[Blog Post] Survival in Legacy

[Marske]

I've owned this blog since 2006, it's always been kind off tech related but I stopped writing in 2008. I just recently picked it up again and as I was getting into Legacy as a format I decided to post some thoughts about it. I'm curious as to what you guys think about it.

Survival in Legacy (http://www.mariusvanzundert.nl/?p=203) by Marske

[Nessaja]

Doesn't load for me.

Wished you picked a more interesting subject though. I don't understand why everyone keeps writing about the same subject. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Marske]

@Nessaja,
Fix'd the link, the software still has some bugs in it so it seems, I'll try and get those out tonight. I wrote about Survival because I wanted to share my views on it, I'll be writing about a lot of topics including Legacy more often :)

[Rune]

It's very likely that most Europeans just can't be bothered to jump on the bandwagon.dec and prefer to keep playing their pet decks instead. I posted some results from Magic-League in the Survival thread and they show the clear-cut dominance of Survival. These tournaments are mainly played by Europeans, so it would seem that the picture changes once you can play whatever deck you want without having to pay for it. The large prize structure of the SCG 5Ks might give people a bigger incentive to actually buy into the best deck of the format.

I think it's a bit naive to believe that storm decks alone are holding Survival back in Europe. Although it's a favorable matchup, the blue Survival decks are no byes for storm combo by any stretch of the imagination. Some relatively fast beats combined with maindeck Spell Pierce, Daze, FoW and Wasteland say hi.

[Amon Amarth]

It's very likely that most Europeans just can't be bothered to jump on the bandwagon.dec and prefer to keep playing their pet decks instead. I posted some results from Magic-League in the Survival thread and they show the clear-cut dominance of Survival. These tournaments are mainly played by Europeans, so it would seem that the picture changes once you can play whatever deck you want without having to pay for it. The large prize structure of the SCG 5Ks might give people a bigger incentive to actually buy into the best deck of the format.

I think it's a bit naive to believe that storm decks alone are holding Survival back in Europe. Although it's a favorable matchup, the blue Survival decks are no byes for storm combo by any stretch of the imagination. Some relatively fast beats combined with maindeck Spell Pierce, Daze, FoW and Wasteland say hi.

Any person with some experience with the deck can count to 2 and play around Spell Pierce and Daze. You already run Duress for FoW. It's really easy unless you get shitty hands.

Also I don't subscribe to the "Europeans don' t want to give up their pet decks" theory. Maybe they play the decks they know the best. Cards are no more expensive in they EU than they are here. If Survival is the best deck currently then why isn't it putting up the results that it does in the US? Maybe if you play the correct hate cards or the right deck its not that hard to beat. Everyone wants to win. Apparently you don't need Survival to do that.

[Nessaja]

It's very likely that most Europeans just can't be bothered to jump on the bandwagon.dec and prefer to keep playing their pet decks instead.
There's absolutely no evidence for this.


I posted some results from Magic-League in the Survival thread and they show the clear-cut dominance of Survival. These tournaments are mainly played by Europeans, so it would seem that the picture changes once you can play whatever deck you want without having to pay for it.
You seem to be under the impression that Survival is not dominant in numbers in Europe. That's a falacy. The only deck played more then Vengevine Survival is Goblins. Even with a large percentage of the field playing the deck the top 8 isn't flooded by it. That's not to say the deck never wins a tournament, that does mean that scenarios in the US aren't happening in Europe.


The large prize structure of the SCG 5Ks might give people a bigger incentive to actually buy into the best deck of the format.

Vengevine Survival is a cheap deck when compared to some of the decks out there. Another falacy. All of the staples except Vengevine are usually already aquired a long time ago.

[Marske]

It's very likely that most Europeans just can't be bothered to jump on the bandwagon.dec and prefer to keep playing their pet decks instead. I posted some results from Magic-League in the Survival thread and they show the clear-cut dominance of Survival. These tournaments are mainly played by Europeans, so it would seem that the picture changes once you can play whatever deck you want without having to pay for it. The large prize structure of the SCG 5Ks might give people a bigger incentive to actually buy into the best deck of the format.
This is a very stereotype line of thinking, Europeans have in my experience been more willing to "let go" of their so called "pet" decks. People playing or not playing survival doesn't have anything to do with any monetary issues as you stated, as Survival isn't THAT much more expensive then other decks in the format which require LED, Underground Sea, a set of Forces or what not.


I think it's a bit naive to believe that storm decks alone are holding Survival back in Europe. Although it's a favorable matchup, the blue Survival decks are no byes for storm combo by any stretch of the imagination. Some relatively fast beats combined with maindeck Spell Pierce, Daze, FoW and Wasteland say hi.
Well I'm not suggesting it's a "bye" or anything, I merely said that the sheer amount of presence put up by the Storm decks is counteracting the so called dominance Survival decks "should" be bringing to the table.


Any person with some experience with the deck can count to 2 and play around Spell Pierce and Daze. You already run Duress for FoW. It's really easy unless you get shitty hands.
I think you're spot on.

[DragoFireheart]

It's very likely that most Europeans just can't be bothered to jump on the bandwagon.dec and prefer to keep playing their pet decks instead.

This is absolutely hilarious and is actually what is happening in the America meta (and is also why Veggies is destroying the meta).

Storm dominates the European front. Storm kicks the crap out of Veggies. No, Daze, SP and FoW are not going to be enough to make it a favorable matchup.

[Rune]

Any person with some experience with the deck can count to 2 and play around Spell Pierce and Daze. You already run Duress for FoW. It's really easy unless you get shitty hands.


Thanks, after having played storm for over a year I still hadn't figured this out. You should have told this to Bryant Cook before the GP top 8 and he would never have lost.



There's absolutely no evidence for this.

Yes, it's speculation, just like the "storm is what's keeping Survival in check in Europe" argument is pure speculation, yet it is something that is repeated over and over again in different articles.


You seem to be under the impression that Survival is not dominant in numbers in Europe. That's a falacy. The only deck played more then Vengevine Survival is Goblins. Even with a large percentage of the field playing the deck the top 8 isn't flooded by it. That's not to say the deck never wins a tournament, that does mean that scenarios in the US aren't happening in Europe.

No, I didn't know it was the 2nd most played deck in Europe (but I'm aware it is somewhat heavily played). If this is really the case, I'd like to be pointed to some kind of evidence that backs your claim up.




Anyway, no one addressed the only important point of my post: Survival dominates a European metagame completely when you don't have to buy the acual deck Just very peculiar, in my opinion.

[Tinefol]

I think that a mere fact that these Survival articles keep popping up every other day is an indication of the problem, however you look at it.

Despite all that you claim, Survival clearly shows up in top8s across the Europe. Sometimes as much as 4 of. And no, Storm isn't dominating it, either.

Source: http://deckcheck.org

[Marske]

Thanks, after having played storm for over a year I still hadn't figured this out. You should have told this to Bryant Cook before the GP top 8 and he would never have lost.
This is a strange statement to make, I can't tell if you're trying to say Bryant didn't know this and as such didn't play around it or if you're trying to claim he couldn't play around it in any way. Also, there are tons of other factors going on at a GP Top 8 (stress levels, anxiety, fatigue) then just not being able to deal with something.


Yes, it's speculation, just like the "storm is what's keeping Survival in check in Europe" argument is pure speculation, yet it is something that is repeated over and over again in different articles.

No it's not speculation, Dutch Legacy Champs (206 players) had a single Survival (Ooze) list make top 8, ANT won the entire event, there were plenty of Survival decks present, most of them at the middle tables.


No, I didn't know it was the 2nd most played deck in Europe (but I'm aware it is somewhat heavily played). If this is really the case, I'd like to be pointed to some kind of evidence that backs your claim up.
Again I'd like to point to the most recent big event I know off (Dutch Legacy champs) and the results shown there can be found in here the result (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?18897-Dutch-Eternal-Championships-%2821-11-vintage-14-11-Legacy%29-Eindhoven) section.


I think that a mere fact that these Survival articles keep popping up every other day is an indication of the problem, however you look at it.
The fact that people are arguing about this isn't any indication at all. People will want to "bitch" about something, we've got a lot of discussion going back and forth from two camps but that's not an indication something is broken.

[Tinefol]

No it's not speculation, Dutch Legacy Champs (206 players) had a single Survival (Ooze) list make top 8, ANT won the entire event, there where plenty of Survival decks present, most of them at the middle tables.

You know, Europe isn't all about Netherlands. Even if it had one 200 players tournament recently.

[DragoFireheart]

I think that a mere fact that these Survival articles keep popping up every other day is an indication of the problem, however you look at it.

Despite all that you claim, Survival clearly shows up in top8s across the Europe. Sometimes as much as 4 of. And no, Storm isn't dominating it, either.

Source: http://deckcheck.org


Your evidence is not only uncompelling, it's laggy. I saw a varied meta.

[Tinefol]

Your evidence is not only uncompelling, it's laggy. I saw a varied meta.

Never did I claim it was unvaried. I just have a feeling that people are so defendant in their point of view that they start claiming really wild things like:

1) Storm is dominating
2) Survival sucks and doesn't win anything

Neither thing seems to be true.



The fact that people are arguing about this isn't any indication at all. People will want to "bitch" about something, we've got a lot of discussion going back and forth from two camps but that's not an indication something is broken.

I've yet to remember anything people argued about as much as recent uprise of Vengevine Survival. No, lackey, counterbalance, sdt, flash, etc didn't even make it close.

[Marske]

You know, Europe isn't all about Netherlands. Even if it had one 200 players tournament recently.
So people ask me to point them towards results showing A ) Survival decks in the meta and B ) Survival decks not dominating said meta, which I do, then people want to dismiss the entire tournament because it's not looking at the bigger picture... ok, right, so we can dismiss every other tournament as well going by these criteria.


Never did I claim it was unvaried. I just have a feeling that people are so defendant in their point of view that they start claiming really wild things like:

1) Storm is dominating
2) Survival sucks and doesn't win anything

Neither thing seems to be true.
I never claimed any of the things you mentioned, I actually happen to think Legacy is at a decent place right now. I also happen to think there will always be 1-2 strategies that are obviously going to be the best choices, there's nothing wrong with this as long as other things are playable as well.


I've yet to remember anything people argued about as much as recent uprise of Vengevine Survival. No, lackey, counterbalance, sdt, flash, etc didn't even make it close.
Obviously you haven't been on any Vintage Forums (OMG Time Vault Kill it !!!11!!!) or around people playing Standard (OMG Jace,TMS is SOOO expensive / broken / busted / blue) This is obviously not a stab at Vintage / Standard players (far from it) but point is, people will bitch about something endlessly... it gets even more out of hand when "name" players start posting thoughts.

[Lemnear]

Marius is right.

Just because 40% of the field is playing the deck at a 5K's doesn't mean it's broken. It's a turn 5 creature based kill! Every graveyard removal or counter could stop it!

The new top of stupidness is reached on SCG. Evan Erwin pointed out that Jace was recently 28 times in a T8 in Standard ... 28 times! He argues Jace shouldn't be banned for money reasons and because it's ONLY Standard legal till fall 2011!!!

... but ban Survival ... for whatever reason

The Necropotence example is total bullshit 'cause Survival has as much in common with Necro than Force of Will with Forbid.

But those are the people WotC listens ... I fear

[Marske]

Marius is right.

Just because 40% of the field is playing the deck at a 5K's doesn't mean it's broken. It's a turn 5 creature based kill! Every graveyard removal or counter could stop it!

The new top of stupidness is reached on SCG. Evan Erwin pointed out that Jace was recently 28 times in a T8 in Standard ... 28 times! He argues Jace shouldn't be banned for money reasons and because it's ONLY Standard legal till fall 2011!!!

... but ban Survival ... for whatever reason

The Necropotence example is total bullshit 'cause Survival has as much in common with Necro than Force of Will with Forbid.

But those are the people WotC listens ... I fear
Thanks!

I don't think this is the case as the DCI has not been going by what players are saying, if this where the case Mystical Tutor would have never been banned if I can believe the majority of the players.

[keys]

Marius is right.

Just because 40% of the field is playing the deck at a 5K's doesn't mean it's broken.

True, BUT 40% of the field could be playing it and it can still be broken.


It's a turn 5 creature based kill!
Zoo is a turn 5 creature based kill. Survival is a turn 3 combo kill with an aggro backup plan.


Every graveyard removal or counter could stop it!
Wheel of Sun and Moon is a joke. Versus Leyline, Relic, Crypt, and Spellbomb, the Survival player can tutor up a Pridemage or Trygon. Faerie Macabre, Relic, Crypt, and Spellbomb can be Stifled. Extirpate is the only sure thing, but it can't be played in every deck, and it doesn't kill them. Lots of versions run Natural Order in the sideboard if they expect significant graveyard hate.

Counters are not effective against Vengevines, although they can slow down the engine. But most decks with counters do not have the clock to still win (except for Dreadstill).

[Lemnear]

I've noticed much complaint about Reanimator since my pal Andreas Müller won that Madrid GP with reanimator

Coverage here (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gpmad10/welcome)

That was the Moment Reanimator became a threat instead of being noticed as a pet deck. The discussion about Survival and reanimator has much in common, especially since both Decks have the same weaknesses (dump creatures in the grave and get them back).

I'm sure all that crying at least lead WotC to take several closer looks at Cards/results. It would be sad and stupid if SotF gets the hammer 'cause it won't see Play in the last format it's legal (vintage), since we know there's a better 1G enchantment around....

[Lemnear]

@keys:

Counter vs. Survival is Not effective? Afraid of 2GG 4/3 haste hardcasted? Sure there are options for the Survival players to defend themselves but is it unfair if ANT plays Duress? Are you really complaining that Survival is unfair 'cause you can't/refuse to play efficient hate in your deck? Even Goblins Play relic of Progenitus mainboard this days ... Get over it!

And plz Show me how Survival kills turn 3 ... I'm veeeeeeeeery interested ... and I mean "Survival" ... not random shit like discarding 3 vines and a walla for a Turn 2 mongrel

[frenchy-man]

I do own a UG survival deck. There will be a huge tournament in december in France. I won't play survival. It is clearly not a good choice in the meta, and absolutely not broken.

[SlopeeJ]

And plz Show me how Survival kills turn 3 ... I'm veeeeeeeeery interested ... and I mean "Survival" ... not random shit like discarding 3 vines and a walla for a Turn 2 mongrel

turn 1 Forest Noble Hierarch
turn 2 Forest Survival, pitch vengevine for vengevine
turn 3 forest tap 3 forest. Hierarch, 4 vengevine in the graveyard. Get Rootwalla, shield/memnite swing for 16.

So you must have had an awesome turn 2 and your turn 3 must be the nutz or you lose, but your right it's not a turn 3 kill...... Orcish Lumberjack speeds it up a turn as well.

Lemnear, your post is a joke

[frenchy-man]

turn four creature-based-kill supposing you are playing against a goldfish. ANT can goldfish t1 you know ?

[SlopeeJ]

Where has anyone ever said Ant can't kill on turn 1, you know? What does Ant having a hand of the right 7 cards have to do with a combo based kill of Survival Vengevine? Absolutely nothing. Notice the key words there, 7 right cards. Same with belcher. Combo players like to think that the combo world is perfect and every game, boom your dead on turn one but that doesn't always happen.

He said show me how Survival wins on turn 3 and I did. The life left after the first Vengevine swing is hardly relevant when you look it. The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Survival resolved.

[majikal]

He said show me how Survival wins on turn 3 and I did.
Except you didn't.


The life left after the first Vengevine swing is hardly relevant when you look it.
How is that? Barring something like Ad Nauseam, a player's life total is only relevant when it is zero.


The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Survival resolved.
Wait... this seems familiar.


The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Show and Tell resolved.

The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Counterbalance resolved.

The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Aluren resolved.

The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Dread Return resolved.

The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Standstill resolved.

The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Empty the Warrens resolved.

The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Hypergenesis resolved.

On a more serious note... let's examine this statement again:

The game was actually over on turn 2 when the Survival resolved.
Why was it over exactly? There are still quite a few ways to meaningfully interact with a resolved Survival on turn 2. Pithing Needle, Nature's Claim, Chain of Vapor, Extirpate on your Vengevines/Triskelion/Iona, Faerie Macabre/Ravenous Trap in response to Vengevine triggers, Orim's Chant in response to Basking Rootwalla, Yixlid Jailer, Meddling Mage on Basking Rootwalla, Wheel of Sun and Moon, Entomb and Reanimate Blazing Archon/Iona naming green, combo off ftw on your own turn. And of course let's not forget the fact that you can just counter it. Spell Snare is criminally underplayed right now. Hell, if there ends up being enough Counterbalance, Moat, Humility, Top, Explosives, Deed, etc, in the format in addition to Survival, even Annul starts to look pretty sexy at this point.

[Rico Suave]

It's very likely that most Europeans just can't be bothered to jump on the bandwagon.dec and prefer to keep playing their pet decks instead.

I am speaking as an American when I say most Americans can't be bothered to do the same thing either.

[keys]

@keys:

Counter vs. Survival is Not effective? Afraid of 2GG 4/3 haste hardcasted? Sure there are options for the Survival players to defend themselves but is it unfair if ANT plays Duress? Are you really complaining that Survival is unfair 'cause you can't/refuse to play efficient hate in your deck? Even Goblins Play relic of Progenitus mainboard this days ... Get over it!

And plz Show me how Survival kills turn 3 ... I'm veeeeeeeeery interested ... and I mean "Survival" ... not random shit like discarding 3 vines and a walla for a Turn 2 mongrel

Counters are a road bump for Survival. It has inevitability unless the control deck has a quick clock (a la Dreadnought). Hardcasting Vengevines is part of the aggro backup plan that makes the deck so resilient. ANT and other pure combo decks are considerably more vulnerable to sideboard hate and counters, and you're ignorant if you think otherwise.

Maindeck Relic of Progenitus all you like, I will just survival up a Predator and force you to blow it before I go off.

The only "efficient hate" against Vengevine is the narrow Extirpate. Even if you play that, I can still go aggro with Goyfs/Knights and Jittes, go for Ooze kill, or transform into Natural Order depending on the version I'm running.

Comparing the goldfish of the deck to that of ANT is pointless, because the deck isn't going for a speed kill.

[GGoober]

"The game was actually over on turn 2 when you played the game" because someone has to end it, with or without SotF.

[Lemnear]

I See majikal get's my point that dealing up to 16 damage with a perfect 7 and a goldfish opponent is not "killing turn 3"

@keys again: First of all ... I was rough yesterday night (Local Time) so I have to say sorry for the aggressive post.
You're Talking about digging up a predator ... Until it kills the relic, goblins had killed you. Moreover is GW Survival a midrange beatdown Deck with creatures in 2/3/4 mana slots and a Aggro-Combo with Survival inside. It's Not that it could be named broken because of it's creature-Plan.

I compared Survival sb to ANT duresses Cuz both protect their combo ... It's Not pointless

[dahcmai]

Ah, to remember the days of people complaining that Juzam Djinn was "Too good".

[SlopeeJ]

Excellent well thought out response majikal, clearly the examples you listed are in the same category power wise compared to survival. Though I will give you that a turn 2 show and tell drop a fatty is pretty good. I would ask you to explain how that is the same as the combo enable/tutor in one card that Survival of the Fittest is but I don't see it going anywhere. All the cards you listed are straight terrible, with maybe the exception of extirpate which really isn't that great because survival can just do the opposite.


Good luck with your Meddling Mage on Rootwalla or your annuls, I think you just broke the format

[troopatroop]

Excellent well thought out response majikal, clearly the examples you listed are in the same category power wise compared to survival. Though I will give you that a turn 2 show and tell drop a fatty is pretty good. I would ask you to explain how that is the same as the combo enable/tutor in one card that Survival of the Fittest is but I don't see it going anywhere. All the cards you listed are straight terrible, with maybe the exception of extirpate which really isn't that great because survival can just do the opposite.


Good luck with your Meddling Mage on Rootwalla or your annuls, I think you just broke the format

Dislike. You mean to tell me that Standstill/Hypergenesis/ETW/or Counterbalance can't be just as devastating turn 2? He makes a good point. It's not Survival that's broken, it's the fucking VINES!

[rleader]

Ah, to remember the days of people complaining that Juzam Djinn was "Too good".


Heck, I played Phyrexian War Beast and liked it; it survived lightning bolt and ate Kird Apes / knights and could be played off of ritual!



it's the fucking VINES!


[cardname] U
Enchantment
Creatures lose haste

?

[majikal]

All the cards you listed are straight terrible, with maybe the exception of extirpate which really isn't that great because survival can just do the opposite.
And what exactly is your metric for judging a hate card to be good? Part of adapting is trying different cards to try and solve the problem. It's no fucking wonder Survival is dominating everything if your attitude is shared by the majority. Have fun losing until some "pro" proves some card on my list to be good.

But I mean you're welcome to just dismiss my post without providing any reasoning, because we all know that's how arguments are won, right?

[SlopeeJ]

But I mean you're welcome to just dismiss my post without providing any reasoning, because we all know that's how arguments are won, right?

I have said my argument and gave reasons for why I think survival is to strong. All you have done is to say survival is fine because magic has other powerful cards, which clearly isn't even an argument and avoids the whole problem with survival. (some of your suggestions of similar power are standstill, empty, counterbalance, show and tell etc) I have stated none of those cards are a tutor and combo enabler in one card, you have stated nothing but said a resolved standstill etc is just as powerful. Where it clearly is not due to the reason I have stated.

Then you precede to throw at random cards like you have turrets syndrome because it stops enchantments or the graveyard etc. If you have tested any of those cards then you would know that most of those cards are situational at best. I'm sorry I don't need some pro to tell me annul and other shitty cards are not that good vs survival due to the decks multiple areas of attack. It's not just a graveyard deck, it's not just a combo deck and it's not just an aggro deck. That is the problem with most of the cards you mention they are situational, in case you don't know what that means I will give you an example. You have that annul ready to own survival and they cast shaman instead or just go aggro with vengevines. Same with extirpate, they just pitch shitty creatures for good creatures or they have a backup combo plan. (ooze, 10/10, Iona etc) Or maybe they will cabal therapy or thoughtseize. As far as the pro's coming up with ideas to beat it, believe me there are plenty of people that play way more magic then you or I that can come up with ways to beat survival. How many tourney's in a row now has it dominated?

So again I understand magic has different card situations and there are some powerful cards in legacy... Thanks for sharing those with me, but they have nothing to do with survival. So if you still can't see my reasoning then we don't agree. If you want to have a discussion then I am more than happy to discuss survival with you or anyone else. But until you actually have an argument it's kinda tough. I would also gladly discuss other cards that seems pretty broken to me if you would like to that as well, but I don't think that is the point of this topic.


PS I enjoy playing creature decks and survival trumps all aggro plans, so sorry if I don't adapt to playing combo or survival


And what exactly is your metric for judging a hate card to be good?

Umm the card has to work

[Marske]

I have said my argument and gave reasons for why I think survival is to strong. All you have done is to say survival is fine because magic has other powerful cards, which clearly isn't even an argument and avoids the whole problem with survival. (some of your suggestions of similar power are standstill, empty, counterbalance, show and tell etc) I have stated none of those cards are a tutor and combo enabler in one card, you have stated nothing but said a resolved standstill etc is just as powerful. Where it clearly is not due to the reason I have stated.

Then you precede to throw at random cards like you have turrets syndrome because it stops enchantments or the graveyard etc. If you have tested any of those cards then you would know that most of those cards are situational at best. I'm sorry I don't need some pro to tell me annul and other shitty cards are not that good vs survival due to the decks multiple areas of attack. It's not just a graveyard deck, it's not just a combo deck and it's not just an aggro deck. That is the problem with most of the cards you mention they are situational, in case you don't know what that means I will give you an example. You have that annul ready to own survival and they cast shaman instead or just go aggro with vengevines. Same with extirpate, they just pitch shitty creatures for good creatures or they have a backup combo plan. (ooze, 10/10, Iona etc) Or maybe they will cabal therapy or thoughtseize. As far as the pro's coming up with ideas to beat it, believe me there are plenty of people that play way more magic then you or I that can come up with ways to beat survival. How many tourney's in a row now has it dominated?

So again I understand magic has different card situations and there are some powerful cards in legacy... Thanks for sharing those with me, but they have nothing to do with survival. So if you still can't see my reasoning then we don't agree. If you want to have a discussion then I am more than happy to discuss survival with you or anyone else. But until you actually have an argument it's kinda tough. I would also gladly discuss other cards that seems pretty broken to me if you would like to that as well, but I don't think that is the point of this topic.

PS I enjoy playing creature decks and survival trumps all aggro plans, so sorry if I don't adapt to playing combo or survival

Umm the card has to work
Really now?!

THIS STRATEGY BEATS EVERYTHING I TRY OMG BAN IT!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!.......

Seriously guys, Survival dominating, as I said in the original Blog post. Has everything to do with the fact that they face random_aggro_dork.dec 5 of the 8 rounds in the US.... so straight up aggro (Zoo, Goblins, White Weenie) isn't playable?! Who cares... (insert random flame from people playing those decks, which they shouldn't, I won't respond but go ahead anyway)

Survival isn't an all powerfull machine ready to take everything down, it's not THAT good... It's good don't get me wrong, it's probably totally unfair... If you're not able to stop creatures from beating down what the heck are you doing vs Goblins ? Which are able to almost match survival's Vengevine production without relying on resolving any enchantment first.

Pithing Needle is an awesome weapon to have maindeck in Legacy as it shuts down A LOT of the stuff that's going down, it also happens to be pretty good vs Survival AND Shaman. Which leaves people to casting Vengevines and again, if you're not able to handle 4/3 green haste dudes being hardcasted on turn 3 you should examine your deck and probably start playing Standard. Oh come to think of it, no, don't, the same thing is happening there!! (the format's btw quite fine and in no way is a 4/3 haste or multiple 4/3 haste dudes on turn 3-4 busted enough)

Peacekeeper has been extremely successful in fighting Survival, the Dreadstill build my team developed (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/extended/20086_Whats_Peacekeeper_Do_First_Place_With_Ubw_Dreadstill.html) has been reliably beating Survival (Ooze and Non-Ooze build), TES has reliably been beating Survival there are ways to beat the deck.

The fact that people keep trying to play aggro decks against stuff like TES, Survival, Dreadstill etc is a clear showing of people not thinking it through. Legacy might be the place where you can always play with your cards, it's not the place where you can always play your pet deck and expect to win...which is the mentality most players seem to have. This might have been the case years ago, when the format was in it's infancy, it's now a format that's grown up and all grown up formats have a top strategy.

[Lemnear]

+1


I'm amused ... did I just say, in another Survival Thread on this board, that my personal experience is, that zoo and other pure aggro deck players are always the first one's to cry for a ban, if any strategy becomes better than their play-creature-attack...

The main claim is that vengevine is a 4/3 haste for G (all the conditions to make that happen seem to be ignored anyways all over the board by named players group) but ... seriously ... what's so different to zoo's strategy to play 3/3's for G or Goblins for a 10/2 warchief-hasted-and-cost-reduced Piledriver for R?

Vengevine is a green Piledriver ... Jesus!

[Marske]

@Lemnear,
Well if you did you where right. Like I said in the original blog post. If there's anything that's "busted" regarding the entire strategy it's Survival of the Fittest. Now, there isn't a single reason to ban Survival imho or take any other kind of action...

If every "play creature, declare attack, scoop to combo" player would just pick up a deck that's actually capable of fighting battles on the stack and that also has the ability to be totally unfair (because, well this is an Eternal format, things should be unfair) things would start to look a whole lot more grim for Survival players....But then again, we'd probably be having this conversation regarding Tendrils of Agony (which obviously put combo decks over the top compared to stroking somebody to death or some other shenanigans)

[Catitas]

Survival isnt busted in europe for a simple reason, we have a true varied meta, of course americans dont have that, cause they only play their pet decks...
I've searching in some sites and i found that in many top8 across europe, survival top8's, but isnt dominant there're several strategies that crush survival...(ANT, Life, TES, Solidarity, Big Zoo, Dreadstill, Dark horizons, Enchantress, Doomsday, Dredge...)

Of course is a lot easier to play survival, if you dont have time to playtest possible alternatives, survival is an easy deck to play and consistent wich doesnt mean is dominant in any way...

http://www.magic-ville.com/fr/decks/decklists?format=LE

The link has several big tournments across the globe compare the american tournments with the european tournments and you'll find out the answer...

[Team America]

From that link looking just 5 european tournaments down shows...

Legacy France Cup Final 2010 - T1.5
joué le 17/10/2010

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Decks
Survival Ug
1 - Patrick "patoch" Bouvier

Big Zoo
2 - Camille Fenet

Bant
3/4 - Laurent "mangetonlion" Guillaume

Big Zoo
3/4 - Stéphane "StephR" Roumanille

Survival Gur
5/8 - Simon Rouze

Elfball
5/8 - Lucien Colnet

Maverick
5/8 - Jean Marie Desruelle

Survival Gbw
5/8 - Yann Belmer

For sure survival isn't doing well there, it only got 3 of the top 8 iinstead of 4 or more. It isn't doing well here in the west coast of the US neither, it got 1st in the last prize tournament with 50 people but no other spots, and the last weekend mox tournament there were only 3 survivals in the top 8. I say we only start worrying about survival when it starts getting 7-8 spots of the top 8.

[Marske]

@Team America,
See thanks for bringing that up, because it wins 1 out of 5 tournaments and is a common piece of T8's it's totally banworthy (?!) according to most people. Holy cow's batman, with that logic we should start bringing down the Banhammer on a LOT of cards.... I'm glad you brought that up.


For sure survival isn't doing well there, it only got 3 of the top 8 iinstead of 4 or more. It isn't doing well here in the west coast of the US neither, it got 1st in the last prize tournament with 50 people but no other spots, and the last weekend mox tournament there were only 3 survivals in the top 8. I say we only start worrying about survival when it starts getting 7-8 spots of the top 8.
aren't these acceptable numbers? It only indicates Survival is a tier one strategy and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

[Rico Suave]

I say we only start worrying about survival when it starts getting 7-8 spots of the top 8.

That's a pretty high bar to set. There have only been, what, 2 cards ever printed to achieve this level of dominance?

[Marske]

@Rico_Suave,
Well, looking at the bare facts, I don't think the number in which Survival decks are represented in the Top 8's in Europe should warrant any banning. There's something to be said about this however as clearly perspectives on when a strategy is considered to be so unfair it warrants banning may differ from person to person.

For me, the criteria has always been, when playing anything else becomes totally unviable (as in it's not realistic for you to win an event playing a different deck) that's when you should start to consider doing something about it.

[Rico Suave]

Right. I wasn't trying to suggest that Survival be banned, on the contrary I'm pretty sure we've talked about this a bit and we both see eye to eye on the subject.

I was merely pointing out that "wait until the deck reaches 7-8 copies per top 8" is a very poor suggestion. Decks can create unhealthy and unenjoyable environments without putting up half of those results, though I don't think that applies in this situation.

[Marske]

@Rico,
Yeah, I guess you misunderstood what I meant or I failed at making it clear (more likely), I was merely trying to say I agreed with your previous post. (and with it give my opinion on when things should be banned etc)

[voltron00x]

It seems to me that there are a large number of new Legacy players competing in the SCG Legacy circuit. Those players are likely to gravitate to the following:

a) Decks that win events
b) Decks that internet writers say are good

Survival, in the US (where combo has not been as popular as Legacy as it has been in Europe over the past 2 years), meets both of those criteria.

So, perhaps some responsibility falls on others to show people what decks are available that can beat Survival, in a manner more comprehensive and explanatory than, “play combo, dummies!” In Europe, the field percentage of Storm decks is high enough to push them into the top 8, while in the US it appears that Storm is, more than anything, just not seeing play.

Max did a good thing the past two weeks, providing the most detailed information on TES in Legacy produced in a long period of time. I know I have personally received a number of emails asking about TES, and having Max’s articles as a resource makes it easy to help people.

The article I’m writing currently is a higher-level view of combo in Legacy, as there are a number of combo decks in the format that haven’t received much press lately but are perfectly capable of beating up on Survival decks.

I would certainly hope that the format is still capable of adjusting, even without Mystical Tutor, and I suppose it might be helpful if those of us in a position to do so helped nudge the format, to the extent that we can.

I still feel, however, that in the mind of the masses, there is a logical train of thought that those who were pro-MT’s banning helped create, which goes:

1. Mystical Tutor was what made ANT so good
2. Mystical Tutor is now banned
3. ANT (which is inclusive, for most recent players, of the entire Tendrils strategy) is now not any good, as it lacks Mystical Tutor
4. Tendrils decks have not won any large events in the US since MT was banned, supporting 3.

Tendrils, Dredge, Elves, Breakfast, Belcher, etc – some combo deck needs to crack into the Finals of an SCG event for people to wake up and take notice. I don’t think your average SCG Legacy competitor is aware of the long and storied history of very strong Legacy combo decks, even those from 3-4 years ago (Iggy Pop, Flash, Breakfast, etc).

[GGoober]

Matt, don't forget that the "new" Legacy players are probably the ones playing Standard, hence they can use their Vengevines and play with a good Type 2 card to do the turn-creatures-sideways-with-a-Fauna-Shaman-on-drugs.


On a side-note:
I realized that most of the time you lose to Vengevival is due to the unfamiliarity to deal with the deck. For instance, typically when a Survival player lands a Survival, what is the natural instinct? To answer it of course! But let me outline why this play is different in the case of Vengevival:

E.g. Last week I played against Vengevival UG. My hand was:
1 StP, 1 Factory, 1 Underground Sea, 1 Tundra, 1 Extirpate, 1 EE, 1 Brainstorm.

He played Turn 2 Survival which I had no FoW. I dropped EE and lost when he went Vengevine Vengevine Basking + Memnite bring back 2 Vengevine. Had I not dropped EE and forced him to setup what he did, a single Extirpate would have removed his Vengevines, leaving him with just a Basking and Rootwalla. He mentioned he had no other creature cards in hand.

VVival is a deck that is super fast, but does not truly abuse Survival (i.e. it does not abuse Survival the way a toolbox traditional Survival deck does). They only want to abuse Suvival for 1-2 turns to get 4/3 beaters that give them a backup plan even when removed. I realized my mistake immediately after dropping the EE@2. By dropping EE@2 to try to answer Survival (which is not a bad play against traditional Survival decks), I have allowed my opponents to sneak in 2 Vengevines that I could not deal with. Since Vengevival's main attack is to get VV out ASAP, the better play would have been to ignore the Survival on the board, and know that the VV player was going this route anyway since Survival wasn't countered. Doing so that Extirpate would have 'timewalked' him, while letting him put a Basking + Memnite in play (not too impressive) and possibly run out of cards to pitch to Survival. Even if he could follow up with a pitched Goyf, I would have the StP in hand for that and EE next turn to deal with the enchantment. The mistake was realizing that VVival is not a deck that plays like traditional Survival. An active Survival is actually not THAT scary if you have Extirpate in your hand. Since they don't run squee to recouperate card loss, a single extirpate can be a huge tempo loss for them, which you follow up with other answers to their engine.

I thought I would like to share this, because I definitely learned a hard lesson from this play mistake, and it shows that going so far to perfecting your matchups and understanding the decks in Legacy goes a long distance in winning games!

[keys]

Even if he could follow up with a pitched Goyf, I would have the StP in hand for that and EE next turn to deal with the enchantment.

umm is that a misplay in your made up scenario?




Anyway, it seems to me that when people say everyone needs to adapt to Survival, they mean everyone should play Extirpate. I don't disagree with the suggestion... it is the only reliable answer to Vengevine. But it doesn't win the game, since most Survival decks have plan B's and C's. More on topic with the discussion, is a format of Survival decks and Extirpate (i.e. black) decks a healthy/fun format?

[GGoober]

It sure isn't. I ran Extirpate in UWb before Vengevival was out. It sure isn't a dead card outside of Survival matchups. Extirpate is just as useful against Vengevival as it is useful against control/combo although it particularly shines against Survival.

I feel that it is the most reliable answer to Vengevines. It doesn't answer Survival but my example was to show how the deck design of Vengevival is focused mainly on dumping Vengevines, and the key thing to stop first is Vengevines, and not Survival (if you FoW'd, Snared it that's great but what I'm saying that unlike other Survival decks, an activate Survival in Vengevival is only relevant in 1-2 turns. The deck doesn't really recycle the engine turn after turn to completely overwhelm opponents. It seeks to dump out everything fast in 1-2 turns, and rely on VV as a strong backup plan to win games).

You can pithing needle Survival, but they'll grab their Fauna's and start it out again, or just discard 1-2 via discard outlets. IMO once you've dealt with Vengevines, everything else is a subpar and terrible survival strategy. The difficulty is that you have to deal with VV AND a weaker-survival engine out later. So the SB strategy is argubly more problematic, but I think the main problem is knowing what to do since the deck is very unconventional in its ways of executing attacks.

(The above post is from a Landstill/control standpoint, I don't know what Zoo/Gobs do against Survival so don't apply what I said to other decks. In control, once you extirpated Vengevines, you'll have StP/EE/Humility/Jace/Needles/Crypts to deal with a subpar survival deck, and this is do-able, the issue is whether you can neuter one of their attack outlets before they overwhelm you with the weaker subpar survival-engine).

TBH, if the Vengevival lists ran 1 Squee, I would have a tough time with control against it. Because they can implement the pressurizing VV beats that I have to answer, and while doing so, setup some advantage with more and more goyfs with Squee. But I don't play Vengevival so maybe Squee is a bad card (too slow for their tastes) but just chiming in how I would find it extremely tough to deal with VV and Survival + Squee. Survival without Squee gives control players a glimmer of hope because I know you are running out of cards as well i.e. generating no card advantage and my removal should match your threats (assuming VV has been dealt with since no removals match VVs+Survival)

[keys]

What sure isn't? The format being healthy/fun? I have no idea what your point is. I paraphrased your previous post by saying "Play Extirpate" and then you added zero substance in another 500 words. This is why the Survival/Vengevine banning discussion is tired.

[GGoober]

What sure isn't?

Playing a format of Survival v.s. Extirpate is not fun at all.

But in all seriousness, until the US metagame decides not to play Survival, this is the only way out. It's just like if everyone refuses to not play Jund/Faeries in Standard then everyone will be playing with Fallouts, Celestial Purges and other crappy hate cards.

I don't buy the Survival is the problem because it's just the US metagame (more accurately SCG metagames) that are so skewed in heavily playing Survival. There are plenty of decks out there right now that can beat it, it involves hate cards, but every deck that becomes popular requires to be hated e.g. Goblins, Ichorid etc. I would go so far to say that if Ichorid was 60% played in a given metagame, 4 Crypts would not be sufficient to beat it. If Vengevival was just sparingly played, this trend of running Extirpate v.s. Survival would not exist in the first place.

Now you can counter argue because it's the best deck in Legacy therefore why not play it? Then I think many of us will say that it isn't the best deck. Then we start this BS controversy that gets tired since this dead horse has been long enough for the past few months...

[Koby]

I'm fairly sure in a recent LA tournament, 100% of VV decks made top 8. keys and lorddotm can confirm this.

I only faced 2 decks with Black with access to Extirpate. Both decks were also VV/Survival, so ... ya.

[keys]

I'm fairly sure in a recent LA tournament, 100% of VV decks made top 8. keys and lorddotm can confirm this.

I only faced 2 decks with Black with access to Extirpate. Both decks were also VV/Survival, so ... ya.

I left before top 8 and I didn't see a report yet but I heard something similar.

[Marske]

Playing a format of Survival v.s. Extirpate is not fun at all.

But in all seriousness, until the US metagame decides not to play Survival, this is the only way out. It's just like if everyone refuses to not play Jund/Faeries in Standard then everyone will be playing with Fallouts, Celestial Purges and other crappy hate cards.
There are decks out there, not running black or Extirpate, that are capable of beating Survival and are doing so, we're not playing in a Extirpate vs Survival meta.

Not playing a certain strategy just seems very weird to me (a soft ban or gentleman's agreement whatever you call it). Also calling certain cards "Crappy hate cards" is also rather strange as they obviously aren't crappy when they are making you not lose the game. Each card has a different scale of "valuable" during all kinds of situations, really crappy cards can become invaluable and good cards can turn crappy in an instant.


I don't buy the Survival is the problem because it's just the US metagame (more accurately SCG metagames) that are so skewed in heavily playing Survival. There are plenty of decks out there right now that can beat it, it involves hate cards, but every deck that becomes popular requires to be hated e.g. Goblins, Ichorid etc. I would go so far to say that if Ichorid was 60% played in a given metagame, 4 Crypts would not be sufficient to beat it. If Vengevival was just sparingly played, this trend of running Extirpate v.s. Survival would not exist in the first place.

Now you can counter argue because it's the best deck in Legacy therefore why not play it? Then I think many of us will say that it isn't the best deck. Then we start this BS controversy that gets tired since this dead horse has been long enough for the past few months...
Good point... similar to what I said, people just need to learn to adapt and deal with the deck.

[FieryBalrog]

For me, the criteria has always been, when playing anything else becomes totally unviable (as in it's not realistic for you to win an event playing a different deck) that's when you should start to consider doing something about it.

That has never happened in the history of magic.

Stop moving the goalposts, people.

[Artowis]

That has never happened in the history of magic.

Stop moving the goalposts, people.

Call.

Most obvious being Pro Tour Tinker. Also GP Flash and the 5 minutes Grim Jar was legal also fall under it.

Despite that I agree that the concept of everything else having to be completely unviable before considering banning is a bit too extreme. Necro-Trix and Skullclamp Affinity were far and away the best decks, but other decks still won, doesn't mean it was good for the format to have them around.

[Grollub]

Call.

Most obvious being Pro Tour Tinker. Also GP Flash and the 5 minutes Grim Jar was legal also fall under it.

Despite that I agree that the concept of everything else having to be completely unviable before considering banning is a bit too extreme. Necro-Trix and Skullclamp Affinity were far and away the best decks, but other decks still won, doesn't mean it was good for the format to have them around.
The Pro Tour and GP both had non-tinker/flash deck(s) in the top 8. Jar was never played in large tournaments, but it did however have a few reports on the dojo about sweeping top 8s (1.5 hour tournaments for the win!).

Minor nitpicking aside I agree.

[FieryBalrog]

Call.

Most obvious being Pro Tour Tinker.

Psychatog.

The closest though.



Also GP Flash

Not even close.

[DragoFireheart]

One thing is for sure: WotC does not ban due solely to the crying level of the player base. They banned Mystical Tutor even though many thought it should not have been. They will not ban Survival of the Fittest solely because people are crying about how broken it is or because BDM thinks it may. If anything, they may not ban it since it is now a valuable card in the secondary market: banning it would cause the price to crash, which would upset card dealers. They may lose faith in WoTC ability to keep cards viable as they will be wondering if they should ever buy/sell hot cards only for them to get banned.

Note that Mystical Tutor was never a very expensive card, hence the banning didn't really change it's price by too much. SoTF is 40-60 dollars: banning it would easily cause it to drop to 20 or less. The same was true of Flash: the banning of the card didn't drop it's value that much.

Evidence of my speculation? Look at the Reserved list. If Wizards truly placed players at a higher priority than profit, they would reprint dual lands to stimulate the Legacy format. If they did reprint duals, card dealers and collectors would lose faith in them to maintain other cards on said list.

[FieryBalrog]

Evidence of my speculation? Look at the Reserved list. If Wizards truly placed players at a higher priority than profit, they would reprint dual lands to stimulate the Legacy format. If they did reprint duals, card dealers and collectors would lose faith in them to maintain other cards on said list.

Wizards sticking to the reprint list is retarded, but it has nothing to do with "players over profit". If Wizards reprinted duals in a special FTV set or whatever, its basically a pile of free money for them. Its very profitable to cash in on Legacy for them. Card dealers and collectors would have to suck it up, what are they going to do, sell off their collections in a huff so other people can collect and deal?

It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with bad corporate policy. Not reprinting duals or goyf or whatever else certainly isn't bringing them any profit; it's leaving money on the table.

[Julian23]

Rumor (as well as numerous tweets) had it, WotC isn't going to reprint duals etc. for legal issues.

A card dropping in value because it hits the banlist ist just part of the game. It's not like WotC would go "LOLOL value-b-gone" on the dealers all of a sudden; it's just a vital part of the game. I don't agree with baning Survival but I think your explanation, DragonFireheart, is flawed.

[sclabman]

@FieryBalrog
Exactly, it is a bad policy. However, it's hypocritical to support the reserve list, citing protecting collection values and investments, but also ban expensive cards (like Survival) which would directly cause the price to drop and people to lose their investment.

[Julian23]

Or you might just call it a trade-off.

Those card's "value" is dependant on people supporting the game therefor WotC has to be careful about pleasing dealers/collectors as well as players. Although I also disagree with baning Survival I really think it's wrong to actually call such a move "hypocritical".