[Free Article] Dazed and Confused

[Rico Suave]

Dazed and Confused (http://strategy.channelfireball.com/featured-articles/sweeping-ice-and-other-important-topics-dazed-and-confused/)

[Cthuloo]

Still have to read the whole article, but...


A month ago, I was oblivious about Legacy. [...]

You know what I think about?

Why in the WORLD is every single person’s deck SO BAD.

And of course something that can't be missing


Combo is still the best, always has been the best, always will be the best. Why are people putting Wild Nacatl and Lord of Atlantis in their decks when there are multiple ways in the format to kill you on the first turn of the game.

I'm sick of reading this kind of arrogant statements, and I'm sick of pro/semi pro/wannabe pro regarding the legacy community as idiots. I almost lost the will to read the rest of the article after the first few sentences.

Edit:

Ok, finished to read the whole article. The only thing this has taught me is that one month is not sufficient to understand Legacy. It also has irritated me to the point that I'm probably going to smoke to calm me down.

[Hanni]

Wow is that guy retarded. I'm not sure who he is, but he clearly knows nothing about Legacy. Sure buddy, you go ahead and make a deck with 29 lands in the Legacy (and I don't mean Lands.dec), and skip running fetchlands and duals to avoid that garbage deck that runs Stifles, Wastelands, and Dazes. lulz

This was the most ignorant article about Legacy that I've read since... well, since ever.

This guy is/was clearly Dazed and Confused.

To anyone who hasn't read this yet, don't. Not only will you waste your time, you will become much dumber after reading it.

[Grollub]

He does have a point tho, Legacy decks tend to be fragile to mana disruption due to excessive usage of cantrips to smooth out the gameplan. This is partial one of the reason I think MUD is a slumbering beast...

But yeah, he does come off too condensending(sp?).

[leander?]

Haha, that guy is retarded :D

[Nessaja]

Horrible writer, he has a point about the fragile manabases, but the comparission he makes towards standard decks having more lands just doesn't apply. Legacy has an entirely different curve then standard decks do.

[pippo84]

LOL!

I should have listened to Hanni's suggestion to skip reading this article.
It's real garbadge.
Has he ever played Legacy?? Really, has he ever attended at least one tournament?

A really arrogant person. Don't like duals, wastelands and fetches? Don't play them! I'd like to play against him playing a deck of 29 basic lands and see where he goes..

And all the points of Nacatl and Merfolk.. OMG..

The author is really Dazed and Confused..

[paK0]

No wonder a lot of people misunderstand Legacy when they get their information from crap like this.

[MMogg]

He does have a point tho, Legacy decks tend to be fragile to mana disruption due to excessive usage of cantrips to smooth out the gameplan.

Yes and no. It is true that Legacy manabases are far more fragile than Standard, but at the same time, the chance of running into a deck built around exploiting that weakness is less than the chances of losing by using a piece of garbage basic land manabase out of fear of such exploitation. Also, you know, you can play intelligently and not walk blindly into Wastelands and Stifles. Not that you can always do so, but format knowledge can increase your chances of avoiding disruption exponentially.

[Nidd]

I felt my brancells dying while I read that piece of crap. Seriously, has that dude ever played in a big tournament with his oh-so good ANT with 8 Fetches, 2 Duals and 10 Basics?

[Piceli89]

Ban this topic, no one should ever waste their precious time reading that shit, and this also applies for the 90% of the articles about Legacy on "Channelfireball", written by perfect Legacy strangers or "I-know-10%-of-the-format-but-i-still-write-because-imma-pro".

Seriously, go on talking about Jund and Eldrazi, leave us the good stuff.

[overpowered]

A poorly constructed article that quickly degenerates into him bashing a format he barely understands.

[danyul]

Yeah, the article was bad. Yeah, he doesn't really know what he's talking about at all. Yeah, I'll echo all the hate above. But did anybody else find his "super awesome" story at the end entirely unawesome? That was the let-down icing on the let-down cake for me.

[markbris]

haha, what a moron. thats all i have to say

[morgan_coke]

The land counts in Legacy are lower in part because the CMC of spells you actually pay mana for generally stops around 2. Also, about half the decks in Legacy have some form of land recursion, making LD a largely tempo-based strategy. That said, the author does have a point about the level of greed in most legacy manabases. It's a bit high. Basics aren't sexy, but they are necessary, and in something like 70% of Legacy decks they should be played in greater numbers.

However, the manner in which the article was written, and several massive comparison fails/format understanding fails make it fairly bad at actually communicating it's core idea in a manner likely to be well-received by the reader.

[zalachan]

..when there are multiple ways in the format to kill you on the first turn of the game.
I stopped there. Seriously.
Why do all the standard pro wannabes even bother with legacy? All they know about is "the Flash fiasco", "Reanimator is orgasmic good" and "get those duals for cheap, dude" stuff.
Ignorant pricks..

[Finn]

I actually agree with the author to a certain degree. He foolishly thinks he understands something that he does not have the background to see clearly. But there is actually an angle there. Legacy deck builders and the players who pilot those decks are constantly overstepping their safety zone to access better spells.

1. 4 color Landstill - was great for awhile. Nick Trudeau was tearing up the place over and over despite the paper thin manabase. Oh, then someone figured out he had been cheating to get proper lands all along.
2. Team America - played some really powerful spells, no basics, and was so thin on everything that it actually made Extirpate look attractive
3. New Horizons - I know it is all the rage. But it is a house of cards and will not last - for all the same reasons.

What the author does not have the familiarity to understand is that this is cyclical. It happens over and over in this format until the people playing the deck eventually abandon it due to inconsistency and hate. It is good to push the boundaries of what you can get away with. That is intelligent deck design. Good decks play good cards. The holes in your design (manabase is easy to spot and easy to take advantage of) only come to bite you in the balls when someone else calls you on it with a deck designed specifically to exploit this weakness. But until they sit across from it, the over-reaching decks will continue to pursue their Plan A successfully.

Want a deck that will be a perennial performer? Figure out a way to make it strong with as few colors as possible. It opens up doors.

[yankeedave]

Want a deck that will be a perennial performer? Figure out a way to make it strong with as few colors as possible. It opens up doors.

This is basically what I said in the Comments section of the artcle. I could see his point, but he needs to provide decks that meet all of his stringent roles that he wants a deck to win. PV and Manuel Bucher always talks about this when discussing Legacy. They want a deck that either wins on the first turn or stops decks winning on the first turn, and have a good long game, so they play Counterbalance decks. At least they provide an idea of what they want to see played, rather than just call Legacy decks shit and not give any alternatives.

[DrJones]

While the article is not very professional, I think there are some lessons that could be extracted from the mess rather than dismiss it entirely. For example, I have to agree with him in some points.

The first one, is that Ponza is awful.
The second one, is that combo decks should be playing with Force of Will themselves.

The rest of the article is about how Merfolks is a bad deck, however, what I think it's happening here is that he doesn't realize that Merfolks is a meta-deck, that's it, a deck designed to prey on vulnerabilities self-imposed by the other decks in the format.

He is saying that all other decks bad because they make merfolk good with their design choices. It's true that if players chose to play less fetchlands and more lands they would get better results against current merfolk decks, but it could also mean that merfolk decks, being a meta-choice, would adapt to prey on a different set of vulnerabilities (mostly, there are people still playing Suicide black in legacy, for example).

I can identify with him because I remember when the difference between the North American Vintage metagame and the Spanish metagame (which is one of the countries where most people play eternal) meant that the North American top decks were terribly underperforming against the spanish meta (Phyrexian Negator for example was unexplicably popular in USA), it's easy to call them bad if they consistently show poor results in your meta because they are designed to fight wrong battles.

The author of the article wants to say (in an unpolite mood proper of reckless youngsters) that if in a given meta, only a meta-specific fish deck causes trouble to fast combo decks, combo decks should adapt so that thosee fish decks become "fish out of their bowls" decks, and he suggests some specific changes in the mana base to achieve that:

· Daze is worse if you play more lands
· Stifle is worse if you play less fetchlands
· Wasteland is worse if you play basics.

He doesn't include a graphic with statistics about the gains in resiliency minus loss in consistency of that mana base, which would have given more weight to his analysis, though.

[Vacrix]

It sounds like he is whining about nothing in particular but the format itself. Daze is really good, but so is FoW... Combo players are all doing it wrong... but somehow combo is still the best choice. Combo players lose to Daze? Wuttt?? I beat Daze all day long. What I don't beat is FoW.

[SlopeeJ]

The only reason people win tournaments with these garbage Legacy Land Destruction decks (read: Merfolk) is because everyone else in the room is playing a deck with poorly constructed mana. When your two ways to win the game are 1) being on the play in the mirror, or 2) hoping your opponent constructed their deck incorrectly, it’s not a very good recipe for success. Although, the latter seems to be a pretty safe bet in most Legacy tournaments these days.

Slap Yourself

[LostButSeeking]

The second one, is that combo decks should be playing with Force of Will themselves.


I'm having a difficult time with this. I'm a TES player; my mainboard only has nine blue spells in it right now. I'm not as familiar with ANT or DDFT, but I'm looking at some lists and they don't seem that much higher. Additionally, the major storm engine--Ad Nauseum--is really, really ugly with Force of Will. I regularly kill myself from 15 life with Ad Nauseum using a deck that has an average converted mana cost of 1 because I don't hit business spells. Adding force of will would only make this worse. Thirdly, the card advantage involved with protecting your combo seems to me to be also bad--I don't often have cards left in my hand, after I Ad Nauseum, let alone a possibly useful blue spell that I could have pitched to force rather than use silence.

What decks were you thinking of when you made this comment? Some of the new Iggy lists with dream salvage? Solidarity? Do you have a decklist?

[Sharpened]

So if everyone is horrible then can we expect to see a nonhorrible player with a mana base that is full of basics and plays more then 22 lands win Columbus? Becuase that's what he's saying right?

Basically, everyone is doing it wrong with regards to their mana bases. So the correct thing to do is play more lands and more basics to make a stable manabase. If thats the case, where are the intelligent people who decided to do just that and why aren't they dominating every tournament? Becuase if it was as easy as this article makes it seem, thats what we should expect to see, right?

I dunno, whole article seems silly.

[DragoFireheart]

While the author is correct about Legacy having fragile mana bases, he clearly shows he knows nothing about Legacy.

God, I want my 5 minutes back please. I also want whatever IQ I lost reading that pile of trash.

[dahcmai]

I had to give a little laugh over seeing Rakdos Pit Dragon mentioned. Been a while since I've seen one of those played. Good card, but not right now. Anyway, we probably all could stand to have a few more basics, I'll give him that. Face it, Legacy players are known for having seriously greedy manabases. lol It's true, don't deny it.

The rest was obviously a lack of knowledge of Legacy which sadly became more noticeable and laughable the longer he tried to make his points. Oh well, least we know better.

[Fons]

I'm having a difficult time with this. I'm a TES player; my mainboard only has nine blue spells in it right now. I'm not as familiar with ANT or DDFT, but I'm looking at some lists and they don't seem that much higher. Additionally, the major storm engine--Ad Nauseum--is really, really ugly with Force of Will. I regularly kill myself from 15 life with Ad Nauseum using a deck that has an average converted mana cost of 1 because I don't hit business spells. Adding force of will would only make this worse. Thirdly, the card advantage involved with protecting your combo seems to me to be also bad--I don't often have cards left in my hand, after I Ad Nauseum, let alone a possibly useful blue spell that I could have pitched to force rather than use silence.

What decks were you thinking of when you made this comment? Some of the new Iggy lists with dream salvage? Solidarity? Do you have a decklist?


In Combo-Lion's Eye Diamond>Force of Will

Lion's Eye Diamond's downside makes Force of Will unusable.

[DrJones]

I'm having a difficult time with this. I'm a TES player; my mainboard only has nine blue spells in it right now. I'm not as familiar with ANT or DDFT, but I'm looking at some lists and they don't seem that much higher. Additionally, the major storm engine--Ad Nauseum--is really, really ugly with Force of Will. I regularly kill myself from 15 life with Ad Nauseum using a deck that has an average converted mana cost of 1 because I don't hit business spells. Adding force of will would only make this worse. Thirdly, the card advantage involved with protecting your combo seems to me to be also bad--I don't often have cards left in my hand, after I Ad Nauseum, let alone a possibly useful blue spell that I could have pitched to force rather than use silence.

What decks were you thinking of when you made this comment? Some of the new Iggy lists with dream salvage? Solidarity? Do you have a decklist?I'm not suggesting adding Force of Will to existing combo decks that cannot afford to run it, but running combo decks that can make use of it. At least, if your main concern are the Fish / Countertop matches.

[RexFTW]

Well some of his article is actually dead on IMO (not all of it mind you). I dont think that legacy decks should run 26 lands like jund because your curve ends at 3 not 6. This is a bit of an exaggeration. However, you do see that all of the top 8 decks played lots of basics and all 20 or more lands.

[LostButSeeking]

I'm not suggesting adding Force of Will to existing combo decks that cannot afford to run it, but running combo decks that can make use of it. At least, if your main concern are the Fish / Countertop matches.

But what combo decks can make use of it, though? Which storm deck would rather spend two cards and no mana than one card and one mana (silence or duress) as protection? Storm--by definition--wants to play all of the cards in its hand. More spells = more storm. It's hard enough comboing out with all of the cards in your hand, let alone -1 cards. The only thing I've seen that could properly use force was an interesting (if fragile) storm combo deck that used Necologia to draw enough cards to storm off. Maybe the deck will get better with leyline of anticipation? .

[lordofthepit]

Hey guys, if you liked this article, you should check out the paper I'm going to publish in Nature about why quantum physicists have to use all them newfangled math symbols.

[Azdraël]

Crap.

[Vacrix]

The question is, do we enjoy insightful articles more where everything has pretty much already been said?
Or shit like this that we can both ridicule and use as a starting point to facilitate our own discussion? :P
I personally prefer REALLY shitty articles or really good articles. Anything that falls in between isn't worth my time. Its like the funny/ridiculous loop. Some things in comedy are so ridiculous that they loop back around to funny, but others are really just not ridiculous enough or too ridiculous. There's a fine balance.

[mujadaddy]

Why are people putting Wild Nacatl and Lord of Atlantis in their decks when there are multiple ways in the format to kill you on the first turn of the game.Because those first-turn-kill decks don't do it every time, and you might actually play your deck, so, you should put some cards in it?

It’s almost like they are actually playing back in 1995...no.

People don’t play Thoughtseize to disrupt the combo decks for some reason, they play Stone Rain....what?

Daze beats combo because combo players build their decks incorrectly....tell us, oh Standard Master, how do we lowly Legacy players build "Daze Proof" Combo decks?

I’m not exactly sure what the best way to do that is, specifically, but I know it begins by adding a freaking land....yeah, that 'freaking land' really helped my turn 1 kills. Thanks a bunch!

I honestly don’t have a clue why Merfolk decks even exist, because their strategy is inherently pretty weak.Note that this is said AFTER

2nd place – Merfolk
3rd place – Merfolk
4th place – Goblins
5th place – Goblins
9th place – Faeries
13th place – Goblins
14th place – MerfolkAgain, I honestly don’t have a clue why Merfolk decks even exist, because their strategy is inherently pretty weak..


I wonder what they will do when the combo decks realize they should start playing Force of Will themselves, and a manabase that doesn’t suck....say that again...

combo
manabase

combo
manabase

combo
manabase

combo
manabase...you're an idiot. If you, the reader on The Source, doubt that, let me summarize his anecdote at the end.

He's playing the burn mirror, he 'accidentally' looks at his opponent's hand and thinks they have the last 3 damage they need as an instant. He therefore doesn't cast his sorcery speed last 5 damage, conceding instead. He misread what cards the opponent had in hand.

As the kids say, Cool Story, Bro.

[Sims]

Who is this fucknut and who did he blow to get to post this garbage on channelfireball, or any mtg site.

Legacy has a problem with people getting greedy with their manabases, true. I'll concede that point. But next time you want to write an article about a format, try putting more than 1 month into it and learn how to write an article before throwing your junk out there like a highschool bully telling everyone they are wrong and you are right becuase you are semi-pro/wanna be winrar!

tl;dr: article was trash.

[AngryTroll]

Although the overall article wasn't great, he had some interesting points. He's right that people play it fast and loose with their manabases. About the first thing I do with almost any list I pick up here or at SCG is add a basic Island. He's also correct that Zoo is one of the best-tuned, most consistent decks in the format, and that it will steamroll opponents with awkward draws.

[Vacrix]

Because those first-turn-kill decks don't do it every time, and you might actually play your deck, so, you should put some cards in it?
...no.
...what?
...tell us, oh Standard Master, how do we lowly Legacy players build "Daze Proof" Combo decks?
...yeah, that 'freaking land' really helped my turn 1 kills. Thanks a bunch!
Note that this is said AFTER
Again, I honestly don’t have a clue why Merfolk decks even exist, because their strategy is inherently pretty weak..

...say that again...



...you're an idiot. If you, the reader on The Source, doubt that, let me summarize his anecdote at the end.

He's playing the burn mirror, he 'accidentally' looks at his opponent's hand and thinks they have the last 3 damage they need as an instant. He therefore doesn't cast his sorcery speed last 5 damage, conceding instead. He misread what cards the opponent had in hand.

As the kids say, Cool Story, Bro.
/thread

[SJUD]

Author of the article has played Legacy two or three times at my local store. He plays hypergenesis combo and gets angry if you have force of will or if you flip a land off your counterbalance to counter his win. True story.

[mujadaddy]

Author of the article has played Legacy two or three times at my local store. He plays hypergenesis combo and gets angry if you have force of will or if you flip a land off your counterbalance to counter his win. True story.

Hahahahahahhahahaha. Give this man some Rep!

[JeroenC]

^loving that.

OT: even the comments are full of BS (not brainstorm):
While I don’t play merfolk, I do play goblins and I can tell you, combos are not all they are cracked up to be.
Turn 1 Lacky(on the play) can beat a turn 2 Iona all day long in the Reanimator match. Post board it is easier to deal with a combo than it is to deal with an agro deck.
People with you attitude generally are the people type those messages online like “gosh, if you played any worse” as my Fireblast in response to there turn 2 ANT combo kills them.
Agro decks have long kept combo decks in check and I don’t need more than 21 lands with 6 fetches to drop a turn 2 Siege-gang Commander that doesn’t care if I can’t cast red spells anymore. I’ll be happy to race you. I didn't know combo was being kept in check by aggro? Good thing Goblins always draws both Lackey and SGC in their opener and always plays first and reanimator never has a counter and ANT always needs to go down to four on turn two and and and...

phew, stupid people just get me rantin'

Edit: this guy is awesome though:

I don’t think I’ve seen as much cognitive dissonance come out of Alaska since Sarah Palin.

[Vacrix]

This article isn't free! ITS TAXING MY BRAIN CELLS!

[mchainmail]

I’m not sure what category the 43 Land decks fall into, but it probably has to be combo, since it is a Life from the Loam engine deck. As a somewhat obvious side note, I believe this is one of the very few decks in the format that plays enough lands.


43 is still tight on the mana base... 5 lands that tap for colored mana on turn 1, total?

[frogboy]

The fact that people are like "oh, all of the aggro decks could beat Iona" is pretty telling considering that you basically never got Iona against beatdown decks.

Birklid is flagrantly correct that people are cheating their land counts and losing games to Wasteland. For New Horizons not to have a basic Island is pretty inexcusable, and any sort of strong anti-beatdown plan probably wants four Paths, so basic Plains is also pretty key.

[frogboy]

43 is still tight on the mana base... 5 lands that tap for colored mana on turn 1, total?

Lands plays more green sources than it plays green one-drops.

[Aggro_zombies]

The fact that people are like "oh, all of the aggro decks could beat Iona" is pretty telling considering that you basically never got Iona against beatdown decks.

Birklid is flagrantly correct that people are cheating their land counts and losing games to Wasteland. For New Horizons not to have a basic Island is pretty inexcusable, and any sort of strong anti-beatdown plan probably wants four Paths, so basic Plains is also pretty key.
Max, please don't defend the Generic Mid-Level PTQ-Grinding Pro who conflates "playing a non-interactive goldfish deck" with "being better at Magic than other people."

I mean, yeah, people are loose with mana base construction. Yeah, decks in Standard usually run more than 20 lands, even the decks with relatively low curves. And why do you suppose that is? Why do Legacy decks run so few lands?

Maybe because your average Legacy deck curves out at two.

When you're running bunches of cantrips and the top of your curve is a 3cc card you've got at most four copies of, why do you need more than twenty lands? Remember the old Dryad decks in Extended, back around the time Odyssey was around? They ran, what, 16 lands? But they chained that mana base together with 1cc cantrips, which let the deck find more lands AND have more spell slots.

Similarly, the low curves in Legacy mean you run a very high risk of getting mana flooded if you go above the high teens in the land department. That would be an argument for one of two things: running fewer lands, or running lands that actually do stuff, like turn into creatures and attack. Doing either of those opens you up to attack by tempo decks, though.

I mean, really, he's arguing less for better mana and more for not walking into the Daze. People who play decks with tons of tempo cards in them make some sort of weird sore loser argument like, "Well, when my opponent blanks half my cards by just adjusting how he plays, it actually helps me because he's playing right into my clever plan!" Suuuure. So when you really need to counter the Swords on your guy but your opponent has :2: up and you only have Daze, that's a real victory for you.

Most of the Daze decks are pretty terrible in one way or another, but they still exist because people try to be greedy and because they can sometimes roll slow control decks. That much I agree with...but the rest of the article is pretty terrible. What you learned in Standard doesn't cross over to a format where the average CMC in most decks is ~1.5.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

He does have a point tho, Legacy decks tend to be fragile to mana disruption due to excessive usage of cantrips to smooth out the gameplan. This is partial one of the reason I think MUD is a slumbering beast...

But yeah, he does come off too condensending(sp?).


He does have a point, but making it with Daze is bad. Daze works not so much because people don't play enough lands (although that helps), but rather because so much of the game depends on those first two or three three opening turns that you can't afford to keep one mana back.

Anyway. Not sure if I'll bother with the rest of the article, given the comments here.

[ramanujan]

This article is one of the worst I have ever read. I would love to see this person try to do well in Columbus. The grouping of decks in to categories is silly. It sounds good. But there are many other cycles of decktypes that can be chosen to represent an arbitrary partition of the decks which the auther finds relevent.

Saying that Merfolk is a bad deck is ignorant. Try doing something cute in a tournament and watch merfolk beat you. Believe me, it looks bad. It doesen't play brainstorm or enough blue sources. It only has 4 hard counters, ect. Trust the results of a variety of tournaments over the past year. Merfolk is a really good deck that looks like crap. And yes, it loses to aggro. Every deck, regardless of how "Good" or "Bad" you decide it is has bad matchups.

To the author. I am glad that you are so interested in legacy. Use that desire to read and play more and talk less.

-Peace

[MMogg]

I don't think it's playing loose with manabases, I think it's being optimal. Optimizing play is one of the hallmarks of Legacy and it just so happens that some decks (Tempo decks) run disruption packages focused on exploiting that configuration. It's not loose to play with fetches and duals, it's optimal. For example, if I'm playing some kind of Bant control and have an opening 7 with Noble Hierarch, a blue fetch land and a Swords to Plowshares, what will I fetch for and play first? Tropical Island into Hierarch or Tundra into Swords? What if you're on the draw and your opponent plays Lackey? Legacy manabases allow flexibility and make the proverbial decision tree larger. That's not playing loose.

Same with the inclusion of library manipulation, like cantrips and Sensei's Divining Top. Those also help smooth out one's mana base as well as optimize one's draws. Again, it's about optimizing, not playing loose. The land counts are just right for the decks. If I can draw an analogy, it's like the "Just in time" style of Japanese manufacturing. Some factories have a process so streamlined that assembly parts and things needed arrive where they are required just before they are required. This style of manufacturing made Japanese factories a marvel of optimization, but didn't mean they were playing loose with manufacturing, and indeed, that style gave them a competitive advantage in the global market. Similarly, Legacy decks are streamlined to use each resource as efficiently as possible.

That said, I'm definitely going to add more basics to my Belcher deck. I'm always light on land in my opening draws. :wink:

[Vacrix]

Saying that Merfolk is a bad deck is ignorant. Try doing something cute in a tournament and watch merfolk beat you. Believe me, it looks bad. It doesen't play brainstorm or enough blue sources. It only has 4 hard counters, ect. Trust the results of a variety of tournaments over the past year. Merfolk is a really good deck that looks like crap. And yes, it loses to aggro. Every deck, regardless of how "Good" or "Bad" you decide it is has bad matchups.
HAHA
Thats like the only thing he got right. Merfolk is a piece of shit. It has great results because of bad players, not because fundamentally its a good deck. Try reading this article or even thread. http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?18172-%5BFree-Article%5D-It-s-an-article-about-Legacy
Then you will see.

[SpikeyMikey]

I actually agree with the author to a certain degree. He foolishly thinks he understands something that he does not have the background to see clearly. But there is actually an angle there. Legacy deck builders and the players who pilot those decks are constantly overstepping their safety zone to access better spells.

1. 4 color Landstill - was great for awhile. Nick Trudeau was tearing up the place over and over despite the paper thin manabase. Oh, then someone figured out he had been cheating to get proper lands all along.
2. Team America - played some really powerful spells, no basics, and was so thin on everything that it actually made Extirpate look attractive
3. New Horizons - I know it is all the rage. But it is a house of cards and will not last - for all the same reasons.

What the author does not have the familiarity to understand is that this is cyclical. It happens over and over in this format until the people playing the deck eventually abandon it due to inconsistency and hate. It is good to push the boundaries of what you can get away with. That is intelligent deck design. Good decks play good cards. The holes in your design (manabase is easy to spot and easy to take advantage of) only come to bite you in the balls when someone else calls you on it with a deck designed specifically to exploit this weakness. But until they sit across from it, the over-reaching decks will continue to pursue their Plan A successfully.

Want a deck that will be a perennial performer? Figure out a way to make it strong with as few colors as possible. It opens up doors.

I T4'd 6 40+ man tournies in a row with 4C Landstill months before Nick picked the deck up. This is not to say that I'm awesome, because I'm a horrifyingly bad player, but just to point out that regardless of Nick's cheating, the deck was incredibly strong and well-positioned in the metagame.

Also, saying that playing Lord of Atlantis is bad when you could be playing combo made me laugh. I thought we discovered that Fish is nuts against combo all the way back in '98 in Rome... Like someone else said, newbies are so loud and arrogant. They've got it all figured out.

[DukeDemonKn1ght]

Sure, Merfolk is not like, the best deck in the format, but this author is a flagrant moron, and seems to pretty much personify the "wanna-be semi-pro douchebag who thinks he knows everything."

For all you confused parties out there, here is what I would call the "Merfolk gameplan": Play a blue aggro(/control) deck. Not because blue is the best color at being aggro, but because it's the best overall color. Gain tempo on your opponent, and then exploit that tempo with cheap, "parasitic" creatures that tend to be weak on their own, but get bonkers quickly (due to the 16 available on-type "lords"). And yeah, usually get raped by other aggro decks that are more aggressive. Can't win 'em all, as the saying goes.

And also, because some of us, you know, actually enjoy playing this game, rather than using it as a masturbatory exercise through which to attain (rather small) amounts of prize money, boost our (ultimately meaningless) player ratings, or travel (almost always at our own expense) to (not very) exotic locales. I seriously wish someone would just smack the fucking guy who wrote this article.

[Vacrix]

And also, because some of us, you know, actually enjoy playing this game, rather than using it as a masturbatory exercise through which to attain (rather small) amounts of prize money, boost our (ultimately meaningless) player ratings, or travel (almost always at our own expense) to (not very) exotic locales. I seriously wish someone would just smack the fucking guy who wrote this article.
I'm actually convinced that we don't need to smack him. Since combo players apparently don't know how to build a deck, we should just let Bryant Cook Grapeshot the FUCK out of him until he cries.

[troopatroop]

This article is shockingly bad. It's been said already but goddamn! Such failure.

[Vacrix]

@ Rico

Why did you post this in the first place? To make us laugh? It worked.

[edgewalker]

@Merfolk being a bad deck: Umm it's put 28 people into the top16 over the whole starcitygames series. I mean either it's a good deck, or everyone who plays legacy at these things are completely retarded. I think it's the latter, I mean just look the evidence he used in his article put 3 merfolk lists into the top16.

[DragoFireheart]

The other argument is that Merfolk preys on bad decks.

[Vacrix]

Shit puts up results all the time. In fact, Merfolk is actually a great example. It has a very specific niche; beat blue. It has decent matchups against a few other decks but what does it do that Zoo doesn't? Beat combo? It really doesn't. It beats bad players on combo. And it has a unspeakably bad Zoo matchup.

[Nidd]

Merfolk beating Combo is a moot point, I'm like 14-6 against Merfolk and while that record isn't that spectacular, I'm only a mediocre pilot and people like Bryant Cook or emidln should've put up much better results against this deck.
Beating Merfolk isn't hard as long as you're not completely retarded, their deck doesn't give them the nuts or your deck dicdes to shit on you and let you draw all your lands, or flip Ad Nauseam, IGG and Tendrils in a row.

[edgewalker]

Saying merfolk is bad is like saying RDW in T2 is bad. No one gives it credit, and when it wins or they get rolled by it they make up some excuse. I mean it's a metagame deck, that's it. Remember fish decks in vintage way back when? God they were awful. Manta Riders? Who plays that shit. You know what though the deck one.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that at the end of the day it puts up results. What more do you want? I mean are you going to argue that the top16 of the scg tournaments are ALL bad decks? I mean it's like track and field. Christian Cabtwell has the ugliest form I've ever seen. He's 6'6" with a 650 bench so he just muscles the shot put out there. However, as ugly as his form his, he throws 22+ meters and thats enough to win most major meets (Worlds, Olympics) So you can hate all you want, but he gets the job done. Merfolk does the same, make up whatever excuse you want, it puts up results.


@Nidd, their deck doesn't give them the shits, or your deck decides to shit on you? Isn't that how you beat every deck?

[Nidd]

@Nidd, their deck doesn't give them the shits, or your deck decides to shit on you? Isn't that how you beat every deck?

No, I win by shitting on my opponent.

[edgewalker]

No, I win by shitting on my opponent.

I didn't mean you specifically, or the deck you play. I mean any deck, it's not just merfolk that loses under those conditions. I would wager that almost all decks lose under those conditions.

EDIT: Also, I don't play Merfolk anymore, I don't really play much legacy at all anymore. It just bothers me when a deck puts up consistent results whether it be a metagame deck or a "good" deck and people still talk trash about it.

[Nidd]

I didn't mean you specifically, or the deck you play. I mean any deck, it's not just merfolk that loses under those conditions. I would wager that almost all decks lose under those conditions.
Yeah, I know, people lose when their deck decides to not to work.
The point I wanted to make was, that even I, a mediocre Storm pilot, has a quite good score against Merfolk, which means that either Merfolk isn't so hot against ANT, or that I'm an incredible lucksack.
I can tell you the latter isn't true, so...

[edgewalker]

Yeah, I know, people lose when their deck decides to not to work.
The point I wanted to make was, that even I, a mediocre Storm pilot, has a quite good score against Merfolk, which means that either Merfolk isn't so hot against ANT, or that I'm an incredible lucksack.
I can tell you the latter isn't true, so...

Ok, so Merfolk loses to Zoo and Combo (depending on who you are, etc etc.) But beats everything else, or eats least beasts enough to make top8/top16. I don't see the problem. No deck beats everything, in fact what I just described was the definition of a metagame deck. You destroy one of the decks, in this case most blue based decks, decks with shitty mana bases, and generally shitty decks. You do well against another third of the decks, for Merfolk it's combo. However, you get shit on by the last third, in this case zoo. It just so happens that the majority of the decks in the upper tables fall into the catagories merfolk does medicore to well against.

I mean seriously stop hating on merfolk because two people think it's whack. They can give their opion all they want, but results are results. I mean a lot of these "good players" are in the top16 that Merfolk was in or the top 16 were merfolk did better than them.

[Nidd]

Ok, so Merfolk loses to Zoo and Combo (depending on who you are, etc etc.) But beats everything else, or eats least beasts enough to make top8/top16. I don't see the problem. No deck beats everything, in fact what I just described was the definition of a metagame deck. You destroy one of the decks, in this case most blue based decks, decks with shitty mana bases, and generally shitty decks. You do well against another third of the decks, for Merfolk it's combo. However, you get shit on by the last third, in this case zoo. It just so happens that the majority of the decks in the upper tables fall into the catagories merfolk does medicore to well against.

I mean seriously stop hating on merfolk because two people think it's whack. They can give their opion all they want, but results are results. I mean a lot of these "good players" are in the top16 that Merfolk was in or the top 16 were merfolk did better than them.
Hey hey hey, I'm not hating on Merfolk. In fact, I think it is a good deck, but from my experience, it doesn't really prey on Combo as much as people think it does.
I play Bant Survival on occassion and I have to say that Merfolk gives me headaches - because I play Islands, Fetches and Duals. The matchup is far from unwinnable, but Merfolk keeps me on my toes all the time - because I fall into the category of prey for them.

You're right, it indeed is a metagame deck, and it's good at what it does: It abuses the fact that many decks play Blue and it abuses the fact that many decks use Fetches and Duals as means to fix their manabase - Merfolk has great weapons against these 3 things.

Merfolk is a good deck and that's backed up by results.

[edgewalker]

Hey hey hey, I'm not hating on Merfolk. In fact, I think it is a good deck, but from my experience, it doesn't really prey on Combo as much as people think it does.
I play Bant Survival on occassion and I have to say that Merfolk gives me headaches - because I play Islands, Fetches and Duals. The matchup is far from unwinnable, but Merfolk keeps me on my toes all the time - because I fall into the category of prey for them.

You're right, it indeed is a metagame deck, and it's good at what it does: It abuses the fact that many decks play Blue and it abuses the fact that many decks use Fetches and Duals as means to fix their manabase - Merfolk has great weapons against these 3 things.

Merfolk is a good deck and that's backed up by results.

I guess that wasn't directed at you then, but more of the masses. I don't even know why I'm even adding to this discussion I sold off a lot of the deck (Minus fow's and wastelands) way back when to build RDW. Yet another deck no one gives credit to. But yet another deck that shits on people's chests.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Ok, so Merfolk loses to Zoo and Combo (depending on who you are, etc etc.) eats least beasts

Awesome set of typos!

[edgewalker]

Awesome set of typos!

Leave me and my Gin and Tonics alone! I don't go to your work and knock the broom out of your hand.

[Rico Suave]

@ Rico

Why did you post this in the first place? To make us laugh? It worked.

I posted this because I think there is a really valuable lesson to take from it. It's a shame that most of the target audience for this article are going to be put off by the tone. It's not a surprise that people don't like being called bad.

The basic concept is to play a stable mana base. For this point, the author in the article is spot on. There is no substitute for playing a healthy mana base and it pays incredible dividends. I could go on about specifics, but it seems this thread has resorted to one giant flame-fest and nobody cares about the actual point anymore, which is unfortunate.

[Vacrix]

Okay. I'll put down 4c Landstill and start playing Combo Elves then...

Sure running basics is a good thing. That doesn't mean you should NECESSARILY run a stable mana base. Some decks forego a stable mana base in favor of something else. Just like some combo lacks some of its protection for a little speed boost while some combo gives up its speed for consistency. I don't think that there is necessarily a right answer in this respect. Stax doesn't have the most stable mana base in the world, but it has its own niche in the metagame. Besides, people aren't going to leave their Duals in the closet just because someone shit on them with Wasteland or Back to Basics. Having decks that prey on unstable mana bases makes the format more interesting and less like the rock paper scissors environment we so detest in Standard.

[Amon Amarth]

A good way to alienate your audience is to act condescending and arrogant. The guy has a good point about building stable manabases but who the fuck cares if you act like a prick. You catch more flies with honey...

Also somewhat related is people making ridiculous claims in articles, for example, that Merfolk is a bad deck. I mean, really? I just don't get it. Can we really disregard all the T8's its accumulated? At least back it up with data from testing or something. It seems like people have blinders on and are trying to simplify Legacy for whatever reason. Some players tend to disregard the impressive card pool, unlimited number of answers for any problem that exists, the cyclical nature of the format, meta gaming, and so on. Legacy isn't simple. And comparing it to Standard is simply a fool's errand.

Needless to say I wasn't very impressed with the article.

[Rico Suave]

Okay. I'll put down 4c Landstill and start playing Combo Elves then...

Sure running basics is a good thing. That doesn't mean you should NECESSARILY run a stable mana base. Some decks forego a stable mana base in favor of something else. Just like some combo lacks some of its protection for a little speed boost while some combo gives up its speed for consistency. I don't think that there is necessarily a right answer in this respect. Stax doesn't have the most stable mana base in the world, but it has its own niche in the metagame. Besides, people aren't going to leave their Duals in the closet just because someone shit on them with Wasteland or Back to Basics. Having decks that prey on unstable mana bases makes the format more interesting and less like the rock paper scissors environment we so detest in Standard.

Unfortunately, this line of thinking is not competitive.

[SpikeyMikey]

I see people saying that he has a point about unstable mana bases. He doesn't. As Mmogg pointed out, it's a case of optimization. Tempo is so important early and card quality so important throughout the game. Running more lands decreases your overall card quality and basics slow your tempo against everything that isn't Goblins, Fish or New Horizons. Improving 2 M/U's slightly at the expense of your game against a vast majority of the field is bad, and I don't care how much money you make playing this game, if you're advocating that in this format then you're bad at Legacy. Because this format has so many tools for fixing mana (top 3 effects, fetches, duals and a host of multicolor lands people don't even play with (because they're unecessary) and because the power level of the format is so high, you can't afford unecessary land draws. Two turns of unanswered double Nacatl or KotR will put you so far out of the game you'll never recover. I have to go to bed, the gf is looking at me funny. More later.

[Vacrix]

Unfortunately, this line of thinking is not competitive.
Right......

You aren't taking metagaming into account. You can't beat the field. All you can do is metagame and prepare for your bad matchups, and test... and test some more. Sometimes Belcher is the right thing to bring to a tournament. Same goes with Stax, or 4c Landstill, none of which have particularly stable mana bases. I know that you are of the opinion that decks like NLS and TES suck balls because they don't have a stable mana base like your pet deck ANT (which is not even true in the case of NLS). Clearly, nobody is being competitive unless he is playing ANT.

[IsThisACatInAHat?]

I posted this because I think there is a really valuable lesson to take from it. It's a shame that most of the target audience for this article are going to be put off by the tone. It's not a surprise that people don't like being called bad.

The basic concept is to play a stable mana base. For this point, the author in the article is spot on. There is no substitute for playing a healthy mana base and it pays incredible dividends. I could go on about specifics, but it seems this thread has resorted to one giant flame-fest and nobody cares about the actual point anymore, which is unfortunate.
There's something to be said for stable mana bases. But, 25+ lands is not competitive in this format unless you're running a Loam engine and "MOAR BASICS LOLOL!1!!1" is not an acceptable solution for decks that run 3+ colors. The obvious choice is to run fewer colors, but 1. nontribal monocolor decks are either not competitive or force themselves into an all-in (incredibly unstable) stompy shell and 2. two color decks typically aren't competitive either or are strictly inferior to the tricolor decks they share colors with.

Stable manabases only pay incredible dividends if the format is constantly checking it. Canadian Threshold died because deckbuilders realized they could beat it by playing more stable mana bases and cards that let them circumvent mana (Aether Vial). When it died, unstable mana bases came back because they could. There's an idiom, "when the cat's away the mice will play." Until someone builds a deck that can compete effectively in the metagame and aggressively check unstable mana bases, decks with said mana bases will exist because more colors is more powerful. The Daze decks that exist right now don't do that. Merfolk cut Stifle, New Horizons runs the worst mana base in the format and Pro Bant plays 3 colors and double mana requirements.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that Legacy is cyclical- deckbuilders continue to push the boundaries of what they can get away with (resulting in decks like New Horizons), then someone calls them on it by popularizing a deck built to take advantage of the corners they cut. If we were all really that stupid, players from Standard would cross over all the time to grab the free money from the SCG 5ks. In fact, the same faces tend to place well consistently because they're not the idiots they're accused of being. Really, if Legacy was so easy, the pros would be as good at it as they are at Standard. They'd also probably have built a deck that beats the format. Neither has happened, so maybe it's not as easy as this author pretends it is.

[Rico Suave]

There's something to be said for stable mana bases. But, 25+ lands is not competitive in this format unless you're running a Loam engine and "MOAR BASICS LOLOL!1!!1" is not an acceptable solution for decks that run 3+ colors. The obvious choice is to run fewer colors, but 1. nontribal monocolor decks are either not competitive or force themselves into an all-in (incredibly unstable) stompy shell and 2. two color decks typically aren't competitive either or are strictly inferior to the tricolor decks they share colors with.

I certainly can't agree with the last part. U/W CB/Top Thopters is one of the best performing decks in the format right now according to results.

[SpikeyMikey]

I certainly can't agree with the last part. U/W CB/Top Thopters is one of the best performing decks in the format right now according to results.

Thopter-top is too new to use as a metric. Reanimator would've been a better example. But I believe he said "generally" anyway. The control version of Thopter will soon be just another brick in the wall of Legacy.

[Rico Suave]

Ok.

Maybe we just have a disconnect here. Let's say the decks to beat are Zoo, Goblins, and Merfolk. Why then do so many players continue to play 3 color mana bases that literally cannot beat those decks? What leads people to play "superior" 3 color decks when the 2 color decks actually have an advantage against all of the above decks?

[SpikeyMikey]

Zoo is a 3 color deck with a less than stable mana base. Especially with Lynx. While Fish and Goblins are both good decks (although I would say moreso Fish than Gobbos), they aren't a large enough portion of the field or a large enough proportion of the top tables for it to be worthwhile running hate decks. Leaving Zoo out of the discussion for a moment (as it doesn't fit the profile of the other two), let's look at these decks.

Both seek to disrupt the opponents mana while cheating threats into play with Vial. Actually, we can add in U/W Tempo as well, as it has a similar structure. So these 3 decks seek to disrupt an opponents mana while playing cheap threats. If they do not disrupt their opponent sufficiently, they lose, because the trade-off to mono color (or dual color) decks is that they give up power to stay in those colors. You COULD build a straight U Counter Top deck, but losing things like Goyf or StP or Firespout isn't worth the added mana stability. Again, it's a matter of optimization. Swords to Plowshares is better than Unsummon but only one is available to mono-U. Which is more valuable to a deck, immunity to the Wasteland your opponent may or may not run and may or may not draw or access to better removal? Which is more valuable, having enough lands to be able to ignore double Daze or having enough business spells to match your opponent card for card? These are design issues that each deck needs to handle. Some decks can function without access to StP or EE. Some cannot. Which is better in the abstract is an impossible question to answer, and to say that you have the answer is foolish. If you're going to make foolish statements (especially in a rude and abrasive manner) you have to expect to be mocked.

[emidln]

You can build a 3, 4, even 5 color manabase with an excellent game against those decks. The critical factor is how much of your splash colors you need. If you're trying to get a sorcery-speed spell with WW in its casting cost in a base blue deck against Goblins, you're not going to be very happy with the result. If you situationally need a single splash color, say a red to cast Firespout, or a white to cast Thopter Foundry, your deck is in a much stronger position because the Ports and Wastes won't lock you down as much. In the hypothetical base blue deck, you can keep fetching out basic Islands until you want to cast whatever splash spell you want, then fetch into it and cast it. Further, if you plan on working with 3-4 mana, you need enough basics to actually have 3-4 mana under waste+port, which means 5-6 basics.

For such a manabase, look at the 2nd place GP Chicago list:

2 Academy Ruins
4 Flooded Strand
6 Island
4 Polluted Delta
3 Tropical Island
1 Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island

Brassman played a base blue control deck with a splash into Tarmogoyf+Krosan Grip maindeck and a single mana red splash and a single mana black splash sideboard. The red splash has a larger representation than the black splash given that the matchups he brings in red cards for are likely to be able to waste or otherwise tie down his first red mana after its use. The black splash is primarily against things that will not have mana disruption and thus a single black source is fine.

BrassMan also likely skimped on mana, but he did so due to playing 11 filtering effects, and ran enough mana that a single LD spell is unlikely to stop him from continuing to play filtering effects to grab more lands. Inability to play additional filtering effects to turn those filtering effects into lands because of a light manabase is an extremely common problem for most legacy aggro-control decks.

Edit:

Zoo's manabase doesn't need to be rock solid because decks cannot spend their resources attacking Zoo's manabase if they hope to contain 1-2cc creatures that power up off a fetchland paired with 1cc burn/removal. Goblins can afford to play Wasteland and Port games against NLU. They can't do the same when their opponent goes turn 1 land, nacatl go.

[SpikeyMikey]

You can build a 3, 4, even 5 color manabase with an excellent game against those decks. The critical factor is how much of your splash colors you need. If you're trying to get a sorcery-speed spell with WW in its casting cost in a base blue deck against Goblins, you're not going to be very happy with the result. If you situationally need a single splash color, say a red to cast Firespout, or a white to cast Thopter Foundry, your deck is in a much stronger position because the Ports and Wastes won't lock you down as much. In the hypothetical base blue deck, you can keep fetching out basic Islands until you want to cast whatever splash spell you want, then fetch into it and cast it. Further, if you plan on working with 3-4 mana, you need enough basics to actually have 3-4 mana under waste+port, which means 5-6 basics.

For such a manabase, look at the 2nd place GP Chicago list:

2 Academy Ruins
4 Flooded Strand
6 Island
4 Polluted Delta
3 Tropical Island
1 Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island

Brassman played a base blue control deck with a splash into Tarmogoyf+Krosan Grip maindeck and a single mana red splash and a single mana black splash sideboard. The red splash has a larger representation than the black splash given that the matchups he brings in red cards for are likely to be able to waste or otherwise tie down his first red mana after its use. The black splash is primarily against things that will not have mana disruption and thus a single black source is fine.

BrassMan also likely skimped on mana, but he did so due to playing 11 filtering effects, and ran enough mana that a single LD spell is unlikely to stop him from continuing to play filtering effects to grab more lands. Inability to play additional filtering effects to turn those filtering effects into lands because of a light manabase is an extremely common problem for most legacy aggro-control decks.

Edit:

Zoo's manabase doesn't need to be rock solid because decks cannot spend their resources attacking Zoo's manabase if they hope to contain 1-2cc creatures that power up off a fetchland paired with 1cc burn/removal. Goblins can afford to play Wasteland and Port games against NLU. They can't do the same when their opponent goes turn 1 land, nacatl go.

I think Andy was actually a little heavy on mana. Most CB decks back then were running 16-17 lands and the field was not particularly hard on manabases. How many lands was Nassif playing?

I mentioned Zoo's mana because it didn't fit the pattern of the other "consistant" decks, not because I felt that Gobbos or Fish would want to play the disruption game against them. Zoo has no disruption but doesn't need it for the same reason most 3 and 4 color decks don't need disruption; they've got an edge on card quality by blending colors. However, it is vulnerable in M/U's against PT Junk/Rock style decks and I would imagine against New Horizons as well, although I've never played the M/U.

[mujadaddy]

Really, if Legacy was so easy, the pros would be as good at it as they are at Standard.Ouch.
Pro's and their groupies:
[ ] Told
[x] Fucking Told

[Gheizen64]

I posted this because I think there is a really valuable lesson to take from it. It's a shame that most of the target audience for this article are going to be put off by the tone. It's not a surprise that people don't like being called bad.

The basic concept is to play a stable mana base. For this point, the author in the article is spot on. There is no substitute for playing a healthy mana base and it pays incredible dividends. I could go on about specifics, but it seems this thread has resorted to one giant flame-fest and nobody cares about the actual point anymore, which is unfortunate.

To paraphrase what a friend of mine often say:

"You may be talking about the best phylosphy there is, but if you yell with your dick in hand no one will ever listen you"

Calling Merfolk bad is like calling all the old Sligh/RDW decks bad. They were deck that preyed on the non-existance of mid-game power in the magic days of old. Nowadays in the modern standard a deck like RDW would just be stupid because there is no wasteland anymore and people play 3/4 lifelink for 3 making your 2/1 for R just bad. WotC even reprinted Lightning bolt for this very reason.

Also, i don't understand the point of "healty manabases". If those "bad manabases" make your deck better against everything but merfolk, i'd gladly play the bad manabase. With modern creatures, there's just no way a deck based on mana-disruption alone can prey on the meta. Merfolk can do this to an extent just for a variety of reasons, but still.

[Lifeless]

I'd like to congratulate this guy on sounding like more of an elitist prick than any Legacy writer I've ever read. Way to take the high road.

I truly hope that even the most desperate barnacle can understand that his tone is inappropriate.

[Rico Suave]

Zoo is a 3 color deck with a less than stable mana base. Especially with Lynx. While Fish and Goblins are both good decks (although I would say moreso Fish than Gobbos), they aren't a large enough portion of the field or a large enough proportion of the top tables for it to be worthwhile running hate decks.

I really don't think we're on the same page here. I'm not talking about a hate deck.

Also, I think you are mistaken about the presence of Fish/Goblins. Look at the St. Louis 5k - half the top 8 was Merfolk and Goblins.


You can build a 3, 4, even 5 color manabase with an excellent game against those decks. The critical factor is how much of your splash colors you need. If you're trying to get a sorcery-speed spell with WW in its casting cost in a base blue deck against Goblins, you're not going to be very happy with the result. If you situationally need a single splash color, say a red to cast Firespout, or a white to cast Thopter Foundry, your deck is in a much stronger position because the Ports and Wastes won't lock you down as much. In the hypothetical base blue deck, you can keep fetching out basic Islands until you want to cast whatever splash spell you want, then fetch into it and cast it. Further, if you plan on working with 3-4 mana, you need enough basics to actually have 3-4 mana under waste+port, which means 5-6 basics.

For such a manabase, look at the 2nd place GP Chicago list:

2 Academy Ruins
4 Flooded Strand
6 Island
4 Polluted Delta
3 Tropical Island
1 Underground Sea
2 Volcanic Island

Brassman played a base blue control deck with a splash into Tarmogoyf+Krosan Grip maindeck and a single mana red splash and a single mana black splash sideboard. The red splash has a larger representation than the black splash given that the matchups he brings in red cards for are likely to be able to waste or otherwise tie down his first red mana after its use. The black splash is primarily against things that will not have mana disruption and thus a single black source is fine.

BrassMan also likely skimped on mana, but he did so due to playing 11 filtering effects, and ran enough mana that a single LD spell is unlikely to stop him from continuing to play filtering effects to grab more lands. Inability to play additional filtering effects to turn those filtering effects into lands because of a light manabase is an extremely common problem for most legacy aggro-control decks.


Yes, this is an example of a solid mana base.

The key factor which cannot be stressed just by looking at the mana base, however, is that the deck functions as a blue deck. The deck is perfectly comfortable playing Islands and casting its CB, Top, Sower of Temptation, Trinket Mage, Vedalken Shackles, and Spell Snares. The maindeck doesn't even have any red or blue cards so it's basically a U/g deck.

In essence, half of the stability of the deck comes from not just its mana base, but also the spells it is seeking to cast. This gets a little more complicated though.

Nevertheless, you're right in that a deck doesn't have to be strictly 2 colors to do well.

[Mayk0l]

I guess my 23 Islands MUC deck is spot on!

Although I might have to cut some cards to add 7 more islands.

[chokin]

I guess my 23 Islands MUC deck is spot on!

Although I might have to cut some cards to add 7 more islands.

Force of Will seems like the first card to go. I mean it costs 5 mana.

[Volrath]

Force of Will seems like the first card to go. I mean it costs 5 mana.

That should not be a problem if he yust puts enough islands in there.

Daze returns a land, thus sets you back, and shall therefore be cut for more islands.

(If dazes are played in MUC, haven't seen those in ages)

[Rico Suave]

Also, because there seems to be some confusion amongst people, I did not write this article. I don't agree with a number of things in the article either.

I do, however, believe that the vast majority of Legacy decks I see can be improved by adding a land.

[menace13]

Yes, Rico i agree +1 land to any deck voila instant better. And as Gerry T put it; or you can Continue playing your 18 land three color decks with 4 Wastelands and 8 cantripps.....

[yankeedave]

Yes, Rico i agree +1 land to any deck voila instant better. And as Gerry T put it; or you can Continue playing your 18 land three color decks with 4 Wastelands and 8 cantripps.....

He said that to me! And did you notice he didn't reply to my response of "Didn't you play 17 land, 4 Brainstorm, 4 Careful Study in your 2nd place SCG St Louis 5K deck?"

[Patrick]

A poorly constructed article that quickly degenerates into him bashing a format he barely understands.

This.

[Forbiddian]

Here's my advice:

Suck less at PTQ.
Play Legacy for more than 0 days.
Learn to wear a shirt. Popped white striped shirt with a black undershirt?
Learn to set an alarm clock.

It's like talking to a 5-year old. Learn to dress yourself and wake up in the morning, and suck less at Magic.

[Vacrix]

Here's my advice:

Suck less at PTQ.
Play Legacy for more than 0 days.
Learn to wear a shirt. Popped white striped shirt with a black undershirt?
Learn to set an alarm clock.

It's like talking to a 5-year old. Learn to dress yourself and wake up in the morning, and suck less at Magic.
LOL You really are Pi4meterftw!

[menace13]

He said that to me! And did you notice he didn't reply to my response of "Didn't you play 17 land, 4 Brainstorm, 4 Careful Study in your 2nd place SCG St Louis 5K deck?"

Haha , ah yeah i remember you in the comments. Nice one.

[dahcmai]

I almost feel bad for that guy. He just lost all respect he ever had in that forum. People are just ripping on him hard.

[DrJones]

He shouldn't let that affect him. Look at Mark Rosewater for an example of writer that people love to bash.