[Premium Article] Breakdown of the SCG $5K Metagame

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17678_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Notes_on_NuVintage_and_a_Breakdown_of_the_SCG_Legacy_5K.html

By request, I included certain decklists that were not reported by SCG as well. Enjoy!

[Otter]

I don't mean any offense, but either SCG needs to pull in some more premium legacy writers or someone needs to bump this in three months. I'd love to read it, but I'm not paying for premium unless I'm getting my money's worth and SCG's legacy content is extremely lacking. You're the only person who writes about either eternal format and while I appreciate that, one writer writing about the format I'm interested in for maybe half of their articles just isn't going to sell it to me.

[ilovejess2]

Only skimmed the Vintage part. Enjoyed the Legacy part and I think you analyzed it well but you were somewhat hurt by the lack of Top 8 decklist analysis. I think these results coupled with Chicago shows that on the whole the Legacy Metagame is very healthy with a wide range of decks. I too however would echo the post above as I share the feeling that us Eternal fans don't get much value from premium.

[mercenarybdu]

We do need more true Legacy players writing articles.

All this Vintage is just making us look bad.

[heroicraptor]

What, you're not even gonna give us the decklists?

[KrzyMoose]

What, you're not even gonna give us the decklists?

Uh...you realize that SCG has a link to decklists right on the main page, right?

http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2009-06-21&end_date=2009-06-21&event_type=STAL&city=Boston

Good article.

As an aside, to those who don't want to pay premium for non-Legacy content: premium articles cover much, much more than just talking about the latest Standard deck. Like, you can learn so much more. Even if you don't follow the formats, reading material from players who are better than you can only be +EV.

[URABAHN]

As an aside, to those who don't want to pay premium for non-Legacy content: premium articles cover much, much more than just talking about the latest Standard deck. Like, you can learn so much more. Even if you don't follow the formats, reading material from players who are better than you can only be +EV.

Like, really? Rad.

[DrJones]

From the list, it seems that doesn't matter which deck you play, you have higher chances to score by running Tarmogoyf and Force of Will.

[AnwarA101]

We do need more true Legacy players writing articles.

All this Vintage is just making us look bad.

I hope this counts -

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/17616_Unlocking_Legacy_Design_Constraints.html

[Michael Keller]

Uh...you realize that SCG has a link to decklists right on the main page, right?

http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2009-06-21&end_date=2009-06-21&event_type=STAL&city=Boston

Good article.

As an aside, to those who don't want to pay premium for non-Legacy content: premium articles cover much, much more than just talking about the latest Standard deck. Like, you can learn so much more. Even if you don't follow the formats, reading material from players who are better than you can only be +EV.

You learn much more by actually playing against people who are better than you. That's really the nature of the beast. For people to have to pay to read someone's personal convictions and even factual, statistical information that can be found anywhere on the internet for free is basically like handing away your money. You can speak intelligently with people who are more knowledgeable right here on The Source even.

Reading those premium articles is a way for them to earn money. I'm sure they care about what they do. But I have never personally condoned editorials for Magic: The Gathering to new players because it's just bullshit. The way to learn how to play competitively is to find better players, surround yourself with them, and learn by watching them play and understanding why they did what they did. Learning balance in your game, timing, and learning from your errors is also key.

There's more to the equation, but really, there is no need for that unless you have cash to kick around. This is by far and away the most prominent entity for discussing the format anywhere on the web. There's no reason to go and pay to read one person's jargon when you can read about dozens of intelligent players' expeditions here for free.

[Volt]

It was a pretty good article, overall. Slightly less well-written and/or less diligently edited than some of Stephen's previous articles, but the content was excellent.

[Smmenen]

You learn much more by actually playing against people who are better than you. That's really the nature of the beast. For people to have to pay to read someone's personal convictions and even factual, statistical information that can be found anywhere on the internet for free is basically like handing away your money. You can speak intelligently with people who are more knowledgeable right here on The Source even.

Reading those premium articles is a way for them to earn money. I'm sure they care about what they do. But I have never personally condoned editorials for Magic: The Gathering to new players because it's just bullshit. The way to learn how to play competitively is to find better players, surround yourself with them, and learn by watching them play and understanding why they did what they did. Learning balance in your game, timing, and learning from your errors is also key.

There's more to the equation, but really, there is no need for that unless you have cash to kick around. This is by far and away the most prominent entity for discussing the format anywhere on the web. There's no reason to go and pay to read one person's jargon when you can read about dozens of intelligent players' expeditions here for free.

Some people find it entertaining to read Magic articles.

Also, my article is a breakdown of the SCG metagame. All of the analysis is tied to the statistical breakdown I present in the article. Not alot of hot air to blow around since it's all data driven.

[Michael Keller]

Some people find it entertaining to read Magic articles.

Also, my article is a breakdown of the SCG metagame. All of the analysis is tied to the statistical breakdown I present in the article. Not alot of hot air to blow around since it's all data driven.

And I completely understand your rationale.

But for others to claim Premium Access as sort of a road map to becoming a better player is misleading. The articles do contain factual information, data analysis, etc. But the issue in question deals with the parity amongst readers who feel as though the articles are actually worth buying over free information and free discussion that can provide the same amount (if not more) educational interaction amongst new people who don't understand the mechanics and fundamentals of Magic, and more specifically, Legacy.

Being a writer I completely understand your logic; it just isn't worth the price to me. In releasing the articles three months belated to the general public, you're using a simple yet clever marketing scheme enticing new readers to always keep current with the happenings of Legacy, or else stay "uninformed". I think if someone is smart enough to purchase these endeavors, they should also be smart enough to realize that if they are paying for advice, statistics, and math; they should be getting their money's worth. If they are and they're happy - fine by me.

Of course, it's up to the individual to decide what is best for them.

[Bardo]

As someone who knows (http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/articlefinder.php?keyword=Dan+Spero) what he's talking about: writing quality articles on a regular basis is a pain in the ass. They're personally rewarding in their own way, but they're also a lot of work and come with baggage (i.e. the Internet). And if someone isn't paying you, even if it's only for the principle of being paid, good will and community service can only go so far. For instance, if I were not paid to come to work, I sure as heck would not be here.

Anyway, if you don't want to pay for premium (like me), shut up about it. If you MUST say something, send your messages to Pete Hoefling (owner of SCG), but please do not clutter these boards. Thank you.

[Soldar]

Some people find it entertaining to read Magic articles.

I'm one of these people, and I found premium to be worth it for a while when I was playing Standard and PTQs much more often. When I've settled to where I'm at, mostly Legacy and EDH, I found myself wanting to have Premium less and less - so when it ran out in the last couple months, I didn't renew it.

Advice to those who've never had Premium: If you want a lot of theory and examination of the smaller formats (Standard, Limited, whatever PTQ season it is) and you enjoy reading, then it's a fantastic investment. Instead of a magazine, or eating out one day, pick up premium for a couple months and try it out. If you're looking for specifically Legacy information, the +EV is significantly smaller.

I won't be reading your breakdown for at least 3 months Stephen, but I've always enjoyed your articles for how in depth you would go into your decision making process.

Edit: Do you want this post deleted? I seem to be too slow in typing it up.

It's fine. Let's just leave it at this. - Bardo

[Smmenen]

This article is now free! Enjoy!

[GreenOne]

Really nice article. I'd really like to see those graphs in Legacy too. We already have a quite good DTB/DTW system with data available, so probably won't be difficult.

Even if insightful, I don't like reading about Vintage and Legacy in the same article, unless it's something strategy related for eternal formats (eg. "diversities in using brainstorm in legacy and vintage"). I would have splitted the 2 parts in different articles.

[DrJones]

I didn't like this article. WotC was stupid enough to stumble twice on the stone of Gush and yet you haven't learned from their mistake, thinking that the real problem was Merchant Scroll. Gush is stupid in that it puts four cards in your hand for free, and some times even gives you mana in the process.

Also, both you and R&D seem to think that a small restricted list is a good sign, but I see it as a sign of a degenerate environment, because not even previous degenerate decks can compete with the decks that are winning tourneys now. As an example, if flash would be unbanned in legacy, I predict most of the restricted list could be safely emptied because it would be as unplayable as the rest of the format.

Finally, you have the mistake of defining merfolk decks as fish decks, and that's not true. Fish decks were designed to beat combo, current merfolk decks are designed to beat blue decks, because blue it's too strong right now (that is, the best deck choice is to play a blue deck that beats blue decks).

[Smmenen]

I didn't like this article. WotC was stupid enough to stumble twice on the stone of Gush and yet you haven't learned from their mistake, thinking that the real problem was Merchant Scroll. Gush is stupid in that it puts four cards in your hand for free, and some times even gives you mana in the process.

Also, both you and R&D seem to think that a small restricted list is a good sign, but I see it as a sign of a degenerate environment, because not even previous degenerate decks can compete with the decks that are winning tourneys now. As an example, if flash would be unbanned in legacy, I predict most of the restricted list could be safely emptied because it would be as unplayable as the rest of the format.



Vintage and Legacy are very different formats. I think a smaller restricted list is a virtue in Vintage. A smaller banned list is not necessarily a virtue in Legacy. Different formtas, different principles.

I suggest you focus on the Legacy part of the article, which is why I linked it here.




Finally, you have the mistake of defining merfolk decks as fish decks, and that's not true. Fish decks were designed to beat combo, current merfolk decks are designed to beat blue decks, because blue it's too strong right now (that is, the best deck choice is to play a blue deck that beats blue decks).

You are right I called Merfolk decks "fish," which I would not do today if I were writing this article. It was written over three months ago, though.

[quicksilver]

First of all, let me say that I am astonished by the sheer quantity of Tarmogoyf in the field. It was in so many decks. Conservatively, I estimate that it showed up in about eighty-six decks! That’s about 45% of the field! It was in Dreadstill, Countertop decks, Canadian Threshold, Eva Green, Goyf sligh, Zoo, the Rock, Fish, and on and on. That’s simply incredible. I had no idea that Goyf was that dominant in this format.

Lol, that part cracked me up. Clearly he's never looked at legacy before.

I like how he gives graphs for certain cards and how those cards did in the tournament. I would have loved to see that for the legacy stuff too.

[Koby]

I enjoyed the article even though it is slighlty outdated. It would be interesting to see plots of the defining cards from the most recent SCG Legacy event plotted in a similar fashion.

[lorddotm]

The thing is that the metagame with Legacy does not shift that quickly, so although this is old, it is still kind of relevent to metagame predictions today (meaning Zoo dominating).

[Smmenen]

I enjoyed the article even though it is slighlty outdated. It would be interesting to see plots of the defining cards from the most recent SCG Legacy event plotted in a similar fashion.

Look for my article next week where I will do exactly that.

Also, take a look at the the last article I did, where I did that there as well: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14982