Survival of the Fittest

[anonymos]

I was just watching/listening to the coverage of the SCG open tonight. During the finals, and possibly before, Evan Erwin was calling for the banning of Survival of the Fittest. Personally, I think he is overreacting and the metagame hasn't adjusted for it yet.

Anyone else have thoughts on the topic?

[SlopeeJ]

a resolved survival pretty much means gg right?

[sdematt]

The UG Madness deck is very good, as it is very fast. But, with proper sideboarding and deck construction, it can be thwarted. It is a graveyard based deck, as we know, there's a piece of hate or two for that.

I think if it still dominates the meta to a point where nothing can compete, then I think they need to ban (if they feel they have to ban something) a card, then ban Vengevine.

Survival isn't broken without Vengevine, and allows for many other strategies in the format. Bant Survival, RGBSA, and many other builds aren't as fast as Vengevine Survival.

In essence, don't ban Survival if a banning needs to happen. Don't take out 10+ deck with one swoop, take out 1.

-Matt

[SlopeeJ]

I agree, but lets be honest they are not going to ban a card they just printed. I was chatting with a friend and we both agree that survival seems better then reanimator or Ant ever was.

[Aggro_zombies]

The UG Madness deck is very good, as it is very fast. But, with proper sideboarding and deck construction, it can be thwarted. It is a graveyard based deck, as we know, there's a piece of hate or two for that.

I think if it still dominates the meta to a point where nothing can compete, then I think they need to ban (if they feel they have to ban something) a card, then ban Vengevine.

Survival isn't broken without Vengevine, and allows for many other strategies in the format. Bant Survival, RGBSA, and many other builds aren't as fast as Vengevine Survival.

In essence, don't ban Survival if a banning needs to happen. Don't take out 10+ deck with one swoop, take out 1.

-Matt
This is basically it, but Wizards would most likely ban Survival anyway because it's a "combo engine" that "can't be used fairly" and "crushes scrubs in the MTGO casual room."

The other issue is that Vengevine Survival decks don't really care about graveyard hate. If you don't hate the yard, they Fireball you with Vengevines; if you do hate the yard, they use Survival to turn low-end guys into high-end guys and beat you down normally. The only way to effectively hate the deck is to hate Survival.

EDIT:

I was chatting with a friend and we both agree that survival seems better then reanimator or Ant ever was.
No, it's just more difficult to hate correctly while being more flexible and forgiving than either of those decks.

[DalkonCledwin]

I agree, but lets be honest they are not going to ban a card they just printed. I was chatting with a friend and we both agree that survival seems better then reanimator or Ant ever was.

they have banned cards they just printed before. In fact they have pre-emptively banned one card before its official release date if memory serves.

[Tacosnape]

Any time a new thing happens people call for bannings. This will just shift the meta a little bit. Cards that will see more play:

1. Pithing Needle. People will realize that, hey, Pithing Needle is amazing, to the point of being maindeckable in a world where every deck ever packs some combination of Survival, Vial, Fetchlands, Wasteland, Top, Belcher, Knight of the Reliquary, etc.

2. Ethersworn Canonist. Stops Vengevine combo cold. This will only last until people start packing a single Memnite, but for the moment it works.

3. Peacekeeper. Apparently.

4. Spell Pierce/Spell Snare. Yes, I'm actually calling Spell Pierce underrun. Snare's solid as ever, too.

5. Nature's Claim and Revoke Existence. Nature's Claim -might- be better than Krosan Grip in modern Legacy. Revoke Existence is white's neato cousin.

There's probably plenty more, too.

EDIT: Also, props to my boy Mike Fyrberg for Top 8'ing. Seems like somebody from our crew does it every time there's one down here.

[SlopeeJ]

No, it's just more difficult to hate correctly while being more flexible and forgiving than either of those decks.

This is probably true. I believe one of main things that people were saying about the banning of mystical tutor was that those decks weren't really dominating the top 8s while Survival has been.

I'm not sure I agree 100% it needs banning, but banning the vengevines would be better. And Aggro Zombie is right, if you stop the yard they just win with 4/3 haste for 4 mana. It pretty much is they resolve survial or lose. Also with surival you can get a pretty constant turn 4 Iona/Emrakul

[DalkonCledwin]

Also with surival you can get a pretty constant turn 4 Iona/Emrakul

Unless the Loyal Retainer is in play at the exact time you survival up an Emrakul... you are not getting a turn 4 Emrakul. So I wouldn't say that is consistant at all.

On the other hand a Turn 4 Iona off the back of Survival is definitely consistent.

As for adding Vengevine or Survival to the Banned List, I am not personally convinced that the deck is all that broken. There are so many ways to stop the combo, Qasali Pridemage, Pithing Needle, Krosan Grip, any Creature Removal (for the creatures that enable the combo), and well the list just goes on. And most decks pack at least one or two different options for stopping the combo. So it really shouldn't be that problematic.

[Deadweight]

The UG Madness deck is very good, as it is very fast. But, with proper sideboarding and deck construction, it can be thwarted. It is a graveyard based deck, as we know, there's a piece of hate or two for that.

I think if it still dominates the meta to a point where nothing can compete, then I think they need to ban (if they feel they have to ban something) a card, then ban Vengevine.

Survival isn't broken without Vengevine, and allows for many other strategies in the format. Bant Survival, RGBSA, and many other builds aren't as fast as Vengevine Survival.

In essence, don't ban Survival if a banning needs to happen. Don't take out 10+ deck with one swoop, take out 1.

-Matt


Even with GY hate, it's hard to beat the deck. They can simply transform into NO Pro and steam roll you after you mull into GY hate post board. The deck just wrecks you either way.

I know banning SotF will hurt even players with different builds but Venge-Sur is the most consistent and broken, there's no reason not to play it.

Besides, Survival is highly non-interactive. Casting it and dealing 16+ damage the same turn without any drawback seems so unfair.

[Dark Ritual]

I agree if they were to ban a card they shouldn't ban survival they should ban the vengevine; old school survival advantage is not broken by any means. Or any aggro control list of survival for that matter. Vengevine survival is ridiculously good but not unbeatable by any means. There is plenty of hate for it in the current format namely pithing needle naming survival is great. Also, if mystical tutor got unbanned, I'm pretty sure vengevine survival couldn't compete with ANT. ANT beats VV survival cold with mystical tutor.

[SlopeeJ]

Unless the Loyal Retainer is in play at the exact time you survival up an Emrakul... you are not getting a turn 4 Emrakul. So I wouldn't say that is consistant at all.

On the other hand a Turn 4 Iona off the back of Survival is definitely consistent.
ah yea exactly. survival the retainer on turn 3.... Caste on turn 4 with your one mana then survival for Iona/Emrakul.... Seems pretty good, esp one turn earlier with Noble Hierarch.

No one is saying there isn't answers to an enchantment with an activated ability, this is Legacy there are answers to everything. Listing the answers doesn't really say much and doesn't prove that a card is or isn't broken, esp saying you need 4 swords in hand to beat the 16 damage coming at you.


There are answers to Jesus Christ it's a lion

[ummon]

I don't think anything needs banning. However, if things do get out of hand, then like others have said, Survival isn't the problem, Vengevine is.

[DalkonCledwin]

Answering a Vengevine deck is easy enough to do. What you have to be able to do is answer it before it goes off.

To that end you also need to be able to answer its transformational sideboard, for which there are now plenty of good answers to that as well.

[Ubiquitous Druid]

Has Survival of the Fittest ever been a problem for the Legacy metagame before this deck? In short, no. It has been used in a variety of decks and archetypes, none ever coming close to Goblins in prevalence.

Is vengevival so good that it can't be sideboarded against? In short, no. Above-mentioned options are completely relevant and valid ways to take care of vengevival.

I agree with Aggro-Zombies in that the only real reason for banning the card is Wizards' preoccupation of making the format more "fun" for those who aren't ready to play the streamlined and efficient game that is competitive legacy. However, I don't think this would happen until Vengevine rotates out of Standard because Wizards finally has a valid way to pump Legacy players for actual profit (in the form of booster packs). Once Wizards reaches their return on investment they might ban the card that makes them no money over the card that does make them money (even though one breaks the deck and another does not).

To the player referencing the Memory Jar preemptive banning. That was done in an entirely different context than the proposed banning of Survival of the fittest.

And, as a humorous note to myself: I think it would be funny if a card named "Survival of the Fittest" was banned because it is too strong.

[troopatroop]

Tacosnape said everything, play Pithing Needle. Please don't ban Survival, banning Vengevine seems better.

[DalkonCledwin]

To the player referencing the Memory Jar preemptive banning. That was done in an entirely different context than the proposed banning of Survival of the fittest.

I am fully aware that there are different contexts for each banning Wizards has ever done. The recent banning of Mystical Tutor should make that extremely apparent.

HOWEVER, my statement with regard to the memory jar pre-emptive banning was in response to someone who claimed that Wizards would NOT ban Vengevine because it is a brand new card and still in standard. In otherwords I was attempting to point out that along with the Affinity Deck's primary cards that have been banned both in Standard, Extended, AND Block Formats during its time in each of those formats Memory Jar was also banned not only when it was brand new, but prior to its existence in any format.

I was just pointing out that Wizards apparently has no objection to banning a card regardless of its age.

[Deadweight]

If Venge-Sur is still not "out of hand" yet, and "easy to handle" even post board like you guys suggested, with all the tech you mentioned against it, then why did it just topped 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 12th in a 200+ attendance tourney? Outperforming heavy control decks (Counterbalance, Landstill), pure aggro (Goblins, Zoo) and combo (AnT).

edit: The deck has been highly anticipated ever since it's debut in GP Columbus, so it's safe to say it did not "flew under the radar" and people came prepared for it. Not surprisingly, Dredge another GY-deck is nowhere in the Top 15.

re:
Pithing Needle, Qasali, Nature's Claim >> Daze, FoW
E. Cannonist >> Shield Sphere, Memnite
all others >> Natural Order, Progenitus

[Ubiquitous Druid]

I am fully aware that there are different contexts for each banning Wizards has ever done. The recent banning of Mystical Tutor should make that extremely apparent.

HOWEVER, my statement with regard to the memory jar pre-emptive banning was in response to someone who claimed that Wizards would NOT ban Vengevine because it is a brand new card and still in standard. In otherwords I was attempting to point out that along with the Affinity Deck's primary cards that have been banned both in Standard, Extended, AND Block Formats during its time in each of those formats Memory Jar was also banned not only when it was brand new, but prior to its existence in any format.

I was just pointing out that Wizards apparently has no objection to banning a card regardless of its age.

I agree with you on all the facts, just merely the interpretation. Memory Jar's banning was a one-time, unique event in Magic and a response to Wizards actually saying: "we done fucked up." Affinity in Standard and the un-errated Flash might be a better analogy from which to draw. Both the aforementioned were severely warping a given format by making all other archetypes essentially unplayable. Vengevival is doing no such thing, regardless of its age. I just found Memory Jar a poor analogy with those considerations.

[DalkonCledwin]

I agree with you on all the facts, just merely the interpretation. Memory Jar's banning was a one-time, unique event in Magic and a response to Wizards actually saying: "we done fucked up." Affinity in Standard and the un-errated Flash might be a better analogy from which to draw. Both the aforementioned were severely warping a given format by making all other archetypes essentially unplayable. Vengevival is doing no such thing, regardless of its age. I just found Memory Jar a poor analogy with those considerations.

fair enough, I was just making a straight mention of the facts with regards to them banning cards that are new or pre-new.

[Grollub]

You could play Jar for a few weeks, it was "just" emergency banned. :)

[DalkonCledwin]

If Venge-Sur is still not "out of hand" yet, and "easy to handle" even post board like you guys suggested, with all the tech you mentioned against it, then why did it just topped 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 12th in a 200+ attendance tourney? Outperforming heavy control decks (Counterbalance, Landstill), pure aggro (Goblins, Zoo) and combo (AnT).

I can think of a few reasons it out performed both Dreadstill and Landstill. For one thing it tends to be faster than either of those decks (especially landstill). There are a few other reasons that probably contributed there, but most of them are hypothetical and I prefer not to be hypothetical. As for Goblins and Zoo, it depends on if those two types of decks were really built to handle Vengevival or not. Goblins most of all of the two I can think of not being built to handle it as it is especially dependant on its color base. As far as ANT goes, that depends, is SCG's still classifying all storm decks as Ad Nauseam Tendril even if they aren't? Because not all storm decks are built to handle Vengevival or even capable of being built to handle it.


You could play Jar for a few weeks, it was "just" emergency banned. :)

Ah, I was under the impression that it had been banned prior to it's actual release, but just read the article about the actual banning which says it was indeed an emergency ban. Thanks for keeping me informed :D

[Ubiquitous Druid]

If Venge-Sur is still not "out of hand" yet, and "easy to handle" even post board like you guys suggested, with all the tech you mentioned against it, then why did it just topped 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 12th in a 200+ attendance tourney? Outperforming heavy control decks (Counterbalance, Landstill), pure aggro (Goblins, Zoo) and combo (AnT).

Out of curiosity (not being inflammatory, I just don't know), which event are you referring and what percentages of control archetypes were actually present?

Playing Landstill I have 10 maindeck answers to Survival on the play or draw in the form of:
4 Force of Will
3 Spell Pierce
3 Spell Snare

and 4 Sideboard slots devoted to Extirpate. Sometimes I also run Stifle depending on the metagame.

Deeds and EE clear the bears they play, and I can usually survive long enough to get them. Sure, they got Force, Daze, etc., but they still have to have a pretty nuts hand to have answers and combo pieces to reliably do everything they want on turn 2 and 3 through as much hate as I pack. Sometimes when ANT has the same kind of luck, I can't stop it. Otherwise, it hasn't posed me that much trouble in my testing. I just think people are overreacting to a new and good deck.

[DalkonCledwin]

Out of curiosity (not being inflammatory, I just don't know), which event are you referring and what percentages of control archetypes were actually present?

He is talkiing about Star City Games' Open Series in Nashville. And unfortunately we won't know the percentages of the decks in the field at that event until the Too Much Information Article for that event is published (at least not unless we were a judge or T.O. at the event). What we do know is the top-16 decks.

[Dark Ritual]

The card that was banned before its release was mind's desire when legacy didn't exist because the banned lists hadn't been split yet simply because chaining 1 mind's desire into another mind's desire basically meant GOOD GAME SIR.

Vengevine got 4 places in the top 16 because the deck is heavily played. Statistically speaking, if more people play a deck then that deck has a higher chance of getting X spots in a top 16 especially if the deck can compete with every other deck in the format. Of course vengevival blows countertop out of the water; turn 2 counterbalance is nothing compared to a turn 2 survival of the fittest turn 3 2 4/3's swinging. Counterbalance is a completely fair card whereas survival of the fittest is an engine card that when active greatly exceeds counterbalance's power.

The meta will adapt and madness survival will not be OMG LOOK AT THE VENGEVINE'S OMG CAN'T STOP IT PLEASE KILL ME NOW~!~!~!~!~!~!!!!!!!!!!!~! after a few months on the legacy scene the meta will shift to accomodate the deck. I don't believe any card in the madness survival deck needs to be banned.

[Deadweight]

Playing Landstill I have 10 maindeck answers to Survival on the play or draw in the form of:
4 Force of Will
3 Spell Pierce
3 Spell Snare

and 4 Sideboard slots devoted to Extirpate. Sometimes I also run Stifle depending on the metagame.

I like the confidence you have in Landstill, but you need a hand with an awful-lot of permission spells to handle SotF, Wild Mongrel, Aquamoeba, Jitte, and Natural Order. Not to mention they have their own counterpells in their arsenal also.

[Ubiquitous Druid]

He is talkiing about Star City Games' Open Series in Nashville. And unfortunately we won't know the percentages of the decks in the field at that event until the Too Much Information Article for that event is published (at least not unless we were a judge or T.O. at the event). What we do know is the top-16 decks.

Thanks for clarifying. I would like to know what decks the Vengevival decks went up against (whether it was unequivocally the best deck or if it benefited from a meta that was ill-prepared or underestimated it). Obviously Zoo, Gobos, and other tribal are a good matchup. Storm-combo.dec and dedicated control probably not so great. Just wondered what people were actually playing.

[DalkonCledwin]

I like the confidence you have in Landstill, but you need a hand with an awful-lot of permission spells to handle SotF, Wild Mongrel, Aquamoeba, Jitte, and Natural Order. Not to mention they have their own counterpells in their arsenal also.

not every Vengevival deck runs counterspells. The deck that won the Star City Games Open today was a Green and White Vengevival deck that didn't to my knowledge use a single counterspell.

[Ubiquitous Druid]

I like the confidence you have in Landstill, but you need a hand with an awful-lot of permission spells to handle SotF, Wild Mongrel, Aquamoeba, Jitte, and Natural Order. Not to mention they have their own counterpells in their arsenal also.

My point is they must have at least 1-2 threats, 1-2 combo pieces, 1-2 protection AND the land/resources to cast them in hand to start. Use permission on the combo pieces and protection and let inconsequential stuff like underwhelming bears resolve. Eventually, I'll find the sweeper I need with a Wild Mongrel or Aquamoeba clock that this deck imposes. As long as you can keep the survival and/or the vines off the table you can be good. In my testing, I've had enough permission to accomplish that.

[DalkonCledwin]

The top-16 decks were as follows:

1st: GW Vengevival
2nd: GU Vengevival
3rd: Retainer Survival
4th: Canadian Threshold
5th: UW Countertop
6th: GWB Rock
7th: Ooze Vengevival
8th: BUG Landstill
9th: Stiflenaught
10th: 4c Landstill
11th: Ad Nauseam Storm (can't think of what else to call it)
12th: Retainer Survival
13th: a variation of Eva Green
14th: BR Goblins
15th: Mono-Red Goblins
16th: Dredge

[Ubiquitous Druid]

The top-16 decks were as follows:

1st: GW Vengevival
2nd: GU Vengevival
3rd: Retainer Survival
4th: Canadian Threshold
5th: UW Countertop
6th: GWB Rock
7th: Ooze Vengevival
8th: BUG Landstill
9th: Stiflenaught
10th: 4c Landstill
11th: Ad Nauseam Storm (can't think of what else to call it)
12th: Retainer Survival
13th: a variation of Eva Green
14th: BR Goblins
15th: Mono-Red Goblins
16th: Dredge


That actually doesn't seem unbalanced to me at all. There are Mid-range, control, and combo decks all represented in the top 16. Sure, there are more survival decks than any other but that seems to always rotate on any given big tournament. Alot of it might depend on each players matchup or the quality of the players playing a given archetype. The only conspicuous absence is Zoo (which folds to vengevival and leads me to believe many people were playing it).

[Aggro_zombies]

If Venge-Sur is still not "out of hand" yet, and "easy to handle" even post board like you guys suggested, with all the tech you mentioned against it, then why did it just topped 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 12th in a 200+ attendance tourney? Outperforming heavy control decks (Counterbalance, Landstill), pure aggro (Goblins, Zoo) and combo (AnT).

edit: The deck has been highly anticipated ever since it's debut in GP Columbus, so it's safe to say it did not "flew under the radar" and people came prepared for it. Not surprisingly, Dredge another GY-deck is nowhere in the Top 15.

re:
Pithing Needle, Qasali, Nature's Claim >> Daze, FoW
E. Cannonist >> Shield Sphere, Memnite
all others >> Natural Order, Progenitus
The issue here is that Survival could do all of this shit before. Survival builds pre-Columbus could use Natural Order in the sideboard if they wanted, or combo out an Iona or Emrakul if they wanted, etc. The only difference between then and now is the addition of Vengevines.

The issue with Vengevine is that it gives Survival a Fireball. That allows Survival to close out games that it otherwise might not have won, using its namesake card. This is in addition to the usual bag of tricks Survival decks pack; you can run Vengevines as just one more package alongside your normal bullets and core creatures.

That's the reason graveyard hate doesn't affect Vengevine Survival decks: Vengevine is "just" one of several plans. Even something like Extirpate to nab all the Vengevines at once doesn't answer the standard beatdown plan, or any other special package the deck might be running. Furthermore, Pithing Needle, Tormod's Crypt, and Relic of Progenitus suffer from the "dies to maindeck Trygon Predator" syndrome against the Madness builds. Predator is actually really damn hot right now against all of the big decks.

Banning Survival will wipe out a fairly unique portion of the metagame. Banning Vengevine just makes Survival another Tier II option again.

[Deadweight]

Banning Survival will wipe out a fairly unique portion of the metagame. Banning Vengevine just makes Survival another Tier II option again.

True. But "retainer" and "welder" versions are equally non-interactive and annoying as well.

[Rune]

Some thoughts after having played a ton of games with GW Survival and UG Madness:


Survival can't be hated effectively because if you board too much hate for it, then you will just get beaten down by giant dorks while you sit with your useless hate cards in hand/play, and if you don't board enough hate, then you will just lose to Survival. In addition to that, most "hate" cards are pretty weak/easy to deal with. If the Survival player is smart, Pridemage/Grip/Explosives will never matter since he can just play the enchantment when it is possible to get a few activations out of it before it gets destroyed, and those few activations will often be enough to end the game. Survival decks also play their own Pridemages and Krosan Grips, so any permanent-based hate can easily get blown up. Extirpate is a good hate card, but you need to have it in hand and have B open in order not to die, and even if you remove the Vengevines, you still have to deal with the fact that SotF is now "turn every creature into Goyf/KotR". The standard UG Madness list obviously has issues against cards like Peacekeeper, but it can easily make changes that will deal with those kinds of cards. As many have said, Vengevine is the problem. If it wasn't for Vengevine, you could just blow up the SotF and you would be back in the game, but as it is, you cannot allow the opponent th pour any green mana into the enchantment before you destroy it, otherwise you will be in a lot of trouble.

The deck (GW Surv) really only has 1 bad matchup: Storm combo. You might think the deck would have problems against pure control, but this isn't really the case. It's too hard for control decks to keep the board clean of troublesome creatures, avoid getting screwed too hard by Wastelands and at the same time also keep up counterspells for SotF. Hardcasted Vengevines are also hard to deal with since they need to be plowed, otherwise they will just keep coming back. Karakas and KotR make the Emrakul combo decks a near bye, and aggro is generally easy because you have a crazy combo and your creatures on their own are just so much better than theirs.

Survival is like the new ANT of the format, except Survival actually puts more than 1 person in the Top8, is infinitely easier to play and has a very solid backup plan in addition to its main combo. I don't really care if it gets banned or not, but I voted for it in the "most bannable card" thread, and I still think it is. (Technically speaking, it's Vengevine that is the most bannable card, though)

[Antonius]

That's the reason graveyard hate doesn't affect Vengevine Survival decks: Vengevine is "just" one of several plans. Even something like Extirpate to nab all the Vengevines at once doesn't answer the standard beatdown plan, or any other special package the deck might be running. Furthermore, Pithing Needle, Tormod's Crypt, and Relic of Progenitus suffer from the "dies to maindeck Trygon Predator" syndrome against the Madness builds. Predator is actually really damn hot right now against all of the big decks.

Yeah, I laugh whenever an Extirpater gets killed by Flying mongrels and Rootwallas. It seriously happens way too often!

[Aggro_zombies]

True. But "retainer" and "welder" versions are equally non-interactive and annoying as well.
Yes, but they aren't as oppressively good as Vengevine Survival decks, and weren't so even before Vengevine was printed.


Yeah, I laugh whenever an Extirpater gets killed by Flying mongrels and Rootwallas. It seriously happens way too often!
This is why Extirpate is a bad card.

[JamieW89]

I wouldn't mind Vengevine being banned. I think survival should stay unbanned though, as it adds diversity to the format.

[ivanpei]

IMO survival is NOT broken. I play survival myself and its pretty easy to hate. Grips from the board are in almost everydeck. Spellpierce/spellsnare are also everywhere. The combo also takes up alot of slots and you have to DRAW survival + resolve it + squeeze a few activations out of it. The reason why its appearing in such large numbers is that is is cheap to build (relatively) and most importantly FUN to play as well as being relatively simple to pilot. There is a fledgling legacy community where I play and everybody wants to build some form of vengevine survival. The idea of 16+ damage from vengevine in one turn is such an alluring one.

The concept is simple, it seems fun, people love tutoring, people love creatures. For people who have played it/played against it, we know exactly how balanced the card is, but for everyone else they just want to do something broken (which legacy is famous for) that they understand. Storm combo/dredge are complicated decks that take alot to master. Most people are puzzled/baffled/intimidated by these more complicated combo decks due to the many interactions they have to learn. Vengevine survival seems like a "safe" combo deck with force of wills, creatures and all around good investment cards like tropical islands etc. My 2 cents.

[Antonius]

even hard casted vengevines are annoying. 4 hasted damage for 4cc is the fastest slow-roll strategy I can think of.

[jazzykat]

The answer is obvious, unban mystical. Turn 2 Iona seems more fair now that vengevine and survival have been paired effectively.

[Pippin]

Panic claims for banning yet again? :rolleyes:

This is actually getting absurd to me.

1. Vengevine gets printed in RoE
2. Someone here points out interaction between Vengevine and Survival of the Fittest
3. Guy who suggested Vengevine gets laughed at, and its pointed out how Vengevine is too slow, and that Retainers + Iona combo is just better
4. Nothing happens for almost a year*, then Caleb brings Survival madness to GP and makes top8
5. Suddenly everyone is playing Survival and Vengevines, and its "most powerfull deck" out there and people start to claim for bans

When people start playing goblins again, putting Siege Gangs turn 2 into play, and make a GP Top 8 performance I predict shouts for lackey banning all over again.

* edit - uh oh, it felt like a year, turns out to be way less sicne RoE was released

[ivanpei]

I've played RB goblins/zoo any decent aggro deck and steamrolled UG vengevine. WG vengevine is a much better deck with better dudes but that deck obviously dies to combo. Vengevine survival takes alot of mana/effort to make work. You don't always draw survival and you often have to dig for it. If you dont draw it early, the rest of deck does not have enough power to get there. The key is redundancy. Goblins has the T1 aethervial/lackey play backed up by warren weirding/stingscourger/gempalm on turn 2. Zoo has the kitties, goyf and KOTRs backed up by burn/path/sylvan library. Survival may have some redundancy in fauna shaman but even then that is very fragile. Survival is strong but definitely not broken. Grip is an unanswerable answer which just busts survival decks.

[Tao]

Banning Vengevine would be a joke, it would be like banning Protean Hulk or Tendrils of Agony. IF there is a problem card then it is SotF.

I play the format quite long and remember some calls for bannings. The first card on that list was - Survival of the Fittest. Back then it was because of effing ATS. You don't know what that deck does? Let's just say the deck banned itself by being horrible. The next card players wanted to get banned was Goblin Charbelcher and that wasn't justified either. I think Fact or Fiction was the next card that had a ban discussion and then came Standstill. After that people wanted Goblin Lackey to be banned.

I am not saying that Survival is not banworthy, since I know quite well how broken it is but I would wait a while and see how the Metagame reacts to it.

[majikal]

First off, I'm not saying anything should be banned, but I think something will get banned. When people like Evan Erwin start screaming for bannings, you know somebody is listening. :(

However, if something does have to get banned, I vote for Vengevine. Survival as a card is fine. Strong? Sure. Borderline too strong? Possibly. But without Vengevine it doesn't "just win" like it does with it. Even Retainers->Iona/Emrakul can be dealt with more easily than Vengevine.

What we should do is start a pre-emptive letter writing campaign. Send polite emails to WotC expressing your concern that Survival of the Fittest might be on their watch list for banning, and then explain to them why that is a bad idea. Why remove ~10 separate and completely different Survival sub-archetypes from the format (something that makes Legacy interesting, IMO) when you can just nail the one that is offending?

That being said, I'm certain that WotC will do the wrong thing and ban it anyway, because they seem to be extremely reluctant to ban creatures. :(

[IsThisACatInAHat?]

Survival can't be hated effectively because if you board too much hate for it, then you will just get beaten down by giant dorks while you sit with your useless hate cards in hand/play, and if you don't board enough hate, then you will just lose to Survival.
Couldn't they just play, like, any blue counterspell ever? SotF turns on all of blue's counterspells by being the only must-counter target in the deck. No hate necessary, just counter Survival and you're facing down a janky pile of GW creatures with all on-board combat tricks.


Relic and Crypt are a joke since you can just bait an activation by playing 2 creatures and then pitch 2 Rootwallas to put the Vengevine triggers on top of the stack again.
I think you need to re-read Vengevine's oracle text. I don't personally like gravehate against Vengevival, but Relic and Crypt are 100% effective unless you've got Stifle, or more Vengevines in your deck, I suppose. The ones already in the 'yard are gone.


The deck (GW Surv) really only has 1 bad matchup: Storm combo.
And... Dredge, Lands, Reanimator, any combo deck with SnT or FoW that doesn't just drop Emrakul, or any deck with Pithing Needle. Archetype hosers like Peacekeeper (under CB@1) or Extirpate (backed by a player who doesn't magically expect a scoop) are pretty brutal too. Without Survival, it's a strictly worse Zoo deck. Still, somehow attacking a Vengevival deck's grave seems like attacking a Storm deck's Tendrils. How about stopping the Survival just like you would an Infernal Tutor or B. Wish instead? Correct play is tech.

Not to pick on you guy, but let's be serious... a GW deck won't/ can't dominate an eternal format. +1 for the "this deck will be irrelevant when the format adjusts" crowd.

[eq.firemind]

Just when I thought this crap (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?18875-Dear-Merfolk/page3) died...
Damn, like a bunch of housewifes gathering once per week to yell about the new OMFG yellow press sensation.
Seriously, people, can we have at least a month without HolyShitThisThingIsBroken nonsense?

[Cthuloo]

Warning: this post is 100% rationality-free.

I'll hate, hate, hate if they ban Survival. It's a fun card, it enables 1000 different strategies, and it's one of the staples that define legacy. Plus, I love the name. Don't ban Survival! Don't even ban Vengevine if you still want to sell packs. Ban Rotwalla. Rotwalla is broken.

[lordofthepit]

Not sure if it should be banned, but IMO, it's clearly the most bannable card in the format and certainly more deserving than something like Mystical Tutor.

It fits the bill as a cheap, recurrable tutor. It is the engine in several different types of builds, and those decks are all posting obscenely high results. In each of the last three SCG tournaments, five Survival decks have placed in the top 16, despite making up relatively little of the field (about 10% between Minneapolis and Baltimore, data not available for Nashville yet); in other words, despite making up about 10% of the field, it's been consistently making up over 30% of the top 8. Survival archetypes overall posted 66.83% wins in Minneapolis and 62.35% in Baltimore (67.44% and 62.50% for U/G Madness in particular), highest of any archetype in those tournaments and significantly higher than any other archetype that gets played in significant quantities. It just posted the top 3 spots in Nashville. That's much a better performance over the course of three high-profile tournaments than any Mystical Tutor deck (besides Flash) has ever seen, and I would contend that Survival is inherently more flexible and resistant to hate than Mystical Tutor-based decks.

I'm not outright calling for its banning, because to some extent, I think the card is a lot of fun (but mostly because I'm waxing nostalgic about my experiences years ago playing Survival in kitchen table Magic). But given the justifications the DCI provided for the Mystical Tutor banning, I would not be surprised if Survival were to get the axe. It certainly fits all the criteria they normally use (tutor, degenerate, unfun for the opponent, etc.)

[Philipp2293]

Warning: this post is 100% rationality-free.



If they ban Survival, I'll hang myself.

[Nonex]

It's time for Suppression Field to stomp the format.

[teliot]

Is it me or does Even Erwin just know nothing about constructed. A few times I've gone back and looked at his card reviews (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/18002_The_Magic_Show_157_Zendikar_Spoilers_A_GoGo.html), and they're just laughable.

[Tinefol]

Vengvine makes all the difference for control player. I'm a long time Landstill player. The deck started to suck with the uprise of Reanimator (printing of Iona), ANT and Merfolk (more juicy lords, Spell Pierce) in the last year. With the ban of the Mystical Tutor, I thought that the metagame became reasonably OK for Landstill. And it did, as we can remember a short uprise of the Landstill decks. But not anymore.

Before Vengevine, I could prey on Survival decks. No matter what they had, I could deal with it. I could live with a Survival on board for a couple of turns and still overcome it. After all, all they could offer, is maybe 2-3 Goyfs for a beats, and that was also easily fixable with gravehate (relic), preying both on Goyfs and Squee. I could live by clearing the board (Wrath/P.deed) and they required a bunch of turns to recover.

Vengevines shrunk that 'opportunity' window to nothing. Now, you absolutely can not let Survival hit the board. Because if you do - you're getting hit by 8-12 damage right there, right now. If you somehow clear the board, you're getting hit again by 8-12 the next turn. Which, as I hear, amounts to a game lost.

The gravehate isn't particularly effective. Ok, they lure a relic activation with a pair of Vengevines. But they still have another pair and a Rootwalla to continue. Even if you Extirpate the bloody thing, you effectively dumped 1 mana/1 card, into 2-4 mana and 0 cards (since they still have the enablers: rootwalla and some other creature). And that doesn't save you from Iona or KoTR/Goyf plan.

You need multiple gravehate cards as well as a some kind of sweeper to deal with a resolved Survival now. Which is unlikely to be happening for the sake of probability. They only need one card to cause you problems, you need a bunch to deal with it.

Pithing Needle type of cards aren't that effective for the control decks as well. You need some quick clock, to turn it into real problem for a Survival player, which, Landstill (and CB/Top, being control deck as well) can't offer. You are geting hit with that Qasali and Grip, and they lose maybe 1-2 turns, which isn't going to be enough for you.

Moreover, the recent Survival decks have adopted a mana denial plan, which is a pain the ass for the control decks, since they rely on sweepers, which require a lot of mana. It doesn't help that they also have counters of their own (in UGW and UG builds).

Now, I no longer can say that I beat Survival. It steals the games and matches from me, far more often than before. More often than I'm able to take control of the game.

[ykpon]

I'd like to mention 11 latest legacy trials on magic-league. Some kind of Survival+Vengevine decks (usually GW, sometimes UG and UGW) have won 9 of them and got to the finals in the other 2 ones. Not that it proves such fail to happen in every single meta but anyway.

[Piceli89]

Wizards uses to ban a card if it's also played in the other formats. Survival is nowadays a prerogative on Legacy only.
And Vengevine, really? I hate that card, but banning a creature- a mythic rare that nets them cash-won't happen.


Still, I will not deny the fact that the format as of now sucks if you're willing to play honestly (Aggro-Control and Control). Being stomped by hasty 4/3s that even a retarded could do is not funny. Time to answer their t2 Survival with a t2 Tendrils now.

[alderon666]

Funny thing is that ANT/Reanimator never got this big and it was banned. Now Vengevine start taking half of the top 8 and everybody is like "It's fine, you just need to play moar hate!".

I'll vote for the banning of any card just out of spite for what they did with Mystical Tutor. Had they only waited for the Reanimator/ANT to start making half of the top 8's (outside of Netherlands of course!) and I wouldn't be so sour about it.

[lorddotm]

Unban Mystical. That could help in keeping this deck in check.

[Tacosnape]

So 5 Survival decks make top 16 in Nashville, and people clamor for bannings.

Pshaw. 5 Merfolk made top 16 in Baltimore. Nobody complained at all then. 0 Merfolk made it this time.

Survival's flooding everything because everybody's playing it. Don't get me wrong. It's fantastic. But it's also popular. Don't blow it out of proportion.

[jazzykat]

Here is a more constructive question: What decks and specifically what hoser cards are good vs. survival decks? I know what beats AdNT, Reanimator, and Zoo, and Merfolk. I don't know what beats recurring hasted 4/3 creatures, in a Survival shell.

[conboy31]

Tabernacle, aven mindcensor, extirpate, suppresion field, humility, peacekeeper, canonist, really there are a ton of cards that help. I don't know if any of them just "beat" vv survival, but I know I hate playing against them as a GW survival player.

[Philipp2293]

Well, I'm playing GW Survival too, and from your list the only really dangerous things are Humility and Peacekeeper, the others are only minor to medium disturbances.

[Tinefol]

I play Landstill, about the only deck (along with Mighty Quinn?) in the format that can afford to run Humility. It only has high potential game1, if I'm able to topdeck it at all and stick it under Wasteland pressure before I die. Its not even a 100% garauntee, since it doesn't save you from a swarm of 1/1s. Game 2 it suffers from the 'Pithing Needle syndrome'. It gets gripped and you can't even counter that.

I guess Peacekeeper is okay, but it can be STPed, and its not like survival can't afford to run some stuff to deal with it (splash black, or Mangara, or Masticore).Guess its better in Countertop shell, if you manage to get the lock.

[conboy31]

Survival decks run between 20-28 creatures. Tabernacle is more than a medium disturbance. For specifically addressing what cards are good hate, it really depends on what deck a person is using. Do you have a clock? Mana disruption? Recursion? What colors are you in, what colors do you have stable mana sources that can be used through wasteland.

If you are in landstill, try the UBg jace/deeds/standstill You should do fine against vv survival with a few post board adjustments.

[sdematt]

So we'll maybe start seeing more Dutch Stax lists with maindeck Suppression field? :tongue:

-Matt

[Catitas]

I dont believe they'll ban survival... i bet they ban portal cards, they're real hard to get and tend to get extremely expensive, not to mentional how many are avaiable to get in market and how them make really hard for wizards to risk a legacy pro tour...(dreaming)

Even if survival gets that much good, they'll probably try printing a answer for it, before banning...

[Rigero]

They are printing Awnsers like the new Arbiter which screws the searchability. Also Supression field is very good against survival. I think at the moment it is just a popular deck and the metagame is not shifted yet. There are possibilitys to win against a survival deck, they just have to be played.

A banning of Survival of the fittest is not an option in my optinion.

[nedleeds]

Neither card deserves banning. We are at a point where main deck point Artifact / Enchantment removal might be a necessary evil, with Vial, Survival, Equips, Sylvan Library etc.

12 years ago you wouldn't have considered playing any less than 3 disenchants in white.

Needle it, Plow the 4/3 for 4, Ghostly Prison, Propaganda, Extirpate, Leyline, Path, Qasali ... wait for the field breakdown, if 30% of the field played it then of course it did well.

[conboy31]

Eating breakfast I realized that if you can handle Trygon Predator, planar void is really good vs. UG madness survival. Yes they have grips post board, but void is a 1 drop which should keep you safe until turn 4.

[Deadweight]

Funny thing is that ANT/Reanimator never got this big and it was banned. Now Vengevine start taking half of the top 8 and everybody is like "It's fine, you just need to play moar hate!".

I'll vote for the banning of any card just out of spite for what they did with Mystical Tutor. Had they only waited for the Reanimator/ANT to start making half of the top 8's (outside of Netherlands of course!) and I wouldn't be so sour about it.

QFT!




Pshaw. 5 Merfolk made top 16 in Baltimore. Nobody complained at all then. 0 Merfolk made it this time.


Merfolk is not an unfair deck per se, only to blue decks. Survival is an unfair combo engine that enables its player to win on the spot without any draw back.

[Deadweight]

Needle it, Plow the 4/3 for 4, Ghostly Prison, Propaganda, Extirpate, Leyline, Path, Qasali ... wait for the field breakdown, if 30% of the field played it then of course it did well.

So you're thinking of a U/W deck with 4x Needle, 4x Plow, 4x Path, 4x Prison, 4x Propaganda, 4x Peacekeeper, and let's say 4x Ethersworn Cannonist, 4x Leyline, 4x Jotun Grunt? Let's throw in Helm of Obedience and Enlightened Tutor for the combo win-con. There, problem solved!

[caiomarcos]

I play Landstill, about the only deck (along with Mighty Quinn?) in the format that can afford to run Humility. It only has high potential game1, if I'm able to topdeck it at all and stick it under Wasteland pressure before I die. Its not even a 100% garauntee, since it doesn't save you from a swarm of 1/1s. Game 2 it suffers from the 'Pithing Needle syndrome'. It gets gripped and you can't even counter that.

I guess Peacekeeper is okay, but it can be STPed, and its not like survival can't afford to run some stuff to deal with it (splash black, or Mangara, or Masticore).Guess its better in Countertop shell, if you manage to get the lock.


So we'll maybe start seeing more Dutch Stax lists with maindeck Suppression field? :tongue:

-Matt

Enchantress runs both (Humility and Suppression Field) easily, with Grove and Replenish and Moat and Grass and tutor for those. So, can Enchantress beat VV Survival? Honest question there.

[ummon]

Here is a more constructive question: What decks and specifically what hoser cards are good vs. survival decks? I know what beats AdNT, Reanimator, and Zoo, and Merfolk. I don't know what beats recurring hasted 4/3 creatures, in a Survival shell.

Merfolk beats survival decks. I don't know about specific hoser cards, but it preys on that matchup.

[Waikiki]

I actually considder merfolk as a very good matchup when Im running GW survival.


As a survival deck the most annoying cards I have to face are:

-Things that stop me from having an active survival. (note this doesnt win the game but certainly slows me down)
-Humility

[Tinefol]

Merfolk beats survival decks. I don't know about specific hoser cards, but it preys on that matchup.

It can beat UG survival. The "hoser" cards there are Lord of Atlantis and Islands along with lack of removal in UG builds. Where did you get that it beats non-blue survival shells? If anything, quite the opposite seems to be true.

[Tao]

Merfolk beats survival decks. I don't know about specific hoser cards, but it preys on that matchup.

That is certainly not true for GW Survival. The matchup odds are somewhere between 70% and 80% in favor of GW.

[nedleeds]

So you're thinking of a U/W deck with 4x Needle, 4x Plow, 4x Path, 4x Prison, 4x Propaganda, 4x Peacekeeper, and let's say 4x Ethersworn Cannonist, 4x Leyline, 4x Jotun Grunt? Let's throw in Helm of Obedience and Enlightened Tutor for the combo win-con. There, problem solved!

Wow. You are the funniest troll on the internet.

My point is every single color has an answer or multiple answers. Second the deck doesn't win on the play turn one like storm can. Survival doesn't win on the spot, it requires discard and it (eventually) wins with green creatures (or fringe slow stuff like Retainers / Iona or Ooze). It won't be banned.

[ummon]

Oh my mistake. I was thinking of UG Survival only. WG Survival is almost a bye for combo decks.

[jazzykat]

Let me summarize the answers:

1. Humility or Ensnaring Bridge but only if they have no MD answers and you get blown out G2 when they grip.
2. Tabernacle the $300 solution but only until they draw wasteland and it doesn't stop 4 4/3 hasted creatures from ending you in one turn.
3. Grave hate + creature hate
4. Enchantress with Moat the $200 solution?
5. Ub Merfolk even though I'd bet it was played at Nashville and survival still did that good.
6. "Busted" combo decks...oh wait they banned MT. Not really.

Short of meeting "Madness Haterator.deck" does this deck really have any bad matchups?

[Nessaja]

Start adopting Nature's Claim? Works wonders.

[practical joke]

Let me summarize the answers:

1. Humility or Ensnaring Bridge but only if they have no MD answers and you get blown out G2 when they grip.
2. Tabernacle the $300 solution but only until they draw wasteland and it doesn't stop 4 4/3 hasted creatures from ending you in one turn.
3. Grave hate + creature hate
4. Enchantress with Moat the $200 solution?
5. Ub Merfolk even though I'd bet it was played at Nashville and survival still did that good.
6. "Busted" combo decks...oh wait they banned MT. Not really.

Short of meeting "Madness Haterator.deck" does this deck really have any bad matchups?

I tested it against an updated reanimate list (dead deck not interesting) and it died horribly against reanimate.
Also TES does fairly decent against it normally.
Many more decks do decent against it ( say anything with a 50-60% MU against vengevival or anything with survival)

[Pippin]

What beats Vengevine Survival?

1. Combo - tendrils etc, since you're facing 1 counterspell at most on average and you have faster clock
2. Emrakul.deck. Turn 2 Emrakul beats turn 2 survival
3. Extirpate, even though people claim its a bad card. Yeah its bad if you extirpate vines and then die to rotwalla and mongrel dorks without doing anything at all. Seriously though, how is that even possible? If you put extirpate in landstill shell and basically you loose 1 of your card for 0 of theirs, you still should have card advantage through standstill/draw. If you put extirpate in a eva-green-like deck/rock, you still have loads of removal for dorks
4. Adapt mainboard better to beat Survival. This means playing 4 spell snares, spell pierces, etc

Why are people so keen to jump on ban wagon?

[Meekrab]

Banning a card to cripple this deck would be stupid.

Off topic but related, I'd love to see a card printed with the rules text "Players can't discard cards."

[Deadweight]

My point is every single color has an answer or multiple answers. Second the deck doesn't win on the play turn one like storm can. Survival doesn't win on the spot, it requires discard and it (eventually) wins with green creatures (or fringe slow stuff like Retainers / Iona or Ooze). It won't be banned.

The odds that a Storm player winning on the play turn one and the opponent not having any disruption spell is so small, more so games 2-3. Survival decks can't be easily hated out and they are more resilient to hate than Storm especially with the absence of MT.

Needing a creature to discard is a not a drawback since the decks basically plays 20+ creatures. The drawback, if you can call it that is having to pay :g: for its activation cost and 4 copies of :g:-producing Elves help in this department.

Turn 1: Forest, Hierarch
Turn 2: Forest, Cast Survival, discard Vengevine for Vengevine.
Turn 3: Forest, discard Vengevine for Vengevine, discard Vengevine for Vengevine, discard Vengevine for Rootwalla, discard Rootwalla for Rootwalla (Vengevine triggers). Attack for 16+.

If think that's degenerate enough to warrant banning of either card.

[conboy31]

In that scenario, killing noble sets them back a turn. If they don't have a V V to start the initial chain, it sets them back half a turn. If survival doesn't resolve, they are hardcasting V V on turn 3. Not to mention you happen to hit all three land drops, plus they are basics so you can't be wasted? Live the dream I guess.

WTH is the opponent doing during those 3 turns?

[Mark Sun]

I think it's pretty pathetic how quickly people are having these knee-jerk reactions (actually, that is the definition of a knee-jerk reaction, but still). It's on the same level of freakout as people felt when Reanimator was really popular. But in the waning months before Mystical Tutor was banned, the format was adapting quite well to it, demonstrated by the most recent 5K leading up to the banning.

Is Vengevine Survival incredibly powerful? Obviously. But the hands are sometimes inconsistent, and this deck can be stopped. It just takes tweaking a deck to fight against this matchup, which can mean a number of things, a lot of which have already been discussed in this thread. Spell Pierce, Spell Snare, MD Artifact/Enchantment destruction, and even lesser used cards like Suppresion Field and Ghostly Prison effects. Ghostly Prison effects are actually somewhat effective pre-board, as I played that matchup yesterday at a small tournament. The deck itself (minus the versions with Squee) has no actual source of pure card advantage, so it takes careful play and understanding of how the deck functions to successfully beat it. Also, even having an active Relic/Crypt or Macabre in your hand is a speed bump, it may not seem effective on paper but it helps every little bit. In my opinion, it will not take a long time for the format to adjust.

And to the Enchantress vs. Vengevine Survival matchup, I would say Enchantress is pretty favored to win. I don't know how the mainstream lists are doing, but our team build has 4 Elephant Grass, 2-3 Runed Halo, 2 Moat, and of course 3 Solitary Confinement. I'd be pretty surprised to see a situation where a mana light Vengevine Survival build (I've been comboing out as early as t3 with a 1 Hierarch, and that's only 3-4 mana available) could fight through even one Elephant Grass with a Runed Halo on Vengevine. Not to mention the Enchantress player can protect his enchantments with Sterling Grove and Karmic Justice, both of which nullifies the Tryogon Predator / Krosan Grip plan. Add in the Replenishes and I just don't see it.

[Rune]

Couldn't they just play, like, any blue counterspell ever? SotF turns on all of blue's counterspells by being the only must-counter target in the deck. No hate necessary, just counter Survival and you're facing down a janky pile of GW creatures with all on-board combat tricks.

This is not correct. The deck plays a ton of must-counter spells that can't just be ignored. The deck basically plays 8 Survival engines in addition to some of the best creatures. If Mom is on the table and your opponent tries to resolve Fauna Shaman, will you still save your Spell Snare for the SotF he might very well have in hand? The deck is designed to keep throwing threat after threat at the opponent until he runs out of answers, at which point you take over the game. A good example of how GW Survival can easily grind down control can be seen in the round8 feature match (I think) of the 5k.



I think you need to re-read Vengevine's oracle text. I don't personally like gravehate against Vengevival, but Relic and Crypt are 100% effective unless you've got Stifle, or more Vengevines in your deck, I suppose. The ones already in the 'yard are gone.


My bad. Someone did this against me and, without looking up the ruling, I just automatically assumed it would work. I still don't think they are very good hate cards, though, since you can just answer it by tutoring for Pridemage or you can just ignore it and turn every creature into Goyf/KotR.



And... Dredge, Lands, Reanimator, any combo deck with SnT or FoW that doesn't just drop Emrakul, or any deck with Pithing Needle. Archetype hosers like Peacekeeper (under CB@1) or Extirpate (backed by a player who doesn't magically expect a scoop) are pretty brutal too. Without Survival, it's a strictly worse Zoo deck. Still, somehow attacking a Vengevival deck's grave seems like attacking a Storm deck's Tendrils. How about stopping the Survival just like you would an Infernal Tutor or B. Wish instead? Correct play is tech.


Dredge isn't very hard. You lose g1 and then you get to bring in a ton of cards, often including an Enlightened Tutor package they can't deal with. Lands.dec scoops to maindeck Iona and there are also too many basics in the deck for it to deal with. After sb they also have to deal with hate that can be tutored for in a lot of ways (Macabre, Crypt etc.). What would Reanimator do? Iona gets Karakas'd and Sphinx gets plowed (you have 7-8 StP effects after sb). The only viable option is Inkwell, but it's not fast enough in a race.




Not to pick on you guy, but let's be serious... a GW deck won't/ can't dominate an eternal format. +1 for the "this deck will be irrelevant when the format adjusts" crowd.

I know, it's also shocking to me that a non-blue deck would ever be the best deck of the format, but I still think it is (alongside UGx Sur). You might think your FoWs can keep it in check, but in reality, they can't. The GW build basically has good game against the whole format, if you exclude storm. The most competitive version of the deck plays some very expensive cards, though, and I suspect that might keep it from really catching on. That, and the fact that people continue to underrate it and mistake it for GW jank.

[nedleeds]

The odds that a Storm player winning on the play turn one and the opponent not having any disruption spell is so small, more so games 2-3. Survival decks can't be easily hated out and they are more resilient to hate than Storm especially with the absence of MT.

Needing a creature to discard is a not a drawback since the decks basically plays 20+ creatures. The drawback, if you can call it that is having to pay :g: for its activation cost and 4 copies of :g:-producing Elves help in this department.

Turn 1: Forest, Hierarch
Turn 2: Forest, Cast Survival, discard Vengevine for Vengevine.
Turn 3: Forest, discard Vengevine for Vengevine, discard Vengevine for Vengevine, discard Vengevine for Rootwalla, discard Rootwalla for Rootwalla (Vengevine triggers). Attack for 16+.

If think that's degenerate enough to warrant banning of either card.

Choose one.

1) counter the survival

2) kill an 0/1 green creature

3) destroy an enchantment

4) combo off yourself (belcher, storm, reanimate)

if game 2 or 3

5) play arbiter, canonist, trinisphere, pithing needle, suppression field, ghostly prison, propaganda, extirpate

I agree it's a strong play but there are tons of strong plays.

[Julian23]

Turn 1: Forest, Hierarch
Turn 2: Forest, Cast Survival, discard Vengevine for Vengevine.
Turn 3: Forest, discard Vengevine for Vengevine, discard Vengevine for Vengevine, discard Vengevine for Rootwalla, discard Rootwalla for Rootwalla (Vengevine triggers). Attack for 16+.

If think that's degenerate enough to warrant banning of either card.

Turn 1: Land, Nomads-en-Kor
Turn 2: Land, Cephalid Illusionist, kill you

Like those little stupid playing-in-wonderland combos might actually warrant a baning. WAY to fragile. Plus, if your opponent doesn't have any way of interaction with you until turn 3, chances are he deserves being Vengevine-rapped.

[Deadweight]

WTH is the opponent doing during those 3 turns?

Regardless, Survival can find answers and still win a few turns later. It's not like the deck has no answers/counters on its own. There's just too much to deal with on top of Survival, unanswered NO+Progenitus will smash you in the face, if not discard/madness critters+Vengevine or Jitte will get there.

Banning Survival is only fair and more healthy for the format.

[conboy31]

Regardless, Survival can find answers and still win a few turns later.

I agree, but now the deck is not making these majestic turn 3 kills. Instead, interactions are occuring and the games are lasting until turn 5 and later.

Banning survival is a stupid idea. Axing V V would pacify the people who are crying while still allowing the survival strategy to live.

However, at the moment, neither should be banned.

[Sharpened]

Turn 1: Forest, Hierarch
Turn 2: Forest, Cast Survival, discard Vengevine for Vengevine.
Turn 3: Forest, discard Vengevine for Vengevine, discard Vengevine for Vengevine, discard Vengevine for Rootwalla, discard Rootwalla for Rootwalla (Vengevine triggers). Attack for 16+.


So your complaining about an ideal draw that doesn't even kill by the third turn? And you think that's reasonable? You do realize that this is Legacy, right? In the finals of a legacy tournament this weekend, I lost before taking my first turn.

Survival probably needs close monitoring, but arguments with examples like that make the card seem more then fair. Your not exactly helping your point with them.

[Deadweight]

Necrotic Ooze + Phyrexian Devourer and Triskelion in the GY = insta-win

edit:

Necrotic Ooze + Gigantomancer = attack you for 21-28 dmg

[4eak]

For serious, Vengevine Survival is the best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4ZhAthbHNI&feature=player_embedded#!).

I think Vengevine Survival variants are stronger than a lot of people suspect (I don't mean to hype it), but I'm not on the ban-train. I don't think we've seen the metagame even attempt to answer it in full force.



peace,
4eak

[Kuma]

I am so sick and tired of people complaining about how stagnant and boring the format is, while calling for bannings when a new great deck appears so the format can go back to what it was. This is why we can't have nice things.

Vengevine Survival can easily be handled with the cards we have available. The deck sucks without Survival. Wild Mongrels, Basking Rootwallas, and Vengevines aren't going to get it done on their own very often. Fauna Shaman? Don't make me laugh. It's incredibly slow and vulnerable to creature removal, graveyard removal, and Pithing Needle. Natural Order out of the board? Since when has that been impossible to deal with?

Why are people having such a hard time dealing with this deck? There are numerous ways to attack Survival, and the deck is pathetically bad without it. Banning Survival would be a horrible mistake. We don't need Wizards regulating the format every time it shifts.

Run more Spell Snare and graveyard hate already.

[Dark Ritual]

Regardless, Survival can find answers and still win a few turns later. It's not like the deck has no answers/counters on its own. There's just too much to deal with on top of Survival, unanswered NO+Progenitus will smash you in the face, if not discard/madness critters+Vengevine or Jitte will get there.

Banning Survival is only fair and more healthy for the format.

The format is not overly dominated by VV survival. People still continue to play zoo, TES, and control decks in a field that isn't even overly dominated by survival decks. The card isn't warping the format in any way. And how does the VV deck find answers? It relies heavily on having a survival in its hand at the start of the game because the survival decks abusing the VV combo LACK BRAINSTORM or any sort of card draw/manipulation. That's why one survival getting countered can mean GG's. As for them hardcasting vengevine? This is legacy. You know where a lone 4/3 haste gets you? Almost nowhere even with one exalted trigger the creature can still get blocked by terravore, KotR, tarmogoyf, or hell even a blocking kird ape plus a bolt kills a vengevine.

Another excellent hate card against VV survival is dueling grounds. 1GW, enchantment, only one creature can attack per turn and only one creature can block per turn. Seems like a gamewinning card if it resolves against VV survival and last I heard the colors green and white are played in a lot of decks so yeah. And the enchantress MU against the survival deck is probably absurdly in enchantress's favor because elephant grass makes the VV player cry and once the engine gets rolling there is no way for the survival deck to stop it. Seriously, the VV survival deck is beatable.

[troopatroop]

I think the power level of the deck is being understated. It's clearly very good, winning much more than any other at the moment. Sure there is still diversity in Legacy, but I don't think other decks really compare to Vengevine Survival. I also agree that it isn't being properly hated. Play Pithing Needle! I don't mind new decks, but this one is too good imo.

[Rune]

Vengevine Survival can easily be handled with the cards we have available. The deck sucks without Survival. Wild Mongrels, Basking Rootwallas, and Vengevines aren't going to get it done on their own very often. Fauna Shaman? Don't make me laugh. It's incredibly slow and vulnerable

I wasn't trying to argue that the Shaman is broken. It was a response to the "just play Spell Snares and you beat Survival" argument. Any player with half a brain will not run his Survival into Spell Snare, Counterspell or Daze when he can just play less powerful cards that also need an immediate answer, like Fauna Shaman.

[ykpon]

Wild Mongrels, Basking Rootwallas, and Vengevines aren't going to get it done on their own very often
How about KotR, Tarmo and two sets of exalted creatures then?
UG madness isn't a deck which makes people think about banning Survival as it's really quite easy to beat. GWx versions are. That's not a straight combo deck you can knock off using some gravehate or countermagic, it's more like GW Maverick (which is already strong enough with all its fatties and mana denial) which is able to kill you in one shot if you suddenly don't get an answer.

[SlopeeJ]

yea everyone should run dueling grounds to beat survival...... Some of you are living on fantasy island and drinking the koolaid. Yea we know there are answers, that still doesn't mean the card/combo isn't broken. We have Force of will, so there is an answer to everything in legacy

[TheBirdMan]

The only degenerate card in Vengevine is if they ran LED which ive seen LED LED discard double arrogant wurm and vengevine. Obviously this is nuts but happened in a test game. The only reason this deck could go nuts is if you have no disruption which storm already does that faster.
I highly doubt this warrents a banning and doubt it will be they since they actually debated banning flash which was the most format warping absurdness since necropotence.

[GGoober]

If Survival gets banned within the next month, I probably will have lost hope in the DCI. Mystical Tutor was probably bannable but the decision was still very IMMATURE. The reasons to ban MTutor at the time was due to the proliferation of decks that ran MTutors that were Top8'ing in big events (ANT, Reanimator). Regardless, the time-span to call a ban was not long enough to warrant it IMO. None of these new ban-worthy cards e.g. Survival, MTutor needs an immediately banning like Flash.

So if Survival gets banned within a month or within a similar time-frame, all I can say is that the DCI does not know how to ban cards, nor watch the adaption of the meta towards a problematic deck. In standard people once thought Jund was king, then the format adpated against it, making Spreading Seas, Goblin Ruinblaster viable, but due to the evolution of the meta, Jund evolved as well, and this is what keeps format healthy: giving the format time for it to evolve naturally.

Survival has been legal in the format for as long as we thing, it got the new tools of Retainer/Iona combo, the format evolved by either answering the combo or diversifying removals against Iona. That was a sign of healthy evolution. Recent successes (quite a big one) with Vengevival has shown that the deck is capable of slitting throats fast and punish decks that were not prepared. Ban-worthy? Vengevine or survival? I'd say none. For the longest time, people were bitching that Iona must be banned in the format, but even despite games still lost to Iona, the format itself is healthy.

ANT/Reanimator were popular when MTutor was around, but MTutor had always been around, ANT could always potentially put out results, but the DCI banned MTutor based on a few recent big tournaments, probably persuasion from more influential Legacy people instead of letting the format evolve to adapt. The fall of CBTop and Landstill and other viable decks in the Top8 is exactly shaped by the nature of the meta. Just because there are a ton of Vengevival players doesn't mean that the deck is good (compare it against Flash Hulk and you can tell me which is undisputedly good).

As far as I'm concerned, I think UG Vengevival's a good deck, but only if opponents do not sufficiently prepare against it. I see it as the new age Dredge. If you don't prepare well, you get a high chance of getting blown away. Packing 3 GY hate against Dredge wasn't enough when the deck was a dominating force in the meta, but once Dredge caught on, people were running up to 5-8 slots against it, and it died. Vengevival's the same deal. If your deck has only 4 answers and SB only 4 answers to it, don't expect to beat it.

The deck can be hated out easily, but one of the toughest things to do in the format is to anticipate a meta, and create a strong MD/SB plan without having too many redundant cards. Vengevival makes it a little tough on this decision because you have to hate out both Enchantment and GY. However this doesn't mean that the deck is good, a careful re-examination of MD/SB choices would need to be made if you're anticipating this to be a relevant deck in the meta.

And god is the deck awful when it doesn't draw Survivals. Proponent proclaiming: "You still get Vengevine + Mongrel +Basking turn 2 win" but yeah, draw that hand without Survival all the time? I doubt it. Also, my Jank Welder Survival beats Vengevival, as far as I'm concerned with the matchup. It's scary when they chain Vengevines but if you know the deck, and you have just about the same fundamental turn or a way to delay their fundamental turn, Vengevival becomes very fragile, because it is a aggro Survival deck, not a toolbox so if you can stall them off with a successful method, you'll win because they don't have a toolbox to dig themselves out of it.

My $0.02

[ummon]

Panicked people: Survival Vengevines can't be stopped!!!!!

Sane people: Stop SotF using a counter or removal.

Panicked people: GW Survival Vengevine has so many spells that they can overwhelm your counters!!!!!!

Sane people: Play combo and destroy GW Survival.

Panicked people: UG Survival Vengevine has counters to stop your combo!!!!!!!!

[Kuma]

I wasn't trying to argue that the Shaman is broken. It was a response to the "just play Spell Snares and you beat Survival" argument. Any player with half a brain will not run his Survival into Spell Snare, Counterspell or Daze when he can just play less powerful cards that also need an immediate answer, like Fauna Shaman.

Fauna Shaman needs an immediate answer? Please.

Turn two: Fauna Shaman
Turn three: Discard creature with Fauna Shaman to get Fauna Shaman, play Fauna Shaman
Turn four: Discard a creature to get Vengevine, discard Vengevine to get Vengevine.
Turn five: Discard two Vengevines to get Vengevine and Basking Rootwalla.
Turn six: Discard Vengevine to get Basking Rootwalla, cast your Rootwallas, swing for 16.

Yeah. If I don't answer Fauna Shaman immediately, I lose. :rolleyes: Even if I had to answer it immediately, I could use a Swords to Plowshares or Path to Exile instead of a Force of Will or Spell Snare.


How about KotR, Tarmo and two sets of exalted creatures then?
UG madness isn't a deck which makes people think about banning Survival as it's really quite easy to beat. GWx versions are. That's not a straight combo deck you can knock off using some gravehate or countermagic, it's more like GW Maverick (which is already strong enough with all its fatties and mana denial) which is able to kill you in one shot if you suddenly don't get an answer.

The GWx version may be better, but it's not the one dominating tournaments right now, it's not the most popular version of the deck, and it's not the reason people are clamoring for Survival to be banned.

[GGoober]

I play Fauna Shaman myself in Survival decks, and I must say she is weak as far as her applications to Vengevival. Fauna Shaman is only worth playing in a tutorbox Survival approach i.e. Survival strategies that only need about 1 activation a turn to make a big difference to the game state. Theoretically, she doesn't fit well at all with Vengevivals, which want to chain Vengevines in the yard. She's much slower than Mongrel in terms of discarding (waiting a full turn and losing a potential 3 damage swing). She acts as 5-8 Survivals but I think her application is more of a slow-rolling with bigger creatures or setting up a slow Vengevine swing, which is contradicting what the deck does: Vengevines to the face.

Granted, that it's the only other Survival effect that currently exists, but I personally find her stronger in less aggro, more tutor-ish Survival builds, which is why she probably fits better in GW than UG Vengevival.

[median]

Did't we have this discussion regarding counterbalance a while ago?

[Deadweight]

It is definitely warping the format, the decision tree is simple: either play Survival or all-out hate it or play AnT. The meta will be 1/3 of each which I think is unhealthy.

[ummon]

It is definitely warping the format, the decision tree is simple: either play Survival or all-out hate it or play AnT. The meta will be 1/3 of each which I think is unhealthy.

Why the hell would you play ANT? TES is way better at this point. So is DDFT.

[Piceli89]

Why the hell would you play ANT? TES is way better at this point. So is DDFT.

I wouldn't be too confident on this.

[Waikiki]

Are we talking about just UG survival or survival ? Cause some things are totally not true for survival in general.

[Deadweight]

Why the hell would you play ANT? TES is way better at this point. So is DDFT.

Followers of Cook will play TES, while those of emidln's DDFT no doubt. I've tested both and didn't like either of those.

Anyway, 1/3 Storm sounds much better?

[VsTheWorld]

Eating breakfast I realized that if you can handle Trygon Predator, planar void is really good vs. UG madness survival. Yes they have grips post board, but void is a 1 drop which should keep you safe until turn 4.

Note that Planar Void doesn't actually stop the Vengevine plan because it has a triggered ability. You can still get X-2 Vengevines into play, where X is available green mana. Survival chain Vengevines in response to the Planar Void triggers and end the chain with 2 Rootwallas (note that Memnite won't work because everything has to be played at instant speed here).

[Fuzzy]

Anyway, 1/3 Storm sounds much better?

Let's ban Tendrills.

[Deadweight]

Let's ban Tendrils.

Ok then, if that's what scares you. I can still Brainfreeze you for 20+. But let's not delve into that. I am against Survival due to it's unfairness on behalf of Aggro (Merfolk, Goblins, Zoo) and control (Counterbalance and Landstill) players.

[Hopo]

Ok then, if that's what scares you. I can still Brainfreeze you for 20+. But let's not delve into that. I am against Survival due to it's unfairness on behalf of Aggro (Merfolk, Goblins, Zoo) and control (Counterbalance and Landstill) players.

You seem to have huge problems with survival which the rest of us are not suffering from. Instead of trying to solve them by proposing a ban, why not get a grip and learn to play, or just choose a proper deck? By no means is survival as crazy as you seem to implicate.

It's really dissappointing when people are too lazy to better themselves in the game and just start ranting any new decks with false accusations. If you cannot beat vengevine survival with the tools you have, maybe this just isn't the game for you. For god's sake, it's a deck with creatures and a mana-hungry enchantment. How difficult can it be?

Sure VV-survival is fast and all, but so is the rest of the format. Why not ban Wild Nacatl, Dark Ritual, Goblin Lackey, Arcbound Ravager and the rest also? Also those cards upset people when they lose consecutive games against them by playing slower, worse decks.

[nedleeds]

You seem to have huge problems with survival which the rest of us are not suffering from. Instead of trying to solve them by proposing a ban, why not get a grip and learn to play, or just choose a proper deck? By no means is survival as crazy as you seem to implicate.

It's really dissappointing when people are too lazy to better themselves in the game and just start ranting any new decks with false accusations. If you cannot beat vengevine survival with the tools you have, maybe this just isn't the game for you. For god's sake, it's a deck with creatures and a mana-hungry enchantment. How difficult can it be?

This. Let me throw Hibernation on the stack of cards that just obliterate it as well. Pick up your Survival and all your terrible creatures.

[Deadweight]

This. Let me throw Hibernation on the stack of cards that just obliterate it as well. Pick up your Survival and all your terrible creatures.

If that don't work out, don't come back to this thred complaining

[Sims]

After the games i've played against UG, Bant, and GW survival I've had a fair share of success against it with Dragon Stompy. Trini early slows down their hierarchs and survivals, chalice at 2 stops their survivals/moebas/mongerls, pithing needle from the board becomes a huge road block, and I hear blood moon is pretty good. Sure Moon might not hose as much in those decks as in say Thresh or something... but it still hurts.

If I were still playing stax I don't think i'd fear the deck very much with Supression Fields, Tabernacle, the aforementioned trini/chalice, Ghostly Prison, Oblivion Ring, and the opportunity to play Arbiter and Cannonist out of the board. And that's not even taking into account the Dutch Stax lists that run Humility.

I'd go so far as to say that if not for their own inherent consistancy issues and having some bad matches at other parts of the field, Chalice decks would be your foil to Vengevine Survival.

[Fuzzy]

Ok then, if that's what scares you. I can still Brainfreeze you for 20+. But let's not delve into that. I am against Survival due to it's unfairness on behalf of Aggro (Merfolk, Goblins, Zoo) and control (Counterbalance and Landstill) players.

I think I don't get your point. Vengevine is the green Satan, Storm mechanic is safe? Because it's unfair for Non-Blue Aggro and Non-CB Control as well.

People are crying for 4/3 creatures on turn 3-4. Belcher players are making 14 Goblin tokens in their first turn since 2006! Counterbalance is locking on turn 2 since... Well, ever as I remember!

If you don't like brokeness, I'm suggesting you to go playing Pokémon TCG.

[dahcmai]

Peacekeeper actually does mess these decks up quite a bit. They really don't have a good way to get rid of him. Silly, but true. TES mangles the GW one, though I admit it's rough to get through all the Counterbalance to get to those decks. Since GW and UG both do really well against the Counterbalance decks, you can assure yourself you will play against counterbalance before you get to the Survival/Vengevine shenanigans. Kind of sucks for the Storm players to have all the good match ups go through your worst ones.

now if you have one of those metas where no one plays CB, then you should be playing TES. DDFT is amazing also, but it's a matter of taste and skill really. I don't mind either, but I prefer TES due to it's redundancy in mulligans.

[Mr.C]

I'd say wait and see. I remember people crying to ban lackey. Remember that? The meta will adjust.

[ramanujan]

Good Evening,

Survival is good, but survival seems too good because several people here and at another website or two don't realize that it is perfectly okay if it is nearly impossible to defeat every deck that plays survival. Survival is a card that facilitates many different decktypes which are good. There are many other cards that fit this discription.

For each of these cards, there will be a good deck that will give your deck fits:
Force of will
Brainstorm
Tarmogoyf
Wasteland
Blue Fetchlands
Dual Lands


I guess the point is this. There are many great cards of our format. Survival of the Fittest is now on everyones radar. Watch the metagame adjust. Finally, like others have said, stop begging wizards for treats.

[ummon]

Followers of Cook will play TES, while those of emidln's DDFT no doubt. I've tested both and didn't like either of those.

Anyway, 1/3 Storm sounds much better?

Yeah it does sound better. What is wrong with having combo become a strong pillar of the meta?


Ok then, if that's what scares you. I can still Brainfreeze you for 20+. But let's not delve into that. I am against Survival due to it's unfairness on behalf of Aggro (Merfolk, Goblins, Zoo) and control (Counterbalance and Landstill) players.

And you aren't against the unfairness of TES killing you on turn 1-3? I really don't see how Survival Madness is considered broken when it is so much slower than other combo decks. All you have to do is adapt your hate and wait for the rest of the meta to also do so.


I think I don't get your point. Vengevine is the green Satan, Storm mechanic is safe? Because it's unfair for Non-Blue Aggro and Non-CB Control as well.

People are crying for 4/3 creatures on turn 3-4. Belcher players are making 14 Goblin tokens in their first turn since 2006! Counterbalance is locking on turn 2 since... Well, ever as I remember!

If you don't like brokeness, I'm suggesting you to go playing Pokémon TCG.

Exactly. As someone who does sometimes get annoyed by super fast non-interactive decks, I can see that Survival Madness is the least of our problems.

[dontbiteitholmes]

You guys seriously need to give it a rest. I swear every time a card shows up more than two playsets deep in a top 8 everyone wants to ban it. Can we learn from history here and just wait it out a month or two for the format to adjust. Jace TMS and Emrakul looked like they were going to define the format coming out of the GP now they are both MIA. Oh what a difference 2 months makes.

[ivanpei]

And god is the deck awful when it doesn't draw Survivals. Proponent proclaiming: "You still get Vengevine + Mongrel +Basking turn 2 win" but yeah, draw that hand without Survival all the time? I doubt it. Also, my Jank Welder Survival beats Vengevival, as far as I'm concerned with the matchup. It's scary when they chain Vengevines but if you know the deck, and you have just about the same fundamental turn or a way to delay their fundamental turn, Vengevival becomes very fragile, because it is a aggro Survival deck, not a toolbox so if you can stall them off with a successful method, you'll win because they don't have a toolbox to dig themselves out of it.

My $0.02

Agreed with Walker

Like any semi combo-deck, it has serious issues vs blue. The UG lists are a joke IMO and if I play countertop/jacestill, I absolutely bust UG's ass. Even with aggro decks, I have so much superior creatures+ removal (see zoo) that I can bust that deck 6 out of 10times because they don't draw survival in time and the deck is just incredibly inconsistent.

WG, GBW, UGW survival is much stronger IMO because they run good cards (especialy tarmogoyf and swords) and they can put up a fight when survival is answered (I mean come on, its similar to counterbalance, you just have to answer it or die, with counterbalance giving you a slightly longer window to find an answer). Even then, these decks are extremely fragile to fast storm combo due to their low disruption count. Of this 3, WG is the most stable and popular at the moment but though that list busts the aggro mirror and has good game vs control, it folds to storm combo, I don't see how this is degenerate. WG busts counterbalance.deck, that I admit, however the "classic" no pro lists can just go oops I win against survival due to brainstorms and tops finding NO faster due to the opponent's lack of draw as well as having disruption for the opponent's survival. Landstill has 1 bazillion outs to survival, (4 deed, 2 EE, 2 Spell Pierce, 3 Spell Snare, 4 Counterspell, 4 force of will). And It can just pick off survival's dudes. I play the UWBG version with plows + paths so vengevine recursion is not really a problem. I find it very difficult to lose this MU, even against mana denial, (I play 20 coloured lands + 4 factories). I really don't see how survival is broken. Its just strong and FUN.

I would like to emphasise "fun" remember that magic is a game, and survival is popular because it is "fun". I picked up survival back in the day of full english breakfast because it was "fun" and not because it was busted nuts. People forget that we usually build decks we like and survival has huge appeal with the masses due to its unique multi-dimension approach to the game. It can go aggro, it can go for the combo finish, it can play control with the toolbox answers. If I were a new player looking to build a new deck thats always fresh to play, I would build survival.

[ykpon]

And you aren't against the unfairness of TES killing you on turn 1-3? I really don't see how Survival Madness is considered broken when it is so much slower than other combo decks. All you have to do is adapt your hate and wait for the rest of the meta to also do so.
TES is a straight combo deck. As long as you don't let 'em proceed with their only plan, they can't win.

But Vengevine Survival is not a combo deck, especially its GWu version (http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35428). It has diversified gameplans depending on the game state: stompy mode, one-shot combo kill or a long wastelock+protection war of attrition. A lot of cards (Mother, KotR, Pridemage, Survival itself) have absolutely different uses allowing them to adapt for both proactive or reactive modes at any point of time. How on earth are you going to stop all this madness via simply siding some cards in as you usually do against real combo?

All the above-mentioned 'answers' do nothing besides, probably, some stalling. Peacekeeper? StP. Dueling Grounds? Pridemage or just a huge KotR. Suppression Field? Simply ignore it or pay 3 for Pridemage's ability if you gonna combo off. Extirpate? Play fatties and attack, use Survival to cycle small creatures into bigger ones. Even against game one Humility you have Wasteland and StP to deal with Fatories, Vengevine to get more 1/1's, and equipment and Wonder to make your 1/1's a way better than the opponent's.

[sdematt]

I think that the deck is VERY strong, and I've compared it to coke and caffeine multiple times. The problem is, the deck puts out a lot of big things that attack quickly. For survival to do this previously, they had to play Red for Anger, and go into Survival loops to do so. This takes all the "I have to cast 4 Tarmogoyfs and have them hasty," which takes a ton of mana, to "I do what Survival is supposed to do, and bring bring creatures back! Win?".

I've been playing Survival based decks for about 10 years, and I can say that this is a very strong build. I remember back in the days of ATS, that deck was the bomb as well. Is Vengevine busting up people's houses? Of course it is, it's amazing. But, as a community, I'm pretty sure we can adapt to it and not have a ban occur, I'm hoping.

We need to collectively dust off that box of grave-hate we all took out of our boards 3 months ago, and put them back in. Yes, grave-hate by itself doesn't always cut the mustard, but we'll live. I'm not saying I like the fact there's a deck out there that makes my less than optimal decks not as good to play, or even my tuned decks do lose to it, but adapt.

Has anyone tested the Enchantress, Stax, or Aggro Loam matchups? I've done very limited testing, but these decks are better than normal in terms of combating the deck. Maybe we'll see a bit of a resurgence in these archetypes, and maybe we won't.

However, as I've said previously, if the meta cannot sufficiently adapt, and the deck gets to the point of say, Affinity, then the DCI needs to correct the issue. I'm no saying it will, but say if in a year, things are worse than they are now. People stop wanting to play Legacy, etc. At that point, I can support a banning of Vengevine, and not of Survival, as Survival gives birth to tens of different archetypes, whereas the Vengevine banning only kills one.

Like I said, I'd rather that as a community we adapt our deck choices or sideboard slots to combat the issue to fight the "problem," rather than have Wizards get involved. But, if we can't solve the problem in a decent amount of time on our own, then I support intervention. Reanimator was being dealt with, but the DCI got involved too early I think.

My seven cents apparently, I wrote a hell of a lot. Sorry.

-Matt

[DFY889]

There just needs to be a sick storm combo deck to deal with decks screwing around with vengevines and survials. Unban time spiral maybe? Doubt it will happen since it is arguably a greater of two evils, but I would much rather play against storm combo all day than survival.

[GGoober]

No, there doesn't need to be a sick combo deck.

You don't get the point, the point is to understand this is a relevant force in the meta, just as the Lackey days, the CBTop days, the Dredge days, the Natural Order days, the Iona days, the Emrakul days, the day Mystical Tutor became more relevant with Reanimator days, the day Survival became more relevant with Vengevine days.

Even with today's tools, this deck isn't close to being broken, not even close to being overpowered compared against Flash Hulk, where the meta could do nothing but play Flash Hulk or risk playing a 75-card list that hated Flash Hulk and still risked losing to it. In all honesty, I still root with Bant Survival being the strongest Survival deck but that's my opinion on a 75-list that is resilient, solid and not combined with a pile of cards that depend on one (or two) engines to work effectively.

GW Vengevival is probably stronger than other variants, due to better creatures outside of the engine: Pridemage, Knight.

The ONLY fear I have is: If the meta evolves to combat this strong archetype, it evolves back, and let's say, it evolves to a point where it ultimately emerges victorious, and becomes the stronger deck in the format, then there has to be some concern addressed. Banning Survival will hurt the format since Survival has been safe and undergone so many diversity that are competitive (Elf, Bant, Welder, Iona, ATS, RGBSA, Recsur, Jank versions). It seems weird to ban Vengevines if the deck evolves to a point where it emerges the victor, but banning survival will hurt the entire diversity that is the green-tutor-based deck engine that has existed and been healthy in the format played as a tier 2 - tier 1.5 deck.

Meta-evolving to combat Survival:
- Leonin Arbiter, Peacekeeper, Pithing Needle, Extirpate/Crypt/Relic. All these cards existed but were underplayed since Dredge fell out of favor, but currently these are worthy considerations.

Even non-obvious ones: Ethersworn Canonist, Hiberation (Merfolk tech in SCG), Wash Out are viable choices as well. Some people say race with Emrakul/NOgenitus but these are less direct answers to Vengevivals because I think Vengevival has one of the fastest clock when it gets going so the real deal is to stop the engine that gets it going aka discard outlet and GY (sounds like Dredge matchup??? except they have better castable creature as a Plan B). I don't know a ton of cards, but I'm sure people will be innovative to find SB slots that not only best Vengevival, but perform as secondary cards against other matchups e.g. Hibernation in Merfolks is great against Vengevival without entirely sacrificing the weak Zoo matchup.

[Leftconsin]

In fact today, just under half the meta was packing Survival. And you know what we did when Lands was all the rage? We played that heavily too. And when CounterTop was popular? Yep, we played that too. Survival is flavor of the month. In a few large tournaments some other deck will take up half the top 8 and the drifters will switch to that.

Right now I'm rocking Elf Survival. Is someone going to show up with TES or ANT and rain on my parade? Will the meta swing back to make my deck bad? I think it is inevitable. The sky didn't fall when Lackey, Counterbalance, Life From the Loam, or Entomb didn't get banned.

[Mana Drain]

"Goblins is too powerful, they just took 3-4 spots in a T8. There is no way to beat the deck. Ban Goblin Lackey."

"Thershx5 is too powerful, they just took 3-4 spots in a T8. There is no way to beat the deck. Ban Tarmogoyf."

"Countertop is too powerful, they just took 3-4 spots in a T8. There is no way to beat the deck. Ban CB/Top."

"Storm is getting to powerful, they just took 3-4 spots in a T8. There is no way to beat the deck. Ban Ritual/LED/Mystical"

El-Oh-El. Madness is only another good deck in the metagame, not format warping. It's fad-status will wane eventually. No need to remove ANOTHER perfectly fair(but very powerful) archetype from the format. In my 8 years of Legacy(back when it was called T1.5), only one deck has truly warped the format beyond recognition: Flash. The power level between that deck and anything in Legacy ever is obvious.

Play Pithing Needle. Or Crypt/Relic. Or Peacekeeper. Even better: Play all three if you can. They're versatile cards in the board and they all are effective against a number of decks, including Survival. If that doesn't work, play Merfolk. Or Landstill. Or Tempo X. Or Zoo. All of these decks make up the Tier 1 or close metagame and just happen to beat Survival or can be easily tuned to do so. Just stop complaining until people start to cry for your deck's engine to be banned this week for being "TOO POWERFUL".

[pippo84]

Stop Moaning about banning Survival or Vengevine plz!!

The deck is strong, but can be hated in many ways as already reported above.

Adapt your decks, don't complain.

Survival of the Fittest is one of Legacy's staples and can be used to build many fun and strong decks other than the Vengevine one.

Evolve plz!!!!!!! :smile:

[lordofthepit]

Motivation behind banning cards

I believe that the DCI should err on the side of caution when banning cards from Legacy, because a large part of the appeal and the defining essence of Legacy is that you should be able to play with all the cards in the history of Magic. However, at times, it is necessary to ban a card that becomes format-warping and reduces the diversity of the format.

In my opinion, just because the card is nearly ubiquitous in Legacy (Wasteland, Force of Will, Brainstorm, Swords to Plowshares, Tarmogoyf) doesn't mean that it's format warping. In fact, because those cards in played in so many different archetypes, I believe they improve the diversity of the format, even though they technically discourage a Legacy player from playing weaker cards like Tectonic Edge, Foil, Serum Visions, Unmake, and Grizzly Bears.

I'm not entirely advocating for the removal of Survival of the Fittest from the Legacy format, because I believe the banhammer should be used very conservatively and judiciously, and I haven't definitively made up my mind yet on the case of Survival of the Fittest; but on the other hand, I believe it is by far the most ban-worthy card in the format and that it deserves to be on the list even more so than many of the cards on the current banned list.

Here are some data from recent SCG tournaments:

Data from SCG tournaments

Richmond (2/28/10)

Reanimator
- 12 decks (5.08% of field)
- 42-29-1 (59.03%) against the field (no mirror, no IDs)
- 2 out of top 16 (4th and 5th)
ANT
- 9 decks (3.81%)
- 20-23-1 (46.59%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Indianapolis (3/14/10)

Reanimator
- 21 decks (7.34%)
- 47-52-4 (47.57%) against the field
- 2 out of top 16 (7th and 13th)
ANT
- 16 decks (5.59%)
- 32-47-0 (40.51%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Orlando (3/28/10)

Reanimator
- 5 decks (4.10%)
- 14-15-3 (48.44%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (7th)
ANT
- 6 decks (4.92%)
- 20-14-0 (58.82%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Atlanta (5/2/10)

Reanimator
- 23 decks (11.50%)
- 58-53-4 (52.17%) against the field
- 4 out of top 16 (2nd, 6th, 8th, 12th)
ANT
- 11 decks (5.50%)
- 22-27-1 (45.00%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (1st)

Philadelphia (6/6/10)

Reanimator
- 22 decks (9.32%)
- 58-55-4 (51.28%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16
ANT
- 18 decks (7.63%)
- 45-41-3 (52.25%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (6th)

Seattle (6/13/10)

Reanimator
- 25 decks (13.23%)
- 56-59-2 (48.72%) against the field
- 2 out of top 16 (5th, 12th)
ANT
- 15 decks (7.94%)
- 38-36-0 (51.35%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (15th)

St. Louis (6/27/10)

Reanimator
- 22 decks (11.40%)
- 54-59-1 (47.81%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16
ANT
- 6 decks (3.11%)
- 22-18-0 (55.00%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

So in these 7 tournaments, Reanimator posted a cumulative record of 329-322-19 (50.52%). It made up 8.89% of the overall field and 9.82% of the top 16, so its penetration into the top 16 was slightly better than that of an average deck (by about 10%), which is to be expected for a Tier 1 deck.

ANT posted a 199-206-5 record (49.15%), so pilots had pretty dismal results. Granted, some have contended (including the DCI) that ANT is a difficult deck to pilot, but that in the hands of a pro, it was absolutely degenerate. So if this were true, we would expect significant top 16 penetration where the best pilots start to separate themselves from everyone else, but ANT decks--which made up 5.54% of the field--made up only 2.68% of top 16; in other words, it was less than half as likely as an average deck to place in the top 16!

Contrast that with the performance of Survival decks

Denver (8/22/10)
- 10 Survival decks (8.00%)
- 34-24-4 against the field (58.06%); U/G Madness, 28-16-3 (62.77%)
- 1 out of top 16 (8th place)

Minneapolis (8/29/10)
- 16 Survival decks (9.47%)
- 67-32-5 against the field (66.83%); U/G Madness, 58-28-0 (67.44%)
- 5 out of top 16 (3rd, 8th, 12th, 13th, 15th place)

Baltimore (9/19/10)
- 25 Survival decks (10.73%)
- 102-60-8 against the field (62.35%); U/G Madness, 65-38-5 (62.50%)
- 5 out of top 16 (2nd, 4th, 5th, 12th, 15th place)

Nashvile (10/17/10)
- Complete data currently unavailable
- 5 out of top 16 (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 12th place)

I don't think people fully realize how dominating Survival decks--and in particular, Madness--have been in the metagame. Ever since the deck debuted at Columbus, the deck has posted stellar results, boasting over 62.50% wins in each of the three SCG tournaments for which data are available, with excellent top 16 penetration. For the three tournaments available, 51 Survival decks (comprising 9.68% of the format) made up almost one quarter of the top 16 spots in those three tournaments!

Moreover, some have suggested that the metagame would adapt to Madness as it had to Reanimator. But what they may not realize is that it only took one tournament for Reanimator to fall from a top performer (59.03%) to a sub-50% deck (47.57% in Indianapolis, 48.44% in Orlando). The notion that the format also needed to "adjust" to ANT is ridiculous, as it put up only 3 top 16 slots in 7 tournaments, compared to the 5 that Survival decks now routinely put up every tournament. But in any case, whereas the format was fast to adjust to Madness and never allowed ANT to be a serious contender in significant quantities (which isn't to say that it isn't a threat to win in the hands of a great pilot), it's allowed Survival to put up unprecedented performances for four straight tournaments, despite being the deck that everyone is gunning for.

More discouragingly (for the diversity of the format, but not for a Survival pilot), the deck apparently has a positive matchup against every single major archetype in the format. The following includes all the data I found from Jared Sylva's articles:

- 27-22-5 (54.63%) against Merfolk
- 36-14-3 (70.75%) against Countertop
- 16-8-0 (66.67%) against Goblins
- 14-12-1 (53.70%) against Zoo
- 3-3-0 (50.00%) against Ad Nauseam
- 7-3-1 (68.18%) against Dredge
- 4-0-0 (100.00%) against Enchantress
- 9-1-0 (90.00%) against Charbelcher

I'm not sure why Sylva chose to include the likes of Enchantress and Charbelcher in his data as significant archetypes, but hopefully, that dispels the notion that a fringe deck like Enchantress is capable of "hating out" Survival decks.

Some counterpoints

I saw a lot of counterpoints being raised throughout the thread, and I can't remember exactly who posed each issue, but here's the argument against Survival

Is it necessary to ban a key card everytime a deck becomes successful? After all, Merfolk posted 5 out of the top 16 spots at SCG Baltimore, but no one is asking for the banning of Lord of Atlantis.

It should be noted that even though the tournament was considered a vindication of the Merfolk deck, it was rather Survival decks that performed much better. Consider that Survival decks made up only 25 of the 233 decks in the format, compared to Merfolk's 34, but still achieved 5 of the top 16 slots. Moreover, Merfolk only won 55.53% of its non-mirror matchups, compared to 62.35% for Survival decks. And Merfolk, despite being lauded as a foil to Madness, still only went 50% against Survival decks (15-15-2), at its best performance ever! In other words, even in a remarkable weekend for the fish that had everyone flipping out, Merfolk still did worse than Survival on an average weekend.

The deck isn't that broken/fast. Storm combo can kill on turn 1-2 with a good hand, whereas most non-LED Madness builds cannot kill before turn 3 (with Wild Mongrel) or even turn 4 (with Survival).

This is true, but storm combo is also more susceptible to hate. Furthermore, if you prevent the Survival engine, you may only have to deal with one Vengevine; if you prevent all discard outlets or supplement with graveyard hate, you may not have to deal with any, and U/G Madness decks (but not G/W) become bad aggro decks. But a bad aggro deck is still more threatening than a goldfish, which is what the likes of Storm combo and Reanimator are if you can prevent them from comboing out.

You can just hate the deck with cards anti-Survival measures or anti-Graveyard hate.

To some extent, this is true, but a threat is always better than an answer because you may not draw into your hate card (or the right type of hate) when you need it, and in the meantime, you are diluting the potency of your own deck by playing so much hate, often to the point that you can get beaten down by bad creatures backed by an Umezawa's Jitte. Mono-green madness decks or G/W can just go straight beatdown with much more powerful creatures, and the Survival player can also opt for a Natural Order plan out of the sideboard to bypass your hate entirely.

The metagame can adapt to this presence.

I believe that Legacy is a large enough format that metagame forces are capable of policing itself to some extent, and I have little doubt that one can construct a deck that has a positive matchup against Survival builds. However, that deck must also be strong enough to compete with the rest of the format, and so far, there is no presence that prevents Survival from rampaging over the format to the tune of a 63% win percentage. The format may not necessarily degenerate into something ridiculous like 1/3 Survival, 1/3 Storm, and 1/3 bad prison decks as a result of Survival, but if prison strategies and storm combos are some of the strategies necessary to keep Survival in check (as has been postulated in this thread), then Survival is clearly a format-warping presence that makes the format less fun. At that point, whatever benefits there are to keeping Survival legal are outweighed by its disadvantages, and I would have no qualms about banning it. I hope this doesn't become the case.

Other "shells" like Force of Will/Brainstorm/Duals/Fetches are even more commonly played too, but no one is calling for their banning.

The fundamental difference is that those shells enable a variety of decks, all of which might hope to win 50-55% of its games. Survival of the Fittest/Vengevine enables only a relatively small number of decks, but all of which are looking at 60-65 or 70%.

Other cards can be deemed format-warping too.

In my opinion, the only card in recent memory that I would deem format warping is Counterbalance in combination with Sensei's Divining Top, and even then, those decks didn't post the results as stunning as Survival. Moreover, Counterbalance is a combo only with Sensei's Divining Top; Survival combos with any of 20+ creatures in the deck. Counterbalance is also relatively slow, getting dropped on turn 2 at the earliest, and possibly locking you out on turn 3 only with a good Top. Even then, you have many turns to answer the lock with something like Krosan Grip. On the other hand, Survival takes far less investment and means you will likely take lethal damage within two turns, and even if answered before then, you are probably looking at serious card disadvantage under the gun of several hasty, recurring 4/3s and various Rootwallas.

I do not believe other combo decks are format warping. Certainly, if you are not playing blue, you are severely undermanned in that matchup, but at least you can rely on blue decks, prison strategies, and black disruption keeping conventional combo in check. Nothing exists right now to keep Survival in check.

Vengevine should be banned instead.

Perhaps, but other Survival of the Fittest strategies that don't use Vengevine are also performing exceedingly well (and possibly Necrotic Ooze-based decks). But more fundamentally, a cheap, recurrable tutor like Survival is much more repugnant to the DCI than a normal creature (although it is true that Vengevine breaks all sorts of normal rules too).

Conclusion

As with any card, the DCI should think carefully before banning Survival of the Fittest, because there is an inherent benefit to keeping as many cards as possible legal in the Legacy format, and it is possible that metagame forces will eventually counteract Survival so that it isn't so broken anymore. But this is a much more potent deck than the likes of Reanimator and ANT, both in terms of overall performance and penetration by top players, and it's one that is much more difficult to hate and is much more resilient, so parallels to the format adjusting to those decks are limited in utility.

[Pippin]

Let me just quote and discuss one part of your very nicely written post lordofthepit,



More discouragingly (for the diversity of the format, but not for a Survival pilot), the deck apparently has a positive matchup against every single major archetype in the format. The following includes all the data I found from Jared Sylva's articles:

- 27-22-5 (54.63%) against Merfolk
- 36-14-3 (70.75%) against Countertop
- 16-8-0 (66.67%) against Goblins
- 14-12-1 (53.70%) against Zoo
- 3-3-0 (50.00%) against Ad Nauseam
- 7-3-1 (68.18%) against Dredge
- 4-0-0 (100.00%) against Enchantress
- 9-1-0 (90.00%) against Charbelcher




From this list I see that only 4 deck types have played against V-Survival in enough quantities (even if its still smaller than usual 100 matches sample) to draw some conclusions. Those are - Merfolk, Countertop, Goblins, Zoo. Out of those 4, 2 seem to have bad matchup against V-Survival (Countertop and Goblins), and Merfolk + Zoo is somewhere around the 50% range. This doesn't seem too terrible and owerpowered to me.
First of all, combo results are lacking. Secondly, of the big 4 with enough data I can safely assume that most of them weren't prepared for V-Survival, while on the other hand they themselves were known and established decks and V-Survival certainly had a plan against them (be it Llanawan Empress or Krosan Grips...) all figured out in those tournaments.
Will be certainly interesting to see what happens in future. It seems to me there's a huge opening for an eva-green/rock style deck to jump onto V-Survival crazy-train and take use of the situation. Removal + big guys + disruption (extirpate/grips/targeted discard) seem like good enough.

Major point is that Legacy is an ever evolving format. It changes with every new set. What happened when Iona was printed? People started playing decks in more colors to have an out against her (removal in 2 colors, goblins being best example with red and black). My opinion is that the same should be tried here - give the metagame and people a chance to respond and adapt, instead of crying for emergency ban. I mean, isn't this what we all want? A format where nothing is really stellar and we get a chance to be innovative a bit more than something like "I just made a huge change to my list, I added 1 more basic to it!"?
If constant changes due to new cards are not desirable, why not make a format that spans from Alpha to Ravnica block or something? Nothing new would ever come to that which would shake things up.

[Jak]

Don't kill my baby...

As funny as it is that these threads keep coming up, it's even funnier how a good deck is always "uninteractive" and that is somehow a valid reason for banning a card from said deck. Like, it's worse than the "new cards and Stax" joke.

[TossUsToLions]

More discouragingly (for the diversity of the format, but not for a Survival pilot), the deck apparently has a positive matchup against every single major archetype in the format. The following includes all the data I found from Jared Sylva's articles:

- 27-22-5 (54.63%) against Merfolk
- 36-14-3 (70.75%) against Countertop
- 16-8-0 (66.67%) against Goblins
- 14-12-1 (53.70%) against Zoo
- 3-3-0 (50.00%) against Ad Nauseam
- 7-3-1 (68.18%) against Dredge
- 4-0-0 (100.00%) against Enchantress
- 9-1-0 (90.00%) against Charbelcher


I think the real question that we should be asking is why play any other deck? This deck has even or positive matchups against every top deck in the format. It is obviously the best deck to play in big tournaments. If people catch on to this, the deck is going to continue to rise in popularity, and this is when it becomes overpowered. Until then (and this may not even happen), I dont think that Wizards should ban Survival (and definitely not Vengevine).

[bleuisforwhimps]

54,63% against merfolk??? I wonder who played merfolk then.
About banning survival or vengevine;leave the deck alone, it's fine. It just happens that the decks against which it has a bad match-up aren't widely played at the moment, like stacks for example or dead guy ale. It also strikes me that the deck shows no such results in Europe, is it because the meta is different or because it's not as popular ,I don't now.

[Doomsday]

God forbid there is a good new deck. I agree, rather than metagaming and making the appropriate deck and sideboard choices based on what we expect to face, let's just try to get it banned. It worked with Mystical Tutor after all!

[ykpon]

54,63% against merfolk??? I wonder who played merfolk then.
That's what happens when you mix two absolutely different decks (GWx and Madness) under one name.


About banning survival or vengevine;leave the deck alone, it's fine. It just happens that the decks against which it has a bad match-up aren't widely played at the moment, like stacks for example
As a long time stax player i'm sure GWx mathup isn't that good. Stax never liked Pridemage+Teeg+Wasteland decks, especially traditional builds without Humlity-Moat-Elspeth package.

[Dark Ritual]

If I were the DCI I wouldn't ban survival I would ban vengevine. It has been reiterated many times throughout this thread that survival of the fittest as a card produces several archetypes from bant survival to ATS to RGBSA to welder survival but the card vengevine is only used in 1 deck that being the UG survival madness deck. On to the deck. The meta will adapt to survival vine's I can guarantee that and then it will be just another deck like UGx countertop, zoo, goblins, and dredge.

[Gui]

Survival has been around for several YEARS, not always on top, but always as a playable card @ Legacy. There is no reason to Ban Survival in order to bring the balance back; if something should be banned (not saying it should, just saying IF something should), Vengevine would be it.

Now, I don't think SotF or Vengevine should be banned either. SotF + Vengevine combo is not as imbalanced as Mystical Tutor let Storm combos and Reanimator to be, because SotF is a second turn card that will only be properly used @ 3rd turn, and can be hated by more than only counters: Discard, enchantment hate, grave hate, and also removals and mass removals.

There are several ways to fight it, and it's got bad matches as well: BG and BGW decks seems to be pretty good against them.

[St3B]

I have to agree with some posters from above, GW and Survimadness are two different types of decks. I for one play GW and think it's extreamly powerful, but not broken. In my opinion GW is more stable and I'm more than willing to trade a better combo matchup (Madness) for a better Merfolk (GW) matchup.

It would be a sad day if Wizards decides to ban Survival of the Fittest, especially after shelling out all the cash for the Vengevines. The biggest loss though would be loosing one of the most flavorful cards of all times - just look at the name.

One last note Iona > mono color Staxx

[sdematt]

Iona > Any deck without removal in the colour they don't name/Karakas, so that's a moot point.

But definitely Rock-type decks should have an advantage if they play a bunch of discard and blowing-crap-up, with Gravehate from the side.

We'll have to wait and see while people reevaluate their sideboard slots. I've started to run my black Painter deck with Jailers in the main, and so far so good against Vengevine :P

-Matt

[(nameless one)]

Quote me on this, the next deck we're going to whine about will be Affinity/Staxx's new evolution.


Remember how broken Mountain>Lackey play was?

Remember how broken CounterTop lock was?

Remember how broken Zoo creatures were?

Remember how broken Merfolk lords were?

[Gui]

Quote me on this, the next deck we're going to whine about will be Affinity/Staxx's new evolution.

Remember how broken Mountain>Lackey play was?

Remember how broken CounterTop lock was?

Remember how broken Zoo creatures were?

Remember how broken Merfolk lords were?

Quoting you on this, but to answer :P

Although these "combos" were strong, most decks playing these "combos" should be based around the techs. Vengevine + SotF just require you to run few vengevine, a basking, a 0cc creature, 4 SotF and green splash. Maybe not as easy as Hulk+Flash instant death, but also possible. Threshold can viably add the combo to itself without much to lose. CB+Top can do that too. Well, it's not that hard to do that, I could think of a Goblins deck using SotF xD

[Deadweight]

Quote me on this, the next deck we're going to whine about will be Affinity/Staxx's new evolution.


Remember how broken Mountain>Lackey play was?

Remember how broken CounterTop lock was?

Remember how broken Zoo creatures were?

Remember how broken Merfolk lords were?

I'm sorry to quote you on this but you're the last person who just repeated it. Those decks are pretty strong and are the current pillars of Legacy, but those decks are nowhere near broken.

Lackey is not a degenerate piece of a combo, playing in an eternal format where StP and Bolt are rampant, you don't expect Lackey to live long, it is easily answerable. If you don't kill it first turn, you can still win by sweeping their board or comboing out. Aether Vial is more insane and obviously abused by another tribal deck: Merfolk.

Merfolk lords are not broken. Zoo or burn can handle them. Counterbalance with firespout can. Mass removal. You still have plenty of turns to find an answer.

Tarmogoyf is a strong vanilla beater in Zoo, but obviously not degenerate. Zoo kills turn ~4 consistently and no one is complaining.

Counter-Top's favorable matchup is AnT and gets eaten alive by Merfolk. There are 3cc and 4cc answers to Counterbalance in eternal. If you play a deck with only 0cc, 1cc or 2cc, you are expected to lose against CB-Top lock.

AnT although favored against non-blue aggro decks is kept in check by Counterbalance. Non-blue aggro decks are still able to answer it back with Mindbreak Trap post board.

I don't hate combo decks or decks that win on turns 1-2. In fact I play combo and have AnT and Belcher built. When wizards banned MT, I understand that maybe it's for the best since the meta was starting to shift between AnT or Reanimator only.

Survival does not win on turn 1-3 consistently, but wins at turn 4-5 consistently however and beats the crap out of the rest of the format. The fact is it can win the same turn it drops (4x Vengevine, Necrotic Ooze+Triskelion+Devourer or Gigantomancer, Sharuum combo). It simply dominates and when half of the players retort to playing variations based on a single card, then that's when it becomes a problem.

A lot claimed Ad Nauseam was degenerate, a single copy played on a deck, where the pilot is limited in life points by how much damage was already dealt to him, can lose horribly by flipping lethal 3-4cc cards, not assembling the combo, opponents throwing burn, or counter spells and stifle.

Survival is played as a 4-of, has virtually no draw back and can be tutored. Broken with Intuition. When Survival lands, it's game over.

If Pithing Needle is in your sb, most likely you lost g1. Good luck with landing that Needle or keeping it there against counterspells or Qasali. There's absolutely no reason now not to splash blue for Spell Snare, or black for Extirpate. Even then Natural Order or Jitte cuts you out of the game. My $0.02.

edit: About Affinity, the deck was completely wiped out in the latest SCG Open. I never once believed it was broken. I apologize to those who have faith in that deck. About Staxx, unless they unban Workshop only then will it be a strong contender.

[Michael Keller]

Does it really matter if Survival of the Fittest gets banned? Half the people playing it don't know how to pilot it correctly anyways.

[Pippin]

Deadweight you got the post all wrong from nameless one. Neither he, nor the posters before him claimed those plays are broken right now, but that once upon time those decks were in same position as V-Survival is now.

Goblins ran rampant years ago. People cried for lackey banning, even worse than now with Vengevines. Ban didn't come, new cards were printed, people adapted with new maindeck and sideboard plans. Then the same situation happened with counter top lock, ad nauseam, and whatnot. To be more precise, in very distant past there were cries to ban survival since it was played in great numbers, but that was covered few posts prior in this topic (turned out it wasn't so great and was underplayed card for years to come after that, until Iona saw printing - and now Vengevines).

Btw, second part of your post is the same kind of logic lots of people are coming up with here to justify that Vengevines can be answered. I'll take some parts of it and show you example:




Lackey is not a degenerate piece of a combo, playing in an eternal format where StP and Bolt are rampant, you don't expect Lackey to live long, it is easily answerable. If you don't kill it first turn, you can still win by sweeping their board or comboing out.

Survival is not degenerate, playing in an eternal format where Force of will, spell snare, etc are rampant. If it does resolve, you can still kill it by krosan grip, hate out by needle/whatever, or simply... combo out.



Tarmogoyf is a strong vanilla beater in Zoo, but obviously not degenerate. Zoo kills turn ~4 consistently and no one is complaining.

Vengevine is a random 4/3 haste for 4 mana if handled correctly. It can be powerfull if played in right kind of deck, but not degenerate if people are prepared for it. Vengevine Survival kills turn 4, and that is not really consistent - its usually turn 5+, yet everyone is complaining


etc... I guess you get my point.

[troopatroop]

Does it really matter if Survival of the Fittest gets banned? Half the people playing it don't know how to pilot it correctly anyways.

This is mostly true, because Survival is a really hard card to play perfectly, but this isn't a hard deck to play. ATS was a hard deck to play, getting a bunch of Vengevines into Rootwalla Memnite seems pretty easy.

[frogboy]

For those who feel as though decks that are very powerful but very skill intensive are more acceptable than powerful decks that involve lots of herfing and derfing...why do you feel that way? Is it because you feel as though the skill intensive decks allow you an opportunity to outplay your opponents, or because you feel as though your opponents have 'earned it' if they are playing a hard deeck, or is there some other reason?

[Gui]

The reason for a card to be banned, most of the time, can be found by comparing Legacy power level to Vintage power level.

Vintage usually got bombs that, were they allowed as 4-of, they would crack into matches decided by luck, or the luckiest dice-roll. These cards get restricted.
What is allowed in Vintage and is not allowed in Legacy are the format-breaker cards. Cards that forces other decks to pack loads of solution against a single resource, cards that are either packed or hated by every deck. The hole format runs toward these cards, and if you don't pack or hate them, you are, then, subpar.

That's mainly what is not allowed in Legacy although determining what should or not get banned is a little more complicated. When Hulk-Flash broke the format, it was not dificult to see that Hulk-flash was either packed or hated by every single deck, and decks that couldn't do either consistantly simply got cut. Every deck, by that time, could pack 15 slots of sideboard against Hulk-Flash and have a chance to win, but then, they would be jeopardizing other matchups, possibly matchups able to handle hulk-flash without these 8-15 dedicated sideboard. Being a hateable a combo isn't, thus, enough to determine the ban.

Now, by that time, the discussion around "should flash, hulk or neither be banned" was almost the same as today. Banning Hulk could have fixed the issue, but no other Legacy decks by that time used either. Flash had already been abused before, using Academy Rector, and was now proven to be abusable in other ways. So, banning Flash just seemed the right choice, and so it was.

Looking at the possibilities of hate Vengevine + Survival combo got (Counterspells, Discard, Gravehate, Anti-enchantment, Creature removal), pretty much every deck is able to, and probably already does, pack 4 to 8 hate against it that will also be used against other matches, not jeopardizing thier sideboard options, and some decks can even win against it without hates. That doesn't seem to be a ban scenario. This could be proven wrong if, and probably only if, these hates are proven to be subpar against the combo, as it was against Hulk, in which everyone claimed that grave-hate were already at their sideboard (like these 4-of tormods), but was proven not to solve the problem.

Now, if it get proven that Vengevine + Survival still wins against Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, FoW, Duress (and similar), Krosan Grip (and similar), Qasali Pridemage, Trygon, StP (and similar), Tormod, Relic, Withered Wretch, Faerie Macabre, and so on (I believe there is are solutions in each color, and colorless either), then it will be banned.

[conboy31]

I know it has been mentioned before, but I was thinking about it some more.

What would be the implications of banning Basking Rottwalla. I realize how horribly odd and perplexing that statement is. However, it would appear that UG survival and WG survival could keep their VVs and survival while the engine that people are complaining about gets hit pretty hard.

Once again, I don't think any action should be taken regarding banning more cards. I am confident the meta will adjust.

[lorddotm]

I think I don't get your point. Vengevine is the green Satan, Storm mechanic is safe? Because it's unfair for Non-Blue Aggro and Non-CB Control as well.

People are crying for 4/3 creatures on turn 3-4. Belcher players are making 14 Goblin tokens in their first turn since 2006! Counterbalance is locking on turn 2 since... Well, ever as I remember!

If you don't like brokeness, I'm suggesting you to go playing Pokémon TCG.

This is pretty busted. (http://pokemonmadness.tripod.com/images/professoroak.jpg)

So is this. (http://pokemonmadness.tripod.com/images/bill.jpg)

[keys]

is that supposed to be a pun?

[heroicraptor]

I thought so too, but tripod doesn't like outside links. He linked to Professor Oak (http://pokebeach.com/scans/base-set/88-professor-oak.jpg) and Bill (http://pokebeach.com/scans/base-set/91-bill.jpg).

[GtF]

Storm combo should bash survival, especially the GW versions. Spell snare is also pretty good against it. Extirpate can be good depending on the build.
Yes, the deck has a nice backup plan of casting vengevines, but that doesn't make it broken, just really good.
I was at the scg open, I saw almost no one even playing storm combo.
The prevalence of the GW survival decks at the past two opens is interesting because it means that instead of trying to beat the UG versions with combo (going faster), people are trying to go "bigger" and beat the UG versions that way.
I'm not sure the metagame will adjust as quickly as it should because storm combo has always been underrepresented both in terms of number of decks played and decks that do well in the scg series. Basically survival madness is a more fun way to do what storm combo could be doing.
Nothing should be banned and people should stop freaking out.

[(nameless one)]

edit: About Affinity, the deck was completely wiped out in the latest SCG Open. I never once believed it was broken. I apologize to those who have faith in that deck. About Staxx, unless they unban Workshop only then will it be a strong contender.

Just wait until the next sets of Scars of Mirrodin gets printed...

I mean who would have thought that Madness will be a broken deck after the printing of Rise of Eldrazi? I even remember the idea of Vengivines being ridiculed on this site, before some dude top-8th with it on Columbus.

[coraz86]

For those who feel as though decks that are very powerful but very skill intensive are more acceptable than powerful decks that involve lots of herfing and derfing...why do you feel that way? Is it because you feel as though the skill intensive decks allow you an opportunity to outplay your opponents, or because you feel as though your opponents have 'earned it' if they are playing a hard deeck, or is there some other reason?

One thing I've always loved about Legacy that has not been true of Standard for several years now is the number of different decks one can play--not just the number of archetypes, but the number of feasible ways one can configure an archetype. I don't know if it's so much the skill level required to play as getting to play a bunch of unique and interesting games. I stopped playing Standard regularly in 2008, when Time Spiral rotated, and even then I'd play at FNM every week or at Regionals/States/PTQs and go Faeries/Faeries/Reveillark/Faeries/5c control or Tribal/Tribal/Tribal/Tribal. Compare this to any Legacy tournament you've ever been at--I recently went to a twenty-man tourney in Pittsburgh where eighteen distinct archetypes were represented, and I played against nine distinctly different decks at GP-Colombus.

The strength or weakness of any game is in its replay value, which for many people (including myself) means having a variety of unique experiences bounded by the same set of rules. If one version of one deck is doing too well in too many tournaments, it's disheartening to people who otherwise might enjoy the format. I don't believe Survival of the Fittest has gotten to that point yet, but running Vengevine does pigeonhole the deck to enough of a degree (and does well enough in spite of that predictability) that I'd be inclined to keep an eye on it.

Just my $.02.

[Lothian]

Yes, I totally agree with you guys

Let WotC ban Tarmogoyf !!!

When a card is showing up so much in any archetype, that any deck is playing with it or has to cater for it and shows up so many times in tops8, it's worthy of a ban.

It's destroying all deck strategies and totally distort the format. I HATE vanilla creatures

[Fuzzy]

Yes, I totally agree with you guys

Let WotC ban Tarmogoyf !!!

When a card is showing up so much in any archetype, that any deck is playing with it or has to cater for it and shows up so many times in tops8, it's worthy of a ban.

It's destroying all deck strategies and totally distort the format. I HATE vanilla creatures

Really well timed, sir.

Love this post.

[Gui]

Yes, I totally agree with you guys

Let WotC ban Tarmogoyf !!!

When a card is showing up so much in any archetype, that any deck is playing with it or has to cater for it and shows up so many times in tops8, it's worthy of a ban.

It's destroying all deck strategies and totally distort the format. I HATE vanilla creatures

This, and of course, Force of Will... clearly imbalanced and overpowered

[Nessaja]

It's amazing that a green deck isn't playing Tarmogoyf, is still doing so extremely well. It shows that the new printings have been of such a powerlevel that even in a totally green deck, Tarmogoyf is outclassed for a strategy. That on itself is pretty cool.

[death]

It's amazing until now there are a few still trolling around with Tarmogoyf. Until you truly understand this format please stop trolling around. Pffft!!!

[Ben]

Survival was never a problem until the arrival of Vengevine. Besides with enough
preparation I don't think it is that hard to overcome the survival engine.


Survival powers a lot of decks and it is a really fun card. would be sad to see it go if that really happens.

[ivanpei]

The bandwagon-ing on Vengevine survival is driving me crazy. It is not that strong. End of story. I consider NO-Pro a better combo IMO. Survival was already busted since Iona-Retainers. I am still of the opinion that Iona-retainers is better, MUCH more compact and easy to pull off compared to vengevine combo. Just because it T8ed at a GP and seems like a really fun deck to play, people are packing it in large numbers hence the great results. Venges also come from standard and anyone who has a bant deck in legacy (aggro/countertop) can easily port to survival vengevine by buying 4 survivals. If loyal retainers wasn't such a niche and hard to find (as well as expensive) card, we would see more Iona survival IMO. Give it a few months. I guarantee you the performance of Survival vengevine will die off. Until then, I will play UWBG Jacestill at every large tourney and eat Survival for breakfast.

[jrw1985]

Is Survival/Vengevine the best deck in Legacy? No

But only because Survival/Vengevine isn't a deck. It's a combo. A Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of a Combo.

Why would I describe it like that? Because while peanut butter and chocolate go great together, they still taste awesome with a whole lot else. Survival can rock out Iona/Retainers and Ooze/Devouerers, while Vengevine makes Rootwalla, Wild Mongrel, and Aquamoeba super playable in the format. And that's the problem with the combo. It's really great together, but seperately, you can still have fun with the ingredients. It's a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.

There's a third card to the combo, however, that people seem to be overlooking: Umezawa's Jitte. This is the card that pulls it all together. Without Survival these decks become glorifed Zoo decks that run sub-standard creatures. Jitte is a powerhouse for their backup plan of straight aggro.

As I said before, Survival/Vengevine isn't a deck, it's a combo. A combo that fits seamlessly into multiple decklists. The truly horrifying thing about Nashville wasn't the number of Survival/Vengevine combos in the top 16, but the variety.

Do me a favor and really look at these deck lists from Nashville's top 16, and imagine what they most closely resemble without Survival/Vengevine-
1st - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35428
2nd - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35427
3rd - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35425
7th - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35423
12th - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35416

1st is GW and looks like a Zoo deck. Just a bunch of beaters and a little removal. 3 pieces of equipment to back up the horde.
2nd is UG, the deck we were lead to believe Survival/Vengevine was supposed to look like. Without the combo it looks like a terrible Bant deck. Once again, 3 pieces of equipment back up the creatures in this one.
3rd at first glance looks identical to 1st, but then you notice that the Fauna Shamans and Iona/Retainer make it more tuned to Combo. Still there is equipment to back up the Zoo horde.
7th Holy Crap! Noone told me Aluren made the top 8! Look at all that disruption and all the mana dudes! Pure combo. Also the only one of these decks without a Jitte.
12th is titled Retainer Survival, just like 3rd, so it must be the same deck, right? WRONG! This thing looks like a frickin' Madness deck, but somehow finds room for the same Retainer combo and a Jitte.

What makes Survival/Vengevine so dangerous and powerful is that it is not a primary combo in and of itsself. It is instead a supplemental combo that fits into a ridiculously wide variety of decks.

Specifically, look at the 7th place deck. It is trying to win with a sick combo off of a cool new card. But what the hell, a couple of Vengevines couldn't hurt. Peanut Butter Cup.

2nd and 7th run counters. 1st 2nd and 3rd run artifact and enchantment hate creatures. 12th ran Wispmare.

7th ran a kill combo. 3rd and 12th ran a lock combo.

Survival/Vengevine is not the best deck in Legacy.

It is the best combo in Legacy.

[KevinTrudeau]

I agree with the above poster. I don't think we're close to seeing the end of Survival's evolution. Survival is the best combo because it requires virtually one card, while others (Infernal Tutor+LED, Painter+Stone) require two four-ofs to get going. Survival combo needs a four-of and a twenty-of to get going. The downside is that the opponent can put more pressure on Survival resolving and staying in play, but if Survival gets blown up, instead of having the bulk of the deck being random mana accelerants and draw spells, you still have good creatures like Knight of the Reliquary and Tarmogoyf. That being said, the deck is still not as good as Reanimator/ANT with Mystical, and shouldn't be subject to a banning.

[mchainmail]

Survival is not degenerate, playing in an eternal format where Force of will, spell snare, etc are rampant. If it does resolve, you can still kill it by krosan grip, hate out by needle/whatever, or simply... combo out.

And then Survival plays a Witness to get around the K-Grip. One sb slot to nullify half your hate.

[Pippin]

And then Survival plays a Witness to get around the K-Grip. One sb slot to nullify half your hate.

Is this the part where we start to throw random cards in theoretical situations?
Stifle on witness. Graveyard hate. Counterspell...

That's what I was hinting in my previous post ... one-sided examples don't really work in discussions

[alderon666]

Is this the part where we start to throw random cards in theoretical situations?
Stifle on witness. Graveyard hate. Counterspell...

That's what I was hinting in my previous post ... one-sided examples don't really work in discussions

I think what he's is saying is that Survival can tutor up answer to nullify your answers to it. Something like CB protecting itself.

Needle? Tutor Qasali.
Krosan? Tutor Witness.
...

I think we should give Survival some time. If it warps the metagame too much I think it should get the banhammer.

[ddt15]

People should play more, I don't know, Helm of the Void? Maindeck Leylines, tutorable Peedle...

[Gui]

Is Survival/Vengevine the best deck in Legacy? No

But only because Survival/Vengevine isn't a deck. It's a combo. A Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of a Combo.

Why would I describe it like that? Because while peanut butter and chocolate go great together, they still taste awesome with a whole lot else. Survival can rock out Iona/Retainers and Ooze/Devouerers, while Vengevine makes Rootwalla, Wild Mongrel, and Aquamoeba super playable in the format. And that's the problem with the combo. It's really great together, but seperately, you can still have fun with the ingredients. It's a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.

There's a third card to the combo, however, that people seem to be overlooking: Umezawa's Jitte. This is the card that pulls it all together. Without Survival these decks become glorifed Zoo decks that run sub-standard creatures. Jitte is a powerhouse for their backup plan of straight aggro.

As I said before, Survival/Vengevine isn't a deck, it's a combo. A combo that fits seamlessly into multiple decklists. The truly horrifying thing about Nashville wasn't the number of Survival/Vengevine combos in the top 16, but the variety.

Do me a favor and really look at these deck lists from Nashville's top 16, and imagine what they most closely resemble without Survival/Vengevine-
1st - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35428
2nd - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35427
3rd - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35425
7th - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35423
12th - http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=35416

1st is GW and looks like a Zoo deck. Just a bunch of beaters and a little removal. 3 pieces of equipment to back up the horde.
2nd is UG, the deck we were lead to believe Survival/Vengevine was supposed to look like. Without the combo it looks like a terrible Bant deck. Once again, 3 pieces of equipment back up the creatures in this one.
3rd at first glance looks identical to 1st, but then you notice that the Fauna Shamans and Iona/Retainer make it more tuned to Combo. Still there is equipment to back up the Zoo horde.
7th Holy Crap! Noone told me Aluren made the top 8! Look at all that disruption and all the mana dudes! Pure combo. Also the only one of these decks without a Jitte.
12th is titled Retainer Survival, just like 3rd, so it must be the same deck, right? WRONG! This thing looks like a frickin' Madness deck, but somehow finds room for the same Retainer combo and a Jitte.

What makes Survival/Vengevine so dangerous and powerful is that it is not a primary combo in and of itsself. It is instead a supplemental combo that fits into a ridiculously wide variety of decks.

Specifically, look at the 7th place deck. It is trying to win with a sick combo off of a cool new card. But what the hell, a couple of Vengevines couldn't hurt. Peanut Butter Cup.

2nd and 7th run counters. 1st 2nd and 3rd run artifact and enchantment hate creatures. 12th ran Wispmare.

7th ran a kill combo. 3rd and 12th ran a lock combo.

Survival/Vengevine is not the best deck in Legacy.

It is the best combo in Legacy.

This is true. Well, actually, this is the main reason for a ban, the fact that every deck will run it, or will be stockpiling hate against it.

I've been developing green Stompy since 2006 and almost never wondered about adding SotF, and now I think it's possible, just because a resolved SofT could win me the game, and yet, basking rootwalla, memnite and vengevine are not bad creatures :P

Teorically, any deck running G can add the combo and wish for an auto-win against some random decks.

[SlopeeJ]

People should play more, I don't know, Helm of the Void? Maindeck Leylines, tutorable Peedle...

Why do people keep posting crap like this? Maindeck leylines? Yea I'll pretend you're joking. It has already been established that there are answers to Survival of the Fittest. We already know that if every deck has peacekeepers then there is a chance to stop the vengevines from attacking or needle stops them from tutoring.... Etc Etc Etc We get it


This is legacy, every card has answers and I think the Survival deck has answers to the hate also. It has nothing to do with a card combo being broken or not being broken

[Oiolosse]

'Good Stuff'


Survival/Vengevine is not the best deck in Legacy.

It is the best combo in Legacy.

I can't say I yet agree with 'best' but I appreciate your analysis.

[Purgatory]

I agree with the above poster. I don't think we're close to seeing the end of Survival's evolution.

Pun intended?

I feel that Survival as a card is very strong right now, but not the best deck in legacy. It lives on the hype of Vengevine, and even though dropping out 3-4 4/3s with Haste is a cool trick, it takes a few turns and a bunch of green mana to get there, and even then, the combo can be hated out (as any other non-degenerate combo) fairly easily. I imagine that with the rise of Vengevine Madness and the return of Ichorid as a DTB, people won't leave home without sufficient grave hate any longer.

[ddt15]

Why do people keep posting crap like this? Maindeck leylines? Yea I'll pretend you're joking. It has already been established that there are answers to Survival of the Fittest. We already know that if every deck has peacekeepers then there is a chance to stop the vengevines from attacking or needle stops them from tutoring.... Etc Etc Etc We get it


This is legacy, every card has answers and I think the Survival deck has answers to the hate also. It has nothing to do with a card combo being broken or not being broken
Seems decent enough versus Survival decks imo. There are plenty of decks that can beat Survival no problem. Its a decent deck with a lil extra oomph around turn 4/5. That there are several gy-based decks in a top8 of one tournament tells me people didn't run enough graveyard hate that tournament.

[Michael Keller]

This is mostly true, because Survival is a really hard card to play perfectly, but this isn't a hard deck to play. ATS was a hard deck to play, getting a bunch of Vengevines into Rootwalla Memnite seems pretty easy.

At Eli's last event, I ended up winning the first round because my opponent made a play error (what it was I had no idea; he wound up with a Memnite, Progenitus, and Aquamoeba on the table in a span of two turns, which is kind of hard to argue as making a mistake).

Yet, I still won. The Madness "outlet" is what makes the deck confusing at times, having to know what tricks to use and when to use them without tripping up and getting the wrong link in your chain of creatures to maximize a Vengevine assault.

[Barook]

Maindeck leylines?
How about Leyline of Singularity + Karakas? No Vengevine and Iona to annoy you. :tongue:

[HerrFunker]

The combo doesn't roll over and die to GY Hate. The worst you did is make them lose a turn. Guess what you wasted a turn also. They lost 0 cards and alot of mana. you lost 0-little mana depending on what GY hate you used, but you lost a card. You draw 1 card a turn so you still lost a turn, and they still have a reusable demonic tutor in play.

The best answer to it is to win first. The GW is incredibly resistant to hate with main deck tutorable Artifact/enchantment removal and stp. Also some run witness to counteract your enchantment removal. Or they can easily switch to a NO/Pro deck with goyf/KOTR for a back up plan. I would have to say fat green creatures is a pretty good back up plan for a combo deck.

One of the biggest problems with this plan is that most combo decks that win faster are not this resilient to hate. Either they run hate for you or others will do their job with the hate. SOTF is not the fastest deck out there but is hard to answer and is consistent.

[Michael Keller]

This is legacy, every card has answers and I think the Survival deck has answers to the hate also. It has nothing to do with a card combo being broken or not being broken

Yes, actually, it does. That's kind of what makes something "degenerate" or "broken" in that it makes the combo inherently difficult to stop by how efficient it really is. People willl continue to hate on the deck and it will still continue to put up good numbers not necessarily due to the number of people playing the deck, but the number of skilled pilots playing the deck around hate and playing the deck correctly.

Tailoring a Survival of the Fittest-based deck requires a great deal of thought. Lists that become more and more dependent on Vengevine as a primary and definitive source of winning games will just subside into mediocrity and people will realize that Survival can, believe it or not, retrieve other creatures in your deck that can do lots of other things (bringing the card almost full-circle). There are a variety of lists playing toolbox options, but I'm seeing (currently anyhow) a major trend in the number of Vengevival decks relying solely on Vengevines to win games. Wild Mongrel and Basking Rootwalla are honestly not going to do it alone.

Also, one more thing to point out (as I've read several people mention this already): Extirpate is not a bad card - especially against a deck like this where Vengevines become critical in winning games faster and faster and eliminating Survival of the Fittest which is in itself a crippling shot in neutering the deck's explosiveness. Extirpate is situational, no one is debating that. But I think its utility is finally catching the eye of people willing to accept its usefulness in today's meta. It is just simply great at what it is supposed to do and that is what any sideboard option should be when considering inclusion.

[testing32]

The combo doesn't roll over and die to GY Hate. The worst you did is make them lose a turn. Guess what you wasted a turn also. They lost 0 cards and alot of mana. you lost 0-little mana depending on what GY hate you used, but you lost a card. You draw 1 card a turn so you still lost a turn, and they still have a reusable demonic tutor in play.

The best answer to it is to win first. The GW is incredibly resistant to hate with main deck tutorable Artifact/enchantment removal and stp. Also some run witness to counteract your enchantment removal. Or they can easily switch to a NO/Pro deck with goyf/KOTR for a back up plan. I would have to say fat green creatures is a pretty good back up plan for a combo deck.

One of the biggest problems with this plan is that most combo decks that win faster are not this resilient to hate. Either they run hate for you or others will do their job with the hate. SOTF is not the fastest deck out there but is hard to answer and is consistent.

My testing has shown the same thing. My thought now is that pithing needle might be better than grave hate.

[majikal]

I just want to reiterate what has been said earlier, because some people keep talking about how Survival of the Fittest (the deck) is warping the metagame.

This is patently untrue. The problem is the combo of Survival + Vengevine. Vengevine is the part that is causing problems, because you don't have to actually resolve anything other than Survival for it to be good. Free things have always caused problems in Magic, and Vengevine is just that.

I personally think that the format will evolve to hold Vengevine in check just like it has with Affinity, Counterbalance, Goblins, etc, but if the need should arise to ban something, that something should not be one of the most beloved cards in Magic.

Certainly there is the potential for abuse, but Reanimator is still a deck, and Iona/Retainers is worse than Reanimator, so I wouldn't call it any more abusive than any other combo. Ooze combo is really damn cool, and it wins on the spot, but you have to resolve both Survival and a 2BB creature. Seems pretty fair. Vengevine... you just have to use Survival. Vengevine is clearly the culprit, and if the banhammer comes down, I hope it hits the Angry Ficus instead of Survival, because it would be a shame to knock 10+ completely independent Survival archetypes out of the format just to nail one offending combo.

[HerrFunker]

My testing has shown the same thing. My thought now is that pithing needle might be better than grave hate.

ya when I play with goblins against it that is what I use. Sometimes with Perish also. BTW I am referencing the GW version. The biggest problem I have with needle is they run 4 main deck removal for it in their creature package. If you lay it out too early they will drop the creature 1st then kill your needle. Im not saying the deck is impossible to beat. I am just wondering if it is even worth trying to hate, or if I should stick to my main deck. Then they will side in grips and witness to combat my hate, while I will have a fully functional main deck.

[SMR0079]

Motivation behind banning cards

I believe that the DCI should err on the side of caution when banning cards from Legacy, because a large part of the appeal and the defining essence of Legacy is that you should be able to play with all the cards in the history of Magic. However, at times, it is necessary to ban a card that becomes format-warping and reduces the diversity of the format.

In my opinion, just because the card is nearly ubiquitous in Legacy (Wasteland, Force of Will, Brainstorm, Swords to Plowshares, Tarmogoyf) doesn't mean that it's format warping. In fact, because those cards in played in so many different archetypes, I believe they improve the diversity of the format, even though they technically discourage a Legacy player from playing weaker cards like Tectonic Edge, Foil, Serum Visions, Unmake, and Grizzly Bears.

I'm not entirely advocating for the removal of Survival of the Fittest from the Legacy format, because I believe the banhammer should be used very conservatively and judiciously, and I haven't definitively made up my mind yet on the case of Survival of the Fittest; but on the other hand, I believe it is by far the most ban-worthy card in the format and that it deserves to be on the list even more so than many of the cards on the current banned list.

Here are some data from recent SCG tournaments:

Data from SCG tournaments

Richmond (2/28/10)

Reanimator
- 12 decks (5.08% of field)
- 42-29-1 (59.03%) against the field (no mirror, no IDs)
- 2 out of top 16 (4th and 5th)
ANT
- 9 decks (3.81%)
- 20-23-1 (46.59%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Indianapolis (3/14/10)

Reanimator
- 21 decks (7.34%)
- 47-52-4 (47.57%) against the field
- 2 out of top 16 (7th and 13th)
ANT
- 16 decks (5.59%)
- 32-47-0 (40.51%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Orlando (3/28/10)

Reanimator
- 5 decks (4.10%)
- 14-15-3 (48.44%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (7th)
ANT
- 6 decks (4.92%)
- 20-14-0 (58.82%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Atlanta (5/2/10)

Reanimator
- 23 decks (11.50%)
- 58-53-4 (52.17%) against the field
- 4 out of top 16 (2nd, 6th, 8th, 12th)
ANT
- 11 decks (5.50%)
- 22-27-1 (45.00%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (1st)

Philadelphia (6/6/10)

Reanimator
- 22 decks (9.32%)
- 58-55-4 (51.28%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16
ANT
- 18 decks (7.63%)
- 45-41-3 (52.25%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (6th)

Seattle (6/13/10)

Reanimator
- 25 decks (13.23%)
- 56-59-2 (48.72%) against the field
- 2 out of top 16 (5th, 12th)
ANT
- 15 decks (7.94%)
- 38-36-0 (51.35%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (15th)

St. Louis (6/27/10)

Reanimator
- 22 decks (11.40%)
- 54-59-1 (47.81%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16
ANT
- 6 decks (3.11%)
- 22-18-0 (55.00%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

So in these 7 tournaments, Reanimator posted a cumulative record of 329-322-19 (50.52%). It made up 8.89% of the overall field and 9.82% of the top 16, so its penetration into the top 16 was slightly better than that of an average deck (by about 10%), which is to be expected for a Tier 1 deck.

ANT posted a 199-206-5 record (49.15%), so pilots had pretty dismal results. Granted, some have contended (including the DCI) that ANT is a difficult deck to pilot, but that in the hands of a pro, it was absolutely degenerate. So if this were true, we would expect significant top 16 penetration where the best pilots start to separate themselves from everyone else, but ANT decks--which made up 5.54% of the field--made up only 2.68% of top 16; in other words, it was less than half as likely as an average deck to place in the top 16!

Contrast that with the performance of Survival decks

Denver (8/22/10)
- 10 Survival decks (8.00%)
- 34-24-4 against the field (58.06%); U/G Madness, 28-16-3 (62.77%)
- 1 out of top 16 (8th place)

Minneapolis (8/29/10)
- 16 Survival decks (9.47%)
- 67-32-5 against the field (66.83%); U/G Madness, 58-28-0 (67.44%)
- 5 out of top 16 (3rd, 8th, 12th, 13th, 15th place)

Baltimore (9/19/10)
- 25 Survival decks (10.73%)
- 102-60-8 against the field (62.35%); U/G Madness, 65-38-5 (62.50%)
- 5 out of top 16 (2nd, 4th, 5th, 12th, 15th place)

Nashvile (10/17/10)
- Complete data currently unavailable
- 5 out of top 16 (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 12th place)

I don't think people fully realize how dominating Survival decks--and in particular, Madness--have been in the metagame. Ever since the deck debuted at Columbus, the deck has posted stellar results, boasting over 62.50% wins in each of the three SCG tournaments for which data are available, with excellent top 16 penetration. For the three tournaments available, 51 Survival decks (comprising 9.68% of the format) made up almost one quarter of the top 16 spots in those three tournaments!

Moreover, some have suggested that the metagame would adapt to Madness as it had to Reanimator. But what they may not realize is that it only took one tournament for Reanimator to fall from a top performer (59.03%) to a sub-50% deck (47.57% in Indianapolis, 48.44% in Orlando). The notion that the format also needed to "adjust" to ANT is ridiculous, as it put up only 3 top 16 slots in 7 tournaments, compared to the 5 that Survival decks now routinely put up every tournament. But in any case, whereas the format was fast to adjust to Madness and never allowed ANT to be a serious contender in significant quantities (which isn't to say that it isn't a threat to win in the hands of a great pilot), it's allowed Survival to put up unprecedented performances for four straight tournaments, despite being the deck that everyone is gunning for.

More discouragingly (for the diversity of the format, but not for a Survival pilot), the deck apparently has a positive matchup against every single major archetype in the format. The following includes all the data I found from Jared Sylva's articles:

- 27-22-5 (54.63%) against Merfolk
- 36-14-3 (70.75%) against Countertop
- 16-8-0 (66.67%) against Goblins
- 14-12-1 (53.70%) against Zoo
- 3-3-0 (50.00%) against Ad Nauseam
- 7-3-1 (68.18%) against Dredge
- 4-0-0 (100.00%) against Enchantress
- 9-1-0 (90.00%) against Charbelcher

I'm not sure why Sylva chose to include the likes of Enchantress and Charbelcher in his data as significant archetypes, but hopefully, that dispels the notion that a fringe deck like Enchantress is capable of "hating out" Survival decks.

Some counterpoints

I saw a lot of counterpoints being raised throughout the thread, and I can't remember exactly who posed each issue, but here's the argument against Survival

Is it necessary to ban a key card everytime a deck becomes successful? After all, Merfolk posted 5 out of the top 16 spots at SCG Baltimore, but no one is asking for the banning of Lord of Atlantis.

It should be noted that even though the tournament was considered a vindication of the Merfolk deck, it was rather Survival decks that performed much better. Consider that Survival decks made up only 25 of the 233 decks in the format, compared to Merfolk's 34, but still achieved 5 of the top 16 slots. Moreover, Merfolk only won 55.53% of its non-mirror matchups, compared to 62.35% for Survival decks. And Merfolk, despite being lauded as a foil to Madness, still only went 50% against Survival decks (15-15-2), at its best performance ever! In other words, even in a remarkable weekend for the fish that had everyone flipping out, Merfolk still did worse than Survival on an average weekend.

The deck isn't that broken/fast. Storm combo can kill on turn 1-2 with a good hand, whereas most non-LED Madness builds cannot kill before turn 3 (with Wild Mongrel) or even turn 4 (with Survival).

This is true, but storm combo is also more susceptible to hate. Furthermore, if you prevent the Survival engine, you may only have to deal with one Vengevine; if you prevent all discard outlets or supplement with graveyard hate, you may not have to deal with any, and U/G Madness decks (but not G/W) become bad aggro decks. But a bad aggro deck is still more threatening than a goldfish, which is what the likes of Storm combo and Reanimator are if you can prevent them from comboing out.

You can just hate the deck with cards anti-Survival measures or anti-Graveyard hate.

To some extent, this is true, but a threat is always better than an answer because you may not draw into your hate card (or the right type of hate) when you need it, and in the meantime, you are diluting the potency of your own deck by playing so much hate, often to the point that you can get beaten down by bad creatures backed by an Umezawa's Jitte. Mono-green madness decks or G/W can just go straight beatdown with much more powerful creatures, and the Survival player can also opt for a Natural Order plan out of the sideboard to bypass your hate entirely.

The metagame can adapt to this presence.

I believe that Legacy is a large enough format that metagame forces are capable of policing itself to some extent, and I have little doubt that one can construct a deck that has a positive matchup against Survival builds. However, that deck must also be strong enough to compete with the rest of the format, and so far, there is no presence that prevents Survival from rampaging over the format to the tune of a 63% win percentage. The format may not necessarily degenerate into something ridiculous like 1/3 Survival, 1/3 Storm, and 1/3 bad prison decks as a result of Survival, but if prison strategies and storm combos are some of the strategies necessary to keep Survival in check (as has been postulated in this thread), then Survival is clearly a format-warping presence that makes the format less fun. At that point, whatever benefits there are to keeping Survival legal are outweighed by its disadvantages, and I would have no qualms about banning it. I hope this doesn't become the case.

Other "shells" like Force of Will/Brainstorm/Duals/Fetches are even more commonly played too, but no one is calling for their banning.

The fundamental difference is that those shells enable a variety of decks, all of which might hope to win 50-55% of its games. Survival of the Fittest/Vengevine enables only a relatively small number of decks, but all of which are looking at 60-65 or 70%.

Other cards can be deemed format-warping too.

In my opinion, the only card in recent memory that I would deem format warping is Counterbalance in combination with Sensei's Divining Top, and even then, those decks didn't post the results as stunning as Survival. Moreover, Counterbalance is a combo only with Sensei's Divining Top; Survival combos with any of 20+ creatures in the deck. Counterbalance is also relatively slow, getting dropped on turn 2 at the earliest, and possibly locking you out on turn 3 only with a good Top. Even then, you have many turns to answer the lock with something like Krosan Grip. On the other hand, Survival takes far less investment and means you will likely take lethal damage within two turns, and even if answered before then, you are probably looking at serious card disadvantage under the gun of several hasty, recurring 4/3s and various Rootwallas.

I do not believe other combo decks are format warping. Certainly, if you are not playing blue, you are severely undermanned in that matchup, but at least you can rely on blue decks, prison strategies, and black disruption keeping conventional combo in check. Nothing exists right now to keep Survival in check.

Vengevine should be banned instead.

Perhaps, but other Survival of the Fittest strategies that don't use Vengevine are also performing exceedingly well (and possibly Necrotic Ooze-based decks). But more fundamentally, a cheap, recurrable tutor like Survival is much more repugnant to the DCI than a normal creature (although it is true that Vengevine breaks all sorts of normal rules too).

Conclusion

As with any card, the DCI should think carefully before banning Survival of the Fittest, because there is an inherent benefit to keeping as many cards as possible legal in the Legacy format, and it is possible that metagame forces will eventually counteract Survival so that it isn't so broken anymore. But this is a much more potent deck than the likes of Reanimator and ANT, both in terms of overall performance and penetration by top players, and it's one that is much more difficult to hate and is much more resilient, so parallels to the format adjusting to those decks are limited in utility.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

The one major flaw that I see in the call to ban Survival is that it doesn't take into consideration the ability of a complex systems like the Legacy metagame to evolve. Survival is ther most dominant strategy, but it's dominance will actually become it's downfall. For example, decks that can splash black for Extirpate & Perish beat it soundly. BUG Tempo beats it. Storm & Dredge beat it. Merfolk is even a close match.

Think of this metagame:
Survival
Tempo based blue
Black based aggro
Storm combo
Merfolk

So Countertop, Zoo, and Goblins get pushed out initially. They will return when the metagame adjust to a favorable point, but players need to let go of their pet decks for this to happen and that takes much longer in Legacy then other formats.

It's not about finding individual answers or tactics you can add to your existing deck/strategy - it's about changing to a different strategy/deck that beats the survival strategy/deck. Once enough people realize this the dominance will end.

Now if it gets the DCI to un-restrict Mystical tutor that would be something I could get behind.

[Sims]

I just want to throw this out there, with the foreword that I don't really think either card needs banning, but I'm going to say this all the same.

If wizards decides to ban a card, it's going to be Survival of the Fittest. Not because Vengevine is new and gets people to buy packs, and not because Survival was broken before Vengevine came into the picture, but for one major reason:

Survival of the Fittest is a card that has been on their watch list since the inception of the format in 2004 as having potential to be broken, but most importantly, Survival of the Fittest puts design constraints on future sets by preventing them from printing new cool and unique cards like Vengevine due to potential interactions and brokenness in Legacy.

Much the same way I feel that Mystical wasn't banned for being broken now, but because it being gone opens up potential design space in the future for some broken cards that are fine on their own as 4 of's, but would be ridiculous with mystical in the format and essentially an 8 of. Now, that said i hope this doesn't happen as I haven't had too much trouble with the deck in tournament play (albeit LGS with 10 to 20 people, but good caliber players) and don't feel it's that broken. But if the DCI were to feel otherwise, i think they'd follow the above course of action. They'd remove the reusable tutor and unfortunately kill a unique group of tier 2 decks to take out the offending tier 1 deck, and remove the possibility for extremely broken interactions down the line.

[majikal]

I actually think it's a toss-up, Sims. As much as the DCI hates tutors, they also hate free things. Vengevine breaks all kinds of rules by itself, and the only reason it isn't completely dominant in Standard is the abundance of ridiculously fast mana that exists in that format. What good are a few 4/3's when your opponent can hardcast Emrakul that turn?

Unfortunately that check doesn't exist in Legacy, and while Survival has the potential to be broken on its own, it never really made that leap in Legacy for some reason, until Vengevine came along.

I think it's safe to say that Vengevine does not represent a common design, and it will be a long time, if ever, until we see something similar to it, not because Survival of the Fittest makes it broken, but because free things are inherently broken to begin with.

This is why I think the smart move, if any bannings become necessary, is to ban Vengevine.

[Mana Drain]

Survival of the Fittest puts design constraints on future sets by preventing them from printing new cool and unique cards like Vengevine due to potential interactions and brokenness in Legacy.



I lol'd. The same argument can be applied to Dark Ritual and every 3 mana black spell ever to be printed or considered to be printed. The same with Ancient Tomb/City of Traitors and 2-3 mana artifacts. Storm Combo puts constraints on cheap acceleration that could possibly be printed. High Tide puts constraints on anything that untaps lands cheaply. This argument can be applied to a dozen defining cards of Legacy.

Wizards is lame enough to ban an entire archtype from existence just because of one fad deck though. Vengevine is the problem, but Wizards of course Wizards would never admit it. Nobody mentions how Madness randomly mulls itself to oblivion due to mana issues/lack of gas in openers.
Survival is an easy card to hate people. Run Pithing Needle. Or Pridemage. Or Grip. Or Tormod's Crypt. The deck is too inconsistent to be a long-lasting affair.

[Meekrab]

What good are a few 4/3's when your opponent can hardcast Emrakul that turn?
Are you saying there are people hardcasting Emrakul on turn (say) 5 in Standard? Maybe I oughta take another look at that format...

[dontbiteitholmes]

I can assure anyone calling for the banning of Survival or Vengevine that any deck that leans heavily on the hope of getting a free Vine or 2 in play and winning quickly is fairly fragile in the end. There are uncounterable answers to Vine in the GY available to all colors, many cards that deal with Surivival, and plenty of creature removal, as well as the old standby of counterspell that shit. Not to be a know it all dick or anything, because that's how this might come off and I'm not writing articles trying to talk shit on the whole community and be that guy, but if you are in this thread complaining about Vine or Survival you are thinking like a loser. Think like a winner man. Almost 1/2 the format right now is Merfolk and Vengevine Survival. Take advantage or get left in the dust. I can assure you that there is a list that smokes both those decks, finding and playing that right now would be a pretty good call. The format will adjust, people will find the answers, and most of us (me included) will be sitting home looking at a top 8 in the near future and having one of those, "OMG, it's so simple, why didn't I think of that," Moments like when we saw Saito's list for Merfolk after the GP.

That's how it happens. When things like this come around, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and the format starts to line up. Playing Legacy at a big event is probably 15% luck, 40% skill, and the other 45% is playing a tight decklist that is right for the meta. I'm guessing before the end of the year we will start to see a lot of familiar names in the top 16 playing decks that are not Survival or Merfolk. That's why they are familiar names, because they play tight and are ahead of the curve on what's good for the meta, and that's how you win at MTG. I'd be surprised to see Alix Hatfield for example bring a Survival deck to the next SCG. Of course in the end who knows I could be wrong, but I suspect he brought Survival to the last one knowing it was about to peak out. Now it's the deck with a giant target on it's head. Look at the tournaments after Reanimator peaked and most of the big names in Legacy are not playing it. I'm not talking about several tournaments after it peaked, right after Atlanta many of the top players put their Reanimates back in the binder and never looked back. Even the ones who did relatively well in Atlanta with it knew the deck had topped out.

Anyways, point being Survival is not unbeatable and neither is Vine. People were saying about a month ago that Merfolk was to strong. 11000 cards means an answer to pretty much everything if you can anticipate what's coming around the corner. That's what people should be doing now instead of saying ban this/that. If WoTC jumped on every card the second it made a serious impact on the format the banned list would be 100 cards long.

[Sims]

I lol'd. The same argument can be applied to Dark Ritual and every 3 mana black spell ever to be printed or considered to be printed. The same with Ancient Tomb/City of Traitors and 2-3 mana artifacts. Storm Combo puts constraints on cheap acceleration that could possibly be printed. High Tide puts constraints on anything that untaps lands cheaply. This argument can be applied to a dozen defining cards of Legacy..

And has been applied to any of those cards before in the threads calling for their bannings on various sites since Legacy's inception. Mind you, I am not calling for banning. I think the deck is a flavor of the month fad. But having played this format since before it was Legacy and seeing how the DCI has made decisions regarding bannings before... it would not surprise me in the least bit if they decided to Hammer Survival of the Fittest and leave Vengevine. Vengevine, even for being free, rewards you for doin what you are supposed to do and is no where near as good without Survival. Survival is a demonic tutor for creatures every turn, multiple times a turn. From the DCI's perspective, which sounds more degenerate and abusable, especially with wizards pumping out super power creep creaures every set?

@majikal: You are right, Vengevine doesn't represent a common design. It's similar to the Bloodghast design in that it rewards you for doing something that your deck generally wants to do if your'e paying creatures (multiple creatures in one case, playing lands in another.) And the DCi does really hate undercosted and free effects, but they hate tutors pretty hard as well. If you give the DCI a choice between Vengevine on it's own, or Survival on it's own, vengevine doesn't have the same potential for broken without something like survival around.

As I said before, if you are the DCI or Wizards and you're trying to make a desicion based on now, but also what is possible in the future to preserve balance. Which sounds like the more dangerous card?

[Michael Keller]

I think an underlying theme throughout this entire conversation hinges on the back of simple and applicable side-boarding strategy. Most decks that are predicated largely on abusing the graveyard as a means for victory used to see ravenous amounts of hate in the format right up until the time Reanimator as an oppressive force got neutered. The graveyard has and always will be a means for players to cheat creatures into play quickly and with little to no drawback.

Point is, adjust your side-boards accordingly, make whatever applicable choices to the first sixty cards you need to, and play-test your boarding strategy. If you can't win with the deck your playing - even post-board - then your deck probably isn't good enough to stand the test of strength to begin with. Resting on the hinges of a frail side-board and side-boarding strategy will ultimately cost you matches, no matter how good you think you or your deck is.

Survival variants have existed for a long time in the format and the years preceding it, so it's not like the archetype as a whole has been under the radar since Bill Clinton was president. Just dust off the hate, play a competitive deck, make as few mistakes as possible, plan accordingly with your side-board, and you will do just fine.

[Team America]

Motivation behind banning cards

I believe that the DCI should err on the side of caution when banning cards from Legacy, because a large part of the appeal and the defining essence of Legacy is that you should be able to play with all the cards in the history of Magic. However, at times, it is necessary to ban a card that becomes format-warping and reduces the diversity of the format.

In my opinion, just because the card is nearly ubiquitous in Legacy (Wasteland, Force of Will, Brainstorm, Swords to Plowshares, Tarmogoyf) doesn't mean that it's format warping. In fact, because those cards in played in so many different archetypes, I believe they improve the diversity of the format, even though they technically discourage a Legacy player from playing weaker cards like Tectonic Edge, Foil, Serum Visions, Unmake, and Grizzly Bears.

I'm not entirely advocating for the removal of Survival of the Fittest from the Legacy format, because I believe the banhammer should be used very conservatively and judiciously, and I haven't definitively made up my mind yet on the case of Survival of the Fittest; but on the other hand, I believe it is by far the most ban-worthy card in the format and that it deserves to be on the list even more so than many of the cards on the current banned list.

Here are some data from recent SCG tournaments:

Data from SCG tournaments

Richmond (2/28/10)

Reanimator
- 12 decks (5.08% of field)
- 42-29-1 (59.03%) against the field (no mirror, no IDs)
- 2 out of top 16 (4th and 5th)
ANT
- 9 decks (3.81%)
- 20-23-1 (46.59%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Indianapolis (3/14/10)

Reanimator
- 21 decks (7.34%)
- 47-52-4 (47.57%) against the field
- 2 out of top 16 (7th and 13th)
ANT
- 16 decks (5.59%)
- 32-47-0 (40.51%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Orlando (3/28/10)

Reanimator
- 5 decks (4.10%)
- 14-15-3 (48.44%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (7th)
ANT
- 6 decks (4.92%)
- 20-14-0 (58.82%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Atlanta (5/2/10)

Reanimator
- 23 decks (11.50%)
- 58-53-4 (52.17%) against the field
- 4 out of top 16 (2nd, 6th, 8th, 12th)
ANT
- 11 decks (5.50%)
- 22-27-1 (45.00%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (1st)

Philadelphia (6/6/10)

Reanimator
- 22 decks (9.32%)
- 58-55-4 (51.28%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16
ANT
- 18 decks (7.63%)
- 45-41-3 (52.25%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (6th)

Seattle (6/13/10)

Reanimator
- 25 decks (13.23%)
- 56-59-2 (48.72%) against the field
- 2 out of top 16 (5th, 12th)
ANT
- 15 decks (7.94%)
- 38-36-0 (51.35%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (15th)

St. Louis (6/27/10)

Reanimator
- 22 decks (11.40%)
- 54-59-1 (47.81%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16
ANT
- 6 decks (3.11%)
- 22-18-0 (55.00%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

So in these 7 tournaments, Reanimator posted a cumulative record of 329-322-19 (50.52%). It made up 8.89% of the overall field and 9.82% of the top 16, so its penetration into the top 16 was slightly better than that of an average deck (by about 10%), which is to be expected for a Tier 1 deck.

ANT posted a 199-206-5 record (49.15%), so pilots had pretty dismal results. Granted, some have contended (including the DCI) that ANT is a difficult deck to pilot, but that in the hands of a pro, it was absolutely degenerate. So if this were true, we would expect significant top 16 penetration where the best pilots start to separate themselves from everyone else, but ANT decks--which made up 5.54% of the field--made up only 2.68% of top 16; in other words, it was less than half as likely as an average deck to place in the top 16!

Contrast that with the performance of Survival decks

Denver (8/22/10)
- 10 Survival decks (8.00%)
- 34-24-4 against the field (58.06%); U/G Madness, 28-16-3 (62.77%)
- 1 out of top 16 (8th place)

Minneapolis (8/29/10)
- 16 Survival decks (9.47%)
- 67-32-5 against the field (66.83%); U/G Madness, 58-28-0 (67.44%)
- 5 out of top 16 (3rd, 8th, 12th, 13th, 15th place)

Baltimore (9/19/10)
- 25 Survival decks (10.73%)
- 102-60-8 against the field (62.35%); U/G Madness, 65-38-5 (62.50%)
- 5 out of top 16 (2nd, 4th, 5th, 12th, 15th place)

Nashvile (10/17/10)
- Complete data currently unavailable
- 5 out of top 16 (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 12th place)

I don't think people fully realize how dominating Survival decks--and in particular, Madness--have been in the metagame. Ever since the deck debuted at Columbus, the deck has posted stellar results, boasting over 62.50% wins in each of the three SCG tournaments for which data are available, with excellent top 16 penetration. For the three tournaments available, 51 Survival decks (comprising 9.68% of the format) made up almost one quarter of the top 16 spots in those three tournaments!

Moreover, some have suggested that the metagame would adapt to Madness as it had to Reanimator. But what they may not realize is that it only took one tournament for Reanimator to fall from a top performer (59.03%) to a sub-50% deck (47.57% in Indianapolis, 48.44% in Orlando). The notion that the format also needed to "adjust" to ANT is ridiculous, as it put up only 3 top 16 slots in 7 tournaments, compared to the 5 that Survival decks now routinely put up every tournament. But in any case, whereas the format was fast to adjust to Madness and never allowed ANT to be a serious contender in significant quantities (which isn't to say that it isn't a threat to win in the hands of a great pilot), it's allowed Survival to put up unprecedented performances for four straight tournaments, despite being the deck that everyone is gunning for.

More discouragingly (for the diversity of the format, but not for a Survival pilot), the deck apparently has a positive matchup against every single major archetype in the format. The following includes all the data I found from Jared Sylva's articles:

- 27-22-5 (54.63%) against Merfolk
- 36-14-3 (70.75%) against Countertop
- 16-8-0 (66.67%) against Goblins
- 14-12-1 (53.70%) against Zoo
- 3-3-0 (50.00%) against Ad Nauseam
- 7-3-1 (68.18%) against Dredge
- 4-0-0 (100.00%) against Enchantress
- 9-1-0 (90.00%) against Charbelcher

I'm not sure why Sylva chose to include the likes of Enchantress and Charbelcher in his data as significant archetypes, but hopefully, that dispels the notion that a fringe deck like Enchantress is capable of "hating out" Survival decks.

Some counterpoints

I saw a lot of counterpoints being raised throughout the thread, and I can't remember exactly who posed each issue, but here's the argument against Survival

Is it necessary to ban a key card everytime a deck becomes successful? After all, Merfolk posted 5 out of the top 16 spots at SCG Baltimore, but no one is asking for the banning of Lord of Atlantis.

It should be noted that even though the tournament was considered a vindication of the Merfolk deck, it was rather Survival decks that performed much better. Consider that Survival decks made up only 25 of the 233 decks in the format, compared to Merfolk's 34, but still achieved 5 of the top 16 slots. Moreover, Merfolk only won 55.53% of its non-mirror matchups, compared to 62.35% for Survival decks. And Merfolk, despite being lauded as a foil to Madness, still only went 50% against Survival decks (15-15-2), at its best performance ever! In other words, even in a remarkable weekend for the fish that had everyone flipping out, Merfolk still did worse than Survival on an average weekend.

The deck isn't that broken/fast. Storm combo can kill on turn 1-2 with a good hand, whereas most non-LED Madness builds cannot kill before turn 3 (with Wild Mongrel) or even turn 4 (with Survival).

This is true, but storm combo is also more susceptible to hate. Furthermore, if you prevent the Survival engine, you may only have to deal with one Vengevine; if you prevent all discard outlets or supplement with graveyard hate, you may not have to deal with any, and U/G Madness decks (but not G/W) become bad aggro decks. But a bad aggro deck is still more threatening than a goldfish, which is what the likes of Storm combo and Reanimator are if you can prevent them from comboing out.

You can just hate the deck with cards anti-Survival measures or anti-Graveyard hate.

To some extent, this is true, but a threat is always better than an answer because you may not draw into your hate card (or the right type of hate) when you need it, and in the meantime, you are diluting the potency of your own deck by playing so much hate, often to the point that you can get beaten down by bad creatures backed by an Umezawa's Jitte. Mono-green madness decks or G/W can just go straight beatdown with much more powerful creatures, and the Survival player can also opt for a Natural Order plan out of the sideboard to bypass your hate entirely.

The metagame can adapt to this presence.

I believe that Legacy is a large enough format that metagame forces are capable of policing itself to some extent, and I have little doubt that one can construct a deck that has a positive matchup against Survival builds. However, that deck must also be strong enough to compete with the rest of the format, and so far, there is no presence that prevents Survival from rampaging over the format to the tune of a 63% win percentage. The format may not necessarily degenerate into something ridiculous like 1/3 Survival, 1/3 Storm, and 1/3 bad prison decks as a result of Survival, but if prison strategies and storm combos are some of the strategies necessary to keep Survival in check (as has been postulated in this thread), then Survival is clearly a format-warping presence that makes the format less fun. At that point, whatever benefits there are to keeping Survival legal are outweighed by its disadvantages, and I would have no qualms about banning it. I hope this doesn't become the case.

Other "shells" like Force of Will/Brainstorm/Duals/Fetches are even more commonly played too, but no one is calling for their banning.

The fundamental difference is that those shells enable a variety of decks, all of which might hope to win 50-55% of its games. Survival of the Fittest/Vengevine enables only a relatively small number of decks, but all of which are looking at 60-65 or 70%.

Other cards can be deemed format-warping too.

In my opinion, the only card in recent memory that I would deem format warping is Counterbalance in combination with Sensei's Divining Top, and even then, those decks didn't post the results as stunning as Survival. Moreover, Counterbalance is a combo only with Sensei's Divining Top; Survival combos with any of 20+ creatures in the deck. Counterbalance is also relatively slow, getting dropped on turn 2 at the earliest, and possibly locking you out on turn 3 only with a good Top. Even then, you have many turns to answer the lock with something like Krosan Grip. On the other hand, Survival takes far less investment and means you will likely take lethal damage within two turns, and even if answered before then, you are probably looking at serious card disadvantage under the gun of several hasty, recurring 4/3s and various Rootwallas.

I do not believe other combo decks are format warping. Certainly, if you are not playing blue, you are severely undermanned in that matchup, but at least you can rely on blue decks, prison strategies, and black disruption keeping conventional combo in check. Nothing exists right now to keep Survival in check.

Vengevine should be banned instead.

Perhaps, but other Survival of the Fittest strategies that don't use Vengevine are also performing exceedingly well (and possibly Necrotic Ooze-based decks). But more fundamentally, a cheap, recurrable tutor like Survival is much more repugnant to the DCI than a normal creature (although it is true that Vengevine breaks all sorts of normal rules too).

Conclusion

As with any card, the DCI should think carefully before banning Survival of the Fittest, because there is an inherent benefit to keeping as many cards as possible legal in the Legacy format, and it is possible that metagame forces will eventually counteract Survival so that it isn't so broken anymore. But this is a much more potent deck than the likes of Reanimator and ANT, both in terms of overall performance and penetration by top players, and it's one that is much more difficult to hate and is much more resilient, so parallels to the format adjusting to those decks are limited in utility.

THANK YOU, finally someone posted the hard solid facts. Everyone can have their opinion on whether survival is broken or not, but that is their own opinion and does not effect the hard cold stats you just posted of the dominance of survival. People are preparing more for survival but it keeps putting up even better numbers in major tournaments.

[Jonathan Alexander]

THANK YOU, finally someone posted the hard solid facts. Everyone can have their opinion on whether survival is broken or not, but that is their own opinion and does not effect the hard cold stats you just posted of the dominance of survival. People are preparing more for survival but it keeps putting up even better numbers in major tournaments.

Do people really prepare for the deck? I mean, do they test against it and adjust their sideboards? And do they stop testing once they found a piece of hate that works quite well or do they try to find something better until they have properly tested like 10-15 different options? I mean seriously, we have almost that many viable pieces of gravehate. I wouldn't be too sure about that. People might've been prepared to play against the engine but didn't bring the appropriate hate for it. On top of that the deck is still quite new and heavily played. I'm sure someone will find a good answer that's not too specific and good in a few other matchups. Personally I'm liking Extirpate 'cause it's good against a lot of decks and I think I'll be trying Hibernation if Extirpate shouldn't be enough. I usually didn't have trouble with Vengevine Survival but I have to admit that my testing is limited and it's not as popular over here in Germany as it is in the states.

[scrumdogg]

One point which hasn't been addressed is the tight time range of those SCG Open events. It takes Legacy veterans a while to coherently scope out strategies and counter-plots, is it realistic to assume that the SCG Open attendees (many of whom are either non-Legacy players or certainly unknown Legacy enthusiasts) are going to be able to do so in a three week span of time? Vengevine is one of the more interesting cards in years because it moves creatures toward the instant-speed than their normal sorcery-speed. What used to require significant set-up and often a dilution of the manabase (mountain + Anger or crappy card like Concordant Crossroads) now occurs naturally...and Legacy in general has NOT yet adapted to that. I am positive that the format can adjust and will adjust. The fact that it has not, however, does not signal the coming apocalypse nor does it justify bannings. In the meantime, if you own Vengevines and Survivals, make hay while the sun shines :cool: Lord knows I have and will continue to do so! This golden window of opportunity will not last, so enjoy it while it is open.

[Team America]

Do people really prepare for the deck? I mean, do they test against it and adjust their sideboards? And do they stop testing once they found a piece of hate that works quite well or do they try to find something better until they have properly tested like 10-15 different options? I mean seriously, we have almost that many viable pieces of gravehate. I wouldn't be too sure about that. People might've been prepared to play against the engine but didn't bring the appropriate hate for it. On top of that the deck is still quite new and heavily played. I'm sure someone will find a good answer that's not too specific and good in a few other matchups. Personally I'm liking Extirpate 'cause it's good against a lot of decks and I think I'll be trying Hibernation if Extirpate shouldn't be enough. I usually didn't have trouble with Vengevine Survival but I have to admit that my testing is limited and it's not as popular over here in Germany as it is in the states.

It is very popular here in the states, the last local tournament vengvine survival was the most represented deck. In the tournament I extirpated vengvine and made no play mistake yet the vengvine survival player still won, you gotta play it to see graveyard hate doesn't stop the deck, it just causes it to change plans. Maybe there will be better SB cards found against it, but right now extirpate, leyline, tormod's, relic does not stop it, a smart player will tutor up trygon or some other answer or in response to crypt/relic activation tutor up more rootawalla and trigger vengvine before resolving. ONE card I can think of that may work is yxilid jailer for decks running black and peacekeeper for decks running white because of UG madness's lack of spot removal if it doesn't have an active jitte. But the GW version runs swords so that's a moot point. or against crypt and relic they'll get another rootawalla to resolve to trigger vengevines in response to crypt/relic activation.

[CalebD]

What good are a few 4/3's when your opponent can hardcast Emrakul that turn?

Unfortunately that check doesn't exist in Legacy, and while Survival has the potential to be broken on its own, it never really made that leap in Legacy for some reason, until Vengevine came along.

Legacy decks do cast Emrakul on turn three, and it is a hurdle. The Wastelands aren't in there for the colorless mana.

If people are interested, I could do an article on how to beat the deck in a variety of ways. I'd dip into the theoretical, answering some questions like why merfolk is posting 50% against the deck. I could also cover the practical, going into a slew of lists from my testing gauntlet that put up 50% or better against UG. Hrm, with the controversy about maybe banning survival, it seems like it could be a well timed article.

[Zamussels]

But the GW version runs swords so that's a moot point. or against crypt and relic they'll get another rootawalla to resolve to trigger vengevines in response to crypt/relic activation.

It was my understanding that since Vengevine triggers on the second creature of the turn, if you remove the vengevines in response to the trigger there's nothing that can be done even if you cast another rootwalla. It will be the 3rd creature and not trigger the vengevine. Or am I looking at this wrong.

[SlopeeJ]

yea seriously if your going to comment on whether a card is broken/ban worthy, at least know how the cards works. It triggers one time on the 2nd creature

[Team America]

yea seriously if your going to comment on whether a card is broken/ban worthy, at least know how the cards works. It triggers one time on the 2nd creature

We are discussing about SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, what does it matter if I get the vengevine trigger wrong or not, it is STILL dominating the meta. What I see from the people who think it's broken is they post hard solid STATS and FACTS, while the ones that don't think it's broken just keep spewing the same "learn to play against it" or "learn to SB correctly". How about you actually contribute to the thread and suggest strategies or SB options we may not know of, because like the SB cards I posted in my other post, they aren't cutting it.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/20064_Too_Much_Information_StarCityGamescom_Legacy_Open_Denver_and_Minneapolis.html

and quote from the writer:
"Positive matchups against literally every other major archetype over these two events is, simply put, insane. These are the type of numbers that can get a card banned. Now all the deck has to do is win a large event, and it will put a big exclamation point after the target that's already on its back."

And it just won Nashville.

[jrw1985]

Legacy decks do cast Emrakul on turn three, and it is a hurdle. The Wastelands aren't in there for the colorless mana.

If people are interested, I could do an article on how to beat the deck in a variety of ways. I'd dip into the theoretical, answering some questions like why merfolk is posting 50% against the deck. I could also cover the practical, going into a slew of lists from my testing gauntlet that put up 50% or better against UG. Hrm, with the controversy about maybe banning survival, it seems like it could be a well timed article.

Yes please. It's your deck after all, you monster.

[HerrFunker]

the strange thing is it was all over MTGO for about a month, but it has since died down somewhat. I think we just need some time to adapt to it/make decks that can deal with it. So far from what I can tell storm combo, and Enchantress do well against it. What are some other decks? Maybe white stax, and 43 land.

[keys]

Survival Vengevine obsoletes every other aggro deck in the format. It's clearly on another level, perhaps not to the extent that Flash dominated the format, but closer than ANT/Reanimator ever were. I expect one of the two cards will get the banhammer very soon.

Thank you LordOfThePit for your thoughtful analysis.

[death]

Survival's versatility as an engine never cease to amaze me, ever since it's printing, variations of the deck kept dominating, uncrippled by Recurring Nightmare's banning. I agree with what has been said regarding this format, it's the number and variety of decks that abuse it is what's truly scary.

As for the existing hate cards, they are all underestimations and laughable from a Survival pilot's standpoint. A single hate card that stops Survival cannot stop the whole deck from eventually winning. The way the meta should adapt is by playing with faster clocks or dedicated control.

And the only card WotC will ban is Survival of the Fittest, and only when the meta swings into full Survival/anti-Survival mode.

[SlopeeJ]

We are discussing about SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, what does it matter if I get the vengevine trigger wrong or not, it is STILL dominating the meta. What I see from the people who think it's broken is they post hard solid STATS and FACTS, while the ones that don't think it's broken just keep spewing the same "learn to play against it" or "learn to SB correctly". How about you actually contribute to the thread and suggest strategies or SB options we may not know of, because like the SB cards I posted in my other post, they aren't cutting it.
And it just won Nashville.

Actually we are talking about the combo of Survival with Vengevines, Survival has been around for a long time and though powerful it hasn't had any thing near the success it has had lately with the printing of Vengevine. As others have stated, before you would need cards like squee/anger and others to make the combo work. Now all you need is 3/4 green mana on turn 3 to do 8/12 damage and win the game next turn.

There are no SB tradegies that nobody knows of, the cards haven't changed. If you hate the graveyard they will just use survival to pitch their shitty creatures to get better ones. Now with the GW version they just have big fatties. I was testing and my opp was pitching Knights to get Vengevines. You need to stop survival, seems simple but it isn't and a resovled survival is gg with vengevines. I agree that the survival/vengevine combo is broken


I was just saying if you don't know how the card works, I find it difficult to understand how you can play/test sb strategies against it.

[frogboy]

For reference: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/20323_Ideas_Unbound_The_Survival_of_the_Fittest_Problem_And_How_to_Fight_It.html

[ivanpei]

Nice article. I agree with you 100% that people should not attack the graveyard. I don't board in gravehate vs vengevival at all. You listed the following hate cards: Pithing needle, krosan grip, perish, spell snare, counterspells.... They're all legacy staples IMO, especially pithing needle. These answers are not narrow and can be found in most sideboards. Pithing needle is colorless, costs 1 mana and has dozens of applications outside fighting survival. Cast needle, protect it and win. Even if they eventually kill the needle, it slows down survival enough for you to stabilize and find even more answers.

[majikal]

Are you saying there are people hardcasting Emrakul on turn (say) 5 in Standard? Maybe I oughta take another look at that format...
Yes. Eldrazi Green does it with frightening consistency.

[Tacosnape]

Again. Just because half of you are incapable of your own deck design and can't come up with ways to beat whatever the new thing is, doesn't mean it's overpowered.

People have already begun adjusting. Peacekeeper is a prime example.

You can hate the yard, but you have to do it with Leyline of the Void or Extirpate for maximum effectiveness. Or you can just stop the Survival. With Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, Pithing Needle, Nature's Claim, Qasali Pridemage, Revoke Existence, Krosan Grip, Meddling Mage, Thoughtseize, Duress, Cabal Therapy, etc. Or you can just negate the strategy with things like Peacekeeper. Or something bizarre like Ritual/Sadistic Sacrament. There's plenty of ways to deal with this.
Seriously, though. How many Pithing Needles did you see in Nashville? How much maindecked artifact/enchantment hate? People haven't adjusted yet. Goblins could, for example, start maindecking 3-4 Nature's Claims to deal with a metagame packed with Jittes, Survivals, and the occasional Moat, and the Claims wouldn't be dead in very many matchups. I imagine the occasional killing of a Belcher or Vial in the mirror could prove beneficial as well.

In our tournament tonight, the Survival deck went 1-3. It's a tier 1 deck. But it's not broken. I don't even think it's the format's best deck at the moment. And it's easy to prepare for.

Alter your deck slightly, quit your bitching, and move on.

[pippo84]

Again. Just because half of you are incapable of your own deck design and can't come up with ways to beat whatever the new thing is, doesn't mean it's overpowered.

People have already begun adjusting. Peacekeeper is a prime example.

You can hate the yard, but you have to do it with Leyline of the Void or Extirpate for maximum effectiveness. Or you can just stop the Survival. With Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, Pithing Needle, Nature's Claim, Qasali Pridemage, Revoke Existence, Krosan Grip, Meddling Mage, Thoughtseize, Duress, Cabal Therapy, etc. Or you can just negate the strategy with things like Peacekeeper. Or something bizarre like Ritual/Sadistic Sacrament. There's plenty of ways to deal with this.
Seriously, though. How many Pithing Needles did you see in Nashville? How much maindecked artifact/enchantment hate? People haven't adjusted yet. Goblins could, for example, start maindecking 3-4 Nature's Claims to deal with a metagame packed with Jittes, Survivals, and the occasional Moat, and the Claims wouldn't be dead in very many matchups. I imagine the occasional killing of a Belcher or Vial in the mirror could prove beneficial as well.

In our tournament tonight, the Survival deck went 1-3. It's a tier 1 deck. But it's not broken. I don't even think it's the format's best deck at the moment. And it's easy to prepare for.

Alter your deck slightly, quit your bitching, and move on.

+1

That's it. Stop moaning and listen to Taco plz.

If you know that many Survival decks are going to be at a tournament please play some hate MD.
Remember Nassif's list? He played Krosan Grip MD for some reason. Well, now the meta has changed, but it's an example of cards that people just play in the SB because they are narrow. Change your lists and you will start to win. Thnks

[Rigero]

For reference: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/20323_Ideas_Unbound_The_Survival_of_the_Fittest_Problem_And_How_to_Fight_It.html

this!

very good article. I think the meta would be quite ok if the people start playing spell snare as a 4 off and needles in the sideboard again.

[venice]

Again. Just because half of you are incapable of your own deck design and can't come up with ways to beat whatever the new thing is, doesn't mean it's overpowered.

Alter your deck slightly, quit your bitching, and move on.

Signed a thousand times! Couldn´t have said it better!

Hopefully this totally redundant discussion will come to an end now.

[colo]

If they ban Survival, I'll hang myself.


Dude, please don't! I <3 you way too much!!1!

[SMR0079]

The following decks have a 50% or better match vs Madness Survival. Stop whining and play one of them.

Storm
Tempo Blue (Team America, Horizons, Canadian Thresh)
Merfolk
Eva Green/Deadguy
Dredge

[Gui]

I know the conversation was dead, and people stopped QQ'ing about the ban, but I have to disagree with the hole "adjust and play hate maindeck" argument.

Basically, deck design now runs towards being able to hate SotF while still able to play against other decks, mostly decks that are also able to fight SotF.

There's a thin difference between Legacy ability to adjust, as for "Fight Lackey with 1cc creatures MD", and legacy being able to fight a tech with more hate. Of course legacy can hate, IT'S LEGACY. It got endless ways to hate everything. But, IF a deck (or a combo of cards, since it's the case) is anoying enough for you to add so specific hates at every deck, then it has a pretty good reason to be concerned as possible ban already.
(Notice how it can be different from counterbalance: you don't need to hate counterbalance to prevent their win, you can play around it and win even if it is online and working with several decks. Decks don't add 4-of K-grips to fight CB thinking "if I don't do this, I lose", although they may add K-grip MD thinking "I could increase my chances").

The other counter-argument for "Legacy adaptation" is that, clearly, SotF + Vengevine will adapt into fighting its hates, as it is happening already, with B versions to discard Krosan/Extirpate (seems to be MVPs). The combo is so light-weight in amount of cards, and such an auto-win against so many decks, that it can run Black for discard, and yet run accelerators and get Progenitus(or something else) via NO, and then all the anti-SotF stuff you boarded and maindecked will be as good as useless.

Well, not stating that it should be banned due to these reasons, but MAYBE these arguments are not strong enough to prevent the ban. People defending not banning either Vvine or SotF are basically stating that people defending the ban is Crying since you can stockpile hate against the combo, while people defending the ban, so far, got pretty good argumentation on that. Looks a lot like trolling to me.


TL;DR version: If a card (or combo) demands more hate than it should, although still counterable, it's Imbalanced.

[DragoFireheart]

Looks like I may hold off on buying a playset of Survival of the Fittest if it's just going to get banned.

[Shabbaman]

TL;DR version: If a card (or combo) demands more hate than it should, although still counterable, it's Imbalanced.

Counterbalance/top? It seems that particular combo had more impact on this format than VV/Survival.

[socialite]

Because Evan Erwin is good for anything else but selling Mythic Rares and hyping bad cards for WoTC. :X

I believe Tacosnape is dead on.

This thread is silly.

[(nameless one)]

Looks like I may hold off on buying a playset of Survival of the Fittest if it's just going to get banned.

Same here.

I guess I can use NO-Genitus combo on my elves instead.

[Gui]

Counterbalance/top? It seems that particular combo had more impact on this format than VV/Survival.

Well, you'll have to read the hole post then.

[Fossil4182]

IMHO, one of the biggest problems with WotC and Banning cards is not having a formula to determine whether or not a card should be banned.

This problem is proliferated when WotC gives unspecified and poorly justified reasons for banning a card. Mystical Tutor is the most obvious example of this. While it is true that Survival decks have been dominate as of late, it would be extremely hypocritical of WotC to ban Survival of the Fittest when its allowed decks like Jund to dominate a format for over a year. As has been already noted, Legacy marco level meta games take longer to adjust because there are fewer events and because fewer top level players dedicate a lot of time to innovating the format.

The problems of calling for banning are further compounded when people who WotC is likely to listen to IE "The Magic Show" call for the card to be banned without reasonable justification. I'll start up front saying I like the Magic Show and have watched it for years (and own the playmat!). However, if someone is going to call for a card to be banned and they're a well respected person in the Magic community, they have an ethical responsibility to provide some compelling reasons to support such a claim. I've watched the most recent episode and there is not a lot of justification for calling for a banning. I believe two top 16 lists where cited. However, Merfolk, Goblins, Zoo Counterbalance and Aggro Loam have all had strong showings of a similar level in the past and that hasn't been justification for banning. I'm fine with authors calling for cards to be banned, but I think there needs to be some level of explanation given beyond citing a few 16 results. Even pro level players ought to at least explain their thought process rather than just name drop.

There is a story from a our local meta game I'd like to share as it relates to some of the problems associated with this card. We have a relativity young player at our shop who was loosing to Survival for the previous two weeks. He was playing NO CounterTop and was getting beat with a great deal of consistency. We asked him what he was boarding in and he told us Krosan Grip. While Grip is a great card, in many ways its not necessarily effective against Survival decks. For example, If I'm playing against the Survival Player and I keep a hand that has three lands, 3 business spells and a Grip, I'll decide to keep. The turns play out like this

T1 (Survival Player): Land, Noble Heirarch, Pass
T1 (NO Bant Player): Land, Top, Pass

T2 (Survival Player): Land, Survival of the Fittest (NO attempts to Force of Will, which Survival Player counters with FoW), pass
T2 (NO Bant Player): Land, Counterbalance, pass

T3 (Survival Player): Land, activate Survival four times, bring back 2-3 Vengevines (Depending on the build) and swing for 8-12
T3 (NO Bant Player): Krosan Grip?

Grip is a fine card against a lot of problematic enchantments and artifacts in Legacy. Its also not terrible against Survival, but as the above example illustrates, its not that effective at being an answer to Survival. One of the most basic elements in designing a deck is understanding the roles of the cards in your Sideboard. Grip has long been a staple in Legacy sideboards, but it is not an answer to Survival the way it is to Counterbalance. Sure, Grip isn't terrible, but its also not good. Cards like Pithing Needle are a fantastic answer to Survival. Most of Survival's ways to answer Needle are slow and vulnerable to just about anything. Survival decks also have the quality of being terrible without Survival active as they are usually just inferior or average beatdown down decks.

I'm with a lot of people here that Survival should not be banned. A recent good showing for a "new" deck is not justification for banning it. As several people have pointed out, its new and shiny so a lot of people are playing it. Its also the first time that Survival is getting any mainstream attention and success which is also adding to its popularity and desire for people to pick up and play the deck. Plus, Survival is not the true problem here. The problem is the interaction with Survival and Vengevine. Survival decks have not historically been successful in Legacy. Its only since the interactions with Vengevine in recent results that Survival has been so successful.

As an aside, we've been testing and so far, these are some cards we've found to be successful in combating Survival:
Needle, Nature's Claim, Duress, Thoughtseize, Extirpate, Perish (kind of), Peacekeeper, Leon Arbiter, Trinisphere, Spell Snare and Spell Pierce.

[dontbiteitholmes]

For example, If I'm playing against the Survival Player and I keep a hand that has three lands, 3 business spells and a Grip, I'll decide to keep. The turns play out like this

T1 (Survival Player): Land, Noble Heirarch, Pass
T1 (NO Bant Player): Land, Top, Pass

T2 (Survival Player): Land, Survival of the Fittest (NO attempts to Force of Will, which Survival Player counters with FoW), pass
T2 (NO Bant Player): Land, Counterbalance, pass

T3 (Survival Player): Land, activate Survival four times, bring back 2-3 Vengevines (Depending on the build) and swing for 8-12
T3 (NO Bant Player): Krosan Grip?


Not that I don't agree with Grip being worse than other answers to Survival, but your example is one of those, "Best possible draw," Kind of examples I hate to see in threads like this about how good a given card or decktype is. I mean, that is really the dream draw for them and it's going to happen maybe once or twice a tournament if that.



I'm with a lot of people here that Survival should not be banned. A recent good showing for a "new" deck is not justification for banning it. As several people have pointed out, its new and shiny so a lot of people are playing it. Its also the first time that Survival is getting any mainstream attention and success which is also adding to its popularity and desire for people to pick up and play the deck. Plus, Survival is not the true problem here. The problem is the interaction with Survival and Vengevine. Survival decks have not historically been successful in Legacy. Its only since the interactions with Vengevine in recent results that Survival has been so successful.

As an aside, we've been testing and so far, these are some cards we've found to be successful in combating Survival:
Needle, Nature's Claim, Duress, Thoughtseize, Extirpate, Perish (kind of), Peacekeeper, Leon Arbiter, Trinisphere, Spell Snare and Spell Pierce.

Survival has been successful in Legacy before. In fact it was a deck to beat for the first several years of the format and has popped up again a couple of times since then. The UGW list has had a fair amount of success in the past year, it was 3rd in Nashville and even before Vengevine came out it won several large events. Again, that doesn't mean it's too strong, just that we have been here before.

[Nessaja]

Survival has been successful in Legacy before. In fact it was a deck to beat for the first several years of the format and has popped up again a couple of times since then. The UGW list has had a fair amount of success in the past year, it was 3rd in Nashville and even before Vengevine came out it won several large events. Again, that doesn't mean it's too strong, just that we have been here before.
It's the first time I'm packing dedicated hate for Survival of the Fittest, instead of hate for enchantments/graveyard in general that happens to work against Survival as well. There's a big difference there.

About UG Madness there's quite a bit more to it.

1. The deck doesn't mulligan well at all
2. Because of the lack of library manipulation and the relatively low land count it's entirely possible to landscrew them
3. Starts without Survival aren't even that hot, Mongrel into Vengevine and Rootwalla is beatable by many decks
4. Getting Vengevines back isn't as easy as it sounds without survival
5. Because of their blue count they can't really consistently counter things without having mana up

[Fossil4182]

Not that I don't agree with Grip being worse than other answers to Survival, but your example is one of those, "Best possible draw," Kind of examples I hate to see in threads like this about how good a given card or decktype is. I mean, that is really the dream draw for them and it's going to happen maybe once or twice a tournament if that.



Survival has been successful in Legacy before. In fact it was a deck to beat for the first several years of the format and has popped up again a couple of times since then. The UGW list has had a fair amount of success in the past year, it was 3rd in Nashville and even before Vengevine came out it won several large events. Again, that doesn't mean it's too strong, just that we have been here before.

The aforementioned isn't necessarily a gold fish draw. Most Survival decks are designed to have a turn one accelerate into a Survival on turn two. The reason being that it blanks Daze for the most part since forcing them to pay an extra mana to keep it on the table is pretty horrible when they're still going to get 4 activations the next turn and the player who cast daze is back a turn on land development (again why Grip is not good). The GBu list from the recent 5K was running 5 main deck one drops to accelerate and I would venture a guess that will become the norm in the future since any redundant draws can be used to activate Survival later or trigger a Vengevine recursion in addition to being a great first turn play.

I would agree Survival has been around before and its even been a DTB before. However, its never been in the discussion of the best deck in the format. Nor has it even been so "dominating" that it has drawn out calls for banning it or has it needed dedicated Sideboard hate.

[SMR0079]

It's currently the best deck - and it is quite beatable.

To beat it you must first acknowledge that it simply beats certain startegies - then adopt a strategy that trumps it or at least has a 50% match.

I think this metagame is quite acceptable & balanced:

Madness Survival
Aggro Survival
Storm
Tempo Control
Fish
Eva Green/Deadguy

And this is just what has already been proven - not what lies on the horizon of a new metagame.

Challenge?

[Hawdes]

It's currently the best deck - and it is quite beatable.

To beat it you must first acknowledge that it simply beats certain startegies - then adopt a strategy that trumps it or at least has a 50% match.

I think this metagame is quite acceptable & balanced:

Madness Survival
Aggro Survival
Storm
Tempo Control
Fish
Eva Green/Deadguy

And this is just what has already been proven - not what lies on the horizon of a new metagame.

Challenge?

I think that people are demoralized just because their CB/Top control decks can't win as easy as before. That's why people cry so hard.
They have their petdecks with CB/Top, Thopter combo etc. and simply don't want to take another deck and play it. Therefore they scream for a ban of Survival of the Fittest.
Too bad, this is what makes good magic players, adapting to a meta shift when it occurs and even change deck completely... Face the facts, these Blue control decks that takes forever to set up a complete dominance of the game doesn't cut it anymore.

I can nothing but agree with all previous poster that say that we must adapt our decks. That's what happened when ppl started to play CB/Top based decks. Ppl started to pack Krosan Grips in SBs, they adapted the CMC curve of the deck, playing enchantment hate such as Wickedbough Elder just to be able to dodge it.
But when the opposite players has to adjust, they're up in arms just because they want to play their pet decks on their own terms...

[Loxodon Baileyarch]

I think that people are demoralized just because their CB/Top control decks can't win as easy as before. That's why people cry so hard.
They have their petdecks with CB/Top, Thopter combo etc. and simply don't want to take another deck and play it. Therefore they scream for a ban of Survival of the Fittest.
Too bad, this is what makes good magic players, adapting to a meta shift when it occurs and even change deck completely... Face the facts, these Blue control decks that takes forever to set up a complete dominance of the game doesn't cut it anymore.

I can nothing but agree with all previous poster that say that we must adapt our decks. That's what happened when ppl started to play CB/Top based decks. Ppl started to pack Krosan Grips in SBs, they adapted the CMC curve of the deck, playing enchantment hate such as Wickedbough Elder just to be able to dodge it.
But when the opposite players has to adjust, they're up in arms just because they want to play their pet decks on their own terms...

+1. I love you.

[keys]

The point is, do we want a metagame that consists of Survival... and decks that are metagamed to beat Survival? Sounds like a tepid format to me, but whatever...

[Hawdes]

The point is, do we want a metagame that consists of Survival... and decks that are metagamed to beat Survival? Sounds like a tepid format to me, but whatever...

And a format filled with CB/Top variations ain't tepid? I can't go to a tournament without seeing atleast 6 different decks using CB/Top soft-lock and they're not even that much diffrent from eachother. These decks top8-top16 way back, in every tournament. But hey, then we adapted our decks to fight against CB/Top. It's the same thing all over again, but now it's about survival.
Adapt your deck, and it'll be fine.
We didn't scream for a CB ocr Sensei ban did we? I didn't atleast, I just tweaked my deck to actually be able to face the massive force of the CB/Top soft lock (which in my book takes time to play against since they most likely have no clock). They make rounds go to time. They stall the game too 50 minutes each round if you don't scoop, since they have 2-3 win cons.

Now that's an unhealthy meta in my opinion... We should be glad that some innovative people made a deck that simply crushes these decks, making them unviable in tournaments. Saving all other people time of agony when waiting for the CB/Top player to actually find a win con.

[keys]

And a format filled with CB/Top variations ain't tepid? I can't go to a tournament without seeing atleast 6 different decks using CB/Top soft-lock and they're not even that much diffrent from eachother. These decks top8-top16 way back, in every tournament. But hey, then we adapted our decks to fight against CB/Top. It's the same thing all over again, but now it's about survival.
Adapt your deck, and it'll be fine.
We didn't scream for a CB ocr Sensei ban did we? I didn't atleast, I just tweaked my deck to actually be able to face the massive force of the CB/Top soft lock (which in my book takes time to play against since they most likely have no clock). They make rounds go to time. They stall the game too 50 minutes each round if you don't scoop, since they have 2-3 win cons.

Now that's an unhealthy meta in my opinion... We should be glad that some innovative people made a deck that simply crushes these decks, making them unviable in tournaments. Saving all other people time of agony when waiting for the CB/Top player to actually find a win con.

In CBTop's heyday it was still rock paper scissors with no single deck having 60% win percentage against the field. There were also plenty of people who wanted SDT banned, but this isn't Team Counterbalance versus Team Survival, so you can go home.

[median]

And a format filled with CB/Top variations ain't tepid? I can't go to a tournament without seeing atleast 6 different decks using CB/Top soft-lock and they're not even that much diffrent from eachother. These decks top8-top16 way back, in every tournament. But hey, then we adapted our decks to fight against CB/Top. It's the same thing all over again, but now it's about survival.
Adapt your deck, and it'll be fine.
We didn't scream for a CB ocr Sensei ban did we? I didn't atleast, I just tweaked my deck to actually be able to face the massive force of the CB/Top soft lock (which in my book takes time to play against since they most likely have no clock). They make rounds go to time. They stall the game too 50 minutes each round if you don't scoop, since they have 2-3 win cons.

Now that's an unhealthy meta in my opinion... We should be glad that some innovative people made a deck that simply crushes these decks, making them unviable in tournaments. Saving all other people time of agony when waiting for the CB/Top player to actually find a win con.

we did actually, it never came.


The point is, do we want a metagame that consists of Survival... and decks that are metagamed to beat Survival? Sounds like a tepid format to me, but whatever...

The hate you bring in against survival will hit NH, dredge, combo and half the format. It won't be like vintage with 7 cards dedicated to the ichorid match.

[keys]

we did actually, it never came.



The hate you bring in against survival will hit NH, dredge, combo and half the format. It won't be like vintage with 7 cards dedicated to the ichorid match.

Why do people keep pretending sideboards make a difference? The deck has been public for almost 3 months. It still puts up the same win %.

[Julian23]

Why do people keep pretending sideboards make a difference? The deck has been public for almost 3 months. It still puts up the same win %.

What's so hard to play Pithing Needle on turn 1? The rest is just a strong aggro deck with a little counter-suit. C'mon, if you don't prepare for Dredge it will roflstomp you much harder while Survival at least gives you a fighting chance.

[Sims]

Why do people keep pretending sideboards make a difference? The deck has been public for almost 3 months. It still puts up the same win %.

Are you one of those people who plays with 60 card decks and never brings a sideboard?

Sideboards do make a difference. You just have to do it properly. I think I've lost once to a survival variant at a tournament since the GP, admittedly drawing none of my sideboard hate while Iona got there. Since then I've beaten both Bant and Madness versions without much trouble playing everything from Dragon Stompy to LED-less Ichorid.

Just a matter of adapting, playing the right board, sideboarding in a fashion that doesn't gimp your deck, and most importantly knowing how and when to Mulligan.

[keys]

I'm not saying sideboarding is hard, I'm saying: show me the results.

[Meekrab]

For example, If I'm playing against the Survival Player and I keep a hand that has three lands, 3 business spells and a Grip, I'll decide to keep. The turns play out like this

T1 (Survival Player): Land, Noble Heirarch, Pass
T1 (NO Bant Player): Land, Top, Pass

T2 (Survival Player): Land, Survival of the Fittest (NO attempts to Force of Will, which Survival Player counters with FoW), pass
T2 (NO Bant Player): Land, Counterbalance, pass

T3 (Survival Player): Land, activate Survival four times, bring back 2-3 Vengevines (Depending on the build) and swing for 8-12
T3 (NO Bant Player): Krosan Grip?
If you're playing against a Survival player, why the deuce are you tapping out on Turn 1 when you could hold up mana for Spell Pierce/Snare? Who's the beatdown?

[GGoober]

It's funny, because I've always been a Survival proponent in Legacy metagames but everytime I brought a variant of the diverse Survival decks out there in my meta, I do well AND bad. I was at the point where I spoke out "It's so sad that Survival is just a tier 1.5 deck at best" and you can find such similar quotes on most of the Survival variants here on N&D and established. People who tweak and improve lists all agree that Survival just couldn't cut it to tier 1. It will always be out-beat by combo in a big tournament. Turn 2 Survival, turn 3 hate-bear is still TOO slow against combo.

Nothing has really changed. And now, the deck that I love the most (well card actually ie Survival) is doing well and I'm happy for it, because I think it deserved to do well, however it is doing TOO well but playing the deck and its variant years ago has made me realized that Survival IS capable of putting out top8 results, but in general could not do so before. Why? Take a look at the pre-MTutor ban periods. Fast combo was quite popular. ANT was easy to pilot and was fast. Survival could never be a dominating force in those meta, even if Vengevines existed. Turn 2 Survival turn 3 hate-bear Vengies beat still cannot race Turn 1-2 MTutor ANT combo. Those were the bare facts.

Post MTutor days, combo has slowed down, and the combo deck of choice is either TES or DDFT the latter being less played due to harder skill decisions and piloting. However, a good example is my meta which has a dedicated storm SI player. Who the fuck plays SI? No one in the right mind would play SI in a big tourney. But I force you to reconsider, about dissing a deck without taking account of the meta. For the very same reason, Survival (even with Vengies) could not have been a strong tier 1 deck preMTutor era due to an existing popular deck that beat it consistently and was resilient past a 4xFoW protection. Post MTutor era, combo slowed down, Countertop/control variants started to creep up in dominance, JAce 2.0 showed up making control lists go even slower. Zoo is evolving towards bigger creatures after seeing how the meta has shifted to a slower pace and focus more on inevitability or cheating big dudes that won despite almost losing. That was the huge change in post MTutor banning. Decks diversified, jank decks penetrated, one of which being UG Madness. Soon enough, people caught on, and realized that UG Madness, Vengevival beats most of the aggro deck out there, and had an inevitable win-condition even if Survival was neutered i.e. having VV in graveyard is as potent in the Standard environment as it is in Legacy.

For the first time, Survival could be a tier 1 deck. Why? The main weakness of Survival aside from shutting down its engine, were faster decks that beat it faster. The great example being combo. Despite the loss of MTutor, TES today can still outrace Vengevival consistently, but since most people would rather play a non-combo deck (I believe there're in general more non-combo players than combo players) Survival would remain the deck of choice to pilot.

Now in my meta, we have a TES and SI pilot. Who the fuck plays SI? However, it IS the FASTEST deck, so any, ANY Survival broken.dec still could not beat combo, because it simply did not have the speed nor disruption. Turn 2 Survival Turn 3 lock/win is still not strong enough. Turn 2 Counterbalance lock is also not strong enouhg, Turn 3 Emrakul/Iona is also not strong enough. Why? This format has the answers, this format has the resources. People mention Survival is still storming through the top16s strong. But ask yourselves honestly. Look at the Sideboards, how much dedication IS there REALLY for this archetype?

I'm going to strongly argue that a good deck that will take the meta by surprise now is:
- Affinity
- SI/Belcher

Why? No one is preparing against such archetypes. Affinity has some new tools, no one has the courage to bring those list to a big tourney to put out results. Caleb did what we would not have seen today, taking a 'jank' UG madness deck, putting out results, lists are being discussed, and the deck is storming while the meta is still unprepared, and still in the process of solving existing problematic evolutions: SnT/Emrakul/Iona. Those archetypes are now being wrapped up and solutions are solidifying, but Survival went in and took the meta by surprise and the meta was unable to react, or more accurately react CORRECTLY to it.

Let me just say this. People who board in GY hate when I play Survival variants (Welder/Bant/Squee etc) are wasting slots/time. As much as it stops the advantage engine, and is perhaps more relevant against Vengevivals, I always feel that boarding in GY hate is the weak choice unless your deck has no other ways to deal with Survival. Much stronger choices are:

- Pithing Needle (FFS play this card already. Stops vials/Jace/Survival/Wastelock/EE/wtf everything for :1:)
- Meddling Mage (against UG Survival, this is actually a very strong card that isn't explored)
- Ethersworn Canonist (beat me with baskings?)
- Leonin Arbiter and other janky cards not being explored.
- Peacekeper

The above cards are all in general utility cards that are not dead outside the Survival matchup, and don't even care about the GY. You will always have 4 slots dedicated in GY hate against Dredge and Loam etc, but from the above, pick 2-4 more slots that serve a dual purpose against other matchups e.g. MM against combo/Survival/Loam, Ethersworn Canonist against combo/Enchantress etc, Arbiter is quite solid, Peacekeeper against Emrakul/Survival/Merfolks etc.

Quit bitching seriously, start adpating.

And from SC2, "Hell' it's about time"
It's really about time Survival gets its dominance in the metagame. For years I've been waiting for this archetype to shine. Elf Survival/Bant Survival took some spotlights, but for the first time, Survival archetype has been as feared as a Counterbalance-Top, Goblin lackey, and ANT/TES archetype. People laughed at Survival, it was too slow. Is it too fast now? I don't think so. Turn 2 Survival, Turn 3 lock/win. Nothing has really changed. So start pulling out your dusty binders and think of how a sideboard isn't just 15 cards, but rather 15 card choices that can be spread out across various matchups to improve your weaknesses. Look at those 15 cards, and think which cards hurt Vengevivals without sacrificing your other matchups. It's really not that hard. And if it's too hard? Then just pick a different deck ffs. There's no best deck in Legacy. I dare you to bring Affinity and Belcher right now to the meta, and I think they'll do VERY well with this meta right now, Affinity especially.

[SMR0079]

In repsonce to the above posts calling for the banning of survival and pointing to the recent results - your reasoning is flawed becsaue you are focusing too much on past performace rather then how to exploit the current metagame with Survival at the top.

Specifically , Survival only beats "60% of the metagame" when that metagame has failed to adjust to it's presence and consists of decks like countertop and Zoo.

You want results? Then how about you start testing with a group of people that have half a brain and get ahead of the curve rather then looking in the rear view mirror and whining for WoTC to ban the format back to some nostalic past. While your at it look up some articles on the flaws of being result orientated.

The funny thing is we don't even have to look far for alternative that beat survival - they have been around at different times in the past and now they simply need up dating, or will now represent larger portions of the metagame. You can't just keep the same deck and change some sideboard cards and expect to keep winning. As the format changes so should your deck choice. Sorry if you can't keep playing your pet deck endlessly by only changing a few sidebaord cards.

This is called format evolution - it's one of the elements that keep the game exciting.

In repsonce to the notion that the metagame will be Survival and decks designed to beat Survival. Okay, so is Storm "designed" to beat Survival? No, it beats survival by default becsaue it has strategic superiority. Controling decks on the other hand, by defintion, are designed to beat the defining decks of the metagame, so there should be no issue there.

Tempo Control has a good Survival match and beats & Storm but has a tough time vs Merfolk and Eva Green. This represents a well balanced metagame, although I would like to see Zoo find a way to fit itself in there as well. How is that fundementally different then Countertop-Zoo-Merfolk?

There are always going to be defining elements to the metagame - Counterbalance was one of those factors for a long time - now that appears to be changing. I would now say that the Survvial engine and Storm are the 2 defining strategies - whether enough players will see this has yet to be determined.

[Fossil4182]

If you're playing against a Survival player, why the deuce are you tapping out on Turn 1 when you could hold up mana for Spell Pierce/Snare? Who's the beatdown?

Most decks in the current format don't play either of those cards in the "stock" builds. Merfolk has only recently started to run Spell Pierce and there is still a fair number of decks that play Daze over Spell Pierce. Tempo Threshold has been noticeably absent for a while (nice to see a recent top 8) which was the only deck that ran Spell Snare with any consistency. The only other deck I can think of that plays Spell Snare is UBG Landstill (which also plays Spell Pierce). I think they're both great cards, but they aren't "standard" in a lot of decks. My guess is they will be in a Survival world.

As an side, why do people assume its bad that there is a deck in Legacy that now people have to metagame for? Standard has been doing it for years with decks that are far more dominate than Survival is in Legacy...

[Dark Ritual]

Spell snare is usually always run in any landstill list as at least a 2 of. Tempo threshold has always played the card as a 4 of whether it's UGr or UGb. People started packing spell pierce in merfolk ever since Saito won GP Columbus and that was months ago since he decided to MD the card because it is simply put a very good card spell pierce hits numerous things from vial to counterbalance to removal spells. It also hits survival aka public enemy number one it seems at present.

People, adapt to fight survival for crying out loud there's a card that costs 1 mana called pithing needle. USE IT and you will do well and not just against survival it also works against cycling lands in loam to some degree, sensei's divining top, fetchlands, maze of ith....the list goes on. Hell against enchantress it hits sterling grove. And it is also very good against aether vial which is quite significant in the metagame. Pithing needle is a swiss army knife to put it bluntly.

And if you play black I suggest you pack extirpate in your board since it eats vengevine survival for breakfast. And the nice part? It isn't card disadvantage if they pitch vengevine to get vengevine EoT because you EoT extirpate the vine after the survival activation has resolved because the survival player often goes turn 1 accelerator turn 2 survival with a mana left open to start the survival chain.

[death]

It's easy to play around a needle, simply keep a mana open, pitch for cat or orangutan.. The table is turned once Survival hits play, the best way to fight it is to not let it resolve. Or play a faster clock.

To hold Survival back, the meta needs to adjust by at least playing Force of Will, Spell Snare, Extirpate, Duress, Thoughtseize, Cabal Therapy, Hymn to Tourach. A majority of legacy decks including DTB are not able support at least 3 of these.

Currently, non-blue/non-black tier 1 decks being pushed aside by this Survival madness is an issue. Because switching to a U-B shell in Legacy isn't always as cheap as in type 2/1.X.

[D. Watta]

Agree with a lot of what's been said already. The banning of Survival of the Fittest and Mystical Tutor before that would and has been a reactionary response. Magic is lauded as a rock/paper/scissors game and, with legacy being the most wide open format, one would think Wizards would be excited to let a little laissez faire be introduced to prove as such.

I remember a lot of people calling for the banning of Tarmogoyf because of what a shift he made in the format. Seems silly now.

Don't ban survival, ban vengevine. Don't ban vengevine, unban Mystical Tutor. Magic and it's players will sort itself out.

[Lemnear]

It's easy to play around a needle, simply keep a mana open, pitch for cat or orangutan.. The table is turned once Survival hits play, the best way to fight it is to not let it resolve. Or play a faster clock.

To hold Survival back, the meta needs to adjust by at least playing Force of Will, Spell Snare, Extirpate, Duress, Thoughtseize, Cabal Therapy, Hymn to Tourach. A majority of legacy decks including DTB are not able support at least 3 of these.

Currently, non-blue/non-black tier 1 decks being pushed aside by this Survival madness is an issue. Because switching to a U-B shell in Legacy isn't always as cheap as in type 2/1.X.

You're talking about Zoo, right? Every time in Legacy then Zoo can't beat a certain matchup there's s large wave of guys calling for a banning. Same with reanimator and ANT. I realized it's near always that corner of the metagame crying first.

Zoo and most pure Aggro Decks dismiss disrupion but is it fair to cripple strategies because some design concepts are unwilling/unable to adapt? Should we ban everything in Legacy until mono Red burn is viable? I think that's exactly the route you're willing to go ... If a single color (or even 2) has no answer, ban the threat

[Meekrab]

You're talking about Zoo, right? Every time in Legacy then Zoo can't beat a certain matchup there's s large wave of guys calling for a banning. Same with reanimator and ANT. I realized it's near always that corner of the metagame crying first.

Zoo and most pure Aggro Decks dismiss disrupion but is it fair to cripple strategies because some design concepts are unwilling/unable to adapt? Should we ban everything in Legacy until mono Red burn is viable? I think that's exactly the route you're willing to go ... If a single color (or even 2) has no answer, ban the threat
This and it's not even close. Zoo needs to die a terrible ugly gross death. 'Play dude, swing' shouldn't be a viable strategy in any Eternal format. I would absolutely not be upset if the format evolved to tendrils beats survival beats control beats stax beats tendrils. Wait, that format is called Vintage, except they play Fish instead of Survival.

[Jonathan Alexander]

That's really the only issue with Legacy: people always want to play their pet-decks, myself included. As long as you're able to metagame, this is not even necessarily bad, but let's not talk about how to adjust single decks, I think it's way more interesting to look at the meta in general.

In a nutshell magic still is some kind of rock-paper-scissors, but with more choices. I don't know about the U.S. but in Germany it's quite common to play rock-paper-scissors-well.
Well beats rock and scissors but looses to paper.
Paper looses to scissors but wins against rock, and more importantly, well.
Therefore it's kind of safe to assume that a lot of people will choose paper, since it has the best chances of winning.
Considering that most people will choose paper, are you rather going to choose well, paper or scissors? You wouldn't want to choose rock here, 'cause rock might win against scissors, like well, but looses against well and paper, which is strictly worse than drawing against well and loosing against paper.
Due to the existence of well the metagame is imbalanced.

I think is it what people feel about Vengevine-Survival. Vengevine-Survival is obviously well. Rock is Counterbalance or Landstill, paper is Merfolk and scissors is Zoo.
If you put it like that, there really is no reason to play Counterbalance or Landstill right now. This might even be true, but the problem is that in Magic, there are way more available and viable choices. Storm-combo and tempo for example are missing here, and there's a lot more that could be worked into this system.
Long story short: just pick up a deck that wins against the most important decks and do some long-term thinking. This is called metagaming and it's definitely not a new aspect of magic.
I don't think anything needs to be banned. If too much gets banned you really end up playing rock-paper-scissors. If you want to do so, then go play rock-paper-scissors, but I'd rather continue playing Legacy.

[menace13]

Are those percentage results for Surv all from SCG 5ks- the VV 60% against field-. 16 top 16 showings out of approx 75+ players with the deck in 4 events out of around 600 players seems like a lot of people playing the deck. Any other decks boasting that many registers- Zoo/Gobs/Merf maybe?-. Certainly impressive results, either way.

I have been getting good results in testing against UG,WG with Sneak/Show and TES- actually feel like if the draws are even slightly parallel, it cant beat those 2, SBing is barely even done-.
Also, do not think it has to be banned at all. I am going to call only 1 VV list in the upcoming GPs will top 8.

[Lemnear]

That's really the only issue with Legacy: people always want to play their pet-decks, myself included. As long as you're able to metagame, this is not even necessarily bad, but let's not talk about how to adjust single decks, I think it's way more interesting to look at the meta in general.

In a nutshell magic still is some kind of rock-paper-scissors, but with more choices. I don't know about the U.S. but in Germany it's quite common to play rock-paper-scissors-well.
Well beats rock and scissors but looses to paper.
Paper looses to scissors but wins against rock, and more importantly, well.
Therefore it's kind of safe to assume that a lot of people will choose paper, since it has the best chances of winning.
Considering that most people will choose paper, are you rather going to choose well, paper or scissors? You wouldn't want to choose rock here, 'cause rock might win against scissors, like well, but looses against well and paper, which is strictly worse than drawing against well and loosing against paper.
Due to the existence of well the metagame is imbalanced.

I think is it what people feel about Vengevine-Survival. Vengevine-Survival is obviously well. Rock is Counterbalance or Landstill, paper is Merfolk and scissors is Zoo.
If you put it like that, there really is no reason to play Counterbalance or Landstill right now. This might even be true, but the problem is that in Magic, there are way more available and viable choices. Storm-combo and tempo for example are missing here, and there's a lot more that could be worked into this system.
Long story short: just pick up a deck that wins against the most important decks and do some long-term thinking. This is called metagaming and it's definitely not a new aspect of magic.
I don't think anything needs to be banned. If too much gets banned you really end up playing rock-paper-scissors. If you want to do so, then go play rock-paper-scissors, but I'd rather continue playing Legacy.

The Rock-Paper-Scissors system is intact with combo-aggro-control in Legacy with counterbalance or landstill in Control, Zoo and Friends in Aggro and tendrils in Combo. UG Vengevine is clearly a Combo Deck and so it's no surprise that it performs well vs Aggro style Decks and hybrids like Zoo or meerfolk. Control colors are U and B and guess what? There are answers!

The real advantage of gw vengevival against ug madness is that the gw version can play aggro as well as his combo part and that's the Point Most people think it's unfair. It's a Combo-Aggro Deck, something we've rarely seen in magic. To switch between control and combo is something basic in vintage for example

[Lejitte]

Survival should not be banned.

Three Reasons: 1. Survival has are different variants, allow variety, in other words, the format is more than 1 deck. i.e Mono green, U/G, G/W, Bant.
2. Survival isn't the problem, its mainly vengivine, but it's staright up dumb to banned him.
3. Plenty of hate.

If, they ban anything ban Basking Rootwalla, it may sound dumb at first, but this cuts off the card-advantage of the madness player forcing them to have 2 creatures to pitch, instead of 1. And it makes turn two vengivines off monger and mobea, much harder.

[Jonathan Alexander]

The Rock-Paper-Scissors system is intact with combo-aggro-control in Legacy with counterbalance or landstill in Control, Zoo and Friends in Aggro and tendrils in Combo. UG Vengevine is clearly a Combo Deck and so it's no surprise that it performs well vs Aggro style Decks and hybrids like Zoo or meerfolk. Control colors are U and B and guess what? There are answers!

The real advantage of gw vengevival against ug madness is that the gw version can play aggro as well as his combo part and that's the Point Most people think it's unfair. It's a Combo-Aggro Deck, something we've rarely seen in magic. To switch between control and combo is something basic in vintage for example

Of course you're right, but this was just a comparison between rock-paper-scissors and specific decks. If you put it like you did, Vengevine-Survival is still well, since it's the updatet version of pure aggro. If you then take any tempo-deck or Merfolk (Aggro-Control) and something like Painter-Stone (Combo-Control) and work them into the system you get this:

Aggro beats Control and Aggro-Control
Aggro-Control beats Control and Combo
Control beats Combo and Combo-Control
Combo-Control beats Aggro and Combo
Combo beats Aggro and Aggro-Combo
Aggro-Combo beats Aggro and Control

Aggro-Control has always been the most common of these hybrids. Interesting fact: Goblin Recruiter, which enables an Aggro-Combo deck (Food Chain Goblins) is banned. Worldgorger Dragon, which enables a Combo-Control deck is also banned. I don't know what the reasonings for these bannings were, but it might have something to do with the fact that both of these decks are able to beat regular aggro consistently. I think it would be pretty safe to unban both of these cards. Worldgorger Dragon can easily be hated and isn't that much better than regular Reanimate anyway. I'm not entirely sure about Goblin Recruiter though, it's been a long time since I played the deck and this would require a lot of testing to see if it really is safe to unban Recruiter. Goblins is still a heavily played archetype and giving the deck a combo-finish might be dangerous, I'm fully aware of that. Aggro-Combo is a really potent archetype, especially Food Chain Goblins. The deck is really good at switching roles since it basically always has the resources to go aggro and it doesn't need to combo off. It can combo off on turn three easily to beat any aggro decks and sometimes even race combo. If the attempt to combo off gets neutered, they will just continue to beat face, and they're pretty good at this. But considering that people are complaining about Vengevine-Survival which is worse in both roles I can understand if they don't want to see FCG in the format.

[Happy Gilmore]

Wizards has already proven they would rather ban the enablers then the cards themselves. In this case I have to agree with them. Survival can only get better with the printing of more creatures, banning Vengevine would only put a bandade on the situation.

[Nidd]

Survival should not be banned.

Three Reasons: 1. Survival has are different variants, allow variety, in other words, the format is more than 1 deck. i.e Mono green, U/G, G/W, Bant.
2. Survival isn't the problem, its mainly vengivine, but it's staright up dumb to banned him.
3. Plenty of hate.

If, they ban anything ban Basking Rootwalla, it may sound dumb at first, but this cuts off the card-advantage of the madness player forcing them to have 2 creatures to pitch, instead of 1. And it makes turn two vengivines off monger and mobea, much harder.
Banning Rootwalla solves nothing, you can still trigegr VV with ease by fetching up Trinket Mage, casting him and getting Memnite.
Sure, it gets harder, but... banning Rootwalla? Seriously?

[Lemnear]

Yeah, i admit I didn't see recruiter as an enabler and I agree it should be unbanned since it don't accelerate goblins into a turn 2 kill deck. Moreover it needs Food chain to become a turn 3 killing threat which is clunky enough in Legacy to Be fair. Gorger is another tier; it's straight combo and Even has serious problems in vintage with protecting the combo. It's more like a bad reanimator since the game is not over by entombing and reanimating the Gorger; you still need a kill.

Therefore ... I think If Gorger is legal again I would still rather Play belcher

[Jonathan Alexander]

I would never play Dragon as a straight combo deck. You have lots of options with the deck, since it basically only needs to cast two spells per game: the card to put Dragon and Kumano/Ambassador/Caller Of The Claw/whatever into your graveyard and a single Animate Dead/Necromancy. The deck can win as fast as turn one, but you need a few accelerators to do so. But then there's still stuff like Swords To Plowshares, Path To Exile, Faerie Macabre and lots more. It's far from overpowered, but it's still a nice deck to play. And just in case, Dragon should ever get unbanned, I still have all the stuff to play the deck. But as far as I remember it's not banned because of powerlevel but because of some weird rules interactions. I'm going to look that up in a few minutes, maybe I'll find it.
By the way, the problem with Goblin Recruiter is not that FCG is a fast combo deck but that it still has an awesome aggro plan. Plus shitloads of utility to win against basically everything. You just can't pack everything into the deck, but there's no deck that can be tuned as nicely as Goblins, seriously.

Edit: Nope, I couldn't find it so far, maybe someone else knows more about that. But I'm sure there was a statement from wizards where they said that Worldgorger Dragon was banned because of rules complications or something. Not as if Humility was way more complicated.