Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Let me stop you right there as you are mixing things up. Bahamuth wasn't referring to terminology as Jamie Wakefield did in your example, Jamie had a problem with the name of the deck. Bahamuth is talking about the Mike Flores classic: 'Who is the beatdown?' and even cut and dry control decks can play the aggro role according to his theory. To clarify further: every sane Legacy player would call Vial Goblins an aggro deck, but if it plays against Zoo, you actually play the control role (bare extremely slow draws on Zoo's part and fast draws on Goblins part).
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
The quote was kinda meant as a joke^^
Well, the thing is that Flores is talking about similar decks (I guess you could say decks with the same goldfish) and that is clearly not the situation here.
Aggro Decks wanna put a clock that the opponent can't handle.
Control Decks wanna grind them out (not pleased with this wording, but I fail to find a better one) and win long term.
So imo the definition does not fit here, since the Combo deck has the faster clock, but still it is in the Landstill players desire to apply some early pressure.
I can see where everyone i comeing from but it just doesn't feel right to me to assign roles to decks that live by not letting/wanting your opponent to interact.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paK0
So imo the definition does not fit here, since the Combo deck has the faster clock, but still it is in the Landstill players desire to apply some early pressure.
Exactly my point. Also, ANT has a faster fundamental turn compared to Landstill. So in a lot of match ups, Landstill tends to be control. In fact, the only time I've ever went aggro with Landstill is on Turn 4.
Quote:
I can see where everyone i comeing from but it just doesn't feel right to me to assign roles to decks that live by not letting/wanting your opponent to interact.
I think it's wrong to assign roles in general. I did say some things regarding that, but here's my theory on magic in general, magic theory is 50% bullshit.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Citrus-God
but here's my theory on magic in general, magic theory is 50% bullshit.
I'd say magic theory is 90% Bullshit and 10% coincidence. The assumption that something shouldn't happen during a game or that somebody shouldn't have drawn all 4 of something good against you or that your deck shouldn't lose to a particular deck is all nothing but a loser's excuse. Grouping decks into categories like aggro and then losing when your opposing aggro deck casts something "that shouldn't be in there" because you assumed you knew their list means you deserved to lose.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
konsultant
I'd say magic theory is 90% Bullshit and 10% coincidence. The assumption that something shouldn't happen during a game or that somebody shouldn't have drawn all 4 of something good against you or that your deck shouldn't lose to a particular deck is all nothing but a loser's excuse. Grouping decks into categories like aggro and then losing when your opposing aggro deck casts something "that shouldn't be in there" because you assumed you knew their list means you deserved to lose.
I'd say the most relevant one nowadays is still Who's the Beatdown, but it's still not that great of a reference because the article assumes that all decks are 2-dimensional and that they can only approach aggro or control.
So why cant you guys get with it? The nature of ANT is to be aggressive and the nature of Landstill is to play control. However, the possibility of switching gears and playing that role not because you have to, but because it's a different way to approach the deck should also not be ruled out, but that doesnt mean it's a defined role those decks are suppose to take.
I've played many games where I've assumed the role of beatdown against decks like Aggro Loam, Merfolk, Zoo and Survival... not because I want to, but because I've gotten to the point where I've opened myself an opportunity to become the beatdown. Get what I'm saying here? Shitty example, I definitely know where Flores was getting at, but his conclusion was shitty. So Flores said that in the Sligh mirror, whoever has the most removal wins this match up. Does that mean control role wins the game? Well, he said that, but not really. Sligh mirrors tend to be fucking volatile, and the winner of the game naturally goes to the one with the most Cursed Scrolls in play. But what he should have said is that by playing control elements, you've can stall into the point in which you use your control elements to leverage you into a point in the game where you have enough mana and bombs to become the beatdown. Another example is the combo mirror: whoever has the most disruption truly does win this match up, but only if they have the right mana and bombs to follow up. This is why TPS vs. Grim Long match up goes to TPS, not because took the control role, but because it used the disruption to allow it to follow up. Also why Grim Long and TES run protection, otherwise there would be no point in playing those decks if they auto-lose without protection. Why Slaver is better than Keeper? Slaver has better bombs to follow up with, has better (and more explosive) mana and better ways to find it's control elements. Or for example, Meandeck Gifts vs. Slaver. Does Gifts play control? What about beatdown? MDGifts plays neither, but it wants to win... even if you're playing not to lose, the point of playing like that is to find an opportunity to win. All decks want to be aggro at heart, but it's getting to that position where it can afford to do so with inevitability.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
The match in question is between White Weenie vs. Sligh (not the Sligh mirror).
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/3692.html
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Well, i think the oppinons range wide because beatdown is not clearly defined.
Flores just talks about a situation where the faster deck should make the first move (creatures!), referring to this deck as beatdown.
Well, if we look at the DTB every deck leave aside ANT wins through turning creatures sideways, so just because you attack at some point does not put you in the beatdown role. At no point does the article adress combo matchups.
Another point why this article is no longer 100% viable is beacause a lot of decks can play both roles in any given matchup. Half of the decks around can get an opening grip like:
Tarmo, Tarmo, FoW, Fow, BS, Land, Land
If you feel like an opponent has a fishy draw then it might be correct to try to overwhelm him, even if the decks primary objective is to assemble Counter/Top.
I still think everyone should know about this article, it hels alot to know it, but basically everyone with playing experience should know that the given roles depend on more than just the decklists.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paK0
Well, i think the oppinons range wide because beatdown is not clearly defined.
The deck that has the coherent plan to win (planning to not lose does not count). But another thing that makes this philosophy skewed is that by playing beatdown, you're also in a way, controlling the opponent. Whatever you do, forces them to react in a certain way because of your nature to take the "lead" in a game. May sound trivial to even mention this, but this is why Red Deck Wins back in old extended ran Ports, Wastelands and Pillage. It knows that decks like Tog and Scepter Chant win by setting up it's mana, therefore allowing it to gain flexibility, but because of it's nature to want to set up it's mana, Red Deck Wins (which had a pretty mediocre threat base at the time) runs disruption to make up for it, because it's a step ahead of the nature of both decks and tendencies that it runs land destruction to stay ahead of decks like Tog and Chant. Get what I'm saying? Because RDW forces Control decks which already in nature wants to set up it's mana base, it dismantles it's mana base by running land destruction. Also why Fish runs Null Rod against Drain decks.
Quote:
Flores just talks about a situation where the faster deck should make the first move (creatures!), referring to this deck as beatdown.
He also discussed inevitability as well. For example, Sui Black vs. Sligh. Sui Black is forced to be control because Sligh has more removal for it's threats. That and it's harder for Sui Black to goldfish the way it does. IMO, dont see Sui Black as the beatdown, but rather, the deck that inevitably loses in this match up based on the era and pool at the time.
Quote:
Well, if we look at the DTB every deck leave aside ANT wins through turning creatures sideways, so just because you attack at some point does not put you in the beatdown role. At no point does the article adress combo matchups.
Most combo decks, with the exception of combo-control decks and Solidarity, at at heart, beatdown decks. Those, are beatdown decks that indirectly win because the metagame has set up ways to combat aggro decks. That, and aggro decks tend to naturally be created to win in that fashion compared to that of control decks.
Quote:
Another point why this article is no longer 100% viable is beacause a lot of decks can play both roles in any given matchup. Half of the decks around can get an opening grip like:
Tarmo, Tarmo, FoW, Fow, BS, Land, Land
The introduction of Goyf allowed every deck to play Aggressively when allowed to. Before, it was whenever the hell Threshold had... Threshold.
Quote:
If you feel like an opponent has a fishy draw then it might be correct to try to overwhelm him, even if the decks primary objective is to assemble Counter/Top.
I think the best way to beat those decks is to dismantle Counterbalance from the deck. A quick Spell Snare followed up by a Wish for Extirpate can easily net you the game.
Quote:
I still think everyone should know about this article, it hels alot to know it, but basically everyone with playing experience should know that the given roles depend on more than just the decklists.
I disagree. In order to know this format, I firmly believe that at this point, Menendian's theoretical philosophies on old Vintage has more of a profound effect on how I view Legacy in general.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
snore, i won a mox saphire this weekend. report later wheb i have more time.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Citrus-God
The deck that has the coherent plan to win (planning to not lose does not count).
Most combo decks, with the exception of combo-control decks and Solidarity, at at heart, beatdown decks.
You refer to Beatdown as the act of attacking, but I think the more fitting definition is to place it in the role the deck is playing.
Goblins vs Landstill is Beatdown
Goblins vs Zoo is something else
If someone says beatdown I think of decks like Zoo or Goyfsligh. Landstill can perform the act of beatdown, but it never is the Beatdown deck.
Quote:
The introduction of Goyf allowed every deck to play Aggressively when allowed to. Before, it was whenever the hell Threshold had... Threshold.
Again you are referring to the act, i think the best definition would be:
The deck that can set up the faster clock via non combo is the beatdown.
The only problem I have with this is that it would place burn in this category, where i feel thet beatdown should be done with creatures.
Quote:
I disagree. In order to know this format, I firmly believe that at this point, Menendian's theoretical philosophies on old Vintage has more of a profound effect on how I view Legacy in general.
Link pls =).
I did not say this is the format defining article, but it can be usefull nontheless
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Magic theory is not bullshit. Maybe your personal experience of the theory is.
But for anyone who succeeds, they will tell you that the written theory articles are just a way of putting abstract concepts that win games into words that other people can try to understand for themselves.
"Who's the beatdown" is more than just how to play deck X against deck Y. A lot of it depends on the individual circumstances and the specific cards drawn. You just can't be stupid in taking the theory down to the practical applications inside each and every game.
All this talk about Landstill becoming beatdown against combo is stupid. The *only* way to beat combo with Landstill is to obtain control. They will test you, and your grip will both weaken and strengthen over the course of a match, but at no point does "beatdown" ever become a factor. There is a difference between a control win condition (you're not going to deck them, right?) and playing the role of beatdown.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
I need advice on a suspected field of Zoo, Countertop, Canadian Thresh, Lands, combo i.e. the new Legacy metagame.
I'm not sure if 4c Landstill will do better than UWb Landstill in this meta. Pernicious Deed seems to be huge write now in blowing up almost anything on the board in this meta (Zoo,Thresh,Dreadstill all have many non-creature and creature targets with cmc 4 or less).
For reference, here's my 4c Landstill list. It's still mainly UW(x) with x being double color.
There's a short report in the UBgw Landstill thread.
4 Mishra's Factory
3 Flooded Strand
2 Polluted Delta
2 Marsh Flats
4 Tundra
2 Underground Sea
3 Tropical Island
1 Scrubland
1 Island
1 Plains
1 Academy Ruins
1 Eternal Dragon (61st card)
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Decree of Justice
1 Life from the Loam
4 Brainstorm
2 Engineered Explosives
3 Pernicious Deed
3 Standstill
4 Force of Will
3 Counterspell
2 Spell Snares
2 Cunning Wish
1 Enlightened Tutor
2 Fact or Fiction
1 Humility
2 Elspeth, Knight-Errant
Sideboard:
1 Krosan Grip
1 Pulse of the Fields
1 Enlightened Tutor
1 Path to Exile
1 Intuition
2 Extirpate
3 Relic of Progenitus
2 Pithing Needle
3 Negates
I just feel that the replacement of Wrath with Deeds gave this deck a much favorable matchup against the general field.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
How has spell pierce been for you guys in testing?
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
crz87
I need advice on a suspected field of Zoo, Countertop, Canadian Thresh, Lands, combo i.e. the new Legacy metagame.
I'd suggest that Hanni's counterbalance landstill would be a good choice in a meta like this...with maybe some sb relics instead of path to exile which, though good, seem a little less useful than relic in a meta like this.
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Report As Promised:
Enjoy!
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
@ Crz87:Why are you playing a 2nd Marsh Flats over a 4th Flooded Strand? Flats can't find Tropical Island or basic Island and Strand finds these and the same lands you can grab with Flats.
The past two tournaments I've run Disks instead of the usual WoG/Humility package. They function similar to Deed in Wub landstill and have been fine for me. I agree Deed is the most powerful sweeper available but I don't like straining my manabase for a card that has two off-color mana symbols in the mana cost.
@Moss: Congrats on the finish.
Quote:
Michigan for loosing on the road.
:smile:
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mossivo1986
Only four rounds of swiss? How many players were there?
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
Wtf? You have like the best TO´s over there o0 Maximum 16 Players and there´s a Blue Mox for the winner? Thats sick :/
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
What I get for top2ing 18 players tournament there is merely 11 packs xD
But Mox is о_О
Re: [DTW] UW(x) Landstill
ill remember not to post my reports anymore.
