[Article] Why Survival Shouldn't Be Banned, But Will Be Anyawy

[Smmenen]

http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=1280

Blurb:


Survival of the Fittest is putting up unseemly – even gaudy – performance statistics. By any reasonable accounting, it’s dominating the Legacy format, if measured primarily by performance on the StarCityGames (SCG) Legacy Open series. I won’t rehash that data. Admittedly, there is some question about the scope of the data – whether its exclusive reliance on American tournament performance is truly representative of global metagame dominance. More than a few European players point to the European championships as counter-evidence (Editor’s Note: as well as the LCL series and every other large European tournament that is not SCG). But with that caveat, there is more than enough statistical evidence of Survival dominance.

Check it out!!!

[Mark Sun]

I really enjoyed the read, Stephen. My sentiments exactly on the Survival or Vengevine argument, there's a lot of support for looking more into the latter, not the former in the area Legacy community, and I'm sure it's no different everywhere else.

The only real hope that players can have right now is that WOTC will approach the next B/R update more cautiously, but sometimes that's too much to ask.


I'll also comment on the actual... comments of the article, I'm not all against banning Basking Rootwalla. From someone who plays the deck, none of the builds, from GW to UG variants, have a source of actual card advantage (since most or all lists cut Squee anyways), and one of the crucial pieces to the explosive, in-your-face 3+ Vengevine chain is Basking Rootwalla + 0cc creature, it does make some amount of sense to look into it. I've tested pretty much all the variants and without Rootwalla, the deck is not quite as explosive, and cannot "cheat" on the amount of creatures it plays.

[frogboy]

I never got around to posting in the huge discussion over on StarCity, but I noticed that a lot of people were saying how Survival wasn't a problem until Vengevine came along. Specifically, people said that Loyal Retainers was no big deal, and it wasn't really a thing until Vengevine was printed, anyway, etc.

Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and Vengevine were in the same set. Assembling a bunch of Vengevines costs five or six. Retainers + Emrakul costs five or six, although it's seven if you want Emrakul to be Angry. The Ooze combo costs six or seven. Chapin played dedicated Angry Emrakul at Columbus. To say that Survival has been fine for a long time and would be okay in the wake of a Vengevine banning seems questionable.

[Aggro_zombies]

Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and Vengevine were in the same set. Assembling a bunch of Vengevines costs five or six. Retainers + Emrakul costs five or six, although it's seven if you want Emrakul to be Angry. The Ooze combo costs six or seven. Chapin played dedicated Angry Emrakul at Columbus. To say that Survival has been fine for a long time and would be okay in the wake of a Vengevine banning seems questionable.
The Ooze combo is clearly the bigger issue there, though. Why would Survival decks revert to Emrakul and Retainers when the Ooze combo kills the opponent in a single shot, can be activated at instant speed, doesn't require you to pass the turn, doesn't require the combat step, and is immune to basically all removal spells?

Ooze is simply better than Vengevine and, if given time, Survival decks will likely swing in that direction.

Either way, the banning of Mystical Tutor set a precedent that would require the DCI to ban Survival if it wishes to adhere to it.

[Smmenen]

I never got around to posting in the huge discussion over on StarCity, but I noticed that a lot of people were saying how Survival wasn't a problem until Vengevine came along. Specifically, people said that Loyal Retainers was no big deal, and it wasn't really a thing until Vengevine was printed, anyway, etc.

Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and Vengevine were in the same set. Assembling a bunch of Vengevines costs five or six. Retainers + Emrakul costs five or six, although it's seven if you want Emrakul to be Angry. The Ooze combo costs six or seven. Chapin played dedicated Angry Emrakul at Columbus. To say that Survival has been fine for a long time and would be okay in the wake of a Vengevine banning seems questionable.

If by "Ok" you mean it in the binary sense of "Bannable versus OK," framed as two mutually exclusive options, then I would firmly put Vengevineless Survival in the "OK" category given the evidence we currently have. There is simply no evidence that Survival without vengevine would be dominant statistically. That doesn't' mean it wouldn't be, but bannings aren't justified on speculation alone.

[GGoober]

Once again why Steve's articles are a good read. He argues a point, you can choose to agree to disagree, but he backs his OPINION with arguments, and that's important.


If the purpose of the Banned and Restricted List as a policy tool is to promote format diversity (see above), then banning Vengevine is a more logical decision than banning Survival. The reason is simple: Survival appears more likely to contribute to format diversity without Vengevine than Vengevine would without Survival. For years, Survival has been a quiet archetype in the Legacy format, and has been quite popular among certain Legacy players. As between those two options, banning Vengevine is far more logical in light of this criterion than Survival, even though it may strike many as counter-intuitive. It’s only counter-intuitive because people incorrectly put stock in the sloppy heuristics critiqued above. In light of the actual criterion behind Banned and Restricted List policy, it becomes the most logical option.



And just to point it out, people like Steve, or those who play Vintage/eternal much more than the bulk of us, have a greater insight on the B/R implications. If people are screaming that VV should not be banned etc, then the good example of such a situation would be the restriction of TfK, instead of the true engine/culprit cards (Time Vault, Tezz, now Jace 2). In such a light, the banning of VV follows a similar logic i.e. it does not kill the archetype, and without VV, the Survival archetype will exist, and will be healthy.

@Aggro_zombies: as good as the Ooze combo sounds on paper, in practice (this is from personal play-testing), it is the subpar strategy, I'll still opt for VV beats. Ooze despite difficult to be fizzled via removal, is very easily hated via Extirpate/Crypt/Relic/Macabre, all of which will continue to see play as long as Vengevival is popular. Having 1 Extirpate to hit just 1 card e.g. Devourer in the GY sounds bad, but it's a huge tempo against Oozevival. They have spent GGG2BB + 1G (survival's cost) to attempt to kill, and the worst GY hate card (Extirpate) against it still fizzles it. I play Ooze as a backup plan in my Survival deck, and usually don't go for it since it does not guarantee me wins if I fail. Other options (Welder, VV) will keep the board position for future turns if fizzled.

Here's the issue, as ugly as Vengevivals are dominating the scenes, it's the same deal with Standard, Extended, Vintage (Jund/Faeries, Dark Depths/Hypergenesis, MUD/Vaultkey.decs). Legacy is the most diverse format to date, and we're currently undergoing what the non-Legacy metas are going through: having a slightly above power level deck, that may argubly be the best deck in Legacy. For the longest time, there is NO best deck in Legacy. You could say there was a best deck in Standard/Vintage/Extended for a certain period, but Legacy metas adapt so diversely it's hard to tell. Countertop was the 'best' deck at a time, until it was outclassed by other decks. Merfolks came in, along with Zoo, then Lands shook the format, followed by Reanimator/ANT. Survival currently holds a longer dominance than any of these decks, but it's Legacy, how long have we seen a good deck hold its place for some time? Not at all, cause the format's awesome. We're kinda like Standard now, aka having a slightly overpowering deck dominating for its time. But just as Jund enjoys its dominance, decks hated it out by MDing crap like Spreading Seas. Is Legacy prepared to that point to truly beat the Vengevival meta? If we are, it won't be a problem, just as Jund got hated out. Jund/Vengevival are great decks, and they themselves will evolve, but when people are tired of playing against hate e.g. Jund/Dredge, you switch to different decks, and that's when meta evolves again. Currently we are not doing this.

People will argue: "If you go to a tournament, which deck would you play? The best deck of course! Vengevival!". This is a true statement, however, people don't consider the other point of view. There ARE decks that can beat Vengevival without sacrificing other matchups. If you TRULY anticipate a Vengevival field, then you consider playing a deck that primarily beats Vengevival, so you might piece up a Vengevival deck that hates Vengevival, but you still run into issues of other anti-Vengevival decks targetting you. To deny that you cannot create a deck that can beat Vengevival and yet have decent matchups against other jank/non-Vengevival decks, is to deny the potential of this format. I for one, know that Welder Survival has a faster speed than Vengevival, but it loses to other matchups. Tweaked countertop lists (e.g. I think it was Probasco's new list in an article earlier) has a good matchup. UGBw Landstill has a good matchup. Elves combo, Burn, Sligh all have decent matchups agianst Vengevival. Once again, we're stuck with the mentality "I can't play crap to beat Vengevival or I'll lose to everything else". Then here's my question: "What is everything else? Effing Vengevivals?! There you go!" and the fact that you worry too much about your non-Vengevival matchups means that you are not taking Vengevival as serious as it should be. Once again, are we ready to play Spreading Seas if that's what it takes to beat Jund? I think as Legacy players, we are overly spoiled by the awesomeness and diversity of our format that we fail to realize that when time comes to beat a deck, we HAVE to do it to beat it, either by playing Jund or really beat the crap out of Jund with Spreading Seas.

Even if Vengevival stays dominant, like the Jund-syndrome (slightly overpowering deck in its format + overly popular deck + easy to pilot deck), I don't think Survival deserves to be banned because of this fact. You can disagree, but this is just my opinion :) And if the DCI treats Legacy like a true Eternal format, they would consider bannings in light on how they view Vintage bannings e.g. taking time (over a year to decide on TfK's restriction, and banning TfK instead of the engine/culprit cards).

B/R should never try to kill archetypes, but rather, focus on killing the 'unfun' and cards that cause the format to degrade. Steve pointed out that the existence of the DCI B/R is to allow for bannings/unbannings/restrictions/unrestrictions. I don't see a problem with VV getting banned over Survival. It does better for the format as of NOW. If they print another mistake creature that breaks Survival, then that's a time for the future to decide for the FUTURE of the format whether Survival should go. Who knows, they may print some crazy shit like Jace 3 again, where Survival would never be relevant.

[Aggro_zombies]

@Aggro_zombies: as good as the Ooze combo sounds on paper, in practice (this is from personal play-testing), it is the subpar strategy, I'll still opt for VV beats. Ooze despite difficult to be fizzled via removal, is very easily hated via Extirpate/Crypt/Relic/Macabre, all of which will continue to see play as long as Vengevival is popular. Having 1 Extirpate to hit just 1 card e.g. Devourer in the GY sounds bad, but it's a huge tempo against Oozevival. They have spent GGG2BB + 1G (survival's cost) to attempt to kill, and the worst GY hate card (Extirpate) against it still fizzles it. I play Ooze as a backup plan in my Survival deck, and usually don't go for it since it does not guarantee me wins if I fail. Other options (Welder, VV) will keep the board position for future turns if fizzled.
There are a few issues with this:

- Most players will not play Extirpate in their boards. In addition to being incredibly narrow (since it is usually THE GOGGLES against graveyard-centric decks), it is black, and there are plenty of decks that will not want to splash only for sideboard cards.

- If you play the combo pieces in the correct order, you can go off in response to a Crypt, Faerie, or Relic activation.

- Survival decks still have a plan B of being standard midrange beatdown decks.

- Assuming Vvine is banned instead of Survival, Ooze lists would likely go -4 Vines, +4 disruption spells to help stabilize the deck against hate.

Remember that the Ooze Survival lists have access to discard spells, making it possible to scout for hate spells first. Not having a Vvine kill may make the deck a little more brittle, but it's quite possible it could be retooled to either fight the hate or circumvent it with additional beats. Also remember that very few of these sorts of hate cards are in the main, and in games two and three Survival pilots can bring in counter-hate cards like Needle to keep themselves from getting blown out.

[GGoober]

There are a few issues with this:

- Most players will not play Extirpate in their boards. In addition to being incredibly narrow (since it is usually THE GOGGLES against graveyard-centric decks), it is black, and there are plenty of decks that will not want to splash only for sideboard cards.

- If you play the combo pieces in the correct order, you can go off in response to a Crypt, Faerie, or Relic activation.

- Survival decks still have a plan B of being standard midrange beatdown decks.

- Assuming Vvine is banned instead of Survival, Ooze lists would likely go -4 Vines, +4 disruption spells to help stabilize the deck against hate.

Remember that the Ooze Survival lists have access to discard spells, making it possible to scout for hate spells first. Not having a Vvine kill may make the deck a little more brittle, but it's quite possible it could be retooled to either fight the hate or circumvent it with additional beats. Also remember that very few of these sorts of hate cards are in the main, and in games two and three Survival pilots can bring in counter-hate cards like Needle to keep themselves from getting blown out.


Would you mind elaborating on how in each points?
- Most players will not play Extirpate in their boards. In addition to being incredibly narrow (since it is usually THE GOGGLES against graveyard-centric decks), it is black, and there are plenty of decks that will not want to splash only for sideboard cards.

As far as I know, Extirpate is worth running in the SB, argubly over Pithing Needle against Vengevival. This is my take on Survival. If I shut down VV, I am dealing with a horrible Survival deck. Bant Survival/GW Survival are the only decks that I will worry now. From playing, Vengevivals don't run any Squees so Extirpate on VV sets them back and limits their Survival activations to dumping Rootwallas in play. But if you think Extirpate is not good in a Vengevival meta, that's your opinion. AFAIK, I'll be running 3-4 Extirpate + 3-4 Needles in my SB as long as the deck's popular


- If you play the combo pieces in the correct order, you can go off in response to a Crypt, Faerie, or Relic activation.
I cannot see this happen at all. If a Crypt/Relic is in play, you can just activate it in response to Ooze's casting. If they dropped a Ooze first then went off to fetch up pieces, then that would work unless they have more GY hate, but this assumption is highly unlikely. It will involve them tapping 2BB to cast Ooze and have GG floating to find the combo to go off. If by then (turn 5-6) your opponent hasn't killed or disrupted you or stopped Survival, the game was already over. Casting Ooze 2BB with GG open is highly unlikely situation but I can see the Ooze playing doing this against GY hate. In most cases, that dedication would involve passing the turns to set it up. And in such a situation, I'll just play non-Survival Ooze since it's faster, more resilient and has tons of disruption



- Survival decks still have a plan B of being standard midrange beatdown decks.
I'm aware of that and I do not disagree. Survival is inherently either a combo aggro deck or a mid-range aggro deck (i.e. designs of Survival fall under combo aggro e.g. Welder Survival, Vengevival, or mid-range toolbox approaches like RGBSA, ATS)

- Assuming Vvine is banned instead of Survival, Ooze lists would likely go -4 Vines, +4 disruption spells to help stabilize the deck against hate.
The question now becomes. Is a non-Vengevival Ooze Survival deck stronger than Vengevival? If it is, then Survival is the big reason to go. If it's not, Vengevine is the main culprit, and for the health of the format NOW, VV has to go. If a future card XYZ breaks Survival again, then B/R decides the health of the meta in the FUTURE. That's the whole purpose of B/R, to keep formats healthy. I personally argue that if Survival stays and VV leaves, the format will be quite healthy. Ooze Survival even with +4 Disruption spells is still a turn 4 win at best. I would imagine it having problems against most decks in the format when it cannot rely on a strong backup plan of free 4/3 hasters.

[frogboy]

If by "Ok" you mean it in the binary sense of "Bannable versus OK," framed as two mutually exclusive options, then I would firmly put Vengevineless Survival in the "OK" category given the evidence we currently have. There is simply no evidence that Survival without vengevine would be dominant statistically. That doesn't' mean it wouldn't be, but bannings aren't justified on speculation alone.

I was mostly trying to say that the position that Vengevine broke Survival might be flawed given that there is another engine in Rise that is very good with Survival, plus the Ooze combo that debuted with Scars. People have said that Vengevine is the problem, not Survival, and I'm unconvinced that Survival decks with a different kill wouldn't be dominant without the existence of Vengevine. At the very least, it's not something that can simply be handwaved away.

[Smmenen]

I was mostly trying to say that the position that Vengevine broke Survival might be flawed given that there is another engine in Rise that is very good with Survival, plus the Ooze combo that debuted with Scars. People have said that Vengevine is the problem, not Survival, and I'm unconvinced that Survival decks with a different kill wouldn't be dominant without the existence of Vengevine. At the very least, it's not something that can simply be handwaved away.

I understand your point, and my reply was completely responsive to it. Your point is that even if VV were banned, Survival might be a problem. My point is that we ban cards based on performance evidence. There is simply no evidence that Survival without vengevine would be dominant statistically. That doesn't' mean it wouldn't be, but bannings aren't justified on speculation alone.

To that extent, we can handwave it away, or introduce the speculative corallary: "I'm not convinced that even without Survival that VV wouldn't be a problem."

[Rico Suave]

Mind's Desire is banned without any evidence supporting it. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a wrong decision either.

There is more to banning a card than performance, statistical evidence, or anything else of that sort.

[Smmenen]

Mind's Desire is banned without any evidence supporting it. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a wrong decision either.

There is more to banning a card than performance, statistical evidence, or anything else of that sort.

yes, and the article acknowleges that. I point to the Flash and Trinisphere examples in Vintage, both of which were banned because of non-interactivity concerns.

Survival is no Flash. Survival is no Necropotence either. I knew Necropotence. I played with Necropotence. I was friends with Necropotence. Survival is no Necrpotence.

[median]

Mind's Desire is banned without any evidence supporting it. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a wrong decision either.

There is more to banning a card than performance, statistical evidence, or anything else of that sort.

I think the point he made in the article was that aside from mystical tutor no cards in legacy have been banned based on performance and to ban survival (or vengevine) would break president.

I really liked the article.

[Rico Suave]

When someone says that Survival would be a problem without Vengevine, you say "there is no evidence to support this."

I was pointing out that this is irrelevant to the problem.

Besides, you already know there wouldn't be any evidence to support this. If Necro were unbanned and everyone was running around with Necro-Tendrils decks, we wouldn't have any evidence that Necro-Trix would be a problem either. But we know it would be a problem.

Any similarity between Necro and Survival is not in raw power. It is in mechanics.

[Smmenen]

When someone says that Survival would be a problem without Vengevine, you say "there is no evidence to support this."

I was pointing out that this is irrelevant to the problem.

Besides, you already know there wouldn't be any evidence to support this. If Necro were unbanned and everyone was running around with Necro-Tendrils decks, we wouldn't have any evidence that Necro-Trix would be a problem either. But we know it would be a problem.

Any similarity between Necro and Survival is not in raw power. It is in mechanics.


The comparison to Necropotence is the notion that despite a succession of problematic archetypes, the DCI persisted under the mistaken presumption that it could address the problem without addressing the core issue, and that banning anything other than Survival would repeat the same mistake. In the case of necropotence, the DCI repeatedly banned cards in decks in which Necropotence was present until finally confronting the so-called 'real issue' directly, and then banned Necropotence.

The 'evidence' I'm suggesting is absent is evidence that Survival would be dominant if VV were as well as evidence that Survival follows the meta-trajectory of Necro, and would eventually necessitate another banning. While characterized differently, this evidence is similar in nature. In the case of Necropotence, we had year after year of problematic archetypes emerging around Necropotence. In the case of Survival, we've had 6 years of fair use in Legacy, followed by a few months of abuse.

While it's a truism that you could theoretically continue to ban cards in the hopes of containing Necropotence, the argument that Survival is just like Necropotence is the argument that it will continue to necessitate further bannings. When Necro was finally banned, there was plenty of historical evidence to suggest that this would be the case. Except for its very earliest usage (and even this is debatable), Necropotence was never fair. Survival has had 6 years of fair use. Necropotence and Survival are apples and Oranges.

That's why I think other comparisons, like Trinisphere and Workshop, are more appropriate. When Trinisphere and Crucible were printed, folks in Vintage complained about Workshops. There were several options. The DCI could restrict Workshop, a card that generated unfair amounts of mana, or it could restrict a particular application of that mana. People cited necro as a reason to restrict Workshop. The DCI, wisely, especially from this historical vantage point, correctly restricted Trinisphere.

The case for restricting Workshop was arguably even more compelling given the fact that Workshop had actually been restricted before in the same format. Like Survival, it was a card that had been abused in tournament play. Yet, they restricted the card that had only seen print for a short while rather than the mana engine. The DCI is confronted with a similar situation, but, even clearer. Workshop in 2005 had been unrestricted in Vintage for 7 years, and generally considered fair for most of that time. The case is the same today with Survival in Legacy.

People speculatively invoke the Necro comparison, but, again, that argument fails because Necropotence never enjoyed, like Workshop or Survival, a sustained period of legal, but fair use in the middle of its run.

On some level, it's an epistemological question: how do we know what we know? When a card has been fair for 6 years, it loses all pretension to being inherently or inevitably problematic. Pointing to 1999 and old extended or type two is simply unavailing with the interim period has starkly refuted older assumptions.

TL;DR:

Necropotence never enjoyed an extended period of fair use during it's run; Survival has been fairly used in Legacy for the last 6 years. There is no evidence -- either performance data or a relevant historical record -- to suggest that Survival would follow a similar trajectory.

[Koby]

Decks of SCG Legacy Open from 2010 Top 8s:

http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/rukcus/large/2cb18ab318a73869324f9cb8450bef3b.png

PS: I love infografx

P.P.S: I agree with the article and think Vengevine needs to go.

[Smmenen]

Decks of SCG Legacy Open from 2010 Top 8s:

http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/rukcus/large/2cb18ab318a73869324f9cb8450bef3b.png

PS: I love infografx

That lends credence to my argument that you would generate more format diversity by banning VV than Survival.

[sdematt]

That was an excellent article summing up what needs to be done. I would have liked a small bit discussion about how unbanning Mystical could play into it, but that's slightly off the path you were on.

You've basically summed up my beliefs in a wonderfully written, concise article. Well done!

-Matt

[dahcmai]

Sadly, I think Survival has had it's day. It's one of those cards that will eventually become a problem due to newer cards having better and better interactions with it. It's similar to Intuition or Gifts Ungiven as to it's not the card itself that's really a problem, but how it interacts with others. All are a tutor of a sort and nothing more. Survival would eventually have the same problem with another creature eventually when one is printed that's too good and accidentally makes Survival look like the bad guy again.

Ooze and Vengevine are the problems due to the "free" nature of the cards, but Survival will take the heat as it's the way to make these tricks consistent. Survival isn't busted or broken, but it sure enables amazing synergy in other cards. It's similar to Fastbond. Fastbond actually sucks in a format with no cards that interact with it well. Pick up a pre-con deck and add 4 fastbonds and then try and tell me it's busted. Sure, you can get some odd fast starts sometimes, but for the most part it's a bad draw. Add Crucible of Worlds, Storm Couldron, or Gush and it's pretty damned amazing all of a sudden. Every card that's printed has the possibility of making Fastbond stupid good and well if there's a card to get hit, it's usually the one that has potential to be busted by something else that's printed later.

Survival will take this one for the team. Though I still wish they would hold out until people start building against it more to see if it's reluctance of opposing decks to change that is powering it or if it's really just getting too good for it's own good.


I will kind of be surprised in a way if they do ban it though. People whined about Counterbalance way more. And if there's anything that sucks, it's getting locked out by Countertop and they let that one go.

[Rico Suave]

TL;DR:

Necropotence never enjoyed an extended period of fair use during it's run; Survival has been fairly used in Legacy for the last 6 years. There is no evidence -- either performance data or a relevant historical record -- to suggest that Survival would follow a similar trajectory.

I have played fair decks that contained Necropotence for a period of about 6 years across several formats before it was eventually banned. I don't believe you at all.

[KindGrind]

Necropotence was broken from the get go, and was never, ever fair. Still, it was a blast to play.

Survival has always been fun, and now Vengevine made it unfair. Sad to see a fun card go because of r&d's "mistake", but hey. It seems this needs to happen at this point...

[Smmenen]

I have played fair decks that contained Necropotence for a period of about 6 years across several formats before it was eventually banned. I don't believe you at all.

That's fine: whether Necropotence was ever fair or not is not critical to my argument.

My point is that Survival has now had 6 years of fair use in its most recent applications. The most recent applications of Necropotence were increasingly degenerate. Therefore, Survival is not comparable to Necropotence, if your argument is that Survival will follow the Necropotence trajectory. All of the evidence is contrary to that view: Survival has followed anything BUT the trajectory of Necropotence.

Survival is more like Mishra's Workshop: a card that was busted back in the day, has been fair for a while, and now has as broken application, but once that application is gone, it will be fair again.

[Aggro_zombies]

Survival is more like Mishra's Workshop: a card that was busted back in the day, has been fair for a while, and now has as broken application, but once that application is gone, it will be fair again.
Isn't this necessarily conceding that Survival can become busted again at any time, as long as the appropriate partner card(s) is(are) printed? If that's the case, are you seriously suggesting that we should ban all the apps that get introduced into the Survival Store, simply because Survival isn't busted as long as you're only playing it with crappy cards?

Wouldn't it be better to just ban Survival and keep the number of bans to a minimum? Aren't you a proponent of the smallest B&R List possible?

[Smmenen]

Isn't this necessarily conceding that Survival can become busted again at any time, as long as the appropriate partner card(s) is(are) printed?

Of course I concede that Survival *can* become busted again. Almost any card can become busted if the right card is printed. Worldgorger Dragon made Animate Dead broken, and vice versa.

The question isn't whether a card *can* become busted again, but the probability or likelihood of it.

Both sides of this debate are making an assertion about the future, inductively, based upon the past. Necessarily, the pro-survival ban crowd believes that Survival will be a problem again, if not banned now. The VV crowd has faith that, given Survival's recent history, it has a very good chance to be a fair card for the foreseeable future. Or, at least, they believe that there isn't enough historical evidence to believe that it will necessarily or even very likely will produce another dominant deck.

With respect to Mishra's Workshop: my point is it's been 5 years since the restriction of Trinisphere and Workshop remains unrestricted despite the number of lock cards and spheres since Trinisphere's restriction. The fact that nothing has needed restriction demonstrates that Trinisphere was the right call, even though leaving Workshop unrestricted means that a possible application could be printed at some point.




If that's the case, are you seriously suggesting that we should ban all the apps that get introduced into the Survival Store, simply because Survival isn't busted as long as you're only playing it with crappy cards?


No. If Survival generates additional dominant decks, then we re-evaluate our belief regarding whether Survival will produce more dominant decks, and ban survival instead.




Wouldn't it be better to just ban Survival and keep the number of bans to a minimum? Aren't you a proponent of the smallest B&R List possible?


Absolutely. But I also don't believe that Survival will inevitably generate additional bannings.

[Aggro_zombies]

Of course I concede that Survival *can* become busted again. Almost any card can become busted if the right card is printed. Worldgorger Dragon made Animate Dead broken, and vice versa.

The question isn't whether a card *can* become busted again, but the probability or likelihood of it.

Both sides of this debate are making an assertion about the future, inductively, based upon the past. Necessarily, the pro-survival ban crowd believes that Survival will be a problem again, if not banned now. The VV crowd has faith that, given Survival's recent history, it has a very good chance to be a fair card for the foreseeable future. Or, at least, they believe that there isn't enough historical evidence to believe that it will necessarily or even very likely will produce another dominant deck.
R&D has stated before that they essentially don't test for the Eternal formats when designing and developing a new set; hell, they missed the interaction of Hexmage and Dark Depths in a format with a significantly smaller card pool (which, by extension, should have been easier to test for). Which of these sounds more unlikely to you: that R&D never prints another creature that is broken alone or in combination with other creatures, thus making it extremely powerful in a Survival shell, or that something accidentally gets through the cracks eventually?

Let's look at this from several different angles. You're basically arguing that guns don't kill people; bullets do. Therefore, we should ban the bullets, because the worst you can do with an unloaded gun is pistol-whip someone. However, implicit in this argument is the fact that finding an addition cache of the right bullets automatically turns your gun from a weak blunt weapon back into a lethal ranged one. Arguing that such bullets are hard to find does not change the fact that it is very easily possible for them to exist.

Now for another angle. Suppose we had a theoretical deck with twenty Tropical Islands, twenty Time Walks, and twenty Wood Elementals. Time Walk isn't broken in this deck, right? All it really does is allow you to very slowly build lands so you can eventually sacrifice most of them to a Wood Elemental. So does this mean that Time Walk is not inherently a broken card? Your premise - that cards are only broken contextually - means that you would have to say that Time Walk is not overpowered in and of itself, because in Wood Elemental.deck, it is actually usually just an Explore. But this is clearly a joke: Time Walk is head and shoulders above most other cards in Magic. Why is a repeatable and cheap tutor engine any different? Just because there didn't happen to be any particularly broken guys to stick in a Survival shell doesn't mean that Vengevine and Necrotic Ooze are "just" one-time accidents.


With respect to Mishra's Workshop: my point is it's been 5 years since the restriction of Trinisphere and Workshop remains unrestricted despite the number of lock cards and spheres since Trinisphere's restriction. The fact that nothing has needed restriction demonstrates that Trinisphere was the right call, even though leaving Workshop unrestricted means that a possible application could be printed at some point.
Here's another angle. Workshop isn't an engine per se; Survival is a repeatable tutor that provides card advantage by itself, whereas Workshop needs other cards to be good. Arguing that Survival is only as good as the creatures around it misses the point: the point is that Survival allows you to trade the worst card in your hand for a theoretically better card in your library, generating card advantage. In your Workshop scenario, Workshop never was the problem; Trinisphere was the lock piece that generated ridiculous card advantage by shutting off the opponent's hand. In that sense, it is more like Survival than Vengevine.


No. If Survival generates additional dominant decks, then we re-evaluate our belief regarding whether Survival will produce more dominant decks, and ban survival instead.
Because it won't be asinine at all to take a "wait and see" approach to card that is a known breakable commodity while banning a card that literally does nothing without its associated engine. Because when we get Vengevine 2.0 at some point in the future, everyone who argued for the banning of Survival now wouldn't be vindicated, and you wouldn't look like an idiot for suggesting that we ban an enabled card instead of the enabler because Wizards couldn't possibly print another Vvine or Necro Ooze-type card.

[Smmenen]

R&D has stated before that they essentially don't test for the Eternal formats when designing and developing a new set; hell, they missed the interaction of Hexmage and Dark Depths in a format with a significantly smaller card pool (which, by extension, should have been easier to test for). Which of these sounds more unlikely to you: that R&D never prints another creature that is broken alone or in combination with other creatures, thus making it extremely powerful in a Survival shell, or that something accidentally gets through the cracks eventually?

Let's look at this from several different angles. You're basically arguing that guns don't kill people; bullets do.

Actually, it's the interaction of guns and bullets that kill people. Not one or the other, but both together.

More importantly, you are assuming that Survival is the gun. Your "angle" is simply circular, assuming what it concludes: Guns are the problem, not bullets. Survival is the problem because it's the gun.

Your argument, and essentially everyone who argues for banning Survival, believes that Survival is the "real problem." Yet, that's completely unestablished.

My article goes to the heart of your assumptions, your essentially biased perception of Survival vis-a-vis Vengevine. I blast people who characterize cards like this in such broad and unhelpful terms as a way of driving home their point. Your claim that Survival is the "gun" is no different than Chapin saying that Survival is "degenerate": your simply claiming, without evidence and on the basis of a completely unfounded characterization/analogy, that Survival is the "real problem." Making the same point using a different analogy doesn't make it true.



Now for another angle. Suppose we had a theoretical deck with twenty Tropical Islands, twenty Time Walks, and twenty Wood Elementals. Time Walk isn't broken in this deck, right? All it really does is allow you to very slowly build lands so you can eventually sacrifice most of them to a Wood Elemental. So does this mean that Time Walk is not inherently a broken card? Your premise - that cards are only broken contextually - means that you would have to say that Time Walk is not overpowered in and of itself, because in Wood Elemental.deck, it is actually usually just an Explore. But this is clearly a joke: Time Walk is head and shoulders above most other cards in Magic. Why is a repeatable and cheap tutor engine any different?


We don't ban cards in magic because of theoretical notions about how powerful cards are. We ban them because they either dominant a metagame or are otherwise unfun or bad for the format. It doesn't matter whether a card is "inherently broken or not" for B/R List policy. I don't think there is such a thing, but even if there were, it's completely irrelevant!

And because its irrelevant, it's a dangerous talking point since it only has the potential to confuse and mislead. It blinds people to what's really going on and suggests not only the wrong analytic framework for understanding these issues and magic more generally, but suggests the wrong conclusions.




Just because there didn't happen to be any particularly broken guys to stick in a Survival shell doesn't mean that Vengevine and Necrotic Ooze are "just" one-time accidents.

Doesn't mean that they aren't, either.

Our disagreement comes down to an assessment (an inductive assessment) of all of the available evidence. I think it's unlikely, or at a minimum, not sufficiently likely, that Survival would need to be banned or prompt another banning, if VV were banned. I have 6 years of fair use in Legacy to support that conclusion.



Here's another angle. Workshop isn't an engine per se;


Certainly it is. It's a mana engine.




Survival is a repeatable tutor that provides card advantage by itself, whereas Workshop needs other cards to be good.



So false its hilarious. Survival, and in fact ALL magic cards, are only good with other cards. Without other cards, Survival can't tutor up anything. Just as without other cards, Workshop mana does nothing.

Magic cards actually do nothing by themselves. Absolutely nothing. The only exception, perhaps, is Dryad Arbor, but even that card requires a context, which involves other cards.

More importantly, there you go again trying to justify making Survival the "real problem" by using terms like a "tutor," etc. Did I already warn agianst that:



Similarly, being labeled a “tutor” ... is not helpful criteria. Mystical Tutor is banned, but Enlightened Tutor and Grim Tutor are not. Unfortunately, the DCI often uses analogies like that to justify its decision making, but those frameworks are simply terrible heuristics for decision making. Each tutor is unique both in its application and contextual power. It’s only in the context of a metagame, not because of some principle regarding a card’s characteristic, that a card deserves to be banned. These labels are labels that hyperbolic and imprecise columnists use in internet debates or the DCI uses to justify decisions based on flimsy evidence. There is no such thing, in the context of B/R list policy, as “inherently broken.” And, even if there were, cards aren’t banned because they are “inherently broken,” but because they are contextually broken, and dominate a metagame. It’s time for us to get away from such poor linguistic forms.




Arguing that Survival is only as good as the creatures around it misses the point:


I never argued that. I would argue that the creatures around it are a part of its context, but the relationship you just asserted is inaccurate. Survival is only as good as its interactions with the creatures around it, and the interactions between the creatures around it.

That's because card power is defined by synergy, and synergy is the interaction of cards. A card's power is nothing more or nothing less than the sum of the interactions with other cards, either directly or indirectly.




the point is that Survival allows you to trade the worst card in your hand for a theoretically better card in your library, generating card advantage. In your Workshop scenario, Workshop never was the problem; Trinisphere was the lock piece that generated ridiculous card advantage by shutting off the opponent's hand. In that sense, it is more like Survival than Vengevine.



Lots of Vintage players argue that Workshop is the problem by allowing people to play cards like Smokestack, Lodestone Golem, etc on turn one. The problem with Trinisphere was never card advantage. It was tempo. It was unfun. People said that it wasn't Trinisphere that made this the problem, but Workshop.

They were wrong: it was the interaction of Workshop and Trinisphere, and that's not reducible to either card.

Because it won't be asinine at all to take a "wait and see" approach to card that is a known breakable commodity while banning a card that literally does nothing without its associated engine. [/quote]

Literally does nothing? That's provably false.



Because when we get Vengevine 2.0 at some point in the future, everyone who argued for the banning of Survival now wouldn't be vindicated, and you wouldn't look like an idiot for suggesting that we ban an enabled card instead of the enabler because Wizards couldn't possibly print another Vvine or Necro Ooze-type card.

Because "when"? How do you know Vengevine isn't the anomaly? Your reasoning is circular: Because Vengevine 2.0 will be printed, Survival should be banned. But what if Vengevine 2.0 isn't printed? You assume what you conclude.

SUMMARY:

All people who want Survival Banned believe that Survival is the "real problem." Most people who think that think that it's the real problem because either 1) Survival will prompt another banning in the future OR 2) Survival is the degenerate card. Both reasons are terrible. Again, being degenerate isn't grounds for banning. There are lots of degenerate cards in Legacy, and there is only one principled way for distinguishing between those degenerate cards that should be banned and those that shouldn't: performance. As for (1), that's completely speculative, and unlike Necropotence, we have 6 years of fair use to suggest that it's untrue.

[Aggro_zombies]

Actually, it's the interaction of guns and bullets that kill people. Not one or the other, but both together.

More importantly, you are assuming that Survival is the gun. Your "angle" is simply circular, assuming what it concludes: Guns are the problem, not bullets. Survival is the problem because it's the gun.

Your argument, and essentially everyone who argues for banning Survival, believes that Survival is the "real problem." Yet, that's completely unestablished.

My article goes to the heart of your assumptions, your essentially biased perception of Survival vis-a-vis Vengevine. I blast people who characterize cards like this in such broad and unhelpful terms as a way of driving home their point. Your claim that Survival is the "gun" is no different than Chapin saying that Survival is "degenerate": your simply claiming, without evidence and on the basis of a completely unfounded characterization/analogy, that Survival is the "real problem." Making the same point using a different analogy doesn't make it true.
So, what, your article goes to the heart of my assumptions by assuming Vengevine is the problem and then begging the question?

So, tell me, which of these statements is true?

"Survival is broken because it can find Vengevine."

or,

"Vengevine is broken because it can found by Survival."

Or are you going to be hypocritical and argue that Vengevine is powerful all by itself, and thus banworthy?


Literally does nothing? That's provably false.
You omitted the important part of that sentence: "without its associated engine." What other decks is Vengevine breaking right now, besides ones alredy containing Survival? You have all the tournament data, so make a chart of how many decks use Vengevines but not Survivals, and then compare that number to the number of decks that use both.


Doesn't mean that they aren't, either.

Our disagreement comes down to an assessment (an inductive assessment) of all of the available evidence. I think it's unlikely, or at a minimum, not sufficiently likely, that Survival would need to be banned or prompt another banning, if VV were banned. I have 6 years of fair use in Legacy to support that conclusion.
And I have two different creatures printed in almost back-to-back sets to support mine. What's stopping Wizards from screwing up, or just not even realizing what they're printing? Or are you one of those glass-is-half-full people that believes nothing could ever possibly go wrong? I mean, many of the best creatures in the various Survival decks have been printed within the last few years: Goyf, Knight, Iona, Emrakul, Vvine, Ooze. Furthermore, the "six years of fair use" included formats where Mystical Tutor was legal, a card which enabled powerful combo decks - and which is now gone. Perhaps combo kept Survival in check? Perhaps new printings didn't give as much to Survival decks as they gave to other decks? Formats evolve over time: a card that wasn't broken six years ago is suddenly dominant, and got that way because of a single card...


Because "when"? How do you know Vengevine isn't the anomaly? Your reasoning is circular: Because Vengevine 2.0 will be printed, Survival should be banned. But what if Vengevine 2.0 isn't printed? You assume what you conclude.
You're assuming that Wizards is infallible. Do you think they tested Legacy, discovered the Ooze + Triskelion + Devourer combo, decided it wasn't dominating in a Survival shell, and are now patiently waiting for us to replicate their FFL results? Did they know about Survival Madness while Rise was still in development, but concluded it was beatable in a way we haven't discovered yet? Or did they conclude that Ooze and Vvine weren't problems in Standard and that they didn't have the time or resources to test either card in Legacy?

Tarmogoyf was a mistake, as per Mark Rosewater's admission. So was Skullclamp. Hell, months after Tarmogoyf was released, Bitterblossom was released, a card that prompted a public apology from MaRo! Wizards is not infallible. Assuming that they won't screw up ever again is laughable: even if they do their absolute best to ensure Standard and Extended are fine, we know they don't have the ability to test for the Eternal formats. There is absolutely no reason to assume that a mistake won't be made, and plenty of prior evidence to suggest one will be. Or will you argue that something as seemingly innocuous as the removal of power-level errata on Flash was actually a deliberate and malevolent attempt to sink the format on the part of the Rules Manager, because Wizards knew about the Flash-Hulk interaction it would create?

I simply can't see how you can make this argument with a straight face.


I never argued that. I would argue that the creatures around it are a part of its context, but the relationship you just asserted is inaccurate. Survival is only as good as its interactions with the creatures around it, and the interactions between the creatures around it.

That's because card power is defined by synergy, and synergy is the interaction of cards. A card's power is nothing more or nothing less than the sum of the interactions with other cards, either directly or indirectly.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point, or just not thinking this one all the way through. This argument cuts both ways: that the creatures are the problem, and the creatures have made Survival good enough to be a problem, but are not themselves problematic. Prove to me that Vengevine is a problem outside the context of Survival and then we might have a good argument for banning Vengevine.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I won't argue should, but I will quibble with the idea that the ultimate goal of the B&R list is to make the format more diverse or even more interesting or fun. The ultimate point of every aspect of tournament Magic, as every organism, is to perpetuate its own existence. Magic exists ultimately to make people buy packs.

Whether or not it's the better move for format fun, in terms of Wizards' goal being to make money, it's not hard to see where they have a compelling interest to ban the card that's 12 years old rather than the one that's still in Standard.

[AriLax]

I'll reiterate what I said on SCG.

Survival prevents WotC from printing a large variety of graveyard interactive creatures. Outside of Survival, Vengevine has been amazing for other formats, giving decks an engine to grind out control or Jund. The same is true for similar creatures, and I'm sure Necrotic Ooze will have an interesting future as well.

Vengevine prevents WotC from printing ways to easily tutor from deck to graveyard. When was the last time WotC printed a card like this? They know this design space is not good for the game.

Vengevine existing closes doors that were already locked. Survival existing forces them to tone down or reevaluate cards that may or may no produce healthier formats.

And yes, Survival without Vengevine might not be as good. The point isn't that. Preserving Survival in the long term is not important as it has proven itself a repeat offender across many formats.

[median]

I won't argue should, but I will quibble with the idea that the ultimate goal of the B&R list is to make the format more diverse or even more interesting or fun. The ultimate point of every aspect of tournament Magic, as every organism, is to perpetuate its own existence. Magic exists ultimately to make people buy packs.

Whether or not it's the better move for format fun, in terms of Wizards' goal being to make money, it's not hard to see where they have a compelling interest to ban the card that's 12 years old rather than the one that's still in Standard.

That's actually might be irrelevant, we can't tell how viable the decks will be without survival. For all we know, vengevine could be a $2 mythic when it rotates out.

[Amon Amarth]

Looking back at the last 5 years of Magic there is a very noticeable trend of creatures becoming significantly stronger than they have been. R&D has been pushing the power of creatures because they realized that in the past creatures tend to have been much worse than spells. I think this is very important point; WOTC has made very powerful creatures in the last few years and will continue to do so. It seems more than likely that Survival would be able to be broken again if Vengevine were banned.

I liked the article though. Interesting analysis.

[hungryboi]

I play Magic The Gathering for Legacy. I play Legacy for Survival. This has been for the last 6 years. Once they ban Survival, I will most likely quit and just sell everything. It's pretty sad but I think I'll have to move on. Survival of the Fittest was my favorite card since Brian Seldon won in 90s. It was a good 12 years of MTG while it lasted.

[Waikiki]

I play Magic The Gathering for Legacy. I play Legacy for Survival. This has been for the last 6 years. Once they ban Survival, I will most likely quit and just sell everything. It's pretty sad but I think I'll have to move on. Survival of the Fittest was my favorite card since Brian Seldon won in 90s. It was a good 12 years of MTG while it lasted.

I feel the same way ;) Won't quit but I can sell like 75% of my cards since they all I need is some blue spells + blue dualls and a combo deck.

[Waikiki]

I play Magic The Gathering for Legacy. I play Legacy for Survival. This has been for the last 6 years. Once they ban Survival, I will most likely quit and just sell everything. It's pretty sad but I think I'll have to move on. Survival of the Fittest was my favorite card since Brian Seldon won in 90s. It was a good 12 years of MTG while it lasted.

I feel the same way ;) Won't quit but I can sell like 75% of my cards since they all I need is some blue spells + blue dualls and a combo deck.

[hungryboi]

I feel the same way ;) Won't quit but I can sell like 75% of my cards since they all I need is some blue spells + blue dualls and a combo deck.

Always a chance to come back but I think it would be at least a year or so. I've gone on and off MTG throughout the years before I started playing Survival. Wish Vengevine never got printed...

[Lemnear]

You omitted the important part of that sentence: "without its associated engine." What other decks is Vengevine breaking right now, besides ones alredy containing Survival? You have all the tournament data, so make a chart of how many decks use Vengevines but not Survivals, and then compare that number to the number of decks that use both.


This is hilarious. By this logic we should compare card couples like Brainstorm (Vengevine/threat) and Fetchlands (Survival/enabler) ... end up banning Fetchlands?

Oh my God! Think of all that good blue cards might be printed in the future! We have to ban islands NOW! *sarcasm*

[Gui]

When it come to either banning Survival or Vengevine, the problem we got is pretty hard. The fact that they are strong together is a far more simple problem than which to ban. I believe the first "tie-breaker" should be "which card is more probable to become broken again", and this leads to some arguments:

- Without Survival, Vengevine won't generate all that card advantage;
- Without Vengevine, Survival was never broken;
- Vengevine could be used on some sort of Intuition+Vengevine and end up being just as broken;
- Survival is a recurring tutor, and it means it can be broken someday.

Back on when Survival had no Vengevines, noone used it along with Basking Rootwalla. Basking Rootwalla is a "Minor Vengevine", which grants card advantage everytime you tutor it. I can see Basking Rootwalla keeping the GW version strong, maybe using some other Madness bullets, because damn, everyone could use a 1/1 creature for g that cantrips and can be 3/3 for :1::g:, and fetch another bullet like Arrogant Wurm to be played for :4: and cantrip. This is a interaction that was not used before, and *could* be broken either. Not to mention the endless amount of alternative kills that Sur got right now, and the fact that Fauna Shaman would work just as fine for an aggro deck.

While with Vengevines, an intuition could get you 2 Vengevines into play and one at hand, and although not as fast as the current version. Something that discards and draws would be required to make them really strong, but it's a tech that could be found by someone. Also, Fauna Shaman, which is wayyy worse than survival, could backup this plan. It is way slower than with Survival.

Being a recurring tutor that doesn't increase Card Advantage and fetches the least powerful "solution" at magic, which are the creatures, isn't that impressive. The problem is discarding and yet, getting those creatures online.

IMO, the most banable card is still SotF, because it is more *probable* to become broken again, due to its ability to create CA for :g: with the right cards, while the Intuition plan would be a lot slower. But if it is so, it's for a small bit.


I don't wanna say anyone is wrong, just put some points to ponder

[rleader]

hell, they missed the interaction of Hexmage and Dark Depths in a format with a significantly smaller card pool

Huh, is that something we actually know?

[xXxBretWeedxXx]

This is hilarious. By this logic we should compare card couples like Brainstorm (Vengevine/threat) and Fetchlands (Survival/enabler) ... end up banning Fetchlands?

Oh my God! Think of all that good blue cards might be printed in the future! We have to ban islands NOW! *sarcasm*

You seem to have associated the wrong cards to each other. Brainstorm is far more like Survival in the SV/VV - BS/FL analogy. BS creates the card advantage and provides the engine where the FL finishes the job. The main difference here is that Survival is a better engine because the GY is as good as the hand and is repeatable.

It's honestly been one of the most surprising things to me that Survival hasn't been broken backwards before now.

Also as an aside to Steve, Survival has found 3 different deck types since Rise of Eldrazi, an expansion that came out this year. How can you possibly say with a straight face that the potential for it to be broken post VV ban is a logical fallacy? The direction of WotC has been clear for a while now.

[Cthuloo]

Although the decision has already been made, as Stephen correctly states in the article, I enjoyed the reading. It was at least written from a different perspective.

Partially unrelated to his: please, stop arguing by analogy, this isn't going anywhere. Survival isn't necro or brainstorm, vengevine isn't illusion or fetchlands. Guess what: survival is survival, and venegvine is vengevine. Both are rather unique cards, and drawing conclusions based on comparison with other completely different cards (or weapons) isn't a good idea.

[Lemnear]

Survival is always considered as the ENABLER of present and may future combos/plays so I took the Fetchlands/islands as example for this narrow and repeating description, which lacks a lots as you realized yourself.

Every single card has the potential to be broken with future printings but that doesn't mean we have to ban Moonlace NOW if they might print a enchantment for U that lets you draw 10 cards if it becomes colorless. The present should be an indicator for WotC's actions ...

The point is: Survival got Genesis, Squee, Loyal Retainer, Iona and now Vengevine over 12 years since it's printing and was always a tier 2 strategy until now ... the 2 main uses; convert useless dudes into bigger ones out of the deck and reanimation of dumped creatures with recurring nightmare etc. were well known and played since day 1 of it's printing.

NOW people started to complain about both facts to be out of bounds?! Dumping mana dudes for Goofy or Knight is now considered broken (even if it costs 1GG and a card); fatties (Iona, Chuck Norris, Vine) to reanimate them (Walla-action, Retainer) too.

Watch those 3 facts:
- It can exchange creatures in your hand for creatures out of your deck for mana.
- It enables reanimation strategies
- GW-Survival kills turn 4 with a perfect grip of 7 and a goldfish opponent

I guess every one can call this ban-worthy as he likes but I refuse to accept much of the logic to ban a card because of the fact that it MIGHT be able to do. All of that sounds like "Ban Ad Nauseum! It CAN draw hundreds of cards!" or the like

[ChrisElrod]

Anyone watch the most recent Magic Show where they interviewed Patrick Chapin for most of it?
He made some strong comments on the power level of the deck.

However, I do believe that banning vengevine would be better than banning survival, and I personally am not in the favor of the shortest possible banned list simply for the sake of having it be relatively short. I'd much rather have a metagame that includes one of the historically most interesting archetypes than one that instead has a banned list a few cards shorter.

[GGoober]

I personally am not in the favor of the shortest possible banned list simply for the sake of having it be relatively short. I'd much rather have a metagame that includes one of the historically most interesting archetypes than one that instead has a banned list a few cards shorter.

I think this is the heart of the debate. Most people feel that the banlist should be as concise and only consists of cards that are the true culprit/enablers of engines/engines etc. This train of thought thinks about the impact of the CURRENT bannings/restrictions and imposes restrictions/limitations for FUTURE metagames.

Other people (Steve, including myself and many others) feel that the banlist should be there to govern the health of metagames and conciseness isn't too relevant as long as it is maintaining the metastate. This train of thought thinks about the impact of the CURRENT bannings/restrictions and imposes restrictions/limitations for CURRENT metagames.

I personally believe that the latter belief is what the B/R should be all about, whether WotC/DCI adheres to this belief is their own philosophy, but I'm under the impression that was the situation. Referring to emergency bannings, Affinity in Standard, Bitterblossom/BBElf/Jace 2 in Standard, whether a card is banned/unbanned has all tied to this philosophy so far, i.e. maintaining the health of the format for CURRENT considerations. "Truly" broken cards like Necro and Ancestrall Recall are obviously banned for easy reasons that even a 6 year old can understand.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I completely agree with this article.

[Smmenen]

So, what, your article goes to the heart of my assumptions by assuming Vengevine is the problem and then begging the question?

No, my article goes to the heart of your argument that “Survival is the real problem” by pointing out that the idea that there is a ‘real problem’ is the problem.

All you’ve done is flip the script, by assuming that my suggestion to ban VV is based on the conclusion that VV is the ‘real problem,’ not Survival. On the contrary, I’m trying to show you that it’s the idea that there is a ‘real” or “root problem” that’s the problem.

Let’s step back for a moment and recap the entire debate.

My Position is this:

1) Nothing Should be Banned At this Time.

2) IF, However, The DCI decides to Ban Something, I would Ban VV instead of Survival.

My position is a dual position: it’s a position with an alternative option.

The Pro-Ban Survival Crowd obviously disagrees with (1), but they also disagree with (2).

Why? They disagree with two for a very simple reason:

The Pro-Ban Survival Crowd believes that Survival is the “Real” Or “Root” problem. They seem to take this position for one of two reasons:

1) Survival is the “INSERT WORD” Card, not VV.

This idea can be phrased in a number of ways: Survival is the” degenerate” card. Survival is the “recurrable source of card advantage.” Survival is the” real engine.” Survival is the “enabler.” ETC, I think you get the idea here.

OR

(2) Survival is likely to/going to/inevitably will cause more bannings if it isn’t banned now.

The idea here is that if we don’t ban Survival now, it will prompt more bannings, including its own.

Both reasons are wrong.

(1) is wrong because its 1) inaccurate in terms of representing the reality of the situation, and 2) irrelevant to the issue. (2) is wrong because I think the evidence suggests the opposite conclusion. Let me explain.

Dealing with (1):

Neither Vengevine nor Survival are broken. It’s the interaction of the two, situated within the context of the Legacy metagame that is the problem. You are trying to reduce a problem that is an emergent property an interaction to a particular card. That’s simply not an accurate assessment of the situation. It’s like asking: which is the ‘root’ cause of the water molecule: is it oxygen or is it hydrogen? It’s NEITHER. It’s the interaction of both together. Water is an emergent property of the interaction of the two atomic components. You are being far too reductionist. You are creating a false dichotomy: the grand , eluctable Either/Or dichotomy. Instead, it’s a BOTH/AND problem. Neither Survival nor VV are the problem: it’s when you put them together that you have a problem.

More importantly, the idea of whether a card is “ Each tutor and mana source is unique both in its application and contextual power. [b]It’s only in the context of a metagame, not because of some principle regarding a card’s characteristic, that a card deserves to be banned. These labels are labels that hyperbolic and imprecise columnists use in internet debates or the DCI uses to justify decisions based on flimsy evidence. There is no such thing, in the context of B/R list policy, as “inherently broken.” And,[i] even if there were, cards aren’t banned because they are “inherently broken,” but because they are contextually broken, and dominate a metagame. It’s time for us to get away from such poor linguistic forms.[/quote]

In summary, my response to (1) is twofold: a) It’s an inaccurate and reductionist description of reality, and b) it’s irrelevant to the issue of whether to ban a card because cards aren’t banned because of such labels.

Dealing with (2):

I simply disagree with it. I don’t think it’s inevitable or even likely that Survival will prompt further bannings. The conclusion that it will or is likely to do so rests on evidence, historical evidence and knowledge of the kinds of cards Wizards prints. Therefore, it’s an inductive conclusion based upon information we have.

We can also marshal that evidence that suggests that it’s probably untrue, which is my position. My conclusion is also inductive, but it ends up the opposite position. Six years of fair use, despite plenty of GY based abusive creatures, suggests that (2) is far from a given. We can quibble at the margin about HOW likely it is, but I would put it at under 50%, which explains my position of why Survival shouldn’t be banned.




So, tell me, which of these statements is true?

"Survival is broken because it can find Vengevine."

or,

"Vengevine is broken because it can found by Survival."


Neither. The reason why is now clear, given everything I just said. Part of the purpose of this article was to critique the language and conceptual frameworks that magic players use in these kinds of debates. The words we use are a product of conceptual frameworks. These frameworks are flawed, and our language is thereby flawed. Using terms like “broken,” “degenerate,” “inherently unfair,” or trying to box cards into a particular category like “tutor,” “unfair mana engine,” is equally terrible and useless. We Do Not Ban Cards For Being “Broken,” etc.. (See above). Your statement not only uses a completely irrelevant terminology (terrible heuristics) (and, also, I would argue meaningless), it’s also a false dichotomy, and just wrong. The reasons for this were just laid out above.



You're assuming that Wizards is infallible.
No, I’m not. Their fallibility is irrelevant to the issues at hand.


Tarmogoyf was a mistake, as per Mark Rosewater's admission.

“Mistake” means nothing in the context of the Legacy banned list. Being a mistake does not supply criteria to distinguish between which mistakes deserve banning and which don't. The only thing that matters is whether a card is a problem sufficient to warrant banning. That's a metagame question, not a question about a categorical label.

Ultimately, it seems that, from my perspective, your confusion stems from some fundamental conceptual misunderstandings that are expressed in conventional language about "brokenness," "mistakes," etc. These words actually mean nothing, they import nothing tangible or substantial. They simply are terrible heuristics. And even if they do, they are irrelevant to the analysis. We don't ban cards in Legacy for having such labels. Otherwise, the banned list would be managed on the basis of arguing whether certain cards fit into certain categories, and tournament data would be largely irrelevant.

[Rico Suave]

That's fine: whether Necropotence was ever fair or not is not critical to my argument.

My point is that Survival has now had 6 years of fair use in its most recent applications. The most recent applications of Necropotence were increasingly degenerate. Therefore, Survival is not comparable to Necropotence, if your argument is that Survival will follow the Necropotence trajectory. All of the evidence is contrary to that view: Survival has followed anything BUT the trajectory of Necropotence.

Survival is more like Mishra's Workshop: a card that was busted back in the day, has been fair for a while, and now has as broken application, but once that application is gone, it will be fair again.

The entire point was you were claiming to have statistical evidence that Survival will be OK without Vengevine, but you don't have this. You can claim to know what Survival was like before Worldwake, which was quite a while ago I might add, but combos involving Ooze and Retainer-Emrakul were NOT printed until after Vengevine was already in the card pool. Saying you think that removing Vengevine will fix any problems with Survival is one thing, but saying you have proof of this is preposterous.

This is where the comparison to Necro comes in. Necro was fine for a long time too - until suddenly a new way of thinking along with a couple new cards made the skull very dangerous. Do you honestly think people are going to pass up on the Ooze combo in favor of Genesis recursion?

[GGoober]

I don't see the hype in Ooze combo. It was the same hype as Iona/Retainers, and I would argue that Iona/Retainers sometimes locks out just as strong as the Ooze win.

I've played Survival Ooze and found it clunky. You win when you assemble it, but it still takes effort fighting past disruption to get it out. I'm not sure how the GB Ooze Survival lists perform, but if I were to analyze how they did well, it was attributed to Vengevines in the deck as the primary win condition. Ooze combo is very clunky and slow (even slower against Dazes). Post-board, you have to play around GY hate in all its form. You can drop Ooze with GG floating to bypass GY hate but that would mean:

1) Resolving Survival
2) Resolving a casted Ooze (probably tutored by Survival, implying Survival sticks for 1-2 turns)
3) If you resolved a casted Ooze, you have to have GG open immediately if there is GY hate to win in response to Crypt/Relic/StP
4) If your opponent Extirpates at this stage, you have been time walked for quite a number of turns wasting mana on useless cards.

If you are assuming no disruptions from steps 1)-4), then it just shows that your opponents need to uninstall MTG and go play another game.

The truly superior Ooze combo is in fact not a Survival shell, but a non-Survival shell (on N&D). It is faster, less clunky, and runs enough disruption. You can never pack enough disruption in a Survival shell and hinge against your bad matchups (combo). The reason why GB Ooze Survival is powerful now is because of Vengevines. Vengevines in Ooze Survival is still the primary win-condtiion. You only go for Ooze when they've burned out of answers, and you can get a win right there.

If VV is out of the equation, I'll bet you that non-Survival Ooze decklists are stronger than Survival Ooze decklists. For argument's sake, even if Survival Ooze got popular, I stress again how it would not be as viable and strong when compared to other variants: Welder Survival (wins/locks 2 turns faster than Ooze) or Bant Survival.

Currently Vengevival just outclasses the old Survival lists: RGBSA, Elves, Welder, Bant. Note that Vengevival packs Ooze/Iona/NOrder as a SECONDARY win. And even if there is no evidence suggesting this, it is all clear on paper. The evidence being: There are no Survival Ooze non-VV lists that do well, nor are there Survival Iona non-VV lists that do well. There do exists Vengevine non-Ooze/non-Iona lists that do well, and there exists Vengevine non-Ooze/yes-Iona or Vengevine yes-Ooze/non-Iona lists that do well. The evidence isn't directly revealed, but should be clear.

[Smmenen]

The entire point was you were claiming to have statistical evidence that Survival will be OK without Vengevine, but you don't have this.



A review of your earlier posts illustrates that this was clearly not your point, nor reasonably related to your point. Your point was that evidence of tournament performance is not essential to management of the B/R list. You stated:


Mind's Desire is banned without any evidence supporting it. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a wrong decision either. There is more to banning a card than performance, statistical evidence, or anything else of that sort.

And:


When someone says that Survival would be a problem without Vengevine, you say "there is no evidence to support this."

I was pointing out that this is irrelevant to the problem.


You now claim that your point was that I don’t have statistical evidence to support the claim (which you ascribe to me) that Survival will be fair without VV. Your original point, and the point you are now making, but claim to be your original point, are contradictory, or at least, in strong tension. A point that tournament data doesn’t matter would suggest that my evidence or lack thereof wouldn’t matter either.

In any case, you are obviously wrong that I don't have *any* evidence that Survival without VV would be fair. The lack of tournament dominance by Survival prior to abuse with VV is evidence a-plenty that Survival without VV would likely be fair. Is it proof positive, 100%? No. but there is no such proof in magic nor is such a standard of proof ever required in this context, or any other policy context.



You can claim to know what Survival was like before Worldwake, which was quite a while ago I might add,


And the wrong time frame. The question isn’t how Survival decks performed before Worldwake, but how they’ve performed once the current incarnation of VV has been in place. The relevant time frame isn’t when a card is printed, but when it begins to see play.


but combos involving Ooze and Retainer-Emrakul were NOT printed until after Vengevine was already in the card pool.


Yes, but Retainer decks were used both at the Legacy Grand Prixs this year, and the Legacy Champs, as well as the many SCG Opens. WE have data that Retainer Survival decks are not tournament dominant.



Saying you think that removing Vengevine will fix any problems with Survival is one thing, but saying you have proof of this is preposterous.

Except that I didn’t say I had “proof.” What’s preposterous is being accused of saying something I never said.

Control+F my article or this thread for “proof” or “proves,” and you will discover that I never used the term “proof” or any derivation, nor would I. I don’t use the term “proof” because I’m more careful than that.

The idea of proof is actually a meaningless concept without a standard for application. It’s relative. There are many standards of proof. In law, there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far below 100% proof, and there is proof by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is just 51%. With respect to the question of whether Survival would be fair without VV, that is simply not susceptible to proof unless we have a predetermined agreement on what standard of proof we are to employ.

I’m trying to understand how you arrived at the view that I was advancing proof of something, and the only conclusion I can come to is that you have simply misread my posts, and interpreted my statements regarding “evidence,” and transformed them into statements about “proof.”

“Evidence” and “proof” are not the same thing. Evidence can be introduced to support a particular conclusion, but evidence does not “prove” a conclusion unless there is a particular standard of proof already in place. Otherwise, it simply supports a particular conclusion over another.

I HAVE used the term “evidence” repeatedly, but that’s not the same thing as proof. Evidence lends credence to a conclusion. It makes one conclusion more credible and another less. It’s not proof. It’s only proof if we have an agreed upon standard of proof, and a framework for establishing when that standard has been met, as courts of law do.

[xXxBretWeedxXx]

It all seems pretty obvious to me. Survival has a history of being a problem card before. I has been placed on the extended banned list. Vengevine isn't even seeing Standard play right now, Survival would be dominating the Standard landscape if they reprinted it in the next expansion without Vengevine even being printed. Wizards doesn't make cards like Survival anymore, they try to put those types of abilities on creatures (ex: Magus of the Jar, Fauna Shaman) to make them fair and that works. Wizards nkows what constitutes a broken card. Which do you think they view as the problem the card designed for Standard or that card they tried power level down for Standard?

[ryO!]

Facts


survival
- It can exchange creatures in your hand for creatures out of your deck for mana.
- It enables reanimation strategies
- GW-Survival kills turn 4 with a perfect grip of 7 and a goldfish opponent

let's add the pro ban facts

- it still have the aggro plan
- it can cast progenitus

scary isn't it?

i mean banning SotF this sound really right, when a problem pops what the best way to deal with it?
it is definitely to dig a hole, bury it and avoid, at all cost, dealing with it !

Anyway yeah it 's probably right Sotf is the new necropotence, i would also ban summone'rs pact for that matter. I mean a free tutor ? Seriously, Crazy !

damn this is getting pathetic.

on the other hand the article was really nice & interesting and unfortunately probably true about the end of this story.

[GGoober]

Using Survival-not-being-printed-in-standard is just an absurd metric to measure the 'brokenness' of the card. How about we reprint Wastelands, Top, Goblin Lackey in Standard? Does that mean that these cards should be banned as well?

Formats are goverened the way they are. Argubly if FoW was in Standard, it would be ''fair'', as long as WotC backups the aggro strategy strongly. Because FoW is actually argubly weak in Standard. What threats are you going to FoW that are relevant in Standard that are backbreaking? FoW is much stronger in the eternal format because of its applications in the format itself. If you're bringing a Legacy card to Standard for sake of comparison, then you are entirely wrong. And if you do e.g. my case with FoW in standard, it will only prove a point if you look at whether the card can be suited for the format. Apparently Survival will be too overpowering in Standard, but so would a huge plethora of cards right now. This is an absurd metric to govern the 'brokenness' of a card. Because WotC is maintaining the power level of Standard. They are slowly increasing it, but they have no interest to make Standard's power level into Vintage/Legacy. That's why the format exists, and the power-level gap exists. To bring a card from Legacy and compare it to Standard-doesn't-see-prints-of-such-broken-cards is just unacceptable as an argument.

Survival clearly has some power level inbuilt into it, argubly quite broken. But so does Lackey, Top, etc. Whether the card fits in Legacy, is observed by history and data. And Survival decks have been underplayed and reletively fair despite its 'broken' nature because the meta keeps it in check. Vengevival is a different story, because the interaction of Vengevine + Survival is not just powerful, but it guarantees its interaction even if one piece of the synergy is removed (if you've dumped VV in your yard with Survival, you no longer need Survival to win).

(and I quote 'broken' in quotes because 'brokenness' is subjective. Bloodbraid Elves was 'broken'/'busted' in Standard, but not really in Legacy. Survival is 'broken' in Standard but not really in Legacy, and not in Vintage. Mystic Remora is 'broken' in Vintage but not at all in Standard.)

[Smmenen]

It all seems pretty obvious to me. Survival has a history of being a problem card before.
But it also has a history of being a perfectly fair card in the most recent history, six years in Legacy. Which is more relevant? In my view, ancient history is far less relevant than recent history in the relevant format.

The idea that Survival is the “real problem” is partly rooted in a historically rooted perception of Survival as “a problem card, broken, degenerate,” etc. Yet, modern history has, at a minimum, cast great doubt on that assumption. That’s a major point of my article.


I has been placed on the extended banned list.

Yeah, in 2001. It was also banned with Replenish. And Morphling dominated Vintage in 2001.

Lots of cards become less abusive over time. Tons and tons of cards were banned in 2001 that are now perfectly fine. Mind Over Matter, Dream Halls, etc. etc. In fact, I believe that Mind Twist would be fair in legacy today. The fact that a card has once been troubling is far less relevant than its most recent history.

If a 50 year old man applies for a job, and he has a juvenile record of drug use and minor crimes, we don’t hold it against him when he’s demonstrated 30 years of good behavior until the last few months. In magical terms, Survival was bad for 3 years, and good for the last 6. Which do we credit? Moreover, which do we find to be more persuasive: the idea that Survival will likely be fair if VV were banned, or that Survival will likely not be fair if VV were banned? I find the former to be more likely.



Vengevine isn't even seeing Standard play right now,
And? How is that relevant whatsoever?
Trinisphere was restricted in Vintage when it was seeing almost no play in Standard. Standard and Legacy are completely different formats that have no bearing on each other whatsoever.
The only reason people invoke standard is the idea that a card’s ‘true’ degeneracy is cross-format. This patently untrue. See Trinisphere.

Which do you think they view as the problem the card designed for Standard or that card they tried power level down for Standard?

I already addressed this question above. NEITHER card is the “real problem.” The problem is the interaction between both cards. As I said:



The Pro-Ban Survival Crowd believes that Survival is the “Real” Or “Root” problem. They seem to take this position for one of two reasons:

1) Survival is the “INSERT WORD” Card, not VV.

This idea can be phrased in a number of ways: Survival is the” degenerate” card. Survival is the “recurrable source of card advantage.” Survival is the” real engine.” Survival is the “enabler.” ETC, I think you get the idea here.

OR

(2) Survival is likely to/going to/inevitably will cause more bannings if it isn’t banned now.

The idea here is that if we don’t ban Survival now, it will prompt more bannings, including its own.

Both reasons are wrong.

(1) is wrong because its 1) inaccurate in terms of representing the reality of the situation, and 2) irrelevant to the issue. (2) is wrong because I think the evidence suggests the opposite conclusion. Let me explain.

Dealing with (1):

Neither Vengevine nor Survival are broken. It’s the interaction of the two, situated within the context of the Legacy metagame that is the problem. You are trying to reduce a problem that is an emergent property an interaction to a particular card. That’s simply not an accurate assessment of the situation. It’s like asking: which is the ‘root’ cause of the water molecule: is it oxygen or is it hydrogen? It’s NEITHER. It’s the interaction of both together. Water is an emergent property of the interaction of the two atomic components. You are being far too reductionist. You are creating a false dichotomy: the grand , eluctable Either/Or dichotomy. Instead, it’s a BOTH/AND problem. Neither Survival nor VV are the problem: it’s when you put them together that you have a problem.

More importantly, the idea of whether a card is “ Each tutor and mana source is unique both in its application and contextual power. [b]It’s only in the context of a metagame, not because of some principle regarding a card’s characteristic, that a card deserves to be banned. These labels are labels that hyperbolic and imprecise columnists use in internet debates or the DCI uses to justify decisions based on flimsy evidence. There is no such thing, in the context of B/R list policy, as “inherently broken.” And,[i] even if there were, cards aren’t banned because they are “inherently broken,” but because they are contextually broken, and dominate a metagame. It’s time for us to get away from such poor linguistic forms.

In summary, my response to (1) is twofold: a) It’s an inaccurate and reductionist description of reality, and b) it’s irrelevant to the issue of whether to ban a card because cards aren’t banned because of such labels.

Dealing with (2):

I simply disagree with it. I don’t think it’s inevitable or even likely that Survival will prompt further bannings. The conclusion that it will or is likely to do so rests on evidence, historical evidence and knowledge of the kinds of cards Wizards prints. Therefore, it’s an inductive conclusion based upon information we have.

We can also marshal that evidence that suggests that it’s probably untrue, which is my position. My conclusion is also inductive, but it ends up the opposite position. Six years of fair use, despite plenty of GY based abusive creatures, suggests that (2) is far from a given. We can quibble at the margin about HOW likely it is, but I would put it at under 50%, which explains my position of why Survival shouldn’t be banned.[/quote]

[Rico Suave]

Steve,

Go back in this thread. You'll see Max make this point:

"I was mostly trying to say that the position that Vengevine broke Survival might be flawed given that there is another engine in Rise that is very good with Survival, plus the Ooze combo that debuted with Scars. People have said that Vengevine is the problem, not Survival, and I'm unconvinced that Survival decks with a different kill wouldn't be dominant without the existence of Vengevine. At the very least, it's not something that can simply be handwaved away."

You made a post right after that.

Guess what? The very next post was me responding to what you said. It followed through on the same train of thought that Max had begun. Maybe this will help illuminate the line of thought behind my posts.

If you want to create a massive wall of text telling me what I'm thinking or what my opinion is, you can go to hell. Show some respect.

For the very small portion of your post that was relevant:


In any case, you are obviously wrong that I don't have *any* evidence that Survival without VV would be fair. The lack of tournament dominance by Survival prior to abuse with VV is evidence a-plenty that Survival without VV would likely be fair. Is it proof positive, 100%? No. but there is no such proof in magic nor is such a standard of proof ever required in this context, or any other policy context.

You have never even seen an environment with Ooze but without Vengevine. You have no evidence that this environment will be OK.

[Lemnear]

let's add the pro ban facts

- it still have the aggro plan
- it can cast progenitus

scary isn't it?

i mean banning SotF this sound really right, when a problem pops what the best way to deal with it?
it is definitely to dig a hole, bury it and avoid, at all cost, dealing with it !

Anyway yeah it 's probably right Sotf is the new necropotence, i would also ban summone'rs pact for that matter. I mean a free tutor ? Seriously, Crazy !

damn this is getting pathetic.

on the other hand the article was really nice & interesting and unfortunately probably true about the end of this story.

I talk about Survival and it's synergy with Vengevine and you talk about beats in a certain deck? Where's the point? I mentioned the third point in my post because everyone acts like Vengevival is unanswerable. It's not. Survival gives lots of possible interactions Necro doesn't.

You obviously never played Necro; there's no way you've ever done by repeating this bullshit spread over the web without a second thought. The only thing both card have in common is the type. Once Necro resolves you can't do anything against your opponent drawing nuts from it.

Your argument is to ban Survival because it shares a color with Natural Order and Tarmogoyf? That is the plain stupiest suggestion anyone made in the last few years of magic. Congrats!

By the Way: I've never seen anyone CAST Progenitus because of survival in play.

[Smmenen]

Steve,

Go back in this thread. You'll see Max make this point:

"I was mostly trying to say that the position that Vengevine broke Survival might be flawed given that there is another engine in Rise that is very good with Survival, plus the Ooze combo that debuted with Scars. People have said that Vengevine is the problem, not Survival, and I'm unconvinced that Survival decks with a different kill wouldn't be dominant without the existence of Vengevine. At the very least, it's not something that can simply be handwaved away."

You made a post right after that.

Guess what? The very next post was me responding to what you said. It followed through on the same train of thought that Max had begun. Maybe this will help illuminate the line of thought behind my posts.


And, again, I addressed this point, that "survival without VV wouldn't be dominant.' That's a straw man position. I'm not saying that it definitely wouldn't be dominant, just that I think it's most likely it wouldn't be dominant without VV.
As I said: the lack of tournament dominance by Survival prior to abuse with VV is evidence a-plenty that Survival without VV would likely be fair. Is it proof positive, 100%? No. but there is no such proof in magic nor is such a standard of proof ever required in this context, or any other policy context.

It's my view, based upon 6 years of fair use, that Survival will likely be fair if VV is banned.




If you want to create a massive wall of text telling me what I'm thinking or what my opinion is, you can go to hell.



Isn't that exactly what you did to me, telling me what my position was? You described it as "preposterous" that I claimed to "have proof" have Survival will be fair without VV. Yet, as I carefully demonstrated, I never used the word proof or said that I had proof of anything, and that you misinterpreted my use of the word "evidence" as "proof." Also, as I pointed out:




Control+F my article or this thread for “proof” or “proves,” and you will discover that I never used the term “proof” or any derivation, nor would I. I don’t use the term “proof” because I’m more careful than that.

The idea of proof is actually a meaningless concept without a standard for application. It’s relative. There are many standards of proof. In law, there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far below 100% proof, and there is proof by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is just 51%. With respect to the question of whether Survival would be fair without VV, that is simply not susceptible to proof unless we have a predetermined agreement on what standard of proof we are to employ.

Evidence” and “proof” are not the same thing. Evidence can be introduced to support a particular conclusion, but evidence does not “prove” a conclusion unless there is a particular standard of proof already in place. Otherwise, it simply supports a particular conclusion over another.

I HAVE used the term “evidence” repeatedly, but that’s not the same thing as proof. Evidence lends credence to a conclusion. It makes one conclusion more credible and another less. It’s not proof. It’s only proof if we have an agreed upon standard of proof, and a framework for establishing when that standard has been met, as courts of law do.




Show some respect.

I have shown respect. You were the one who called a claim I didn't make "preposterous." Who's really the honest debater? Carefully explaining a position (what you call a wall of text) is not disrespectful.




For the very small portion of your post that was relevant:

You have never even seen an environment with Ooze but without Vengevine. You have no evidence that this environment will be OK.

And again, by that standard, we have no evidence that a Vengevine format without Survival will be ok, so VV should be banned. Your point here cuts both ways.

But, in truth, we do have evidence that Survival without VV wouldn't dominate. The evidence is not 100%, but it is evidence. It's admission in court: before VV, Survival was fair. That doesn't mean that it will still be fair, but it's IS evidence that it would be fair. Again, you are getting hung up on having "proof." Evidence is not proof. It's evidence. It supports a conclusion, but doesn't prove it.

[ramanujan]

Wow,

It's on like donkey kong in here. Anyway, I wanted to say that I really enjoyed the article, and that I see and agree with your position. Like you said, it doesent really matter anyway as the die is already cast on this topic. For what it is worth, I cannot see Vengevine banned because it is a creature that wins by attacking. I do believe that if there has to be a ban that it should be VV but you can add that previous sentence to the long list of why they would choose survival ( wrongly) instead.

Peace

[2Rach]

As an addition to the "what about Ooze/Retainer/Iona/Emrakul/other creature" argument; Smennen keeps talking about the last 6 years without understanding that the creature-power correction has only been going for the last 2-3 years. Mystical Tutor had strong spells since the start of the game to play around with, with recent help from the new creature push focusing on fatties lately, to become a powerhouse. Survival of the Fittest has just started gaining ground in the catch-up race with MT due to the new creatures being printed.

I think I'm done for now, typing on a phone is tedious.


EDIT:
...and the future is going to be filled with more and more Legacy competitive creatures being printed.

[FieryBalrog]

Yes, the trend in printing more and more ridiculous creatures is something that needs to be taken into consideration. A ton of the most powerful effects go on creatures these days, in part because its more "fair" and in part because Wizards wants creatures to be the face of the game to casuals and Timmies, who are by far the largest crowd of MTG players.

If you tried to make a list of the 10 'best' creatures in the game right now, I wager on most lists 8-9 of them will be from Ravnica onwards.

Maybe Fauna Shaman was/is an omen.

[MattH]

Preserving Survival in the long term is not important as it has proven itself a repeat offender across many formats.

No, that is wrong. That is a myth, practically a lie. Show me ONE other time, in any format, when Survival has been dominant. Not just good - it's always been good, but dozens of cards have 'always been good' without being broken or dominant. If you're going to make (depressingly common) hyperbolic claims like this, you need to back them up.

[MattH]

Cross-posted from SCG:




What it is, however, is one of the most dominate set of strategies of all time, over an extended period of time (a season, not just a weekend). Well here is your fundamental error. You're assuming that 3 months is enough time in Legacy for a card or strategy to prove too problematic to fix except by ban. But, it isn't. Eternal metagames such as Legacy are qualitatively unlike standard or extended or block, and you'd be a fool to apply the same metrics to them.

There's a variety of reasons for this. One, card availability. A lot of players can't just drop their zoo or merfolk deck and try to metagame against Survival that way. For them, it's Fish or stay home. That impacts the metagame: these decks provide food for the Survival decks, propelling them higher in the tournament than they might if all players could, with relative ease, maneuver into any deck of their choice.

Two, your data for dominance is based entirely off of SCG results. However, you're not accounting for the fact that the player base is qualitatively different for these events, with a higher proportion of Legacy dilettantes who just want to be handed a decent deck to pilot, who put in no innovation to the format. Nothing wrong with that (it's the same approach I take to Standard!), but it's a real phenomenon that a serious commentator needs to take into account.

Three, there is no Legacy 'hive mind'. The collective brainpower spent on solving Legacy problems per time is at least one and probably two orders of magnitude lower than for Standard. Coupled with the deeper card pool (thus, more options to investigate) you need to allow way more time for solutions to emerge.

Basically, think of how much time you'd allow something to dominate standard, the multiply it by 10. That's how much time you need to allot for Legacy to solve a problem, without being premature in your decision. Survival's been dominating for six whole months? That's like 18 days of Standard dominance. Banning Survival is not a rational act but one of hysteria. Sadly, we seem to live in a time when hysteria holds sway.

[Fsk]

Yes, the trend in printing more and more ridiculous creatures is something that needs to be taken into consideration. A ton of the most powerful effects go on creatures these days, in part because its more "fair" and in part because Wizards wants creatures to be the face of the game to casuals and Timmies, who are by far the largest crowd of MTG players.

If you tried to make a list of the 10 'best' creatures in the game right now, I wager on most lists 8-9 of them will be from Ravnica onwards.


I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. You can't ban every card that synergies with creatures because they are getting stronger... I really don't bite this power creep argument concerning the survival banning.

There is like what, 5000+ creatures in legacy and how many are a real problem with survival ? Yes, 1. To break survival, one creature have to be quite specific :
1/ it shouldn't be broken on his own. Such creatures dont need survival to rules the format (tarmo..). Either you play, reanimate or cheat them into play.
2/ it shouldn't be a part of a really strong combo. Again doesnt need survival to be broken (i'm not sure survival is the best shell for ooze combo for example -without vine backup-). Intuition, entomb, burried alive and other tutors may just do the job as well.
3/ it should have a strong synergy with graveyard to make an interesting use of survival with them. I mean, in legacy, vengevine is a free recursive hasty creature. Vengevine is close to the perfect creature to break survival and i'm really not sure we will get another one in the future.

Survival isn't a problematic card on its own, but only when paired with vengevine. I'm not sure what should be banned but the creature power creep really isnt an argument in favor of survival banning.

That said i may be wrong :) I'm trying at the moment to "create" a creature specifically to break survival while considering the points i made upon and it isnt that easy. Maybe you should try and show me an "i break survival" creature that could be printed nowadays by wizard. If you can show be some good ones, i may change my mind and consided Vengevine 2.0 is too come anyways and survival has indeed to be banned!

[SMR0079]

Matt,

That post was spot on. The nature of the Legacy SCG circuit is something I would like more commentator to speak to, as I think Matt's point goes overlooked by the majority. The lack of a functional hive mind, card availbility, and a casual approach to the format by many create the perfect storm for a very powerful strategy like Survival VV to take over the format.

The best counter argument to this train of thought is not pointing to the SCG results, but rather, to the collective disatisfaction of the masses who do not enjoy a format where they can't win with Merfolk or any other pet deck.

That one was for you Fish Lord ;)

[Tacosnape]

The argument I keep seeing in favor of Vengevine is the mana count argument, how it doesn't really take any more mana to set up Vengevine insanity than it does to set up a Loyal Retainers or Necrotic Ooze combo.

The ENORMOUS difference is that Vengevine isn't dead weight at other times. Vengevine will occasionally do and is quite capable of doing broken shit without the Survival in play. The frequency of this, of course, depends largely on the decklist, but those of us who like doing stupid shit with Lion's Eye Diamond in our Survival Madness decks know. Even in UG, with a Mongrel, a Rootwalla(Or Memnite), one Vine, and counter backup? You've got a pretty strong contender for a winner.

Phyrexian Devourer, Triskelion, Loyal Retainers, and the big guys it Reanimates, however, are far less likely to be useful on their own.

For the last month I've been playing the decks I will build when one of these cards gets the axe. UG Madness sans Survival, and GW Survival sans Vengevine. Neither one is exactly format shattering, but both are strong. And head to head they're actually fairly close to even, but over the long run? I actually like the Vengevine deck better than the Survival one. I've had better results with it. I think, narrowly, it's a stronger deck.

Vengevine is what needs the ban. Nobody ever, ever, ever, ever once bitched about the power of Survival in Legacy, EVER, until Vengevine showed up. And when Vengevine goes away, it will take Wizards' design team slipping up (Seriously, Wizards? Design constraints my ass, stop printing things that are insanely broken in graveyards. We ARE smart enough to use the mechanic.) for anybody to bitch about the card again.

[majikal]

Damn it, Taco, that exactly sums up my opinion on the matter. I need to buy you a beer for that post.

[Tacosnape]

Damn it, Taco, that exactly sums up my opinion on the matter. I need to buy you a beer for that post.

Agreed. Then we'll do shots ans discuss how useless Daze is when people have mana open.

[Mad Zur]

Nobody ever, ever, ever, ever once bitched about the power of Survival in Legacy, EVER, until Vengevine showed up.
That's not really true. Survival decks performed very well immediately after the creation of Legacy, and during that time there were discussions on this site about whether it should be banned.

[Tacosnape]

That's not really true. Survival decks performed very well immediately after the creation of Legacy, and during that time there were discussions on this site about whether it should be banned.

Interesting. I learn something new every day. I'll concede the point, because I wasn't around for that. Around here, I mean. I was still playing Legacy.

But aside from that early period when the metagame was still being largely fleshed out, I stand by the general gist of my point. Survival, for the most part and for the last like, four years, wasn't a problem until Vengevine.

[xXxBretWeedxXx]

But it also has a history of being a perfectly fair card in the most recent history, six years in Legacy. Which is more relevant? In my view, ancient history is far less relevant than recent history in the relevant format.

The idea that Survival is the “real problem” is partly rooted in a historically rooted perception of Survival as “a problem card, broken, degenerate,” etc. Yet, modern history has, at a minimum, cast great doubt on that assumption. That’s a major point of my article.



Yeah, in 2001. It was also banned with Replenish. And Morphling dominated Vintage in 2001.

Lots of cards become less abusive over time. Tons and tons of cards were banned in 2001 that are now perfectly fine. Mind Over Matter, Dream Halls, etc. etc. In fact, I believe that Mind Twist would be fair in legacy today. The fact that a card has once been troubling is far less relevant than its most recent history.

If a 50 year old man applies for a job, and he has a juvenile record of drug use and minor crimes, we don’t hold it against him when he’s demonstrated 30 years of good behavior until the last few months. In magical terms, Survival was bad for 3 years, and good for the last 6. Which do we credit? Moreover, which do we find to be more persuasive: the idea that Survival will likely be fair if VV were banned, or that Survival will likely not be fair if VV were banned? I find the former to be more likely.


And? How is that relevant whatsoever?
Trinisphere was restricted in Vintage when it was seeing almost no play in Standard. Standard and Legacy are completely different formats that have no bearing on each other whatsoever.
The only reason people invoke standard is the idea that a card’s ‘true’ degeneracy is cross-format. This patently untrue. See Trinisphere.


I already addressed this question above. NEITHER card is the “real problem.” The problem is the interaction between both cards. As I said:


The thing that makes the comparison relevant to Standard is that Fauna Shaman exists in a standard environment. Fauna Shaman does exactly what Survival does only slower with more vulnerability. No one cares in a much smaller pool of cards. Same interaction just the engine is tweaked to be more fair. Shaman discards vine, finds vine, and finds cards that make vine go. Seems to me that the repeatable engine is the thing that makes it unfair.

[SpikeyMikey]

The thing that makes the comparison relevant to Standard is that Fauna Shaman exists in a standard environment. Fauna Shaman does exactly what Survival does only slower with more vulnerability. No one cares in a much smaller pool of cards. Same interaction just the engine is tweaked to be more fair. Shaman discards vine, finds vine, and finds cards that make vine go. Seems to me that the repeatable engine is the thing that makes it unfair.

And again, Standard /= Legacy. Standard doesn't have Intuition, Basking Rootwalla or Quirion Ranger. T2 Fauna Shaman decks can't build entirely around Vine because they only have Shaman to dump VV into the yard and Squadron Hawk to provide fodder. Most of the Legacy ban list wouldn't cause problems in Standard. Unless you think there's a standard deck out there waiting to break MT or Bazaar of Baghdad...

[Koby]

And again, Standard /= Legacy. Standard doesn't have Intuition, Basking Rootwalla or Quirion Ranger. T2 Fauna Shaman decks can't build entirely around Vine because they only have Shaman to dump VV into the yard and Squadron Hawk to provide fodder. Most of the Legacy ban list wouldn't cause problems in Standard. Unless you think there's a standard deck out there waiting to break MT or Bazaar of Baghdad...

They do have Trinket Mage + Memnite however, and a shitty manabase that can't support U/G very well.

[dahcmai]

Give me Intuition in Standard and watch Vengevine go nuts.

[quadibloc]

It would seem to me that if Survival of the Fittest is a card that can make other cards broken, and Vengevine is just one of those cards, then obviously Survival of the Fittest is the card that should be the one to be banned if one of those two cards needs to be banned.

Because that's what several of the posts here seem to be saying. Vengevine on its own doesn't need to be banned. Survival of the Fittest on its own, without Vengevine - well, there's no proof that another card would be so empowered by it that a ban would be needed to fix the problem.

So either ban Vengevine, and maybe have to ban another card and another, until finally turning around and realizing that Survival of the Fittest was the real problem... or ban the right card in the first place.

Am I missing something?

[Michael Keller]

Tacosnape put it very candidly before I think; no one was bitching about Survival being banned before Vengevine came around. So ask yourself, if this format did not have Vengevine in it, would Survival require a legitimate ban?

Survival may be the mind behind the madness, but Vengevine is the one who pulled the trigger.

[DragoFireheart]

Or ban nothing and unban some stuff.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

It would seem to me that if Survival of the Fittest is a card that can make other cards broken, and Vengevine is just one of those cards, then obviously Survival of the Fittest is the card that should be the one to be banned if one of those two cards needs to be banned.

Because that's what several of the posts here seem to be saying. Vengevine on its own doesn't need to be banned. Survival of the Fittest on its own, without Vengevine - well, there's no proof that another card would be so empowered by it that a ban would be needed to fix the problem.

So either ban Vengevine, and maybe have to ban another card and another, until finally turning around and realizing that Survival of the Fittest was the real problem... or ban the right card in the first place.

Am I missing something?

I think you're missing the point of a banned list; it isn't to ban "problem cards" at all, it's to promote format diversity and fun. Banning either card fixes the problem, but banning Survival kills of a host of completely fair decks that people have put a lot of effort and money into. Banning Vengevine wouldn't have any collateral damage.

[SpikeyMikey]

That's not really true. Survival decks performed very well immediately after the creation of Legacy, and during that time there were discussions on this site about whether it should be banned.

Not that it's particularly relevent to the discussion at hand, but Survival decks (and primarily ATS) performed well in New England only. The West Coast metagame was full of San Diego Zoo and 4c Landstill and the Southwest was dominated by U/G Madness. There really wasn't much reporting on areas outside of the US so I can't comment on foreign metas. There were a lot of tier 2 decks running around everywhere but those were the ones winning consistently in the various regions of the US.