Printable View
RUG Delver now approaching Survival win percentages.
"In fact, the only other time we've seen a deck simultaneously make up at least ten percent of the field and win at least 60% of its matches, was Survival. RUG Delver has done this twice in a row."
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...acy_Opens.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddt15
I think we all know how diverse and exciting SCG metagame is /end sarcasm
The rest of analysis regarding RUG and Survival comparison:Quote:
Originally Posted by ddt15
"(Of course, Survival did this three times in a row and was awfully close a few more times, with its worst win percentage being 59.38%. RUG hasn't been quite that consistent.)"
What shocks me about the data is the lack of decks that prey on RUG. RUG is 11 - 17 percent of the field but Aggro Loam is only 2 - 3 percent of the field? People need to metagame.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fossil4182
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fossil4182
And this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fossil4182
But not this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fossil4182
I go out on a limb here and say that Aggro Loams MU against an experienced Threshold-Player might be winnable, but is definetly not good.
I was pretty unimpressed every time I saw its performance or have played against it. I am not even convinced that it is necessary to deal with that whole Slowpoke Loam-engine to reliably win the MU.
The larger creatures and Chalice are usually what did it. Hell, even Stax isn't a terrible call against RUG decks (I am not suggesting Stax is good against the rest of the field). RUG has typically had problems with Chalice and Trinisphere decks that can drop large cost efficient creatures. Outside of the occasional MUD deck, such decks have not been showing up recently. It may suggest that Aggro Loam's match up against the rest of the field makes it a poor choice. I made the reference because historically, Aggro Loam and Chalice based decks have been a good response to RUG dominated metagames.Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the brainwasher
That says all you need to know about the deep introspection it takes to pilot belcher. A guy was playing it in side events and I asked him, "What if everyone just played Belcher?" the game would be a fucking joke. A slightly more advanced version of Rochambeau.Quote:
Originally Posted by majikal
Kind of makes you wonder why Show and Tell decks don't sideboard Chalice of the Void.
I still say being by faaaar the best answer to S&T decks (and S&T wrecking everything that preys on RUG) and being extremely consistent are the two reasons this deck is out of control, but if you had to ban a card here, what would the right choice be? Delver of Secrets?
People should start playing Dreadstill again and shutting down RUG with CbTop. Or just power through a 12/12 (oops nice burn spells you have there) also Standstill is a very underplayed card right now...
If RUG should be the problem *laughing* why don't we just play Terminator? Shuts down RUG pretty good. And deals well with Maverick while having an pretty even fight vs SneakAttack...
Greetings
If they banned Delver of Secrets I think the format would turn upside down with the hole created by RUG.
Yet I'm surprised by the recent article on SCG (basically they are saying RUG beat Maverick in last few SCG opens around 60% of the time). I wish the match-up was that easy. Maybe Maverick is becoming too inbred and busy with its mirror match it just can't focus on beating blue as much as it used to.
if they ban anything I hope it goes into effect on the 1st, causing day 2 of GPATL to be decided by who wasn't DQ'd for illegal deck registration.
Board control decks, in general, are a great way to beat RUG while beating Maverick. RUG runs, typically, 12 creatures in total. Sure, it protects those with soft counters and mana denial, but that's not going to be enough against a deck with enough lands to not care about the soft counters past a certain point, and enough removal removal to not care if a few get countered.
Something like Quinn comes to mind, although I'm not sure what their combo matchups are like.
The other two decks would be BUG Control and UW Control. Both of those decks run enough removal to slaughter RUG's 12 doods. BUG has tons of sac effects for Goose, and UW has Counterbalance, which completely shuts RUG down, and it only needs a single Terminus to clear the board before/after Counterbalance lands. The beauty of BUG and UW vs Quinn is that those decks have more than enough tools postboard to beat combo decks.
Expect to see more of those sorts of decks going forward (if people metagame correctly).
I can personally attest to destroying both RUG and Maverick repeatedly with my UW Control deck (with 4 Counterbalance and 4 Terminus maindeck).
But the problem I see with those Board control decks is the weaknes against budget decks like Dredge and Burn, that are always relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanni
Terminator isnt having too much problems with Dredge. Terminator can even win a preboard game if the Dredge-player doesn't excactly how to play vs this deck. Burn isn't that much of a problem too with 4 CB mainboard.
Two fun facts:Quote:
Originally Posted by csy
1) Having an illegal deck isn't punished with disqualification. You get a game loss, then we fix the deck and/or list to produce a legal result (if you have any illegal cards, they're removed and can be replaced by basic lands of your choice).
2) When a ban goes into effect in the middle of a multi-day tournament, the entire tournament runs using whatever banned list existed at the start of the event. This was relevant for a US Nats back in the Mirrodin days, for example; Skullclamp's ban went into effect partway through the event, but it was legal for the entirety of that tournament since it had been legal when the tournament began.
Everyone bashes Show and Tell and some people are even suggesting to ban Griselbrand at the moment. But it seems that noone recognizes the power of UW Miracle Control including Counterbalance and Sensei's Divining Top, Top being the enabler for both the Miracle cards and the CB softlock.
As we already know that Wizards doesn't like Top (see: Explanation for banning, Sept. 2008), wouldn't it be reasonable that not only SnT might get the axe, but that it takes Top by the hand and leads it out of the format as well? Just thinking.
No one is worried about a control deck because it can't effectively beat Combo and Aggro in the same configuration. RE: 2006 Landstill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzbold
@Blitzbold
I'm not sure why Top is an issue. Fetchlands, and shuffle effects in general, consume far more time. Sure, an inexperienced player might spend 5 minutes spinning Top, but Top is a lot less skill intensive (and therefore time consuming) than Brainstorm. It usually takes me no more than 10 seconds to rearrange my top 3 when I play my UW Control deck.
@Koby
Landstill is different than the new age control decks. The Landstill community was stubborn and reluctant to adopt CB. CB dramatically improves combo matchups. Its a little less effective against SNT in particular, but its still good in that matchup. UW Control also has plenty of tools postboard for control matchups. Times are different these days. UW Control isn't the glass cannon it used to be (i.e 2006-2008 Landstill, RIP).
Point taken, but for all the chatter of Miracles taking over reminds me of the overload on anti-Aggro (Terminus, Entreat, Tides, etc) that the old Landstill decks packed. These are largely dead weight against combo. Even with CB/top, the deck isn't guaranteed have the right CC at the right place, and in the right order.
The key to beating to Combo these days is more in line with what RUG has to offer: quick clock + cheap disruption.
Another reason why I do not think SDT is banworthy: If they think it consumes too much time, they cannot argue like that at the moment, as Terminator got some kind of an "instant-kill" via "Ill make 5 Angels eot, youre dead now"
Greetings