The Legacy neophites

[hismastersvoice]

...are great. No, really, they are. I could hug them to death - I love them so much. The more people play the format the better (oh yeah, Reserved List, nevermind).

Anyway, this isn't about all new Legacy players but about a very specific group. People who might have played a few proxy events, maybe took a look here at The Source or at SCG and suddenly they become the experts on the format. They know all the decks, they know all the tech, they know everything.

Example:

I recently held a conversation about some other Magic tech related things on MTGSalvation. In it's course I tried to show how being a creature can be a drawback in the right circumstances, so I went with this


Of course being an artifact can be a drawback. Of course being a creature can be a drawback. Which one is generally better

Counterbalance
UU
Enchantment
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may reveal the top card of your library. If you do, counter that spell if it has the same converted mana cost as the revealed card.

Counterbalance Bird
UU
Creature-Bird
Flying
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may reveal the top card of your library. If you do, counter that spell if it has the same converted mana cost as the revealed card.
1/1

Yeah, okay, doing it with Metalworker would have made the point clearer but you can see what I was getting at. Which one would you prefer in the current Counterbalance based decks?

And here's one of the answers, pretty representative


This creature is obviously better because it not only gives you a clock when playing with Top (which you should, seeing as your running "Counterbalance") but you don't even need to find a threat, as this can attack.

:eek:

Okay, I try to counter with Barbarian Ring, Humility, Snuff Out and other stuff, how a lock should be resilient, how today it sucks to be forced to board very specific cards like Krosan Grip, etc. Response?


You can counter Plague and Snuff Out with Counterbalance Bird and if he has Fireblast it's or Barbarian ring it's tough. Lose lands, be my guest. Of course it's not like you play other spells that can stop that. Oh wait, you just named them. You are also making it sound as if every deck is playing all of those spells.

Okay, maybe I'm the culprit? Maybe I just don't see how a 20 turn clock is awesome on a lock piece? Or how engineered Plague suddenly becomes the MVP of Eva Green or Reanimator sideboards. Maybe I just suck at Magic in general after playing it since Mirage?

Or maybe you've met people like that too?

[Meister_Kai]

Or maybe you've met people like that too?

Yes, I too have encountered trolls.

[Some Guy]

if CBB was a 2/2 I'd play that , or both.

[MMogg]

if CBB was a 2/2 I'd play that , or both.

But like Dark Confidant, he'd probably last only a couple turns. If Counterbalance had arms and legs, it probably couldn't be the central pillar the whole deck balanced on. Especially as pretty much every format is heavily creature based, and all decks have ways to deal with creatures in their 75.

[Some Guy]

yes , however most creatures do not have innate ability to counter most hate thrown at them.

[Michael Keller]

yes , however most creatures do not have innate ability to counter most hate thrown at them.

Unless they have shroud.

[Forbiddian]

EDIT: Reread your post, sorry, it's getting late.

You asked on MTGSalvation. That's your problem right there. Look at their Proven Decks section, and sort by number of posts in the thread. The shittiest decks have the most posts: Death and Taxes, Pox, and Burn all have more posts than Merfolk. It's not "neophites" it's "MTGSalvation members"

[Digital Devil]

I could hug them to death
Now I understand why Wizards doesn't like Eternal formats. You cripple their customer entry!!!

[Waikiki]

The bird is way better.... It would go straight in my survival deck hell yeah!

[Skeggi]

Best thread ever. Makes you wonder who the 'neophyte' is. Now also make a Divining Sensei and Waikiki is completely happy and can go totalnuts with Survival :wink:

[Digital Devil]

Now also make a Divining Sensei and Waikiki is completely happy and can go totalnuts with Survival :wink:
...and:

Faerie of Will :3::u::u:
Creature - Faerie Wizard
Flying
Pay 1 life, remove Faerie of Will and a blue card in your hand from the game: Counter target spell.
2/1

[Penguinizer]

The shittiest decks have the most posts: Death and Taxes, Pox, and Burn all have more posts than Merfolk. It's not "neophites" it's "MTGSalvation members"

The reason that less than top-tier decks have a lot of posts is that there is more work that can be done to improve them. Some people also lack the money to build some of the better decks while still wanting to play Legacy.

Some people will always continue making weird claims because they want to seem/feel smarter. This happens just about everywhere.

[hismastersvoice]

Best thread ever. Makes you wonder who the 'neophyte' is. Now also make a Divining Sensei and Waikiki is completely happy and can go totalnuts with Survival :wink:

Best thread ever and you haven read it :tongue:. I asked which version of the card would be better for Counterbalance, not Survival.


...and:

Faerie of Will :3::u::u:
Creature - Faerie Wizard
Flying
Pay 1 life, remove Faerie of Will and a blue card in your hand from the game: Counter target spell.
2/1

That's an uncounterable FoW. Not exactly a good example, right?

[jrsthethird]

...and:

Faerie of Will :3::u::u:
Creature - Faerie Wizard
Flying
Pay 1 life, remove Faerie of Will and a blue card in your hand from the game: Counter target spell.
2/1

This card is totally awesome but would never happen because no one wants a deck to be able to have 8 Forces.

[Shimi]

That's amazing , some people don't think for 1 min about they will say in some magic discussion or are to lasy to read twice a card.Other day I found someone defending Pitting Neddle as a way to stop Progenitus atack.

My advice is: Stay at The Source or bring us more funny material like this!!

[yankeedave]

That's amazing , some people don't think for 1 min about they will say in some magic discussion or are to lasy to read twice a card.Other day I found someone defending Pitting Neddle as a way to stop Progenitus atack.

My advice is: Stay at The Source or bring us more funny material like this!!

Now with more bad spelling!

[ImpinAintEasy]

Now with more bad spelling!


I think saying more badder spelling would be even more funniest.

[majikal]

Best thread ever and you haven read it :tongue:. I asked which version of the card would be better for Counterbalance, not Survival.
If you took out Counterbalance for the bird, it wouldn't be a Counterbalance deck anymore, would it? ANSWER ME THAT, MAGIC MAN.

[hismastersvoice]

If you took out Counterbalance for the bird, it wouldn't be a Counterbalance deck anymore, would it? ANSWER ME THAT, MAGIC MAN.

Well, of course no, it would be the Counterbalance Bird deck.

Seriously, that was kind of the point, right?

[Raptor]

The only reason I would be a :
UU
Counterbalance creature


would be if it were considered as a green creature for natural order..

[Anusien]

It's spelled neophytes. Let he who can read at a ninth grade level cast the first stone.

[emidln]

You do realize how infinitely better a hypothetical Counterbalance Bird is than Dark Confidant right? Like, he's has a functional ability AND protects himself. Dark Confidant has functional abilities to draw cards and draw removal. Counterbalance Bird has a functional ability to counter lots of shit, up to and including removal aimed at it. When you start to look at the (V)CA abilities of each created the gap widens as confidant takes a full two turns to gain CA while you can get multiple uses out of Counterbalance Bird the turn it is cast.

P.S. I can haz SDT on legs? I could really use SDTs number 5-8 in my storm decks.

[jrsthethird]

It takes 1 turn to get card advantage from Bob. He counts as a card himself, so when he draws your first card you've started gaining card advantage.

[pi4meterftw]

It takes 1 turn to get card advantage from Bob. He counts as a card himself, so when he draws your first card you've started gaining card advantage.

Are you guys seriously such card advantage whores? When your opponent lightning bolts you, do you go: YEAH! +1!

It's not like you play dark confidant, and then "BAM +1 as soon as I enter my upkeep. Better watch out, cause I just got +1, bitch!"

Would you play a 2/1 for 1B? If not, then it's not +1. Having bob survive a turn gives you the "privilege" of forking over the low, low price of 1B plus some amount of life for a 2/1. I dunno, what kind of ridiculous counting are you doing where everything counts as 1 card? If you want to do something that retarded, why not count your graveyard as virtual CA too? I don't get why people try to compute the "CA" they get in every situation. It's just one metric system that helps you book keep. It's not like you should worship it or something. When I used to play straight control back in the day when odyssey and onslaught block were the newest two sets, people would literally not force jackal pup because it's "not worth the card disadvantage" and then find themselves required to force a lightning bolt later. When asked why they forced the lightning bolt instead of the jackal pup, they said it was "because they had no choice by the time lightning bolt was cast."

On the other hand, people play stifle, which is almost an entire -1 as soon as you draw it.

Summary: advantages are a thing to be measured, and card advantage is one rather complicated facet of being in a dominating board position.

Secondly, being a 1/1 is obviously a slight weakness in the given decks, but it'd be a huge boon to UWT. We would automatically include 4 copies of "Counterbalance bird" because it doesn't pump goyf when it dies, it carries jitte, and it flies. Bam, it's in.

Instead we're running vexing sphinx, which is only pretty good instead of insane. But in the present decks that can already use the enchantment version (presumably, unless the magic players behind the construction of counterbalance decks aren't good at what they do... but I trust them) it's clear the enchantment version is better, to avoid getting owned by things like removal at >2cc, grim lavamancer, and barbarian ring.

Was this just speculation or is there a reason this is being "investigated?"

[Anusien]

Are you guys seriously such card advantage whores? When your opponent lightning bolts you, do you go: YEAH! +1!
Yes, because only the last burn spell kills you. The rest are basically blanks. It means it's not a guy that can beat a few times.


If you want to do something that retarded, why not count your graveyard as virtual CA too?
Why do you think Dredge is so insane and blue decks can't keep up with it when it starts going?


I don't get why people try to compute the "CA" they get in every situation. It's just one metric system that helps you book keep. It's not like you should worship it or something.
People worship Card Advantage because it's an easy to invoke metric they understand that they can use to make themselves seem smart. In other words, they're invoking for the same reason you are and the same reason everyone is posting in this thread. That is the sole use of Magic theory: to inflate your e-peen and make yourself seem like a big thinker.


On the other hand, people play stifle, which is almost an entire -1 as soon as you draw it.
Stifle acts as a Sinkhole (1 for 1), or Stifles a Ringleader trigger (2-3 for 1) or something similar. It's rare that it doesn't trade with a card.

[jrsthethird]

No, a 1B 2/1 is not Legacy playable on its own (not even a 2/1 for 1B that says "when this ETB: draw a card" would be definitely playable). But his ability is great, and he forces your opponent to answer him. Rarely will Bob actually be the card that delivers the blow that kills the opponent, but he will draw out counters/removal that would otherwise be spent on your more threatening creatures, so that they can get there. If he doesn't draw it out right away, you become ahead on cards, and your opponent still has to spend removal on him to be able to catch up.

[pi4meterftw]

Yes, because only the last burn spell kills you. The rest are basically blanks. It means it's not a guy that can beat a few times.


Why do you think Dredge is so insane and blue decks can't keep up with it when it starts going?


People worship Card Advantage because it's an easy to invoke metric they understand that they can use to make themselves seem smart. In other words, they're invoking for the same reason you are and the same reason everyone is posting in this thread. That is the sole use of Magic theory: to inflate your e-peen and make yourself seem like a big thinker.


Stifle acts as a Sinkhole (1 for 1), or Stifles a Ringleader trigger (2-3 for 1) or something similar. It's rare that it doesn't trade with a card.

No, sorry, I only study theory if it's interesting or useful. Usually the theory of subjects that I study, like math or physics, are both. This is no exception. Why would I study something to inflate my e-peen? If I wanted to inflate my e-peen, you and I both know there are far more efficient methods than talking about card advantage. WTF?

I'm just pointing out that hailing the +1 is silly. Also, worshipping the CA metric to the point that you believe that the last burn spell is the "culprit" is silly. When someone pulls a gun on you and shoots you twice nonlethally, do you go:

Ah ha! +2!

Fuck no, you counter jackal pup because pup usually dealt 4-6 in the old legacy, maybe even 8. (Note: I'm not actually trying to describe what *you* did Anusien. I don't even know if you were playing magic at the time or whatever. What I'm of course describing is what a player *should* do.)

Against dredge, there's not even a well-defined way to keep track of card advantage. (Well, sure you can count the normal way. It'll sure seem weird when dredge is down to like -10 or something and then suddenly it wins. One of the reasons it'll seem weird is the "winning" part.)

I'll agree that people worship CA because it's an easy to invoke metric. At least partly. I might even go as far as to say they worship CA for stupid reasons, but I doubt it's e-peen. Why not also worship life as a metric? The reason is people know it's not a useful metric to measure game progress in most situations, so people are certainly at least making an attempt to study a useful theory. But tempo is just as useful as CA, and just as easy to count.

Stifle just as often sits there and does nothing as it stifles a fetchland (good) or stifles a ringleader (meh.)

You shouldn't be comparing stifle with something that sits there and lets the ringleader resolve. Most decks would be running some form of disruption other than stifle... perhaps one that would also get rid of the 2/2 haste.

[(**) People who play stifle know they're not trying to use it to get card advantage. (You're ridiculous if you think stifling a ringleader is CA, when they're the ones that come out with a CA-free 2/2 haste.)

I mean you can look at it the other way, and then it's card advantage (Where you count the expected value of goblins not drawn) which just goes to show what a fake metric of progress CA is. (Because you can get two different answers on how much CA an interaction is. In fact, answers where one is negative, the other is positive.) (**)]

I'm slightly exaggerating how bad stifle is. (I always have been. It's definitely not tempo, but there are rare situation where I've seen it forced, so it's probably almost as good as the average card in a deck like merfolk... which isn't saying much, but definitely more than I was ostensibly giving it credit for since merfolk isn't terrible.) It's probably like EV - some small fraction of a card, and EV tempo is ~0, differing of course based on how you invoke the metrics of CA and tempo. (See (**) for an example of when how you count things can matter.) People overestimate the EV of tempo for countermagic because you have to stay open so that it doesn't just total up to "U" in mana, so spell snare, spell pierce, and stifle aren't tempo. Decks like UWT run spell pierce not to generate tempo/CA, but only if they're confident that spell pierce seals up some of the ways the deck could lose at little cost. That is, spell pierce and other such counters are supposed to be used as a way to trade favor in matchups so favorable to the point of diminishing returns for favor in weak matchups. Nobody's trying to score crazy tempo or card advantage with such countermagic.

The point is it's only possible to extract real information from analysis that is independent of metrics like the above paragraph tries to hint at, or at least of metrics that depend on interpretation. I mean you have to believe that people don't quite understand the theory of magic, Anusien. Take, for example, that people count daze as mana denial. The goodness of daze is bounded above by a card that says: return an island, counter target spell.

Certainly such a card would not be seen as mana denial. What I mean is daze only at most counters a spell. The fact that it allows your opponent to pay 1 isn't mana denial, unless you're being a bad player, dazing his stuff when he's not tapped out and you don't have a compelling reason, watching him pay 1, and going: ha! Mana denial. GFG noob.

It's often hard to decide what something should "count as" in magic. Metrics are a convenient, cheap way to be able to say more than nothing, but they're pretty meaningless, as reinterpretations show in situations like (**).

[frogboy]

Fuck no, you counter jackal pup because pup usually dealt 4-6 in the old legacy, maybe even 8.

Weird, I remember putting Psychatog in front of it and daring my opponent to attack me.

Stifling Ringleader obviously puts you up cards.

[pi4meterftw]

Weird, I remember putting Psychatog in front of it and daring my opponent to attack me.

Stifling Ringleader obviously puts you up cards.

It depends, did you count yourself as massively down cards when ringleader was cast? Even if CA is an ambiguous metric, it still obeys conservation. That is, if you +5, and then -3, for example, then you could also say that you got +2.

So this can't be right unless you're mentally "associating" all the card advantage with your opponent having a ringleader. That's perhaps a more useful way to count. although CA is a pretty useless metric anyway. In any case, there are ways to get rid of ringleader cleanly, and stifle isn't one of them.

[frogboy]

I ascribe to card advantage theory way less than almost everyone, but when your opponent has "draw a bunch of cards" on the stack and you counter it, don't go down a bunch of cards. It is easier to communicate that by saying that Stifle put you up cards.

[pi4meterftw]

I ascribe to card advantage theory way less than almost everyone, but when your opponent has "draw a bunch of cards" on the stack and you counter it, don't go down a bunch of cards. It is easier to communicate that by saying that Stifle put you up cards.

As I said, among the statements of the theory, this might be a more useful way to see it, but I don't ascribe to any of it. I use CA theory when it won't get me busted, but I know when not to use it. I.e., when it encourages you to sit there grinning as your opponent bolts you to death.

Also, not every control deck played tog, and even if they did, jackal pup does 4 to that strategy on the play, and thus deserves a FOW rather than that lightning bolt you counter at the end.

[frogboy]

That deck had Drain into Intuition-AK and had way more blue cards to pitch to Force on turns four and five than on turn one. I think the example you are using is flawed but the concept you are trying to communicate is correct; I certainly Force a lot of turn one Nacatls, but usually don't Force pitching Counterbalance.

I tend to view my opponent as being down a card when they Bolt me in the midgame because that limits their ability to interact with me. We're going to get real theoretical real fast if we go down this road.

[jrsthethird]

I understand what my colleague in physics is saying and there are other ways to look at it but he can't argue with Dark Confidant. =D

Looking at CA in a discrete way for Dredge is stupid since the deck plays so screwy. CA is only useful when looking at 'traditional' decks that aren't strictly combo.

[hismastersvoice]

It's spelled neophytes. Let he who can read at a ninth grade level cast the first stone.

Yes, I can see how making a minor spelling mistake invalidates my point.


You do realize how infinitely better a hypothetical Counterbalance Bird is than Dark Confidant right? Like, he's has a functional ability AND protects himself.

Again, the question is not which one is better in the void, but which one is better as a lock piece in Countertop.


P.S. I can haz SDT on legs? I could really use SDTs number 5-8 in my storm decks.

Again, the assumption is that Counterbalance never got printed and Counterbalance Bird is it's replacement.

Would adding 1/1 legs to SDT (again, replacing original STD) make it a better or worse card in terms of current Counterbalance decks?

[pi4meterftw]

Yes, I can see how making a minor spelling mistake invalidates my point.

Me too, given that you used a word I actually had to look up. Why would you use a word like that unless you were at least ready to spell it correctly?

[hismastersvoice]

Becasue I use it quite often in my native language and since both words are quite similar in pronounciation (both derived from neóphytos) I naturally went on to use in in English. With rather disapoiting results as it seems...

I simply dislike the words newbie and noob, which are usually used in the given context.

[Sevryn]

Are you guys seriously such card advantage whores? When your opponent lightning bolts you, do you go: YEAH! +1!

Yeah, pretty much. On a side note, when I'm the one playing Burn and my opponent cracks a fetchland, I usually pump my fist and say "5% closer!"

[emidln]

@ hismastersvoice

I wasn't actually replying to you. There was a post comparing Counterbalance Bird to Dark Confidant claiming it would just die quickly when, short of shroud, it would have one of the most capable defenses in magic.

[(nameless one)]

The only reason I would be a :
UU
Counterbalance creature


would be if it were considered as a green creature for natural order..

Might as well make it an Elf...

Maybe it will make Elf decks the new DTW or even DTB

[Mayk0l]

Would adding 1/1 legs to SDT (again, replacing original STD) make it a better or worse card in terms of current Counterbalance decks?

No, it would have summoning sickness, so no tapping.

[hismastersvoice]

@ hismastersvoice

I wasn't actually replying to you. There was a post comparing Counterbalance Bird to Dark Confidant claiming it would just die quickly when, short of shroud, it would have one of the most capable defenses in magic.

Yes, I see it now. Thanks for clarifying anyway.

[Kuma]

As a Bant Survival player, I would shit my pants with joy if they printed Counterbalance Bird. Being able to run CounterTop without hurting your creature count is exactly what that deck needs.

[Pastorofmuppets]

That's an uncounterable FoW. Not exactly a good example, right?

It can be stifled.

[Forbiddian]

The top with legs would probably be better, too, but certainly deck construction would be different.

If both Counterbalance AND Top had legs, then Umezawa's Jitte would be a standard inclusion in every Counterbalance/Top "control" deck.



And Humility/WoG would be a standard include in every deck with White and Volcanic Fallout would be a 4-of in every red deck. It would be very hard to track the metagame shifts, but I think it'd be more "interesting" to play against Counterbalance/Top combo where there are more ways to answer the combo.

[Anusien]

Also, worshipping the CA metric to the point that you believe that the last burn spell is the "culprit" is silly.
Lightning Bolts #1-6 are complete blanks. Only Lightning Bolt #7 is a real card. This is part of the problem with the burn deck. If you don't see this, go read Understanding Reach (http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mf37) or The Philosophy of Fire (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/standard/7157_The_Philosophy_of_Fire.html).

There's another article where this is laid out better that I can't even find. But seriously, if you don't see this, you're playing blue decks wrong. It's a basic concept: Lightning Bolt at 20 is not scary. Lightning Bolt at 4 is scary. Lightning Bolt at 3 is ever scarier.

Sure, a creature might have done a ton of the work in getting you to 20. But it's only the last source of damage that's ever relevant.

[dahcmai]

Screw Counterbalance Bird, I want Disenchant land. Even if I have to tap a G and a W for it to activate it, I want one!

And just for the record, I typically do yell +1 at people who bolt me on the first turn. It's like a free win. It's a horrid play and I played a game where that early bolt cost a player a game once in style. He didn't have it to kill the vampire nighthawk that was dropped out when I hit 1 life. I may as well have been at 4 life for all that it mattered at that point. The nighthawk went entirely too far and recovered too much life by the time the next bolt was drawn to finish it. It was such a classic example. I pointed out his huge mistake for next time despite the fact I was just beaming from the win I just got lucky enough to have gotten. He would have won if not for that 1st turn bolt. There was never another point in that game it would have been anything other than 3 to the face or held until that Nighthawk hit.


I'm a huge believer in the old Nevy's Disc moral. The longer you can wait to set it off, the better it gets.

[pi4meterftw]

Lightning Bolts #1-6 are complete blanks. Only Lightning Bolt #7 is a real card. This is part of the problem with the burn deck. If you don't see this, go read Understanding Reach (http://www.wizards.com/magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mf37) or The Philosophy of Fire (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/standard/7157_The_Philosophy_of_Fire.html).

There's another article where this is laid out better that I can't even find. But seriously, if you don't see this, you're playing blue decks wrong. It's a basic concept: Lightning Bolt at 20 is not scary. Lightning Bolt at 4 is scary. Lightning Bolt at 3 is ever scarier.

Sure, a creature might have done a ton of the work in getting you to 20. But it's only the last source of damage that's ever relevant.

So say you're at 4 and you eat a bolt, holding FOW, and your opponent then shows you lava dart. I don't see why it matters which chunk of life you lose. The chunk from 20 to 17 3 just like from 4 to 1. Or more prudently, suppose someone casts wild nacatl, and you're playing landstill. You go: I won't waste a FOW on a mere 3/3 and then it cashes in for 6-9 before removed. Then this situation catches your theory red handed when you later FOW lightning bolt because "you had to."

[majikal]

Well, of course no, it would be the Counterbalance Bird deck.

Seriously, that was kind of the point, right?
lrn2facetious kthxbai

Also, this whole thread is a failure and a sham.

[Anusien]

So say you're at 4 and you eat a bolt, holding FOW, and your opponent then shows you lava dart. I don't see why it matters which chunk of life you lose. The chunk from 20 to 17 3 just like from 4 to 1. Or more prudently, suppose someone casts wild nacatl, and you're playing landstill. You go: I won't waste a FOW on a mere 3/3 and then it cashes in for 6-9 before removed. Then this situation catches your theory red handed when you later FOW lightning bolt because "you had to."
Creatures are obviously different than burn spells. You can tell because you can't Swords to Plowshares a Lightning Bolt.

[Nightmare]

Yeah, way off topic. And not even a good topic to be off from. This is not contributing positively to the site. Bring your theory discussions into a thread on theory.