Thresh, and Team America an early moon is gg.

Dragon Stompy is favored against storm, Team America, most non-red Thresh lists, and most anything running Counterbalance. It's about 50/50 with Goblins, probably slightly unfavored against Elves! unless you board Pyroclasm, and poor against TEES.

If that's your expected GP meta, you have a funny definition of terrible.


Like I said, I fully believe the Extended version of the deck plays scarier threats despite not having the use of Ancient Tomb and such.

You've got to be kidding me. Ashenmoor Gouger is not scarier than Taurean Mauler, Gathan Raiders, or Rakdos Pit Dragon. Demigod of Revenge is nowhere near as strong as Rakdos Pit Dragon unless you're running tricks to put Demigods in the yard which All-In Red doesn't. Deus of Calamity's second ability is win more. And virtually nobody loses to EtW at 6-8 anymore.

All-In Red is only a good deck in Extended because Extended doesn't have Force of Will. And it's more inconsistent than Dragon Stompy by any definition of the word.

All-in Red would never function in a format with Force of Will. The deck would be somewhere around 30/70 vs Thresh and anything running blue.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

There are easier and more card efficient ways to get creatures much scarier than Deus of Calamity into play on turn 2. Many of which are at least resistant to Swords to Plowshares, the most played removal in the format.

[Forbiddian]

I didn't think the article was that bad. But again, wasn't groundbreaking, either. The article did a good job at analyzing some of the good decks. There are a lot of these articles, but ok. Everyone else cashed in, so go for it. (aside: I do think it's a little silly that people bitch about free articles being on topics they don't like -- DON'T READ THEM, you're not paying for them. If the article is shitty, that's another matter, but if you don't want to read the 30th "here's the metagame" article this month, don't. Beyond being a hypocrite for complaining, you're an idiot for wasting your own time.)

I liked that it was opinionated, if occasionally incorrect or debatable, you at least gets your point across and that's very valuable.



If you're going to write an article and get judged against published works, I wish that you'd put in the extra effort into the background research. You clearly did the testing, but you made some pretty wild metagame predictions that I don't think are supported with any evidence. First of all, your deck choices are a big questionable. I know these are the decks that you like, but there's little evidence a lot of those will see a big amount of play at GP:C.

You said somewhere that you felt Team America would be out in more force that Merfolk at the GP?

(If you look at the history of Decks to Beat, you'll find that Team America has been pretty stagnant in numbers, if anything it's gone down in popularity and/or performance recently whereas Merfolks is very popular in Extended and is putting up extremely solid performances around the world). It's the third most deck-to-beat behind the general archetype "Counterbalance Threshold" and Landstill.

Kindof a nitpick, since you obviously didn't play Merfolk, so you'd have nothing to say about it in the article itself, but reading the responses in this thread, it becomes pretty clear that you have no idea what the Legacy metagame will look like. It's not like I want you to spend 20 hours looking up decks, but a quick glance could tell you that Merfolk has been 5x as successful as Team America in the last month and that a claim that this will turn around before GP:C (given continued Ext performance of Merfolk and the fact that Team America hype is largely gone) would simply be incorrect.

I like that you're opinionated, but try to have more than a gut feeling when the data is so easily accessible and the foundation of your article.

[Anusien]

If you are surprised that the blue deck is way better than the red deck, perhaps you haven't been paying much attention to the history of the game.

The blue deck's 2/2s draw a card; the red deck's 2/2s get pitched just to be able to cast your overcosted threats.

[Artowis]

No really, feel free to give me some numbers on how much Merfolk you expect to see at the GP. I'd be very surprised if this archetype shows up in anything near the numbers you guys make it sound like the deck will be repped. It is definitely not a deck in the mind of the average ptq'r that's just gonna show up for kicks at the GP and everyone who's been serious about the GP (about 15-20 from this area alone actually) I've heard literally 0 from them about testing against it or playing it.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Complaining about free content is the true meaning of President's Day. Fuck to your noise.

As for Merfolk, I have no idea. It apparently shows up enough to be a DTB, although I have no idea when the fuck that happened.

[Sims]

Article needs moar Nourishing Lich.

/thread.


Seriously. Good Article, Josh, I enjoyed it and I felt that some points were debatable but when is there no debate of an opinion article. Keep up the good work and thanks for actually putting the effort forth to write about Legacy instead of one of the PTQ formats.

[SpikeyMikey]

Jesus christ you people are fucking picky. Borderline retarded even. I love how everyone sits here and nit-picks the article because it absolutely sucked... Except you're all nit picking in different directions. You don't have to agree with every author. In fact, I disagree with Artowis on a few points in that article, but that's not surprising. That's why we all end up playing different decks. I'm going to be in Chicago with 4c Landstill (in part because I'm not going to pony up the cash for 4 LED's so I can play ANT but in part because I think it's a solid deck with a real chance) but that doesn't mean that I'm going to bash the article because he's dismissive of Landstill. I mean come the fuck on, if we all agreed about everything in the format, we wouldn't HAVE a format with 20 different viable decks. So lay off the fucking guy. Jesus.

[Piceli89]

It is definitely not a deck in the mind of the average ptq'r that's just gonna show up for kicks at the GP and everyone who's been serious about the GP (about 15-20 from this area alone actually) I've heard literally 0 from them about testing against it or playing it.

This doesn't mean than players won't carry Merfolks in the Chicago PTQ, since, as you should know, your 15-20w don't stand as the whole mycrocosm of the legacy metagame. Most of the people with budget restrictions (read: not to spend 400 bucks in dual lands and goyfs) will surely pick up Merfolks in that event, and, on the contrary of what a "Ooo counterbalance all my life and the rest sucks" mind like you could think, will do pretty well, against all the blue-based decks and combo, which we assume we'll be the 80% of the field. Because that deck's pretty solid, and it's very sad to read that in your article, you don't analyze legacy from a strictly and integrally objective point of view, but you start from the assumption that Threshold et similia will wreck the event while the other decks won't stand a chance against them, which is absolutely uncorrect. Go testing Dragon Stompy, the "trash", against the aforementioned decks, and tell me how is the MU. moreover, you forgot to mention some of the decks which, despites not being blue-based, are important pieces of the actual metagame: Aggro Loam and White Stax. I count about 150 Top8s with Aggro Loam, 40 with Team America. This may lead us-if numbers aren't deceptive- to realize how the first could "potentially" show up in that event and, maybe, get some good results.

In conclusion, the next time, before filling your article with subjective points of view and writing it basing on that- which seems to be pretty haughty, it would be better to pick up all the actual tiers1 of the format (I'm not saying Vizzerdrix.deck, but the tiers) and propose it without presenting them as "trash" or "the strongest deck, period", but trying to show the interactions with the meta, and possible strengths of weaknesses in relation to that. I don't want to flame you, just a suggestion thinking that, perhaps, a lot of people new to legacy aand willing to join the Chicago PTQ could take your article as a referement for deck choices and metagame preparation, and get an idea about legacy which doesn't fit with this format actually is.

For all the rest, good article.

[C.P.]

on the contrary of what a "Ooo counterbalance all my life and the rest sucks" mind like you could think, will do pretty well, against all the blue-based decks and combo, which we assume we'll be the 80% of the field.

While I see them as popular, 80%? That seems like too high of a number. Most people still follow the notion that aggro is way to go in big, open tournement, and merfolk is not the best deck to handle non-blue aggro. The deck was popular for a month, sure, but that doe not mean much in terms of staying power in the format.

Also, note he left out many decks that are almost as powerful as merfolk (read: a deck that can be really good in right meta). I get an impression that he tried to address the decks that were in spotlight to give people idea of relative power level of those decks. Which is resonable, because the first question I get in relation to deck selection from my non-Legacy playing magic friends is about decks in the worlds.

[Artowis]

Most of the people with budget restrictions (read: not to spend 400 bucks in dual lands and goyfs) will surely pick up Merfolks in that event, and, on the contrary of what a "Ooo counterbalance all my life and the rest sucks" mind like you could think, will do pretty well, against all the blue-based decks and combo, which we assume we'll be the 80% of the field.

This is just as absurd, if not moreso, than anything I said in the entire article.

[Bardo]

This thread is what makes writing Legacy articles awesome. Any by "awesome," I really mean: "a total pain in the ass."

Good job at staying cool, Josh. Tough room.

[ssilver]

Being a Merfolk pilot myself, I don't care if someone decides not to write a article about it (its pretty much a rogue deck still even with top8's) and you shouldn't either. If someone plays the deck because they don't want to spend $400 on a deck, then reading some article espousing the virtues of another deck isn't going to stop them from playing it, everyone else will want to play their duals (if I spent hundreds of dollars on duals I would play decks with them too) Merfolk is good against anything with blue, and bad against anything with red/swords to plowshares in black (breaking it down way more then I should, but thats not the point of this conversation anyway). That makes it a hell of a lot more conditional then say Counter-top thresh, which >format at the moment.

On the other hand I liked the article for its simple breakdown of several decks with decklists and opinions (opinions will be opinions and that should be the end of the story), and it helped start the innovation-brain-cogs spinning again, which is what these articles are for.

[Waikiki]

I do like the look of that sower,trygon,clique CB deck. It seems nice. Yet I miss some early spotremoval. I guess sower and sprout should make that up but yet I T1 lackey seems scary. or some confidant kind off thing.

[dahcmai]

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the article and it has it's points. I just see a lot of very general articles about Legacy come out of that website. I guess I did sound bitchy.

I guess you can knock it up to "you can't please everyone half the time and everyone can't be pleased the rest of the time". : )

Either way, keep it up. We still read it after all. I would like to see one person who writes for Star city get in depth on a certain strategy or even maybe a single deck type for a change. No one wants to tread this ground for some reason. I guess most people don't play the format so there's not much need, but it would get a fairly different response from a bunch of exclusive legacy players.

[Arsenal]

...valid Dragon Stompy issues...

I would actually like to hear Josh's response to this. As a fellow Dragon Stompy enthusiast, I'm interested in hearing the response to these valid points.

[Artowis]

Things I was wrong about: Dragon Stompy
Seriously, wtf, 1 made day 2 and then it made T8. Ouch. Blow out. I seriously never thought it could handle 15 rounds.

Things I was right about: The types of CB/top blue decks that were kicking ass, although I missed out on Brassys 'always run Grip MD' thing.

And a Goyf Burn DID make t8! So there was a valid reason to include it. ;P

Things everybody missed: I mentioned Team America was good because of all the disruption. Right idea, wrong deck. Two modified Sui variants made t8. Beats.

[Eldariel]

Principal problem with Team America on this field is the threat count. It just can't cope with the cheap removal going around. Eva Green-variants run more veritable threats (Brainstorm and Ponder only get you so far, especially vs. Countertop when you don't have the time to fool around).

My prediction of Goblins taking two Top 8s and the tournament was holding up until day two. WTF? Did they all get paired vs. Storm or something? Or just an insane amount of Plagues to go around? Way more than I expected.

[JeroenC]

If a lot of the Goblin lists looked like the one that went undefeated Day 1, they got what they came for- no disruption whatsoever has them scooping to any combo deck.

[Forbiddian]

Oh, whoa, I misread the logs. I don't even know what I thought I saw.


Also, Merfolk was out in force. As many Merfolk decks made day 2 as Ad Nauseum. And it was more prevalent than Threshold and Landstill. Again, I don't know what testing groups you had that concluded that Merfolk wouldn't be there and how well they did.

[Artowis]

Actually, six aggro loam made day 2. But I was very surprised to see one make the top 4 (although with a tiny bit of luck, I guess).

Also, Merfolk was out in force. As many Merfolk decks made day 2 as Ad Nauseum. And it was more prevalent than Threshold and Landstill.


Again, I don't know what testing groups you had that concluded that Merfolk wouldn't be there and how well they did.

Uh what? No Aggro Loam even made T8. As far as I know, none made T16. And I had already said Landstill sucked, so OK.

2 Probasco, Andrew
10 Scott-Vargas, Luis D
12 Shay, Richard J
14 Yam, Philip
54 Ochoa, David A

And about five others that didn't make day 2.

These are all people I either tested against or talked about the format with. I think they did fine personally, four of ten finishing in the top 16 and five out of the ten finishing in the money.

And from what I've been told, I'm pretty sure Nassif didn't know half the decks in Legacy and he won the GP, so I don't see how it's really relevant.

I get you Merfolk honks like the deck, but for all this hype, Ad Naus and GR beats / Zoo / whatever you call it made T8 and Merfolk did not. Seriously, this is the kind of shit that makes other people think this forum is a joke. I already admitted my big miss with DS, but you still want to try to barb me over this? :rolleyes:

[SpikeyMikey]

Relax Art. People aren't always going to agree with you and sometimes you're going to make wrong predictions. About 2 years ago, I saw someone with a quote from me in their sig... From an article I wrote maybe 8 years ago. Just be glad you've never said something retarded like how Long-Term Plans is better than Mind's Desire... Getting it shoved in my face hasn't killed me, so I think you'll survive too.

[Forbiddian]

EDIT: Just to add, I'm pretty sure more people will be playing Team America at the GP than Merfolk or Aggro Loam, so I question calling that insignificant. HTH though.

I don't get why you're so upset. You made a call, people pointed out that the reverse is true. You claimed you were right and that GP:C would prove that, but now the data completely contradict your claims. Obviously someone's going to mention that fact. And obviously some of your claims are going to be off.

I hope that the published writers can learn from their mistakes and stand up to this mild criticism (if it can even be called criticism). Anyway, red herring your way out with talk that Zoo made T8 and that nobody predicted it. Adds nothing.