[Premium Article] CounterTop Depths in Legacy

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/18227_So_Many_Insane_Plays_CounterTop_Depths_in_Legacy.html

Editor's Blurb:


Monday, November 2nd - In today’s So Many Insane Plays, Stephen Menendian presents an exciting new deck for Legacy: CounterTop Depths. He also touches on his intriguing debate on Collusion in Magic from a few weeks ago, answering a couple of interesting forum posts along the way…

Enjoy!

[Nate]

Great article! I wish I would've picked up those Dark Depths weeks ago when they were still $5; I would sleeve this up and play it!

[e1567]

Dude I am loving this frenzy over dark depths, I got a play set for 2 bucks over a year ago, and the shipping was 1.50. Does anyone wanna buy my 4 for 100?:cool:

But seriously I like the idea of the deck, it seems a little familiar to the NL Grindstone vairiant here on the forums i wonder which one is stronger as an alternative win to the counter/top combo with Goyf and confidant beats, I'm leaning towards the grindstone variant.

[Smmenen]

All of the NL variants seem to have a hybrid win condition, whether it's Natural Order, Grindstone or, now, this.

[jazzykat]

Can just the decklist be shared for non-premium members?

[Bardo]

Can just the decklist be shared for non-premium members?

Yes. Decklists aren't premium (i.e. "not free") content--at least, they didn't used to be.

[keys]

I wonder how similar this list is to the UBG one I posted in the discussion thread a couple months ago.

[MattH]

4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance

4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Vendilion Clique

4 Vampire Hexmage
4 Dark Depths

4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Force Of Will
4 Ponder

1 Island
1 Swamp
1 Flooded Strand
1 Misty Rainforest
4 Polluted Delta
2 Scalding Tarn
3 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
1 Urborg, Tomb Of Yawgmoth


SB: 2 Threads Of Disloyalty
SB: 4 Blue Elemental Blast
SB: 2 Extirpate
SB: 1 Hydroblast
SB: 2 Krosan Grip
SB: 4 Ravenous Trap

[keys]

Dreadstill, Tempo Thresh, and Merfolk would appear to be difficult matchups for this deck since it doesn't look very well equipped to deal with Stifle, Wasteland, and well, creatures.

[voltron00x]

All of the NL variants seem to have a hybrid win condition, whether it's Natural Order, Grindstone or, now, this.

These types of hybridization are the future of CB/Top decks, in my opinion. The traditional approach of grinding out wins with Goyf is ill-suited for a metagame so thoroughly infested with them.

The CB / Natural Order lists from the Philly $5K (one made T8, the other ended up 9th) are pretty good. We got some testing in with them last night, and having the ability to pull out a fast win condition via Natural Order has a dramatic effect in some match-ups. I imagine the Dark Depths deck functions in much the same way - the advantage is that Natural Order ignores Stifle, Spell Snare, and usually, Counterbalance (along with some other less-common cards like Repeal, Pithing Needle, etc; you can also bypass Threads, Sower, and so on).

The idea of grafting the Dark Depths combo into something a little closer to traditional Dreadstill shell (as opposed to a normal CB/Top shell) is also probably potent...

[sunshine]

.
.
.
1 Flooded Strand
.
.
2 Scalding Tarn
.
.
.


?

I don't have premium, but I can't quite imagine what these are for (instead of more Misty Rainforest).

[Gekoratel]

He's already maxing out on Polluted Delta which is the only relevant fetch land in the deck since it can find the Swamp in addition to all of the duals. All of the other fetches are equivalent, the 1 Strand, 1 Rainforest, 2 Tarn are spreadout to dodge random cards like Pithing Needle and Extirpate.

[Aggro_zombies]

It seems like Tarn would be better than Strand here because it makes it easier to run Firespout in the board to combat aggro. This deck looks like it suffers from the traditional Counterbalance conundrum of dealing with fast, aggressive strategies. Maxing out the Tarns would let you run a Volcanic or a Mountain and Firespouts in the sideboard to deal with that.

[Gekoratel]

His list isn't running Firespout but if he was Strand and Tarn are the same unless he is running a Mountain. A Mountain would not combo well in the deck as you can't return it with Daze and doesn't help cast any spell other than the potential sideboard Firespout. Unless I'm missing something I don't see how the fetches matter.

[sunshine]

He's already maxing out on Polluted Delta which is the only relevant fetch land in the deck since it can find the Swamp in addition to all of the duals. All of the other fetches are equivalent, the 1 Strand, 1 Rainforest, 2 Tarn are spreadout to dodge random cards like Pithing Needle and Extirpate.

Hah, I was too distracted by the fact that nothing required white or red to notice that there's no basic Forest - which would be pretty unnecessary anyway. A+ for reading skills.

[deadlock]

These types of hybridization are the future of CB/Top decks, in my opinion. The traditional approach of grinding out wins with Goyf is ill-suited for a metagame so thoroughly infested with them.

Very true, there four combos out there, which are compareable
- Stifle / Nought
- NO / green creature
- Painter / Stone
- This one

One could dedicate a whole thread to this topic, let alone the different shells one could run these combos.

Just thinking about this combo, one great advantage of it, is that its so easy to tutor it up. Either with Living Wish (both pieces) or Gifts Ungiven (+ Grim Discovery + Living Wish / Regrowth / Witness).

Running 3-4 Living Wish with one copy of both Depths and Hexmage side gives the additional advantage of not drawing the same combo piece twice that often. Besides a nice toolbox of e.g. Trygon Predator, Witness, Bob or a Tombstalker.

Gifts could be used even in a CB shell as a 2 or 3 of, its nice in the mid-late game to get both pieces for just 4 mana. It requires Grim Discovery and another recursion spell though.
Gifts can be used either as a suplement / lategame card in the described manner, or as a 4of in a more control-heavy shell, closer to ITF - which i wouldnt recommend for now.

Beside the lack of tutor cards, i definitly think that the 4 Daze are out of place, this deck relies heavily on CB, so i would designe the mana curve accordingly. And unlike in a tempo deck, the value of Daze gets reduced with each turn.

[Aggro_zombies]

His list isn't running Firespout but if he was Strand and Tarn are the same unless he is running a Mountain. A Mountain would not combo well in the deck as you can't return it with Daze and doesn't help cast any spell other than the potential sideboard Firespout. Unless I'm missing something I don't see how the fetches matter.
I know that, I'm saying he probably should be running Firespout. The problem of running only one or two Volcanic Islands is that a single Wasteland shuts down your ability to Firespout, which is pretty rough (and can happen against Merfolk or Goblins).

EDIT: I'm not saying the Mountain is optimal, though. It would need to be tested, but I suspect that timing your fetches correctly would avoid some of that, and one Mountain shouldn't increase your mulligan rate too much.

[Smmenen]

While I appreciate the interest in the article and deck, I think this is one of the reasons that SCG and I have moved away from making decklists from premium articles free. Most of the questions/suggestions raised are addressed explicitly or implicitly in the article itself, so it becomes tedious as well as difficult to have to reiterate points made there, here.

As a result, certain questions or claims may appear to be unanswered when they are not. For example, my explanation for the strategy of the deck in the article makes it clear why you would not want Living Wish or other tutors. Similarly, the advantages of this particular hybridization (as well as the drawbacks) are fully explicated (as far I as I could) in the article.

[Aggro_zombies]

Well, at least as far as Firespout goes, the article was overly optimistic about its chances against aggro and Merfolk. Merfolk actually has a lot of ways to stop the combo: Stifle on the Depths trigger, Spell Snare or some other counter on Hexmage, Wasteland on Depths in response to Hexmage, etc. It also has a pretty insane clock and the ability to slow you down with Standstill. All of those taken together are the reasons why Merfolk beats up traditional Counterbalance decks; the addition of a 20/20 combo that interacts poorly with the Merfolk deck's disruption package doesn't necessarily help.

Goblins obviously has few ways to stop the combo in the main (Wasteland and Warren Weirding). In the board, Goblins will have access possibly to Blasts and Needles, but that's much more up in the air because it's more dependent on what splash or splashes are being run. Goblins isn't as easy as you make it sound, but it's not a losing proposition either.

However, Zoo will most likely bring in some combination of its own Blasts, Choke, Shusher, and extra PtEs. The Zoo player may also opt to bring in Grip to get rid of Counterbalance, which is your main way of ensuring the survival of both your Hexmages and your token. This additional disruption, combined with Zoo's fast clock and powerful beaters (and Pridemage main), are the ways in which Zoo typically smashes traditional Counterbalance decks. Again, the addition of a 20/20 flying combo that interacts poorly with their disruption seems weak, although you trade having to worry about the uncounterable Wasteland for having to worry about Path. That's a slight improvement, but it's cold comfort considering the fact that Zoo's guys all beat the snot out of Hexmage (with the exception of Lavamancer, which shocks the snot out of Hexmage) and can swarm around your defenses pretty quickly.

A lot of your optimism assumes that you get Marit Lage out in the first several turns: turn one Sea, draw spell, turn two black land, Hexmage, turn three Depths, turn four swing for the fences. This may be less of a dreamlike scenario with four of each combo piece main, but it also only gives you turn one to find a piece you're missing without slowing the sequence down. Doing that opens you up to getting put into alpha strike range of Zoo and "Whoops, I just played and then Vialed out two lords this turn" from Merfolk. A turn-one Daze also sets you back a full turn, so it's less of a Time Walk when you're facing down a deck that makes a 3/3 on turn one, a 3/4 or 4/5 on turn two, and an X/X Knight on turn three, and then drops Price of Progress on turn four to fry you. I think the deck could realistically assemble the combo by turn five in most games; whether or not it sticks is entirely dependent on how much manipulation you were able to use to find counters instead of finding combo pieces. I just get the general impression that the write-up is too much from a goldfishing perspective and not enough from an actual interactive perspective. That you're a good player hardly helps, since superior play skill starts to act as a confounding variable in the deck's wins: it's more difficult to concretely say that you won that game because of the deck you're playing, or because you're just the better player there. After all, there was that Japanese pro who Top 8'd a major Legacy event in Japan with a card-for-card Type II Kithkin list - any lesser player would have dropped out long before that.

Basically, I'm just not feeling how the addition of Hexdepths makes up for Counterbalance's general weakness right now. I mean, sure, it ends the game in one attack step, but that doesn't change the fact that the shell it's in is the main prey item for a large swath of the format's currently successful decks. This deck really feels like it could have been great six months ago, but the meta is largely passing it by right now.

[Bardo]

While I appreciate the interest in the article and deck, I think this is one of the reasons that SCG and I have moved away from making decklists from premium articles free. Most of the questions/suggestions raised are addressed explicitly or implicitly in the article itself, so it becomes tedious as well as difficult to have to reiterate points made there, here.

So, SCG changed their policy on allowing decklists in premium articles from being public? I remember Pete saying this wasn't the case, though that was a couple of years ago. Or does this policy only apply to articles you write for SCG?

Makes sense, I guess, but it is annoying.

[Forbiddian]

While I appreciate the interest in the article and deck, I think this is one of the reasons that SCG and I have moved away from making decklists from premium articles free. Most of the questions/suggestions raised are addressed explicitly or implicitly in the article itself, so it becomes tedious as well as difficult to have to reiterate points made there, here.

As a result, certain questions or claims may appear to be unanswered when they are not. For example, my explanation for the strategy of the deck in the article makes it clear why you would not want Living Wish or other tutors. Similarly, the advantages of this particular hybridization (as well as the drawbacks) are fully explicated (as far I as I could) in the article.

I understand where you're coming from -- Source lets you post for free, and then when the decklists get out, people talk about them, but then you don't want to say anything because you already wrote an article about it and you don't want to give up too much article content out for free.

I think it's a bit unfair that you're using The Source for feedback/advertising your articles (including some pandering I'd consider shameless like, "There's never been a better time to get a Premium Membership!"), but then refusing to explain the content of the article.

I think it's very unfair that you're complaining about The Source members discussing your deck without reading the article.


I'm not sure what the precedent is on decklists being released as free or what not. I would assume just from looking at the way tournaments are laid out that decklists are not protected IP, because T8 and T16 decklists are routinely released, and occasionally the entire field is released.

I'm also not sure what the precedent is on the writer talking about his article. You're extremely clammed up about discussing anything related to the content of the article -- which is your right, obviously, but then I wonder:

What the fuck is the point of this thread if you can't A) Talk to the writer of the article about the content of the article or B) Discuss the decklist (and possibly other specifics) with other members?

[Aggro_zombies]

I think it's a bit unfair that you're using The Source for feedback/advertising your articles (including some pandering I'd consider shameless like, "There's never been a better time to get a Premium Membership!"), but then refusing to explain the content of the article.

I think it's very unfair that you're complaining about The Source members discussing your deck without reading the article.
While you have a point, even if the article were free it's still annoying to have a decklist posted and then have people bring up issues with it that you already addressed in the article. The point of this thread was to point out that someone wrote about Legacy, and then let people who could read the article make informed commentary. It would have been better to not post the list because then people who hadn't read the article wouldn't have had anything to say until it went free in three months. Now, people are basically just rehashing things he already talked about.

EDIT: It's less about spoiling premium content and more about how fucking irritating it is to have to repeat yourself over and over again. At least this way, people have an excuse for not reading the article.

[BreathWeapon]

Vampire/Depths is no where near as good as Stifle/Dreadnought or Natural Order, it's vulnerable to Spellsnare, Stifle and Wasteland, which are the cornerstones of Tempo-Thresh, and the cards themselves have little to no utility by themselves.

I doubt we'll see the combo outside of Extended

[Aggro_zombies]

Vampire/Depths is no where near as good as Stifle/Dreadnought or Natural Order, it's vulnerable to Spellsnare, Stifle and Wasteland, which are the cornerstones of Tempo-Thresh, and the cards themselves have little to no utility by themselves.

I doubt we'll see the combo outside of Extended
Now, this is just wrong. Stifle-Nought is vulnerable to Grip and Pridemage, both of which are all over the place right now. Natural Order poses a lot of deckbuilding restrictions in terms of the number of slots you have to dedicate to making it good, and it gives the opponent two turns to find some way around it, instead of one. Depths has the advantage of doing something by itself (it can still make Cthulhu without Hexmage, albeit slowly), and Hexmage kills Planeswalkers (increasingly prevalent), resets Vial and Chalice, and does a few other useful things. Both of these are obviously less good in terms of utility than Stifle, but they're not as sucky as drawing the guy you want to NO out (usually because you can't cast him), and Dreadnought usually isn't going anywhere in the absence of Stifle. Furthermore, Stifle-Nought can get 2-for-1'd at any time by killing Nought (which can also be chumped to slow down the clock), but there's only a limited opportunity to truly 2-for-1 Hex-Depths (in response to Hexmage activation).

They've got their high and low points, to be sure, but I don't think you can call one or the other worse. In fact, I would say that of the three you listed, Stifle-Nought is the worst, since Nought is so much more vulnerable than Cthulhu or the stuff you could get with Natural Order.

[BreathWeapon]

Even still, I doubt Vampire/Depths goes the distance, the combo is disrupted by Lightning Bolt and Wasteland. NO is probably on top, running 4 Tarmogoyfs, 8 Forest Fetchlands and probably either Werebear or Exalted Hierarch really isn't much of a deckbuilding restriction.

I'm unconvinced, but feel free to run with it.

[jazzykat]

A few very brief comments posted:

1. If the decklist isn't public then there would probably be about half of the posts if not less regarding the article. Normally I ignore threads that say premium on them but this one gives me a chance to participate.

2. The list put up looks a lot like EPIC Painter/NL Painter but I guess all the lists start looking the same when we use the same shell. Having worked a lot in the painter category I can tell you that not having any creature removal was AWFUL after a while. This combo can come online by turn 3 at the fastest just like painter, and instead of artifact hate and all creature removal, gets owned by stifle, wasteland and creature removal. Albeit, wasteland is only relevant if you have played the comboey land before the hexmage.

3. The list appears to be an incremental improvement/response to our metagame which while looks pretty good, needs to have a strong answer to creatures in case you don't find your combo now.

[Aggro_zombies]

Albeit, wasteland is only relevant if you have played the comboey land before the hexmage.
"When Dark Depths has no ice counters on it, sacrifice it. If you do, put an indestructible legendary 20/20 black Avatar creature token with flying named Marit Lage onto the battlefield."

Not true. If they lead with Hexmage and pass back to you without having Depths in play, you can drop Wasteland and sit on it. Your opponent is thus unable to make Marit Lage because you can sacrifice Wasteland in response to the Depths trigger to destroy it. The "if you do" part means that you have to sacrifice it to get the token, but the ability to do so will only trigger once (when the last counter is removed). Wasteland is essentially a Needle, except for the triggered ability of Depths.

EDIT: Stephen, I'd be interested to see what you think of my list (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=396591&postcount=5) from a recent very small-scale tournament. It addresses the issues mentioned by jazzykat by taking a more control tack, and generates card advantage with a Loam engine. It's obviously more vulnerable to specific hate cards, but somewhat less vulnerable to hate strategies.

Basically, I'm worried that you're sticking this in a Counterbalance shell. That particular deck is the target of lots of hate right now; while having a one-kit-K.O. combo certainly helps, you have to survive long enough to get it out, which can be a problem for that deck against Merfolk, Zoo, and Canadian Thresh. If you're going for the fastest combo possible, why are you mucking about Counterbalance? You'd never want to drop it before the combo because it takes away from your ability to dig for the combo. If, on the other hand, you want to go for a more controlling angle, how do you keep out of alpha strike range long enough to assemble both combo pieces? It seems like you'd have your hands full just trying to survive against Zoo: getting stuck chumping while the momentum shifts further and further in the Zoo player's favor. Hex-Depths can steal games, but it's only easy to stick in a vacuum; dropping Counterbalance against Zoo eats up precious turns that you usually need to spend trying to stem the hemorrhaging of your life total (not to mention, it has zero effect on the board).

[jazzykat]

"When Dark Depths has no ice counters on it, sacrifice it. If you do, put an indestructible legendary 20/20 black Avatar creature token with flying named Marit Lage onto the battlefield."

Not true. If they lead with Hexmage and pass back to you without having Depths in play, you can drop Wasteland and sit on it. Your opponent is thus unable to make Marit Lage because you can sacrifice Wasteland in response to the Depths trigger to destroy it. The "if you do" part means that you have to sacrifice it to get the token, but the ability to do so will only trigger once (when the last counter is removed). Wasteland is essentially a Needle, except for the triggered ability of Depths.



Hmm...I totally stand corrected. I don't see how this is better than NL Painter or NLU for that reason. It may be on par with NLP but as sad as I am to say it, I don't believe it is played anymore.

[kkoie]

While I appreciate the interest in the article and deck, I think this is one of the reasons that SCG and I have moved away from making decklists from premium articles free. Most of the questions/suggestions raised are addressed explicitly or implicitly in the article itself, so it becomes tedious as well as difficult to have to reiterate points made there, here.

As a result, certain questions or claims may appear to be unanswered when they are not. For example, my explanation for the strategy of the deck in the article makes it clear why you would not want Living Wish or other tutors. Similarly, the advantages of this particular hybridization (as well as the drawbacks) are fully explicated (as far I as I could) in the article.

It sounds like to me, that in order to have a relavent discussion you have to have paid premium and have read your article. Without having spent $, we can only see your decklist, but none of the comments and critiques you've made associated to your decklist, right? All logical statements.

Well then, considering this posting you made (see below):


http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/18227_So_Many_Insane_Plays_CounterTop_Depths_in_Legacy.html

Editor's Blurb:

Enjoy!

I propose that "Premium Article" threads that have links to pay-to-read articles on other websites are no better than SPAM. They fall under "lack of content" under the forum rules in that not everyone can read the article under the link. On top of that it appears that discussion of the decklist by non-paying members if starcity games is no longer being encouraged.

So if this thread isn't SPAM, I'd like to know what the whole point of the thread is then!? A forum for premium access members to discuss the articles? Starcity games has a forum for that already, or is their forum down?

If you take away the decklist and the discussion surrounding it, add to that the discouragement of revealing detailed comments made in the article, and I don't see how this thread is anything else but a big advert to spend money on Starcity Games.

[Smmenen]

Vampire/Depths is no where near as good as Stifle/Dreadnought or Natural Order, it's vulnerable to Spellsnare, Stifle and Wasteland, which are the cornerstones of Tempo-Thresh, and the cards themselves have little to no utility by themselves.


I definitely disagree.

Dreadnaught is pretty awful right now, and has been since the printing of Pridemage.

I think where people are getting tripped up is that they continue to think that this is a combo deck. It's not. It's a CounterTop-Goyf deck that has a combo finish that it may or may not need to use. The core of this deck is Bob, Counterbalance/Top, and Goyf. The idea of the hybrid finish is that it is an advantage against decks like Zoo, Goblins, Merfolk, etc. Also, in those matchups, Hexmage's first strike is pretty sweet.

I think the idea of building a Hexmage deck as a combo deck is not a good idea. It's a secondary win condition in this deck. most of the aforementioned decks that run wasteland will likely waste the first dual they see. and if they don't, then that means you get full use ofy our mana base 'til then. if players start to adjust to this deck, then i could see running pithing needle post board.

[Nate]

It sounds like to me, that in order to have a relavent discussion you have to have paid premium and have read your article. Without having spent $, we can only see your decklist, but none of the comments and critiques you've made associated to your decklist, right?

Well, you can only see the decklist because some Premium member copy/pasted it from the article. Normally you don't even get that.


So if this thread isn't SPAM, I'd like to know what the whole point of the thread is then!? A forum for premium access members to discuss the articles? Starcity games has a forum for that already, or is their forum down?

Yes - a thread for Premium members to discuss the article. SCG does have a forum for Legacy (and even a thread dedicated to this article!) though we all know that the activity in those forums is nowhere near the level it is here.

My point:
You're right, this thread is only useful for some. If you're part of that some, then this is a better place to discuss the article than the SCG thread. If you're not part of that some, then this thread may not be very useful to you as you don't know the context in which the discussions are taking place.
In that case, try to follow along, please don't muck up the discussion with off-topic premium-access-only complaints/comments, or just don't bother with the thread.

And yes, this post is a bit hypocritical considering I'm only adding fuel to the fire, but I had to say it.

[Nightmare]

Yes - a thread for Premium members to discuss the article. SCG does have a forum for Legacy (and even a thread dedicated to this article!) though we all know that the activity in those forums is nowhere near the level it is here.

My point:
You're right, this thread is only useful for some. If you're part of that some, then this is a better place to discuss the article than the SCG thread. If you're not part of that some, then this thread may not be very useful to you as you don't know the context in which the discussions are taking place.
In that case, try to follow along, please don't muck up the discussion with off-topic premium-access-only complaints/comments, or just don't bother with the thread.
Change all of this to say "Goblins players" instead of "Premium members" and then pretend you guys all play zoo. That's pretty much how I feel about this topic.

[majikal]

Not true. If they lead with Hexmage and pass back to you without having Depths in play, you can drop Wasteland and sit on it. Your opponent is thus unable to make Marit Lage because you can sacrifice Wasteland in response to the Depths trigger to destroy it. The "if you do" part means that you have to sacrifice it to get the token, but the ability to do so will only trigger once (when the last counter is removed).
This is only half right. You can indeed respond to the trigger with Wasteland to destroy Dark Depths, but if the ability is Stifled, it will keep triggering until it resolves.

The key wording is bolded.

Dark Depths comes into play with ten ice counters on it.
3: Remove an ice counter from Dark Depths.
When Dark Depths has no ice counters on it, sacrifice it. If you do, put an indestructible legendary 20/20 black Avatar creature token with Flying named Marit Lage into play.

This is continually checked as a state-based effect. You can counter the trigger with Stifle, but as soon as SBE's are checked again, it will trigger again.

[Maveric78f]

omg, 4 dark depth in a counterbalance deck!!!

I thought I'd never see this. Wait a minute. I should have never seen this, since I'm not golden member (only wooden). Let's pretend I've never seen this, and lie to myself forever.

[majikal]

Also, re: Non-public decklists -

So, you're charging people to view copyrighted material (card names) owned by Wizards of the Coast?

[quicksilver]

Stifling the dark depths doesn't do very much. It's the hexmage that you need to stifle.

[keys]

Dark Depths's last ability is a state trigger. It will not trigger again while the ability is on the stack, but if the ability is countered and Dark Depths is still on the battlefield with no ice counters on it, it will trigger again immediately.


Yes, it will trigger again.

You can Stifle the Hexmage activated ability, obviously... It's not a 2-for-1 but it still stops the combo.

edit: quicksilver beat me to it


Another thing:


Dreadnaught is pretty awful right now, and has been since the printing of Pridemage.


To be fair, Pridemage gets put in its place by Stifle, Spell Snare, CounterTop, Bolt, EE@2 and plenty more. If you're proactive about it, it's not hard for Dreadstill to play around.

Path is the real problem, and Marit Lage is just as vulnerable to that.

If you're not comfortable facing threats like these, play Natural Order...

[Smmenen]

The trend data is clear: Dreadstill has problems And the primarily culprit, although not the only one, has been the printings since the spring, including path and q. pridemage.

dreadstill went from being the best performing deck in the format:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17678_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Notes_on_NuVintage_and_a_Breakdown_of_the_SCG_Legacy_5K.html

http://www.starcitygames.com/images/article/06292009menendian2.jpg

To among the worst:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/18040_So_Many_Insane_Plays_VintageLegacy_Split_Article.html

http://www.starcitygames.com/images/article/09212009menendian11.jpg

and more recently: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/18195_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Quick_Vintage_Hits_and_Analysis_of_a_SCG_Legacy_5K.html

[Bardo]

It's annoying that you frequently try to prove a point by referring people to content they can't read without paying a fee.

Can you see what a obnoxious debating technique that is? In Internet debate, the "Appeal to Wikipedia" argument is one thing, this is another.

Either make a point or ignore the comment.

You're not obliged to post a link to every Premium article you write on this site (where most people don't have premium). I don't see how you're doing any of us a favor (unlike the usual, "here's an article you may be interested" threads), quite the opposite.

[keys]

dreadstill went from being the best performing deck in the format:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17678_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Notes_on_NuVintage_and_a_Breakdown_of_the_SCG_Legacy_5K.html


Pridemage and Path were legal in this event too...

[sauce]

the major issue i have w/ this deck is how color intensive the pieces in it are.
double blue for counterbalance... double black for hexmage... and dark depths does not tap for mana unless you miser an urborg.

[Smmenen]

It's annoying that you frequently try to prove a point by referring people to content they can't read without paying a fee.

Can you see what a obnoxious debating technique that is? In Internet debate, the "Appeal to Wikipedia" argument is one thing, this is another.

Either make a point or ignore the comment.

You're not obliged to post a link to every Premium article you write on this site (where most people don't have premium). I don't see how you're doing any of us a favor (unlike the usual, "here's an article you may be interested" threads), quite the opposite.


what are you talking about? The first article i linked was free. after 3 months all premium articles are free. i am going to link to articles that have relevant data. that's like saying: don't look at the encyclopedia because it costs $5 to buy a copy.

[Smmenen]

Pridemage and Path were legal in this event too...

there is a difference between being legal and being used. early adopters, long tail and all that.

[keys]

there is a difference between being legal and being used. early adopters, long tail and all that.

Well, looking at decklists, they were used.

[Smmenen]

the major issue i have w/ this deck is how color intensive the pieces in it are.
double blue for counterbalance... double black for hexmage... and dark depths does not tap for mana unless you miser an urborg.

it's mitigated in a number of ones.

first, you have 8 brainstorm effects + 4 top8s, so your ability to manipulate your deck to find colored mana is very high.

secondly, as i said, this is not a combo deck. you aren't trying to use hexmage + DD to combo out early on unlses you are facing an aggro deck. you don't even want to play dd until the mid-to-late game.

third, counterbalance is playable off of almost any land in the deck except the 1 swamp, the urborg and dds. so your goal is to try to ste up counterbalance and no really worry about winning with hexmage. getting hexmage into play by turn 5-6 isn't really that hard, though.

[Smmenen]

Well, looking at decklists, they were used.

yes, but not to the same degree as they were in the next tournament, where Dreadstill dissipated. zoo was on the upswing, and didn't peak until the next event, right?

[voltron00x]

yes, but not to the same degree as they were in the next tournament, where Dreadstill dissipated. zoo was on the upswing, and didn't peak until the next event, right?


This discussion leads right into my article that should go up on Monday... if this thread is still going at that point, I'll post a link.

Anyway, Stephen's right on this one. Zoo definitely hadn't reached a saturation point in that earlier event. The metagame shifts that have attacked Dreadstill's viability took some time to develop. The wheels of Legacy turn faster than those of Vintage, but they're still slow compared to Block/Standard/Extended.

[kkoie]

what are you talking about? The first article i linked was free. after 3 months all premium articles are free. i am going to link to articles that have relevant data. that's like saying: don't look at the encyclopedia because it costs $5 to buy a copy.

The other two are not. And by your own arguement, the first article, which is free, is the least relavent, since it was printed at a time when dreadstill was good.

[etrigan]

what are you talking about? The first article i linked was free. after 3 months all premium articles are free. i am going to link to articles that have relevant data. that's like saying: don't look at the encyclopedia because it costs $5 to buy a copy.

If someone asks a question, and you respond by saying look at page 1123 in the encyclopedia, when they might not have that encyclopedia, is not really helpful. If you dont want to write out a full response, at least copy a relevant paragraph and then link the article.

[MattH]

Steve, if you don't want to be repeating points you made in the article, then don't talk about it until it's free. No one is forcing you to wade into comment threads. If people have wrong ideas about your list because they aren't Premium, let them be wrong, and worry about correcting their mistakes three months later.

[keys]

This discussion leads right into my article that should go up on Monday... if this thread is still going at that point, I'll post a link.

Anyway, Stephen's right on this one. Zoo definitely hadn't reached a saturation point in that earlier event. The metagame shifts that have attacked Dreadstill's viability took some time to develop. The wheels of Legacy turn faster than those of Vintage, but they're still slow compared to Block/Standard/Extended.

Yeah and then Combo will pray on Zoo until it dies back down, and then CB Top strategies will gain strength again. I think I've heard this before...

[Smmenen]

I had the opportunity (and finally got some time) to create a massive Legacy grid from the last SCG $5k. I put together a spreadsheet that showed every single match result by archetype from the entire tournament.

The results were very illuminating, and I'll publish them in two weeks (next monday is the complete legacy checklist).

But one of the interesting things was that although Ad Nauseam destroyed Zoo decks, it was awful against Merfolk and Counterbalance decks. That's why there was only 1 Ad Nauseam deck in the top 32, despite being one of the most popular decks in the tournament (although one placed 33rd and 34th place, and another at 43rd). Ad nauseam decks sure did well against Zoo, but got totally pwned by anything with blue!

[Bardo]

what are you talking about? The first article i linked was free. after 3 months all premium articles are free. i am going to link to articles that have relevant data. that's like saying: don't look at the encyclopedia because it costs $5 to buy a copy.

This is not the first time you've done that--you know that. About your last comment, I would never try to prove a point by suggesting someone buy a book and read it.

[Smmenen]

This is not the first time you've done that--you know that. About your last comment, I would never try to prove a point by suggesting someone buy a book and read it.

Of course I will reference an article, article, whatever, whether I've written or not, if there is some substantive point has been argued before or some important statistic I'm citing. I don't pay mind to whether it's free or not. If the citation proves/supports a point, that's what matters.

For example, suppose we aren't talking about magic, but debating some point of law, social science, or scientific fact. I might cite a law review article or research journal, yet those articles might only be accessible if you have access to a database that require a user fee or a subscription.

The claim I was making was that Dreadstill was declining. I cited some articles to prove it. The fact that 2 of those 3 articles are premium is no different than if I cited a journal that required a subscription to read. I even linked some graphs that show my point.

Look, I understand the frustration that some of this information has to be paid to be seen, but let's no blow this out of proportion. Citing premium articles in support of some fact is not that big of a deal. It's common practice in all fields everywhere. I hear you that it is annoying to you that I'm citing something that isn't readily accessible, but I assure you its not a 'debating technique.' Some information, whether it's magic or not, will be cited and isn't always free on the internet. For example, I might cite a book chapter that someone has written that isn't available in many libraries or on google books. That doesn't make my point invalid or my argument somehow malicious.

[Jedi Knight]

Of course I will reference an article, article, whatever, whether I've written or not, if there is some substantive point has been argued before or some important statistic I'm citing. I don't pay mind to whether it's free or not. If the citation proves/supports a point, that's what matters.

For example, suppose we aren't talking about magic, but debating some point of law, social science, or scientific fact. I might cite a law review article or research journal, yet those articles might only be accessible if you have access to a database that require a user fee or a subscription.

The claim I was making was that Dreadstill was declining. I cited some articles to prove it. The fact that 2 of those 3 articles are premium is no different than if I cited a journal that required a subscription to read. I even linked some graphs that show my point.

Look, I understand the frustration that some of this information has to be paid to be seen, but let's no blow this out of proportion. Citing premium articles in support of some fact is not that big of a deal. It's common practice in all fields everywhere. I hear you that it is annoying to you that I'm citing something that isn't readily accessible, but I assure you its not a 'debating technique.' Some information, whether it's magic or not, will be cited and isn't always free on the internet. For example, I might cite a book chapter that someone has written that isn't available in many libraries or on google books. That doesn't make my point invalid or my argument somehow malicious.

I agree w/steve!

[frogboy]

Of course I will reference an article, article, whatever, whether I've written or not, if there is some substantive point has been argued before or some important statistic I'm citing. I don't pay mind to whether it's free or not. If the citation proves/supports a point, that's what matters.

For example, suppose we aren't talking about magic, but debating some point of law, social science, or scientific fact. I might cite a law review article or research journal, yet those articles might only be accessible if you have access to a database that require a user fee or a subscription.

The claim I was making was that Dreadstill was declining. I cited some articles to prove it. The fact that 2 of those 3 articles are premium is no different than if I cited a journal that required a subscription to read. I even linked some graphs that show my point.

Look, I understand the frustration that some of this information has to be paid to be seen, but let's no blow this out of proportion. Citing premium articles in support of some fact is not that big of a deal. It's common practice in all fields everywhere. I hear you that it is annoying to you that I'm citing something that isn't readily accessible, but I assure you its not a 'debating technique.' Some information, whether it's magic or not, will be cited and isn't always free on the internet. For example, I might cite a book chapter that someone has written that isn't available in many libraries or on google books. That doesn't make my point invalid or my argument somehow malicious.

Your point is valid. However, soliciting an argument and citing with a pay-to-use source is probably not going to be effective. Do you at least see how this is the case?

[majikal]

But one of the interesting things was that although Ad Nauseam destroyed Zoo decks, it was awful against Merfolk and Counterbalance decks. That's why there was only 1 Ad Nauseam deck in the top 32, despite being one of the most popular decks in the tournament (although one placed 33rd and 34th place, and another at 43rd). Ad nauseam decks sure did well against Zoo, but got totally pwned by anything with blue!
This is neither new nor interesting information.

[FoulQ]

This is neither new nor interesting information.

Except now it is has real statistics to back it up. That is important.

[Smmenen]

This is neither new nor interesting information.

LOL

[Bahamuth]

This is neither new nor interesting information.

It is to me. The information is that the AdN players sucked. ANT Shouldn't lose to Merfolk.

[Jeff Kruchkow]

It is to me. The information is that the AdN players sucked. ANT Shouldn't lose to Merfolk.

I would argue this point. Sure folk doesnt have CB+Top, but it does have stifle+waste backed up with FoW, daze and a relatively fast clock. Not exactly the dream matchup for storm combo.

[Maveric78f]

Sure folk doesnt have CB+Top, but it does have stifle+waste backed up with FoW, daze and a relatively fast clock.
This is neither new nor interesting information.

I love this game.

[Rico Suave]

It is to me. The information is that the AdN players sucked. ANT Shouldn't lose to Merfolk.

Merfolk have traditionally been stellar against combo for over a decade now.

Very little has changed except the names of the cards.

[deadlock]

2. The list put up looks a lot like EPIC Painter/NL Painter but I guess all the lists start looking the same when we use the same shell. Having worked a lot in the painter category I can tell you that not having any creature removal was AWFUL after a while. This combo can come online by turn 3 at the fastest just like painter, and instead of artifact hate and all creature removal, gets owned by stifle, wasteland and creature removal. Albeit, wasteland is only relevant if you have played the comboey land before the hexmage.

Interesting that you say that, my impression was that not needing dedicated creature removal is one of the evolutionary steps of the 'combo-control' decks like Dreadstill, Autumn Painter (great looking deck btw!) and now this CB-Depths.

Many have expressed their view on CB-decks in general and how much hate it has to handle, based on this - do you still think 4 CB is the right number or maybe its time to go down to 3 CB maindeck?

[jazzykat]

Interesting that you say that, my impression was that not needing dedicated creature removal is one of the evolutionary steps of the 'combo-control' decks like Dreadstill, Autumn Painter (great looking deck btw!) and now this CB-Depths.

Many have expressed their view on CB-decks in general and how much hate it has to handle, based on this - do you still think 4 CB is the right number or maybe its time to go down to 3 CB maindeck?

Assuming this question was adressed at me:

Regarding no MD removal, you can see how most of these hybrid decks have been placing lately (i.e. out of the top 8). I think it is necessary to have removal because Quali Pridemage single handedly owns painter/grind and dreadnaughts while providing a decent clock and outclassing your goyfs with theirs.

Regarding # of CB's, I still feel that 4 is the right number. I can't think of an opening hand where I don't want it. Having an extra one is moot because if you've stuck a CB then you are well on your way to victory.

[Maveric78f]

If you adopt a game plan based on the countertop softlock, then the best answer to hate is more countertops (or a transformationnal side).

[deadlock]

Regarding # of CB's, I still feel that 4 is the right number. I can't think of an opening hand where I don't want it. Having an extra one is moot because if you've stuck a CB then you are well on your way to victory.


If you adopt a game plan based on the countertop softlock, then the best answer to hate is more countertops (or a transformationnal side).

While this is true against decks, were CB is devastating - keep in mind that sometimes you will face a deck, were CB can potentially (soft)lock them out, but in many cases its either too slow or gets neutralized.
I am thinking of the Merfolk matchup here, were having SOME CB's is still good, but i wouldnt rely on it, because of there speed and Vial.

[Jim Higginbottom]

I took 34th in philly with TES...I think half of my opponents that day ran countertop either in a traditional NLU or via dreadstill (which I beat even though I think the odds are stacked against me at like 80%).

[SpencerForHire]

While this is true against decks, were CB is devastating - keep in mind that sometimes you will face a deck, where CB can potentially (soft)lock them out, but in many cases its either too slow or gets neutralized.
I am thinking of the Merfolk matchup here, where having SOME CB's is still good, but i wouldnt rely on it, because of their speed and Vial.

I feel that three is a pretty solid amount as you ever want to see multiples unless your first copy was destroyed/countered. However, your count in a match such as Merfolk isn't going to be what make or breaks you and having extra in that matchup means you don't have to think twice about pitching one to Force of Will with the concern in mind that you may not see another one soon enough. I would also say that the weakness of CB in that matchup is not the speed of the opposing deck but their ability to play around it with Aether Vial combined with the large amount of three drops which Counter/Top strategies struggle to deal with in general due to their own curve.

[hi-val]

Your point is valid. However, soliciting an argument and citing with a pay-to-use source is probably not going to be effective. Do you at least see how this is the case?

So this is tangential at best, but a lot of academic discourse relies on access to huge libraries or expensive databases to engage in a discussion. In law school, we need Lexis or West, which is thousands of dollars a month, and in my girlfriend's library science program, she needs lots of expensive and pretentious journals. So citing pay-to-access information isn't unprecedented, but not typical in an internet discussion : )

/JSTOR is for amateurs

[TorpidNinja]

/JSTOR is for amateurs

Ouch; or for universities with a messed up budget. Le sigh.

[frogboy]

So this is tangential at best, but a lot of academic discourse relies on access to huge libraries or expensive databases to engage in a discussion. In law school, we need Lexis or West, which is thousands of dollars a month, and in my girlfriend's library science program, she needs lots of expensive and pretentious journals. So citing pay-to-access information isn't unprecedented, but not typical in an internet discussion : )

/JSTOR is for amateurs

Sure, but I don't cite NBER papers when talking about the stimulus package online. Just think about your audience.

[from Cairo]

I took 34th in philly with TES...I think half of my opponents that day ran countertop either in a traditional NLU or via dreadstill (which I beat even though I think the odds are stacked against me at like 80%).



Zoo definitely hadn't reached a saturation point in that earlier event. The metagame shifts that have attacked Dreadstill's viability took some time to develop. The wheels of Legacy turn faster than those of Vintage, but they're still slow compared to Block/Standard/Extended.Yeah and then Combo will pray on Zoo until it dies back down, and then CB Top strategies will gain strength again. I think I've heard this before...

This all sort of ties into the meta shifting discussion. I don't think the format will see a huge shift to Combo to combat Zoo. There seems to be a disproportionate amount of players that just don't touch Storm Combo even when it is favored against the field.

Also based on my experience, for every 1 combo player that can battle through a field of Counter/Top hate there's a dozen that will punt easy agro match ups. Some of it I guess is just learning to master the deck and the lines of play and what hands are workable, etc.

[Bardo]

For example, suppose we aren't talking about magic, but debating some point of law, social science, or scientific fact. I might cite a law review article or research journal, yet those articles might only be accessible if you have access to a database that require a user fee or a subscription.


I respect this analogy, except to point out the obvious: we're discussing the Legacy metagame--a fairly unpopular format of a collectible trading card game, not the legal nuances of personal protections afforded by the 4th Amendment and email. There, subscription to a paid content service provider wouldn't be as unreasonable. Still, if your sentiment is honest (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), I appreciate the comparison.

I suppose what bugs me is this: in academic discourse, people highlight the research of others to make a point. From what I can tell, your article links are entirely self-referential. That's what I meant by "obnoxious debating technique." I certainly wouldn't have used that phrase if you were pointing to the original research of others.

[Smmenen]

I respect this analogy, except to point out the obvious: we're discussing the Legacy metagame--a fairly unpopular format of a collectible trading card game, not the legal nuances of personal protections afforded by the 4th Amendment and email. There, subscription to a paid content service provider wouldn't be as unreasonable. Still, if your sentiment is honest (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), I appreciate the comparison.

I suppose what bugs me is this: in academic discourse, people highlight the research of others to make a point. From what I can tell, your article links are entirely self-referential. That's what I meant by "obnoxious debating technique." I certainly wouldn't have used that phrase if you were pointing to the original research of others.

One of the fun things I do for SCG is write bimonthly metagame reports on Vintage for SCG. I aggregate all of the tournament results from the two month period. I look at what the most winning decklists are, and I breakdown all of the decklists by engine. I graph the distribution of decks in the metagame, and the trend lines for both archetypes and engine over time.

This data is hugely valuable for understanding the health of the Vintage metagame. So probably one of the best examples where I tend to reference my own articles is in the context of Vintage banned and restricted list debates on the Mana Drain. If you ever see such a thread, you'll see numerous links to articles I've written.

But the reason is obv: that's where all of the data is. People have alot of misconceptions about what's dominating, and what's not. I can point to my articles to prove or disprove lots of those claims. I can also make a simple graphical case for restriction by showing that something is dominating.

Back in the day, Phil Stanton used to do those articles. A few years ago, I'd just link folks to his articles. But he quit writing, and I took up the job.

The reason I'm linking my articles is because my articles is where the information is. In this case, SCG is providing me with lots of tournament data from the SCG Legacy $5k. So, of course, I'm referencing my own articles in this case as well. But if someone else were doing it, then I'd like those articles, whether they were premium or not.

Some folks are into fantasy football or baseball. Alot of the improtant statistics are easily available on espn.com or SI.com. However, there are pay subscriptions that have a bunch of detailed analysis for fantasy enthusiasts. If I were trying to prove some statistical or other claim about something related to it, I'd link to the article or the fact, whether it was free or not.

SCG is giving me tons of data about the Legacy $5k. They are sending me all of the decklists and matchup results from each of the tournaments. For the first two $5k, I just data mined to look at top 16 penetration, and as I just graphed earlier in this thread, the clustering/distribution of these archetypes throughout the field.

But we're taking it a step further. SCG gave me a full matchup results spreadsheet, so I've created a massive grid showing the results of every matchup in the field. I'll be publishing that grid, and what I think it tells us, a week from Monday. Now, the article, of course, will be premium. But it will be hugely valuable to folks as they try to make sense of the Legacy metagame. I'll probably be linking to it alot to evaluate alot of claims that people make about matchups and the format.

On the whole premium thing, it's important to remember that premium subscriptions is what makes this sort of information available in the first place. I enjoy writing about Magic, but it takes alot of time. Given my busy schedule, I'd probably be writing 3-5 articles a year if it weren't for premium. And that's not just true of me. Premium means alot more content/analysis out there. Having premium has hopefully brought alot of additional attention to Legacy, and it has definitely done that for Vintage. I've got alot of Legacy content coming up, including a checklist that I'm publishing Monday.

[Smmenen]

I took 34th in philly with TES...I think half of my opponents that day ran countertop either in a traditional NLU or via dreadstill (which I beat even though I think the odds are stacked against me at like 80%).

Your matchups:

Round 1: CounterTop-Goyf. You lost 0-2.
Round 2: CounterTop-Goyf. You won 2-1.
Round 3: Canadian Threshold. You lost 1-2.
Round 4: Zoo. You won 2-1
Round 5: Elves. You won 2-0
Round 6: CounterTop-Goyf. You lost 1-2
Round 7: Dreadstill. You won 2-0.
Round 8: Ad Nauseam Mirror. You won 2-0.

You were the only Ad Nauseam player to win a match against CounterTop-Goyf. Congrats there!

Ad Nauseam is a rough deckchoice!

[deadlock]

4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance

4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Vendilion Clique

4 Vampire Hexmage
4 Dark Depths

4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Force Of Will
4 Ponder

1 Island
1 Swamp
1 Flooded Strand
1 Misty Rainforest
4 Polluted Delta
2 Scalding Tarn
3 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
1 Urborg, Tomb Of Yawgmoth


SB: 2 Threads Of Disloyalty
SB: 4 Blue Elemental Blast
SB: 2 Extirpate
SB: 1 Hydroblast
SB: 2 Krosan Grip
SB: 4 Ravenous Trap

Smmenen I am aware that my question might be answered in the article, so feel free to ignore it:
While designing the deck, did you thought about just going BU? Both BB and UU are already tough to get, removing green would make it a little easier.

Instead of Goyf, 3 Tombstalker could be added to the deck as they serve a similiar role. With less pressure on the manabase, a couple of Wastelands could be added and more Urborgs. Wasteland and Stifle both protect the combo and can randomly screw out opponents.

Something like:
// Lands
2 [PLC] Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
2 [ZEN] Island (7)
3 [TE] Wasteland
4 [ON] Flooded Strand
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
4 [B] Underground Sea
3 [CS] Dark Depths

// Creatures
4 [ZEN] Vampire Hexmage
3 [FUT] Tombstalker
4 [RAV] Dark Confidant

// Spells
3 [CHK] Sensei's Divining Top
3 [CS] Counterbalance
3 [M10] Ponder
3 [LRW] Thoughtseize
4 [IA] Brainstorm
3 [SC] Stifle
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [NE] Daze

The slight mana denial plan makes Daze stronger and enables Spell Pierce from the board, which somewhat negates the lack of green for Grip.
Alternativly remove Stifle and Waste and either add Spell Snares or max out CB/Top + more manabase consistency, the deck would lose some agility though

[Smmenen]

That's a good question.

I considered UB, at first, but here was the deciding factor: from my experience in Magic generally, I really appreciate how powerful hybrid decks are. The less linear you are, the more resilient you tend to be.

I really didn't want this deck to be focused on comboing with Dark Depths. I wanted it to have as many paths to victory as possible, and I felt that Goyf provided a number of huge advantages:

First, it is an excellent win condition.

Secondly, By using Goyf, you actually force opponents to deal with that game plan, which has indirect benefit of 1) making it Easier to combo out with Dark Depths (since your opponent's resources will be tied up in dealing with Goyf), and 2) far more lethal when you do (for the same reason).

Third, the costs of using goyf are minimal.

I looked at Depths not as an additional mana source, but as a spell that I hold in my hand until I want to use it. For that reason, DD has no additional pressure on the mana base. Which means that a green splash imposed no further demands on my mana base than U/B. You can maybe run a basic or two more, but likely not. Because if you don't play green, then you probably play 2 Urborg, if not 3.

I like your suggestion, which is a legitimate direction to go, almost Team Americaish. But I wanted to deemphasize the Dark Depths combo so that, ironically, it would become more powerful.

That's one of the problems I think many of the earlier posters who didn't have premium struggled with. They think: DD combo! Why not build your deck more centrally around it! That's too linear for this format.

[BreathWeapon]

The problem tho' is Tarmogoyf isn't really a game plan any more because it's every one's game plan, if you're not running removal or your not running Qasali Pridemage/Grim Lavamancer etc. he's kind of just a wall. Something like Tombstalker however is going to go the distance, just because there's nothing else that's going to stop him - you need an asymetrical threat. That said, it's hard to argue against Goyfs inclusion in anything, but I don't think unassisted Goyf is really a plan B. I've probably ended more games with Living Wish -> Tombstalker than I have with Goyf lately.

[Rico Suave]

Except Tombstalker isn't a 2nd turn play like Tarmogoyf.

[deadlock]

They think: DD combo! Why not build your deck more centrally around it! That's too linear for this format.

I completly agree, therefore Stalker is added instead of Goyf.


Except Tombstalker isn't a 2nd turn play like Tarmogoyf.

Sure, but you have tons of turn two plays other than Goyf with the U/B configuration.

I dont say that this is the best path, is just want to point out some possibilties for the people who are working on the deck too.
Currently i dont even know if including blue is the right path for the "combo" (how central or not it is doesnt matter). See the Polar Express thread for that matter.

[Rico Suave]

Sure, but you have tons of turn two plays other than Goyf with the U/B configuration.

I dont say that this is the best path, is just want to point out some possibilties for the people who are working on the deck too.
Currently i dont even know if including blue is the right path for the "combo" (how central or not it is doesnt matter). See the Polar Express thread for that matter.

And when you're facing down a first turn 3/3, having the option to get that Tarmogoyf down on turn 2-3 is infinitely better than having to wait until turn 5 or later. We're talking about an extra 9 points of damage from a lone Nacatl.

Tarmogoyf isn't good because it's 4/5, it's good because it's 1G for a 4/5.

[keys]

And when you're facing down a first turn 3/3, having the option to get that Tarmogoyf down on turn 2-3 is infinitely better than having to wait until turn 5 or later. We're talking about an extra 9 points of damage from a lone Nacatl.

Tarmogoyf isn't good because it's 4/5, it's good because it's 1G for a 4/5.

Stalker is a much more potent threat than Goyf if you meet the manabase requirements. No, it's not a 4/5 for 1G... it's a 5/5 flying for BB. True, you're more likely to play Goyf on turn 2, but that isn't often the optimal play anyway.

The problem lies more with the interaction between Dark Confidant and Stalker. Top may help, but you will blind draw Stalker from time to time and it will throw the game.

[Malakai]

Menendian is a premier player of and authority on Vintage. The same is not the case for Legacy. I am by no means saying he's anything less than a pro, but it is clear from this article alone that he doesn't put the same kind of time in.

Six sideboard cards versus ichorid? Seriously? Canadian Threshold beats ichorid without sideboard cards, and so does this deck. Tarmogoyf continues to be a knockout against them, to the point where they cannot win without resolving Dread Return. Vampire Hexmage is even worse for them. It blocks everything, and can remove their bridges on demand.

Steve includes no analysis of the Zoo or Merfolk matchups in his article. Resolving the combo against merfolk is nothing short of optimistic. They have Stifle and Wasteland, the very same cards he says are a problem against Canadian Threshold. Your sideboard does not even include any cards for that matchup.

For a premium article I expect a lot more analysis of matchups. I suspect the reason that wasn't included was due to a lack of testing--certainly not testing anywhere approaching as thorough as your vintage testing is.

[emidln]

Menendian is a premier player of and authority on Vintage. The same is not the case for Legacy. I am by no means saying he's anything less than a pro, but it is clear from this article alone that he doesn't put the same kind of time in.

Six sideboard cards versus ichorid? Seriously? Canadian Threshold beats ichorid without sideboard cards, and so does this deck. Tarmogoyf continues to be a knockout against them, to the point where they cannot win without resolving Dread Return. Vampire Hexmage is even worse for them. It blocks everything, and can remove their bridges on demand.

Steve includes no analysis of the Zoo or Merfolk matchups in his article. Resolving the combo against merfolk is nothing short of optimistic. They have Stifle and Wasteland, the very same cards he says are a problem against Canadian Threshold. Your sideboard does not even include any cards for that matchup.

For a premium article I expect a lot more analysis of matchups. I suspect the reason that wasn't included was due to a lack of testing--certainly not testing anywhere approaching as thorough as your vintage testing is.

Thrash also has Stifle for Narcomoeba triggers and Coliseum activations, wasteland to constrict their mana to make Daze and Spell Pierce counter stuff, and then they bring in REBs and 1-2 Crypt + Clasm for their dead stuff. Thrash can beat Ichorid by not letting them dredge very much (aka countering their card draw or making it impossible for them to play card draw and discard outlets). Thrash wins when it does that and Ichorid either dredges per turn average to poorly or when Thrash draws a lot of Goyfs on top dealing with the card draw.

Looking at Smmenen's deck, I can say for sure that he needs the help vs Ichorid because he doesn't have anything even close to the lines of play that Thrash has thanks to extra LD and Daze/Spell Pierce/REB backing up Forces.

[Malakai]

Have you done testing? I have. Six slots is overkill. 4 extirpate is more than sufficient.

[Malakai]

At any rate I think it's time the discussion of the deck move to its own thread, instead of one tied to the article.

[Smmenen]

Menendian is a premier player of and authority on Vintage. The same is not the case for Legacy. I am by no means saying he's anything less than a pro, but it is clear from this article alone that he doesn't put the same kind of time in.

Six sideboard cards versus ichorid? Seriously?


Yes. Seriously.

I have played against Dredge many times, and if you think that 4 Extirpates is going to get the job done against a good Dredge pilot, I respectfully disagree. Dredge pilots can often kill you by turn three, stripping your hand empty in the process. Extirpate buys a turn or two, if that. Extirpate is also vulnerable to all of their hand discard.

Take a look at my Legacy matchup grid:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15510

Success against Dredge is not a function of player skill or even matchup, but hate, and the quantity of it. I believe that 4-5 piece of hate will give you an even matchup, but that's not good enough. 6 puts you over the top. In Vintage, I often counsel people to play 7.

Eternal players generally do not give Dredge respect, or properly prepare for it.

Here's why: Their chances of facing Dredge in the course of a tournament are minimal. Therefore, over time and experience, as fewer and fewer Dredge matches are played in tournament OR since you can lose to Dredge in swiss and still make top 8, players tend to drop Dredge cards from their sideboard.

However, that's a mistake, if your goal is to win a tournament.

If there is a single Dredge deck in the top 8, as there often is, you have a significant chance of facing it. If there is one in the top 4, you have a 33% chance of facing it. Morever, the pilot has likely defeated players with at least some measure of hate for them.

If this is all true, then why don't people run more Dredge hate?

The problem is that people too often do not set as the goal: win the tournament. People are complacently satisfied by simply making top 8, making a modest profit and walking away. Or, alternatively, they run the gambit that they'll dodge it in top 8. I am not willing to take such a gambit. My goal is always to win tournaments.





Canadian Threshold beats ichorid without sideboard cards, and so does this deck.
Tarmogoyf continues to be a knockout against them, to the point where they cannot win without resolving Dread Return.


I can't believe you believe that's true.

Dredge can get 20 Bridge From Below tokens onto the table in just a few turns. All they have to do is Dredge 2-3 Bridges into the bin and sacrifice a few Narcos and Bloodghasts and they will have an army. Dread Return is also easy to do, and can be played on turn one from time to time to win the game.




Vampire Hexmage is even worse for them. It blocks everything, and can remove their bridges on demand.



Hexmage costs BB, which means it's a turn two play. Dredge may have stripped your hand empty by that point. It's good against dealing with Bridges, but that doesn't stop Bridge tokens already in play, nor does it deal with their ability to find more. At best, it's a minor stalling tactic.




Steve includes no analysis of the Zoo or Merfolk matchups in his article. Resolving the combo against merfolk is nothing short of optimistic. They have Stifle and Wasteland, the very same cards he says are a problem against Canadian Threshold. Your sideboard does not even include any cards for that matchup.



Zoo is a very simple match. They don't have Wasteland nor Stifle. All you have to do against Zoo is play Dark Depths and then cast Vampire Hexmage. Good game.

Against Merfolk, it's precisely the opposite. Play Vampire Hexmage and then play Dark Depths.

If they hold up their Wastelands for Dark Depths, more power to you, as you have gotten full use out of your other mana to develop your game. If don't, then you can combo out. Also, Merfolk players like to Stifle Fetchlands and things like that early on. If they hold their stuff back, then just play Goyfs to buy time, holding back the Hexmages as well, and set up Counterbalance to stop Stifle.



For a premium article I expect a lot more analysis of matchups. I suspect the reason that wasn't included was due to a lack of testing--certainly not testing anywhere approaching as thorough as your vintage testing is.

This article was already long, and longer than what most people write about. If you wanted me to include 'alot more analysis of matchups' then this article would be about twice or three times as long as most premium articles.

[Gekoratel]

Zoo is a very simple match. They don't have Wasteland nor Stifle. All you have to do against Zoo is play Dark Depths and then cast Vampire Hexmage. Good game.
I agree with everything you said in the post except this part, nearly every Zoo list is running 4 Path to Exile in the MD to deal with creatures and it is a great answer to DD. Post-board they will likely bring in two StP it's not the end of the world if they aim Swords at DD since you gain a ton of life but ideally they will use Swords on Goyf and save Path for the token.

[Mark Sun]

I agree with everything you said in the post except this part, nearly every Zoo list is running 4 Path to Exile in the MD to deal with creatures and it is a great answer to DD. Post-board they will likely bring in two StP it's not the end of the world if they aim Swords at DD since you gain a ton of life but ideally they will use Swords on Goyf and save Path for the token.

I agree, Zoo definitely has ways to deal with DD unless you can land a Counterbalance early and soft lock them out of the game. However, their firepower is pretty good, and can probably have enough pressure to threaten lethal by t4 or t5, even through the countermagic here. The awkward :g:, :b: :b:, and :u: :u: costs definitely imply that Price of Progress > the manabase in this list, and I don't think 4 FoW/4 Daze is going to hold up against PoP and 8+ bolt effects if you're trying to survive long enough to combo. (Chances are, you're too busy digging with Ponder/BS so Daze may have to be pitched)

Am I making sense here?

[Malakai]

Yes, Zoo is a simple match if you get BB, Hexmage, and Dark Depths early enough that you can play them without just dying to their burn spells when you tap down for the combo. Unfortunately, without removal the CounterTop plan isn't usually fast enough to be relevant, and Zoo is more than able to power past a Tarmogoyf or two. In fact, the combo is the only way to beat them. The blue blasts help a lot, but I wouldn't call this matchup favorable.



Against Merfolk, it's precisely the opposite. Play Vampire Hexmage and then play Dark Depths.

If they hold up their Wastelands for Dark Depths, more power to you, as you have gotten full use out of your other mana to develop your game. If don't, then you can combo out. Also, Merfolk players like to Stifle Fetchlands and things like that early on. If they hold their stuff back, then just play Goyfs to buy time, holding back the Hexmages as well, and set up Counterbalance to stop Stifle.


These games can go one of two ways.
1. They resolve an early AEther Vial. Then they just attack the manabase, either keeping you off BB or just keeping your land count low enough that you can't beat them in a counter war. You have nothing to stop the bleeding, as Lord of Atlantis makes Tarmogoyf and the rest of the blocking crew from being relevant.
2. They don't get Vial. Now you get to actually play Magic. The anemic manabase combined with Mefolk's ability to attack said manabase makes them the favorite in any counter war. The lack of removal means they get to resolve lords, causing all of your creatures to become irrelevant. Basically, the matchup for them boils down to two things: Resolve Lord of Atlantis (or Reejery, or Wake Thrasher), then the only thing you can do that matters is go for the combo.


The Dredge conversation aside, CounterTop Depths is a poor choice for the current Legacy metagame. Which is really disappointing, because it was a rather fun deck to play.

[FoolofaTook]

After a lot of testing I'm starting to think that Hexmage/Depths is just a bad combo for Legacy in general, mainly because one side of the combo is completely useless unless you have the other side available. The other side of the combo is weak also, doing very little for you in the current environment unless the opponent is playing Planeswalkers.

It's not Stifle/Nought where one side of the combo is a very good card in many situations on it's own and even the other can be used occasionally for something other than its normal purpose.