Would the format be more interesting without Tendrils of Agony?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Because my post in the other thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=350639&postcount=33) seems to have been glazed over.

Although originally I had said that if anything should be banned alongside Tarmogoyf, it should be Lion's Eye Diamond, I've changed my mind.

Basically, Tendrils of Agony is a card that changed the way combo worked. In the old 1.5, which existed for about a year with Tendrils but which had no real fast mana aside from Dark Ritual and Elvish Spirit Guide, we had combo decks that were fast; they were primarily Food Chain Goblins and Dragon.

Food Chain Goblins functioned as an aggro deck that could occasionally explode into a turn three or four (once in a great while, turn two) kill with hasty piles of Goblins, using Goblin Recruiter and Ringleader to drop a lot of Warchiefs and Piledriver.

It was also stopped by such non-blue cards as Elephant Grass, Moment's Peace, Humility, Moat, and usually Engineered Plague.

Dragon was undisputably the best combo deck... and yet, every single color had cheap and ready answers to it. Cards like Abolish or Swords to Plowshares, Naturalize or Diabolic Edict, Chain of Vapor or Stifle could not only end the combo, but would leave the opponent with nothing in hand. Worst comes to worst you could run Tormod's Crypt, which stopped the combo but didn't remove all their lands from the game the way other answers did.

Now, if you didn't have those answers you were SOL, and Dragon could run cards like Duress and Unmask and Force and Avoid Fate and Orim's Chant of it's own, but generally speaking, you did not have to play blue or die without sideboard hate.

However... since then...

Combo has been redefined in 1.5. Combo, for the most part, no longer means traditional combo, a deck where two or more cards interact to kill you, most of which were permanents of some stripe.

Today's combo is a lot of mana and some tutoring effects into a very big burn spell.

What's more, although storm was designed to fight countermagic, in fact countermagic is the only strategy that's able to contain this threat effectively.

Here's my question:

Would the format be better without Tendrils of Agony decks? Solidarity would still exist but still be slow; CRET Belcher would still exist but be vulnerable to Engineered Explosives and Pernicious Deed and Pyroclasm.

And I know that Tendrils decks are not dominating the metagame, but I believe that, more than any factor besides possibly Tarmogoyf, they're indirectly responsible for the dominance of the color blue.

Moreover... speaking of LED... like Long.dec, as long as Tendrils is around, all fast mana and draw or tutoring cards require laser-like scrutiny. Sooner or later, if Wizards keeps printing such cards (which they should), something else will need to be banned. And then something else. But the problem, fundamentally, is Tendrils of Agony.

My personal thoughts are that Tendrils should go on the banned list and more vulnerable combos and enablers, such as Hermit Druid, Dragon, Entomb, Metalworker, should come off.

But right now I'm simply asking; Does Tendrils of Agony make the format more or less interesting.

[C.P.]

My answer would be yes it should be banned, seeing there are so many decks that are not viable only because of its bad Tendrils matchup. It makes Board control decks viable, and makes blue less dominant. It would certainaly be really interesting.

[rockout]

This isn't any different then the ban tarmogoyf argument. Stop the madness.

[Jak]

The only problem I have with Storm Combo is that you basically need to play blue to stop them unless you are packed full of discard (that isn't even that reliable because of Brainstorm...). However, combo hardly puts up results since blue is so heavily played. If something from blue did get the axe, then maybe banning Tendril would be the right call.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The only problem I have with Storm Combo is that you basically need to play blue to stop them unless you are packed full of discard (that isn't even that reliable because of Brainstorm...). However, combo hardly puts up results since blue is so heavily played. If something from blue did get the axe, then maybe banning Tendril would be the right call.

My argument is that Tendrils combo (Can we stop calling it "Storm combo" or "Dark Ritual decks" or whatever? It's Tendrils. That's the throbbing heart and soul of the deck, without which it's simply bad) is part of what's keeping blue dominant. Because blue generally is the only color that can rely on beating Tendrils, this gives players less incentive to run any other color, which tend to lose on the first, second or third turn without much they can do. Conversely, the lack of incentives to play a color outside of blue means that blue is rampant which means that less players feel inclined to run Tendrils. When people stray out of this formula, however, they tend to run into Tendrils one round and get completely demolished.

I don't consider it healthy. I like combo being strong, but I feel that Tendrils is a bad combo from a metagame perspective. Dragon and Entomb being unbanned would introduce a much healthier combo, I think.

[Dark_Shakuras]

Every once in a while Wizards fucks up. They admit, and everyone knows it.

Sometime they make cards just too powerful. But I think Storm is just too powerful.

Storm changes the way the game is played. The 5-6 playable storm cards are all way overpowered in what they do. Sure in standard, they were nice and fair, but even in Extended cards like Mind's Desire, were one of the upper tier Combo decks.

I think wizards would be best to do the following.

In Leagcy:

Ban: Tendrils, Grapshot, Brain Freeze, Empty the Warrens.
Unban: all the "combo" stuff. Imagine how many cards are no longer broken as fuck when your have to accelerate into a combo thats actually counter able and, surprise surprise actually a COMBINATION!

In Vintage it harder, as Restricting Tendrils does little to stop Storm, as most decks only play 1-2.

I think it might be actually ok to ban the card there.

[sroncor1]

I don' think you need to play blue to control combo. Dragon Stompy does a more than capable job of it. I guess the other options besides blue are extremely limited though, basically being Magus of the Moon, Chalice and Trinisphere, and two of those cards can be used in any color deck. Although to truly take advantage of their power they can not be splashed, so maybe you do have a point as there is little splashable hate.

[DragoFireheart]

My answer would be yes, but not because of how powerful it is but because of how little interaction it offers.

Control - Lots of interactivity with counters and such.

Aggro- Little guys that try to kill you? Interactivity with defending from them and/or racing them.

Storm Combo: They might cast a discard spell, but otherwise they are playing solitaire while you play Chess for him and you.


I might argue that Ichorid needs to lose something, but even it has a larger amount of interactivity than Storm Combo.

I'm also glad that IBA fully grasped the point of my "Countermagic and Legacy: Do we want it" topic. Counters are rampant because we depend on them to keep Tendrils combo in check, which I think is not healthy for the format.

Take a look at some of the other decks in the forums: Something you may see often is "well, lets just focus on our other MUs and just accept the lose Vs Tendrils". That is not a good argument for why a deck should do poorly vs another: every deck should have the ability to beat another with proper skill and a tiny bit of luck.

[mujadaddy]

Much more interesting without Tendrils.

Actually errata that changed the wording of the card might be enough -- if it were damage instead of loss of life, that would open up a TON of answers and make more decks in more colors able to withstand it.

On the subject of :u:, it's not like counters are suddenly going to disappear if Tendrils disappears. Counters work against everything. But if Tendrils disappears, Combo gets a minimum of 1-2 turns slower, which gives aggro a big boost.

I find combo boring, to face and to run. It works, but jeez, wake me if you fizzle.

[lebarion]

I don't think banning Tendrils alone would be any good to the format.
It wouldn't make people play less Goyfs and FoWs. I believe it would make aggro more viable, and as a consequence, board control, too.

However, I believe that, despite the "healthy" of the format, it's time to shake things up a little bit by unbanning a couple of cards.
Yes, I know that there's a lot of viable archetypes and decks, I know that the format is balanced and almost every single deck has its bad matches, I know that every now and then Wizards presents us a few playable cards. But I fell the discussions about the format are becoming less and less interesting and this discourage people from keep playing legacy (or maybe I'm just sad that there are too few championships nearby :cry: ).

[Elfrago]

Sure, because right now combo is everywhere. Everybody and their little brother is playing combo. People are actully shitting tendrils instead of, you know, crap.

[/sarcasm]

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I don't want either the color blue or combo as an archetype to disappear; I'm actually fond of both.

I'm aware that a certain reaction to this sort of poll will be to assume that it's the anger of a Timmy (or some similarly banile generalization) who simply wants to get rid of all the decks that beat... (I used to be able to insert a given tribal deck in this slot, but those have stopped sucking dramatically. Let's say 9land Stompy, then).

However, I think there are desirable amounts and forms of both blue and combo in the format. Although the two issues aren't intrinsically related, my desirable form of blue doesn't involve a two mana 5/6, and the desirable form of combo, I think, involves an actual combination of cards, at least one of which is a permanent.

I quite like the Cascade-Hypergenesis combo, for instance, which I think may be vulnerable; but it's also vulnerable to any deck that can drop a lot of permanents out of it's hand, or that can play Wrath or Damnation early; I beat it with Quinn, for instance, by just dropping Runed Halo, O-Ring, O-Ring. Moat would have been even better, to say nothing of Humility.

Another combo I like is Life, which can be quite powerful but relies on creatures, and further has difficulty beating decks with a powerful milling option, whether that's Solidarity or Train Wreck.

Cephalid Breakfast is both blue and a combo, but ultimately quite fair and healthy for the metagame, being vulnerable to creature hate as well as graveyard hate (while having tools to fight through both, as well as the usual counters and such).

That's what we used to think of in terms of "combo" decks. Combinations of cards. Now combo has come to mean Tendrils of Agony. It... irks me.

[GreenOne]

I'm usually a combo player, and combo definetly has a fairly interactive game against anything but monogreen.dec
People is running chalices, discard, countermagic, istant damage sources (for AN), graveyard hate (for IGG), etc. Even if the game is usually not even fair against non-blue decks this doesn't mean there are no choices to be made by the players considering what the other player is doing.

However, even banning Tendrils, combo decks are usually able to make >10 storm especially when working with AN. The aggro matches would be still unfair using Brain Freeze / Grapeshot.

I guess I can still 8-2 any goblin deck with a TES list with -1 Tendrils +1 Grapeshot, and maintain almost the same percentages against black disruption decks, aggroloam, etc.

It's not the win, it's the engine. Maybe you'll have to adjust your deck to fit in some more IGG or some doomsdays, but still, the game is going to be unfair against those ones.


the desirable form of combo, I think, involves an actual combination of cards, at least one of which is a permanent.

Yeah, I know those combos! One involves LED+Mystical tutor and the other one Doomsday+SDT! :)

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I'm going to dismiss, categorically, the argument that Storm Combo would be as strong with Brain Freeze or Grapeshot.

Or if Grapeshot combo does become big, I'm going to start boarding in Scars of the Veteran.

[DragoFireheart]

I'm going to dismiss, categorically, the argument that Storm Combo would be as strong with Brain Freeze or Grapeshot.

Or if Grapeshot combo does become big, I'm going to start boarding in Scars of the Veteran.


Going to have to argee. Both Grapeshot and Brainfreeze need almost double the storm count that Tendrils requires to goldfish.

[GreenOne]

I'm going to dismiss, categorically, the argument that Storm Combo would be as strong with Brain Freeze or Grapeshot.

Or if Grapeshot combo does become big, I'm going to start boarding in Scars of the Veteran.


Going to have to argee. Both Grapeshot and Brainfreeze need almost double the storm count that Tendrils requires to goldfish.

If you can board Scars of the Veteran, why not just board Orim's Chant? :)

Doomsday Combo is going quite a lot for the infinite grapeshot kill postboard, and playing Ad Nauseam usually draws you something like 10-15 cards. After that you can still IGG and reach even 30 storm.

Storm wouldn't obviously be as strong as it is now, reducing he power of IGG loops (maybe you should add a couple of IGG to your deck). What I'm saying is that the fundamental turn is not that often given by the win condition, but by the engine you're using.

The storm combo against decks not packing countermagic, even with a less powerful deck, will still result in the same interactions, and the same ending, with combo being almost as fast as it is now.

A TES' hand with petal, D.Rit, D.Rit, AN, against goblins is going almost always to be a turn 1, whether the win is Grapeshot or Tendrils. If the goblin player has the chance to play discard on turn 1, or play a chalice@0 on turn 1, then the TES' hand is going to lose its turn 1 potential, whether the win is grapeshot or tendrils.

[emidln]

It would seem to me that banning Tendrils combo would have nearly 0 effect on the dominance of blue. Counterbalance decks aren't good because they keep combo in check. Counterbalance decks are good because Counterbalance is fundamentally broken. I'd still play Counterbalance without Tendrils in the format because my Counterbalance decks have exactly 0 cards against Tendrils outside of CB/Spell Snare/Force of Will. This is very similar to many other NLU-type decks because deckbuilders expect to run into other CB decks (because CB is so good) and aggro decks, not the 5% of players who pick weird combo that they probably can't pilot through hate.

All it would do is free up sideboard slots for aggro decks because they get to run more specific anti-control cards rather than genera stuff like Chant/Pillar/Teeg (although Teeg might still see play).

This seems to make the format a lot less interesting for the combo deckbuilders and hardly affect anyone else (outside of paranoid crazy guy's 60 cards of storm combo hate who now can't even go 1-5 in an event).

[Zach Tartell]

I'd like to see non-tendrils combo. But I don't think that that's a good reason to ban it.

I feel like Hermit Druid would be kinda cool to play. And WGD might be cool (although I've never played against it, in my defense).

Aydunno.

[ykpon]

modern combo has a nice engine, allowing it to get needed pieces and needed mana fast enough to race most of nonblue decks.
with such engine combo players are able not just to play good win conditions like tendrils, but different ones. for example, look at a 2 lands belcher which would come back if they ban tendrils. it will have 2 win conditions: belcher itself and ETW. both cards are easy to answer for every deck, even for a colorless one (needle, powder keg, explosives etc). but at the same time they need absolutely different answers. add some protection like duress, chant or pact and you see that nonblue decks still aren't fast enough to find enough answers. if something in such combodecks is really broken, then it's the engine, not the finishers. if blue decks will somehow stop dominating format, i'll vote for banning LED or infernal tutor, not the tendrils.

[caiomarcos]

This seems to make the format a lot less interesting for the combo deckbuilders and hardly affect anyone else (outside of paranoid crazy guy's 60 cards of storm combo hate who now can't even go 1-5 in an event).

I have to disagree. Without Tendrils players would actually look for combos, not a way to reach 10 storm faster. Said that, and being a combo-lover myself since ProspoBloom, I agree with IBA when he says that we don't have combo anymore, we have Tendrils. Any 'combo' deck other then the ones with Tendrils kill sucks. First because Tendrils is by far the best option when you have such fast mana like we do in Legacy, 2nd because everyone is packing CB, FoW, Daze, Chalice etc in order to combat those Tendril combos.
Tendrils stifles real combo deckbuilding just like Tarmogoyf stifles aggro and control deckbuilding and variety.
Don't get me wrong thou, I think Legacy is quite healthy now, but it could be much more interesting without the amazing dominance over their respective archetypes that those two cards have.

[KillemallCFH]

My answer would be yes it should be banned, seeing there are so many decks that are not viable only because of its bad Tendrils matchup.Uh, you realize Zoo is a DTB right now, right? Having a bad combo matchup has never solely pushed a deck out of viability. Combo is such a small part of the meta that its usually perfectly acceptable to give up on the combo matchup if you can get reasonable results against the rest of the field.

[Piceli89]

I can't get why the hell should Tendrils would be banned. I mean, combo has, in legacy, a reasonable amount of hate.Free Counters,Stifle, Counterbalance,Chant, Discard, Teeg/Mage effects, Chalice and Trini, even Blood Moon and LD hurts it as well. Tendrils, if considered alone, is a weak card; what makes it THE kill con in the majority storm combo decks is the dedicated engine behind it. If that engine goes on having several hate cards against it (most of which are effectively solveable, ok, but still require a lot of time and resources to get rid of them, delaying what an usual build of storm combo aims for, to win within the range of a certain number of turns), then Tendrils is just a mere output of something which is way more complicate than just "RAWR 10 SPELLS TENDRILS YA!". Moreover, even if this may seem as an inconsistent reason, we're playing in an Eternal format, where Storm combo, since its birth, has had and always have an important role among the archetypes this format offers.
I also don't share the argument " combo has denied some decks to rise or even to be born because of their lack of answers to it". Combo, first of all, isn't the dominant archetype of legacy, for all the cards i quoted above, which are way too common in here, so i get the feeling it's a poor argument to say that decks like GW fatties+enchantments.dec have been smothered by the presence of storm combo, since they'd probably be rolled over by Landstill or other control decks as well; and , if we want to keep this sort of argument, let's apply it to a certain few cards which have really hindered or even murdered the development of certain strategies.
-White weenie has been killed by Tarmogoyf, and, in laeast measure, Counterbalance.
-Red Death has been killed completely to Tarmogoyf.
-ALL the decks that were run into legacy using Blue and Red were slaughtered by that green piece of shit (I remember , for example, UR landstill, yes, that's pretty a crappy example, but i was very displeased with it);
-Let's be honest, all the aggro decks not packing Tarmogoyf are way penalized, and must deal with it.
But i don't want to move the discussion to the usual "Tarmogoyf is a shit, it has broken Legacy and now half of the decks function around it" issue. But i want just to make understand that it's extremely less likely that , when someone build a new dec, be it blueless too, he will renounce to it because of the "it loses/has no answers to storm combo" fact. On the contrary, people tend to build a deck keeping in sight very carefully if it can get rid or face a 5/6 cc2, and this seems to happen even more when people tune their decks for a tournament, where I'm noticing that the really broken cards of the current time ( Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, no one ever tries to deny that they are not unbalanced) are having more and more impact.
I have tried to be as objective as possible. I am not claiming not to ban Tendrils because i'm a storm combo player, but because it seems that Tendrils.dec is already been handled very well by LOTS of card in the current cardpool, which are NOT only blue. Plus, storm combo has usually randomic problems of inconsistency, since piling 10 spells isn't always that simple as it could seem.

[DrJones]

Tendrils of Agony is a combo taking the entire deck. If it were just a 1-card combo, as you imply, I might be able to put four copies in any deck packing black and start winning tournaments with it.

Also, the deck doesn't even appear on the DTB forum, but in any case, here's a list of non-blue cards that I found that can stop the combo:

white
aethersworn canonist
orim's chant
gilded light
solitary confinement
true believer
children of korlis
mana tithe
Glowrider
order of the sacred torch

black
discard (duress, thoughtseize, etc.)
false cure
lich
simulacrum (lol)
word of command (double lol)
Thrull wizard (triple lol)

Green
Refreshing Rain (if tendrils is not big enough)
Nourishing Shoal (if tendrils is not big enough)
Lifeforce

Red
Pyrostatic Pillar (maybe)
Ricochet (lol)

Other than that, Red has to accelerate into the high cost cards that protect against that combo.

Multicolor
Gaddock Teeg

Artifacts
Circle of the Void
Sphere of Resistance
Trinisphere
Thorn of Amethyst


By reading that list, I can conclude that the best non-blue deck against Tendrils has to be nourishing lich!!

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The answer to combo has rarely been to ban an engine card. Almost every time a combo deck was neutered, it required the banning of one of the key kill conditions.

Without Tendrils you'd have a lot of fast mana. Decks like CRET Belcher would be viable, but the vulnerability to non-blue hate is extremely relevant; EE hits CRETBelcher far harder than Blood Moon hits Fetchland Tendrils.

Saying that cards like Stifle, Daze, Counterbalance, Spell Snare and especially Force of Will hurt Tendrils decks doesn't really address the problem; the problem is that so few non-blue decks have a way to handle the dominant combo strategy in the metagame. The real exceptions are Ancient Tomb decks running Trinisphere and/or Chalice of the void. But that's a very narrow strategy that has had limited success. And it's not the same as in old 1.5, or most Standard formats, where any given combo deck must, by it's nature, allow must other decks to bring in some form of hate which can at least weaken it's chances of winning. Tendrils admits relatively few answers.

[emidln]

Something I've noticed when playing Doomsday is that I can win with Painter/Grindstone just as easily as I can win with Tendrils. While this hasn't been explored in the design of straight Ad Nauseam decks, something along the lines of:

4 Painter's Servant
4 Grindstone
2 Ad Nauseam
3 Enlightened Tutor
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Dark Ritual
4 Lotus Petal
3 Chrome Mox
4 Mystical Tutor
2 Ad Nauseam
4 Orim's Chant
2 Duress
4 Brainstorm
4 Sensei's Divining Top
2 Tundra
1 Scrubland
3 Underground Sea
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand

This is a rough draft (may not even be 60 cards) that is just as hard to answer as ANT. The broken thing here isn't drawing one million cards off Ad Nauseam, it's Tendrils of Agony right?

For my next trick, I'll cut 1 Ill-Gotten Gains and cut 1 Tendrils of Agony from my Doomsday list and add 1 Painter and 1 Grindstone. Want to bet on the chances that I still kill opponents by resolving a spell that lets me tutor for 5 cards?

Tendrils of Agony isn't a problem. Ultra-efficient cantrips, plentiful fast mana, and a ton of protection each derived from magic's history combine to form the problem. The only way you're going to stop this is to ban Ill-Gotten Gains, Ad Nauseam, Diminishing Returns, Doomsday, and Meditate (to stop high tide decks) while following up by not printing anything else that can even be hinted at as a storm engine. No mass draw, no unconditional tutors, no multiple graveyard recursion spells no matter how serious R&D thinks the drawback is in standard. You're going to have to stop printing ritual effects too, because we're dangerously close to making SI a viable deck due to the density of good mana effects (and that deck can play Belcher, ETW, and Tendrils each as viable win conditions).

[TheRock]

This game was designed to see tough, complex interactions and loads of math getting tossed around like stale potato chips. There are just as many tough rules and interactions in Standard right now then there are in Legacy, and yet there are eons of young kids and newer players still playing it.

Tendrils, in Legacy right now, is a useful tool that combo players can live without. In Vintage, Tendrils is a very insignificant, but still best available for its role, kill card in a Will/Tinker format that could disappear tomorrow and not even make a large dent.

I would rather cut into blue's power and leave the combo tricks around, and thus, if I had to cut a combo card, I would rather go for the cards that make the combo deck versatile yet effective - tutors.

[ScatmanX]

Tendrils, if considered alone, is a weak card

Worldgorger Dragon is a card that is weak considered alone. Nevertheles, it is banned.

[MULocke]

The answer to combo has rarely been to ban an engine card. Almost every time a combo deck was neutered, it required the banning of one of the key kill conditions.

Without Tendrils you'd have a lot of fast mana. Decks like CRET Belcher would be viable, but the vulnerability to non-blue hate is extremely relevant; EE hits CRETBelcher far harder than Blood Moon hits Fetchland Tendrils.

Saying that cards like Stifle, Daze, Counterbalance, Spell Snare and especially Force of Will hurt Tendrils decks doesn't really address the problem; the problem is that so few non-blue decks have a way to handle the dominant combo strategy in the metagame. The real exceptions are Ancient Tomb decks running Trinisphere and/or Chalice of the void. But that's a very narrow strategy that has had limited success. And it's not the same as in old 1.5, or most Standard formats, where any given combo deck must, by it's nature, allow must other decks to bring in some form of hate which can at least weaken it's chances of winning. Tendrils admits relatively few answers.

I was under the impression that any deck could play chalice of the void. Against storm you want it for zero or one anyway, so you don't need the two lands. Aggro Loam, another tier 1 deck, has a bad combo matchup game 1, but they board in things like chalices and gaddock teeg (among other things, I'm not up on the sb tech, not that it's relevant). Thus, every deck has the potential to have a solid combo matchup if they try. Give me a color/deck, and I'll find you a sb card to make the matchup better. The problem is not that they don't exist, it's that you don't want to run them.

[Piceli89]

Worldgorger Dragon is a card that is weak considered alone. Nevertheles, it is banned.

Because it tore the metagame apart some years ago. wotC could easiliy reprint it, i guess it could be still stopped.
Does Storm combo tear the metagame apart these days as much as Dragon did, or Tarmogoyf does?

[caiomarcos]

Something I've noticed when playing Doomsday is that I can win with Painter/Grindstone just as easily as I can win with Tendrils.

I can hose and hate that combo a thousand times easier than a Tendrils one.
Every other combo kill is useless and not played because Tendrils is much easier to play and so much harder to hate.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This is a rough draft (may not even be 60 cards) that is just as hard to answer as ANT. The broken thing here isn't drawing one million cards off Ad Nauseam, it's Tendrils of Agony right?

For my next trick, I'll cut 1 Ill-Gotten Gains and cut 1 Tendrils of Agony from my Doomsday list and add 1 Painter and 1 Grindstone. Want to bet on the chances that I still kill opponents by resolving a spell that lets me tutor for 5 cards?

Ad Nauseum is certainly powerful. However, if you go this route, you will lose more often than you would with Tendrils. Significantly more, I should say. It makes having both Orim's Chant and Ad Nauseum and resolving both far more important; it also opens you up to cards as problematic as Gempalm Incinerator, or simply Gaea's Blessing. To pretend that Tendrils isn't an important component of decks that rely on Tendrils to win is simply silly.


Tendrils of Agony isn't a problem. Ultra-efficient cantrips, plentiful fast mana, and a ton of protection each derived from magic's history combine to form the problem.

That's odd, because I can promise you that no viable deck looked anything like a Tendrils of Agony deck before Tendrils of Agony was printed.

Certainly fast mana has been problematic in the history of Magic before, but it wasn't an institutional problem. It relied on certain interactions being viable, many of which were stopped by maindecked cards.


The only way you're going to stop this is to ban Ill-Gotten Gains, Ad Nauseam, Diminishing Returns, Doomsday, and Meditate (to stop high tide decks) while following up by not printing anything else that can even be hinted at as a storm engine.

Again, as noted above, since no such thing as Long.dec existed before Tendrils, and since it's thousand descendants have since formed the core of what we call "combo", I'm going to disagree with you. I think banning Tendrils of Agony would do plenty enough to weaken Tendrils decks.

[matelml]

I find playing combo very fun.:smile:

It's definitely very strong, in my opinion when played correct even the strongest archetype. I think Tendrils is the correct choice when trying to weaken combo. Any card alone can be replaced (AdN, LED and Dark Rit would be the next hardest to replace cards in my opinion), but any other card that Tendrils would require more mana, cards or vulnerability.

Still, I don't think it needs banning. There are not enough players playing it (well) to harm the metagame. Any deck losing to combo can still do well very easily, just because it probably won't face combo much. This could change in the future though, but I guess it won't.

I also don't think blue's dominance is because of combo, it just isn't relevant enough for that. I think blue is so prominent because players like consistency and options. Brainstorm is the strongest card in the format. It wins many games unnoticed. Any deck without Brainstorm and less so Ponder is way more likely to just flood/screw or have bad draws somewhere along the tournament, which is a very important factor.

[Michael Keller]

First of all, let's just sit back and evaluate the situation:

We are talking about the banning of a 4 casting-cost sorcery here that is really only viable in a select few decks. People need to understand that Tendrils of Agony itself is a rather useless card; it does practically nothing. The only thing that makes it effective are the sub-components of Storm-based combo decks. Cards such as:

Lions Eye Diamond
Dark Ritual
Cabal Ritual
Rite of Flame
Etc.

These accelerators provide the necessary ending supply of mana capable of casting this card after having had to play nine spells before it. Tendrils of Agony is a simplistic win condition, nothing more.

If you are in favor of the end of Storm-based combo decks in Legacy, than look no further than the cancerous threat that lies dormant in each and every game to set up such a win: Accelerators. Without them, these decks are garbage - that's right, garbage - and would be buried with all other meaningless combo decks to fade into obscurity over the years. Combo decks do not maintain a very high land-count, which is why cards like Trinisphere become problematic; they can't cast accelerators for cheap.

Sure, they may have answers to these defensive weapons. But Tendrils of Agony alone does not warp the format and that was what the original question asked. So, no, it shouldn't be.

[caiomarcos]

Warping the format is not only when something DOMINATES it. Dominating the format is only one of the ways of warping it. Therefore nobody is saying that Tendrils is overplayed or overpresent in the format, but it still warps it. It is dominant in Combo archetypes, every other reasonable combo does not come close to Tendril Storm, not PS, not Belcher and not Cephalid.

Again, the problem is not Storm Combo, is Tendrils Storm. Once Grapeshot or Brainfreeze become the Storm kill of choice, Belcher, Cephalid and other non-storm decks will be viable again, and those combo decks will be vulnerable to much more than FoW or CB.

You can have all the fast mana and draw you want, but if your kill is Fireball, Brainfreeze, Stroke of Genius, Grapeshot or anything besides Tendrils, LED and Ritual is not a problem anymore, is it?

Saying that Tendrils is ONLY a simple kill condition is understating it. Tendrils is THE kill condition.

[Apex]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

I understand that storm is a design flaw, but it's not even that bad compared to some of the other stuff in legacy (Counterbalance much?). The existence of good, viable combo decks (particularly ones that aren't overpowered and have bad matchups against some of the popular decks) also acts to keep certain strategies in check, particularly more linear aggro decks like goblins/affinity (well, technically, I guess Tarmogoyf keeps those in check too, but Tarmogoyf is pretty unfair to start with).

Tendrils make the format more interesting, because without Tendrils, good combo decks wouldn't be represented nearly as much (let's face it, most non-tendril combo decks are pretty bad in these days, and if you just take out Tendrils but nothing else, combo is going to be much, much worse). Having one less archetype would really make the metagame more stale in my opinion.

[4eak]

If we aren't willing to ban cards like Brainstorm, Goyf, LED, Vial, etc., then I would say Tendrils makes the format more interesting.

Interesting format = Format with choices that test skill, both through a high degree of interaction and a metagame with depth and diversity.

Tendrils of Agony doesn't make the format less interesting by being so broken that it completely warps the metagame (as some combo decks have previously done in so called 'winters'), but its existence certainly modifies the metagame (as any good deck should). Most importantly, Tendrils doesn't muscle out more competition than it creates. Tendrils is fast enough to keep Ichorid (a slightly slower, but fairly non-interactive combo), a few very strong aggro decks, and dedicated board control decks in check.

Alongside its raw speed, I have no problem with ToA's resistance to many forms of control, in fact, that aspect of the card and archetype is exactly what I think is necessary for the format. I've even had to reverse my opinion on Tendrils enablers like Ad Nauseam, which have effectively lowered the skill requirements to play the deck, allowing Tendrils to have a stronger influence on the format (despite the strength of CB). I want ToA's influence on the format.

Tendrils makes blue and chalice decks a necessary part of the metagame, and I think that is a good thing for diversity and skill-intensive interaction. The speed and resilience of Tendrils promotes the use of other decks which are designed to interact with the format because it requires the metagame to have a certain amount of Force of Will and other permission.

Storm combo makes Aggro-Control the best archetype in the format, which basically means: a deck with no dedicated, focused role is the best. When I sit down and think about it, I'm glad Thresh is statistically the best because it doesn't win by enormous margins against every deck in the format, it just has decent or good odds against most decks. Tendrils is just good enough that it makes Aggro-Control the best deck in the format, and I think the general metagame is more open and interesting when people are gunning for aggro-control while weighing the other matchups. Good metagamers should appreciate the ability to reasonably throw the combo match in favor of having much greater odds against other archetypes.

I also have no problem with the fact that Tendrils obsoletes many other combo decks, by a large margin. None of those decks would be good enough to make the same impact in the metagame and put aggro-control at the top. Tendrils is good for diversity, while the other real combo deck, Ichorid, would not be good for diversity.

While many decks can't interact with Tendrils, the deck itself forces the metagame to adapt, making the metagame overall more interactive and capable of diversity. Tendrils also keeps in check decks that would otherwise be too powerful. Without a very fast, control-resistant, yet often interactive combo deck in the metagame, dedicated board control archetypes, Ichorid and Goblins would be too influential in Legacy.





peace,
4eak

[KrzyMoose]

Once Grapeshot or Brainfreeze become the Storm kill of choice, Belcher, Cephalid and other non-storm decks will be viable again

Explain, please, why Tendrils makes some of the aforementioned decks (ie, Painter-Grindstone, Breakfast, etc...) not viable.

Do you mean that Tendrils combo is better than the other combo decks?

Isn't it the case that, in every format ever, some combo/aggro/control deck is just better than another combo/aggro/control deck?

[emidln]

Ad Nauseum is certainly powerful. However, if you go this route, you will lose more often than you would with Tendrils. Significantly more, I should say. It makes having both Orim's Chant and Ad Nauseum and resolving both far more important; it also opens you up to cards as problematic as Gempalm Incinerator, or simply Gaea's Blessing. To pretend that Tendrils isn't an important component of decks that rely on Tendrils to win is simply silly.

Tendrils isn't important anymore. That list is without storm cards. Grapeshot ignores Gaea's Blessing. Gempalm Incinerator might not even matter after you draw 15 cards because you might just draw and be able to cast multiple Painters. Tendrils is just the most efficient in a growing list of efficient win conditions. In terms of strength, I'd like them something like this:

Tendrils of Agony
Grapeshot
Brain Freeze
Painter/Grindstone

somewhere between Brain Freeze and Grapeshot lies ETW, but I don't normally count it because it's not reliable enough.


That's odd, because I can promise you that no viable deck looked anything like a Tendrils of Agony deck before Tendrils of Agony was printed.

Certainly fast mana has been problematic in the history of Magic before, but it wasn't an institutional problem. It relied on certain interactions being viable, many of which were stopped by maindecked cards.

Again, as noted above, since no such thing as Long.dec existed before Tendrils, and since it's thousand descendants have since formed the core of what we call "combo", I'm going to disagree with you. I think banning Tendrils of Agony would do plenty enough to weaken Tendrils decks.

I don't think that Tendrils is weak enough without Tendrils to not slaughter aggro. Consider this list (with appologies to Bryant)

// TES (without Tendrils)
4 City of Brass
4 Gemstone Mine
2 Underground Sea
1 Volcanic Island
1 Bloodstained Mire
4 Lotus Petal
4 Chrome Mox
4 Dark Ritual
4 Rite of Flame
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Brainstorm
3 Ponder
3 Mystical Tutor
4 Burning Wish
3 Infernal Tutor
1 Grapeshot
1 Ill-Gotten Gains
2 Ad Nauseam
4 Orim's Chant
2 Duress
1 Chain of Vapor

// Partial Sideboard
SB: 1 Grapeshot
SB: 1 Ill-Gotten Gains
SB: 1 Empty the Warrens
SB: 1 Diminishing Returns
SB: 1 Duress
SB: 1 Infernal Tutor
SB: 1 Shattering Spree
SB: 1 Maelstrom Pulse

This deck loses almost nothing by only killing with Grapeshot/ETW. If you wanted to, you could increase the number of Grapeshots in the maindeck to more reliably cast double Grapeshot at low storm, but it's not necessary due to Ad Nauseam being busted in this list. Things like Long.dec didn't exist before Tendrils because there were no good win conditions. If you take away Tendrils, Brain Freeze and Grapeshot can work in various modern Tendrils decks. In Fetchland Tendrils, you can actually kill with Painter/Grindstone just as easily as Grapeshot or Brain Freeze because Doomsday leaves you with a lot of design space.

Despite the fact that the majority of my Doomsday/Tendrils deck existed while people were mucking around with Sutured Ghoul (in early legacy), nobody found it. That doesn't mean the cards didn't exist (for reference, it was missing exactly Ponder (which isn't critical to the deck and is easily replaceable with similar cards) and Krosan Grip (which wasn't necessary as CB wasn't printed and/or played)) just that the necessary time and effort hadn't been spent to come up with the requisite Doomsday piles. My DDFT deck wasn't born out of "let's play Doomsday because it's broken" like those decks (of 2004/2005) were but rather "Ill-Gotten Gains is shitty, is there something cheaper?" That Long.dec has changed the way we think of building combo made it possible for us to incorporate Doomsday into a storm list. The fact that the storm deck is entirely enabled by Doomsday lets lets us play more than just storm with it. Because Long taught us to rethink combo (specifically tutors), Doomsday and TES could survive without Tendrils.

What Long taught magic wasn't just that fast mana + bombs into Tendrils is good. Long.dec taught us the power of versatile tutors. Banning Tendrils won't take that away, nor will it significantly change combo's power level. Our thinking changed, our win conditions beyond Tendrils improved, and nothing short of banning every win condition or every engine and then not printing more will change that.

[DrJones]

Explain, please, why Tendrils makes some of the aforementioned decks (ie, Painter-Grindstone, Breakfast, etc...) not viable.

Do you mean that Tendrils combo is better than the other combo decks?

Isn't it the case that, in every format ever, some combo/aggro/control deck is just better than another combo/aggro/control deck?I think different combo decks can co-exist without one being superior to the others if they are good against different decks in the meta.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Saying that Tendrils does nothing by itself misses the actual history of combo. Prior to Tendrils, we had all the other elements of the same deck; and yet no combo deck in Vintage or 1.5 was set up to function anything like Long.dec. Immediately after Tendrils was printed this became the dominant strategy in Vintage, and the primary strategy in Legacy once the lists were separted and mana acceleration beyond Dark Ritual was either unbanned or printed.

I compare the effects of Tendrils on Legacy to the effect of Raffinity in Mirrodin Block Constructed. Raffinity was not the dominant deck. The dominant decks were red or green centric and ran cards like Molder Slug, Arc-Slogger, Electrostatic Bolt and Viridian Shaman. They preyed on Raffinity decks and had enough strengths versus the rest of the field that they dominated the metagame. However, these decks were not actually busted in and of themselves. What kept them on top was having a decent game versus the rest of the field and crushing the deck that would knock other archetypes out of the running. This is also similar to the strategy lots of people tried to take with Fish against Hulk-Flash at GP Columbus, with the unfortuante cliff note that Flash was far too powerful for this to work.

Tendrils is not as powerful as Hulk-Flash was, but it is powerful enough to serve the same role as Raffinity did in Mirrodin Block; although not dominant, it tends to devour anything that's not the foil. to that strategy.

Lastly, I didn't say I wasn't willing to ban cards like Tarmogoyf and Brainstorm. I would rather take a liberal approach to the Legacy banned list. I think it's been stagnant for entirely too long. However, not everyone agrees with this philosophy. This is an inquiry thread to gauge public opinion about whether or not Tendrils' presence helps or hurts the format.

It's also possible that Ad Nauseum does render this conversation pointless. Ad Nauseum is certainly the most busted enabler in combo, and a prime target for banning anyway, as we all realized the second it was printed. I'm not sure, then, that that should singlehandedly derail the main topic, since Ad Nauseum is relatively easy to ban (having only been legal a brief time), it's banning wouldn't shock anyone and without it, Storm combo most definitely could not survive the loss of Tendrils without a serious loss in strength, except in the form of a deck like CRET Belcher (unreliable) or Solidarity (slow).

[kirdape3]

People are still going to play Force of Will, Stifle, and other incidental hate cards for the combination decks that would exist without Tendrils of Agony - because those cards are still awesome against the dominant strategy of the format, being Counterbalance/Top. With that being said, I'd rather have a harder to stop finisher for those decks because without it you're asking an awful lot for those decks to be able to defeat the already dominant archetype.

[KrzyMoose]

I think different combo decks can co-exist without one being superior to the others if they are good against different decks in the meta.

Isn't that the case now? Aren't there multiple combo decks? Don't people play different combo decks?

I fail to see how Tendrils combo stops people from playing, say, Painter-Grindstone.

It's the same thing as with aggro decks. There are clearly better aggro decks, but that doesn't stop people from playing Boros.dec.

Furthermore, I'm still playing with four Brainstorm, four Force of Will, four Sensei's Divining Top, and four Counterbalance in every deck I play, regardless of whether or not Storm exists.

*edit*

Immediately after Tendrils was printed this became the dominant strategy in Vintage, and the primary strategy in Legacy once the lists were separted and mana acceleration beyond Dark Ritual was either unbanned or printed.

The question I have to ask is: So why is it a problem that Tendrils is the dominant combo strategy?

[bruno_tiete]

As I see it, Counterbalance got it's attention due to it's power in the aggrocontrol mirror. Even before the "invention" of countertop, Combo was not tearing anything apart.

While I know that handling Tendrils is hard, specially in Red or Green, it seems to me more a design problem on that colours than anything else. Green can't handle Elfball as well. It seems to me like shooting my foot is not a way to stop my head from aching. I wish Stifle had been green. It's not.

I don't see Legacy getting any less blue by axing Tendrils. CB-backed up Tarmogoyfs and now Cocoah will still be that good of a plan. There was almost no combo to prey on at Chigago, and we saw the results. I dont see that blue decks packing "combo" hate, as much as they pack general purpose countermagic.

[emidln]

Saying that Tendrils does nothing by itself misses the actual history of combo. Prior to Tendrils, we had all the other elements of the same deck; and yet no combo deck in Vintage or 1.5 was set up to function anything like Long.dec. Immediately after Tendrils was printed this became the dominant strategy in Vintage, and the primary strategy in Legacy once the lists were separted and mana acceleration beyond Dark Ritual was either unbanned or printed.

I don't believe arguments including old 1.5 are valid. Long.dec with Tendrils signficantly changed how we build combo decks. We learned to build tutor-centric, resilient, fast combo decks. Banning one kill condition doesn't change that Ad Nauseam draws me 15-25 cards and I kill you with WINCONDITION_FOO (likely grapeshot, but maybe not). Banning Tendrils doesn't stop me from loading up my deck with the best tutors, efficient draw, and fast mana (just like Long taught me to) so as to smash another deck without Counterbalance or Chalice of the Void.

Edit: you might ignore this now that IBA ninja-edited an Ad Nauseam paragraph into his post.

[4eak]

We shouldn't forget that Tendrils-based storm combo decks can be prohibitively expensive to make and still have (even with AdN) fairly high skill requirements to be successful. There aren't a great deal of quality pilots who owns the cards, but there are just enough to force the metagame to adapt. Tendrils combo has influence, but I just don't see the archetype being too influential because of its play requirements.





peace,
4eak

[KrzyMoose]

force the metagame to adapt

Okay, I think I see why people see Tendrils as an issue.

There is no Legacy metagame. The only metagame that exists is the one in your local tournament scene.

There is no PTQ season for Legacy. There isn't more than one Grand Prix per year. There certainly isn't a Pro Tour (and I'm not really counting the Legacy portion of Worlds).

If there were such a thing as a Legacy metagame, such as if there were more of the above events, then I think people would quickly realize the following: Fewer and fewer decks would actually perform well.

The thing I think people don't really realize is that the larger the card pool, the fewer decks are actually viable.

Given a Legacy PTQ season, people would quickly see that there would be a best Control deck, a best Aggro deck, and best Combo deck.

The reason the above phenomena hasn't appeared to have taken place in Legacy is because of the fact that there is no metagame (and, obviously, regularly-occurring high-level events).

People play whatever the hell they want. Tendrils' existence does not change this fact.

[matelml]

I don't believe arguments including old 1.5 are valid. Long.dec with Tendrils signficantly changed how we build combo decks. We learned to build tutor-centric, resilient, fast combo decks. Banning one kill condition doesn't change that Ad Nauseam draws me 15-25 cards and I kill you with WINCONDITION_FOO (likely grapeshot, but maybe not). Banning Tendrils doesn't stop me from loading up my deck with the best tutors, efficient draw, and fast mana (just like Long taught me to) so as to smash another deck without Counterbalance or Chalice of the Void.

Edit: you might ignore this now that IBA ninja-edited an Ad Nauseam paragraph into his post.

It would be possible to create a non-Tendrils combo deck that is quite strong, but it would be significantly weaker. Can you show a DDay pile that doesn't cost more mana/cards than a ToA-pile does and isn't more vulnerable to common cards ?(StP mainly, Krosan Grip/Needle less)

In many cases with AdN it doesn't matter what wincon you use because you have so many cards and mana. But there is a a significant amount of times that you just make it, that you certainly couldn't create 10 storm more or find more cards in you deck that cost more. As long as AdN is legal banning ToA would have a much weaker impact on combo, but it would still make it significantly weaker.

[andrew77]

My answer would be yes it should be banned, seeing there are so many decks that are not viable only because of its bad Tendrils matchup. It makes Board control decks viable, and makes blue less dominant. It would certainaly be really interesting.

This is one of the dumbest things ever. Combo makes up such a small percent of the field (tendrils combo even less) that no deck is made unviable due to its presence. The last 3 large legacy events I played at were GPT Chicago, GP Chicago and Vestal. 20 matches and I faced 1 tendrils combo deck 1 ichorid deck, 1 goblins deck, 1 survival deck and at least 10 thresh varients. Something like 15 of the decks I played ran 4 goyfs only a single deck I played ran tendrils.

Also if tendrils was banned combo would surely die. Even now tendrils has bad matchups against blue decks which run rampant. Any other combo decks would still have terrible matchups against blue decks as well as worse matchups against everything else. Removing tendrils would basically eliminate the combo archetype from competitive legacy because decks like belcher suck.

[TheBirdMan]

At the risk of sounding redundant, Led is infinitely worst card than tendrils. Its the engine for most decks that win turn 1-2. If you want to slow down the format or dont like getting rolled super quick this card seems more likely for a ban than tendrils. I would only be for this banning b/c I strictly play creature-aggro decks which get rolled by combo. Otherwise the format/decks are fine.

[Bryant Cook]

Much like people who are upset because they only play slow board control decks.

[sunshine]

I see what you're getting at IBA but I don't think that removing Tendrils will decrease the amount of blue being played. Tendrils does necessitate blue based strategies to keep it in check but the fact is that control and aggro control are putting up numbers anyway (despite Tendrils combo not being terribly popular). As long as it continues to do well people will still play blue, even if Tendrils were banned.

[Giles]

No.

Legacy needs combo, just as combo needs legacy.

[AnwarA101]

Tendrils actually makes the format more interesting. It adds variety to a format by being like none of the other decks in the format. This is especially true given that storm has never dominated Legacy and doesn't look it is going to do so anytime soon. So why not have a different type of deck that isn't unbalancing the format? The answer is there is no reason. If the strategy of your deck can't reliably beat combo that doesn't mean that combo is immediatedly unfair. Some decks have weak matchups against control or aggro and that doesn't make those strategies any more unfair than combo is.

[mujadaddy]

As long as it continues to do well people will still play blue, even if Tendrils were banned.Blue is a color; Tendrils is a card. I'm not sure how people made the leap the Blue would somehow shrivel away if Tendrils were gone.

As I said upthread, Tendrils is too fast. Since it can go off twice as fast* as Grapeshot, the opponent has less time to affect the Tendril player's plan. Even a 6/7 'goyf takes til turn 6 or so to win.

Combo is an important pillar of the Legacy landscape, but I think Tendrils makes it too "easy" for the combo player.

Again, if the card were "damage" instead of "loss of life" I don't think it would be an issue at all.



*(or should that be "twice as easily"? What I'm trying to focus on is that the required storm count is literally half of GS/EtW. This has a lot of effect on how 'perfectly' the Combo player must play.)

[bruno_tiete]

Blue is a color; Tendrils is a card. I'm not sure how people made the leap the Blue would somehow shrivel away if Tendrils were gone.

Would you change your mind if "Blue" were replaced by "Counterbalance"?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I don't believe arguments including old 1.5 are valid. Long.dec with Tendrils signficantly changed how we build combo decks. We learned to build tutor-centric, resilient, fast combo decks.

So you never actually saw an old Dragon list.

Okay. Here you go;

BUG Dragon:

4 Squee, Goblin Nabob
4 Worldgorger Dragon
1 Sliver Queen
1 Ambassador Laquatus

//Spells
4 Lim-Dul's Vault
2 Compulsion
4 Intuition
4 Animate Dead
1 Dance of the Dead
3 Necromancy
4 Duress
4 Force of Will
1 Chain of Vapor

//Land/Mana
4 Dark Ritual
4 Bazaar of Baghdad
4 Polluted Delta
2 Bloodstained Mire
4 Underground Sea
3 Bayou
1 Island
1 Swamp

Spoils Dragon:

4 Duress
4 Spoils of the Vault
4 Buried Alive
4 Animate Dead
4 Dance of the Dead
2 Necromancy

//Creatures
4 Worldgorger Dragon
4 Squee, Goblin Nabob
1 Ambassador Laquatus
1 Sliver Queen

//Lands/Acceleration
4 Bazaar of Baghdad
4 Dark Ritual
4 Elvish Spirit Guide
8 Swamp
4 Polluted Delta
4 Bayou

(I got these lists from an old P_R article, btw)

Mana acceleration? Check. Tutoring? Check. Backup plans? Check.

Long.dec didn't add any new concept to the idea of playing combo decks. It's actually kind of silly to think it did; these were prerequisites for every combo deck in every format for ages.

What was revolutionary about Long.dec was just the kill condition. You didn't have to finangle a particular combination of cards; all you had to do was juggle a bunch of mana and empty your hand to play a single burn spell.


Banning one kill condition doesn't change that Ad Nauseam draws me 15-25 cards and I kill you with WINCONDITION_FOO (likely grapeshot, but maybe not). Banning Tendrils doesn't stop me from loading up my deck with the best tutors, efficient draw, and fast mana (just like Long taught me to) so as to smash another deck without Counterbalance or Chalice of the Void.

Edit: you might ignore this now that IBA ninja-edited an Ad Nauseam paragraph into his post.

I might.

Ad Nauseum is the only exception to the argument. Tendrils combo might survive if Tendrils was banned if Ad Nauseum was not. It also might survive if Tendrils was banned and Yawgmoth's Will or Bargain was taken off the list. Ad Nauseum is a stupid card that obviously didn't take Legacy or Vintage into account when it was printed; if you remove Ad Nauseum and Tendrils, storm combo dies and decks based on the same engines die or become second tier. They might still beat aggro decks, but not as consistently. All other decks would improve their matchups. The shift would be back towards card-interaction specific, slightly slower and more control oriented combos like Cephalid Breakfast, Life, and PainterStone.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Much like people who are upset because they only play slow board control decks.

See? That's how you do it.


The thing I think people don't really realize is that the larger the card pool, the fewer decks are actually viable.

This isn't true. Block formats usually allow for fewer top strategies than Standard formats, which have less diversity than Extended formats. Which are less diverse than Legacy. The only place where this holds remotely true is Vintage, where there are many decks but most of them share at least 40 cards.


Given a Legacy PTQ season, people would quickly see that there would be a best Control deck, a best Aggro deck, and best Combo deck.

This is a really simplistic and completely outdated mode of looking at Magic strategy. No metagame, not even the classic Keeper-Necro-Ernhamgeddon triangle is truly a Rock-Paper-Scissors format or has been, and it's only become less valid as strategy has developed and the power balance of colors and cards has come closer together.


The reason the above phenomena hasn't appeared to have taken place in Legacy is because of the fact that there is no metagame (and, obviously, regularly-occurring high-level events).

Then you don't follow Standard and Extended. Those formats are usually in constant flux, and they get plenty of pro attention.

You also seem to underestimate the seriousness which Legacy players apply to their format.


Tendrils actually makes the format more interesting. It adds variety to a format by being like none of the other decks in the format. This is especially true given that storm has never dominated Legacy and doesn't look it is going to do so anytime soon. So why not have a different type of deck that isn't unbalancing the format? The answer is there is no reason. If the strategy of your deck can't reliably beat combo that doesn't mean that combo is immediatedly unfair. Some decks have weak matchups against control or aggro and that doesn't make those strategies any more unfair than combo is.

Again, this description is so archaic and vague as to be meaningless. I'm not objecting to "combo" as a vague archetype, but to Tendrils. Other decks that fit the bill of combo, whether you want to talk about Cephalid Breakfast, Life or Painter's Grindstone, or Enchantress or Solidarity or Burn, have significant weaknesses that other strategies can exploit. Tendrils decks are very powerful and simply put an enormous hidden pressure on the metagame to play blue. Tendrils is only underplayed, I believe, because blue is so prevalent in today's metagame; partly, perhaps primarily this is an effect of Goyf and Counterbalance- but it does create a reinforcing cycle.

I don't really think Tendrils adds much to the format. It's primarily one of the less interesting decks, that either kills you or does nothing. It's low on interaction, although it does require some skill to pilot. It's unique, but then so are mosquitoes, and I would lament the loss of neither species.

[Bryant Cook]

1.5 had Tendrils before Legacy was created and it saw zero play. Two card combo decks existed after Tendrils was printed, then continued to be played over Tendrils. It wasn't until Legacy was created that it became good because they unbanned artifact acceleration - something 1.5 didn't have. Even then it took a year to create a solid storm combo deck in Iggy Pop.

Tendrils didn't destroy combo in the sense that combo decks didn't win with interactive cards.

[DrJones]

Much like people who are upset because they only play slow board control decks.This comment is not constructive, and it is a perfectly valid idea to discuss something to know if it is unbalanced, or it is just that we suck and are playing wrong. Having a sense of game balance, by the way, is something that most people totally lack; that is, I am claiming that most people DO NOT KNOW SHIT about realizing when something is ruining a game because it is too good, or if some things that are too weak should be done better to increase diversity. Developers and top players are not immune to this, either, and in some cases they are even worse than the rest because of the status quo, which prevents them from having a fresh view; it is like when you travel to another country and notice things that are REALLY stupid, but everyone in that country do not seem to notice it, or even see it as completely logical when you point it to them, no matter how stupid it is.

So, we are pretty bad at knowing if something needs to be banned, and we cannot ban cards either, so the only productive thing left to do is theorize changes that might make the format more interesting in order to increase awareness on the subject, and propose workarounds to the problematic cards to see if we can adapt to them or not.

About the meta, my oppinion is that tendrils is probably too strong against red and green, and maybe Wizards should print answers in those colors; but for a deck to be able to cast a lethal tendrils, it has to do a really convoluted chain of plays that I find cool, so I feel legacy would lose more banning the cards that allow building "strange decks that kill you so fast" than it would gain, and these decks are not as ubiquital as to require a nerf.

I have never seen what is the deal about Tarmogoyf; I never EVER had a problem with it with any of the decks I tried. If any, it makes green relevant. The Goyfless tournament top 8 (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13759) only had 2 green cards in it, and they were sideboard Krosan Grip (because it is the only disenchant blue cannot counter) and Muscle sliver, which was sinew sliver 5-8 in an otherwise pure white-blue deck. But I do not mind people thinking it is too strong!

It is interesting to note that there were 5 different blue decks in goyfless' top 8, and not a single one had counterbalance in it, with only 3 decks playing Brainstorm. They were all playing Force of Will, though, and it was the most played nonland card overall. But the winners were a monocolor white stax and a monocolor red goblins, quite a surprise!

[mujadaddy]

Would you change your mind if "Blue" were replaced by "Counterbalance"?
So that sunshine's post reads as follows?
As long as it continues to do well people will still play [Counterbalance], even if Tendrils were banned.Not to derail the conversation too much, but my opinion is that CB is too much card advantage and ought to be banned BEFORE Tendrils. Force is fine; Brainstorm is fine; LED is more than fine if it's not fetching something degenerate... like Tendrils.

I'm actually working on a combo deck at the moment that's "Not Necessarily Storm" -- that is, there's one Grapeshot main and one Tendrils in the side, (but no Burning Wish!). It's at least 2 turns slower than AdN-Tendrils, but it's still rather wicked. If I had more practice with the engine, I might even be able to shave a turn off that time. The point of this paragraph is that "oops I win" is dumb.

[MTG-Fan]

Would the banning of Tendrils force people to play different, more interesting combo decks that require a more complicated series of card interactions? Maybe.

Is it necessary to ban Tendrils to ensure the health of the format? Probably not. As many people in here have already noted, Tendrils combos make up such a small portion of the Legacy metagame that making that particular strategy unviable would do little to change the format as a whole.

[mujadaddy]

Is it necessary to ban Tendrils to ensure the health of the format? Probably not. Absolutely agree. That's not how the question was phrased, though. Obviously Tendrils isn't making Legacy UNhealthy; I just think it might be holding it back... a little.

[DragoFireheart]

Tendrils combos make up such a small portion of the Legacy metagame that making that particular strategy unviable would do little to change the format as a whole.

Because one of the most played decks would prey on it. Instead, people look for aggro or other aggro-control decks to combat Counter-Top decks. Why do you think Zoo is doing well recently?

[MTG-Fan]

Also, I saw this idea proposed in here by somebody...

Banning Tendrils in Vintage is absolutely not the right thing to do either. I know this is the Legacy forums, but Vintage exists as a format where you can play anything you want. The only things that should ever be banned in Vintage are 1.) dexterity cards like Chaos Orb and 2.) ante cards. Period. That's why we have Legacy - to ban the broken stuff. So no, nothing playable should ever be banned from Vintage, despite the fact that combo in Vintage basically means Tendrils and nothing else.

[DragoFireheart]

Also, I saw this idea proposed in here by somebody...

Banning Tendrils in Vintage is absolutely not the right thing to do either. I know this is the Legacy forums, but Vintage exists as a format where you can play anything you want. The only things that should ever be banned in Vintage are 1.) dexterity cards like Chaos Orb and 2.) ante cards. Period. That's why we have Legacy - to ban the broken stuff. So no, nothing playable should ever be banned from Vintage, despite the fact that combo in Vintage basically means Tendrils and nothing else.

Which is why Vintage has a restricted list: you can still play your $900 Black Lotus, but you only get to play 1, not 4.

[KrzyMoose]

This isn't true. Block formats usually allow for fewer top strategies than Standard formats, which have less diversity than Extended formats. Which are less diverse than Legacy. The only place where this holds remotely true is Vintage, where there are many decks but most of them share at least 40 cards.

Yeh, I should've said that Block doesn't count. However, what I said is true for all of the other formats.

Take a look at the current Standard: Tokens decks (both GW and BW), Kithkin (all splashes), Boat Brew, 5C Control, 5C Bloodbraid, Faeries, RB Aggro, Doran, Bant, Swans, Jund-based Control decks, Reveillark, Elves, Fog decks (I'm lumping Turbo Fog and Sanity Grinding together). Those decks have multiple PTQ Top 8's and at least one win. That's fourteen decks.

This past Extended season: Wizards, BG Loam (includes both builds with Death Cloud and those without), Elves, TEPS, Zoo, Bant, Burn, Swans (only at the beginning of the season), Affinity, NLU, AIR (only at the beginning of the season). Those decks have multiple PTQ Top 8's and at least one win. That's eleven, with Affinity, Swans, AIR, and Elves becoming nearly obsoleted after about the middle of the season. So, you really have Wizards, Loam strategies, TEPS, Zoo and Bant.

The disparity between last season's Extended and Standard is worse, since Dredge and Affinity were real decks and Counterbalance existed (which meant that fewer decks were actually viable - NLU, Dredge, Affinity, Tron (only towards the end of the season), Zoo, Doran, Death Cloud). Though, there was no Standard season last year, the Block season actually had a fair number of competitive decks: Faeries, Kithkin, Merfolk, Quick n' Toast, Red-based Aggro, Tokens decks, Elementals - which is the same number as Extended despite having less than twenty-five percent of the card pool!

Going back another year, it was even worse, since Dredge was a REALLY real deck. And while, yes, Teachings was insane, there were a a number of other competitive/viable strategies, more than there were in Extended.

Note, that by "competitive" and "viable", I mean decks that could actually win as the season developed - while people certainly played Tron and other decks I didn't list last season, and Ideal and TEPS two seasons ago, they certainly were not competitive.

I followed each of the last three years pretty closely and the rough numbers and decks I've provided are actually fact-based.

Even with all of the competitive/viable decks, some competitive/viable decks were clearly better than others. That's just the way every format is.


This is a really simplistic and completely outdated mode of looking at Magic strategy. No metagame, not even the classic Keeper-Necro-Ernhamgeddon triangle is truly a Rock-Paper-Scissors format or has been, and it's only become less valid as strategy has developed and the power balance of colors and cards has come closer together.

I didn't mean it in a literal Rock-Paper-Scissors sense. I mean that while you could build, say, a Mono Black Control deck or a Mono White Control deck or a Mono Blue Control deck, one of those is going to be found strictly better as time went on.

Like, NLU was just strictly better than Spire Blue. Period. Zoo was just strictly better than RG Beats. Kithkin is just better than Merfolk. Faeries is just better than, well, everything.


Then you don't follow Standard and Extended. Those formats are usually in constant flux, and they get plenty of pro attention.

I sure do follow them. The seasons are really only in flux at the beginning, say, the first month or so. After that, it becomes very clear what the best decks are. The only time when things get shaken up is when a new set is released or when someone discovers some insane new strategy (ie, Cascade Swans). But, then, the format always settles down.



You also seem to underestimate the seriousness which Legacy players apply to their format.

I'm not saying they don't take it seriously. However, during PTQ seasons, PTQ players take the current format way more seriously and, as a result, you see the patterns which I described above occur.

*edit* I realize that I only compared Standard and Extended in my brief "analysis". The reason I didn't include Legacy is because I can't back up my argument with numbers. I will say, however, that it's very obvious that Counterbalance is the best strategy in the format.

I honestly believe that, if Legacy were to have something like a PTQ-season, you'd see only a small number - smaller than in Standard and Extended - decks rise to the top.

*edit* I also have a lot more I'd like to say, but it's five to five, and I'm leaving work to play Standard.

[nix]

i think its just plain not fun to play against a combo deck like tendrils that has pretty good protection and can win by turn 3 almost every time.

its a lot more fun when games are really intense, and you have to think really hard to figure out what is best, what cards they have. and its not fun (hen you arent playing blue) and you get matched with tendrils, and all you get to do is sit there and ask "do you win? or do i win?":rolleyes: boring, same stuff over and over again.
And even if you are playing blue, half the time they play a chant, and you only have one countermagic card, and you cant counter both a chant and an AdN/ Tendrils.

I dont think that it is any fun at all for either player. and it takes away a lot of interaction between players, and makes the game less fun for everyone.

The other storm cards, however, can be countered in all the same ways a tendrils combo can but:
ETW: can be powder kegged or Explosivesed away, as well as EPlauged, or ghostly prison or propaganda or elephant grass, any of the wide variety of pyroclasm or wrath effects, moat.

Grapeshot: is about as hard as tendrils to stop, but is much less practical because of the 18-20 storm count you need to produce to make it work. The fact that its red also means that stuff like chill or blue elemental blast( to hit the acceleration) can also disrupt it pretty good.

Brain freeze: Needs a storm count up in the 17-18 range like grapeshot, and can also be beat by stuff like feldons cane.

I think that without tendrils in this format, blue wouldnt be such an essential and powerful color (but still pretty powerful) that three out of the four decks to beat wouldnt always be blue at any given time, and that those three decks wouldnt always be running 8-12 cards that are the same, so that our format could be more diverse and exciting!

[JeroenC]

Grapeshot: is about as hard as tendrils to stop, but is much less practical because of the 18-20 storm count you need to produce to make it work. The fact that its red also means that stuff like chill or blue elemental blast( to hit the acceleration) can also disrupt it pretty good.

Brain freeze: Needs a storm count up in the 17-18 range like grapeshot, and can also be beat by stuff like feldons cane.

Honestly, if Tendrils wasn't here, you'd all be complaining just as badly about these cards. Hands down.
I personally don't see any reason to have Tendrils banned. If Tendrils is banned, then Counterbalance should be banned as due to a similar logic (aggro-control decks with CB >without CB). After that, we can easily move on to other staples like Wasteland and Goyf. In the end, it's safe to say this kind of process is going to leave us with 9land Stompy as a DTB.
Tendrils isn't putting up huge numbers of T8's. This should indicate that it is definitely not too strong, ergo does not deserve to be banned. In the same way, two-card combo's are hardly putting up any T8's (Aluren anyway? Imperial Painter? Breakfast?) anywhere. This is not because of Tendrils. This is because the decks are too weak. They are too slow to deal with some decks, too clunky to deal with others and too bad to deal with most. If any two-card combo could compete in the absence of Tendrils, it would also be able to compete in its presence. Perhaps to a lesser extent, but it would at least attract attention- something Breakfast (to mention the probably strongest one) hasn't done in a while.

[Joe_C]

tendrils would not be anywhere near as competetive without Ad Nauseam, that card made storm insane again. Banning cards like LED and Dark ritual would effect the format more and completely neuter combo altogether. tendrils is the most eligant win condition in storm decks. Do we really want to take it away?

[jjjoness']

tendrils would not be anywhere near as competetive without Ad Nauseam, that card made storm insane again. Banning cards like LED and Dark ritual would effect the format more and completely neuter combo altogether. tendrils is the most eligant win condition in storm decks. Do we really want to take it away?

I don't really agree with you, since Ad Nauseam really gave storm another powerful tool but imho it wasn't the power of AN that pushed storm over the top. It's just the fact that people realized how viable storm actually is, and even more important, it makes playing stormcombo a hell of a lot easier. I've been playing storm before and it's always been a hard time playing this deck, since you had to do lot's of math even against deck with little protection. But with AN you just have a random "oups, I win" button.

BTT:
I don't think Tendrils should be banned. What would be the benefit for the format if Wizards did so? Stormcombo isn't a great part of the metagame anyways, and before the printing of AN storm was actually quite dead (tough actually competetive) So removing Stormcombo (besides Solidarity) from the meta would just free a few sideboard slots. I don't think people would stop playing blue or anything.

[DragoFireheart]

...

I don't think people would stop playing blue or anything.

/sigh

Do you see it? Anyone? Why do you think people play blue? Oh, that's right: it can compete with aggro and prey on combo. I can guarantee you that if Wizards banned Force of Will and Stifle from Legacy, storm combo would be swamping T8 constantly.

So long as blue can hate out combo with ease while still being able to compete with other decks, it will be played. Other aggro-control (Loam) / control (Landstill) / aggro (Zoo, Goblins, Merfolk) decks will then try to prey on these blue aggro-control decks (Counter-Top).

[Captain_Morgan]

Much like people who are upset because they only play slow board control decks.

One of the positive elements of having a slower game is the ability to play higher mana cost cards. While I would never expect Nicol Bolas PW to become competitive, however having PW ultimates being able to activate every so often is a positive aspect of the game.

Then there are also more opportunities for random "barely won with xth card" interactions with the most unlikeliest of scenarios. There are good points to know what you're playing against when they drop a land, but there's also the counter point of knowing what to do with a strange board scenario. A longer game encourages more of these instances rather than placing all the interactions up to the initial first turns or so or else lose.

Longer games allows more cards to come into play and function against other cards.

[DragoFireheart]

Longer games allows more fun to happen.

[Bryant Cook]

I play half of my deck every game, alright. I know how to allow more cards to come into play.

Fun is a matter of perspective. I'm having fun figuring out how to win and get out of tough situations. Playing creatures and swinging is boring to me.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Lawl, I got a hate IM. I'm like 50% sure this is Bryant.

[20:41] Pernicious Deed: you fucking whiney (bundle of sticks) (female dog).
[20:41] Pernicious Deed: why dont you shut the (procreation) up with your inane (procreation) polls.
[20:41] Pernicious Deed: (bundle of sticks)
[20:41] Pernicious Deed: (female dog)
[20:41] Doomska: lawlocopter
[20:41] Pernicious Deed: http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1328/pbearvstheassassin.jpg
[20:42] Pernicious Deed: lol at that you (bundle of sticks)
[20:42] Doomska: lawlocopterx9
[20:42] *** Error while sending IM: This user is currently not logged on

eta:

Profanity changed to protect the innocent.

[DragoFireheart]

Lawl, I got a hate IM. I'm like 50% sure this is Bryant.

[20:41] Pernicious Deed: you *** *** ThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh ***.
[20:41] Pernicious Deed: why dont you shut the *** up with your inane *** polls.
[20:41] Pernicious Deed: ThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh
[20:41] Pernicious Deed: ***
[20:41] Doomska: lawlocopter
[20:41] Pernicious Deed: http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1328/pbearvstheassassin.jpg
[20:42] Pernicious Deed: lol at that you ThreshThreshThreshThreshThreshThresh
[20:42] Doomska: lawlocopterx9
[20:42] *** Error while sending IM: This user is currently not logged on


Generally, when people are challenged to think outside their comfort zone for... anything, they become hostile and aggressive, tapping into their inner stupid to lash out at the things that might threaten their comfort zone.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

There's a simpler explanation.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9233/greaterinternetfuckwadt.jpg (http://img4.imageshack.us/my.php?image=greaterinternetfuckwadt.jpg)

[Bryant Cook]

Honestly wasn't me.

[Captain_Morgan]

I play half of my deck every game, alright. I know how to allow more cards to come into play.

Fun is a matter of perspective. I'm having fun figuring out how to win and get out of tough situations. Playing creatures and swinging is boring to me.

Perhaps, but the other end of the stick isn't so much the amount of cards played but rather the interactions between different permanent types such as enchantment, artifact, PW, and ect. Speed deligates to what sort of permanents see effective play, slower decks allow for more permanent types and thus more permanent based interactions.

[Bryant Cook]

Perhaps, but the other end of the stick isn't so much the amount of cards played but rather the interactions between different permanent types such as enchantment, artifact, PW, and ect. Speed deligates to what sort of permanents see effective play, slower decks allow for more permanent types and thus more permanent based interactions.

Why should this be the only way to play magic?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

K.

Honestly, I think the conversation's pretty much run aground anyway. I do think the other type of combo is healther for the format, but there are other problem cards generally (Goyf, CB, possibly Brainstorm or Force) and in combo (Ad Nauseum).

The prolification of fast mana, which was almost entirely absent from 1.5 except for Mishra's Workshop, Dark Ritual, and Elvish Spirit Guide, is another good point. Certainly the absence of those cards had an impact on the metagame. I remember the original Solidarity thread having a big argument about whether or not Force of Will should even be included in the deck, which I think featured myself, Gearhart and both Hatfields in the opposition iirc.

[DragoFireheart]

There's a simpler explanation.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9233/greaterinternetfuckwadt.jpg (http://img4.imageshack.us/my.php?image=greaterinternetfuckwadt.jpg)

That works too. XD

[DragoFireheart]

Why should this be the only way to play Legacy?

There are other formats.

I'd imagine that Vintage is FAR faster if speedy games is your sort of thing. I don't think that it's in the spirit of the Legacy format to have 4 turn or shorter games though. Aren't many of the banning of cards done so that the format slows down?

[Captain_Morgan]

Why should this be the only way to play magic?

Never said it was, only that the reason for slower games was to allow more interactions with a greater variety of card types. It sort of goes against the grain of the format to be able to play the larger bulk of the cards in MtG when a deck can completely ignore entire permanent types.

[Jak]

Thinking about this more, I think this is stupid. Sure, combo is degenerate at times and unfun to play against, but some people do like to play it and against it. If it were showing up more and placing more in the top 8 it probably should be discussed, but as it stands now, 1 Storm Deck (happy Jack? :)) in the top 8 is nothing. Combo isn't causing blues dominance, blue being blue is causing blues dominance.

Taking a part out of Legacy like Storm is a horrible idea. It does cause interactions, it does cause thinking, and it isn't killing the format. Knowing when to counter a spell or to mull into disruption is one of the many things to think about and it just adds to the complexity and depth of the format.

Normal combo decks do exist. Breakfast (for a while it was played quite a bit and I still see it from time to time), Painters/Grindstone, Belcher, etc.

The only reason for Tendrils to get the axe would be if something was taken from blue to cause Tendrils decks to just explode and dominate. Right now that isn't happening, so what's the problem?

[TheCramp]

banning tendrils would make me adjust my SB plans a little bit. I would then FoW your exalted angel (cool you can play AS now, grats!) and swing for 4 w/ 'goyf turn 3. I fail to see how banning good combo cards would make people play shitty combo cards and cause me put down my islands. I am so down for Snuffing out Metal Workers with lightning greaves equip on the stack though. That's like dodging a bullet.

[4eak]

Why are we discussing individual games against Tendrils? Few people like to actually face Tendrils, and that is in part why we are forced to metagame against it. The question is: do you like the outcome of the general metagame which has adapted to the possibility to playing against Tendrils combo?

If Tendrils disappeared, then dedicated board control decks, aggro, and Ichorid would increase in strength.

Ichorid would be the combo deck of choice. You would move from a general metagame based on Thresh, in part because the deck can effectively interact with storm combo and win before the tendrils player could recover, to a format less based on thresh, because blue/green-based aggro-control does not effectively interact with Ichorid or (to some extent) dedicated board control.

Would you rather have the top deck answering Ichorid or Storm? Tendrils is one of the larger barriers to Ichorid's tier 1 status. A format answering Ichorid would be very different, and I would argue a lot less interactive.

I don't care if its not fun to play against Tendrils, I think the format as a whole is more fun to play against because Tendrils is in the mix. Tendrils promotes a blue-based and interactive metagame, firmly setting into place thresh's domination. Tendrils is Thresh's best friend: Storm Combo keeps in check a ton of decks that wipe the floor with Thresh. I'm not saying blue-based control would disappear, but its presence would certainly decrease.

Mind you, I would prefer we could ban lots of cards with a heavy hand to keep the format interesting, but since that isn't going to happen, then I see no choice but to base the format on a top deck which has no dedicated, focused role to open a lot of doors for diversity. While I don't prefer playing Thresh myself or playing against Tendrils, I'll accept a format heavily based on thresh, and so I accept Tendrils.




peace,
4eak

[mercenarybdu]

leave it alone since it aint that much of a problem.

[Jim Higginbottom]

I don't know about any of the other combo players out there, but I enjoy playing storm. If tendrils was banned I would not pick up something like ichorid...it just seems too gay and doesn't fit my play style.

[Surging Chaos]

I think Aaron Forsythe put it the best when he was talking in an article saying they regretted reprinting Dragonstorm in Time Spiral:


Personally, I blame the storm mechanic. Nothing good ever came of that abomination.

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af176

[dirtyapes]

Tendrils makes the format more interesting. Same with Goyf, FoW and Brainstorm. It makes you think of how to win if you opponent is using those cards. Same goes for MWC. The format will become less interesting if there are less good cards being played.
If they ban Tendrils then they should ban Grindstone too. And Goyf and FoW and Brainstorm and everything else that is good and we can play T2 with duals and fetches as long as no one has a problem with them and if they do, ban them too.

[JeroenC]

I'd imagine that Vintage is FAR faster if speedy games is your sort of thing. I don't think that it's in the spirit of the Legacy format to have 4 turn or shorter games though. Aren't many of the banning of cards done so that the format slows down?

Yes it is in its nature. Due to it being eternal, fast kinds of combo are viable. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but go play Extended.

[AngryTroll]

The thing is, if you ban Tendrils of Agony, Grapeshot, and Brain Freeze, and even if you ban Dragonstorm, the other combo deck's aren't going to magically fill in the slack.


CRET Belcher, for example, is terribly vulnerable to countermagic and black hand disruption. Banning Tendrils doesn't create a void for it; Thresh is still one of the best decks, and CRETBelcher still loses horribly to Thresh. So instead of CRET Belcher filling in Tendril's metagame hold, Combo gets pushed out.

I think Cephalid Breakfast and EPIC Painter are awesome; but I don't think it's storm combo that push them out of the top tier. Banning Tendrils doesn't make them Tier One decks; it may make them the best combo decks available, but that doesn't make them any more playable than they are now.

Thresh is in an interesting place on the Rock-Paper-Scissiors spectrum. In addition to beating Combo, it is in a great position to beat other aggro-control (like Merfolk), and a decent position to beat aggro (like Goblins). Banning Tendrils doesn't suddenly remove a corner of the Rock-Paper-Scissors triangle, making Thresh a bad choice. Instead, it makes board control and aggro better, and Thesh slightly worse. It doesn't make Thresh a bad choice, however. Even without Tendrils, Thresh would probably be a deck to beat.

How much of the current metagame is Tendrils Combo? Thresh isn't the DTB solely because it beats Tendrils Combo. Instead, in addition to beating a lot of decks, and having even-ish mathcups against many other decks, Thesh also beats Combo. Decks like Survival and Aggro Loam may have similar matchups against the rest of the field as Thresh, but they lose to Combo, making Thresh a better deck to run in a good sized event.

Banning Tendrils doesn't really change this. It may make decks like Survival and Aggro Loam better, but it doesn't knock Thesh down a ton.

[Mantis]

I'm glad so many people enjoy playing against Storm but it severely warps the format to a point where Aggro is just a worse choice than Control or Combo. Even though it only makes up for a small percentage of the metagame, you just have to be plain lucky to dodge the combo decks during a tournament to stand a chance with aggro. I mean if a tournament is 6 rounds and you get paired against Tendrills decks twice, you are toast. So basically the choice for anyone planning on winning the tournament is to take control or combo. This refutes the statement that combo is an insignificant portion of the metagame as even that small portion is very relevant.

Banning Tendrills would leave TES and ANT still viable, but much more managable for aggro decks. I then expect the aggressive strategy to pick up more players and control decks will have to adjust, what we end up with is a much more healthy format where you can actually pick up any of the 3 traditional strategies and expect to have a reasonable shot at winning a tournament.

With this all out of the way, I have to add that I do understand the results of the poll thusfar. Most people have already adjusted their deckchoice to the presence of combo and are thus unaffected. The fact that you yourself can beat Tendrills doesn't mean it's presence is bad for the format.

[jjjoness']

Combo isn't causing blues dominance, blue being blue is causing blues dominance.


banning tendrils would make me adjust my SB plans a little bit.

QFT


Do you see it? Anyone? Why do you think people play blue? Oh, that's right: it can compete with aggro and prey on combo. I can guarantee you that if Wizards banned Force of Will and Stifle from Legacy, storm combo would be swamping T8 constantly.

People play blue for actually some more reasons. It offers consistency, a thing that no other color can guarantee to such an extent. Another important thing is carddraw, or why do you think do people play cards like Standstill? Also I don't think the main purpose of countermagic is to fight combo, it's a natural element of a control deck that's not just plain board control like MWC. Control needs to keep the board clean if they don't have a huge reset button. I believe aggro control's strategy isn't to fight combo, it's to control the early game and win fast with a huge cheap threat (aka Tarmogoyf) Thresh (or whatever you will call it) is not the best deck in the format because it beats combo, but because it has an even to positive matchup against most other decks in the field.

[4eak]

@ AngryTroll

Your post has a lot of content which replies to mine (I don't know if that's on purpose or not), so I'm going to respond.


The thing is, if you ban Tendrils of Agony, Grapeshot, and Brain Freeze, and even if you ban Dragonstorm, the other combo deck's aren't going to magically fill in the slack.

Some combo deck will try to fill in the gaps to prey upon decks with a weakness to combo. Ichorid would fill in the gap. Ichorid teeters on DTB/W status like Tendrils. These decks are in competition with each other. Tendrils beats Ichorid, but Ichorid beats a ton of decks to which Tendrils loses. I think Ichorid becomes more viable from a Tendrils ban, in part because it doesn't have to worry about getting raced by Tendrils, and also because I think a lot of storm combo players would eventually migrate to Ichorid.

That would be bad for blue.


Thresh isn't the DTB solely because it beats Tendrils Combo.

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying Tendrils plays a defensive role for Thresh in the general metagame against decks which arguably have an advantage over Thresh. Tendrils preys upon the decks which would hypothetically prey upon Thresh.

Thresh does have weaknesses (not many and not big ones), and it could be countered more effectively were it not for the existence of storm combo. As I said, Ichorid and properly made dedicated board control decks have a serious advantage over Threshold. Without Tendrils, blue-based aggro control would have 2 real enemies on the scene.


Instead, in addition to beating a lot of decks, and having even-ish mathcups against many other decks, Thesh also beats Combo.

This is part of my argument for why Thresh should continue to be the cornerstone of the format, and eventually one of the reasons I end up supporting Tendrils. I appreciate how Thresh just maintains good odds against most decks and isn't so overpowered that I can't find any specific tournament metagames where Thresh isn't necessarily the best deck. Thresh's cornerstone status isn't so dominant that it is unbeatable (which I like), but its ubiquity and status certainly forces interaction in the format, which preserves diversity and good metagaming.

Perhaps we disagree, I think without Tendrils, Thresh would obviously remain a good deck, but not the foundation to Legacy like it is now.

Thresh would not have positive matches against such a large portion of the field if Tendrils were banned. It would still have good odds against lots of decks, but the natural predators of blue-based aggro control would come out of the woodwork. The metagame would definitely shift and likely lose diversity as Thresh would lose some of its metagame-regulating powers.

Sure, some decks would become better because of Tendrils bannage (adding to the diversity of the metagame), but it would eventually lead to an overall loss in diversity as emerging dedicated-role decks would create a stronger rock/paper/scissors tripod with fewer decks in between.







peace,
4eak

[GreenOne]

Storm severely warps the format to a point where Aggro is just a worse choice than Control or Combo. Even though it only makes up for a small percentage of the metagame, you just have to be plain lucky to dodge the combo decks during a tournament to stand a chance with aggro.
This is misleading. Le'ts take the storm combo player approach in your words:
Counterbalance severely warps the format to a point where Combo is just a worse choice than Control or Aggro. It makes up for a huge percentage of the metagame, you just have to be plain lucky to dodge the counterbalance decks during a tournament to stand a chance with storm combo.

Every deck has bad matchups. As a combo player, I got aggro-control decks and blue based disruption, especially counterbalance. As an aggro player you have combo. Seems fair. Well, not so fair because of numbers: I usually have to play AT LEAST 2-3 counterbalance decks in a 7 round tournament, while you'll statistically hit just one storm combo deck.

If you really want to push back blue, just ban Brainstorm (and maybe Ponder). This will slow down storm combo decks too, or at least make them lose consistence.

[Mantis]

Good point. I think the real problem here is that we all have different ideas about what a healthy format looks like. Byrant already addressed this point, but I hope we can agree that a little less Counterbalance/Top would be good for the format. Personally I believe a cascade effect will happen if we ban Tendrills. Combo gets weaker, Aggro decks and Board control decks will get stronger, Counterbalance decks get weaker and we end up with a format where blue isn't the only viable color in Legacy. You correctly identified the problem being the dominance of blue, and I firmly believe that by banning Tendrills we will stop this dominance.

Banning Brainstorm is a bad idea, as this card alone is basically the reason so many people made the switch from Vintage to Legacy. This card alone is the driving factor behind this format and allowing the people that like to play complex decks to remain enthausiastic. Also, if we weaken CB/Top, Combo is going to become a much bigger problem than it is now.

EDIT: I am basically saying the same thing as 4aek so I agree with him.

[JeroenC]

I'm absolutely certain CBTop will not decrease if Tendrils is gone. CBTop preys upon the entire format, not just combo.

[Jim Higginbottom]

I'm glad so many people enjoy playing against Storm but it severely warps the format to a point where Aggro is just a worse choice than Control or Combo.

Last time I checked goyf sligh just won a 130+ person event at vestal, ny.

[Gheizen64]

Simply put, Tendril combo make red and green deck mostly unplayable. Playing a deck that has a 0% matchup against combo is silly. And i don't think that's the fault of the colors design, i think it's a fault of the storm mechanic, it's not a "combo" , much more a "uncounterable burn.dec".

Dragon is countered by much more card than Storm, the same goes for Belcher, Ichorid, Cephalid, Life, Hermit Druid.dec, etc etc (a lot of those are countered or hosed by fanatic, go go red!). The simple fact that those deck wouldn't be played in the presence of storm, and that many of those deck have their core card banned, it's a clear indicator on how much Storm isn't good for the format or either the banned list is terribly outdated.

p.s. And please don't put CotV in the list of "splashable hate". It may seems splashable because it's colorless but it really isn't.

[Mantis]

You clearly missed my point entirely. Counterbalance is the only viable strategy that beats both Combo and has a shot against the rest of the field, apart from Merfolk which suffers from its own flaws. There are plenty decks at hand that beat CB Top but scoop it up to combo (board control, Landstill, Goblins) that can end the dominance of Counterbalance.

I just have the feeling nobody is answering the question in the OP unbiased and objectively as the combo, Merfolk and CB Top players want Tendrills around and the Aggro and board control players would love to see it banned. So maybe we'll just have to respect the outcome of the poll in the end.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Why do I get the sinking feeling that the majority of people voting and posting in this thread skipped right through the arguments and assumed the entire cause for the thread was "ZOMG combo decks are so unfair!!eleven!"?

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I don't know how many people remember the old 1.5, but the way you look at fighting combo now and back then are just dramatically different.

Back then, no matter what deck you ran, you would have to determine how many cards you want in your SB to deal with Dragon. A list of common answers;

Black - Snuff Out, Coffin Purge, Withered Wretch
Blue - Blue Elemental Blast, Stifle, Seal of Removal
Green - Naturalize(K. Grip wasn't yes printed), Ground Seal, Night Soil
Red - Ok, so not that many 1-shot red answers, but I have seen Dragons killed by Bolt+Fireblast.
White - StP, Disenchant, Abolish
Colorless - Tormod's Crypt, Phyrexian Furnace, Wasteland, Ankh of Freaking Mishra.

The combo actually worked on the interaction between a few cards, which meant, and this is the important part; the deck was vulnerable to disruption at several points. And that disruption didn't even have to be particularly narrow. It was also compact, redundant, fast, and capable of running its own protection/disruption, which meant that it could perform well despite hate.

It was a much healthier deck for the format than any Tendrils deck could be, because Tendrils has virtually no vulnerabilities. The only things that stops Tendrils are counters, discard(sometimes), and extremely narrow cards like Chalice of the Void and Trinisphere, which aren't necessarily fast enough.



So I wouldn't mind seeing Tendrils banned, but I would certainly love to see WGD, Hermit Druid, Mask, Earthcraft, and Entomb unbanned.

[Dembones]

Does anyone know what percentage the most popular Tendrils deck wins on the first turn?

[GreenOne]

Does anyone know what percentage the most popular Tendrils deck wins on the first turn?
It's probably something around 10%. Just a feeling, no data.

[KrzyMoose]

Simply put, Tendril combo make red and green deck mostly unplayable.

Show the data that says that no one plays Red or Green decks. Show me the data that says Red or Green decks perform worse than Tendrils decks.


I'm glad so many people enjoy playing against Storm but it severely warps the format to a point where Aggro is just a worse choice than Control or Combo.

Prove it. Do you have any solid information to back this argument up?


I think Ichorid becomes more viable from a Tendrils ban, in part because it doesn't have to worry about getting raced by Tendrils

If Tendrils disappeared, then dedicated board control decks, aggro, and Ichorid would increase in strength.

How does Tendrils stop people from playing Ichorid? Seriously.


I mean if a tournament is 6 rounds and you get paired against Tendrills decks twice, you are toast. So basically the choice for anyone planning on winning the tournament is to take control or combo.

So, you're saying that no deck anywhere, except for control or Tendrils decks beat Tendrils? Prove it.


The question is: do you like the outcome of the general metagame which has adapted to the possibility to playing against Tendrils combo?

What "general metagame"? Where are you getting this data from that shows a dominance of Tendrils decks?

If you look at the the March + April data, you know how many Tendrils decks Top 8'ed? Out of 34 tournaments, so, a possible 272 top 8 slots, Tendrils decks top 8'ed.......EIGHT times. That's THREE FREAKING PERCENT. *

May? SIX. Out of 33 tournaments. That's TWO POINT THREE FREAKING PERCENT.*

So, you guys are really saying that a deck that top 8s roughly 2.5 percent of the time is warping the "metagame"? Is pushing all other combo decks out of existence?

I honestly don't get it.

*Note: I basically just ran through the top8 thread in the DTB forum and counted. Though the numbers may be only slightly off, they are still pretty accurate.

*edit* Also, for people who are saying that Tendrils stops other combo decks from being viable...Are you guys really saying that people are going "Hey! I'm gonna play (*Insert non-Tendrils Combo Deck Here*) at this tournament next weekend! OH WAIT. TENDRILS. MY DECK SUCKS. I CAN'T PLAY IT NOW!"? Like. Really?

[4eak]

@ KrzyMoose

Nice post. I'm glad you took the time to read the arguments carefully. I chose not to respond to your previous troll, but I'll respond to this one.


How does Tendrils stop people from playing Ichorid? Seriously.

In the spirit of charity, I'll rephrase the question as: How does Tendrils-combo make it so we see less Ichorid?

Tendrils is simply faster than Ichorid, which means that Ichorid often loses the goldfish race, which is a race it was expecting to win against most of the format. Tendrils keeps Ichorid in check like it keeps lots of slower combo decks in check. You want be to faster combo deck in those matchups. That doesn't mean there isn't a reason to play Ichorid, it just means that Tendrils speed poses a barrier to Ichorid.

Additionally, I'd argue there is a limited number of players in Legacy, and an even smaller number with the desire to play combo. It could easily be the case that combo pilot populations cannibalize each other to some extent, as there are only so many people with cards, skill, and will to play combo. Some people who are currently playing the combo role provided by Tendrils would eventually start playing Ichorid in the event that Tendrils was banned. Without banning Tendrils, many would-be Ichorid players continue to play Storm.

It seems very reasonable that Ichorid would be played more if Tendrils were banned.


What "general metagame"? Where are you getting this data from that shows a dominance of Tendrils decks?

General Metagame means the universal one. It is the metagame which the DTBF attempts to display.

Point where I said Tendrils was a dominant deck. You are putting words into my mouth, and you've clearly missed the argument at large.


If you look at the the March + April data, you know how many Tendrils decks Top 8'ed? Out of 34 tournaments, so, a possible 272 top 8 slots, Tendrils decks top 8'ed.......EIGHT times. That's THREE FREAKING PERCENT. *

May? SIX. Out of 33 tournaments. That's TWO POINT THREE FREAKING PERCENT.*

So, you guys are really saying that a deck that top 8s roughly 2.5 percent of the time is warping the metagame? Is pushing all other combo decks out of existence?

All caps convinces me.

Here is where lack of reading and logic has led you to a fatal mistake. A deck doesn't need to constantly Top 8 at tournaments to have an effect on the metagame. I've said Tendrils influences the metagame, and that it keeps many archetypes in check, but I didn't say it was dominant by any stretch. I said it teetered on DTW status like Ichorid, and that the dominant deck in the format was Thresh. Tendrils does obsolete a bunch of combo decks (I'll give you some examples if you ask nicely), but I've hardly said that it 'pushes all other combo decks out of existence'. You would know that if you had read carefully.

Feel free to re-read my explanation of Tendril's influence. If that is TL;DR for you (which it just might be, given your posts), then let me break this particular metagame cycle down for you as simply (perhaps oversimply) as I can: Increases in the numbers of Threshold-predators are kept in check through Tendrils, and Tendrils is likewise kept in check by Thresh. The result is that Tendrils and Thresh-predators are tier 1.5 (or worse) decks, while Thresh remains clearly at the top. Without Tendrils, I think the metagame would shift in such a way that would be detrimental to Threshold. That doesn't mean Thresh would die (so don't overreact), it just wouldn't be the absolute top dog when its predators are no longer kept in check. My end argument is that keeping Thresh as the cornerstone makes the format more interesting than a tripod created by emerging dedicated-role decks, so I'm in favor of keeping Tendrils in the format.





peace,
4eak

[Bahamuth]

I agree with the above. I'm absolutely positive that, given the decks being ran in the metagame today, Tendrills Combo will almost always be one of the best, if not the best choice. IF played correctly, it has a positive matchup against literally anything without Counterbalance, and it can certainly win against decks with it. Combo is important in the meta, and everyone running some form of aggro, or even control in some cases, has to be aware that they might be knocked out of competition by one of the Tendrils Combo in the field.

[KrzyMoose]

I wasn't directing that entire reply at you...I think I only actually quoted you once.

Rather, I was responding to everyone else who was saying that Tendrils is too dominant and keeping other combo decks from being viable.

Anyway


Tendrils is simply faster than Ichorid, which means that Ichorid often loses the goldfish race, which is a race it was expecting to win against most of the format. Tendrils keeps Ichorid in check like it keeps lots of slower combo decks in check. You want be to faster combo deck in those matchups. That doesn't mean there isn't a reason to play Ichorid, it just means that Tendrils speed poses a barrier to Ichorid.

Tendrils is faster than Ichorid. Okay. So? How is that a problem for the "metagame"? Prove that Tendrils' existence hinders Ichorid's ability to perform. Prove that people who want to play Ichorid will not play Ichorid because of Tendrils.


It could easily be the case that combo pilot populations cannibalize each other to some extent, as there are only so many people with cards, skill, and will to play combo.

Again, I ask you to prove this. How are you drawing this conclusion?


It seems very reasonable that Ichorid would be played more if Tendrils were banned.

Why? You're not answering this question. If someone wants to play Ichorid at a Legacy tournament this weekend, he will play Ichorid at that tournament. At the store I play at, which holds Legacy every Wednesday night (and has decent turnouts - upwards of 20 people), there is someone who usually always plays Tendrils. There is also someone who usually always plays Ichorid. Shit, there's also someone who always plays Death and Taxes. People play what they want to play.


General Metagame means the universal one. It is the metagame which the DTBF attempts to display.

I'd argue that there is no such thing. Standard? Definitely has a metagame. Extended during the PTQ season? Definitely has a metagame. Legacy? A format which has only sporadic tournaments, the majority of which are not in the United States? For which people* don't actually test**? For which people play whatever deck they want? Not much of a metagame.

*I think people on this site drastically overestimate how much time people not on this site spend on this format.

**I also think that people on this site who are going to claim they playtest extensively 1. Don't do proper playtesting at all and 2. Don't do nearly enough of it. Also, people not on this site do barely any at all.

Legacy, outside of this site (which constitutes the vast majority of Legacy players), doesn't consist of much more than people playing decks they feel like playing on a given weekend.

Also, while it wasn't you (4eak), specifically, who said it was dominant, there certainly were other people who did.


A deck doesn't need constantly Top 8 at tournaments to have an affects on the metagame

Then how does a have an influence on the "metagame"? If a deck doesn't perform consistently well, and doesn't take advantage of the "metagame" in someway (and, thus, performing well), then I'd argue that it's a pretty awful deck.

Also, people have to actually play the deck for it to affect the "metagame". If no one actually plays the deck, why should I care about it? Furthermore, if people actually play the deck, but no one does well with it, why should I care about it?

You (both 4eak and other people) keep saying that Tendrils prevents other combo decks from succeeding. But, what you don't say is "how": How does Tendrils existence push other combo decks out of existence?

Show me the data that says 100% of people who would play non-Tendrils Combo decks refrain from doing so because Tendrils exists.

*edit*


I'm absolutely positive that, given the decks being ran in the metagame today, Tendrills Combo will almost always be one of the best, if not the best choice.

And, yet, results from the past three months (and, I'd bet, going back further than that) disagree with this.


Combo is important in the meta, and everyone running some form of aggro, or even control in some cases, has to be aware that they might be knocked out of competition by one of the Tendrils Combo in the field.

So...just because Tendrils is a deck means that I shouldn't play any sort of aggro deck? You do realize that, you know, people have to actually PLAY the Tendrils decks, right?

Zoo-type decks have had much more success in the past three months than Tendrils. So, shouldn't all other aggro decks become obsolete?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Jesus Pogo-Stick-Riding Christ. For the last time;

The argument is not that Tendrils combo is dominant. The argument is that blue-CounterTop decks are dominant, which is pretty hard to dispute. The argument is further that aside from the obvious reasons for their ascendance in terms of what they actually play (Goyf, Counter-Top), another factor is a metagame presence that makes decks that might hose NLU weak, namely Tendrils combo.

You may disagree with that argument, but then disagree with it and not with one that no one fucking made.

[4eak]

@ KrzyMoose


I wasn't directing that entire reply at you...I think I only actually quoted you once.

3 times actually. Only 3 sentences of your post (before the edit) were not in response to a quote of one of my posts.


Tendrils is faster than Ichorid. Okay. So? How is that a problem for the "metagame"?

Ah ah, be careful. I said Tendrils speed was a problem for Ichorid, and I've repeatedly explained that is actually a good thing for the metagame.


Again, I ask you to prove this. How are you drawing this conclusion?

You never really asked me to prove this statement before because this is the first time I've explained this particular claim.

I'm not sure why it is so difficult to understand. Even if everyone on the planet played Magic, there would still be some limit to the number of players, and only portion a of those players would actually be playing any form of combo. It isn't unreasonable to consider the similarities between combo decks and see that many of the players of one combo deck would be willing to play different one. Additionally, magic costs money, and not everyone owns the cards to play combo, and even for those who do have the cards, not all of them would want to play combo either.

The cannabilizing concern should be obvious as well, especially since we are discussing decks with such similar roles. Can you not also see that UGb/UGw/UGr/etc. Thresh populations often cannabilized each other? Many people switched up their colors, and essentially, the population of one splash cannibalized another. Etc.


If someone wants to play Ichorid at a Legacy tournament this weekend, he will play Ichorid at that tournament.

Again, this is not true. You don't always get what you want. But, more importantly, your statement fails to take into account that having the option to play Tendrils affects how many would choose to play Ichorid. The question is not "could they play Ichorid?", it is really "would they play Ichorid?".


A format which has only sporadic tournaments, the majority of which are not in the United States? For which people* don't actually test**? For which people play whatever deck they want? Not much of a metagame.

Despite the differences between formats, you are still describing the factors which go into creating the general Legacy metagame. It exists, even if it isn't as clear as you prefer. You continue to allude to a Legacy metagame, even if you say that you don't think it exists.


If no one actually plays the deck, why should I care about it? Furthermore, if people actually play the deck, but no one does well with it, why should I care about it?.

Tendrils teeters on DTW. Go look at the past year instead of just the past month or two. You should certainly care about the deck. Again, it is a non sequitur to say that only decks which consistently top 8 have influence on the general metagame. For example, Dragon Stompy is a deck many should test against and think about, even if it isn't always top 8ing or played en masse. Likewise, Tendrils is one of many decks which have influence on the metagame, even if they aren't the tier 1 decks. Remember, tier 1 decks have that title because they answer and/or defeat the decks below them, and those decks therefore have influence on the metagame. Some have more than others, even if they aren't represented in most top 8's.


how me the data that says 0% of people play non-Tendrils Combo decks because Tendrils exists.

Again, this is not what I've said. You ask for proof about a claim that I am not making.

I've clearly explained there are other combo decks which exist. They simply aren't as influential in the metagame because of Tendrils, both through cannabilization and by being outclassed when those decks are pitted against Tendrils.

There are decks which basically have died because Tendrils is just better. One example: Gamekeeper decks have pretty much died out because Tendrils is just much, much better. Even Solidarity has a hard time remaining viable given Tendrils/AdN's existence.






peace,
4eak

[gamegeek2]

I agree that this thread is just as bad as the people bawing about Tarmogoyf. Tendrils of Agony is fine.

The storm decks designed to fight permission were Mind's Desire decks, which played a bunch of rituals into a Desire, instead of the all-in strategy that Legacy storm decks must rely on due to the (rightful) banning of Desire. If banning Desire isn't good enough for you guys, I don't know what is.

As it is, Legacy is a nightmare for combo players, who wade through disruption in every matchup against every deck in the format, with the exception of Zoo, Goblins, and various metagame-dependent Aggro decks that eat Legacy Blue for breakfast. And this disruption is not only good against combo, either. Look at this list, fairly representative of the MD of Eva Green:

5 Swamp
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Polluted Delta
4 Bayou
4 Wasteland

4 Tarmogoyf
4 Nantuko Shade
4 Tombstalker
4 Hypnotic Specter

4 Snuff Out
4 Dark Ritual
4 Sinkhole
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Thoughtseize
3 Seal of Primordium/Krosan Grip

None of these MD cards seem particularly directed towards fighting Tendrils. But look at the problems they pose to the deck: Hymn to Tourach takes away the deck's ever-valuable cards in hand, and Thoughtseize has even more precision. Dark Ritual powers these cards out very quickly. This deck has one of the fastest clocks in the format in Tombstalker, Tarmogoyf, and Nantuko shade. And Wasteland and Sinkhole just pack on the beatings, not as impressive against storm but still disruption nonetheless.

Frankly, Legacy is a lot better than when it was all about Landstill, Goblins, Thresh, and Solidarity.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I agree that this thread is just as bad as the people bawing about Tarmogoyf. Tendrils of Agony is fine.

The storm decks designed to fight permission were Mind's Desire decks, which played a bunch of rituals into a Desire, instead of the all-in strategy that Legacy storm decks must rely on due to the (rightful) banning of Desire. If banning Desire isn't good enough for you guys, I don't know what is.

Desire was never Legacy legal. Literally never. Thanks for having no idea what you're talking about though.


As it is, Legacy is a nightmare for combo players, who wade through disruption in every matchup against every deck in the format, with the exception of Zoo, Goblins, and various metagame-dependent Aggro decks that eat Legacy Blue for breakfast.

Thanks for not reading the thread. It really contributed to making your post insightful, useful, and not a waste of yours and everyone else's time. You shouldn't feel deeply ashamed right now for being such a wasted travesty of a human being. Also, Milli Vanilli are like the best band ever and will never get old MV4L wut.

[Jak]

Jesus Pogo-Stick-Riding Christ. For the last time;

The argument is not that Tendrils combo is dominant. The argument is that blue-CounterTop decks are dominant, which is pretty hard to dispute. The argument is further that aside from the obvious reasons for their ascendance in terms of what they actually play (Goyf, Counter-Top), another factor is a metagame presence that makes decks that might hose NLU weak, namely Tendrils combo.

You may disagree with that argument, but then disagree with it and not with one that no one fucking made.

What decks aren't seeing play because of Tendrils? Sure it beats Train Wreck, Truffle Shuffle, etc, but Tendrils is such a small percentage of the field. These decks that could crush blue should still be doing well.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I don't think you're getting a full appreciation for the numbers. Very few decks crush any other competitive deck with the regularity that Tendrils decks crush most non-blue decks, at least G1. And then you're relying on winning both post-board games, which is a big gamble. Comparatively, a deck that "crushes" Threshold and similar decks such as Train Wreck may only have about a 60% chance of winning the round, assuming players of equal skill, while Tendrils will have closer to an 80% chance of winning a round against Train Wreck. Goblins, depending on the build, can be in an even worse position. And most other decks that would prey on Threshold fall into this same role.

[KrzyMoose]

I've clearly explained there are other combo decks which exist. They simply aren't as influential in the metagame because of Tendrils, both through cannabilization and by being outclassed when those decks are pitted against Tendrils.

There are decks which basically have died because Tendrils is just better. One example: Gamekeeper decks have pretty much died out because Tendrils is just much, much better. Even Solidarity has a hard time remaining viable given Tendrils/AdN's existence.

So, a combo deck that is barely played at all is keeping other combo decks from being played?


The question is not "could they play Ichorid?", it is really "would they play Ichorid?".

Absolutely yes! People absolutely play Ichorid/Painter-Grindstone/Belcher/Breakfast/Gamekeeper.

Again, you keep saying that since Tendrils is just better (which I agree with), no person any where plays any other kind of combo deck. This is absolutely false.

The purpose of IBA's argument is basically this:

I do think the other type of combo is healther for the format

And what no one seems to be answering is how Tendrils prevents people from playing other combo decks.

The argument that Counter-Top strategies are dominant mainly because of Tendrils is just silly - no one, I mean like, literally, no one plays Tendrils. Everyone in this thread acknowledges the fact that Tendrils is enormously underplayed. And yet, Counter-Top is still the dominant strategy.

Like I said, even without Tendrils, I'm not going to play a deck without four Counterbalance and four Top.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

As much as Tendrils has problems with Blue, other combo decks have the same problems or greater, plus a vulnerability to various cards like StP, Tormod's Crypt, Krosan Grip, Deed, etc.

And I don't think anyone said the sole reason that blue was dominant was Tendrils. I think it's a factor. Blue's been overly dominant not since Tendrils was printed, but since Goyf was printed. Prior to that there was much more color diversity in the format. I think Tendrils is only the final nail in the coffin as it were- not only do you have to struggle to beat Counter-Top and Goyf, but on top of that, you can then run into Tendrils and get demolished if you're playing a midrange or board control deck designed to feed on Counter-Goyf.

Honestly, I guess I just consider the fact that Goyf needs to be banned so obvious at this point that I think it goes without saying. It is hard to think of a format where a card was so visibly dominant and didn't get banned.

[dirtyapes]

I see no reason that any cards need to be banned right now. There are no decks that are so dominant in the format that you need to either play it or play hate against it.
There are decks that have bad match ups versus some decks in game 1. It happens. That is why there is a sideboard. If your deck is bad versus Tendrils then you need to plan a sideboard against it and try to swing the match up. If it is still a bad match up then oh well. Some decks just don't beat others. It happens.
Banning cards is not the answer to make the format more interesting. Printing cards that are actually good in Legacy and improving the card base will make the format more interesting. It's like taxing rich people more to make them poorer to make the poor people feel better because there are less rich people.

[Pulp_Fiction]

I play combo almost every week at my local tournaments and I will tell you that gamegeek2 is pretty much right on. If you are playing a deck like Doomsday FT you can easily lose to Goblins with turn 1 Lackey turn 2 Wasteland/Port. Oftentimes with TES you will open a beautiful hand with 1 action spell and Thoughtseize takes care of that and the rest of the game you are in topdeck mode, and assuming the opponent actually puts pressure on you, you will lose unless you draw something relevant.

I really don't think blue is a factor in limiting combo. I think playskill, thinking, and patience limit combo players because most people don't want to sit in their chair for a minute or so calculating mana in their heads and adding storm. I think Ad Nauseam has boosted the amount of combo players because it is the easiest storm engine to play ever, anyone can win a game with little thought when half their deck is in hand. I personally don't mind the Thresh CB matchup, I would MUCH rather play against some deck like UGr Thrash (easiest of the Thresh variants) than Stax or Dragon Stompy. Moon effects fuck up combo good (aside from TES who just Wishes for EtW and wins) and you simply can't win with Trinisphere in play.

Personally, I think U/B/g/w ANT and 5c DDFT are the best decks in the format since they are able to deal with anything and have a really good blue matchup. But combo is not "unfair" to answer what most people are saying. a single Chalice will often win games just because combo can't find an answer soon enough. Oftentimes combo mulls into slower hands and aggro just kills them on turn 4 and 5 since they can't setup fast enough. Discard, land disruption, well timed Stifle (on land, Mox) etc. All of these can mess up combo very well and if the combo player isn't drawing well, that is a loss. Then again, sometimes you open up a hand that looks like: LED, LED, IT, Petal, Dark Ritual, land, Brainstorm ... GG. But that is the tradeoff, combo CAN be broken but is it really any more broken than resolving CB and Top? And people are arguing that combo has no interaction ..... CB does???

[JeroenC]

So I'm too tired and lazy to read everything that has been posted so far. But some things I picked up:
1. Tendrils is keeping a lot of decks from being played decently, decks need to have a combo matchup: Zoo, Landstill, Vial Goblins, Aggro Loam, Survival. All of these are decks I'd love to play against with a combo deck. Still, they're in the DTB. How many Tendrils decks? None.
2. CB is played because it is good against Legacy. This is true. CB is played because it is good against a metagame that has come to be because of Tendrils. False, CB will still be around in the same numbers after banning Tendrils(which won't happen). It will take a couple of more beatings from the people who are suddenly less afraid and take different decks, but CBTop is still going to be around.
3. Something I think I've already mentioned: removing Storm from Legacy will remove combo from Legacy. Other combos aren't played. Because of Storm? No. Because they're too weak? Yes.

[caiomarcos]

3. Something I think I've already mentioned: removing Storm from Legacy will remove combo from Legacy. Other combos aren't played. Because of Storm? No. Because they're too weak? Yes.

I can't stand those arguments that try to analyze a different situation taking today's meta into consideration. Other combos are too weak because every other deck is prepared to deal with Tendrils combo. If Tendrils are out of the game, the splash hate agains Cephalid, Belcher etc is reduced, making them viable.
Just like people say today that Dryad is a terrible finisher. Yeah, compaerd to goyf, Dradnought seems clunky, but before goyf came up, Dryad, Tog, Morphling and a hundred of other options were viable and played.
That's how Tendrils and Goyf warp the metagame - not being completely dominant, but completely ruling out other options.

[Otter]

If Tendrils are out of the game, the splash hate agains Cephalid, Belcher etc is reduced, making them viable.

Metagames don't work like that. If a deck becomes viable due to a lack of hate, people will just start packing hate for it again.

[Fuzzy]

That's how Tendrils and Goyf warp the metagame - not being completely dominant, but completely ruling out other options.

For god's sake, why ONLY NOW, when people abandon Storm Baseds for Counterbalance, people are thinking it's warping the format? Scourge's release was in 2003, why you guys don't had cryed before?

This thread smells like a troll.

[Jak]

For god's sake, why ONLY NOW, when people abandon Storm Baseds for Counterbalance, people are thinking it's warping the format? Scourge's release was in 2003, why you guys don't had cryed before?

This thread smells like a troll.

As much as I dislike this discussion, this post is so wrong. There have been other sets since 2003 that had cards to aid the Storm decks.

[Fuzzy]

As much as I dislike this discussion, this post is so wrong. There have been other sets since 2003 that had cards to aid the Storm decks.

Infernal Tutor in 2006 and Ad Nauseam at the end of last year.

So, what really fucked up Legacy? A LED+Tutor engine or Dark Confidant+Mind's Desire bastard son?

Or PONDER?

[Ch@os]

A metagame without Tendrils would be an german meta :D

[GreenOne]

A metagame without Tendrils would be an german meta :D
If this is true, I'd like to know how much blue is played in such a meta. This would finally solve the puzzle and we can lock this thread.

[jjjoness']

If this is true, I'd like to know how much blue is played in such a meta. This would finally solve the puzzle and we can lock this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, my meta is a lot of aggro (like 35%) white Staxx (20%), the rest of the field mostly consists of Landstill, some Cbalance Decks (Thresh, Dreadstill) and other cool stuff like Quinn and Enchantress. Combo isn't played a lot, actually it's just me.

BTW: Sign me in for the Tendrilsless Source Tournament.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

For god's sake, why ONLY NOW, when people abandon Storm Baseds for Counterbalance, people are thinking it's warping the format? Scourge's release was in 2003, why you guys don't had cryed before?

This thread smells like a troll.

----

Infernal Tutor in 2006 and Ad Nauseam at the end of last year.

So, what really fucked up Legacy? A LED+Tutor engine or Dark Confidant+Mind's Desire bastard son?

Or PONDER?


Normally I ignore the horrible grammar of ESL people, as my Portugese, for instance, is much worse.

When that bad grammar is accompanied by hostility and condescension, it's tempting to not make an exception.


Artifact mana was not legal in the old 1.5. The banned lists split in late 2004, and at the time, people were exremely concerned with the fact that they had banned comparatively weak cards, but unbanned Moxen, Lotus Petal, and LED, as well as Mystical Tutor and Burning Wish.

It took a couple years for people to truly break Storm though. That didn't happen until 2007 or so, and yes, Empty the Warrens certainly helped.

And to be fair, any discussion on banning Storm-combo pieces has taken a back seat to the discussion on whether or not Tarmogoyf should be banned.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

I'll go one futher:

Tarmogoyf, Counterbalance, AND Tendrils should all be banned. Blue would be considerably less dominant, though still powerful, and pure aggro would actually be playable since it's greatest counter would no longer be playable. The diversity of decks in the metagame would increase dramatically, and I'd actually play Legacy again.

Then, unban other combo engines that are considerably easier to disrupt such as Dragon and whatnot. And Land Tax. Why the fuck is that still on the list? >_>

[Aggro_zombies]

Lightly skimming through this thread, a few things stand out:

Blue is not dominant because of Storm combo. Blue is dominant because it has a two card, three mana soft lock that completely seals the game against 75% of the decks in the format. Blue is dominant because it has access to cards that have been, both historically and in the modern meta, ahead of the power curve: Force, Brainstorm, etc. If you really wanted to make blue on even footing with the other colors, you would need to ban Counterbalance, Force, and Brainstorm. I know that sounds severe, and it would cripple blue beyond all hope, but that's just how strong that color is compared to the other colors.

Storm combo shows up in just high enough concentrations that it acts as a boogey man, but not high enough concentrations that it's actually relevant. A deck, like Aggro Loam, with a 30% or worse match against Tendrils game one can still be a viable contender in the format because Tendrils shows up as a single-digit percentage of the field, if it shows up at all. Furthermore, even without Counterbalance around, it takes more hours of practice and more skill to successfully pilot a Tendrils deck than it takes to successfully pilot something like Goblins or Threshold. Those latter decks are fairly forgiving of one or two screw-ups, but making a mistake while you're setting up or going off with a Storm deck can be game ending.

The alternatives to Tendrils, decks like Breakfast or whatever, are obviously much weaker than Tendrils. This is not just because Tendrils is very strong and relatively resistant to disruption; it is also because the alternatives keel over and die to a certain types of hate cards available to every color. Let's say that Tendrils were banned tomorrow and Cephalid Breakfast suddenly became all the rage. Breakfast loses to any and all kinds of graveyard hate, which every color has access to in the form of on-color cards (Morningtide, Loaming Shaman, Ground Seal, Withered Wretch, Leyline, etc.) or artifacts (Crypt, Relic). Furthermore, these cards are relevant against a variety of decks - say, anything with Life from the Loam - so having them in your sideboard would be a generally good idea anyway. The fact that Breakfast is so weak to hate available to every color would effectively hate it to death - and that's what happened the last time it reared its head. Removing Tendrils would effectively remove combo from the format. The closest things you would have would be Ichorid and probably something else, possibly Enchantress or F.C. Goblins.

Tendrils is not a problem card, and wouldn't be unless blue got shafted big-time. Tendrils isn't responsible for blue's dominance; blue's dominance is responsible for Tendrils' relative absence.

[SilverGreen]

I don't think storm warps the metagame so much as it hurts deck design. Metagames are a living thing that's always evolving and adjusting, so no problem here. But the creativity and variety of viable combo strategies are very limited by the existence of storm. As stated here before, no one plays "true" combination decks anymore, decks in the fashion of Salvagers Game, Aluren, Cephalid Breakfast or - discounting the storm-kill part - Solidarity, simple because they're all overshadowed by a single-minded bunch of rituals.

But if Tendrils - or storm as a whole - is healthy for the format or not, is solely a matter of taste, IMHO. Nowadays I'm a player that plays much more for the joy of the game than for top8 and get some booster packs, so I'm much more interested in find a field plenty of diferent decks to defy and amuse me. If my goal would be aim a perfect score and get all the glory, girls, fame and fortune provided by the tournament title, then I would prefer storm. I know it's much more flexible, resilient, efficient than old combo, for sure. But, for me, this predatory nature over other strategies is what makes storm's greater problem.


P.S: It's always a funny thing when someone that hardly speaks a foreign word other than "pepperoni" blames other people - non-English speaking people - for not being James Joyce, even when their communication is perfectly affordable. So please, forgive all of us, poor South American, European, Asian and my neighbor's trained monkey - all perfectly able to communicate in English - for not being so good in YOUR mother language as you are, caríssimos cabeças de vento anglo-saxônicos.

[sunshine]

The reality is that there will always be dominant strategies that, to a degree, invalidate others. Legacy has Combo (Tendrils Combo if you want to call it that), Aggro, Control, and Aggro-Control decks that are all viable - at the moment it seems that there is no one strategy that completely pushes out any other. Sure some decks have a rough Tendrils matuchup but currently Zoo, Aggro Loam, Goblins, and Survival are all DTBs. If our definition of interesting is somthing along the lines of "diversity of viable stategies" then I would argue that removing Tendrils from Legacy would make it less interesting if anything.

Combo is an important part of legacy, Tendrils Combo may be one of the least interactive iterations of combo but it's still not that heavily played and this isn't just due to Blue beating it back. Even mono_green.dec has the ability to play a turn one Thorn of Amethyst, and a small white spash for Teeg, Canonist, and/or Chant is not that bad if it is really needed.

[jazzykat]

If by making the format more interesting you mean allowing decks that are currently unviable to come back then I'd say no because getting rid of tendrils will just create another status quo/metagame.

I've said it a million times, if you want to potentially make the format more interesting start unbanning cards... Land Tax, Worldgorger Drago, Metalworker, Hermit Druid, etc. Storm decks are already faster than most of the old combo decks anyway so let's see if they may shake things up.

[pi4meterftw]

Prove that blue should not be played more then. You claim that banning tendrils would decrease the power of blue. Okay? Why is that a good thing? Afterall, the point of a game isn't for everything to be all communist and equal. Otherwise, choices aren't interesting. Why not just make every card a 1/1 for 0? Also, it's better to play lands than to not play lands. But even if you forget that, still: provide a reason blue should not be dominant. But I even have more reasons it should. It's dominance isn't stifling. Existing strategies can just run blue, and then keep doing what they were doing. It's not like suddenly countermagic became so powerful that there were too many powerful blue spells to run and then every deck became mono blue because blue spells were so disproportionately powerful that splashing a color simply wasn't worth it. If it got to that point, then you could argue that it's actually unhealthy. But people still play nonblue spells, en masse in fact. In fact, some decks don't even have blue in it.

Also, what's with "Tendrils of Agony stifles the existence of some decks, which could exist otherwise?"

"Dear wizards. I'd like to play my snakes tribal deck. Unfortunately, the existence of the following decks makes this impractical:

Nogoyf
Counterbalance threshold
Stax
Merfolk
Goblins
Slivers
Elves
....
Aggro Loam
Everything in type 2
...
...

Therefore, please ban those decks otherwise you will have stifled the existence of snakes."

Why is it some kind of an alarm that not everything is equal? Snakes is simply a bad strategy. So is kithkins. Not playing blue is simply a bad strategy. Not being able to handle Tendrils is a bad strategy. The answer isn't to cry for the ban-hammer. You just change decks, or splash blue (seriously). Or even just run thorn of amethyst, which by the way is something any color can access. It might be that tendrils is unhealthy (But I only say that because it might be, a priori, that anything is truly unhealthy, but it's clearly not the case for Tendrils) but to simply state that Tendrils has stifled the existence of pet deck X doesn't actually prove anything.

As a side note, I don't see how not playing blue is still seen to be practical. I think that playing blue, just as playing land, is necessary. It's a fact of the format, not something to be seen as terrible imbalance. It's just because Wizards called it one of the 5 colors that made it appear unintuitive that actually blue is not on equal footing with the "other" 4 colors. What if wizards called lands "Pink?" Then OMG EVERYBODY PLAYS PINK.

[FoolofaTook]

I would think that we'd all like to see Tendrils based decks like dominate the meta or something before we thought about banning the kill condition in most of them.

I take crappy homebrews to almost every small tourney I attend because I want to look at something else for a change instead of blue control. Every time I run into one of these Storm based decks they have trouble. I either beat them or lose narrowly, and I'm playing decks that are largely uncompetitive and would profit greatly if blue was removed as a factor in the meta.

Storm combo may look great but it's consistency level is in the vicinity of Dragon Stompy and it loses just as quickly when anything goes wrong, goes wrong, goes wrong...

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Prove that blue should not be played more then. You claim that banning tendrils would decrease the power of blue. Okay? Why is that a good thing? Afterall, the point of a game isn't for everything to be all communist and equal. Otherwise, choices aren't interesting. Why not just make every card a 1/1 for 0? Also, it's better to play lands than to not play lands. But even if you forget that, still: provide a reason blue should not be dominant. But I even have more reasons it should. It's dominance isn't stifling. Existing strategies can just run blue, and then keep doing what they were doing. It's not like suddenly countermagic became so powerful that there were too many powerful blue spells to run and then every deck became mono blue because blue spells were so disproportionately powerful that splashing a color simply wasn't worth it. If it got to that point, then you could argue that it's actually unhealthy. But people still play nonblue spells, en masse in fact. In fact, some decks don't even have blue in it.

Also, what's with "Tendrils of Agony stifles the existence of some decks, which could exist otherwise?"

"Dear wizards. I'd like to play my snakes tribal deck. Unfortunately, the existence of the following decks makes this impractical:

Nogoyf
Counterbalance threshold
Stax
Merfolk
Goblins
Slivers
Elves
....
Aggro Loam
Everything in type 2
...
...

Therefore, please ban those decks otherwise you will have stifled the existence of snakes."

Why is it some kind of an alarm that not everything is equal? Snakes is simply a bad strategy. So is kithkins. Not playing blue is simply a bad strategy. Not being able to handle Tendrils is a bad strategy. The answer isn't to cry for the ban-hammer. You just change decks, or splash blue (seriously). Or even just run thorn of amethyst, which by the way is something any color can access. It might be that tendrils is unhealthy (But I only say that because it might be, a priori, that anything is truly unhealthy, but it's clearly not the case for Tendrils) but to simply state that Tendrils has stifled the existence of pet deck X doesn't actually prove anything.

As a side note, I don't see how not playing blue is still seen to be practical. I think that playing blue, just as playing land, is necessary. It's a fact of the format, not something to be seen as terrible imbalance. It's just because Wizards called it one of the 5 colors that made it appear unintuitive that actually blue is not on equal footing with the "other" 4 colors. What if wizards called lands "Pink?" Then OMG EVERYBODY PLAYS PINK.

You have an atrocious sense of game balance and design.

Five colors create a more interesting series of choices than one color.

Fortunately blue is not nearly as dominant as you believe, even though it is unhealthily dominant. There are still viable decks outside of blue, although most do have problems with Tendrils-combo.

Also, be careful about Snakes and Kithkin. We used to say the same thing about Elves and Faeries.