[Free Article] Survival: The Experts, The Engine, and Legacy's Future

[voltron00x]

This is an article ostensibly about Survival of the Fittest, but in actuality, it is more about format management and mixed signals from the DCI.

There’s a poll at the start of the article; please take it before reading the full piece (or spoilers below), if you intend to take it at all.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/20532_The_Long_and_Winding_Road_Survival_The_Experts_the_Engine_and_Legacys_Future.html

Spoilers for those that think they already know my position:

I don’t think the DCI should ban anything at the moment, although they should consider unbanning Mystical Tutor (and, perhaps, some other cards on the list, but less than I’ve seen a lot of people advocate), if they’re going to leave Survival alone.

Additionally, framing the conversation as, “You can beat Survival if you really want to, thus it is ok” is a little bit unfair. Sure, you can beat Survival by building anti-Survival.dec or by playing combo decks that win in the first few turns of the game, but is that the format we really want to play, instead of the format we all enjoyed in 2009 and most of 2010?

There are decks out there, mostly LED combo decks and Dredge, that are fundamentally faster than Survival, and dedicated maindeck/SB strategies few people have used yet (Suppression Field, Leonin Arbiter, etc) because they’re hard to work into existing strategies, but that is just one ugly format in my opinion. And more to the point, surely a format warped like this is more broken than the Mystical Tutor version of Legacy was in mid-2010…

[Gheizen64]

I've not read the arcticle, but really, unban mystical? Mystical is basically a better Vamp right now in the format since in combo decks it pick every relevant card (except LED), don't cost 2 life to pay (can be relevant with AdN) and pitch to force. It's not hard to see this: look Enlightened and Wordly tutor. Wordly basically suck and Enlightened is good but isn't pushing any dominant deck over the edge or anything. 90% of Vamp power was the ability to fetch instant and sorceries, instant and sorceries that are fetched by mistical but in a better color and with no drawback.

EDIT: not to say Imperial seal that is almost always worse than mystical for combo have been banned since day 1.

[voltron00x]

I address those arguments in the article. If you want to review them after reading, I'd be happy to do so.

Note that Enlightened Tutor is a key component in the GT version of Ooze Survival, and also helped power Thopters to a few big wins / top 8s despite very low field penetration, so it is perhaps not as "safe" a tutor as many would want us to believe. Slippery slope, etc.

[Gheizen64]

I address those arguments in the article. If you want to review them after reading, I'd be happy to do so.

Note that Enlightened Tutor is a key component in the GT version of Ooze Survival, and also helped power Thopters to a few big wins / top 8s despite very low field penetration, so it is perhaps not as "safe" a tutor as many would want us to believe. Slippery slope, etc.

I've read the arcticle, it's basically a recap of all the discussions here at the source, obviously from the pov of a pro-unban mystical.

That said, i don't see the comparison with Vampiric anywhere. You mention it at first and then stop, never mentioning how Mystical is on the same power level of a card no one ever debated unbanning or such (and arguably better than another card that no one called for unban: imperial) . Second, you present a logic of doubt, a logic that can as well be used in the opposite way. Had Mystical always been banned in the first place, very few people would have asked its unbanning and they would have said the consequence on the format would have been "unpredictable" and too "complicated" and such.

The ban on Mystical wasn't a ban based on numbers. It was a ban that was based on the limitations Mystical brought on the format, on deck design (too emphasis on blue in an already blue-based format) and also on card design.

This, obviously, all imho and thanks for the article. It's always good to see decent discussions being fueled here on the source.

[voltron00x]

I've read the arcticle, it's basically a recap of all the discussions here at the source, obviously from the pov of a pro-unban mystical.

That said, i don't see the comparison with Vampiric anywhere. You mention it at first and then stop, never mentioning how Mystical is on the same power level of a card no one ever debated unbanning or such (and arguably better than another card that no one called for unban: imperial) . Second, you present a logic of doubt, a logic that can as well be used in the opposite way. Had Mystical always been banned in the first place, very few people would have asked its unbanning and they would have said the consequence on the format would have been "unpredictable" and too "complicated" and such.

The ban on Mystical wasn't a ban based on numbers. It was a ban that was based on the limitations Mystical brought on the format, on deck design (too emphasis on blue in an already blue-based format) and also on card design.

This, obviously, all imho and thanks for the article. It's always good to see decent discussions being fueled here on the source.

A format always has to acknowledge its best decks. Legacy was always interesting to me because it was such a unique cross-section of decks that were unfair, decks that preyed on the unfair, and fair decks that beat the decks that preyed on the unfair, which in turn lost to the unfair decks.

The whole format was a unique balancing act that, perhaps, shouldn’t have worked, but did work.

To be honest, Lion's Eye Diamond is the limiting factor in this format in terms of speed and broken combo. It has been, will be, and will continue to be. Why people refuse to acknowledge this is mind-blowing to me. The Vampiric Tutor argument was made by Z. Hill in the SCG forums. I don’t agree with it. While the card isn’t as good as Mystical in Ad Naus decks specifically, it is clearly far superior in any number of other decks that aren’t using their life total as a resource.

In the current environment, I would argue that Enlightened Tutor may be the best tutor in Legacy, because it finds the best engines in Legacy (Survival, and both parts of CB/Top). So, we may have to keep banning top-deck tutors, OR, we may have to continue banning engines, OR, we can try to restore the format to where it was before (or perhaps try to manage by unbanning some other cards). If Mystical Tutor decks beat Survival decks (and they should), and CB/Top decks and other strategies can beat Mystical Tutor decks, then you start to get back to a rotational format.

My fear right now is that the format isn’t going to be rotational, but rather, it’s going to be stuck on Survival vs. the world. Banning Survival fixes this problem, but we’re now setting a precedent that the best deck in Legacy will have components banned after some period of time. Which, I suppose, is better than some elusive “it is format limiting” argument that isn’t tied to any results.

And, while I believe unbanning Mystical is correct, it isn’t that I’m “Pro” unban Mystical, but rather, I’m “Pro” consistent format management. The reasons provided for banning Mystical most definitely apply to Survival, so if Survival is not banned, the format management “rules” (whatever they are) don’t appear to be equally applied. And, my concern is that in applying a ban that I still believe the majority of Legacy players didn’t want, a precedent is set where now people will clamor for the banning of the best card of any best deck that doesn’t just “go away” over a couple of months. Consider less the specific card of Mystical Tutor and rather view it as a case study; in other words, Mystical Tutor personifies the dangers in applying bans to a format when there isn’t really cause.

[Hitman82]

This article was really excellent. I also really like your point about LED being the truly unfair card in storm decks. I don't think people actually know what's important or broken in a deck. They only see what's killing them.

[Mana Drain]

I don't have anything constructive to say, but I'm lovin' the Outkast reference.

Also, if a card is going to be unbanned, why can't it be something we *KNOW* is not going to be degenerate. Not saying that MT is "teh-brokenz", but regardless of cards available to fight the decks that run it, it very well could be fueling the same powerful decks that it used to. And most of these decks WERE unfun/uninteractive to play against, regardless of their power-level.
All I'm saying is that junk like Land Tax, EarthCraft, and maybe some more powerful options like Hermit Druid and Frantic Search could be unbanned either before or at the same time as MT, for a diverse set of new cards for the format to develop around.

Well written article nonetheless. Thank you!

[Doomsday]

Great article Matt. Glad to see more and more people calling them out for the nonsensical ban on MT despite it not contributing to any dominating deck. Hopefully they read this (and other articles like it) and realize that the playerbase deserves a real metagame, rather than listening to the vocal minority who want anything that beats their pet deck banned so they don't have to adapt.

[CorpT]

And, while I believe unbanning Mystical is correct, it isn’t that I’m “Pro” unban Mystical, but rather, I’m “Pro” consistent format management. The reasons provided for banning Mystical most definitely apply to Survival, so if Survival is not banned, the format management “rules” (whatever they are) don’t appear to be equally applied. And, my concern is that in applying a ban that I still believe the majority of Legacy players didn’t want, a precedent is set where now people will clamor for the banning of the best card of any best deck that doesn’t just “go away” over a couple of months. Consider less the specific card of Mystical Tutor and rather view it as a case study; in other words, Mystical Tutor personifies the dangers in applying bans to a format when there isn’t really cause.

This.

I don't think this was perhaps conveyed in the article as well as it should have been, but this is and has been my argument as well. The reasons given for banning Mystical were terrible. Even if it was the 100% correct decision (I don't think it was) we deserve a better reason than "we won a bunch of MODO practice room games with it."

I have been playing Survival for quite some time so can certainly appreciate the power of Survival. I don't think it is an unanswerable power, but it certainly is powerful. What I fear is that it seems like instead of learning to beat powerful strategies, because the DCI has set a precedent that they will just ban these powerful engines, players are now just whining for bannings instead of trying to beat them. This may be the worst consequence of the Mystical banning.

[majikal]

Excellent article, Matt!

[GtF]

I like the article a lot, it presents the management of the banned list in a very clear way and asks the right questions of wotc. It will be interesting to see how they respond.
Maybe a follow-up article on Vampiric vs. Mystical or tutors in legacy would be interesting. I personally think Vampiric would be much better than Mystical both because of survival and because I think the 2 life that might lose you some games playing a combo deck would be more than made up for by games you win that you wouldn't otherwise because you could get that LED, land, creature for show and tell or whatever.

[BKclassic]

The Mystical Tutor ban was a good ban and I don’t think any judgements can be made about the banworthiness of Mystical Tutor based on whether or not Survival is left unbanned.

The Mystical Tutor ban was a good ban but is one that has left people scratching their heads since it never dominated the top 8’s like Survival currently is. Wizard’s decided that a “gentlemen’s agreement” was the explanation for the numbers the card wasn’t putting up and went ahead gave Mystical the axe. However, the “gentlemen’s agreement” is obviously not a very good explanation for what was going on. It just doesn’t make sense that Legacy players would simply choose not to play the best deck. No one seems to have put a really solid explanation for why Mystical Tutor was good enough to ban if it wasn’t dominating top 8’s or why Mystical Tutor wasn’t being played very much in the first place.

To the latter question, I think there is a pretty obvious answer that doesn’t seem to have been put fourth. First, Legacy players have historically resisted change and been slow to adapt. Just look at how long it took for Counterbalance to take off and than for decks to adapt to it. Second, but most importantly, Entomb was unbanned around the time that Legacy prices really blew up. Entombs pretty much came on the market at 40 dollars a piece. Underground Sea replaced Tropical Island as the staple Legacy blue dual, which had also blown up in price and was extra expensive due to Vintage demand. In order to beat the lucky few who could afford to build Reanimator, rather than shell out hundreds to upgrade their decks, Legacy players just switched to Zoo or Merfolk with a bunch of sideboard hate. As said in the article, look at how much hate there is in the top 8 with LSV playing Reanimator.

The Mystical Tutor banning was good because even though it was not played that much due to economic factors, it was still extremely powerful and format warping. Fair decks had to play tons of graveyard and storm combo hate in order to win and Lands.dec prayed on the fair decks. The banning of Mystical Tutor defused a metagame dominated by fast combos, sideboard hate that you had to mulligan for in order to win and getting locked out either by Iona or Lands. I don’t know if Wizards realized how deep the implications of Mystical Tutor ran, but I think banning it was definitely a smart choice with a positive impact.

The Mystical Tutor banning improved Legacy because the card had an unfun effect on the format. The criteria for banning is clearly not the degree of dominance, as we all agree Force of Will, Brainstorm, Wasteland, Dual Lands, and Swords to Plowshares are good for the format. The criteria should be based on how much a card affects the underlying dynamics of the game. Survival is a green enchantment that deals with creatures and requires specific deck construction and Mystical Tutor sets up spell based combos. The implications Mystical Tutor and Survival of the Fittest have on the underlying strategical dynamics are clearly going to be far too distinct for anyone to say “Mystical is banned, therefore Survival should be x done to it." Survival of the Fittest is clearly impacting the meta game to the degree that Mystical Tutor did, but its not clear if these impacts are positive or negative yet. We haven’t really any seen the decks that pray on Survival yet or the decks that will beat those decks, and Legacy that at least seems like it should have descent answers to Survival. What will those decks look like, and what will the decks that beat the hate decks look like? The answers to those questions determine whether or not Survival is a force for good.

Incidentally, I think the present popularity of Vengevine is explained by the reverse of what was called “the gentlemen’s agreement.” Many Legacy players already have Survivals since they used to be about 12 dollars. Legacy players also have play sets of Tropical Islands left over from the Counterbalance days, back when they were relatively cheap. Most importantly, Green and Blue decks have historically been the most popular in Legacy.

[voltron00x]

The problem with your post is that you make assumptions about things you cannot possibly know, or prove. How many Legacy players do you know already had Survivals, vs. how many had to buy them? Does the ratio you know about apply globally? "Legacy players also have sets of Tropical Islands left over from the Counterbalance days" - again, how many, what percentage? Does this really mean anything? Is that even fair to the folks that forked over the money to buy Useas, only to have the decks that use them get hamstrung? Vengevines cost as much as Entombs did when Reanimator was popular despite coming from a recent set.

Ironically, this section of your post is exactly the point of my article: "It just doesn’t make sense that Legacy players would simply choose not to play the best deck. No one seems to have put a really solid explanation for why Mystical Tutor was good enough to ban if it wasn’t dominating top 8’s or why Mystical Tutor wasn’t being played very much in the first place." You're right, it doesn't make sense; therefore Mystical Tutor decks must have been the best for a period of time, but not abstractly "the best". And you're right, there *IS* no justification, in the tournament results, for the ban on Mystical Tutor.

[frogboy]

Ironically, this section of your post is exactly the point of my article: "It just doesn’t make sense that Legacy players would simply choose not to play the best deck. No one seems to have put a really solid explanation for why Mystical Tutor was good enough to ban if it wasn’t dominating top 8’s or why Mystical Tutor wasn’t being played very much in the first place." You're right, it doesn't make sense; therefore Mystical Tutor decks must have been the best for a period of time, but not abstractly "the best". And you're right, there *IS* no justification, in the tournament results, for the ban on Mystical Tutor.

I think you give people too much credit for both deck choice and skill.

(I, on the other hand, don't give them nearly enough)

[quadibloc]

Supposing they banned Mystical Tutor, Survival, and Lion's Eye Diamond? That would not be my personal emotional inclination; I would prefer to ban as few cards as possible in Legacy. So I'd be tempted not only to unban Mystical Tutor, but even, say, Tolarian Academy!

But the good thing about Legacy has always been that with its large card pool, even if there's a "best deck", it's not really that much better - and so if that deck becomes popular enough, the deck that beats it is worth playing, because there usually is a good deck, not just a special-purpose deck that beats it, but loses to everything else, that can beat it. Maintaining Legacy as a balanced format, which is its chief attraction, would seem to me to be worth banning a few cards.

[voltron00x]

I like the article a lot, it presents the management of the banned list in a very clear way and asks the right questions of wotc. It will be interesting to see how they respond.
Maybe a follow-up article on Vampiric vs. Mystical or tutors in legacy would be interesting. I personally think Vampiric would be much better than Mystical both because of survival and because I think the 2 life that might lose you some games playing a combo deck would be more than made up for by games you win that you wouldn't otherwise because you could get that LED, land, creature for show and tell or whatever.

I was shocked to see anyone would try to argue the too are even close, in the abstract. I mean, Vampiric finds LANDS for crying out loud. It finds LED. It is even better than E. Tutor in a Survival deck. People say Mystical was too good b/c it circumvented sideboard cards for linear strategies, but Vampiric Tutor is significantly better at this...

[Nessaja]

As for the Mystical ban. Even though it is banned ANT and TES are still two of the strongest decks in the format. The only deck that ceased to exsist is reanimator. Big deal, boring deck anyway. Combo is still one of the pillars in legacy, banning MT just gave it a powerlevel adjustment. Turned out good.

I'd rather have the DCI make inconsistent "good" dicisions then consistent "bad" dicisions. The MT ban was a good one even though their reasoning was bad. The survival ban would be a bad one, so I'd prefer it if they weren't consistent, just make the right dicisions.

The DCI couldn't have given arguments that satisfied everyone anyway. But they did make the right call.

[voltron00x]

I think you give people too much credit for both deck choice and skill.

(I, on the other hand, don't give them nearly enough)

Well, isn't this sort of like saying that no one should be able to buy peanuts, because they can be deadly and people aren't able to identify and manage their allergies? So, no peanuts for anyone!

Or like that Simpsons, when Homer says, "Pfft, What if. What if I slipped on a bar of soap in the shower? .... OH MY GOD I'D BE KILLED!" yet we can still buy soap and shower with it (even if many Magic players decline this option).

Cards shouldn't be banned based on potential, they *have* to be based on results to make sense to most people, unless the potential is blatant to even the casual observer (Memory Jar, or Mind's Desire in Vintage). As I said, the banning before the GP is really the problem. I can easily say, well, at that first GP people weren't as prepared as they should've been. How do I know this? They were playing Zoo with hate bears and Sylvan Library. Had it won another GP when the cat was out of the bag, then things are very different.

The odd thing is that your position re: Mystical is that the potential of the deck for format domination was too much so it should be banned (and that people were too incompetent to realize it), and yet re: Survival, you take the opinion that the deck is actually dominating because of people's incompetence and that it doesn't need to be banned. So when people don't dominate a format with a card you think is dominant, they're incompetent, but when they do dominate with a deck, they're incompetent. Your argument then is basically that everyone is incompetent at all times, so if that's the case, why manage the format at all? The end result regardless is still mass incompetence.

[voltron00x]

To be clear, I still love you Max. Your pessimism impresses even an old salty dog like me. And your last couple Tendrils articles have been great, and I have high hopes that the more we talk up Tendrils, people will play the deck and it may balance things out, but I'm not sure its going to work.

[SpikeyMikey]

Nessaja:

I don't think that price has that big of an impact on the field. Perhaps if Imperial Painter was the de facto DtB you could make that claim, but a $160 playset really isn't that much to talk about when you consider most Legacy decks are easily $1500. A playset of vines will cost you more and yet you see a lot of those. No one is going to go to a tournament with a deck they don't think can win. If you're shelling out $300-$400 for travel, lodging, expenses and entry fees, you're going to pony up a few hundred to tune your deck up. If anything, the MT ban was detrimental to the format. One, it removed a pillar that could have been used to keep Vengevival in check without any major changes to the format but also because it actually made combo harder to beat.

I say this because post MT ban saw a lot of different combo decks crop up, from SnT to Shelldrazi to TES. It was much easier to hate AnT than to hate half a dozen different combo decks with different strategies. These decks were slightly subpar compared with AnT, but each requires different boarding and strategies.

Whether or not Survival gets the axe, the MT ban was a mistake. But I have minimal faith in the DCI and Wizards in general. What I find fun in Magic and what they're telling me I should find fun are two totally different things.

[Nessaja]

Nessaja:

I don't think that price has that big of an impact on the field. Perhaps if Imperial Painter was the de facto DtB you could make that claim, but a $160 playset really isn't that much to talk about when you consider most Legacy decks are easily $1500. A playset of vines will cost you more and yet you see a lot of those. No one is going to go to a tournament with a deck they don't think can win.
You will need to quote me on me claiming otherwise because I think you're reading things that aren't there.


If anything, the MT ban was detrimental to the format. One, it removed a pillar that could have been used to keep Vengevival in check without any major changes to the format but also because it actually made combo harder to beat.
And combo will still hold Vengevine in check as will Landstill variants. People just haven't picked it up yet.


I say this because post MT ban saw a lot of different combo decks crop up, from SnT to Shelldrazi to TES. It was much easier to hate AnT than to hate half a dozen different combo decks with different strategies. These decks were slightly subpar compared with AnT, but each requires different boarding and strategies.
And ANT had answers against every answer you could put up with a Mystical tutor for an answer. The state of combo right now is much more healthy then it was pre-ban.

[voltron00x]

Nessaja, where are you located?

[Nessaja]

The Netherlands sir. Yesterday I saw dozens of Survival-Vine decks get obliterated by Jacestill, TES and other combo decks (Enchantress worked too). It had by far the largest percentage of the tournament (Dutch Championship) but only 1 deck in the top 8. Most of the Survivines were at the low tables because everyone hated it out or just.. simply, played a deck better suited for the new meta.

Place 1 and 2 were ANT and TES, for reference.

[frogboy]

The odd thing is that your position re: Mystical is that the potential of the deck for format domination was too much so it should be banned (and that people were too incompetent to realize it), and yet re: Survival, you take the opinion that the deck is actually dominating because of people's incompetence and that it doesn't need to be banned. So when people don't dominate a format with a card you think is dominant, they're incompetent, but when they do dominate with a deck, they're incompetent. Your argument then is basically that everyone is incompetent at all times, so if that's the case, why manage the format at all? The end result regardless is still mass incompetence.

no hard feelings; this is basically true. Still, my position is that once people figured out what was up with Mystical that they'd be unstoppable (hyperbole etc etc) and that once people pull their heads out of their collective asses they'll stop losing to Survival. I think Mystical was driving towards an equilibrium where it was too good and that Survival isn't particularly good at equilibrium.

Basically, Survival is close enough to good and is easy enough to play that it's annihilating all of the decks that I hate from a theoretical standpoint (Zoo, Merfolk, etc) and because I think those decks are bad anyway I don't get real bent out of shape when they get blown out of the water. I think that it's damn strange that Survival is the combo deck du jour when Tendrils exists but I guess Survival is better against Counterbalance and the fact that Survival is weak to Tendrils is irrelevant because no one is playing Tendrils.

[BKclassic]

And you're right, there *IS* no justification, in the tournament results, for the ban on Mystical Tutor.

This is what is wrong with your post. There is evidence in the top 8s. Ironically, you said it in your own article, "Go look again at the StarCityGames.com Legacy Open where LSV lost in the quarterfinals; review how much hate was in that Top 8, Mystical or no Mystical to fight against it."

While I could be wrong with my theories about "the gentleman's agreement," if I am wrong, it only means that Mystical Tutor is more ban worthy because even with its small presence, it demanded an egregious amount of hate to keep it at bay. If Mystical Tutor decks weren't warping the metagame, why did people continue to pack so much hate? Before Survival came along, the main effects of the banning of Mystical Tutor were that Show and Tell replace Reanimator, TES replace Saito Ad Nauseam, Lands went away from the fore front, sideboard space opened up. Essentially, the combo decks became slower and more interactive and gave decks more breathing room. How was this not great for the format?

[voltron00x]

Right, the point is that Reanimator and ANT were hated right out of the top 16 at most American legacy tournament the month before the ban went into effect. When LSV isn't winning with what is supposed to be the best deck because people have relevant SB cards all of a sudden, a deck probably isn't ban-worthy.

[voltron00x]

The Netherlands sir. Yesterday I saw dozens of Survival-Vine decks get obliterated by Jacestill, TES and other combo decks (Enchantress worked too). It had by far the largest percentage of the tournament (Dutch Championship) but only 1 deck in the top 8. Most of the Survivines were at the low tables because everyone hated it out or just.. simply, played a deck better suited for the new meta.

Place 1 and 2 were ANT and TES, for reference.

I assumed you were from Europe but didn't want to stereotype.

Legacy is an odd bird. In Europe, Tendrils decks have always out-performed compared to America; the Mystical ban has far more support there than in the US. B/c more people are playing Tendrils and have always played it, I think Survival is going to be less relevant. That is going to suppress the performance of Survival. Both Max and I believe TES, and other Tendrils decks, have very good match-ups against Survival.

(side note, the same trends are true in Vintage, where Fish and Tendrils have done better the past two years than in the states, and in some areas, where Workshops have done far better than in the states)

[Smmenen]

Matt: good work in this article.

In the final paragraph of the article you linked which I wrote, I said:


Why does the banning of Mystical Tutor matter? What’s the harm?

One of the things I really liked about Legacy is that every deck had a bad matchup. This feature of the format promotes balance. Zoo was weak to ANT, but strong against Merfolk. Merfolk was good against Reanimator and CounterTop, but weak to Goblins. And so on. Whenever you take out a card like Mystical Tutor, which supports spell-based combination decks, you take out a potential metagame answer. Every metagame player has a role, including Burn. These decks keep other decks honest. While I don’t think that Legacy is going to become an imbalanced format as a result of this banning, it’s not healthy to take out answers that can help the format adjust if something were to go wrong. It’s like taking away from of the format’s natural antibodies if a virus were to sweep through the format. Diversity is a natural strength, and reducing format wide diversity with this banning has the potential to harm the format in the long-run. This kind of decision also sets a bad precedent in this regard. The DCI should be humble both in its ability to correctly manage the Banned and Restricted List and in recognition that such management can have unintended consequences to be concerned about. That’s why the DCI should only ban cards if there is strong evidence to support it.

I think my warning has proved prescient.

I just hope the DCI realizes that if it continues to ban, it may require MORE bannings, not less down the road. I would vote to unban Mystical Tutor.

[kusumoto]

I think it's surprising that so few people want a mystical tutor unbanning. Nobody was complaining before it was banned and now everyone is terrified of it coming off the list.

[Dia_Bot]

i think it's surprising that so few people want a mystical tutor unbanning. Nobody was complaining before it was banned and now everyone is terrified of it coming off the list.

qft!

[SpikeyMikey]

I think it's surprising that so few people want a mystical tutor unbanning. Nobody was complaining before it was banned and now everyone is terrified of it coming off the list.

I think a lot of people have convinced themselves that it deserved a ban. When it was announced, it was a major shock. There was no discussion about its brokenness on the forums. Personally, I wish they'd run this format the way they do standard. You didn't see them banning cards out of Jund. Psychatog never got the hammer. It took a deck as thoroughly dominating as affinity to get a response out of the DCI.

[JosephBono]

This is what is wrong with your post. There is evidence in the top 8s. Ironically, you said it in your own article, "Go look again at the StarCityGames.com Legacy Open where LSV lost in the quarterfinals; review how much hate was in that Top 8, Mystical or no Mystical to fight against it."

While I could be wrong with my theories about "the gentleman's agreement," if I am wrong, it only means that Mystical Tutor is more ban worthy because even with its small presence, it demanded an egregious amount of hate to keep it at bay. If Mystical Tutor decks weren't warping the metagame, why did people continue to pack so much hate? Before Survival came along, the main effects of the banning of Mystical Tutor were that Show and Tell replace Reanimator, TES replace Saito Ad Nauseam, Lands went away from the fore front, sideboard space opened up. Essentially, the combo decks became slower and more interactive and gave decks more breathing room. How was this not great for the format?

Mystical Tutor decks didn't comprise a "small presence" at the SCG Seattle open. Reanimator was the most popular archetype with 13.23% of the field and ANT was tied for third most popular archetype with 7.94% of the field (after Merfolk, tied with Zoo). If you lump Mystical Tutor decks together you would expect an "average" performance for them to put 2 decks in the top 8, with a dominating performance being 4 or more decks in the top 8. Instead we see just one deck in the top 8 (and piloted by, argubally the best player in the room). Seems like the deck choices made by the rest of the field (both in deck selection, optimization, and sideboard hate) were able to successfully handle the Mystical Tutor menace.

Reference: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/19592_Too_Much_Information_StarCityGamescom_Legacy_Open_Seattle.html

My personal opinion is that Mystical Tutor decks did not have tournament results that were dominant enough to demand a banning, and that the metagame was able and willing to successfully adapt to the presence of MT decks without significantly shrinking the set of viable decks. Right now Survival decks are putting up dominant results, and so far the metagame hasn't self corrected. I think Wizards can afford to wait a few more months to see if the metagame self-corrects, but if we're still in a state where Survival decks are still putting up these kinds of numbers in February or so Wizards will need to take action of some sort.

[SpikeyMikey]

Sorry Nessaja, I was thinking of BKClassics post. Doing this on my phone so it's tough to review the thread while posting.

[SurFitOfTheVine]

What does MT unbanning have to do with the subject of the poll? How will the results determine what people think about Survival/Vengevine if the poll gives them the option to vote for MT unban? That poll is stupid.

[majikal]

What does MT unbanning have to do with the subject of the poll? How will the results determine what people think about Survival/Vengevine if the poll gives them the option to vote for MT unban? That poll is stupid.
Did you even read the article? Some people believe that unbanning Mystical Tutor will correct the imbalance in the current format and return it to the paper-rock-scissors dynamic that existed before Survival took over. Combo beats Survival (which isn't always the case currently, without MT), Survival beats Countertop, Countertop beats Combo.

[Tacosnape]

Did you even read the article? Some people believe that unbanning Mystical Tutor will correct the imbalance in the current format and return it to the paper-rock-scissors dynamic that existed before Survival took over. Combo beats Survival (which isn't always the case currently, without MT), Survival beats Countertop, Countertop beats Combo.

Except Countertop really doesn't beat combo with Mystical Tutor in the format.

I, frankly, hated the era of every deck being combo. I play in a metagame that's literally 80% combo decks in the post MT age, and will probably be closer to 95% if Mystical were to be unbanned (Because, at this point, I'd go back to playing Reanimator instantly.)

Unbanning Mystical isn't necessary for either Storm Combo or Reanimator to function just fine. Storm Combo still strikes once or twice in top 16's on a regular basis, and the new Welder Reanimator list (Which is pretty amazing) and my Mono Black one can both handle over half of the format.

Mystical Tutor was banned (Or should stay banned, rather) because it took Black out of the format as a viable way to keep combo decks in check. Thoughtseize was a terrible, unplayable card when Mystical Tutor existed, except for IN the combo decks themselves. I personally like the format when Thoughtseize is good.

EDIT: Also, how exactly did the balance exist before Survival took over? Before Survival took over there was only one deck in the format - Reanimator. You played it or you played something that beat it (Like me, and I got punished in SCG Atlanta for it.) Same's kind of true of Survival now. Balance hasn't existed in the format for awhile.

[SurFitOfTheVine]

Did you even read the article? Some people believe that unbanning Mystical Tutor will correct the imbalance in the current format and return it to the paper-rock-scissors dynamic that existed before Survival took over. Combo beats Survival (which isn't always the case currently, without MT), Survival beats Countertop, Countertop beats Combo.

I still don't think it belongs in the poll. MT unbanning would also bring Reanimator back. Most that will vote couldn't care less about Survival/Vengevine. They just want their decks back.

[majikal]

Never said I agreed with the sentiment that bringing MT back would fix things, just that some people believe that. I think we should wait a few months and see what happens, myself.

[voltron00x]

I'm not really interested in rehashing metagame numbers that disprove what you say about reanimator, as the articles I linked to do that for me (thanks, Steve Menendian!). Suffice it to say that I don't believe what you think you saw, is what actually happened, outside of a small handful of tournaments. Was Reanimator popular? Yes. Did I watch my exact 75 from the SCG Open in Philly win a GPT that was 40% Reanimator without dropping a match? Sure did.

Then again, as I said, there is hardly enough data to be conclusive either way. Much is up to our own interpretation and bias.

For instance, where I may see a washed up, overweight, basket case masquerading as an elite athlete, the Redskins see a $78 Million QB of the future.

[SpikeyMikey]

I'm not really interested in rehashing metagame numbers that disprove what you say about reanimator, as the articles I linked to do that for me (thanks, Steve Menendian!). Suffice it to say that I don't believe what you think you saw, is what actually happened, outside of a small handful of tournaments. Was Reanimator popular? Yes. Did I watch my exact 75 from the SCG Open in Philly win a GTP that was 40% Reanimator without dropping a match? Sure did.

Then again, as I said, there is hardly enough data to be conclusive either way. Much is up to our own interpretation and bias.

For instance, where I may see a washed up, overweight, basket case masquerading as an elite athlete, the Redskins see a $78 Million QB of the future.

And even they recognized that he can't run a 2 minute drill. But at least you aren't stuck with Cutler or Favre. Green Bay is probably going to take the division and it won't be because we're on top of our game, it'll be because we don't turn the ball over 4 to 5 times a game.

[voltron00x]

I'm from Philly. I'm an Eagles fan. And, begrudgingly, I have become a Vick fan. Is anyone watching this game????

[BKclassic]

I'm not really interested in rehashing metagame numbers that disprove what you say about reanimator, as the articles I linked to do that for me (thanks, Steve Menendian!). Suffice it to say that I don't believe what you think you saw, is what actually happened, outside of a small handful of tournaments. Was Reanimator popular? Yes. Did I watch my exact 75 from the SCG Open in Philly win a GPT that was 40% Reanimator without dropping a match? Sure did.

Then again, as I said, there is hardly enough data to be conclusive either way. Much is up to our own interpretation and bias.

For instance, where I may see a washed up, overweight, basket case masquerading as an elite athlete, the Redskins see a $78 Million QB of the future.

Your deck ran 6 anti Reanimator cards and 4 Mindbreak Traps in the sideboard. I don't see how you can devote 10 sideboard slots to Mystical Tutor decks AND claim that Mystical Tutor decks weren't warping the metagame heavily.

[voltron00x]

I don't believe I ever said they weren't warping the format. I said they weren't dominant outside an initial period of a few weeks. I said quite clearly in the article that the tools to beat those decks were already present in the format.

I used zero of those ten cards across twelve rounds of Swiss in Philly. Why? Because after dodging them for a few rounds, I was surrounded by Zoo, Goblins, Merfolk, and CB Top; the majority of the Mystical Tutor decks had been hated out of the top tables. I built my deck with those decks in mind, sure, but also with an eye toward beating the decks that beat Mystical Tutor.

[Tacosnape]

All this banter aside and all the Hyperbole that more bans cause more bans, what's going to be the format's problem if Vengevine goes?

If you ask me, it'll be pretty healthy for time to come.

[Koby]

All this banter aside and all the Hyperbole that more bans cause more bans, what's going to be the format's problem if Vengevine goes?

If you ask me, it'll be pretty healthy for time to come.

I don't know, I don't think Vengevine is that amazing. It's not blue for starters. :\

[k2thej]

I don't know, I don't think Vengevine is that amazing. It's not blue for starters. :\

I agree. Survival with Vengevine is getting so much attention because of its advantage over the most popular other archetypes. Many less popular archetypes though (elves combo being one of them) have a significant advantage over survival even with vengevine. My point is that by survival with vengevine dominating some major archetypes, it will cause players to move to less popular archetypes that can still win, i.e., more archetypes will be played and developed. This is EXACTLY what legacy needs.

[Phoenix Ignition]

I address those arguments in the article. If you want to review them after reading, I'd be happy to do so.

Note that Enlightened Tutor is a key component in the GT version of Ooze Survival, and also helped power Thopters to a few big wins / top 8s despite very low field penetration, so it is perhaps not as "safe" a tutor as many would want us to believe. Slippery slope, etc.

Since when did "helped power _____ to a few big wins" ever spark fear? Why is everyone looking to fearmonger. Cards win games, some cards do it better (generally, we call those cards good). If certain cards are becoming too hard for the metagame to handle and are causing too many degenerate outcomes to tournaments then it should be discussed (possibly like survival with vengevine, but I still don't think it is making a metagame as degenerate as people would like to shout), but please please can we all just stop talking about slightly connected cards and saying Look at this card! This card is used somewhere! Lets ban it!

[Rico Suave]

“It would've been awkward if Mystical Tutor obliterated Columbus.”

Not really. In fact, I think it would've had the opposite reaction: if Mystical Tutor decks dominated a field prepared for them in Columbus, it would've massively bolstered the DCI's position and removed much of the conjecture.

Matt, I'm not sure how you can take this position.

Let's say you were a member of the DCI. You are deciding the fate of the Legacy environment, and just recently you saw 3 M.Tutor decks in the top 8 of the last GP. All of those decks crushed the opposition, in fact the only thing those M.Tutor decks lost to were other M.Tutor decks.

Fast forward to decision time. You decide not to ban M.Tutor, then it dominates a 2nd GP in a row. And you don't think this would be awkward?

The DCI wasn't interested in gathering evidence to mount a prosecution in a trial by peers, they were interested in maintaining a healthy and balanced environment. That is a goal they achieved too.

And if M.Tutor did obliterate that GP, I feel confident the backlash from that event would have eclipsed any complaints going on currently.

[quadibloc]

Since the article claimed that banning Mystical Tutor was what caused Survival of the Fittest decks to become even more powerful, I came up with the notion that if the Ad Nauseam/Tendrils of Agony decks that Mystical Tutor made so powerful could have been just weakened instead of eliminated, perhaps the right balance might be achieved.

First, I thought that maybe if Legacy had a restricted list in addition to its banned list, this would avoid having to eliminate a card from use, and thus preserve its value. But if only one copy of a card is allowed in a deck, that comes pretty close to banning it as far as the effect on the game is concerned.

So I came up with the idea that maybe what is needed to keep Legacy as the very balanced format that it is would be more flexibility. Perhaps if only three copies of Mystical Tutor, instead of the usual four, were allowed in a deck, then ANT decks would be weakened instead of eliminated, thus retaining enough presence to keep Survival decks in check. So Legacy would have three restricted lists - a 1-of list, a 2-of list, and a 3-of list, even if not all of them would necessarily have any cards on them at a given time.

[Piceli89]

Since the article claimed that banning Mystical Tutor was what caused Survival of the Fittest decks to become even more powerful, I came up with the notion that if the Ad Nauseam/Tendrils of Agony decks that Mystical Tutor made so powerful could have been just weakened instead of eliminated, perhaps the right balance might be achieved.

First, I thought that maybe if Legacy had a restricted list in addition to its banned list, this would avoid having to eliminate a card from use, and thus preserve its value. But if only one copy of a card is allowed in a deck, that comes pretty close to banning it as far as the effect on the game is concerned.

So I came up with the idea that maybe what is needed to keep Legacy as the very balanced format that it is would be more flexibility. Perhaps if only three copies of Mystical Tutor, instead of the usual four, were allowed in a deck, then ANT decks would be weakened instead of eliminated, thus retaining enough presence to keep Survival decks in check. So Legacy would have three restricted lists - a 1-of list, a 2-of list, and a 3-of list, even if not all of them would necessarily have any cards on them at a given time.

It will never happen, things would be too difficult to be managed and people would come up with lamentations like "*X* is too broken to be player as a 4-of! I always lose to *X*! 2 is enough!" And so.
Legacy is full set or nothing.

[lordofthepit]

Great article, Matt. I think you brought up an excellent point that the banning of Mystical Tutor has made it extremely difficult for the format to keep Survival decks in check with internal metagame forces. I agree that the banning was unjustified, and I think you can further strengthen your position by citing the win percentages of the Mystical Tutor decks at SCG tournaments between GP Madrid and the July 1 banning (which I believe was around 48% for ANT and 51% for Reanimator).

I give a lot of consideration to statistics, and I found the following data from your article extremely interesting:



Survival decks in Top 16: 36.25%
Survival decks in Top 8: 45.00%
Survival decks in Top 4: 50.00%
Survival decks in Top 2: 70.00%


I was also wondering if you had access to the complete data from those five tournaments on how many Survival decks were present in the field. If the number is 12-15% across those five tournaments, as I suspect, rather than 50-75%, a figure that some have thrown out, I think it would impossible to argue that those decks are not degenerate.

[voltron00x]

Since when did "helped power _____ to a few big wins" ever spark fear? Why is everyone looking to fearmonger. Cards win games, some cards do it better (generally, we call those cards good). If certain cards are becoming too hard for the metagame to handle and are causing too many degenerate outcomes to tournaments then it should be discussed (possibly like survival with vengevine, but I still don't think it is making a metagame as degenerate as people would like to shout), but please please can we all just stop talking about slightly connected cards and saying Look at this card! This card is used somewhere! Lets ban it!

I mean, that's kind of the point. People used that logic to support banning Mystical, and cite Enlightened Tutor as a "safe" Tutor, when it is happily acting rather degenerate if anyone pays attention.

[voltron00x]

Matt, I'm not sure how you can take this position.

Let's say you were a member of the DCI. You are deciding the fate of the Legacy environment, and just recently you saw 3 M.Tutor decks in the top 8 of the last GP. All of those decks crushed the opposition, in fact the only thing those M.Tutor decks lost to were other M.Tutor decks.

Fast forward to decision time. You decide not to ban M.Tutor, then it dominates a 2nd GP in a row. And you don't think this would be awkward?

The DCI wasn't interested in gathering evidence to mount a prosecution in a trial by peers, they were interested in maintaining a healthy and balanced environment. That is a goal they achieved too.

And if M.Tutor did obliterate that GP, I feel confident the backlash from that event would have eclipsed any complaints going on currently.

Is it any less awkward than Counterbalance/Top making up three of the four Finals slots in the 2007 and 2009 Legacy GPs and not getting banned? Or 4 of the top 8 finals slots of the four GPs from 2007, 2009, and 2010?

And I don't think the backlash would have been that extreme (besides the fact that I don't believe Mystical would've won again). The attendance would've been the same, regardless. I certainly didn't hear a lot of people going, "Oh, well now that Mystical is gone, I will go play Legacy!" Standard players watched Faeries go without any DCI action, and ditto Jund, but Mystical Tutor doing well in two events is such a huge blemish on their otherwise sparkling record of format prediction?

[SpikeyMikey]

Is it any less awkward than Counterbalance/Top making up three of the four Finals slots in the 2007 and 2009 Legacy GPs and not getting banned? Or 4 of the top 8 finals slots of the four GPs from 2007, 2009, and 2010?

And I don't think the backlash would have been that extreme (besides the fact that I don't believe Mystical would've won again). The attendance would've been the same, regardless. I certainly didn't hear a lot of people going, "Oh, well now that Mystical is gone, I will go play Legacy!" Standard players watched Faeries go without any DCI action, and ditto Jund, but Mystical Tutor doing well in two events is such a huge blemish on their otherwise sparkling record of format prediction?

QFT. The only thing that I have to add is AnT /= Reanimator. If you want to talk about MT decks and Survival decks as if they're all the same thing, apply your logic across the board and let's talk about Tarmogoyf decks and Brainstorm decks and Force of will decks. You can't say oh, MT was in these top decks and so it needs to be banned. Ubiquity by itself is not a ban criteria.

[DragoFireheart]

All this banter aside and all the Hyperbole that more bans cause more bans, what's going to be the format's problem if Vengevine goes?

If you ask me, it'll be pretty healthy for time to come.


It will set a bad precedent. Perhaps it will create a "healthy" format, but as I see it now the format was not healthy but stagnating. Also, the fact that VV is everywhere in the TOP 16 is a self-fulfilling prophecy as everyone is playing the new hot deck. Should all future creature cards now be catered to Survival of the Fittest so to avoid breaking it?

People will pick up Elf Combo, Landstill, TES (which hardly see's play compared to our other popular decks) Enchantress or some other crazy deck and the meta will shift. People will pick up decks that, in the old meta were barely Tier 1 but could only reach 1.5 but are now Tier 1 with the new VV deck.

[voltron00x]

QFT. The only thing that I have to add is AnT /= Reanimator. If you want to talk about MT decks and Survival decks as if they're all the same thing, apply your logic across the board and let's talk about Tarmogoyf decks and Brainstorm decks and Force of will decks. You can't say oh, MT was in these top decks and so it needs to be banned. Ubiquity by itself is not a ban criteria.

Well put.

Interestingly, I find more people cite Reanimator as a problem than ANT, yet simply saying "we made an error unbanning Entomb; it was safe at the time but newly printed reanimation targets make it too good" would have solved that problem.

EDIT: For clarity's sake, I in no way actually believe Reanimator was too good; just pointing out that if the DCI honestly believed it was too good, that would've been a more logical fix.

[ReAnimator]

People will pick up Elf Combo, Landstill, TES (which hardly see's play compared to our other popular decks) Enchantress or some other crazy deck and the meta will shift. People will pick up decks that, in the old meta were barely Tier 1 but could only reach 1.5 but are now Tier 1 with the new VV deck.

Both you and Nessaja say that Landstill beats up on Survival. I have to ask where is that coming from? it has not been my experience at all.

I've beaten 6 blue based control decks of various styles (UGBW, UR, URG, URGW all with jace's) in the past month over 3 different tournaments and the matchups haven't been particularly close. I've beaten first turn relic's multiple times as well in those matchups, twice in game 1's.
I am in no way a good player, and my opponents each time have way more accomplishments and impresive resume's than i do, all things being equal they should crush me on game play alone, but i rocked all those matches inspite of myself.

If landstill is good against these decks why aren't we seeing more of it and why isn't it putting up results? They are obviously good well rounded decks but they don't seem to be keeping up. If you look at the metagame numbers of the SCG tournies it's been roughly the same amount of the field as UG.

[DragoFireheart]

If landstill is good against these decks why aren't we seeing more of it and why isn't it putting up results? They are obviously good well rounded decks but they don't seem to be keeping up. If you look at the metagame numbers of the SCG tournies it's been roughly the same amount of the field as UG.

Because the Goblin and Merfolk decks that crush Landstill decks haven't quite been pushed out yet. Also, JaceStill UBgw is the version that does well as it packs swords and Deeds to clear the field.

[ReAnimator]

Because the Goblin and Merfolk decks that crush Landstill decks haven't quite been pushed out yet. Also, JaceStill UBgw is the version that does well as it packs swords and Deeds to clear the field.

I've beat that deck twice now, and the pilot has played on the PT multiple times. It just seemed really rough for him stopping so many threats even when he had deed. It seems pretty easy to play around grave yard hate and just attack with a bunch of little dudes and hard casted vines all you have to worry about is deed, and KGrips are a pretty good answer. Maybe i just got really lucky both times.

[voltron00x]

I'm pretty sure Extirpate should see a lot more play than it does, specifically for VV, even though I hate Extirpate-type cards as a general rule.

Also, I'm not sure Tendrils would be quite so good at beating Survival, especially E. Tutor Survival, if the Survival deck actually acknowledged Storm existed via sideboard.

[Tammit67]

I'm pretty sure Extirpate should see a lot more play than it does, specifically for VV, even though I hate Extirpate-type cards as a general rule.

Also, I'm not sure Tendrils would be quite so good at beating Survival, especially E. Tutor Survival, if the Survival deck actually acknowledged Storm existed via sideboard.

Thoughtseize+cannonist+Ooze is usually enough disruption and a clock to beat anything but a turn 1 or turn 2 on the play hand for Tendrils, though few people outside of MTGO seem to be playing the combination. I'm sure if it starts translating to paper magic, a tendrils deck can still just learn to beat it.

[Rico Suave]

Is it any less awkward than Counterbalance/Top making up three of the four Finals slots in the 2007 and 2009 Legacy GPs and not getting banned? Or 4 of the top 8 finals slots of the four GPs from 2007, 2009, and 2010?

And I don't think the backlash would have been that extreme (besides the fact that I don't believe Mystical would've won again). The attendance would've been the same, regardless. I certainly didn't hear a lot of people going, "Oh, well now that Mystical is gone, I will go play Legacy!" Standard players watched Faeries go without any DCI action, and ditto Jund, but Mystical Tutor doing well in two events is such a huge blemish on their otherwise sparkling record of format prediction?

Oh sure, we could sit here and throw around statistics all day. But that rarely accomplishes much. Maybe the DCI should do something about CB/Top too?

Let's back up to your goal. You said that formats should have a diversity among deck styles. I fail to see how unbanning M.Tutor would accomplish this goal.

Perhaps you can help clarify for me: how would unbanning M.Tutor promote diversity? What deck or deck style would become viable that isn't already viable now?

[Arsenal]

What deck or deck style would become viable that isn't already viable now?

You're missing the entire point by asking that question, specifically the underlined part. Growth and development isn't about 'right now', it's about the future. MT's ban impact on Legacy right now? Negligible. MT's ban impact on Legacy 9 sets from now? We'll never know.

[jazzykat]

As usual I see things the way Elias does. OK, so Vengevine is raping the format as evidenced by most high level event results. I have always believed in less banned cards. I strongly feel that the format was adapting to MT before it was banned. I am still not convinced that the format has put VV decks on the decline.Giving MT back to fast combo and back to deck builders in general would be healthy for the format.

[voltron00x]

I essentially believe the following:

1 – Mystical Tutor decks were not “too good” and were part of the balance of the format. Combo beats some decks and loses to others. It is a balancing force provided reasonable checks are in place. If combo is really the problem, ban LED.

2 – During the period of supposed dominance by Mystical Tutor decks, the top decks at Legacy events were more diverse than they are now.

3 – Weakening one pillar of Legacy is partially the reason for the meta getting “stuck” on Survival as combo is no longer fighting on equal footing.

4 – The supposed dominance of Mystical Tutor decks is directly responsible for the fact that Zoo, Goblins, and Merfolk did so well just before the ban; they beat the decks that beat Mystical Tutor decks.

5 – The same decks that were supposedly unplayable pre-banning (but, per the results of tournaments, won their pilots hundreds or even thousands of dollars) are now, in actuality, mostly unplayable, and some other decks are significantly weakened that were top-tier. This in and of itself isn’t a huge problem as decks are always invalidated over time, except that the number of viable decks has shrunk significantly when looking at the format at a macro level.

I agree with Menendian, that one of the hallmarks of Legacy has been that every deck has some bad match-ups, or trades that off for more-or-less equal match-ups across the board. Today, I’m not sure that is the case. For instance, backing out the mirror match, Survival decks as a whole appear to have no terrible match-ups outside of dedicated, fast combo. However, it is easier for them to beat combo decks that it is for combo decks to beat them (in my opinion), because the weapon those combo decks had to fight back (Mystical Tutor) has been removed. So while Survival with E. Tutor can find GY hate for Dredge or Storm hate, Tendrils decks no longer have that option. A deck like Sperling’s Helmline Tendrils is designed with Survival in mind, but most assuredly has worse match-ups against the rest of the field than a normal Tendrils deck with blue in it.

Ultimately, what I take issue with is the fact that the format isn’t being consistently managed, either of itself or by comparison to 2008-2009 Extended, or 2008-2010 Standard.

In legacy, it is ok for Counterbalance to dominate GPs, but embarrassing when Mystical Tutor decks do well at one? It is ok and not embarrassing to not ban Flash in 2007 when everyone knows the deck is degenerate, but it is also ok to ban Mystical Tutor when only a small (if vocal) minority of players believe it to be degenerate? It is ok to cite predictive powers that Mystical Tutor *could* become too good and dominate the format, but it is ok for Survival to actually, in fact, dominate a format? It is ok to unban Entomb, creating a supposedly problematic deck, and then not ban the card that caused the problem, but rather ban a different card instead?

[GGoober]

I essentially believe the following:

1 – Mystical Tutor decks were not “too good” and were part of the balance of the format. Combo beats some decks and loses to others. It is a balancing force provided reasonable checks are in place. If combo is really the problem, ban LED.



I think that if they ever banned LED, then the argument of balancing the format would be gone, because if combo took a hit from the loss of LED, it would really be neutered, moreso than MTutor and combo itself will not be part of the archetype pie in the Legacy metagame to keep this so-called 'balance' in check. I don't think MTutor should be banned, and I've always agreed that the decision was too quickly made. Even now I 'enjoy' the absence of MTutor, I feel that as much as MTutor gave combo and Reanimator decks the instant-easy answer to hate cards, it was still fair because there will be decks that play hate that bypass MTutor.

For instance. I never left the black shell for Landstill in the MTutor-era, because Extirpate was just that great when they were setting up AdN or answers with MTutor. I believe many other decks had their strategies fighting MTutor. To be perfectly honest, I never ever considered MTutor a problem, it's only because of all these articles written that sparked the attention. And we all know how reading articles imply convincing an audience (just as you are Matt) but despite all those articles written, I still disagree that MTutor was too powerful for the format.

I played Legacy the way I did before hearing news that MTutor was banworthy, and since my mind is now contaminated with that thought, much akin to how mass-media contaminates the minds of mindless people, I think this is what the age of writing MTG articles has led into: believing articles because they are written well. Every time I read an article, I read it for information, and see whether the article is coherent and argues its point, it is why I like your articles, and others e.g. Menedian. It is always tempting to believe, but sometimes we think more but so far you have me convinced :)


In legacy, it is ok for Counterbalance to dominate GPs, but embarrassing when Mystical Tutor decks do well at one? It is ok and not embarrassing to not ban Flash in 2007 when everyone knows the deck is degenerate, but it is also ok to ban Mystical Tutor when only a small (if vocal) minority of players believe it to be degenerate? It is ok to cite predictive powers that Mystical Tutor *could* become too good and dominate the format, but it is ok for Survival to actually, in fact, dominate a format? It is ok to unban Entomb, creating a supposedly problematic deck, and then not ban the card that caused the problem, but rather ban a different card instead?

This is so important that people need to RTFC I mean RThisFParagraph. There was no way MTutor's ban was 'justified'. It happened in too short a time span. And it disappoints me a little that the prudence on banning cards becomes a casual easy thing as "Oh this looks dangerous, ban it", instead of watching how the meta shifts and adapts, and just as you pointed out, evolution against Mtutor decks or evolution against Reanimator and AnT (because I don't think MTutor was the problem, it was just AnT and Reanimator that so happened to run MTutor that were tough decks) started and in fact these decks were hated heavily and pushed out in favor in the later tournaments before finally MTutor got the unfair axe.

MTutor's ban will only signal to further unfair bans based on the principles "Efficient tutor effects are too strong in Legacy". With such an argument, cards like ETutor and Survival will definitely get axed, but the truth is: Ponder + Brainstorm + Merchant Scroll + Gush were all strong in Vintage, did all of them needed to get the axe? No, because when deciding to restrict these cards all in one go, the DCI demonstrates that they were unwilling to let the format evolve itself. They recently unrestricted Gush again, and this post-Gush era is much more fair, simply because the initial problem wasn't Gush. One can argue that current decks are still considerably powerful over Gush decks, but the power of Gush in the past was due to unrestricted Merchant Scrolls and unrestrcited Gush. Currently with just Merchant Scroll restriced, the unrestriction of Gush is entirely fair. This is an example on how, instead of banning a card so fast e.g. MTutor, if they had left the format to evolve, there wouldn't be a problem, and if there is, then the ban is justfied. What Matt is saying I think is this very essence. AnT and Reanimator were being meta-gamed against. However, before those events could proof that AnT and Reanimator were on the decline, MTutor got axed, so there never will be 'evidence' that MTutor isn't banworthy. DCI decides that a short period of time warrants a ban to proof its banworthiness, but fails to take into account that over a longer period of time, there will be more proof that it is in fact not banworthy.

[Lejay]

The main reason WotC banned mystical tutor was because they don't want to confess they can make mistakes.
They made one mistake by printing ad nauseam, creating another necropotence like which makes combo more resilient against blue (because it no longer relies on IGG that much) and made it the best deck in the format. On a side note I'd like to also underline the fact that playing storm combo has shifted from very technical to dumb as hell.
Later they made another mistake in both unbanning entomb and printing amazing mythic targets.This gave legacy its new clear best deck in the format.

Since they didn't want to step back on any on these issues they banned the card these decks had in common and that wasn't too much played in the rest of the format to decrease their power.


That's why I think wizards won't unban mystical although imo it would be a pretty good choice. I would enjoy banning ad nauseam and entomb, but I think the format is strong enough to endure them as shown in the pre MT banning area.
However about the last mistake they made in designing vengevine (it would have been a great card without haste, but without summoning sickness it is just dumb), I think the deck has too much flexibility to be efficiently hated. Like Voltron00x I don't think the format is strong enough right now to deal with survival.

My guess is that they will never ban vengevine because it's a creature and a new card. Sotf will get the axe, or worst case they won't change anything.

[voltron00x]

I definitely don't want them to ban LED. I don't think its a bad thing when LED combo is very good for a month or two. Actually, I think its exciting and part of the draw of Legacy. Remember when Iggy Pop was a good deck?

[GGoober]

@Lejay:

Do you really think WotC think they made mistake printing cards like Emrakul/Iona/Vengevine?

I don't think so. When it comes to design, I think they are designing primarily with Limited/Standard in mind. They will think of some implications to Legacy and Vintage but just a little.

For instance, I am sure VV was designed to be 'abused' with Fauna, and it was a strong but not broken play. With Survival, it becomes much stronger. Do you think they had not thought about that interaction? Of course they did! And some of us did on the forums as well. The only issue was: No one saw it was that strong because on paper, Survival + Vengevine seemed as janky as Survival + Demigod/Bloodghast. Until people realize that real-life testing >>> paper-theory and results came out, more people tested and it became a true powerful deck-contender.

WotC probably saw the interaction of VV + Survival, but like many of us who see it on paper instead of practicing it, it didn't seem to be a problem. Iona/Retainers might not have been that obvious, SnT/Emrakul probably were considered, but on paper, it seemed janky to resolve a 3cmc spell with a 2 card combo, but in practice, it's quite deadly.

This will continue to happen again, and as long as WotC doesn't exercise their banning principle with more caution, we'll likely see ETutor, Survival all axed, which makes no sense to me because the argument "tutor effects are too powerful" is quite ironically moronic to unbanning Entomb, which isn't just solely used in Reanimator but could be potentially used in Dredge and who knows what future decks that can abuse it (e.g. UG Madness abusing VV)

[android]

You're missing the entire point by asking that question, specifically the underlined part. Growth and development isn't about 'right now', it's about the future. MT's ban impact on Legacy right now? Negligible. MT's ban impact on Legacy 9 sets from now? We'll never know.

Just about any card not printed yet that might be deemed "better" than cards currently in our pool would only reinforce the banning of Mystical (if you subscribe to that camp). I mean I guess it's possible we could see cards on par with danger cards that MT typically tutors up or maybe even a whole new archetype that card for card is not overpowered but combined offer a new competitive strategy. Who can see into the future? But to bring up potential future impact is just reaching. Personally, I would love to play with Mystical. I think it's a great tutor and helps smooth out a number of decks. Not all decks that can run it include it, which to me suggests that the hype surrounding it's banning is overblown.

VV on the other hand, doesn't that just die to Compost? Just a joke but I'm really not afraid of it. People griped way back when Survival was running Tradewind Rider, Shapeshifter, unblockables and Phage. That kind of came and went and it wasn't like that was the first time Survival decks placed. Let it play out, Survival will not dominate the top tables any more than Threshold dominated or Goblins dominated.

[Rico Suave]

I essentially believe the following:

1 – Mystical Tutor decks were not “too good” and were part of the balance of the format. Combo beats some decks and loses to others. It is a balancing force provided reasonable checks are in place. If combo is really the problem, ban LED.

2 – During the period of supposed dominance by Mystical Tutor decks, the top decks at Legacy events were more diverse than they are now.

3 – Weakening one pillar of Legacy is partially the reason for the meta getting “stuck” on Survival as combo is no longer fighting on equal footing.

4 – The supposed dominance of Mystical Tutor decks is directly responsible for the fact that Zoo, Goblins, and Merfolk did so well just before the ban; they beat the decks that beat Mystical Tutor decks.

5 – The same decks that were supposedly unplayable pre-banning (but, per the results of tournaments, won their pilots hundreds or even thousands of dollars) are now, in actuality, mostly unplayable, and some other decks are significantly weakened that were top-tier. This in and of itself isn’t a huge problem as decks are always invalidated over time, except that the number of viable decks has shrunk significantly when looking at the format at a macro level.

I agree with Menendian, that one of the hallmarks of Legacy has been that every deck has some bad match-ups, or trades that off for more-or-less equal match-ups across the board. Today, I’m not sure that is the case. For instance, backing out the mirror match, Survival decks as a whole appear to have no terrible match-ups outside of dedicated, fast combo. However, it is easier for them to beat combo decks that it is for combo decks to beat them (in my opinion), because the weapon those combo decks had to fight back (Mystical Tutor) has been removed. So while Survival with E. Tutor can find GY hate for Dredge or Storm hate, Tendrils decks no longer have that option. A deck like Sperling’s Helmline Tendrils is designed with Survival in mind, but most assuredly has worse match-ups against the rest of the field than a normal Tendrils deck with blue in it.

Ultimately, what I take issue with is the fact that the format isn’t being consistently managed, either of itself or by comparison to 2008-2009 Extended, or 2008-2010 Standard.

In legacy, it is ok for Counterbalance to dominate GPs, but embarrassing when Mystical Tutor decks do well at one? It is ok and not embarrassing to not ban Flash in 2007 when everyone knows the deck is degenerate, but it is also ok to ban Mystical Tutor when only a small (if vocal) minority of players believe it to be degenerate? It is ok to cite predictive powers that Mystical Tutor *could* become too good and dominate the format, but it is ok for Survival to actually, in fact, dominate a format? It is ok to unban Entomb, creating a supposedly problematic deck, and then not ban the card that caused the problem, but rather ban a different card instead?

The format was indeed more diverse with Mystical Tutor than now. Of course, there are a variety of reasons why this is the case. And there are more reasons to ban a card than "results" too (not that M.Tutor is without results - it won 2 of the 3 Legacy GPs since 2007 before getting banned).

But that's not the problem.

The problem is, if M.Tutor were unbanned tomorrow, whether or not the new environment would be more diverse. And I fail to see how decks which can't beat Survival will somehow begin to compete in an environment with Survival *and* M.Tutor combo. I'm pretty sure the opposite will happen and there will just be more decks that get left in the dust.

[voltron00x]

I think this sums up my thoughts on this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNi1N0H_K00

[frogboy]

I think this sums up my thoughts on this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNi1N0H_K00

you lose like a thousand cool points for this not being a rickroll

[voltron00x]

I thought we were rockrolling now, anyway?

[Mark Sun]

you lose like a thousand cool points for this not being a rickroll

It's okay, he gains a thousand points in my book for:

1. 76er's joke.

2. Redskins jab.

3. LaPille jab.

I won't elaborate because I think the 1:45 is totally worth it. A little extreme, but I understand the point.


Spoiler alert: if you're a Redskins fan, the Redskins jab was just "hahahahahahahahaha." So... hahahahahahahahaha.

[voltron00x]

God, the Sixers are just terrible. I mean, the NBA in general has become a terrible product, and they're among the worst of the worst.

Anyway if you enjoyed that video, pass the link along.

[Michael Keller]

There are far too many articles and threads dedicated to this topic. Seriously.

Survival of the Fittest has been in the format long before its inception. People had ways of dealing with it then, just like they do now (Vengevine or no Vengevine, doesn't matter). When victory rests on the shoulders of a single card by the fourth turn, you really have nothing to worry about.

I do not fear this deck nor should any of you. It's like a bully in a schoolyard: sooner or later, the person being picked on is going to knock him out.

[voltron00x]

Hollywood, the last time we interacted on these forums (here: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?18982-[Free-Article]-The-New-Kings-of-Legacy) you tried to convince me that Affinity was going to become one of the best decks and that Emrakul decks were still going to be popular and successful.

Just saying.

[Rico Suave]

I think this sums up my thoughts on this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNi1N0H_K00

I concede any and all points I may have tried to make.

Seriously though, my only real point was that I don't think unbanning M.Tutor will fix this Survival issue. The rest of your points are fairly accurate regarding consistency of managing the list, promoting a diverse format, etc.

Also, I just want to add that we could have had worse QBs than McNabb, but I'm not upset to see him go to another team and throw passes into the dirt for them. Vick is something else though, man that guy really is unstoppable.

[voltron00x]

Brad, you know I very much respect your opinion on all things. However, I’ve found that a lot of opinion on Mystical is decided on whether or not the person in question played the decks that used it, and what their experience with those decks was, or conversely, their experience playing against Mystical decks, or winning with non-Mystical decks while the card was supposedly “too good” for the format. To some extent, it isn’t a point worth pursuing past that.

Also: I’ve never in my life seen an NFL QB play at the level Vick did Monday night.

Also, again: If you didn’t notice, Coss posted the Blue Bell player of the year points. 1st place, Elias, Team R&D. 2nd place, Granberry, Team R&D. If you had still been playing the last couple events, I'm not sure I could've caught up to you. Regardless, really dominant play from R&D in 2010.

[Aggro_zombies]

Anyway if you enjoyed that video, pass the link along.
I subscribed to your channel. Your videos are hilarious.

Anyway, good article. It's nice to see something well-thought-out, but depressing to know it ultimately won't matter in the end when the DCI bans Survival.

[samurai_socks]

"Nonsensical ginger rage."

Love it.

-Cheers-

[SpikeyMikey]

The format was indeed more diverse with Mystical Tutor than now. Of course, there are a variety of reasons why this is the case. And there are more reasons to ban a card than "results" too (not that M.Tutor is without results - it won 2 of the 3 Legacy GPs since 2007 before getting banned).

But that's not the problem.

The problem is, if M.Tutor were unbanned tomorrow, whether or not the new environment would be more diverse. And I fail to see how decks which can't beat Survival will somehow begin to compete in an environment with Survival *and* M.Tutor combo. I'm pretty sure the opposite will happen and there will just be more decks that get left in the dust.

The best example I can think of dates back to when I still played T2. Fires of Yavimaya was hands down the best deck in the format. It dominated everything. Except Saproling Opposition. Saproling Opp beat Fires like a red-headed stepchild. So going into Worlds, Fires was the DtB and Saproling Opp was the natural foil. A deck called Machine Head won, despite neither being the best deck nor beating the best deck. It won because Ritual into Plague Spitter was a sure win against Saproling Opp and it had enough discard to power out Spitter even if they couldn't land it on turn 1.

If MT were banned, it's possible that Reanimator becomes the natural foil to VV and suddenly Countertop is a viable deck instead of being garbage. Fast Zoo becomes an option again. Fish has a good MU vs. Both Reanimator and CB/Top and is playable despite a poor VV MU. I'm not saying it would happen, but it could easily go that way.

[javert]

I mean, that's kind of the point. People used that logic to support banning Mystical, and cite Enlightened Tutor as a "safe" Tutor, when it is happily acting rather degenerate if anyone pays attention.

OK, let's pay attention to the Survival decks that have appeared in top16:

SCG Open Baltimore
5 Survival decks, 0 playing E Tutor

SCG Open Nashville
5 Survival decks, 1 playing E Tutor

SCG Open Charlotte
7 Survival decks, 2 playing E Tutor

SCG Open Bosten
7 Survival decks, 2 playing E Tutor

Also , no relationship between top16 performance and presence of Enlightened Tutor, and that even without taking into account European metagame, where Survival isn't even an issue. Banning it will barely do any difference (OH NOES CT THOPTERS IS DEAD!!!... as it it were any good).

[menace13]

+1 What Mikey said

Mystical would open the format back up. Simply put there would be 2 more decks instead of just one, and in turn those 2 would enable more archetypes to defeat them being that they both use 2 seperate routes to victory.

[death]

With MT banned, they can safely unban Gush, Frantic Search, maybe Flash. It's a long shot they'll unban MT. Survival will most likely be axed next month.

With ANT, Reanimator and Survival gone, there are still a dozen of competitive decks out there. Variations of ANT/TES still thrive, Reanimator can be tweaked to be competitive, Aggro (Merfolk, Zoo, Gobos) can come back, as well as Loam, CB-Top and Landstill. Sneak Attack, MossNought, Depths, Hive Mind, Aluren are examples of combo decks than can penetrate T8 if piloted competently.

It's not gonna be the end of legacy, there will just be more room for innovation and diversity with the demise of Survival. I just find it ridiculous that most discussions end up with Mystical Tutor and people seem to only consider ANT, Reanimator, and Survival as the best decks of 2010. This will only justify what WotC did and will do is right.

[dontbiteitholmes]

With MT banned, they can safely unban Gush, Frantic Search, maybe Flash.

LOL, Hell no. Are you serious?

[Rico Suave]

The best example I can think of dates back to when I still played T2. Fires of Yavimaya was hands down the best deck in the format. It dominated everything. Except Saproling Opposition. Saproling Opp beat Fires like a red-headed stepchild. So going into Worlds, Fires was the DtB and Saproling Opp was the natural foil. A deck called Machine Head won, despite neither being the best deck nor beating the best deck. It won because Ritual into Plague Spitter was a sure win against Saproling Opp and it had enough discard to power out Spitter even if they couldn't land it on turn 1.

If MT were banned, it's possible that Reanimator becomes the natural foil to VV and suddenly Countertop is a viable deck instead of being garbage. Fast Zoo becomes an option again. Fish has a good MU vs. Both Reanimator and CB/Top and is playable despite a poor VV MU. I'm not saying it would happen, but it could easily go that way.

I understand the concept, but this is a really bad example if you were trying to convince me that it applies here. Let me explain where I'm coming from.

First, I don't think Counter/Top is garbage right now. I think many of the versions people will play are garbage. But Dreadstill is more than a fine choice if one wants to beat Survival.

Second, I don't think Counter/Top did anything more than break even against M.Tutor ANT. When I played ANT, I lost to CB/Top once in a tournament and beat it numerous times. Testing against people who were/are better than me confirmed that this wasn't a fluke.

Of course, trying to convince people on these forums of any of this is like trying to convince people in the 1500s that Earth is not the center of the universe. I could try to pursue it, but it's definitely not worth it.

I also don't think Merfolk has a winning match against any of the above decks, for the record.

/end controversy

It just goes back to what Matt said before about personal experience. People's opinions are shaped by their experiences, but clearly we do not have the same understanding of this format to begin with so talking about it is a bit futile.

@Matt:

I had the privilege of growing up in Miami and watching Dan Marino play every Sunday. I'm biased but that guy was something else. His team completely sucked, he had bitter division rivals in the Jim Kelly Bills and the Drew Bledsoe Patriots, and despite this the Dolphins never had a losing season the entire time he was the QB because he was just that good. Vick's level of play right now is probably the best thing I've seen since Marino with maybe the exception of Peyton, but hey not even that guy could stop Vick. :)

[DragoFireheart]

With MT banned, they can safely unban Gush, Frantic Search, maybe Flash.


With MT banned... maybe Flash.

With MT banned... maybe Flash.

With MT banned... maybe Flash.

With MT banned... maybe Flash.

With MT banned... maybe Flash.

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/09/28/umpzk1b8cc.jpg

[GGoober]

Lol'd. TLJ looks more like he's more going to bash face rather than facepalm though lol. Wow, this is depressing, 4 threads on banz/don't banz Survival on Format Discussion. When will this dumb tide finally die off before the DCI decides to listen to 'voices' and unban Flash!

[android]

Or mini-vintage. Start up the Legacy restricted list. Then we can run decks with 1 Survival, 1 Flash, 1 Oath, 1 Skullclamp.........

Fuck Yeah! Magic!!

[Gui]

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
-Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

“We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”
-Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962

“640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
-Bill Gates, 1981

“Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”
-Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale, 1929

“Weather man tellin' us it ain't gon' rain
So now we sittin' in a drop-top, soaking wet”
-Outkast

LOL These arguments are soooo damn bad that they remind me the "Chewbacca Defense"

What the hell does "banning a card that was PROVEN to be STRONG by people TESTING it" have to do with "forecasts"?

Experts are generally correct about everything they can test and prove their points, that's why you are goddamn sitting in front of a computer in the first place. If you are using windows, that's because of an expert too. ¬¬

It's not necessary for the card to be widely used for it to be imbalanced or too strong. That should be stated before anyone saying that Mystical Tutor shouldn't be banned.

[Tammit67]

LOL These arguments are soooo damn bad that they remind me the "Chewbacca Defense"

What the hell does "banning a card that was PROVEN to be STRONG by people TESTING it" have to do with "forecasts"?

Experts are generally correct about everything they can test and prove their points, that's why you are goddamn sitting in front of a computer in the first place. If you are using windows, that's because of an expert too. ¬¬

It's not necessary for the card to be widely used for it to be imbalanced or too strong. That should be stated before anyone saying that Mystical Tutor shouldn't be banned.

Sure, it is proven strong. But some people predict it will dominate regardless of meta changes to VVsur's presence. Hence the allusion of quotes of people being wrong (aka dramatic effect).

Extrapolation is a tricky business. Even though they are experts, it doesn't mean they can always accurately predict the future.

[Nihil Credo]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that if your post could reasonably pass for a YouTube/4Chan comment, it's probably in your own best interest to leave it in your keyboard.

[death]

Originally Posted by death

What's so worrisome about a turn 0 Flash kill? Belcher, SI et. al does that to you occasionally.

Just saying with MT being banned and no 1cc tutor to kill you on your turn 1, the deck IS inconsistent.

/facepalm off

[Gui]

Sure, it is proven strong. But some people predict it will dominate regardless of meta changes to VVsur's presence. Hence the allusion of quotes of people being wrong (aka dramatic effect).

Extrapolation is a tricky business. Even though they are experts, it doesn't mean they can always accurately predict the future.

They weren't really predicting the future, they shouldn't ban a card just due to its dominance. Tarmogoyf is the dominant creature of the format for a while now, and I don't think it will be ever banned. FoW is the dominant counter in the format since it exists, and guess what? It won't be ever banned. They have to ban a card when decks running it just get so much better that they can win matchs when they were supposed to be weak, as in ANT beating CounterTop. You don't need 100 players to play a card for it to be strong. Not everyone played ANT, that's a fact, but if they realized, in tests, that ANT could beat the hole format with way less badmatches than most other decks, than it's too powerful.

[Bigface]

What's so worrisome about a turn 0 Flash kill? Belcher, SI et. al does that to you occasionally.

Just saying with MT being banned and no 1cc tutor to kill you on your turn 1, the deck IS inconsistent.

/facepalm off

The problem that Belcher and SI need TONS of cards to go combo, while Flash needs 2 (Flash and Hulk/S.Pact). Both Belcher and SI usually try to go off with a little to no protections on turn 1, Flash does it while relying on FoW/Pact of Negation. And so on...

The deck was insane. It even got limited in VINTAGE, where artifact deck are a reality and you can build up mana and defenses faster. Unbanning Flash is like trying to cure a cold by ripping your lungs off. The effect on Legacy would be pretty much the same.

[DragoFireheart]

What's so worrisome about a turn 0 Flash kill? Belcher, SI et. al does that to you occasionally.

Just saying with MT being banned and no 1cc tutor to kill you on your turn 1, the deck IS inconsistent.

/facepalm off


Yup, you still don't understand.

Let's look at a a Flash Hulk list:


4 Chrome Mox
4 Sensei's Divining Top

1 Body Snatcher
1 Carrion Feeder
4 Dark Confidant
1 Karmic Guide
4 Protean Hulk

4 Counterbalance

4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
1 Echoing Truth
4 Flash
4 Force of Will
4 Mystical Tutor

1 Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker

1 Massacre


3 Island
1 Swamp
3 Flooded Strand
4 Polluted Delta
1 Tropical Island
1 Tundra
1 Underground Sea


So MT is gone... Lim-Dul's Vault comes to mind.

Also, Belcher and other combo decks need a entire HAND of cards to kill turn one. Flash-Hulk needs just flash and the hulk: the rest of the hand can be counter protection like Force of Will or Daze or Pact of Negation for an infamous turn 1 kill.

[death]

LDV is a fair tutor, Flash will kill fairly on turn 2-3 with it. I agree with you that the deck is a mere 2-card combo, so is ANT: mana cards (1/3 of the deck) + 1 of either IT, or IGG, or AdN.

Without MT, only with aggressive mulliganing can Flash remain consistent. My argument here is not Flash is weak right now and needs to be unbanned immediately. But, with Mystical banned and Wotc unbanning more cards from the list, this may eventually lead to a more diverse and calm format than ANT=Reanimator>Survival>others.

[Bigface]

AnT is NOT a 2-card combo. You need the mana to find it, protect it and cast it. Then you try to combo off. You don't do all that stuff with 2 cards. Also when comboing out with Flash you just need to resolve it. It's 1 spell played for victory. AnT is a storm combo deck. Flash was a single card of mass destruction.

Also, you might want to check out the European situation. People adapted. There is no real deck that dominates the metagame. There is no need to ban Survival nor Vengevine nor unban cards like Gush, Frantic Search and expecially Flash. Fuck bannings. Survival is a fun card to play and it's probably one of the greatest cards in Magic history. It's not a simple tutor. It's an idea, a concept. People see it and can think of almost infinite possibilities to play it with. The ban would be an offense towards creativity of players that thorughout the years found new and different ways to play around the same core. It will get more powerful as long as good creatures are printed, that's for sure. Still, it's too much of a relevant, fun and creative card to be extirpated from Legacy just because people lose to a version of it. If you feel like the metagame right now is unplayable due to Vengevival, then you have 3 choices:
1) Continue complaining and ask for ban/unban without doing nothing;
2) Change deck and try to adapt yourself to the metagame;
3) Experiment. You might find out the right formula to beat Vengevival and still have decent matchups.

[GGoober]

Without MT, only with aggressive mulliganing can Flash remain consistent

This is definitely true, but there are other options to fetch Flash e.g. Merchant Scrolls (UNRESTRICTED/UNBANNED in Legacy). You're fundamentally slower by a turn, but you don't lose a card, and the deck is still broken in terms of protection and speed. Any deck that can boast running 8 pacts and not lose does not deserve to be unbanned in the format. Even with all the recent tools Legacy 'combo' decks have, I doubt they can still beat a combo deck as resilient as Flash, without hating it to do so.

Survival is going through the same era: hate is ever growing, but unlike Flash, you need quite a lot more things to go off: Survival in play and possibly pass the turn, tons of GGGGGG mana out, creature cards in hand to pitch to Survival, while maintaining protection/disruption to push it through. Just compare that to Flash aka fetchable by Merchant Scrolls, win on the spot, no combat phase, win at instant speed, 8 pacts, 8 FoWs + more protection...

[Gheizen64]

LDV is a fair tutor, Flash will kill fairly on turn 2-3 with it. I agree with you that the deck is a mere 2-card combo, so is ANT: mana cards (1/3 of the deck) + 1 of either IT, or IGG, or AdN.

Without MT, only with aggressive mulliganing can Flash remain consistent. My argument here is not Flash is weak right now and needs to be unbanned immediately. But, with Mystical banned and Wotc unbanning more cards from the list, this may eventually lead to a more diverse and calm format than ANT=Reanimator>Survival>others.

AnT a 2 card combo is like calling door to nothingness a 1 card combo. AnT need you to build the whole deck around it, flash can be run in a normal control shell with 6-7 cards. And Flash is slightly faster (and a ton more consistent) than AnT even in an heavy control shell. Have fun.