[Discussion] The Legacy Food Chain

[arsenalpow]

No this is not a thread about Food Chain the card. This thread is a discussion of what archetype/deck is at the top of the Legacy food chain at the moment.

The typical breakdown used to be something like this

combo > aggro
control > combo
aggro > control

Legacy trends indicate that combo can, now more than ever, play through control's disruption and still finish the game victorious. Threshold varients can utilize "free" or nearly free disruption like Daze, FoW, and Stifle to crush aggro decks.

Is the typical food chain as we once knew it (circa 2004) dead and gone? Or are aggressive tempo based decks the way to go? Is storm combo the only combo? Will pure aggro ever be as dominant as goblins once was?

[zulander]

Combo will always exist, aggro control will always exist, and pure aggro was never that good to begin with, consider it the ugly step child.

[Maveric78f]

Gob was not far from being a pure aggro deck.

[arsenalpow]

To me, goblins always felt like a combo deck in aggro form...maybe it's just me

[zulander]

Gob was not far from being a pure aggro deck.

If by aggro you mean "play creatures" then you're right. But the fact that half of the creatures weren't meant to be beatsticks then no, it isn't pure aggro. Pure aggro decks imho are decks like 7 land stompy and the such.

Incinerator - Meant to remove other creatures from blocking yours (pseudo aggro I guess)

Matron - Demonic Tutor

Ringleader - Fact or Fiction

Aether Vile - Elvish Piper

Along with the 4 waste 4 port the deck can't be seen as straight "aggro", at least not in my humble opinion.

[FoolofaTook]

December will tell us. That's more than enough time for people to figure out whether or not Tarmogoyf is broken enough to put Threshold type aggro-control decks over the top.

Goblins is definitely not that high in the food chain anymore. Too many people are hating it out, especially now that SB's have to think about EtW also.

[Bane of the Living]

No this is not a thread about Food Chain the card. This thread is a discussion of what archetype/deck is at the top of the Legacy food chain at the moment.

The typical breakdown used to be something like this

combo > aggro
control > combo
aggro > control

Legacy trends indicate that combo can, now more than ever, play through control's disruption and still finish the game victorious. Threshold varients can utilize "free" or nearly free disruption like Daze, FoW, and Stifle to crush aggro decks.

Is the typical food chain as we once knew it (circa 2004) dead and gone? Or are aggressive tempo based decks the way to go? Is storm combo the only combo? Will pure aggro ever be as dominant as goblins once was?

I would make your food chain look more like this..

Combo > Aggro
Aggro = Control
Control > Aggro Control
Combo > Control
Prison > Combo
Control > Prison

Im a firm believer in the fourth archetype and group decks such as Stax, Enchantress, Confinement, and dare I say Survival varients here.

Combo > Aggro: The way dedicated aggro such as Goblins, 3 Duece, and Death and Taxes are built they currently have an unwinnable to unfavorable combo matchup. Thats not to say they cant win but Id want to be sitting at the combo side of the table any day.

Aggro = Control: Control decks need to focus an narrow strategy to stop the faster combo decks. Spell Snare isnt so good against goblins, niether are cards like Counterbalance or Stifle. Control needed to become more narrow to compete and I feel this makes decks such as Landstill glass cannons. Exceptions are Loam based decks which have a better aggro matchup but weaker combo match.

Control > Aggro Control: I think the only good reason to play control is the solid aggro control matchup. Landstill vs Thresh usually still favors Landstill. Train Wreck will normally demolish anything resembling fish.

Combo > Control: Heres where we have issues I think. Combo used to beat control but since the printing of Empty the Warrens this has switched shifts. It made control weaken its late game power to deal with early threat. Storm forces cards like Stifle to see play. The next step in this food chain change was the rise of the zombie combo decks. Cephalid Breakfast and Ichorid laugh at Force of Will. Ceph B has Force of its own, Therapy, and Aether Vial. It doesnt put all its eggs in one basket only to lose to Orims Chant. Ichorid doesnt even need to play a spell to kill you. Ive won countless games against blue based control by going to discard phase and getting back Ichorids that flashback therapies. Dredging into uncounterable Narcomeobas, getting free zombie tokens, ect.. Not to mention control has no clock against decks that threaten to kill on turns 1-2.

Prison > Combo: I think combo is so fast that dedicating a turn or mana to play a win condition is often a window to large to combo not to win. Decks such as Enchantress and Angel Stax dedicated their turns to building a wall around them. Often combo will only lose if it cant combo. I almost want to group decks like Faerie Stompy here as well even if they do present a clock. Active Jitte is a prison element against Ichorid, late game Empty the Warrens, and even Nomad en Kor.

Control > Prison: This is controls other great matchup. Loam decks will never be taken down by Smokestack or Chalice. Wombat can eventually cast an Akromas Vengance on Enchantress, ect..

Aggro Combo > All: This is my personal opinion and Im sure most of you will disagree. I feel as though decks that force quick reactive measures that have the default win are very powerfull. The two that come to mind are Affinity and Ichorid. Both decks have a combo element, for Ichorid its Bridge/Meoba/Dredging for Affinity its Rav/Disciple. If you forget to constrain the combo elements the decks can win out of any situation. If you narrow yourself to stopping the combo (aka Disciple or Breakthrough) you can still die to Cranial Plating and Ichorids.

I could go on and on about Combo Control and such but I think my point is the old way of looking at the three rock papers scissors style is obsolete. Decks have developed to assume roles that fit all those categories. Thats why goblins has such good game against the field.

Im done here.

[frogboy]

The typical food chain was wrong to begin with. The arbitrary labels handed out are often misleading and/or wrong, and are in any case irrelevant.

[Happy Gilmore]

I would make your food chain look more like this..

Combo > Aggro
Aggro = Control
Control > Aggro Control
Combo > Control
Prison > Combo
Control > Prison

Im a firm believer in the fourth archetype and group decks such as Stax, Enchantress, Confinement, and dare I say Survival varients here.

Combo > Aggro: The way dedicated aggro such as Goblins, 3 Duece, and Death and Taxes are built they currently have an unwinnable to unfavorable combo matchup. Thats not to say they cant win but Id want to be sitting at the combo side of the table any day.

Aggro = Control: Control decks need to focus an narrow strategy to stop the faster combo decks. Spell Snare isnt so good against goblins, niether are cards like Counterbalance or Stifle. Control needed to become more narrow to compete and I feel this makes decks such as Landstill glass cannons. Exceptions are Loam based decks which have a better aggro matchup but weaker combo match.

Control > Aggro Control: I think the only good reason to play control is the solid aggro control matchup. Landstill vs Thresh usually still favors Landstill. Train Wreck will normally demolish anything resembling fish.

Combo > Control: Heres where we have issues I think. Combo used to beat control but since the printing of Empty the Warrens this has switched shifts. It made control weaken its late game power to deal with early threat. Storm forces cards like Stifle to see play. The next step in this food chain change was the rise of the zombie combo decks. Cephalid Breakfast and Ichorid laugh at Force of Will. Ceph B has Force of its own, Therapy, and Aether Vial. It doesnt put all its eggs in one basket only to lose to Orims Chant. Ichorid doesnt even need to play a spell to kill you. Ive won countless games against blue based control by going to discard phase and getting back Ichorids that flashback therapies. Dredging into uncounterable Narcomeobas, getting free zombie tokens, ect.. Not to mention control has no clock against decks that threaten to kill on turns 1-2.

Prison > Combo: I think combo is so fast that dedicating a turn or mana to play a win condition is often a window to large to combo not to win. Decks such as Enchantress and Angel Stax dedicated their turns to building a wall around them. Often combo will only lose if it cant combo. I almost want to group decks like Faerie Stompy here as well even if they do present a clock. Active Jitte is a prison element against Ichorid, late game Empty the Warrens, and even Nomad en Kor.

Control > Prison: This is controls other great matchup. Loam decks will never be taken down by Smokestack or Chalice. Wombat can eventually cast an Akromas Vengance on Enchantress, ect..

Aggro Combo > All: This is my personal opinion and Im sure most of you will disagree. I feel as though decks that force quick reactive measures that have the default win are very powerfull. The two that come to mind are Affinity and Ichorid. Both decks have a combo element, for Ichorid its Bridge/Meoba/Dredging for Affinity its Rav/Disciple. If you forget to constrain the combo elements the decks can win out of any situation. If you narrow yourself to stopping the combo (aka Disciple or Breakthrough) you can still die to Cranial Plating and Ichorids.

I could go on and on about Combo Control and such but I think my point is the old way of looking at the three rock papers scissors style is obsolete. Decks have developed to assume roles that fit all those categories. Thats why goblins has such good game against the field.

Im done here.

I don't see how a foodchain could accurately describe the format when the definitions of what is agro, agro control, control, and combo is so broad.

What catagory would you put a deck like Ichorid(Agro or Combo)? Some decks are both control and combo decks, Aluren/Breafast come to mind.

so......

Combo beats Agro (unless agro has t1 Mogg Fanatic and the combo is ichorid)
Control beats combo (if the combo player is not playing ichorid or god forbid...The Permanent Wave aka. Springtide)
Agro beats Control (unless the control deck is also playing a combo)
Agro Control beats Combo (unless combo is ichorid)
Agro beats Agro Control (unless agro control plays Tarmogoyf)

There are too many exceptions.

[The Rack]

This is a great topic and I'd like to join it.

Aggro Control can beat everything. Making it the top of the foodchain. Postboard it goes 50% against anything. It beats combo (counter/discard). It beats aggro(wrath effects/moat effects). It beats control (faster clock/almost as much disruption). It beats Prison (counter/disruption/clock).

I think its not the best damn thing out there but it definately doesnt autolose to anything right now. My 2 cents.

[Zilla]

It beats control (faster clock/almost as much disruption).
It doesn't really beat control, at least of the board control variety. In most cases, board control is a very bad matchup for aggro control. They simply have far more answers than you have threats, and they have more staying power in the lategame. Decks like Landstill and Train Wreck are very difficult for a deck like Thresh.



Spell Snare isnt so good against goblins, niether are cards like Counterbalance or Stifle.
Stifle is fucking awesome against Goblins.

[Obfuscate Freely]

It doesn't really beat control, at least of the board control variety. In most cases, board control is a very bad matchup for aggro control. They simply have far more answers than you have threats, and they have more staying power in the lategame. Decks like Landstill and Train Wreck are very difficult for a deck like Thresh.
Actual, dedicated board control decks have never really beaten Thresh. Wombat, Rifter, Truffle Shuffle, etc. have a lot of difficulty generating any card advantage and usually lose to superior card manipulation and threat density. It doesn't matter how many removal spells are still in the deck when the creature on the board is dealing lethal damage.

Train Wreck is a little different, because it has a stong proactive plan in discard + Haunting Echoes.

Landstill is different, because it has Standstill, FoF, Crucible, and countermagic to force them through. You can't really call it a board control deck, though, especially since those spells are more important in the matchup than the board control elements are.


I would make your food chain look more like this..

Combo > Aggro
Aggro = Control
Control > Aggro Control
Combo > Control
Prison > Combo
Control > Prison

Im a firm believer in the fourth archetype and group decks such as Stax, Enchantress, Confinement, and dare I say Survival varients here.
I fail to see how you can call Stax and Survival anything but control decks. Enchantress is a combo deck. There are lots of decks with Confinement in them, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I know you don't need a fourth archetype to describe it.



However, as Frogboy said, these labels are only marginally useful, anyway. They certainly don't reliably indicate which deck will be favored in a given matchup. I pointed out above how the statement "Control > Aggro Control" is an over-generalization, and I think that aptly demonstrates why the idea of a "food chain" is outdated and silly.

[Anusien]

The simple combo-aggro-control relationship was outdated the moment it was established.

I would direct you to Godder on TMD's treatment of The Metagame Clock (http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=31920.0). For background, The Metagame Clock (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/4103.html) positioned decks around a clock according to what archetype they were, but it could also accommodate changes in a deck. You could add Mesmeric Fiends and equipment to The Rock (Macey Rock) making it more of a beatdown deck, and change its position in the metagame clock in a way that the original theory could not handle.

[emidln]

Prison > Combo: I think combo is so fast that dedicating a turn or mana to play a win condition is often a window to large to combo not to win. Decks such as Enchantress and Angel Stax dedicated their turns to building a wall around them. Often combo will only lose if it cant combo.

We'll talk about White Stax (angel's aren't played anymore), even though I'm convinced it's inferior to other builds. White Stax brings SoR/Trinisphere to actually stop the combo to wait for a geddon/smokestack effect to beat the combo deck. Tabernacle, Magus, Ghostly Prison all stop the early ETW rush. Storm combo will rarely beat a competent White Stax player.



Control > Prison: This is controls other great matchup. Loam decks will never be taken down by Smokestack or Chalice. Wombat can eventually cast an Akromas Vengance on Enchantress, ect..
Flame deleted, warning issued. This kind of shit is absolutely unacceptable. - Zilla

Loam decks lose to Chalice @ 2. Smokestack can and routinely does take down loam decks who are put into a rough position where all they can do is pay for loam and not actually do anything like recur witness until they are decked. If you would spend any amount of time playtesting a good prison build vs any Loam build you'd realize this. What's more, once Smokestack comes online early, Loam can't even KGrip the stack unless it was already in their hand since they spend all their available mana paying the "upkeep" cost of smokestack (aka casting LFTL). They desperately need to avoid Chalice @ 2/3 and Smokestack in order to have a chance. This almost always means an early Exploration and building mana so that they can race Smokestack mid-to-late game. If they do this they have a chance to mill away artifact kill and then recur off Genesis/Witness.

Wombat has a serious issue with a resolved Armageddon, Smokestack, or Braids. And by serious issue, I mean game loss.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Actual, dedicated board control decks have never really beaten Thresh. Wombat, Rifter, Truffle Shuffle, etc. have a lot of difficulty generating any card advantage and usually lose to superior card manipulation and threat density. It doesn't matter how many removal spells are still in the deck when the creature on the board is dealing lethal damage.

Train Wreck is a little different, because it has a stong proactive plan in discard + Haunting Echoes.

But that plan wasn't proactive in Truffle Shuffle? Interesting analysis.

If you want to test ten matchups of any given build of a board control deck (that I've built or that doesn't suck; lots of people build bad control decks because they don't understand the principles behind the strategy) versus Threshold, I'll be happy to. I'll bet 5 dollars I'll be at least 7-3. I'll only remind you that;

1) I think my most usual experience playing against you or your brother in the same archetype matchup involves getting maybe one full game in, my taking twenty minutes to kill you, and then you quitting to playtest something else because you find it "boring", and;

2) I seem to remember Hatfields making claims of 9-Land Stompy having a 50/50 Goblins matchup, and that not panning out very well in testing at all. Just saying.

Also... threat density? Are you kidding me? You remember what the term means, right? I don't think 10 actual creatures qualifies as "threat density". Nor 10 actual answers as "answer density". A solid control deck beats Threshold and other aggro-control strategies because it's running more cards that actually do anything to the gamestate.

[Obfuscate Freely]

But that plan wasn't proactive in Truffle Shuffle? Interesting analysis.
The last list of Truffle Shuffle you played didn't have any discard spells in it. I'm only basing my analysis on my experience against the two decks; Train Wreck always wins the game by forcing through a Haunting Echoes. I'm sure Truffle Shuffle could employ that strategy, as well.


If you want to test ten matchups of any given build of a board control deck (that I've built or that doesn't suck; lots of people build bad control decks because they don't understand the principles behind the strategy) versus Threshold, I'll be happy to. I'll bet 5 dollars I'll be at least 7-3.
I would consider this a waste of my time. Call that a cop-out if you wish, but I've had enough tournament experience against these sorts of decks that I don't feel the need to prove anything to you.


I'll only remind you that;

1) I think my most usual experience playing against you or your brother in the same archetype matchup involves getting maybe one full game in, my taking twenty minutes to kill you, and then you quitting to playtest something else because you find it "boring", and;
Aside from the times we've beaten you in tournaments? This is not a productive line of debate...


2) I seem to remember Hatfields making claims of 9-Land Stompy having a 50/50 Goblins matchup, and that not panning out very well in testing at all. Just saying.
It's a good thing you're "just saying" that, because otherwise it would be irrelevant. Oh, wait.


Also... threat density? Are you kidding me? You remember what the term means, right? I don't think 10 actual creatures qualifies as "threat density". Nor 10 actual answers as "answer density". A solid control deck beats Threshold and other aggro-control strategies because it's running more cards that actually do anything to the gamestate.
This seems a lot like what GodzillA was saying, and if anything useful comes out of this conversation it will be the dispelling of this fundamentally flawed logic, which makes me cringe every time someone uses it.

Winning a game of Magic has absolutely nothing to do with the cards in your deck that you don't draw and play over the course of a game. The cards that do matter, obviously, are the ones that you do draw and play over the course of that game. Thus, tallying up threats and answers in your deck and comparing the numbers with those of your opponent's deck is completely meaningless. This sort of test fails to take into account draw spells, manipulation spells, or other factors like mana disruption.

Honestly, it sounds really stupid when you think about it. Threshold has ~10 creatures, ~10 counters, and ~4 removal spells. By those numbers, it's behind against almost any other deck, even combo decks (those 10 counters are the only real answers to the opponent's threats, right?). Ignoring the deck's draw engine is ludicrous.

This is why there is a difference between Landstill's Threshold matchup and Wombat's. Landstill can force through card advantage spells, in order to actually draw all of those answer cards to match Thresh's threats. Wombat, on the other hand, can only trade cards until it hits a clump of lands and Thresh's superior card manipulation (Brainstorm > Bandage) finds a threat Wombat can't answer in time.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I would consider this a waste of my time. Call that a cop-out if you wish, but I've had enough tournament experience against these sorts of decks that I don't feel the need to prove anything to you.

I do consider that a cop-out, actually. My opinion is drawn from both tournament experience and extensive playtesting. Do you wonder why I might think myself more qualified to make this call than you? Because I think you're the one with questionable credentials on this matter. You refuse to playtest the matchup because you consider it "boring", but you think you can make qualified calls based on playing against a few random strangers in tournaments.


Aside from the times we've beaten you in tournaments?

I'm having difficulty thinking of a time beyond that one Kadi's top 8 where this has happened. Care to elaborate?


It's a good thing you're "just saying" that, because otherwise it would be irrelevant. Oh, wait.

It's irrelevant that you have a history of inflating matchup results before thorough testing when playing a deck you really like?


This seems a lot like what GodzillA was saying, and if anything useful comes out of this conversation it will be the dispelling of this fundamentally flawed logic, which makes me cringe every time someone uses it.

Winning a game of Magic has absolutely nothing to do with the cards in your deck that you don't draw over the course of a game. The cards that do matter, obviously, are the ones that you do draw over the course of that game. Thus, tallying up threats and answers in your deck and comparing the numbers with those of your opponent's deck is completely meaningless. This sort of test fails to take into account draw spells, manipulation spells, or other factors like mana disruption.

Honestly, it sounds really stupid when you think about it. Threshold has ~10 creatures, ~10 counters, and ~4 removal spells. By those numbers, it's behind against almost any other deck, even combo decks (those 10 counters are the only real answers to the opponent's threats, right?). Ignoring the deck's draw engine is ludicrous.

This is why there is a difference between Landstill's Threshold matchup and Wombat's. Landstill can force through card advantage spells, in order to actually draw all of those answer cards to match Thresh's threats. Wombat, on the other hand, can only trade cards until it hits a clump of lands and Thresh's superior card manipulation (Brainstorm > Bandage) finds a threat Wombat can't answer in time.

Or until DoJ and Eternal Dragon get online and wreck your face. The flaw in your argument is that because you never test against them, you think that good control decks are like bad control decks you encounter more often in tournaments, and that all they do is trade cards indefinitely until they can no longer trade anymore. But a good control deck always has a strong late game plan, which Threshold doesn't. Whether DoJ and Eternal Dragon, or Helldozer and Staff of Domination and Haunting Echoes, or Insect Advantage, a good control deck wins the late game. And Threshold and aggro-control in general are not very good at forcing a win in the early game because they have too many control cards and spend too much time getting there. The turns you spend cantripping through your deck are precious and move you closer towards the late game where you're going to be drowned by functional card advantage as they drop spells that are simply much more relevant and harder to deal with than yours. The games that I have lost to Threshold all generally look the same- early Mongoose beats, double Lightning Bolt to the face. Without a very good aggro draw or very poor draws on the part of the control deck, it's almost impossible for Threshold to win such a matchup.

[Mad Zur]

The game that Threshold wants to play against a control deck is a game of attrition, in which it uses counters to stop the opponent's attempts to generate card advantage and uses its manipulation to draw more relevant cards and eventually present a threat the control deck is unable to answer. This strategy is very effective against control decks that rely on their removal, like Rabid Wombat or Rifter. It's less effective against Landstill, which is equipped to outdraw Threshold and win the attrition war. It's also not great against Train Wreck, which has a way to break out of the attrition war and win the game (Echoes), as well as a way to force this plan through counters (discard). Wombat and Rifter have a few gamebreaking cards (Humility, DoJ), and most games they win will be because of those, but it is much harder for them to protect them than it is for Landstill and Train Wreck, so I would rather be the Threshold player in those matchups.

Against something like Wombat, the Threshold player will spend a few turns manipulating his draws, as usual. Then he will play a creature. The Wombat player will answer it. This cycle will repeat, except that the Wombat player will continue to make land drops and draw less good cards in general than the Threshold player because Cycling cards are not as strong as manipulation spells. Occasionally, the Threshold player will deal damage with his threat before it is answered. Eventually, both players will be down to only a few cards, but the Threshold player will have more relevant spells in his hand because the Wombat player has several more lands in play and hasn't generated any sort of card advantage that didn't just give him more lands. The Threshold player, now down to his last creature, will stop trading creatures with removal spells and begin to trade counters with removal spells. The Wombat player will then run out of answers and the threat will go on to win the game.

That's the ideal scenario for Threshold. Real games will often resemble this, though they are much more complicated because the Threshold player needs to worry about answering Humility, Decree of Justice, and possibly Eternal Dragon. If Wombat wins, it's because one of those went unanswered. If Threshold wins, it's because the strategy described above was successfully employed.

Against something like Train Wreck, the game will sometimes play out exactly like that, but sometimes it will end when the Train Wreck player strips away the Threshold player's answer and wins with a bomb like Echoes or Staff. Against Landstill, the game is also similar, except that Landstill will likely resolve a Standstill, Crucible, or FoF, and bury the Threshold player in card advantage. If I'm playing Threshold in a tournement, I would like to be paired against Wombat or Rifter but not against Landstill. (I have no experience against Truffle Shuffle and little against Train Wreck, so I won't make any assertions about those matchups.)

In summary, any generalization about the Threshold's performance against control decks is going to be highly inaccurate. When looking at the specific matchups, card advantage and card quality are far more important than quantity of removal.

[TheAardvark]

Actual, dedicated board control decks have never really beaten Thresh. Wombat, Rifter, Truffle Shuffle, etc. have a lot of difficulty generating any card advantage and usually lose to superior card manipulation and threat density. It doesn't matter how many removal spells are still in the deck when the creature on the board is dealing lethal damage.



For the record, I have lost one tournament match to any Threshold variant while playing Truffle Shuffle, with probably 15ish matches (with that matchup) under my belt, and that was a loss to Goobafish at GenCon.

Just saying.

Oh, and I agree with you in that a "food chain" is a pretty useless and outmoded concept.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The game that Threshold wants to play against a control deck is a game of attrition, in which it uses counters to stop the opponent's attempts to generate card advantage and uses its manipulation to draw more relevant cards and eventually present a threat the control deck is unable to answer. This strategy is very effective against control decks that rely on their removal, like Rabid Wombat or Rifter. It's less effective against Landstill, which is equipped to outdraw Threshold and win the attrition war. It's also not great against Train Wreck, which has a way to break out of the attrition war and win the game (Echoes), as well as a way to force this plan through counters (discard). Wombat and Rifter have a few gamebreaking cards (Humility, DoJ), and most games they win will be because of those, but it is much harder for them to protect them than it is for Landstill and Train Wreck, so I would rather be the Threshold player in those matchups.

Abeyance and possibly Orim's Chant are certainly ways to force through key spells, you still have to expend counters in protecting win conditions, and DoJ and Eternal Dragon both give counters fits.

I have never, ever lost a game against a Threshold deck that was following the strategy you describe, while piloting any form of board control, unless

1) My draws were abysmally terrible, like lands significantly outnumbering spells or never getting past land three or such.

2) They played ten to twelve burn spells and they burned me out. This didn't happen too often as most control builds have some form of burn-answer or the other.

I think you're basing far too much on theory.


Against something like Wombat, the Threshold player will spend a few turns manipulating his draws, as usual. Then he will play a creature. The Wombat player will answer it. This cycle will repeat, except that the Wombat player will continue to make land drops and draw less good cards in general than the Threshold player because Cycling cards are not as strong as manipulation spells. Occasionally, the Threshold player will deal damage with his threat before it is answered. Eventually, both players will be down to only a few cards, but the Threshold player will have more relevant spells in his hand because the Wombat player has several more lands in play and hasn't generated any sort of card advantage that didn't just give him more lands. The Threshold player, now down to his last creature, will stop trading creatures with removal spells and begin to trade counters with removal spells. The Wombat player will then run out of answers and the threat will go on to win the game.

That's the ideal scenario for Threshold. Real games will often resemble this, though they are much more complicated because the Threshold player needs to worry about answering Humility, Decree of Justice, and possibly Eternal Dragon. If Wombat wins, it's because one of those went unanswered. If Threshold wins, it's because the strategy described above was successfully employed.

It's an ideal scenario that I've never seen actually work. I think the term "fantasy" might be more accurate. Threshold is built around a shallow mana curve. As time goes on, your ability to exploit the mid-early game more effectively becomes irrelevant, and I'll just keep recurring the Eternal Dragon I have certainly found by now.

I say this again, based on both extensive testing of control decks against Threshold and extensive tournament experience playing control decks against Thresh or other aggro-control decks. That strategy never works, because your late game sucks. The most you can do is go as aggressive as possible as fast as possible and hope to counter a Wrath at the wrong time, or that they stall for land for a turn.


Against something like Train Wreck, the game will sometimes play out exactly like that, but sometimes it will end when the Train Wreck player strips away the Threshold player's answer and wins with a bomb like Echoes or Staff. Against Landstill, the game is also similar, except that Landstill will likely resolve a Standstill, Crucible, or FoF, and bury the Threshold player in card advantage. If I'm playing Threshold in a tournement, I would like to be paired against Wombat or Rifter but not against Landstill. (I have no experience against Truffle Shuffle and little against Train Wreck, so I won't make any assertions about those matchups.)

Rifter has no way to kill your guys except through a resolved Humility. No shit. Serious question: How much actual testing have you done against Wombat? My general experience with both Hatfields is that you refuse to test such matchups, so I'm really wondering where you're drawing your conclusions from.


In summary, any generalization about the Threshold's performance against control decks is going to be highly inaccurate. When looking at the specific matchups, card advantage and card quality are far more important than quantity of removal.

Yes, they are, but you don't understand that late game bombs that Threshold is unable to deal with are functional card advantage, including DoJ and Eternal Dragon. No good control deck is without late game bombs and recursive or removal/counter-resistant kill conditions. Hence it's fair to say that good control decks beat Threshold, even while bad ones might not.

[Deep6er]

Actually, in the Hatfields' defense, they DO occassionally test control matchups. I know that I personally went through close to 40 maybe 50 games with various versions of my control decks. Recently you're right though. Before they figured that ALL control decks suck (which I disagree with) they would be reasonably willing to test matchups but now that they think that ALL control decks suck, they'll usually find something "less boring" to do. Don't get me wrong, they're still jerks, but they HAVE tested control decks extensively with me, Allan, Jesse Krieger, and Scott Scheurer. Seriously.

[Mad Zur]

We regularly playtest relevant Legacy decks, whether or not the two of you are present. I don't think these personal attacks are on-topic or at all justified.

I think you're basing far too much on theory.This is not at all based on theory. It's a description of how these matchups have always played out in my very real experience. This includes tournament experience and playtesting. I can't tell you exactly how much playtesting, because it's been a very long time since those decks were relevant so I don't honestly remember. As I said before, I've personally found the strategy I described to be very effective. You've appealed to bad luck to explain this, so I don't think there's much more I can say.

Yes, they are, but you don't understand that late game bombs that Threshold is unable to deal with are functional card advantage, including DoJ and Eternal Dragon.
Sure I do. That's why Landstill and Train Wreck are good against Threshold. In my experience, however, Wombat and Rifter aren't able to resolve those bombs and make them effective as consistently. That's certainly how those decks win the games that they do, but I never found that it was often enough to say the matchup was in their favor.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

We regularly playtest relevant Legacy decks, whether or not the two of you are present. I don't think these personal attacks are on-topic or at all justified.

Ad hominem is only a logical fallacy if the trait being attacked is actually irrelevant. Playing the wounded party and then admitting that you don't remember the testing matches because they were ages ago isn't exactly a rock-solid defense.


This is not at all based on theory. It's a description of how these matchups have always played out in my very real experience. This includes tournament experience and playtesting. I can't tell you exactly how much playtesting, because it's been a very long time since those decks were relevant so I don't honestly remember. As I said before, I've personally found the strategy I described to be very effective. You've appealed to bad luck to explain this, so I don't think there's much more I can say.

Wow, nice strawman. Bad draws account for most of my losses against Threshold with any of the decks under discussion. The rest are entirely to very fast draws from Threshold. Never has waiting been a winning strategy. I'm not appealing to bad luck to explain a given loss or a trend of losses; I'm appealing to bad luck to explain why Threshold ever wins while applying that strategy, even if it is only a tiny fraction of the games so played.


Sure I do. That's why Landstill and Train Wreck are good against Threshold. In my experience, however, Wombat and Rifter aren't able to resolve those bombs and make them effective as consistently. That's certainly how those decks win the games that they do, but I never found that it was often enough to say the matchup was in their favor.

So basically this argument only applies to Wombat and Rifter? I found Wombat to have a worse matchup against Thresh than several other control decks, but Wombat's build has changed a number of times, and it was still well within favorable status with all of them, to my recollection. Maybe you're remembering post-board games where you brought in Armageddon or some such, I don't know. I never found it to my opponent's advantage to let me build up my mana base further in any control matchup. It's not like you ever get to a point where you have more to do with the mana than I do. It's certainly not like Daze gets better with time.

[Mad Zur]

Ad hominem is only a logical fallacy if the trait being attacked is actually irrelevant.
Whether or not I've tested against random control deck X is in fact irrelevant. Whether or not I've tested against the decks I'm actually talking about, which I have, is relevant.

Playing the wounded party and then admitting that you don't remember the testing matches because they were ages ago isn't exactly a rock-solid defense.Can you explain how those two things are related?

Wow, nice strawman. Bad draws account for most of my losses against Threshold with any of the decks under discussion. The rest are entirely to very fast draws from Threshold. Never has waiting been a winning strategy. I'm not appealing to bad luck to explain a given loss or a trend of losses; I'm appealing to bad luck to explain why Threshold ever wins while applying that strategy, even if it is only a tiny fraction of the games so played.
I've experienced a trend in which Threshold beats Wombat in the manner I described. If you contend that Wombat can only lose in this manner if it gets bad draws, you are absolutely appealing to bad luck to explain a trend of losses.

So basically this argument only applies to Wombat and Rifter?I made that clear in my first post. I didn't assert that Threshold is favored against Landstill or Train Wreck.

I found Wombat to have a worse matchup against Thresh than several other control decks, but Wombat's build has changed a number of times, and it was still well within favorable status with all of them, to my recollection. Maybe you're remembering post-board games where you brought in Armageddon or some such, I don't know.
I'm remembering playtesting and tournament matches against various builds of Wombat and Rifter, which I found to be in Threshold's favor for the reasons I already explained.

I never found it to my opponent's advantage to let me build up my mana base further in any control matchup. It's not like you ever get to a point where you have more to do with the mana than I do. It's certainly not like Daze gets better with time.
I don't really look at the matchup that way. I don't care how many lands the control deck has, I care how many spells it has. If I can run it out of spells, it loses the ability to answer my creatures and I win the game.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Whether or not I've tested against random control deck X is in fact irrelevant. Whether or not I've tested against the decks I'm actually talking about, which I have, is relevant.

But you have made sweeping remarks about control decks in general, so one hopes for a broader range of experience than two nearly identical MWC sub-variants. The fact that you have also indicated a speciality with these two decks is mitigated by other statements generalizing about control, especially given the earlier context of the discussion that you stepped in to, which was in no way limited strictly to Wombat and Rifter.


Can you explain how those two things are related?

They're not? They're separate elements of your argument.


I've experienced a trend in which Threshold beats Wombat in the manner I described. If you contend that Wombat can only lose in this manner if it gets bad draws, you are absolutely appealing to bad luck to explain a trend of losses.

I contend that I can only lose with Wombat in this manner if you try such a strategy, or at any rate, I only have lost against such strategies for such a reason. If your experience with people less experienced with the deck and with the control in general is different, that's not really my concern.


I made that clear in my first post. I didn't assert that Threshold is favored against Landstill or Train Wreck.

Your first post began with the generalized "control decks" and only later narrowed it down. I'm sure you can see why your statements are unclear in the context of the conversation, particularly as shifting it to a focus on two distinctly different forms of control that see little to no play these days isn't exactly the most relevant segue ever.


I don't really look at the matchup that way. I don't care how many lands the control deck has, I care how many spells it has. If I can run it out of spells, it loses the ability to answer my creatures and I win the game.

Except that plenty of spells aren't one for one trades, and plenty of the control deck's cards rise in power as they get more mana. Cards such as Staff of Domination, Decree of Justice, Eternal Dragon, or anything Wish.

[Deep6er]

We regularly playtest relevant Legacy decks, whether or not the two of you are present. I don't think these personal attacks are on-topic or at all justified.
This is not at all based on theory. It's a description of how these matchups have always played out in my very real experience. This includes tournament experience and playtesting. I can't tell you exactly how much playtesting, because it's been a very long time since those decks were relevant so I don't honestly remember. As I said before, I've personally found the strategy I described to be very effective. You've appealed to bad luck to explain this, so I don't think there's much more I can say.

Sure I do. That's why Landstill and Train Wreck are good against Threshold. In my experience, however, Wombat and Rifter aren't able to resolve those bombs and make them effective as consistently. That's certainly how those decks win the games that they do, but I never found that it was often enough to say the matchup was in their favor.

Actually, I've heard you describe Legacy control decks as unviable because "you want to win in the time limit of a round". I'm ABSOLUTELY paraphrasing here as your words were significantly more derogatory in tone. I also don't see why you're NOT a jerk. I know I'm a jerk and as everyone knows, it takes one to know one. You guys are definitely jerks. Mind you, that's not so bad as there are MANY jerks all around, but just saying, you guys are jerks. Jack too. Grade A Jerk right there. Well, and me too, but that's not the point. The point is, I'm almost positive that you guys disregard certain control decks as irrelevant because you don't like them. Which is fundamentally antithetical to the premise of testing "all relevant Legacy decks".

[Mad Zur]

They're not? They're separate elements of your argument.What exactly are you expecting from me? Do I need to prove to you that I tested these matchups? Do I need to know the specific dates, times, and number of games played? Do I need to prove that my opponents were good? Was the testing relevant if it didn't involve you specifically? Do I need to show that the control player didn't simply get bad draws in those games?

Why would the fact that I can't give you details from playtesting that occurred years ago actually be relevant to this argument?

Your first post began with the generalized "control decks" and only later narrowed it down.
Not at all. I've made the following claims, based on experience, that are relevant to the topic:
-Threshold is often able to beat control decks in the manner I described.
-Threshold is favored against some control decks, specifically Wombat and Rifter.
-"Control beats Threshold" is an inaccurate generalization.

At no point have I changed my position in any way.

You've responded that my experiences are not representative of those matchups because, if they actually happened, involved poor control players and bad draws. It seems that there's nothing more to say at this point.

[URABAHN]

Back when they were relevant decks, Rifter and Wombat beat the hell out of every flavor of Gro at least 70% of the time except White versions running Armageddon. Rifter and Wombat aren't relevant anymore, so who the hell cares? Both decks had issues beating combo decks like Solidarity (speaking of irrelevant) and IGGy Pop, and Wombat has been replaced by Quinn the Mighty Eskimo (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=145812&postcount=662).

Can y'all argue about today's Legacy?