[article discussion] Duel With Ruel – A Look at Legacy: Two Matchups by Antoine Ruel

[TheCramp]

clicky (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/19319_Duel_With_Ruel_A_Look_at_Legacy_Two_Matchups.html)

I'm sure people will agonize over every assessment he made. But this made me crack up:

"Anyway, playing first in Legacy seem to be even better than in Extended or Standard, as the decks are super violent."

Legacy, the decks are super violent!

[eq.firemind]

Unfortunately, I have no Premium account on SSG.
But I'm curious how often did he mentioned that Legacy decks are unfair (and the fact that if you're playing fair deck like Zoo, you're doing it wrong)?
After the Constructed Criticizm (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/standard/19292_Constructed_Criticism_The_Defining_Forces_of_Legacy.html) I have a feeling that they experience an orgazm then they type something that means "unfair" (with super violent as the latest incarnation of unfairness).
I just can't think out another explanation of all that harsh talk about type 1.5...

[Nightmare]

Eq: You should read both the comments on Todd Anderson's article, as well as the new one he put up this week. He took the comments from legacy players to heart, and even apologized for his criticality in the next article.

Everyone writes sensationally. It's part of the human condition to use some amount of hyperbole to make our stories interesting.

[edgewalker]

Anyone read Elias' article and his part about hot dog eating?

[Forbiddian]

Losing hurts a lot, and doing as poorly as I did last week, it should be no surprise that I really beat myself up.

That's apologizing? Yeah, he really beat HIMSELF up for it, blaming everything except his string of shitty decisions for his poor performance. This guy is an idiot and he seriously damaged the reputation of SCGs, at least in my eyes.

I mean, I've read my fair share of sensationalist bullshit to try to up the reader count, but this guy is the Eric Cartman of Magic the Gathering.


@ The Anton Ruel Article: I'm sure it kicks ass, but don't have a premium anymore. I subbed premium during the time when they made all their premium legacy articles public.

[Nightmare]

That's apologizing? Yeah, he really beat HIMSELF up for it, blaming everything except his string of shitty decisions for his poor performance. This guy is an idiot and he seriously damaged the reputation of SCGs, at least in my eyes.

I mean, I've read my fair share of sensationalist bullshit to try to up the reader count, but this guy is the Eric Cartman of Magic the Gathering.


@ The Anton Ruel Article: I'm sure it kicks ass, but don't have a premium anymore. I subbed premium during the time when they made all their premium legacy articles public.

True to form, you missed the point. Try reading it again.


First of all, Legacy IS fun. I know I said some harsh things last week, and made some premature generalizations about the format that are not 100% true, but I still stand by a lot of what I said. I'm not sure exactly how to say this, but the Legacy community as a whole is very protective of its format, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'll admit, I get caught up in what people say about me because I'm a very emotional person. I try to not let things get to me, but I just can't fade what a lot of people said last week. My emotions are the reason I go on tilt so badly when I'm losing. Also, I know I can be a touch on the arrogant side from time to time, and it shows in my writing on occasion. Losing hurts a lot, and doing as poorly as I did last week, it should be no surprise that I really beat myself up. Last week was disappointing on so many levels, and I was as brutally honest as I could be, but in doing so it didn't come off the way I wanted it to with a lot of readers. I didn't lie and say I had played a ton of Legacy, nor did I honestly think I would win either tournament due to my failure to thoroughly prepare. My failures were not what I was trying to impress upon you because, while important, they were not something I specifically wanted to talk about. It is very difficult to express what I felt when playing in the Legacy tournament, because the experience was something that I never want to feel again: boredom. Not every game in Legacy leads to this experience, but there are decks that are more likely to cause games where there is little or no interaction, causing games to be short and boring for those on the receiving end. While these decks might be considered good, my real goal is to dissuade you from playing the decks that have a difficult time interacting (i.e. Goblins). Sure, there are some interesting things going on and certain matchups are pretty fun but, to me, Magic is all about interaction. Limited formats are usually a blast because so many cards are interacting that you don't normally get to play with. Interaction is what makes Magic an interesting game (see EDH), otherwise we'd all just play Solitaire.

This week I want to start fresh. I want to make amends with the Legacy community, and just let you know that I will stay away from the format (as far as writing is concerned) until I learn a lot more about it. While I think I do have a mild grasp on it, I don't think I'm seasoned or respected enough to make such bold claims like I did last week. Hopefully, we can use last week's article as a reflection piece on how not to approach a new format or topic of discussion, and move forward. With such limited experience, I know I'm not the most qualified to tell you "how it is" in a format as broad as Legacy. Sure, there are some general truths that most people know about Legacy, but it goes much deeper than I gave it credit for, though there are some important things we all need to learn. I also made some pretty terrible statements about Vintage, but that is mostly due to my ignorance of the format and "stream of consciousness" style of writing. When I get on a tangent, it is very hard for me to get off it.

[emidln]

The article wasn't very impressive. He didn't sideboard in IGG vs Zoo because he said he didn't know what it would help. He also sided out Thoughtseizes over Duresses, which the SCG winner agrees is wrong.

[Mark Sun]

The article wasn't very impressive. He didn't sideboard in IGG vs Zoo because he said he didn't know what it would help. He also sided out Thoughtseizes over Duresses, which the SCG winner agrees is wrong.

I just got to that part a moment ago, and did a double take when he said he didn't know what it was used for. Regardless, he went 9-5 post-board somehow and I'm still not sure how, haha.

[Edit] Just finished reading the second matchup. I like the Canonist tech for Reanimator, definitely something to consider when thinking about a board for them. 3 total cards that can deal with it too from Reanimator's board, along with the countermagic of course. Interesting.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

True to form, you missed the point. Try reading it again.

What was the point, I must have missed it too.

[Vacrix]

True to form, you missed the point. Try reading it again.
Ok but we've concluded he's a moron, an apologizing moron. Legacy is boring? Really? Legacy is much deeper than Standard and Extended. Thats WHY its not boring. In no other format are there so many viable decks. Rarely have I played the same deck twice in the larger tournaments. You really have to know the format to play well and he is clueless.

He said himself that he is ignorant of the format, writes whatever the hell pops into his head, and admits himself that he easily loses emotional control so I don't see him possibly writing anything good or objective. I don't know why people keep bringing him up, unless its to get SCG to kick him out or shape him up so he can actually write a decent legacy article.

[Mark Sun]

@ Both of you above.

He didn't say Legacy was boring (he may have said that in last week's article, but we are focusing on his apology excerpt). Did we all just not read? He said that there are some decks (ie., ANT) that cause the game to be short and non-interactive, and thus boring. As a player of the format, I can see where he's coming from, especially since we all know he was playing Goblins versus decks like Enchantress and Belcher at the recent 5K.

I didn't like his article last week, but that's no reason to continually crucify the guy. Clearly he's an emotional person and translates it into his writing. Certainly none of us have written something one day, and had regrets about it when we read it again the next day. [/sarcasm]

He has vowed in his apology to stay away from the format writing-wise until he learns more. What more do you want? He just made a commitment to learning more about Legacy. Wow, we need to put down the pitchforks and torches, guys...

[TooCloseToTheSun]

He has vowed in his apology to stay away from the format writing-wise until he learns more. What more do you want? He just made a commitment to learning more about Legacy. Wow, we need to put down the pitchforks and torches, guys...

And in the same breath he says "my real goal is to dissuade you from playing the decks that have a difficult time interacting (i.e. Goblins)." He just seems to be making excuses to why he was bitching instead of just saying I should have not written the article because I didn't have the experience required to write about legacy.

[Nightmare]

The point:

Step 1 - Bitch about the fact that there's no one writing articles about Legacy.
Step 2 - Don't in any way shape or form contribute to the pool of writers.
Step 3 - Skim any given article that touches on Legacy.
Step 4 - Tear the author of said article apart due to their "lack of experience" on the format - whether they're some random dude who played two formats shittily, or one of the best players in the world.
Step 5 - Turn off brain, go into offended Xenophobe mode.
Step 5a - Get belligerent about being called elitist/xenophobic.
Step 6 - Bitch about the fact that there's no one writing about Legacy.

Legacy is not a sacred cow. The people playing standard do, at least, have that right.
Regardless of the time you've spent playing Legacy, you are worse at Magic than Antoine Ruel. This is a fact. Sure, he didn't IMMEDIATELY recognize the intricacies of one of the most complex decks in the format, but neither did you during your first playtesting session, either. And I bet he never once miscounted mana or storm and lost to himself. You did.

Todd is just a regular Joe who plays in PTQs and shit. He's not a pro. He's not any different than you guys, other than he choses to chase the dream of the pro-tour, rather than chasing the dream of being a Legacy playing nobody - which is what we all are. Even those of us who aren't, still are. He is as prone (and as permitted) to making mistakes in gameplay and writing as any of us. And trust me, you all do it too.

[Nightmare]

He just seems to be making excuses to why he was bitching instead of just saying I should have not written the article because I didn't have the experience required to write about legacy.

Who does? And why do you get to be the judge of that? Why is it that you need X experience to write about this format, but not standard or vintage or limited? Why aren't you, the one who is throwing stones, standing outside the glass house? Where are the articles you've been writing?

Edit - Also, read the second paragraph I quoted again. He seems to be saying exactly that.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

Who does? And why do you get to be the judge of that? Why is it that you need X experience to write about this format, but not standard or vintage or limited? Why aren't you, the one who is throwing stones, standing outside the glass house? Where are the articles you've been writing?

I get to be the judge of that because I took the time to read his article and this apology and that is all the qualifications I need as one of his readers. The great part is we all get to read and take away what ever we can and I was just sharing what I took away from these two pieces that I have read of his. And you don't need x experience to write about legacy you need the experience that you represent you have in the article you write. If his article would have been from the perspective of a beginner it would have been a better article. Instead he made broad generalizations that even a seasoned veteran would have a hard time backing up. I don't write articles because it is not my job to write articles if you want to pay me to do so I will gladly look into it.

[frogboy]

Todd is just a regular Joe who plays in PTQs and shit.

He has a GP top eight, a Nats top eight, has played in multiple PTs, and is going to San Juan. I am not a huge fan of most of his articles, but writing him off as some idiot who doesn't know how to play Magic is straight wrong.

[Nightmare]

I get to be the judge of that because I took the time to read his article and this apology and that is all the qualifications I need as one of his readers.He played in a Legacy event, and had an opinion, and that is all the qualification he needs as a writer.

The great part is we all get to read and take away what ever we can and I was just sharing what I took away from these two pieces that I have read of his.The great part is, when you don't invest anything of your own, it's easy to tear down those who do.

And you don't need x experience to write about legacy you need the experience that you represent you have in the article you write. If his article would have been from the perspective of a beginner it would have been a better article. Instead he made broad generalizations that even a seasoned veteran would have a hard time backing up. I don't write articles because it is not my job to write articles if you want to pay me to do so I will gladly look into it.He did mention that he rarely plays Legacy in that article.

You were not sharing what you took away. You were saying he should not be allowed to write the article in the first place. This is not something I agree with, no matter how bad the article is. There is no bar exam you need to pass to be a Legacy player, writer, whatever. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. There's nothing stopping him from talking about how he had a shitty day playing Legacy, if that's what he wants to do.

Look, I was on board with all of this hating before he apologized in the latest article. After he has, however, I say let bygones be bygones, and get on with the rest of your life.


He has a GP top eight, a Nats top eight, has played in multiple PTs, and is going to San Juan. I am not a huge fan of most of his articles, but writing him off as some idiot who doesn't know how to play Magic is straight wrong.That's fair. I wasn't aware of his credentials, but it doesn't change much. He's still as allowed to be fallible as anyone else should be.

[majikal]

Stuff
Can we get off the subject of how terrible Todd is and talk about the article?

I, for one, am thrilled that Bant Survival is getting some high-profile coverage. I'm particularly glad that it covers sideboard tech against Reanimator, because that seems to be the question everyone asks me when I tell them what I play: "How's it do against Reanimator?"

Although I'm not sure Canonist is the most effective answer since it's white and you need to stick it before they do anything... Gilded Drake seems like a better call.

[Aggro_zombies]

Although I'm not sure Canonist is the most effective answer since it's white and you need to stick it before they do anything... Gilded Drake seems like a better call.
Yeah, but you're running tons of counters. Reanimator doesn't really want to drop its nuts on the table right away against you because walking into the Daze seems really bad when you follow up with Tarmogoyf and start beating down. It seems reasonable to expect that you trade disruption for the first couple of turns, and if you sneak a Canonist into play somewhere in there, it slows Reanimator down enormously and buys your guys some time.

Also, it's nice to see that he recognizes that getting Iona in every matchup and expecting to win is super lazy; I think too many Reanimator players will end up losing at Columbus to just going into autopilot mode in a matchup that actually requires some thought.

EDIT: I don't like that he used the Gerry Thompson build, though. Like, I'm pretty certain you almost never want to blow an Entomb on Deep Anal unless you're already winning and just want some counters to make sure you go all the way. Minamo seems pretty cool here as well because of the ability to untap Iona, but then again, Iona is pretty bad in this matchup. Realm Razer actually seems decent here because of how mana-hungry the Survival deck is, but I guess it's kind of fragile.

[RogueMTG]

Yeah, but you're running tons of counters. Reanimator doesn't really want to drop its nuts on the table right away against you because walking into the Daze seems really bad when you follow up with Tarmogoyf and start beating down. It seems reasonable to expect that you trade disruption for the first couple of turns, and if you sneak a Canonist into play somewhere in there, it slows Reanimator down enormously and buys your guys some time.
...

Hit the nail here. I've been testing Canonist against Reanimator in Landstill for some time now, when it lands it's very good.

[Forbiddian]

That's fair. I wasn't aware of his credentials, but it doesn't change much. He's still as allowed to be fallible as anyone else should be.

Why do you think the published page should be held to the same standard as the shit written on The Source? Or at any rate if you're not implying that, why do published authors get to be just as big of a fuckup as anybody else?

Yeah, people make mistakes, but that's why the published work has editors and time for you to reflect on your post. Unlike a Source post, it's not conceived and written in 5-10 minutes by an amateur. Obviously SCGs authors are held to a much stricter standard than we'd hold to anybody else, but they get the benefit of a much wider audience, name recognition, being part of a publication, etc.

I'd argue that published authors shouldn't be fallible, and then even minor mistakes should be pointed out. Obviously mistakes are going to happen, but they should be held accountable for their errors since they have the benefit of writing a published work and I'm sure a regular columnist like Todd gets paid.


Though I see your overall point that he did apologize. And it was a good apology for Eric Cartman.

[Aggro_zombies]

Why do you think the published page should be held to the same standard as the shit written on The Source? Or at any rate if you're not implying that, why do published authors get to be just as big of a fuckup as anybody else?

Yeah, people make mistakes, but that's why the published work has editors and time for you to reflect on your post. Unlike a Source post, it's not conceived and written in 5-10 minutes by an amateur. Obviously SCGs authors are held to a much stricter standard than we'd hold to anybody else, but they get the benefit of a much wider audience, name recognition, being part of a publication, etc.

I'd argue that published authors shouldn't be fallible, and then even minor mistakes should be pointed out. Obviously mistakes are going to happen, but they should be held accountable for their errors since they have the benefit of writing a published work and I'm sure a regular columnist like Todd gets paid.


Though I see your overall point that he did apologize. And it was a good apology for Eric Cartman.
It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to be a raging douchebag when you've never gone to the effort of writing a weekly article series.

He's not a professional writer, FFS. He has other things he needs to do and doesn't have infinite time to make the perfect article (and even if he did, people like you would still bitch about it). He didn't go to a journalism school, he doesn't write a syndicated column; he writes because he likes the game and wants to share that with other people. Saying, "RAWR MY LEGACY COCK IS HUGE" and then bashing on him because his Legacy Cock isn't as long as yours is part of the reason no one wants to write for this format. I mean, sure, the guy's last article was just him being butthurt and QQing over how he doesn't know how to play the format. Trolling him because of it is counterproductive. Thinking you know everything and then nitpicking authors to death to prove it just makes you look like an ass and turns people off to the format. If that's your goal, then fine, but at least put a "Keep Legacy Pure! No Scrubs! Legacy for Legacy Players!" in your sig so that we all know you're an elitist prick.

Jesus Christ. It's no wonder people hate Legacy regulars when they respond like this.

[dahcmai]

You really can't bitch about them testing it out. We may know exactly how to board those decks and how to play them, but not everyone is going to. They did after all pick one of the hardest decks to play correctly right off the bat.

I'm just happy to see more people doing articles on Legacy. We should be thankful for that, wrong or right. It wasn't all that long ago, all you people were whining about the utter lack of them. Quitchabitchen.

Maybe next time they will pick some decks that aren't as tricky to board. If anything, it helps to spread the word on the format.

[emidln]

The point:

Step 1 - Bitch about the fact that there's no one writing articles about Legacy.
Step 2 - Don't in any way shape or form contribute to the pool of writers.
Step 3 - Skim any given article that touches on Legacy.
Step 4 - Tear the author of said article apart due to their "lack of experience" on the format - whether they're some random dude who played two formats shittily, or one of the best players in the world.
Step 5 - Turn off brain, go into offended Xenophobe mode.
Step 5a - Get belligerent about being called elitist/xenophobic.
Step 6 - Bitch about the fact that there's no one writing about Legacy.

Legacy is not a sacred cow. The people playing standard do, at least, have that right.
Regardless of the time you've spent playing Legacy, you are worse at Magic than Antoine Ruel. This is a fact. Sure, he didn't IMMEDIATELY recognize the intricacies of one of the most complex decks in the format, but neither did you during your first playtesting session, either. And I bet he never once miscounted mana or storm and lost to himself. You did.

Except he did and mentioned it in his article. Had he recognized that he had lethal storm and gains nothing by continuing to draw, he wins at least one more game by his own admission.

If you don't understand the deck and can't be bothered to at least think about the cards in your list, you shouldn't be writing an article about the deck. This applies to Joe Fuckup Legacy Player, Random Minor Pro writing about Standard, and the all-time leader in pro points and HOF'er Ruel. If you do write without considering the functionality in the deck, you deserve to be bashed.

For the record, I wish there weren't as many Legacy articles (or magic articles in general) because most of the articles I've seen have been complete and utter shit.

[Aggro_zombies]

Except he did and mentioned it in his article. Had he recognized that he had lethal storm and gains nothing by continuing to draw, he wins at least one more game by his own admission.

If you don't understand the deck and can't be bothered to at least think about the cards in your list, you shouldn't be writing an article about the deck. This applies to Joe Fuckup Legacy Player, Random Minor Pro writing about Standard, and the all-time leader in pro points and HOF'er Ruel. If you do write without considering the functionality in the deck, you deserve to be bashed.

For the record, I wish there weren't as many Legacy articles (or magic articles in general) because most of the articles I've seen have been complete and utter shit.
I'm automatically discounting your opinion on this because you're a self-styled expert on the deck, and therefore every mistake will be obvious to you.

It's often more instructive to look at flawed play than perfect play. Seeing someone's mistakes and then recognizing them helps you to avoid them in the future. In-game situations are rarely perfect, so knowing what can go wrong with the cards you have in front of you is more important than knowing the theoretical best series of things to draw, especially in a deck with as many decisions related to combinations of cards seen as storm.

Give the guy a break.

[Amon Amarth]

I liked article but it did have some cringe inducing moments. The comment about IGG was just... bad. I mean it's like not knowing what Ad Nauseum does. Would it really take that much extra time out of the day to check any of the readily available resources to find out what it does? That just seems lazy, not to mention that it skews the results.

On the flip side I was definitely surprised at the games with Reanimator vs Bant Survival. I've never played the matchup but I never expected the post board games to be so lopsided. Interesting stuff.

[emidln]

I'm automatically discounting your opinion on this because you're a self-styled expert on the deck, and therefore every mistake will be obvious to you.

Give the guy a break.

No, if you can't RTFC you don't get a break. Anyone who reads Ill-Gotten Gains can see that it's a potential storm engine. Anyone who knows what Zoo is can consider, even very briefly, if they want a storm engine that doesn't require losing life. Anyone who says no isn't to be trusted.

[voltron00x]

Anyone read Elias' article and his part about hot dog eating?

I thought for sure Craig would edit it out, but I think it was just subtle enough to sneak through. Hopefully some of you got a chuckle out of it. I got a chuckle out of writing it...

EDIT: Also, FWIW, the Legacy community does have something of a rep for being harsh on writers, but I've found that by and large their judgement is fair, b/c a lot of writers do "dabble" into the format and submit incorrect conclusions. If I were to write an article about Standard wherein I sideboarded incorrectly and presented results counter to what the community at large was finding, you better believe I'd get my ass handed to me in the forums.

[Aggro_zombies]

I thought for sure Craig would edit it out, but I think it was just subtle enough to sneak through. Hopefully some of you got a chuckle out of it. I got a chuckle out of writing it...
Actually, the article was pretty funny. Good job.

Although, now I have this sudden urge to come to the GP, find you, and then slowly unzip my pants while saying that I've got my deck right here...

[voltron00x]

note to self: have Craig add bold tag to clarify "deck" disclaimer in today's article

[frogboy]

I thought for sure Craig would edit it out, but I think it was just subtle enough to sneak through. Hopefully some of you got a chuckle out of it. I got a chuckle out of writing it...

EDIT: Also, FWIW, the Legacy community does have something of a rep for being harsh on writers, but I've found that by and large their judgement is fair, b/c a lot of writers do "dabble" into the format and submit incorrect conclusions. If I were to write an article about Standard wherein I sideboarded incorrectly and presented results counter to what the community at large was finding, you better believe I'd get my ass handed to me in the forums.

My experience is that people who disagree with me when I write articles on Legacy are far more vehement than people who disagree with me when I write about other formats. One of the reasons I don't write about Legacy very often is because I end up writing an extra thousand words or so in the forums. I also tend to observe that Legacy audiences leap to YSAYDIS way faster than other audiences.

I lol'd at the hot dogs, though.

[Vacrix]

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to be a raging douchebag when you've never gone to the effort of writing a weekly article series.

He's not a professional writer, FFS. He has other things he needs to do and doesn't have infinite time to make the perfect article (and even if he did, people like you would still bitch about it). He didn't go to a journalism school, he doesn't write a syndicated column; he writes because he likes the game and wants to share that with other people. Saying, "RAWR MY LEGACY COCK IS HUGE" and then bashing on him because his Legacy Cock isn't as long as yours is part of the reason no one wants to write for this format. I mean, sure, the guy's last article was just him being butthurt and QQing over how he doesn't know how to play the format. Trolling him because of it is counterproductive. Thinking you know everything and then nitpicking authors to death to prove it just makes you look like an ass and turns people off to the format. If that's your goal, then fine, but at least put a "Keep Legacy Pure! No Scrubs! Legacy for Legacy Players!" in your sig so that we all know you're an elitist prick.

Jesus Christ. It's no wonder people hate Legacy regulars when they respond like this.
How can you equate holding column writers to a higher standard to dick measuring? All the 'well endowed' sourcers are saying is that if this guy is going to write a column, he ought to put in some effort because he clearly hasn't. Seriously, how much time does it take to read a Primer on a deck before you play it? He ought to do some research so that he knows what he is talking about. Plenty of people from MTGsalation LOVE to play magic, but that doesn't mean that some random user is qualified to write about it.
If the format is too foreign to him, he ought to invest some time to learn about it. Sure he doesn't have an infinite amount of time to figure the format out, but he ought to take a break and learn a few things that way his articles are actually worth reading.

[Jak]

Articles won't please everyone so there will always be bitching. I think Legacy players do it a tad more just because most players generalize them as douches because some are opinionated and dislike it when people don't take the format seriously. This does happen a lot since the format is just starting to break through, but both sides of this crap need to calm down. I am tired of Legacy players jumping down writers necks when they disagree and I am tired of non-Legacy players taking everything as a flame post and resorting to calling Legacy players douches.

Anyway... I don't have premium anymore and am sad because Bant Survival is in this. Can anyone give me the gist of it?

[Aggro_zombies]

Articles won't please everyone so there will always be bitching. I think Legacy players do it a tad more just because most players generalize them as douches because some are opinionated and dislike it when people don't take the format seriously. This does happen a lot since the format is just starting to break through, but both sides of this crap need to calm down. I am tired of Legacy players jumping down writers necks when they disagree and I am tired of non-Legacy players taking everything as a flame post and resorting to calling Legacy players douches.

Anyway... I don't have premium anymore and am sad because Bant Survival is in this. Can anyone give me the gist of it?
Bant Survival doesn't win game one but rapes and pillages its way through games two and three against Gerry Thompson's Reanimator list.

[Jak]

Bant Survival doesn't win game one but rapes and pillages its way through games two and three against Gerry Thompson's Reanimator list.

Sweeet. I guess you can't post a list but can you tell me what he boarded in? Probably Llawan, Faerie Macabre, extra GY hate, Canonist, and maybe Spell Pierce?

[Aggro_zombies]

Sweeet. I guess you can't post a list but can you tell me what he boarded in? Probably Llawan, Faerie Macabre, extra GY hate, Canonist, and maybe Spell Pierce?
We don't know yet, since it was from the Reanimator deck's perspective. However, Canonist and Faerie were mentioned specifically in the discussion about the postboard results.

[majikal]

It really does this pretty well even without Canonist, but it's definitely interesting tech, especially since it's useful against the Storm decks too.

From my experience, leaving in a couple of StP and siding in Spell Pierce, Llawan, Gilded Drake, and Faerie Macabre does the trick.

[Kuma]

At least in Bant Survival, Gilded Drake is way better against Reanimator than Ethersworn Cannonist. Why search up a card to slow them down a little when you can let them do all the hard work of reanimating a creature and then steal it? If they get Inkwell Leviathan or Empyrial Archangel, you get Llawan, Cephalid Empress instead. Faerie Macabre is also ridiculously good. Why run Ethersworn Cannonist over those three cards in the Reanimator matchup?

[zalachan]

Well i guess Cannonist is pretty good and versatile SB slot, as is Llawan and Macabre too. Now Gilded Drake may also be good, a bit narrower choice imo, but if you have a spare slot in SB..

[Aggro_zombies]

According to the follow-up article today, the sideboarding plans were:

+1 Llawan, Cephalid Empress
+1 Sower of Temptation
+2 Faerie Macabre
+2 Ethersworn Canonist
+3 Spell Pierce

-4 Swords to Plowshares
-1 Iona, Shield of Emeria
-1 Loyal Retainers
-2 Rhox War Monk
-1 Qasali Pridemage

He then wins ten games and loses two.

[Julian23]

Canonist is good because Reanimator is the beatdown. Thus, Reanimator has to play proactively ergo it will use it's countermagic to back-up it's plays (unlike Bant Survival which will use Countermagic as disruption). While Canonist doesn't stop disruptive countermagic it will prevent it from being used as protection.

[SpikeyMikey]

KRKKKK -- KRKKKK -- KRKKKK -- KRKKKK

You hear that noise? That's the sound of Nightmare opening a can of whupass! Although I would like to correct one minor, nigling little point. Antoine Ruel is a better *player* of Magic than anyone on this site. I don't know that I would say that he's a better Magic writer or a better Magic deckbuilder or a better Magic theorist. Most of the time, those 4 traits do not go hand in hand. Using the time period I'm familiar with (because I haven't given 2 shits about T2 or the Tour in close to a decade), guys like Flores, Shvartzman and Schneider were the best deck builders while guys like Finkel, Budde and Maher were the best players. Actually, Maher was a pretty solid builder as well, but Finkel? Terrible. Flores was (and still is, really) the best theorist but he's not much of a player. Not that this makes any difference in the point that Nightmare is making here, I just felt like tossing my two cents in.

The real question isn't "Did this person play flawlessly?" or "was this person spot on with *my* analysis of every little part of the format?" it's "overall, was this informative and enjoyable to read?" Because if you want every article to be the next "Who's the beatdown" you're going to be sorely disappointed. The fact that people are writing about the format and the fact that the pros are looking at it is a good sign. Or rather, it's a good indicator of the growing popularity of Legacy, and for anyone that likes to play Legacy, that's a good sign. At least, until the format collapses, but we've been over that enough times that it's not worth discussing anymore. It's not our format. We may have done the groundwork to get it where it is, but it doesn't belong to anyone here. It belongs to the Mt:G community as a whole, and I think you have to accept and respect that fact.


The point:

Step 1 - Bitch about the fact that there's no one writing articles about Legacy.
Step 2 - Don't in any way shape or form contribute to the pool of writers.
Step 3 - Skim any given article that touches on Legacy.
Step 4 - Tear the author of said article apart due to their "lack of experience" on the format - whether they're some random dude who played two formats shittily, or one of the best players in the world.
Step 5 - Turn off brain, go into offended Xenophobe mode.
Step 5a - Get belligerent about being called elitist/xenophobic.
Step 6 - Bitch about the fact that there's no one writing about Legacy.

Legacy is not a sacred cow. The people playing standard do, at least, have that right.
Regardless of the time you've spent playing Legacy, you are worse at Magic than Antoine Ruel. This is a fact. Sure, he didn't IMMEDIATELY recognize the intricacies of one of the most complex decks in the format, but neither did you during your first playtesting session, either. And I bet he never once miscounted mana or storm and lost to himself. You did.

Todd is just a regular Joe who plays in PTQs and shit. He's not a pro. He's not any different than you guys, other than he choses to chase the dream of the pro-tour, rather than chasing the dream of being a Legacy playing nobody - which is what we all are. Even those of us who aren't, still are. He is as prone (and as permitted) to making mistakes in gameplay and writing as any of us. And trust me, you all do it too.