O Hay Guys, We're Gonna Ban Survival, Just FYI...

[Tha Gunslinga]

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/twtw/119


10. The Survival of Legacy

The banned and restricted announcement will go up on December 20 as usual—after Worlds. If any player is going to come up with a strategy to beat the Survival of the Fittest decks that have been dominating the format then the Team Competition may be the last chance that they get to do so before it is defeated through legislation.

[B.C.]

Lame.

[cdr]

That's BDM, he has no special access to the decisions of the B/R committee. His money is obviously (unsurprisingly) on it, though.

[Getsickanddie]

Meh.

[Leftconsin]

Boo-urns.

[dahcmai]

Sky fall much?

[dontbiteitholmes]

Here we go.

[JeroenC]

That's BDM, he has no special access to the decisions of the B/R committee. His money is obviously (unsurprisingly) on it, though.

This.

His statement only reflects the opinion of most of the pro's, he has no additional information.

[Parax]

Will be really great if they just turn us for a loop and restrict (not ban) Vengevine. Who'd play Vengevival if it was Restricted. :P

[luma]

From BDM's Facebook page:

I actually have no inside info on this one. Comment was based on players insisting that something needs to happen.

[sdematt]

I love how the best answers to this involve admitting they were wrong (either banning VV or unbanning Mystical), so since they probably don't want to put a foot in their mouth, they'll just ban Survival.

Just thought I'd point that out.

-Matt

[socialite]

lol BDM.

Just like him; his opinion doesn't mean much.

[jamied1981]

why is it that the "pros" are all on board that they will ban survival, to me it seems like everyone is basically sitting on there hands waiting for dec 20th then if it doesn't get banned, then adapt and make changes. These "pros" seem quite useless. Aren't they suppose to be the best yet it seems like every other guy seems to be putting out yet another post on a forum about the reason why survival or vengevine should be banned. You suppose to be the best acty like it be innovative. I am not calling myself a pro or anything, I have expensive cards that play for the fun of the game. To be honest I am getting a set of survivals altered as we speak and i do not wanyt them to goto waste. TYhe big question I am trying to ask is what will happen if it doesn't get banned? Are people gonna role over and die. ADAPT PEOPLE!!

Proper capitalization is required when posting on these boards. Please use it in the future. Thanks. - zilla

[Gocho]

Will be really great if they just turn us for a loop and restrict (not ban) Vengevine. Who'd play Vengevival if it was Restricted. :P

Legacy only has the banned list, The restricted list is for Vintage.

[Parax]

Didn't think it'd happen, just thought it'd be funny :P

[Purgatory]

why is it thayt the "pros" are all on board thaty they will ban survival, to me it seems like everyone is basically sitting on there hands waiting for dec 20th then if it doesn't get banned, then adapt and make changes. These "pros" seem quite useless. Aren't they suppose to be the best yet it seems like every other guy seems to be putting out yet another post on a forum about the reason why survival or vengevine should be banned. You suppose to be the best acty like it be innovative. I am not calling myself a pro or anything, I have expensive cards that play for the fun of the game. To be honest I am getting a set of survivals altered as we speak and i do not wanyt them to goto waste. TYhe big question I am trying to ask is what will happen if it doesn't get banned? Are people gonna role over and die. ADAPT PEOPLE!!

Disregarding the fact that you are both biased (because you are a survival player yourself) and quite disparaging towards players of the opposite opinion, I believe that you ought to take a look at the statistics from the last SGCs. Granted, the SGCs are but a part of the entire Legacy metagame, however, Vengevine Survival builds (GW, UG, UGw, Ooze) have been totally dominating those particular, large, tournaments the past months. Compared them to the seemingly sheer raw power of the Survival decks makes Reanimator and ANT a bit pale, but those were de facto removed by the DCI.

While I personally have yet to see the rampage of Survival - here in Sweden Vengevine has yet to become as popular as in the SGCs - I still can sympathise with players who feel stumped by Survival decks in their metagame. It is always a lot harder to stand on the winning side of the fence and yell "adapt" than to stand on the losing side and actually adapt.

I am not calling for the banning of Survival, for as I said, I haven't been plagued with it yet. I would like to see more cards unbanned, on the other hand, specifically Mystical Tutor. Perhaps, given Reanimators and ANTs reintroduction would more adequately balance the metagame.

My $0.02.

EDIT: And on the other hand, this is hardly the place for yet another "Ban/don't ban Survival plox" discussion.

[Aggro_zombies]

why is it thayt the "pros" are all on board thaty they will ban survival, to me it seems like everyone is basically sitting on there hands waiting for dec 20th then if it doesn't get banned, then adapt and make changes. These "pros" seem quite useless. Aren't they suppose to be the best yet it seems like every other guy seems to be putting out yet another post on a forum about the reason why survival or vengevine should be banned. You suppose to be the best acty like it be innovative. I am not calling myself a pro or anything, I have expensive cards that play for the fun of the game. To be honest I am getting a set of survivals altered as we speak and i do not wanyt them to goto waste. TYhe big question I am trying to ask is what will happen if it doesn't get banned? Are people gonna role over and die. ADAPT PEOPLE!!
Wizards should ban Survival because almost all of the reasons given for the Mystical Tutor ban can now be applied to Survival of the Fittest. If Wizards banned Mystical, then they need to do the same thing to Survival; otherwise, they are incompetent.

It's as simple as that.

[Meekrab]

Wizards should ban Survival because almost all of the reasons given for the Mystical Tutor ban can now be applied to Survival of the Fittest. If Wizards banned Mystical, then they need to do the same thing to Survival; otherwise, they are incompetent.

It's as simple as that.
Maybe you meant 'inconsistent.' Banning one card that isn't a problem and then not banning another card that isn't a problem doesn't make you incompetent, it makes you a human being. Though you could make an argument that banning Mystical in the first place makes the DCI incompetent, since it was very literally not a problem.

[LegacyDan]

I didn't agree with the banning of Mystical Tutor, and I will not agree if they ban SotF. Do/did I play either card? NO. I will continue playing the same deck as I have been and just continue to laugh at the people who get upset by the changes to the banned list. If a deck is popular, either play it or alter your deck to handle it if you can't already beat it.

[jamied1981]

first of all i am not biased as i do not play only one deck, i have everyy deck. That said i prefer iona retaines combo better, which was around way before vengevine. I would rather then unban cards then ban them. In fact I still don't fully understand all the reasons why they banned mt. If they are going by SCG standings I seem to remember merfolk winning a bunch of tourneys. I am telling poeple to adapyt because look aty the decklists that are running around have they changed other then one or two cards. THEN look at surv vengevine since it was first looked at at the gp which merfolk won it has adapted and changed. Noow adding different colours and different cards. Everyone is playing the same merfolk , goblin, rock tes lists and crying why can't they beat it. I am just saying this as a person who goes to tournements for fun and seeing people play the same cards.

I know the reasons why mt was banned and do not agree with it. I believe they should open it up, let poeple work with it. Its a game it should be fun..

Proper capitalization is required when posting on these boards. Please use it in the future. Thanks. - zilla

[Julian23]

In fact I still don't fully understand the reason why they banned mt.

[...]

I know the reasons why mt was banned and do not agree with it.

Oh the internet...

[jamied1981]

i know poeple will complain how its not fun only playing three turns . well lets just say im at a tournement playing a deck and gety blasted by some combo player, i dont bitch and complain like i have seen soooooo many popele do. I shrug it off andlaugh and say i guess my deck isnt that good against combo. I may not contribute a whole bunch of insight into decks on here, but i have fun at every tournement i goto.

@julian- i can know the reasons why its was banned without fully understanding the reasons why iyt was banned. Meaning i felt the reasons they gave for banning ity to be pretty flimsy and uncalled for but thats just me.

sorry im tyyping this crap out on my iphone...lol

New technology is no reason to post something that's crap. Verbal warning for awful writing skills. - Bardo

[Julian23]

Basic semantics:

If you don't understand a banining that's your very personal shortcoming. You're not able to actually to grasp the DCI's thought process behind it. Understanding something never means to agree with it. For example, I can easily understand Hitler's policy regarding Jews or the Chinese cultural revolution. I can also easily state that I think it was wrong. BUT, if I don't understand what was done there, who am I to judge?

What's the difference between knowing the reasons and understanding them? Saying that you don't understand the reasons because they appear "flimsy" and "uncalled for" to you makes no sense. The DCI's reasons for baning MT were a temporal statistical dominance and their conclusion that MT won't be stopped by a shifting metagame. <- now we understood the reasons.
<generic counter-arguements against baning MT> <- now we disagree with what we had to understand in the first place.

Don't wanna be too nit-picky about it as I know what you actually want to express and fully agree with you. I'm just sick and tired of (usually political) talk shows where people pretend not to "understand" what someone was doing in order to discredit it.

[Aggro_zombies]

Though you could make an argument that banning Mystical in the first place makes the DCI incompetent, since it was very literally not a problem.
That is, in fact, what I would argue. My suspicion is that the DCI does not know how to manage the format (or any format, really), and a failure to come up with a consistent ban policy would only reinforce that. Therefore, if the DCI does not ban Survival for the same reasons it banned Mystical, it is incompetent.

[Julian23]

That is, in fact, what I would argue. My suspicion is that the DCI does not know how to manage the format (or any format, really), and a failure to come up with a consistent ban policy would only reinforce that. Therefore, if the DCI does not ban Survival for the same reasons it banned Mystical, it is incompetent.

Since - according to you - baning MT was the incompetent move in the first place, wouldn't abonding that policy and therefor not baning Survival actually render them competentnt (yet inconsistent)? What Meekrab wanted to point out is that you can't argue about baning Survival being a sign of incompetence if the same decision made by you would actually be a sign of competence.

[Aggro_zombies]

Since - according to you - baning MT was the incompetent move in the first place, wouldn't abonding that policy and therefor not baning Survival actually render them competentnt (yet inconsistent)? What Meekrab wanted to point out is that you can't argue about baning Survival being a sign of incompetence if the same decision made by you would actually be a sign of competence.
It would show that they are idiots, but at least consistent idiots.

The idea here is that there was simply no reason to ban Mystical. The reasons given for it did not sync up with reality unless you count Europe, but the banning of Mystical does not seem to have put a significant dent in the performance of combo there, so if the goal was to check the objective strength of combo we can agree that it probably failed.

Now we have a card that is the centerpiece of several decks that are actually dominating the format based on data from large tournaments. One could argue that we should give time to allow the meta to adapt, because Survival is beatable; the counterargument to this is that the same could be said for Mystical (in fact, both Reanimator and ANT were doing quite poorly just before the ban) and that did not dissuade the DCI. You could argue that it is possible to interact with the combo, since it is creature-based; however, many decks have fallen by the wayside (Merfolk, Counterbalance, etc) because in practice the deck is difficult to interact with because of how much redundancy it has - just the same as Mystical Tutor decks. And, finally, Survival decks beat up scrubs in the casual MTGO rooms just as well as Mystical Tutor decks do. Why should the card not be banned when it is displaying the same sort of behavior that ostensibly got Mystical banned?

Failure to ban Survival would show that the DCI cannot manage the format. Unbanning Mystical would be better, but let's face it, there is an approximately negative zero chance of that ever happening.

[Julian23]

/editing

Ok. I was under the impression that you were actually arguing against the baning of Survival. If you're actually arguing in favor of baning it, it makes sense for you to call them incompetent if they didn't ban it.

[Aggro_zombies]

/editing

Ok. I was under the impression that you were actually arguing against the baning of Survival. If you're actually arguing in favor of baning it, it makes sense for you to call them incompetent if they didn't ban it.
I would argue for the unbanning of Mystical and leaving Survival alone, but I'm also a realist.

[DragoFireheart]

I would argue for the unbanning of Mystical and leaving Survival alone, but I'm also a realist.

If your argument is that they are incompetent, they won't ban SotF.

[dahcmai]

They should just unban Necropotence and show people what a really oppressive environment can be, then ban it again and no one will say a word.

[Mark Sun]

Half of the Richmond Top 8 was Survival. That should make the decision easy. Sigh.

[keys]

Seriously? Are people really going to be sad that this monstrosity is leaving the format? No deck except FlashHulk, in ANY format, has reached this level of dominance in recent memory.

Survival may not have taken off in Europe, but that doesn't mean WOTC won't find justification for it's preemptive banning. Americans reacted the same way when MT was banned.

I can't believe the debate is still going.

[Aggro_zombies]

If your argument is that they are incompetent, they won't ban SotF.
No, I'm saying that failure to ban Survival is an admission of incompetence.

Let's review the reasons why Mystical Tutor was banned, as outlined here (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/96):

1) Mystical Tutor enables broken linear decks relying on finding and casting specific cards in order to win.
2) Any time a broken spell instant or sorcery is printed, Mystical Tutor will be the go-to tutor for the resulting deck.
3) Magic Online tournament practice rooms folded to Mystical Tutor decks when R&D members were piloting them.
4) Mystical Tutor enables decks to dodge hate spells by finding answer cards. Post-board games end up revolving around who gets the most hate or counter-hate in the shortest time frame.

And, importantly, 5) The subtext of the article was such that Mystical Tutor decks are dominating the format, or would be if not for the conscious decisions of players (the bullshit Gentleman's Agreement).

Now let's walk through these for Survival:

1) Mystical Tutor enables broken linear decks relying on finding and casting specific cards in order to win.
Survival of the Fittest is both an engine and a tutor. As such, it allows the decks built around it to find and deploy specific creatures at low cost. Given the number and variety of creatures in the game, it is possible to find one that does virtually anything you need. Witness the Ooze Survival deck: it can find Vengevines, setting up a Fireball; it can find the Ooze combo, circumventing creature removal (all abilities are instant speed); or it can just turn weak creatures into better ones and beat down like a conventional midrange deck. Furthermore, the deck has access to counter-hate cards in the form of QPM and Harmonic Sliver (anti-Needle, Crypt, Relic, Leyline) and creatures for specific matchups.

2) Any time a broken spell instant or sorcery is printed, Mystical Tutor will be the go-to tutor for the resulting deck.
Survival was a legitimate and quite powerful deck even before people caught on to the Vengevine trick; Iona's printing allowed for the Retainers combo that locked many decks out of the game. The printing of Vengevine allowed Survival decks to steal matches they were otherwise losing. Necrotic Ooze's printing in Scars gave the deck an extra dimension (creature-based combo kill that did not need the combat step) that allowed for improvements on the Vengevine plan. It is reasonable to assume that any future creature that combines with other creatures in a broken way will end up in a Survival shell, since one card can be used to find all of the pieces.

3) Magic Online tournament practice rooms folded to Mystical Tutor decks when R&D members were piloting them.
I don't play Magic Online.

4) Mystical Tutor enables decks to dodge hate spells by finding answer cards. Post-board games end up revolving around who gets the most hate or counter-hate in the shortest time frame.
This is true because of the nature of the Survival plan. Hating Vengevine with Extirpate doesn't stop the beatdown route, since Survival can just turn weak creatures into Tarmogoyfs; using other graveyard hate cards is just asking to get blown out by Pridemage or Trygon Predator. Hating Survival directly is more of a problem: Needle is easily answered by tutoring in response for a removal guy, but destroying the Survivals doesn't stop a standard midrange beatdown plan. You can hate on creatures, but most of the cards for that are either slow (Humility) or don't stop combos like Ooze (Peacekeeper). Hating on all three avenues of attack at once requires both enormous sideboard space and a large number of dead cards in the main. Most players seem to have opted to hate Vengevines, which does not stop the deck, or to run Needles, which are basically terrible.

5) The subtext of the article was such that Mystical Tutor decks are dominating the format, or would be if not for the conscious decisions of players (the bullshit Gentleman's Agreement).
American tournament data suggest that Survival actually is dominating the format, or at least does so at the largest tournaments in the country. Furthermore, the deck seems to be making inroads into European metagames as well, but European data is often bizarrely different from the American data. If we assume that Mystical's dominance in Europe warranted a ban for that card, it seems reasonable that Survival's dominance in America also warrants a ban. While Mystical Tutor decks did quite poorly here (especially right before the ban), and Survival decks are not faring much better than average in Europe, the fact that these cards dominate in one specific region seems sufficient given the logic spelled out in the article.

Since basically all the arguments applied at the time to Mystical can now be applied to Survival, it seems necessary to ban the card. If the DCI does not, then the Mystical Tutor ban was bullshit and the reasons given for it were not the actual reasons for the ban: either Wizards was simply banning things randomly, making them incompetent, or some other factor played into the decison but was not disclosed (perhaps pro player opinions or personal dislike for the card by well-placed people in the DCI and R&D). Banning Survival would make for a consistent, if deeply misguided, approach to the format.

[Purgatory]

first of all i am not biased as i do not play only one deck, i have everyy deck. That said i prefer iona retaines combo better, which was around way before vengevine.

I am not going to address the first part of this. The second, I called you a "Survival player", not a "Vengevine Survival player", and although I elaborated mostly on the creature part of the combo in my previous post, I did bring up other builds which do not soley rely on Vengevine to win.


I would rather then unban cards then ban them. In fact I still don't fully understand all the reasons why they banned mt. If they are going by SCG standings I seem to remember merfolk winning a bunch of tourneys.

Agree on the first point. Granted, Merfolk have been putting up results mostly since Lorwyn but the 'Folks are a different story than Vengevine (and Reanimator and ANT for that matter). Merfolk prey on rather specific metagame, the blue-based varieties, preferably with lots of CounterTop and some combo decks in them, and tend to do a lot more horrible in metagames less-suited for them, mainly the ones filled with Goblins and Zoo. Merfolk has at some points in Legacys history been a tier 1 deck, it is not right now, and it tends to go up and down.

Needless to say, the Merfolk builds are rather homogynous in nature (4 LoA, 4 Silvergill, 4 Coralhelm, 4 Reejerey, 3-4 Cursecatcher, 4 Mutavaults, 4 Daze, 4 Force of Will, 4 Aether Vial and so on) and as such if your metagame consists of many Merfolk decks it is a lot easier to find a bona fide counter for many, if not all of them. Llawan, Engineered Plague, burn, spot removal, Moat etc. etc. are all cards that can and often will give a Merfolk player a headache.


I am telling poeple to adapyt because look aty the decklists that are running around have they changed other then one or two cards. THEN look at surv vengevine since it was first looked at at the gp which merfolk won it has adapted and changed. Noow adding different colours and different cards. Everyone is playing the same merfolk , goblin, rock tes lists and crying why can't they beat it. I am just saying this as a person who goes to tournements for fun and seeing people play the same cards.

While I can't quite decypher everything in this post, I believe I know what you are talking about, and as I've stated before in this post and in my previous post, it is quite difficult to address all the different Survival builds, because though they share the same engine, they have entirely different game plans. Coming back to the Merfolk comparison again, if 25% of your field was Merfolk (any splash colour) and you knew that before-hand, you'd probably bring sideboard hate for that match-up or even a deck that often beats Merfolk (like Zoo, or Goblins). However, if you knew before-hand that your metagame was going to be 25% Survival decks, you'd be stumped on what hate to bring. Extirpate is good against Survival builds, but that forces you into black, and it is not as effective against other graveyard-based strategies, like Lands or Ichorid. Tormod's Crypt and Relic of Progenitus are both neat, cheap, colourless answers to most Survival builds, but in some cases one of them can be ruled out because of your own strategies, and the other can be played around, Needled or even responded to (Ooze). Faerie Macabre is another cool trick card that all colours have access to but it suffers from the same flaws as Extirpate as far as broad usage goes. One can always Needle Survival, but some of the decks have maindeck answers in Qasali Pridemage, and all of them can simply beat face with their massive creature bases, should all else fail.

My point in all this rambling is that Survival is busted because it is so effective not only as a tutor or an engine, but as both combined. The sheer depth possible within even a single build of a Survival deck is head-crushing for many players. Though I am not in favour of a banning personally (as I said, I'd rather see Mystical Tutor unbanned, and maybe more cards at that), I can certainly see why people would like to see it banned, based on my observations that I've detailed above.


I know the reasons why mt was banned and do not agree with it. I believe they should open it up, let poeple work with it. Its a game it should be fun..

As I am sure you are aware of, "fun" is a very subjective term. I, personally, am not fond of having my opponent casting a 7/7 flyer that prevents me from casting spells on turn 3. In fact, I'd say that the Iona/Retainers combo is busted in itself, and the main reason why we don't see more of them in tournaments is that some people just can't shell out a couple of hundred bucks for an uncommon.

[android]

Not sure if anyone here actually watched the top 8 matches from the SCG Richmond tourney but I have to say if the guy playing survival represents the archetype, there is nothing to be afraid of. I have no idea how those players made it to the finals. Poor playskill all the way around.

I would have had an easy game vs. any one of them with Burn or Life or High Tide or any other tier 2-3 deck.

[Lemnear]

Seriously? Are people really going to be sad that this monstrosity is leaving the format? No deck except FlashHulk, in ANY format, has reached this level of dominance in recent memory.

Survival may not have taken off in Europe, but that doesn't mean WOTC won't find justification for it's preemptive banning. Americans reacted the same way when MT was banned.

I can't believe the debate is still going.

And I can't believe you still argue on that level. Wasn't Fairies and Jund dominant in T2? And their T2 opponents had no chance to adjust to them with cards or decks like Legacy could. Reminds me of Evan Erwin with his latest "28 Jace in T8 isn't a reason to ban Jace in T2 'cuz it will rotate ... in a year". Standard has natural rotation but new printings could change the face of legacy within an expansion too.

It's silly to think Europe is kinda "behind" compared to the US 'cause our T8 isn't full of Survival. I've seen more combo- and adjusted control-decks here than in every US deck-breakdown/T8 recently. As long as US-Meta seems to be Pet-deck vs. Survival more of this endless "ban Survival"!-Theads will appear till 20th dec. A banning is a panic button and I doubt it's necessary with so less data but possible due to the MT-case.

Topic "Data" ... The whole data for survivals "dominance" is the lonely 5k with 4 Survival in T8 in a US Event. Or isn't 2 Survival in some other T8's an acceptable amount for a viable strategy? Where's the Tournament Brad Nelson talks about in TheMagicShow with 7 Survivals in T8? Does it really exist or is it a continious lie in the net spread by the "Ban-everything-till-play-creature-attack-is-the-only-viable-strategy-in-legacy"-fraction. This is a serious question, even if it doesn't look like one ^^

By the way ... I'll guara-DAMN-tee you that if survival gets the hammer LED, SDT and (laaaarge gap) Vial will be next

[Tinefol]

@android There's one compelling argument, though. They're in the top8. We are not. For whatever reason.

Speaking of "Europe", Survival is quite dominating in Russia/Moscow metagame. But uh, who cares about our small pond.

[Purgatory]

if survival is so broken its fnny how i didnt see 50 threads on how its broken before vengevine. It was a tutor engine long before vengevine. like i said id rather them unbann cards then ban them. And as for not being fond of seeing a iona hit the table, it is a very stoppable combo. I have been on the recieving end and never waalked awaay with sour grapes, my deck got bested by a better one period. I dont consider myself a survival player im a legacy player. If I had to catagorize myself as single deck player I am more a landstill. But because I own survivals i am biased. I think not. Point is Stop banning cards and unbann cards. PS have fun, its only a game focker lol,

1. Survival has always been a powerful card, but together with the power creep in creatures we have seen and with bombs printed only in the last year, Iona, Vengevine, Ooze, it is certainly coming closer to the fringe. Going back another year further adds a bunch of really good Survival cards, in mainly the Bant colours (Hierarch and Pridemage).

2. Of course, the Retainers/Iona combo is definitely not completely unstoppable. However, I'd definitely say that it falls on the unfair side of two (or three, depending on how you look at it) card combos in the game.

3. Calling Magic "only a game" on a forum for competitive Magic is horribly flawed - there are people within the Magic world and on this forum that actually strives to better themselves, to compete and to do well in a tournament setting. An unbalanced metagame might be beneficial for serious tournament players in the aspect that it is easy to pick out the "best" deck, but if you want to be able to compete AND have fun (as you also urge me to), the more balanced a metagame is, the more decks I have to choose between, and the larger the number of different archetypes I am likely to face will be. Try going to a tournament and face nothing but like Ichorid, or for that matter VengevineSurvival, come back and tell me how much "fun" you had.

P.S. The "focker" you call me, are you referring to the German aircraft manufacturer? Because in that case, I think it's spelled "Fokker". ;P

[Michael Keller]

Not sure if anyone here actually watched the top 8 matches from the SCG Richmond tourney but I have to say if the guy playing survival represents the archetype, there is nothing to be afraid of. I have no idea how those players made it to the finals. Poor playskill all the way around.

I would have had an easy game vs. any one of them with Burn or Life or High Tide or any other tier 2-3 deck.

+1.

I went into this event well-prepared and just ran into some bad luck against (mostly) inferior opponents. I was standing (after Round Three) at the top tables just perusing over what each player was running, and there were seven Survival decks (from my count) just plastered all over the friggin' tables.

One of these people had an active Survival on the table during his first Main Phase, three untapped Forest (one of which was a Savannah), one Vengevine in the yard, and still passed the turn - with a Rootwalla in hand - when he could have done lethal. I mean, maybe he had a plan.

Then again, maybe this shows people don't know what the hell their doing and just assume the card itself is broken when it is the players' brains that are broken.

[Tinefol]

Yeah, its always bad luck and incompetent opponents. Who are we trying to fool? Survival still won, despite that everybody should have had their streak of bad luck, including Survival players. And you know, being incomptent doesn't really help winning.

[practical joke]

you have to admit.

Vengevival is a pretty retard-proof deck. While Bant-survival is a lot harder to play.

[Mark Sun]

+1.

I went into this event well-prepared and just ran into some bad luck against (mostly) inferior opponents. I was standing (after Round Three) at the top tables just perusing over what each player was running, and there were seven Survival decks (from my count) just plastered all over the friggin' tables.

One of these people had an active Survival on the table during his first Main Phase, three untapped Forest (one of which was a Savannah), one Vengevine in the yard, and still passed the turn - with a Rootwalla in hand - when he could have done lethal. I mean, maybe he had a plan.

Then again, maybe this shows people don't know what the hell their doing and just assume the card itself is broken when it is the players' brains that are broken.

Survival density probably had a factor as well, what percentage of the metagame were people recurring Vengevines? But I agree, I'm not the best player but sometimes, watching those GGSLive feeds I wonder what I'm doing sitting at home.

[Hopo]

If Wizards banned Mystical, then they need to do the same thing to Survival; otherwise, they are incompetent.
It's as simple as that.

If this was true, wizards would have banned Sensei's Divining Top from all formats due to time concerns. So obviously wizards isn't too coherent with it's banning policy.

This whole conversation is basically revolving around SCG tournament results. I hope wizards has a bit more insight about global state of legacy than internet doomsayers.

[Aggro_zombies]

This whole conversation is basically revolving around SCG tournament results. I hope wizards has a bit more insight about global state of legacy than internet doomsayers.
They do: they banned Mystical despite it doing extremely poorly in the SCG tournaments. But it was dominant in Europe, so it was banned.

And now we have a card that is dominant in America. Why shouldn't it be banned? Because you Europeans are too enlightened and sophisticated to put down your combo decks and play it?

[GGoober]

+1.

I went into this event well-prepared and just ran into some bad luck against (mostly) inferior opponents. I was standing (after Round Three) at the top tables just perusing over what each player was running, and there were seven Survival decks (from my count) just plastered all over the friggin' tables.

One of these people had an active Survival on the table during his first Main Phase, three untapped Forest (one of which was a Savannah), one Vengevine in the yard, and still passed the turn - with a Rootwalla in hand - when he could have done lethal. I mean, maybe he had a plan.

Then again, maybe this shows people don't know what the hell their doing and just assume the card itself is broken when it is the players' brains that are broken.

Lol, that is terrible. Imagine if they cannot optimally pilot Vengevival (a much easier deck than traditional RGBSA/Welder/Bant Survival), how can these people play anti-survival decks like Rock/TES/combo? Maybe that's why we have so much Survival deck, because it's a relatively easier deck to pilot but ironically people still suck with it. Must be awesome playing a deck that's still strong enough to win despite bad pilots.

[Amon Amarth]

Lol, that is terrible. Imagine if they cannot optimally pilot Vengevival (a much easier deck than traditional RGBSA/Welder/Bant Survival), how can these people play anti-survival decks like Rock/TES/combo? Maybe that's why we have so much Survival deck, because it's a relatively easier deck to pilot but ironically people still suck with it. Must be awesome playing a deck that's still strong enough to win despite bad pilots.

Draws parallels to Affinty doesn't it? Which kinda speaks volumes by itself.

[DragoFireheart]

Vegnevival is a relatively easy deck to pilot. Americans in particular like easy to pilot decks, hence the lack of combo decks in general and the large influx of goblins/merfolk/zoo.

Anyways, the one reason WotC won't ban SotF is due to the secondary market. They place the priorities of the secondary market over the player base. Evidence of this is their Reserved policy. If completely ensuring that the format was to allow as many players as possible, they would remove the Reserved list and reprint duals so more players could play.

[KindGrind]

Survival being expensive is a matter of a month or two, so it won't enrage much people (from a monetary standpoint) if they ban it now. I'm pretty sure nobody stocked up on 60$-a-pop Survivals. Reprinting duals, which have been gaining value throughout the years, is a whole other story.

[Julian23]

If completely ensuring that the format was to allow as many players as possible, they would remove the Reserved list and reprint duals so more players could play.

We've already had this kind of discussion in like every other thread on The Source. According to Mark Rosewater and Aaron Forsyth there are legal issues preventing them from abandoning the reserved list. Of course you don't have to believe them but it's just low-quality posting pretending to know you are right about it.

[Michael Keller]

They do: they banned Mystical despite it doing extremely poorly in the SCG tournaments. But it was dominant in Europe, so it was banned.

And now we have a card that is dominant in America. Why shouldn't it be banned? Because you Europeans are too enlightened and sophisticated to put down your combo decks and play it?

Very well said.

[lolosoon]

And now we have a card that is dominant in America. Why shouldn't it be banned? Because you Europeans are too enlightened and sophisticated to put down your combo decks and play it?
This WE, a quite big event occured in Cachan(Paris neighbourhood). The Main event (236 players) was won by SurviVine with 3 in Top8 in a field of Rock, and a bunch of TES players amongst Zoo, Landstill and classic Legacy tier 1-1.5 decks (bant, merfolks, ichorid etc.).

In the Side event (71 players) Survivine won with at least 2 in top8 (with 1 Ooze variant) in a field more aggroish, but with its load of Rock and TES.

Source. (http://www.legacy-france.com/Classement-Listes-Rencontres-Legacy-de-Paris-t5187.html)

As a TES player, I'm happy with the CB-Top and Merfolk disappearance due to the VV rise and the Rock countermeasure actions. Hell, even Burn takes its share of the Meta !

[DragoFireheart]

We've already had this kind of discussion in like every other thread on The Source. According to Mark Rosewater and Aaron Forsyth there are legal issues preventing them from abandoning the reserved list. Of course you don't have to believe them but it's just low-quality posting pretending to know you are right about it.

Then why not reprint force of will? It's not on the reserved list but unless you play a non-blue deck, you really can't play in this format without FoW.

[DragoFireheart]

As a TES player, I'm happy with the CB-Top and Merfolk disappearance due to the VV rise and the Rock countermeasure actions. Hell, even Burn takes its share of the Meta !

Burn/Sligh decks are surprisning good at racing vengevine decks.

[DragoFireheart]

Survival being expensive is a matter of a month or two, so it won't enrage much people (from a monetary standpoint) if they ban it now. I'm pretty sure nobody stocked up on 60$-a-pop Survivals. Reprinting duals, which have been gaining value throughout the years, is a whole other story.

Are you referring to players or store owners?

[Tha Gunslinga]

Burn/Sligh decks are surprisning good at racing vengevine decks.

The problem with playing a terrible deck to beat the best deck is that if other people are playing good decks that lose to Survival but beat your random deck, you're dead. Survival has good matchups against all the good decks. Who cares if it loses to something random that almost no one plays? You face that once in the Swiss, lose, get into the top 8 at X-1, and where are all the random bad decks? They lost too many times in the Swiss, so now all you face are other tier decks. Which you beat.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Vegnevival is a relatively easy deck to pilot. Americans in particular like easy to pilot decks, hence the lack of combo decks in general and the large influx of goblins/merfolk/zoo.

Anyways, the one reason WotC won't ban SotF is due to the secondary market. They place the priorities of the secondary market over the player base. Evidence of this is their Reserved policy. If completely ensuring that the format was to allow as many players as possible, they would remove the Reserved list and reprint duals so more players could play.

I don't think Americans like to pilot easy decks so much as new players like to pilot easy decks and there are a lot of new players in America thanks to the SCG series. Merfolk was a really, really good deck for some time and Zoo was a top tier meta choice at various times last year so a lot of that is just players playing the deck they think will give them the best chance to win regardless of the skill level involved. Also combo was a terrible meta choice for a long time because the American metagame was saturated with Countertop Tempo which is probably combos worst matchup. I think over the next few months if Survival doesn't get banned we are going to see an upshot in combo decks being played.

[Nightmare]

Although there are a lot of misconceptions and outright wrong ideas in this thread, along with plenty of awful posts in general, I did mine some of the links for information for my CFB article this week, so I'd like to say thanks to those who posted good info. I'm sure you'll be able to recognize which posters I meant when the article hits tomorrow.

Thanks guys!

[Julian23]

Then why not reprint force of will? It's not on the reserved list but unless you play a non-blue deck, you really can't play in this format without FoW.

There's nothing preventing them from reprinting Force of Will. I think we might actually see it being released as some kind of promo (obv not in a T2 set) in the next 2-3 years.

[Tinefol]

I think Force of Will could be reprinted in T2. There's nothing wrong with that, much like with Lightning Bolt, given Wizards does shape up the format for it to be OKay. It is certainly not overly degenerate for T2

[Julian23]

The thing is, WotC has been adapting Type 2 to appeal more to the "newer" players. Therefor they kept removing/nerfing "unfun" elements like Land destruction and countermagic. Powerwise, Force might be ok for T2 but I'm afraid it doesn't fit into the T2-policy we have witness over the last ±2 years.

[hyperchord24]

It's tragic that it took a stupid card like Vengvine to ban SotF. SotF is such a fun card and is part of so many decks. Vengvine is played in one deck. How do you print a card like Vengvine and NOT expect it to break SotF?

[DragoFireheart]

It's tragic that it took a stupid card like Vengvine to ban SotF. SotF is such a fun card and is part of so many decks. Vengvine is played in one deck. How do you print a card like Vengvine and NOT expect it to break SotF?

How do you print X card and NOT expect it to break one of the 140,000+ cards you already printed?

SUCH RUDENESS!

[hyperchord24]

You know what I mean. It screams "break me" to Survival.

[GGoober]

Nah VV can still be broken without Survival. Buried Alive/Intuition gives just about the same speed, argubly not needing to run bunches of useless creatures. But Survival was an added way to not just dump VV but also to have a backup plan if the VV plan is answered.

[Rune]

I'm pretty sure we need not fear Inution. First of all, if it was anywhere near the degenerate power level of SotF, it would see much more play in those decks as an alternate win con. However, most of the blue SotF lists don't play it. It just takes too much work to set up (compared to SotF, anyway). It's also a 3 cmc tutor - these seem to be in the realm of fair/safe. So, does it push the envelope because it's instant speed and puts stuff in the graveyard at the same time? I don't think so. Intuition/Buried alive also get shut down hard by most GY hate, especially Extirpate. One the other hand, a card like Extirpate will not really do anything to save you from an active SotF by itself.

I'm sure you can make decent decks with Inution/Buried Alive + Vengevines, but they will definitely never be as stupiditarded as any current SotF deck.

[android]

One the other hand, a card like Extirpate will not really do anything to save you from an active SotF by itself.

Sure it will. Cast it with the VV triggers on the stack and they all go bye bye. Good luck beating down with a few Rootwallas.

[Rune]

I guess it's easier just to show why I think the card is utterly useless against an active SotF

Exhibit A

http://ggslive.blip.tv/file/4474690/

[scrumdogg]

It's tragic that it took a stupid card like Vengvine to ban SotF. SotF is such a fun card and is part of so many decks. Vengvine is played in one deck. How do you print a card like Vengvine and NOT expect it to break SotF?

Because WOTC/R&D continue to not test Eternal interactions with upcoming sets, at all. Even if they had one Legacy knowledgeable intern stuck in a basement cubicle with access to their current developmental set it could short-circuit SO many future issues. But they continue to ignore the situation.

[Quote] Lol, that is terrible. Imagine if they cannot optimally pilot Vengevival (a much easier deck than traditional RGBSA/Welder/Bant Survival), how can these people play anti-survival decks like Rock/TES/combo? Maybe that's why we have so much Survival deck, because it's a relatively easier deck to pilot but ironically people still suck with it. Must be awesome playing a deck that's still strong enough to win despite bad pilots.


Draws parallels to Affinty doesn't it? Which kinda speaks volumes by itself. [Quote]

You could ask all those Goblin pilots from 2004-2006 :) And since WOTC didn't do a damn thing about either Goblins or Affinity (or Counter-Top...) perhaps we should be heartened by that. Perhaps they will give the format time to grow and determine if Vengevine and/or Survival are truly degenerate or not.

[android]

I guess it's easier just to show why I think the card is utterly useless against an active SotF

Exhibit A

http://ggslive.blip.tv/file/4474690/

To be honest, all I'm seeing there is a failure to Extirpate Survival. Especially when Alix used his ETutor to put another one on top. Then you're basically Timewalking him 1.5 times. Then he should have saved his Swords for a real creature instead of a mana dork. But I guess it's alot easier to sit on the sidelines and say what you would have done but for me, problem #1 is Survival. If you can remove all copies, why wouldn't you make that play? Then later in the game, he still had the second Extirpate to remove the VVs. Pretty sure he would have won this game with Knight if he would have done the right thing. Natural Order is another thing all together and doesn't need to be bunched in with the Survival or no Survival discussion.

When I mentioned Extirpate on VV in response, that is obviously in the scenario where you didn't have an opportunity to target Survival and they just dumped 1+ in the gy.

[Tacosnape]

I'm pretty sure we need not fear Inution. First of all, if it was anywhere near the degenerate power level of SotF, it would see much more play in those decks as an alternate win con. However, most of the blue SotF lists don't play it. It just takes too much work to set up (compared to SotF, anyway). It's also a 3 cmc tutor - these seem to be in the realm of fair/safe. So, does it push the envelope because it's instant speed and puts stuff in the graveyard at the same time? I don't think so. Intuition/Buried alive also get shut down hard by most GY hate, especially Extirpate. One the other hand, a card like Extirpate will not really do anything to save you from an active SotF by itself.

I'm sure you can make decent decks with Inution/Buried Alive + Vengevines, but they will definitely never be as stupiditarded as any current SotF deck.

True, but the question is, would Vengevine decks without Survival better than Survival decks that don't have Vengevine?

I say so.

[Shursh]

banner on wotc today
http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/daily/features/feature122k_icon.jpg

[death]

That's the ban-hammer right there. Suck it Up and play Legacy.

[android]

Awesome! Now I can buy a card that I can't play for less than $40. Thanks netdeckers!

[Tangle.Wire]

I didn't play Legacy for some weeks but isn't unbanning Time Spiral > Survival of the Fittest? I think we're going to see the MoMa decks out of the Urzas Block again :D thats quiet more amasing to me than the hole SotF story as i never found it as unbeatable or even to hard. (Even with VV)

[Dia_Bot]

I didn't play Legacy for some weeks but isn't unbanning Time Spiral > Survival of the Fittest? I think we're going to see the MoMa decks out of the Urzas Block again :D thats quiet more amasing to me than the hole SotF story as i never found it as unbeatable or even to hard. (Even with VV)

Now if they would just unban Tolarian Academy, right? :D

[Tangle.Wire]

I think the Academy is not needed at all to combo off in a same kind but it would be nice to play this deck again :)

[Malakai]

Awesome! Now I can buy a card that I can't play for less than $40. Thanks netdeckers!
Complaining about netdecking and competitive magic do not mix.

Time Spiral is only interesting to decks with High Tide in them.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

Complaining about netdecking and competitive magic do not mix.

Time Spiral is only interesting to decks with High Tide in them.

I think he is saying that one of the contributing factors to them banning survival was the fact that a ridiculously large percentage of tournament goers were playing the card because they were net-decking lists. On a side note I wonder if deckcheck going offline has had a negative effect on format diversity. I know a lot of people used to look there for new(er) deck ideas and to see what is playable in a global meta.

[android]

I think he is saying that one of the contributing factors to them banning survival was the fact that a ridiculously large percentage of tournament goers were playing the card because they were net-decking lists. On a side note I wonder if deckcheck going offline has had a negative effect on format diversity. I know a lot of people used to look there for new(er) deck ideas and to see what is playable in a global meta.

Thank you. And I do feel that it's DCI's role to step in when so many people are taking the high road. Problem is, the people playing competitive magic are generally going to opt for the deck with the highest probability of winning. This takes into account effort to pilot said deck, difficulty in combating said deck, ingenuity involved in constructing an original deck. Just because you're playing competitive magic doesn't mean you don't take the path of least resistance.

It's funny how thin the line is between the Hive Mind and a pack of Lemurs.

[Skargath]

Thanks netdeckers!

i loled so hard at this

So ironic, you realize your on a NETDECK FORUM?

[android]

Yeah but I play a shitty deck so the jokes on you. Try and figure that one out. Whose side am I on???

Obviously I didn't pay $40 for my survivals nor do I plan to pay $70 for a Jace. If I felt so strongly about winning a tournament and felt like my only chance to do so was to copy whatever winning strategy was being propagated the most I think I would have lost track of why I play this game in the first place. I feel sorry for the people who feel the pressure to buy into the flavor of the week and I get loads of joy when they lose their asses on a ruling like this and whine about it.

[Nelis]

I feel sorry for the people who feel the pressure to buy into the flavor of the week and I get loads of joy when they lose their asses on a ruling like this and whine about it.

Luckily there's always another flavour of the week. :laugh:

[Royal Ass.]

Yeah but I play a shitty deck so the jokes on you. Try and figure that one out. Whose side am I on???

Obviously I didn't pay $40 for my survivals nor do I plan to pay $70 for a Jace. If I felt so strongly about winning a tournament and felt like my only chance to do so was to copy whatever winning strategy was being propagated the most I think I would have lost track of why I play this game in the first place. I feel sorry for the people who feel the pressure to buy into the flavor of the week and I get loads of joy when they lose their asses on a ruling like this and whine about it.

I kind of agree with you about Survivial. But I disagree with you about Jace. Jace is playable in literally every format in a variety of different decks.

I always thought survival was an obnoxious card to play against even before Vengivine was printed. It was a deck that never appealed to me and I have to say that I am happy that it is gone. I am looking forward to playing in the Kansas City Legacy event next monght and am please that there will be an open meta game with all kinds of knew developing decks instead of just a bunch of survival net decks.

[android]

Well maybe instead of thrusting myself into the center of the real vs inflated monetary value of cards, let me just say that I wouldn't be upset if I happened to open a pack and got a Jace. Of course I have a deck somewhere that could likely use the card, but no way in hell do I value it at $70 or anything close. It's absurd what people are paying for cards these days. Never have the chase cards been as expensive as they are today.

[dahcmai]

Hence the incredible amount of problems with this whole mythic rarity. Makes it tough on us dealers too.