[Article] Unlocking Legacy - Breakfast of Champions

[Ewokslayer]

This week it is Nightmare writing about Breakfast (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14715.html)

I liked the article. Lim Dul's Vault is some good.

I am not really seeing the need for Krosan Grip considering the MD truth and Deeds in the board.

[Di]

I must say, I absolutely love how much of me is reflecting in that amazing Breakfast list. It's incredibly good.

[Ewokslayer]

I must say, I absolutely love how much of me is reflecting in that amazing Breakfast list. It's incredibly good.

Goes to decklist ... It looks like 60 cards to me.

[Bryant Cook]

I liked it, needs more of me though.

[Phantom]

Liked the article a lot. Really gave me a feel for the deck. LDV is amazing, as I have recently found out, and Abeyance seems downright unfair here. I was a little confused by this:

"Turn 1 I generally name Empty the Warrens if I have Force, otherwise Belcher is the biggest threat."

I'm assuming that was supposed to be therapy.

[xXxBretWeedxXx]

Liked the article a lot. Really gave me a feel for the deck. LDV is amazing, as I have recently found out, and Abeyance seems downright unfair here. I was a little confused by this:

"Turn 1 I generally name Empty the Warrens if I have Force, otherwise Belcher is the biggest threat."

I'm assuming that was supposed to be therapy.

Nah he's saying that you therapy for an ETW if you have a Force in hand. If you don't have the Force you name Belcher.

[Bardo]

Nice little article there. I think it could have gone a little more in-depth on technical plays and hate navigation (other than "AEther Vial really helps") but this was nice intro to a very good deck.

[Nightmare]

Nice little article there. I think it could have gone a little more in-depth on technical plays and hate navigation (other than "AEther Vial really helps") but this was nice intro to a very good deck.I'd love to have a nice excuse as to why I didn't go more in depth, but the honest answer is, "I didn't feel like it."

How embarassing.

Thanks for the support guys!

Edit - actually, upon further reflection, I've come to the realization that I don't feel like it for a reason. Whenever I break down plays or describe the technical aspects of play with a certain deck, I feel like I'm doing 1 of two things:

1) Oversimplifying it in order to get it into words. I, like many other players, make an alarmingly large amount of calculations very rapidly at any point in a game, and I think it's hard to encapsulate that into a paragraph. There are so many things at to consider, it's tough to break it down without giving explicite game state scenarios, etc. In addition, I feel like I'm condescending when I make it look easy and neat. I don't like "dumbing it down."

2) If I don't simplify my thought process, I seem like a pretentious bastard (to myself).

I guess if you guys are real interested in seeing that kind of analytical articles, I can work on it.

[AnwarA101]

I'd love to have a nice excuse as to why I didn't go more in depth, but the honest answer is, "I didn't feel like it."

How embarassing.

Thanks for the support guys!

Edit - actually, upon further reflection, I've come to the realization that I don't feel like it for a reason. Whenever I break down plays or describe the technical aspects of play with a certain deck, I feel like I'm doing 1 of two things:

1) Oversimplifying it in order to get it into words. I, like many other players, make an alarmingly large amount of calculations very rapidly at any point in a game, and I think it's hard to encapsulate that into a paragraph. There are so many things at to consider, it's tough to break it down without giving explicite game state scenarios, etc. In addition, I feel like I'm condescending when I make it look easy and neat. I don't like "dumbing it down."

2) If I don't simplify my thought process, I seem like a pretentious bastard (to myself).

I guess if you guys are real interested in seeing that kind of analytical articles, I can work on it.

I don't think you need to go over exact situations and how to react to them. It would be better to talk about how to play around common situations in general. How to play around Tormod's Crypt? Mogg Fanatic? Leyline of Void? I don't think doing an exact scenario is as useful as discussing the situation in general. People won't always have the same situation, but they will face similar cards.

[Ewokslayer]

I don't think you need to go over exact situations and how to react to them. It would be better to talk about how to play around common situations in general. How to play around Tormod's Crypt? Mogg Fanatic? Leyline of Void? I don't think doing an exact scenario is as useful as discussing the situation in general. People won't always have the same situation, but they will face similar cards.

Though he did talk about playing around Fanatic (use Tarmogoyf as a damage buffer with the En-kor) And Leyline (Find then Cast Echoing Truth)

[Zilla]

I feel the same way Dan did on this one. Well written, compelling article. You gave a good synopsis of the deck and general strategies. But I really feel like I got done reading a "Part 1". It felt incomplete in the way that Empire Strikes Back feels incomplete at the end - it doesn't it make it any less of a good movie or anything, you just want more.

I haven't played the deck at all. Because I did a lot of testing with the controlling Flash builds, and having read the article, I feel like I could pick up Breakfast and play it. I just don't think I'd be playing it that well.

You don't have to be super specific, like, "and in this specific game my opponent did this thing and so I cast this and drew into this and then cast this for the win" kind of shit. Just more depth about how to approach specific matchups and hate strategies would be nice. Use general rules of thumb drawn from actual play and I think it will seem simply illustrative rather than overly technical or condescending.

[Nightmare]

Perhaps I'll try it for my next article. Llorwyn's pre-release is the weekend before my next article, though. Would you rather see a real in-depth strategy article, or a set review?

[zulander]

I'd rather see an article from Kevin please. I'm planning on playing Scepter/chant at the EPIC D4D and I need an updated primer.

[AnwarA101]

Perhaps I'll try it for my next article. Llorwyn's pre-release is the weekend before my next article, though. Would you rather see a real in-depth strategy article, or a set review?

Don't do a set review. I find them the most boring and least useful articles. Its hard to determine what will do well in a given format. Things that seem harmless end up becoming awesome and others that are overrated end up being exactly that.

[Belgareth]

I'd rather see an article from Kevin please.
Ouch!
It wasn't that bad was it :eek:
I actually liked it, admitedly I was aprehensive when bardo gave up his spot as I loved his work.
However I think nightmare did a good job , though agree with zilla's comments.

[Bardo]

Perhaps I'll try it for my next article. Llorwyn's pre-release is the weekend before my next article, though. Would you rather see a real in-depth strategy article, or a set review?

It's a fine line. My feeling is that every article should have something for everyone. Strategy, humor and wit, detail without being pedantic, engaging to newcomers, but not too "Intro to Legacy"-ish for the 1.5 veterans. That was always the line I was trying to straddle--sometimes better than others.

Anusien did a cool thing in his last article where he listed a series of advanced operations re: Scepter-Chant. "Tricks with the stack" are usually my favorite parts of any Magic articles on decks--and one of the few places I personally might learn something and be able to apply it elsewhere.

[Nihil Credo]

I agree with Anwar, skip the set review. Everyone can see that stuff like Ponder is good*; it's much more helpful to take one's time and write about the new deckbuilding options opened by the new set. For example, if Lorwyn cards allow a radically new B/R Goblins build, that would probably be worth an article of itself, instead of being mentioned in passing.


*Although I'm curious to see how long it takes the Standard/Extended scene, who has never played with Portent, to catch up on Ponder's efficiency.

[Di]

Everyone can see that stuff like Ponder is good*

Maybe, but just incase, Anusien will devote an entire article to the card so everyone else will get the idea.

But please do not do a set review. They are pointless. Aside from some people who can't fully grasp the idea of a good card already getting whored across the forums, the rest of us prefer articles of actual use.

[AnwarA101]

Maybe, but just incase, Anusien will devote an entire article to the card so everyone else will get the idea.


What do you mean? In his last article he stated that he hated the non-Brainstorm cantrips in Threshold. I'm betting he thinks Ponder is poor for reasons I can't understand.

[Bane of the Living]

This was a great article Adam. Thank you for writing noob free material.

I think you could right a whole article on Cabal Therapies. I find the success of decks running them is based on knowing how to. Its not as simple as Meddling Mage for some reason.

[Zach Tartell]

Could you compose a sideboarding list for this? I'd love to play the deck, but I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with it.

[Anusien]

Since people are throwing around the hate, it can't hurt to ask. What sort of things do you want to see in Unlocking Legacy articles? Aside from, "This deck just broke out, let me tell you about it." (And good job Adam, because I think you really brought the deck out well in front of a larger Legacy community. Most people with interest in the format never saw it.).

A few Legacy set reviews have been written, but they're all generally uninspired and boring. The obvious ones are obvious and the contentious ones are never explained well. I think it wouldn't be a BAD idea to look at one or two contentious cards and explain what you think of them and analyze them as an addendum to another article (a lot of people didn't realize how good Tarmogoyf was, for example).

Mail bags are generally fairly popular, but I do not know any of our authors that are getting enough letters and questions for a mail bag.

So what do you all want to see?

By the way, I'm thinking of looking at the concept of Momentum and how it differs from Tempo in Magic. Would this be something anyone is interested in, or is it the kind of thing that only I care about?

[Nihil Credo]

It would be unpopular, but I think it might help the format if a "Decks Not To Play" article were published.

Like it or not, there are still a lot of people that believe Burn, Classic White Weenie, or Mono-Black Control can actually be serious contenders in the format.
It may seem obvious to us Sourcers, but I'm guessing many of SCG's readers are unaware of that - just check their forums (http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=20).

At Standard tournaments you don't usually see casual decks at high tables past round 2; I think it's in the best interests of the format if the percentage of scrubs is reduced in Legacy as well.

You could also use that skeleton to present some theory observations about the format, which could be of interest to more experienced players. For example:

Deck: 30-creatures White Weenie
What it beats: Goblins
What beats it: Everything else
How it sucks: No reach and no card drawing means Control will wipe all its creatures and then auto-win; not enough speed and zero disruption means Combo will goldfish it.
Why it sucks: 2/2 creatures aren't threats in Legacy (link to Anwar's article); in Legacy you need to either win fast or to consistently accumulate some kind of advantage (tempo/CA/permanents/life total) through time.

[Nightmare]

I'm splitting this discussion off, because it's another topic entirely. Plz keep this thread on the article, and any suggestions you have for me, not Anusien. Thx.

[Zach Tartell]

Could someone actually add a breif sideboarding section instead of going on and on about how bad/good writers are or the terrible/amazing state of Legacy?

I'm refering to Nightmare's board from Eli's I.

[Sigar]

Why Abeyance over Orim's Chant?

Ok it cantrips for 1, more?

[Bane of the Living]

Why Abeyance over Orim's Chant?

Ok it cantrips for 1, more?

It stops activated abilities, which Orim's Chant does not.

Post edited. Be nice to the new boy jerk. I could've sworn you've already been reminded about losing 8/9 lives. Be a shame to lose the last... -Di

[Benie Bederios]

Why Abeyance over Orim's Chant?

Ok it cantrips for 1, more?

Abeyance stops Tormod's Crypt, Deed, Engineered Explosives and the normal counters and StP.

[hi-val]

Umm it stops activated abilities?

The two have been around since Chant was printed like 5 years ago or something. Have you read the cards?

That's a little harsh for a new guy!

Since the combo is so cheap to assemble mana-wise, the tradeoff of one more mana to shut down really relevant cards is a fine exchange to make in the deck. In other decks like IGG, the effect is not relevant to the cost because the combo itself costs more mana.

[Hoojo]

What would the consequences be by replacing the 3 Worldy Tutors with another Lim-Dul's Vault and possible 2 to 3 Portents? I've been goldfishing and testing with this list and I haven't ever wanted or needed the Worldly Tutors, particularly when I draw a Lim-Dul's Vault.

[diffy]

What would the consequences be by replacing the 3 Worldy Tutors with another Lim-Dul's Vault and possible 2 to 3 Portents? I've been goldfishing and testing with this list and I haven't ever wanted or needed the Worldly Tutors, particularly when I draw a Lim-Dul's Vault.


You could then drop Green altogether and replace the Tarmogoyfs with Jötun Grunts to obtain a more stable manabase... I brainstormed a bit about the issue here (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160731&postcount=218) if you're interested in further discussion, you might want to continue there...