Show Me Something New: Why Hypergenesis Isn’t Worth Writing Home About

[metamet]

Show Me Something New: Why Hypergenesis Isn’t Worth Writing Home About (http://www.quietspeculation.com/2012/06/show-me-something-new-why-hypergenesis-isnt-worth-writing-home-about/)

Ryan breaks down why Show and Tell is just a superior deck than Hypergenesis.

If S&T got the hammer, however, I could see Hypergenesis or Reanimater filling that void. Thoughts?

[Ignithas_]

Show Me Something New: Why Hypergenesis Isn’t Worth Writing Home About (http://www.quietspeculation.com/2012/06/show-me-something-new-why-hypergenesis-isnt-worth-writing-home-about/)

Ryan breaks down why Show and Tell is just a superior deck than Hypergenesis.

If S&T got the hammer, however, I could see Hypergenesis or Reanimater filling that void. Thoughts?
Hypergenesis will never be really competitive, especially when Show and Tell get banned. I could imagine a Reanimator deck filling the void, maybe a more controlish version to compensate for the four SnTs. But in my opinion there will be either none deck that fills the void or Storm will take it's place.

[JDK]

Nice article! I just want to point out some things:


There is a very real possibility, however slim, that the Hypergenesis player draws both copies of its namesake sorcery. This functionally turns off eight other slots in the deck while stranding you with at least those two dead cards in hand.
They can still suspend Hypergenesis, so it's not completely dead, although not as good and the eight cascade spells are still useless.


This explains the necessity of having the four Dismember on the sideboard, but, again, you’re only play is to naturally draw one in your combo deck with zero library manipulation.
your != you're/you are


I’m not saying that Gristelbrand isn’t the total monster that he is.
It's Griselbrand. You got it right the other times though. :D

I can relate to most of the points you made in the article, but Griselbrand is still the guy that pushed Sneak Show to being as good as it is right now (not crying for a ban, but it should be obvious, that he is guilty to some extent).

[metamet]

Hah! My copy editing skills are failing me! :P Thanks for those, H3llsp4wn. Mega fixed.

The "they're" typo is actually a remnant of reworking that sentence, but it's still unforgivable.

But I agree with you on Griselbrand being the card that pushed the deck ahead. I'm sure Ryan (the author of this post) agrees with that sentiment, too. I think the fact that the deck can never run manipulation puts it at odds.

[bowvamp]

Hypergenesis may never be the best deck of the S&T kind, but its twin cascabalance will forever live in infamy in my local circle. THAT deck would be nasty if it hit today's meta.

[Tacosnape]

This is very unobjective as far as articles go, and every point it makes is based on your opponent playing blue. While I'm not 100% convinced Hypergenesis is superior to Sneaky Show, I'm not convinced it isn't, either, and this article did a terrible job at swaying my opinion, given that most of the writer's opinions were tacked on at the end of points and not backed up with solid reasoning.

Also, points that were ignored:

1. Sneak Attack takes 5 mana to play and execute. Hypergenesis takes 3. So Hypergenesis is faster.

2. Hypergenesis can and often will kill you the turn it resolves. Sneak Attack can't actually do this without activating twice. It is therefore significantly more likely, though both are unfrequent, for a Sneaky Show player to lose after resolving and activating a Sneak Attack.

3. Hypergenesis commonly puts 2-3 guys onto the field at once for the three mana. Sneak Attack needs 5-6 mana to do this, with several of it being red.

4. Hypergenesis allows you to play some cards you couldn't play otherwise, like Decree of Silence and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker, should you have need to do so.

[JDK]

3. Hypergenesis commonly puts 2-3 guys onto the field at once for the three mana. Sneak Attack needs 5-6 mana to do this, with several of it being red.

4. Hypergenesis allows you to play some cards you couldn't play otherwise, like Decree of Silence and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker, should you have need to do so.

You cannot put Planeswalkers into play with it and as seen in the SCG game vs MUD, Hypergenesis can backfire pretty heavily.

[rxavage]

You cannot put Planeswalkers into play with it and as seen in the SCG game vs MUD, Hypergenesis can backfire pretty heavily.

So can Show&Tell. I got mindslavered to games in a row.

[JDK]

So can Show&Tell. I got mindslavered to games in a row.

This is about Hypergenesis versus Sneak Attack/Sneak Show and Sneak Attack usually won't backfire. Both decks run SnT. Please read the article before posting. -.-

[KevinTrudeau]

Broverton speaks the truth concerning Hypergenesis.

[Ignithas_]

So can Show&Tell. I got mindslavered to games in a row.
Mindslaver isn't played frequently in Legacy, so it's neglectable. He meant, that with Hypergenesis every oponent can lay down their fatties, which is problematic against SnT based decks. Sneak Attack can't backfire like this.



Also, points that were ignored:

1. Sneak Attack takes 5 mana to play and execute. Hypergenesis takes 3. So Hypergenesis is faster.

2. Hypergenesis can and often will kill you the turn it resolves. Sneak Attack can't actually do this without activating twice. It is therefore significantly more likely, though both are unfrequent, for a Sneaky Show player to lose after resolving and activating a Sneak Attack.

3. Hypergenesis commonly puts 2-3 guys onto the field at once for the three mana. Sneak Attack needs 5-6 mana to do this, with several of it being red.

4. Hypergenesis allows you to play some cards you couldn't play otherwise, like Decree of Silence and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker, should you have need to do so.
1) While technical correct, you need 2 specific Mana and your mana acceleration can only be used once. And there is a significant chance to get completely mana screwed after the countering of the cascade spell or even before. Plus discard wracks you more than SneakShow, because you can't dig for the missing combo piece. This also delays you more than SneakShow.

2) But this comes with more inconsistency you have to play 2 Akroma's Memorial and draw this alongside other critters, without digging.

3) But the enemy can do the same. Especially important against SnT based strategys. And Sneak Attack doesn't tap out, so you could use it more than once.

4) Decree of Silence isn't good in Hypergenesis, because you allowed them to put every non planeswalker permanent they have into game. And it doesn't do anything on it's own. Nicol Bolas can't be played off a resolving Hypergenesis.

[Tacosnape]

Eh my bad on the planeswalker thing. I knew that, sadly. I keep thinking in my mind that Hypergenesis is fundamentally identical to Eureka.

On my other points, though:

1. Okay, so Discard wrecks you. Given that very few decks (Mostly BGW Rock-style decks) run any discard, this isn't an issue for me. As the main point of the article goes, it's all about beating blue.

2. Nobody should be playing Akroma's Memorial in a Legacy deck ever. Period. It's a terrible card. You can get what you want out of playing Maelstrom Wanderer instead and have more Force/Misdirection fodder.

3. They can. And I'm not going to lie. Having turbo Eureka'd into Emrakul/Progenitus only to have my opponent drop Swamps, Liliana of the Veil, and then play a Smallpox, I know mass permanent dropping can backfire (Although thankfully, the Liliana part can't happen against Hypergenesis).

4. It is if your metagame's filled with Storm Combo and Belcher and you don't like dying before you get your swing off.:)

I also think these decks are harder to compare than people think. If I'm playing RUG Delver, I think I'd much rather face Hypergenesis than Sneaky Show, obviously. Stifle's a god against Cascade, and I'm made of countermagic and tempo. But if I'm piloting Maverick, Hypergenesis is significantly scarier than Sneaky Show. Gaddock Teeg and Phyrexian Revoker stop Sneak Attack - I don't have much that stops Hypergenesis.

[JDK]

Maverick has got Thalia and Ethersworn Canonist, which are pretty good against cascading (the latter only against Violent Outburst, because Shardless Agent is an Artifact).

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

Let's start with what I really liked about the article: it is very well written and was therefore a very enjoyable read. 50% of the job of a MtG writer is being entertaining and this the article delivered perfectly.
What I totally disagree with is Ryan's actual analysis. Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a fervent defender of Hypergenesis or anything of the sort. He might very well be right that the deck is just worse than Sneak and Show. That doesn't change that his argumentation/analysis was very lacking and biased/limited to a single deck's perspective. Some points I'd criticize:

Manabase comparison:
It should be noted that while Sneak and Show's lands can produce two mana, they're also colorless while Spirit Guides produce on-color mana. There is a relevant number of hands I had to mull with Sneak because you can't keep double sol-land. It's also significantly easier to make yourself practically immune to Wasteland in a deck with ten fetches and three basics than in one with between six and eight fetches and a ton of non-basics to naturally draw.

Raw-dogging the combo vs Cantrips:
I'm probably one of the biggest proponents of mass cantrip-engines in the world. That being said, there is a point to make for consistency through numbers. By running 12 enablers and 12 relevant fatties (+2 Wanderers) Hypergenesis gets to use its mulligans to set up a working hand much more so than Sneak and Show can. You'll rarely have to actually raw-dog the combo, you'll just have it or should have mulled. If the opponent stops you from going of the first time, sure, you'll have to draw another piece. But you're generally drawing to at least eleven outs, which isn't that much worse than drawing to 7 plus cantrips.
It isn't like Sneak and Show is that brilliantly consistent, even with the cantrips. Actually, it's one of the least consistent competitive decks I've ever laid hands on.

Countersuite, Sneak Attack vs Hypergenesis and Thalia:
I'm adressing these three together because this is where he misses the main advantage the Hypergenesis-build has over Sneak and Show: its speed. Sneak and Show has four ways to go off for three mana and four ways to go off for 4 (better 5 if you don't want to open yourself up to enchantment-hate). Hypergenesis instead goes of for three mana every time. Given that both decks run similar amounts of acceleration (and that there isn't all that much time to cantrip in until turn 2), Hypergenesis is significantly more likely to cast its game-winning spell by turn two or three given that it has three times as many "show and tells" as Sneak and Show.

This ties in with both the Countersuite complaint (Hypergenesis really only wants free counters anyway because it is trying to go off as early as possible) and the Thalia comments. First, Hypergenesis is actually more likely to go off before Thalia matters (as just reiterated) and it isn't like Sneak and Show somehow gets around her brilliantly. Comparing Sneak's Show and Tells to the cascade cards is pointless - both decks have a full set - so you should be comparing them with Sneak Attack. And Sneak Attack costs the exact same five mana under Thalia that cascade->Hypergenesis does, not too mention you'd rather play it for six so as to not get blown out by Qasali Pridemage. The Sol-lands also only somewhat alleviate this heavy cost because Maverick does in fact run Wastelands and Knights. Not to mention Sneak Attack is actually Teegable, something that won't happen to Hypergenesis.

Show and Tell mirrors:
While this should be a rather minor concern, I think Ryan overlooks Hypergenesis's advantages in this matchup: it has more fatties, haste-enablers and the ability to go off during the end-step with Violent Outburst if it doesn't have the haste-guys.

If you resolve Hypergenesis, there are a few possible scenarios, but it becomes quite long to explain and I think this post is getting long enough already, so I'll leave those interested to figuring out the possible fatty-permutations and results that go with them.
I'll shorten it to Hypergenesis being significantly more likely to end up ahead after Hypergenesis than Sneak Attack, especially if the deck can use Violent Outburst to go off or has a Griselbrand while Sneak and Show doesn't (especially as Hypergenesis has a reasonable shot of going Griselbrand -> draw 14 ->Hypergenesis again off of Spirit Guides/landdrop/untapping ->Kill you). This even works if Grisel drops of off S&T.


Once again, I'm not trying to say Hypergenesis is a significantly better deck than Sneak and Show. But I think Ryan's analysis contains significant faults and is heavily colored by the fact that he has already decided which deck is better before starting to think about both of them. The two are very different beasts and saying you shouldn't ever play Hypergenesis if Sneak and Show is available is like saying you shouldn't ever play Belcher (redundancy combo) when UB ANT is legal (cantrip consistency enabled combo). The two are just very different decks with different strengths and weaknesses, reduced to one-sided disadvantages by Ryan's analysis because he chose to ignore Hypergenesis' strengths.

As for his comments on Griselbrand, they make me wonder if he's aware that there are decks other than RUG in the format (and that there should be). I mean, sure, against RUG Griselbrand is the same as whatever other fattie. Once the fattie makes it into play, you're dead.
That ignores that there are a multitude of ways to handle even something like Emrakul with non-blue decks (or simply blue decks that don't run a million free counters) - Karakas, Oblivion Ring, Innocent Blood, Liliana of the Veil, Jace and even freaking Wrath of God just to name a very few - all ways which are close to useless when you're trying to beat Griselbrand as it will still Bargain for 14 and allow them to win with Sneak Attack next turn (which is, btw, why Maverick would much rather face down an Progenitus instead of a Griselbrand. Progenitus can be raced with Jitte and or BSkull or StP on your own Knight).
Now, that doesn't mean I think GriselB should be banned this instant (I think bans should only happen if things are still out of hand once the metagame has actually made significant efforts to adapt, which, right now, it hasn't, meaning any calls for bans are coming much too early). It does mean, however, that Griselbrand represents a totally new level of threat out of cheat-fatties-into-play decks (one that usually wins the game the instant it hits the board instead of once it attacks), which might conceivably lead to these decks becoming a problem that needs addressing through the DCI in the future.
Reducing this to "but but Show and Tell kills me anyway" sells the amount of interaction present in Legacy short in a way that is actually saddening to observe.