The New Three Big Ones @ Maná Infinito

[PeAcH]

http://manainfinito.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/CONTENT/portada_article_alex_mateu_metagame_copia.jpg

We have published an article (in Spanish) regarding the new Legacy metagame. This time written by Alex Mateu (a well known Spanish Legacy player and regular attendant of the LCL).

http://manainfinito.com/articulos/legacy/los-nuevos-tres-grandes

We hope you enjoy it!

[Wanderlust]

Enjoyed it a lot, thanks for posting.

Made my day to see Deranged Hermit in a Legacy deck!

[sdematt]

Any way to get a translation?

-Matt

[majikal]

Any way to get a translation?

-Matt
http://translate.google.com

then put the url in.

[lordofthepit]

My Spanish isn't great, so I might be missing something, but I don't agree that Ad Nauseam is one of the three "kings" of the format right now. It does fit better under the "rock/paper/scissors" concept, but I would say that U/W Stoneblade decks have consistently put up better results--drastically better at least in the United States. Granted, if that were the case, then G/W Maverick decks trump both of the other kings.

I am also relatively unfamiliar with the Nic Fit deck, and while I could see how it trumps RUG Tempo and Maverick, I still consider it slightly unfavorable against storm combo (since storm combo usually beats dedicated discard without a quick clock). I thought the article could have really discussed more about how that matchup plays out. For example, do you try to rip their hand as fast as possible, or do you try to ramp with Veteran Explorer? Ramping seems solid against TES, but terrible against U/B ANT since they play so many basics. Obviously, if you also agree that U/W is the other "king" of the metagame, Veteran Explorer might be a liability in this case as well.

Overall, a great article though. I thought the author had great insight into the metagame.

[PeAcH]

@lordofthepit

Some people commented in the website the same regarding UW being left off the 3 kings.

And Alex, the author of the article answered this (here is the translation of his explanation):

"Caw is cool. Being played correctly and with a little bit of luck it does not have a rival. However, under my pow a deck which does not grant you a win vs UGR AND which depends on the side vs combo AND with more loses than wins versus GW...

I see a better option to play any of the other 3 decks. You have to think we play a format in which the openning plays of UGR can be, plainly said, ustoppables.
GW overflows you and combo gives you more than one nasty surprise. Playing with CAW is cools because you have almost all even pairings. As I have mentioned earlier, with a little bit of skill and luck you can win tournaments easily. But why play a "balanced" and "fair" decklist when you can just go broken?
And you will tell me: "Well, you have just said it, because if you play it correcly while having even pairiings you can beat anyone" Well, yes, it´s true, but you will have even pairings. This means you can win versus anyone as much as you can lose to anyone.
I´m not saying it´s not one of the best decks of the format, you just need to see how much top8 does it get. But due to the reasons I have provided and much to my regret (because I just love playing UW control) it has not been included in the article"



And bear in mind this is not a matchup analysis article but a metagame one :)

Hope the comment provides a little bit of help!

[Skeggi]

I'm not a fan.

Ad Nauseam has been a Legacy staple since its printing and UGR Delver is just Canadian Threshold 2.0. Also Green Sun's Zenith isn't the card that makes Maverick so succesful: Stoneforge Mystic is. 'New' wouldn't be the word I'd use to describe two of these decks, and even with Maverick, the concept has been around for ages.

The Rock-Paper-Scissors theory is blatelantly outdated. It simply just doesn't work like that anymore; you can't say one archetype will beat the other or will be beaten by another, or say it has a possitive or negative match-up. It's all alot more subtle now and boils down to individual card strengths.

The big three that are mentioned aren't the way I see it in my meta. While they're all decks you're likely to encounter at a tournament, I wouldn't say they're the most predominant or successful. I don't think there's a distinct three decks that are eligible to be crowned as 'Kings of the format', its much broader than that. Landstill was mentioned, but rarely sees play these days. There was also a mention of Dredge, which indeed should not be forgotten. But what about Mageblade, Reanimator, Sneaky Show?

The format is split into certain archetypes: Combo, Combo Aggro, Aggro/Tempo, Aggro Control and Control.

This is (sort of) what my meta looks like:

Where Combo containts: Storm Combo (ANT, TES, Doomsday), Sneaky Show and Hive Mind (and the occasional PainterStone but they're alot more rare now; plus they're generally packed in a PrisonControl shell like Imperial Painter)
Combo Aggro: Reanimator and Dredge
Aggro/Tempo: (Punishing) Maverick, UGR Delver, Team America, Bant Aggro (Goblins are also still out there)
Aggro Control: Mageblade, Stoneblade, Merfolk (yeah it's still there)
Control: Esper Planeswalker Control, CounterThopter (The Rock and Landstill also to a lesser extend)

I know the list above is incomplete, but the point is that pointing out a 'big three' is not doing the format enough justice. Naming it the 'new' three also is incorrect because Mental Misstep never happened; it was legal for a couple of months, and then we went back to where we were.

About the decklist: this list is severely lacking white. Elspeth, Knight-Errant, Vindicate and Swords to Plowshares are invaluable cards for a deck like this and should not be left out. Oh, and Volrath's Stronghold. Oh, and Cabal Therapy is terribad unless you play it in Dredge. Oh, and... nevermind, I could go on and on. If you present this deck as a list to beat all three, you've done a rather poor job testing. This list will not stand a chance against ANT (and quite some other decks too). It's simply 'too fair'. Believe me - we tried.

The fact that the article is in Spanish and I had to pull it through Google Translate also didn't help. It was not an enjoyable read.

[PeAcH]

@Skeggi,

Thanks for your feedback. It´s much appreciated. It´s a pity you cannot read Spanish to be able to provide indepth comments.

Regarding this communication problem, we are aware of it (we are a Spanish Speaking Website providing content in Spanish and which produces English one scarcely) and we see the problem from your comments.


Ad Nauseam has been a Legacy staple since its printing and UGR Delver is just Canadian Threshold 2.0. Also Green Sun's Zenith isn't the card that makes Maverick so succesful: Stoneforge Mystic is. 'New' wouldn't be the word I'd use to describe two of these decks, and even with Maverick, the concept has been around for ages.

The "new three" does not refer to new decks, but to 3 decks which have gotten the status as the author mentions:


Eso quiere decir que siempre hay 3 barajas que son mucho mejor que las otras (las 3 barajas reinas por así decirlo)

Regarding this comment you mention:


The big three that are mentioned aren't the way I see it in my meta. While they're all decks you're likely to encounter at a tournament,

You will be very aware of that metagame's own characteristics make itself something quite local, quoting the classic Metagame article from Doug Linn (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/print.php?Article=8943):


The word metagame means, most simply, the types of decks that are being played in a geographic area.

We want to highlight that the list presented is not ours. It top 8ed in the SCG Invitational and was played by Caleb Durward (TC Decks link (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7323&iddeck=53310)).

Finally, we want to mention the author´s capacity and understanding of the game is pretty out of discussion at least in Spain and in the LCL league where he plays (largest Legacy monthly league in the world) where he is considered one of the best players.

This list has just been merely proposed by the author as a way to cut the cycle and play something else which does unfair things (like heavy discard).

All and all, thanks for your comments and for opening an interesting discussion on the issue :)

BTW, which deck would you propose as a solution to the current dominating trend?

[Skeggi]

Alright, I'm at a risk of stating the obvious, but here it goes: most top decks have a huge similarity: dependance on key cmc2 cards. Stoneforge Mystic, Snapcaster Mage, Infernal Tutor, Exhume, Hymn to Tourach. I could go on for quite a while. Point is: Spell Snare is obviously one of the best counterspells out there nowadays.

So either you run a deck that utilizes this (and probably end up playing Snapcaster Mage yourself) or you run a deck that is unaffected by Spell Snare, like Dredge or Sneaky Show.

That said, I don't consider that BG list to be unfair. While discard is very strong, it's even more unfair if you flashback your discard with Snapcaster Mage. I've seen more akward decks ending up in the top8 of SCG or other large tournaments. It doesn't mean it's a good deck.

P.S. If this guy is such a good player - I'm sure he is - I don't think he's sharing what he actually knows. To be at the top of the game, you need to be at least one step ahead. This article is a couple of steps behind if you ask me. I understand it's very hard to try and explain what you're working on at the moment - you don't want to share your latest tech with the rest of the world, and even if you do, you only have testresults to show: there are no good tournament results to back you up because the tech is so new it hasn't even seen a tournament yet. But this is something I would like to see from these high-respected players. Not what they think of the current meta, we need to know what's good for the next. And in all honesty, we've done the Sneaky Show thing already - so basically the suggestion I've made isn't a step ahead, but right here in the present.

[nedleeds]

So either you run a deck that utilizes this (and probably end up playing Snapcaster Mage yourself) or you run a deck that is unaffected by Spell Snare, like Dredge or Sneaky Show.


Hahahahaha ... these blanket statements always crack me up. You must either run no 2cc spells or run spell snare. What about the deck that plays Spell Snare? Is it allowed to run 2cc's? After all Spell Snare can't counter Spell Snare. Absolute statements like these, especially with bolded or's are just ridiculous. It really reeks of somebody who can't and hasn't played much real magic, playing around spells, using targeted discard, baiting, etc..

[Skeggi]

I'm glad I cheered you up. Nice necro by the way. If you read a bit more careful you see I suggest Snapcaster Mage itself as a tool to use against Snapcaster Mage, obviously you get to include 2 cmc spells.

Anyway, this is the reasoning behind two of my teammates choice of Sneaky Show for GP Amsterdam. They reached 15th and 16th place (here's a report (http://www.teamadhd.nl/wp/?p=145)).