[Article] Unlocking Legacy - Design Constraints

[goobafish]

I noticed that no one had posted this. We haven't had an Unlocking Legacy in a while, so some of you might have missed this.


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


Whether it be buildings, software, Magic decks, or anything else, to design something is to create a solution for a given problem. An architect's problem is that he or she needs to design a building that fits the needs of his client. The designers of Magic decks are trying to solve a problem too. Their problem is to create a deck that is capable of winning a tournament.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Great idea, but a bit of a tease. It would have been nice at another section or two longer.

[Valtrix]

Yeah, this could have been much more in depth. It only scratched the surface on two things that we already know: Competitive decks need to deal with tarmogoyf and counterbalance.

[etrigan]

Great idea, but a bit of a tease. It would have been nice at another section or two longer.

I agree. Storm combo is a huge design restraint, arguable more than Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, that was overlooked. There are a number of decks that can deal with Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance but that perform poorly because they have little hope against combo. Some historical design constraints would have been very welcome, like Goblin Lackey or something like Affinity in Standard.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Storm Combo is not an important design constraint, because nobody plays it.

The article was brief, but that brevity does serve to highlight the relative dominance of Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance over all of the other metagame pressures in the format. Those two considerations are far and away the biggest constraints on designing new Legacy decks.

Now, that statement contains a lot of scary words, but this is still something to be expected in a healthy format. There is a best deck, with a powerful strategy, and other viable decks must be designed with that strategy in mind. It is the fact that there are so many other viable decks that leads to there being a lack of other design constraints as important as Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance. Nothing else is prevalent enough to demand such notice.

[AnwarA101]

Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance are the only two design constraints that I believe apply to virtually every deck and are prevalent enough to take into consideration. Storm does suffer from lack of prevalence at least in my experience.

My article also gave concrete methods that other decks have used to address both of these constraints. The only other part that I was thinking of adding to the article were examples of decks that illustrated adapting to both of these constraints. I felt that this topic could potentially be long enough that it would perhaps form another article that would be more focused on the design of those decks and might lose the central point of this article. Perhaps someone can tell me what else they would have liked to see added to the article.

[Zach Tartell]

I'm impressed that you're using the picture from the pool.

[Bryant Cook]

Storm Combo is not an important design constraint, because nobody plays it.

Thanks for making me puke up my breakfast.

[etrigan]

Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance are the only two design constraints that I believe apply to virtually every deck and are prevalent enough to take into consideration. Storm does suffer from lack of prevalence at least in my experience.

I disagree. Any midrange board control deck, like Train Wreck or Enchantress, with a curve mostly higher than 3 and plenty of removal, can beat Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, but they cant beat combo. That's what's keeping them from being top decks, that they cant beat combo. How is that an irrelevant design constraint?

It doesn't matter how much or how little a deck sees play for it to constrain design. Storm combo pushes out board control, just as how Counterbalance pushes out decks that curve out at two and cant fight it. I think they're both equally relevant, and should have been mentioned.

[AnwarA101]

I disagree. Any midrange board control deck, like Train Wreck or Enchantress, with a curve mostly higher than 3 and plenty of removal, can beat Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, but they cant beat combo. That's what's keeping them from being top decks, that they cant beat combo. How is that an irrelevant design constraint?


Its not an irrevelant design constraint, but a deck like TrainWreck is prevented by more than just combo keeping it out of the format. Its not particularly strong against aggressive decks like Zoo, Elves, Goblins, maybe even Merfolk. In fact, I'm not sure I would want to play TrainWreck against anything that isn't Counterbalance and Tarmogoyf. There are many things that keep TrainWreck out of the format, one of which is combo, but it isn't the most important one.



It doesn't matter how much or how little a deck sees play for it to constrain design. Storm combo pushes out board control, just as how Counterbalance pushes out decks that curve out at two and cant fight it. I think they're both equally relevant, and should have been mentioned.

I did go out of my way to point out that there were other Legacy design constraints. The article was not meant as list of all Legacy design constraints but to highlight the most important ones. I am not saying combo isn't revelant, its just not central to design in Legacy.

[Fossil4182]

I disagree. Any midrange board control deck, like Train Wreck or Enchantress, with a curve mostly higher than 3 and plenty of removal, can beat Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, but they cant beat combo. That's what's keeping them from being top decks, that they cant beat combo. How is that an irrelevant design constraint?

It doesn't matter how much or how little a deck sees play for it to constrain design. Storm combo pushes out board control, just as how Counterbalance pushes out decks that curve out at two and cant fight it. I think they're both equally relevant, and should have been mentioned.

Comments like this make me believe that the meta is somewhat healthy and balanced.

With regard to Storm combo, even if you look at the DTB forum, ANT is the deck with the highest points not listed in the DTB forum. I'll admit the point difference is significant, but I would still argue that its a deck to consider. I mean people design their sideboards substantially to deal with Ichorid, yet the deck is not widely played to the extent that people SB prepare for it. Additionally, unless your deck already has a decent game against combo, then it should be considered a design constraint. Doug Linn's article "Legacy's Allure - Gauntlet of Power" even notes that if you're deck is going to be able to compete and win, storm based combo is something that must be considered in one's deck designing as it a choice deck for many skilled players and you're likely to face it or another combo based deck at least once.

It just seems difficult for me to envision designing a deck that doesn't consider answers to combo. Its essentially like one is leaving the game to pure chance they their draw is horrific and you draw the nuts. Some decks are naturally designed to do better with cards like Duress, FoW, Daze, CB etc. But for decks that lack countermagic and or disruption it just seems stupid. Even decks running discard aren't necessarily in a better position as Bryant Cook and others have noted recent storm decks' ability to play through discard meaning that unless one is extremely skilled or lucky (prob needing both), then you better have an additional plan.

[DragoFireheart]

Storm Combo is not an important design constraint, because nobody plays it.




Yeah, and when I was playing TT at the SCG 5k, I totally didn't vs Storm round 4.

/facepalm

[Nessaja]

Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance are the only two design constraints that I believe apply to virtually every deck and are prevalent enough to take into consideration. Storm does suffer from lack of prevalence at least in my experience.

What about Chalice, wouldn't we be seeing a lot more 1cc spells if it wasn't for chalice. Or even lower curves if it wans't for 3sphere? I know that when I am tuning my deck I definitely consider both cards.

Also, Blood Moon/Back to Basics and Wastelands, these cards are of extreme importance to the format, everyone would be playing Multicolored decks if it weren't for those cards. If that isn't a constraint then I don't know what is.

And yes, I feel like having an answer for first turn Lackey is a very relevant constraint as well. Most decks that don't have an answer to a first turn lackey (or at the very least, a plan) won't make it to the top tables.

With that said, I agree with the sentiments of the other posters and felt that this article was lacking in a lot of areas.

[mercenarybdu]

Surface deal to the obvious cards that have been recognized there. Dig deeper and you gain the truth about the format.

(B and W the best stand alone colors out of all the colors in the format)

[AnwarA101]

What about Chalice, wouldn't we be seeing a lot more 1cc spells if it wasn't for chalice. Or even lower curves if it wans't for 3sphere? I know that when I am tuning my deck I definitely consider both cards.

Also, Blood Moon/Back to Basics and Wastelands, these cards are of extreme importance to the format, everyone would be playing Multicolored decks if it weren't for those cards. If that isn't a constraint then I don't know what is.

And yes, I feel like having an answer for first turn Lackey is a very relevant constraint as well. Most decks that don't have an answer to a first turn lackey (or at the very least, a plan) won't make it to the top tables.

With that said, I agree with the sentiments of the other posters and felt that this article was lacking in a lot of areas.

I never consider Chalice when thinking about a Legacy deck. I put as many 1 and 2 drops into my deck as make sense with no attention to Chalice of the Void or Trinisphere. I can't even remember the last time someone played either card against me in a tournament.

Everyone is playing multi-color decks even though Wasteland exists along with Blood Moon and Back to Basics. The number of mono-chromatic decks is very low.

Goblin Lackey was a design constraint for Legacy, but since most decks are setup to deal with Tarmogoyf they are naturally able to deal with a 1/1 creature as well. In some sense you could say Goblin Lackey constraint has been overridden by a much larger constraint namely Tarmogoyf.

[Obfuscate Freely]

I disagree. Any midrange board control deck, like Train Wreck or Enchantress, with a curve mostly higher than 3 and plenty of removal, can beat Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, but they cant beat combo. That's what's keeping them from being top decks, that they cant beat combo. How is that an irrelevant design constraint?
This is actually just wrong. Train Wreck and Enchantress have plenty of problems with Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, and with a lot of other decks in the format, as well. The fact that they might get paired against Storm Combo once in a blue moon has very little to do with their lack of success.

If a deck's combo matchup was really as much of a litmus test as you're making it out to be, we wouldn't have Aggro Loam, Vial Goblins, or Survival in the DTB forum. The idea that a viable Legacy deck must be able to beat Storm Combo is ridiculous.


It doesn't matter how much or how little a deck sees play for it to constrain design. Storm combo pushes out board control, just as how Counterbalance pushes out decks that curve out at two and cant fight it. I think they're both equally relevant, and should have been mentioned.
Counterbalance pushes out decks that can't beat it because Counterbalance sees a lot of play. To argue otherwise is pretty silly. To use your own example, Counterbalance Threshold loses to Train Wreck, but that doesn't mean that Train Wreck exerts any sort of constraint upon Threshold's design.

If you aren't likely to have to beat a deck in order to win a tournament, why in the hell would you let that deck influence your design?


With regard to Storm combo, even if you look at the DTB forum, ANT is the deck with the highest points not listed in the DTB forum. I'll admit the point difference is significant, but I would still argue that its a deck to consider. I mean people design their sideboards substantially to deal with Ichorid, yet the deck is not widely played to the extent that people SB prepare for it. Additionally, unless your deck already has a decent game against combo, then it should be considered a design constraint. Doug Linn's article "Legacy's Allure - Gauntlet of Power" even notes that if you're deck is going to be able to compete and win, storm based combo is something that must be considered in one's deck designing as it a choice deck for many skilled players and you're likely to face it or another combo based deck at least once.
Well, if Doug Linn said it, it must be true.

As a design constraint, Ichorid is very similar to Storm. Neither archetype sees enough play to warrant changes in the designs of competitive decks. If people are packing their sideboards full of Ichorid hate, anyway, then it is probably out of an irrational fear of losing to the deck.


It just seems difficult for me to envision designing a deck that doesn't consider answers to combo. Its essentially like one is leaving the game to pure chance they their draw is horrific and you draw the nuts. Some decks are naturally designed to do better with cards like Duress, FoW, Daze, CB etc. But for decks that lack countermagic and or disruption it just seems stupid. Even decks running discard aren't necessarily in a better position as Bryant Cook and others have noted recent storm decks' ability to play through discard meaning that unless one is extremely skilled or lucky (prob needing both), then you better have an additional plan.
Of course there is some chance involved in random pairings. It is your task as a tournament player to maximize your chances of winning whatever matchups you are faced with in a tournament. To do this, you must design a deck to have the best matchups, on average, against the expected field.

Every change you make to a deck in order to improve one of its matchups will affect all of its other matchups, as well. When it comes to fighting powerful linear strategies such as Ichorid and Storm Combo, many times it is difficult to significantly improve your deck's matchup against them without making great sacrifices against most other decks. Those Tormod's Crypts and Orim's Chants aren't exactly coming in every other round. Those slots are better utilized by cards that further improve your odds against more prevalent decks.

Think about it this way. What is the value, in terms of helping you win tournaments, of a playset of Tormod's Crypts that get dusted off for one round in every other tournament? How does that compare to the value of a playset of REBs that get boarded in every two or three rounds? Even if those Crypts turn what would have been a loss into a win every single time they get shuffled in (which is rather doubtful), those Blasts are still pulling more weight if they turn an L into a W only a quarter of the time they're used.

This is an extremely simplified analysis, but the point stands, and it applies to maindeck card choices (and even more fundamental design issues), as well.

Yeah, and when I was playing TT at the SCG 5k, I totally didn't vs Storm round 4.

/facepalm
Yeah, I know, that sucks. I got paired against Storm in the first round of Eli's $1K tourney this past weekend. I had nothing for him and he rolled me. However, I felt good knowing that my deck was that much better prepared for 24 out of the 26 people I was competing against that day (Bryant Cook was playing Storm, as well). I'll accept that as bad luck, and better play on my part probably would have allowed me to avoid my second loss in round 4, which would have put me in the Top 8, anyway.

The bottom line is that I can count on one hand the number of times I have been paired against Storm Combo this year. Why would I design my deck for such a rare occurrence?


What about Chalice, wouldn't we be seeing a lot more 1cc spells if it wasn't for chalice. Or even lower curves if it wans't for 3sphere? I know that when I am tuning my deck I definitely consider both cards.
No, we wouldn't. I'm not sure what format you're playing, but Legacy revolves completely around 1cc and 2cc cards. It's your loss if you aren't playing them.


Also, Blood Moon/Back to Basics and Wastelands, these cards are of extreme importance to the format, everyone would be playing Multicolored decks if it weren't for those cards. If that isn't a constraint then I don't know what is.
Likewise, everyone is playing multicolored decks. However, people do consider these cards when designing decks, mostly when building manabases (more basic Islands show up because of this). You are right that nonbasic hate is a design constraint in Legacy, but it doesn't have quite as powerful an effect on the format as Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance do.


And yes, I feel like having an answer for first turn Lackey is a very relevant constraint as well. Most decks that don't have an answer to a first turn lackey (or at the very least, a plan) won't make it to the top tables.
While this used to be very true, Goblins has fallen far out of favor since then. It still places often enough to be a DTW, but being unable to reliably answer a first-turn Lackey is hardly as critical as it once was.

[mujadaddy]

being unable to reliably answer a first-turn Lackey is hardly as critical as it once was, because of tarmogoyf.Fixed.

Good article -- a little high-level & brief, but I don't know why anyone would say it was inaccurate.

[Obfuscate Freely]

What? Why the quote-hack?

[mujadaddy]

Oh, I wouldn't really call it a hijack -- more of an elaboration. 1st turn lackey isn't as steep an obstacle in the current tournament meta, largely b/c of the prevalence of goyf. Just finishing your thought.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Perhaps someone can tell me what else they would have liked to see added to the article.



The only other part that I was thinking of adding to the article were examples of decks that illustrated adapting to both of these constraints.

That.

[beastman]

Surface deal to the obvious cards that have been recognized there. Dig deeper and you gain the truth about the format.

(B and W the best stand alone colors out of all the colors in the format)

I love reading these posts.

Oh and anwar, I wish you would get a picture of you with team brown, wearing those awesome robes.

[Nessaja]

No, we wouldn't. I'm not sure what format you're playing, but Legacy revolves completely around 1cc and 2cc cards. It's your loss if you aren't playing them.
Diversifying your mana base is a part of playing around chalice and cb, just because the current decks already do that does not mean that it isn't a constraint. You don't see any decks that do because of natural selection.


Likewise, everyone is playing multicolored decks. However, people do consider these cards when designing decks, mostly when building manabases (more basic Islands show up because of this). You are right that nonbasic hate is a design constraint in Legacy, but it doesn't have quite as powerful an effect on the format as Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance do.
You wouldn't see any monocolored decks if these cards werent around. Are you sure you're talking about Legacy or just Zoo Landstill and Thresh? Out of the DTB/W there's already Goblin and Merfolk. MUC is very relevant as well as is Dragon Stompy. These decks wouldn't exist if it wasn't for non basic land hate.


While this used to be very true, Goblins has fallen far out of favor since then. It still places often enough to be a DTW, but being unable to reliably answer a first-turn Lackey is hardly as critical as it once was.
It still is, and Tarmogoyf is one of those relevant answers. All other decks still need to be capable of doing it. The decks that are succesful now are capable of dealing with a 1st turn lackey, again natural selection, just because Goblins is now a DTW instead of a DTB does not mean that you won't see several goblin players on a tournament that you still need to beat.

Another constraint is that a lot of Graveyard hate exists in legacy, if it weren't for that Ichorid would certainly be a DTB right now. Graveyard decks would be much more dominant if it weren't for Tormod's Crypt and Relic of Progenitus - that is relevant when designing a deck. Not just Tarmogoyf and CB (Ichorid doesn't care about either.).

And more importantly, how is FoW not a constraint, seriously now. Would we see anything else then 2 land belcher/tes if it wasnt for fow?

You guys are arguing backwards, when you're talking about Design Constraints it's talking about designing new decks, not already established existing decks. The already established decks are capable of dealing with the design constraints I mentioned otherwise they wouldn't have gotten this far. There's a huge difference between netdecking and designing a deck from scratch/optimizing a deck.

[Nihil Credo]

I'm impressed that you're using the picture from the pool.

[AnwarA101]

And more importantly, how is FoW not a constraint, seriously now. Would we see anything else then 2 land belcher/tes if it wasnt for fow?


Force of Will is mostly a design constraint for combo decks. If you are playing Zoo, Eva Green, Landstill, CounterTop, Goblins, etc. you don't change the design of your deck because your opponent might be playing Force of Will. It simply doesn't change the way you design your deck at least it shouldn't.

[Nessaja]

Force of Will is mostly a design constraint for combo decks. If you are playing Zoo, Eva Green, Landstill, CounterTop, Goblins, etc. you don't change the design of your deck because your opponent might be playing Force of Will. It simply doesn't change the way you design your deck at least it shouldn't.
Many decks have the option of implementing a "combo win" in their list but don't because it's too fragile in a FoW infested metagame. This even applies to small mini combos that don't win you the game but just require different parts (stifle nought) - FoW is very relevant in designing those decks.

[Nihil Credo]

Many decks have the option of implementing a "combo win" in their list but don't because it's too fragile in a FoW infested metagame. This even applies to small mini combos that don't win you the game but just require different parts (stifle nought) - FoW is very relevant in designing those decks.
The success of Natural Order in {Elves VEL Survival} decks disproves this statement. It basically got crammed into the same lists as before, and it worked just fine.

The reason most mini-combos are shunned by board-based decks is not FoW, but that they usually don't provide a sufficient ROI vis-a-vis more consistent options (ex. Food Chain vs. Æther Vial). When they are strong enough to win the game on the spot from a balanced or unfavourable board position, they still get played despite the presence of free countermagic (Painter/Stone, NO, StifleNought).

[AnwarA101]

Many decks have the option of implementing a "combo win" in their list but don't because it's too fragile in a FoW infested metagame. This even applies to small mini combos that don't win you the game but just require different parts (stifle nought) - FoW is very relevant in designing those decks.

Yes, you are right in a sense. Adding a combo component to your deck makes you consider Force of Will because its very likely that it will stop your combo part from happening. I'm not arguing that Force of Will isn't a design constraint. I am however arguing that it isn't as broad a constraint as Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance. Ofcourse there will be cases where Force of Will is more of a constraint than those two cards, but I don't think that's the case for the majority of the decks.

[Nessaja]

The success of Natural Order in {Elves VEL Survival} decks disproves this statement. It basically got crammed into the same lists as before, and it worked just fine.
I don't see how it dissproves anything. I'm fairly certain that NO is definitely taken into account in both testing and design of Survival Elves. Even moreso in the builds that run the Mirror Entity combo which is getting dropped in a lot of lists. I'm fairly sure that that doesn't have a lot to do with either CB or Tarmogoyf.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Diversifying your mana base is a part of playing around chalice and cb, just because the current decks already do that does not mean that it isn't a constraint. You don't see any decks that do because of natural selection.
Diversifying your mana base? Do you mean diversifying your mana curve? If so, yes, that is one way people build their decks to combat Counterbalance. Incidentally, this also combats Chalice, but that doesn't make the latter card a relevant design constraint.

Read Anwar's quote again:


I never consider Chalice when thinking about a Legacy deck.

From Anwar's perspective, it is clear that Chalice is not a design constraint at all. How can you blame him, if he can't even remember the last time someone played the card against him in a tournament?


You wouldn't see any monocolored decks if these cards werent around. Are you sure you're talking about Legacy or just Zoo Landstill and Thresh? Out of the DTB/W there's already Goblin and Merfolk. MUC is very relevant as well as is Dragon Stompy. These decks wouldn't exist if it wasn't for non basic land hate.
I agreed that nonbasic hate is an important design constraint, but it is not at the same level as Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance. When I am designing a new deck, the influence that nonbasic hate has on my design is generally confined to the specific setup of my manabase.


It still is, and Tarmogoyf is one of those relevant answers. All other decks still need to be capable of doing it. The decks that are succesful now are capable of dealing with a 1st turn lackey, again natural selection, just because Goblins is now a DTW instead of a DTB does not mean that you won't see several goblin players on a tournament that you still need to beat.
You are far overstating the prevalence of Goblins in the current metagame. You need to beat several goblin players in a tournament? I haven't played against Goblins since the Grand Prix. Being able to answer turn-one Lackey is no longer a requirement in Legacy.

However, as Anwar said, having efficient ways of dealing with Tarmogoyf is a requirement, and many of the tools used to accomplish that also happen to work against Lackey. It is also becoming important for decks to be prepared for turn-one Wild Nacatls, which themselves are no easier to kill than Goblin Lackeys. This is why successful decks are still capable of stopping the goblin, and, again, it is mostly incidental.


Another constraint is that a lot of Graveyard hate exists in legacy, if it weren't for that Ichorid would certainly be a DTB right now. Graveyard decks would be much more dominant if it weren't for Tormod's Crypt and Relic of Progenitus - that is relevant when designing a deck. Not just Tarmogoyf and CB (Ichorid doesn't care about either.).

And more importantly, how is FoW not a constraint, seriously now. Would we see anything else then 2 land belcher/tes if it wasnt for fow?
You are right that the presence of powerful graveyard hate and Force of Will are design constraints, but they don't end up being critical considerations for many decks. Graveyard hate only has to be taken into account when you are designing a deck that utilizes the graveyard, and even then only when that use of the graveyard is crucial to the deck's strategy. Force of Will is even narrower, only being a true design constraint for decks that often have to invest several cards at a time into easily countered spells (combination decks, essentially).


I don't see how it dissproves anything. I'm fairly certain that NO is definitely taken into account in both testing and design of Survival Elves. Even moreso in the builds that run the Mirror Entity combo which is getting dropped in a lot of lists. I'm fairly sure that that doesn't have a lot to do with either CB or Tarmogoyf.
Did you mean to say that Force of Will is taken into account during the designing of Elves? Please proofread your posts.

If that's what you meant, I disagree. I don't see why Force of Will would have any significant impact on the design of Survival Elves. The inclusion of Natural Order, a card that blows through Counterbalance and usually trumps even multiple Tarmogoyfs, but is a crippling target for Force of Will, supports this.

[Nessaja]

Diversifying your mana base? Do you mean diversifying your mana curve? If so, yes, that is one way people build their decks to combat Counterbalance. Incidentally, this also combats Chalice, but that doesn't make the latter card a relevant design constraint.From Anwar's perspective, it is clear that Chalice is not a design constraint at all. How can you blame him, if he can't even remember the last time someone played the card against him in a tournament?
And from my prespective Chalice is a relevant card in both deck design and a common card to play against (a lot of decks play it, Aggro Loam, White Stax, Dragon Stompy, Muc) in tournaments. In large tournaments meeting atleast one of these is not uncommon. Combatting Counterbalance isn't done by including 1 and 2 mana spells while not rolling over to chalice is already achieved by not just including 1 mana spells. In the decks where you do want to run mostly 1 mana spells you better have some sort of answer against a Chalice at 1.


I agreed that nonbasic hate is an important design constraint, but it is not at the same level as Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance. When I am designing a new deck, the influence that nonbasic hate has on my design is generally confined to the specific setup of my manabase.
I've frequently dropped a color from a deck because the mana base is too fragile and this is a choice a lot of people make, if you don't care that's fine but even with just tuning a deck colors get dropped because of land hate.


You are far overstating the prevalence of Goblins in the current metagame. You need to beat several goblin players in a tournament? I haven't played against Goblins since the Grand Prix. Being able to answer turn-one Lackey is no longer a requirement in Legacy.
You're misreading, I was talking about their presence. And I'm not overstating that, there are still several Goblin player on each tournament I go to a list like this: http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13881 isn't uncommon at all.


However, as Anwar said, having efficient ways of dealing with Tarmogoyf is a requirement, and many of the tools used to accomplish that also happen to work against Lackey. It is also becoming important for decks to be prepared for turn-one Wild Nacatls, which themselves are no easier to kill than Goblin Lackeys. This is why successful decks are still capable of stopping the goblin, and, again, it is mostly incidental.
A turn one Wild Nacatl does not have the same impact when unanswered as a turn 1 lackey. Many times a Nacatl can stick for several turns but when a lackey is unanswered without mass removal in hand you're in much bigger trouble.


Did you mean to say that Force of Will is taken into account during the designing of Elves? Please proofread your posts.
I meant exactly what I said in the same deck the Mirror Entity/Priest of Titania/Wirewood Symbiote combo is being taken out by many and it doesn't have anything to do with Counterbalance or Tarmogoyf. Natural Order isn't a combo card 1 green creature requirement is a given in decks like survival other without that clause it's just a single card, a combo usually has a requirement of at least 2 cards.
That NO is in Survival Elves just means that Elves have a strong Plan B when playing against blue.

IMO, you guys are approaching restrictions the wrong way when looking at the established decks and then concluding that it works. Instead you should be looking at the decks that aren't working and looking for a reason why they don't, while in some cases I'll immediatly admit the CB and Tarmogoyf play a factor in many other cases they aren't the main reason when you are defining the main design constraints in Legacy you can't just ignore these.

[Tea]

Protection is also part of the deck-design. So I don't think force of will is a design-constraint to Combo.
Tarmogoyf is definitely a design constraint, for he is always a superior creature.

[Happy Gilmore]

Protection is also part of the deck-design. So I don't think force of will is a design-constraint to Combo.
Tarmogoyf is definitely a design constraint, for he is always a superior creature.

??? FoW is just as much as a design constraint for Combo as CB is. There is no question about this. The presence of Tarmogoyf applies only to the speed not to the design of a combo deck. And I believe most combo decks such as TES can win well before Goyf kills you given that CB and FoW are not considerations.

[Tea]

This may be my fault, but you misunderstood me concerning tarmogyf.
I didn't refer to combo, but to other decks running tarmogoyf themselves.
What I want to say is that tarmogoyf is the reason that a lot of interesting creatures are not played because they are just worse.

For sure, FoW weakens Combo.
However, positively, the presence of FoW makes designing combo-decks a lot more interesting as they now have to take into account the aspect of protection.


EDIT:
I have elaborated a definition of the term “in Format A there are more design constraints than in Format B”:
In Format A there are more design constraints than in Format B if and only if in Format B more different cards are played than in Format A.

I hope this makes sense

[DragoFireheart]

I didn't refer to combo, but to other decks running tarmogoyf themselves.
What I want to say is that tarmogoyf is the reason that a lot of interesting creatures are not played because they are just worse.


Don't you mean that a lot of interesting green creatures don't get played because of him?

Apes get played in Zoo, Goblins get played, Merfolk get played, etc. You are over exaggerating the impact Tarmogoyf is making.

In the case of Threshold and Counter-Top decks I would agree.

[tivadar]

Hmm, why are we arguing? Both FoW and Tarmogoyf are design constraints, but for different decks. If your deck wins through combo, you're not going to worry about Goyf. If your deck wins through aggro, you're not going to (seriously) worry about FoW.

The way I see it there are 4 backbreakers for various decks in the format that they design around:
Tarmogoyf: For aggro and control decks
Counterbalance: For aggro and control decks
Wasteland: For multicolor decks
Force of Will: For combo decks

If any of these cards were removed from the format, decklists would drastically change. One could also add duals to this list (without duals more than 2 on-colors would be near impossible to play), but these have really been a staple from the beginning, and at this point would seem like adding basic lands to the list. I don't think they count...

[Tea]

Well,
"Design Constraints" sounds a bit negative, I think there are al lot of postive aspects, too. However, as I'm from Germany, I may be wrong...

[FoolofaTook]

I'd have added Wasteland as a primary design constraint at this point. Lots of 3 color decks would be better as 4 colors with a small splash for the one thing they don't do well. Wasteland (and Stifle, but primarily Wasteland) keep them playing it safe. Vindicate would be played in a lot more decks if Wasteland was not a major factor in every mid-sized meta.

[BreathWeapon]

I'd have added Wasteland as a primary design constraint at this point. Lots of 3 color decks would be better as 4 colors with a small splash for the one thing they don't do well. Wasteland (and Stifle, but primarily Wasteland) keep them playing it safe. Vindicate would be played in a lot more decks if Wasteland was not a major factor in every mid-sized meta.

Huh? Vindicate is played as LD + removal, if Wasteland wasn't a factor than Vindicate would never see play because Maelstrom Pulse > Vindicate in both mana cost (G>W) and functionality (X for 1's and Token sweepers)

[FoolofaTook]

Huh? Vindicate is played as LD + removal, if Wasteland wasn't a factor than Vindicate would never see play because Maelstrom Pulse > Vindicate in both mana cost (G>W) and functionality (X for 1's and Token sweepers)

Vindicate is better than Maelstrom Pulse. It hits everything without Shroud and that's a functionality that a lot of decks would graft on if they could. It also avoids the one minor functional issue that Maelstrom Pulse has, which is it doesn't resolve symmetrical situations in your favor. Keeping your own Goyf and killing theirs is good. Same for Counterbalance. Engineered Explosives + Vindicate is a much better removal combination than Engineered Explosives + Maelstrom Pulse. Not saying that Maelstrom Pulse isn't good but it's not as good.

[BreathWeapon]

Vindicate is better than Maelstrom Pulse. It hits everything without Shroud and that's a functionality that a lot of decks would graft on if they could. It also avoids the one minor functional issue that Maelstrom Pulse has, which is it doesn't resolve symmetrical situations in your favor. Keeping your own Goyf and killing theirs is good. Same for Counterbalance. Engineered Explosives + Vindicate is a much better removal combination than Engineered Explosives + Maelstrom Pulse. Not saying that Maelstrom Pulse isn't good but it's not as good.

Yeah, that's a reasonable argument - I retract that statement

[Obfuscate Freely]

What decks want to play Vindicate, but don't? 3cc spot removal is actually awful a lot of the time.

[keys]

What decks want to play Vindicate, but don't? 3cc spot removal is actually awful a lot of the time.

Eva Green, Aggro Loam, Zoo, and Team America to a small extent.

Vindicate and Pulse are the ultimate topdeck when you're against the wall, and are never really a dead draw.

[AnwarA101]

Eva Green, Aggro Loam, Zoo, and Team America to a small extent.

Vindicate and Pulse are the ultimate topdeck when you're against the wall, and are never really a dead draw.

But this isn't necessarily because of Wasteland. The decks you cited don't want to play White(or Black in Zoo's case) becuase it adds nothing to their decks other than Vindicate. It adds another constraint which is that they have to play lands that produce white mana. Wasteland just makes this decision less palatable.

[Michael Keller]

Vindicate and Pulse are the ultimate topdeck when you're against the wall, and are never really a dead draw.

It's hard to call Vindicate a "dead" draw when taking into consideration why it made its way into your deck to begin with; its utility is obvious.

I also wouldn't go so far as to call Vindicate the "ultimate" top-deck, which really depends on what you mean by "against the wall". If by that you mean an impending alpha strike by an opponent, then perhaps. But if you're staring down the barrel of an Ad Nauseum, then Vindicate is probably one of the last cards you want to have. It really just depends.