Survival of the Fittest

Yeah it's truly insane, ever since Legacy's popularity (thanks to a lot for SCG's support), card prices are moving a lot. You really see how popular the format is when card prices respond aka demand/supply in action.

This is a clear example. I'm tempted to move my Survivals, but noticing that the eternal staples usually stabilize despite not being overly played e.g. Retainers, Karakas are not as relevant as they used to but the values are still high and dipped just a little, I think that Survival won't dip too much if it gets unpopular/unbanned. Simply because it has received more spotlight: previously in the past, only certain number of people knew/played Survival but with its popularity now, people are more aware of the card, and even if it becomes unpopular/banned, I don't ever see it falling back to $10 as it once was.

I remembered trading a Savannah for Chalice + Survival a few months ago, I thought I did a bad trade, but damn things change when they're popular lol.

They should just unban flash again, that should take care of this survival problem.

Actually the Flash scenario is what I'm worried about with this situation, not that Survival is anywhere close to Flash brokeness (being an instant is just not cool).

Flash instead of Hulk was banned.

So the similar trend is Survival instead of VV will be banned. But I think the power-level is far different, if WotC adheres to the earlier banning principles (MTutor was different in principle since 2 decks played it majorly AdN and Reanimator), then Survival might get axed, but the power-level of flash and Survival is still very large, mainly because Flash involved 2 cards and no additional mana/turns and being an instant, compared to an enchantment that requires GGG... to setup and needing a creature card in hand as well, and finally resolving the tutored creature.

I think we can all agree that as much as banning VV is dumb, he's the real culprit, look at all the top performing Survival decks, which ones did not have VV? Very few. When did all this hype start? With Caleb's UG Madness deck, why was it successful? VV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metalwalker

I think we can all agree that as much as banning VV is dumb, he's the real culprit,

---

Agreed. I originally thought that SotF was the problem, but this was not the case. Having Vengevines allows you to win games/matches that you have no business winning. I played my GW list at my weekly local tonight, taking 1st place at a pretty small crowd, but not against matchups that I would consider pushovers. I beat a Sneak Attack deck by killing him g1 before he had his combo in place, and when he did, I had so many guys on the battlefield that even an attack from a snuck in Emrakul would have left me with lethal on board. I beat a Dream Halls deck that needed to draw one more blue card to go off after resolving Show and Tell, but instead I just put a Knight of the Reliquary into play, found a Gaea's Cradle on my turn, and put an additional 16 power in play to end the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordofthepit

Motivation behind banning cards

I believe that the DCI should err on the side of caution when banning cards from Legacy, because a large part of the appeal and the defining essence of Legacy is that you should be able to play with all the cards in the history of Magic. However, at times, it is necessary to ban a card that becomes format-warping and reduces the diversity of the format.

In my opinion, just because the card is nearly ubiquitous in Legacy (Wasteland, Force of Will, Brainstorm, Swords to Plowshares, Tarmogoyf) doesn't mean that it's format warping. In fact, because those cards in played in so many different archetypes, I believe they improve the diversity of the format, even though they technically discourage a Legacy player from playing weaker cards like Tectonic Edge, Foil, Serum Visions, Unmake, and Grizzly Bears.

I'm not entirely advocating for the removal of Survival of the Fittest from the Legacy format, because I believe the banhammer should be used very conservatively and judiciously, and I haven't definitively made up my mind yet on the case of Survival of the Fittest; but on the other hand, I believe it is by far the most ban-worthy card in the format and that it deserves to be on the list even more so than many of the cards on the current banned list.

Here are some data from recent SCG tournaments:

Data from SCG tournaments

Richmond (2/28/10)

Reanimator
- 12 decks (5.08% of field)
- 42-29-1 (59.03%) against the field (no mirror, no IDs)
- 2 out of top 16 (4th and 5th)
ANT
- 9 decks (3.81%)
- 20-23-1 (46.59%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Indianapolis (3/14/10)

Reanimator
- 21 decks (7.34%)
- 47-52-4 (47.57%) against the field
- 2 out of top 16 (7th and 13th)
ANT
- 16 decks (5.59%)
- 32-47-0 (40.51%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Orlando (3/28/10)

Reanimator
- 5 decks (4.10%)
- 14-15-3 (48.44%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (7th)
ANT
- 6 decks (4.92%)
- 20-14-0 (58.82%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

Atlanta (5/2/10)

Reanimator
- 23 decks (11.50%)
- 58-53-4 (52.17%) against the field
- 4 out of top 16 (2nd, 6th, 8th, 12th)
ANT
- 11 decks (5.50%)
- 22-27-1 (45.00%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (1st)

Philadelphia (6/6/10)

Reanimator
- 22 decks (9.32%)
- 58-55-4 (51.28%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16
ANT
- 18 decks (7.63%)
- 45-41-3 (52.25%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (6th)

Seattle (6/13/10)

Reanimator
- 25 decks (13.23%)
- 56-59-2 (48.72%) against the field
- 2 out of top 16 (5th, 12th)
ANT
- 15 decks (7.94%)
- 38-36-0 (51.35%) against the field
- 1 out of top 16 (15th)

St. Louis (6/27/10)

Reanimator
- 22 decks (11.40%)
- 54-59-1 (47.81%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16
ANT
- 6 decks (3.11%)
- 22-18-0 (55.00%) against the field
- 0 out of top 16

So in these 7 tournaments, Reanimator posted a cumulative record of 329-322-19 (50.52%). It made up 8.89% of the overall field and 9.82% of the top 16, so its penetration into the top 16 was slightly better than that of an average deck (by about 10%), which is to be expected for a Tier 1 deck.

ANT posted a 199-206-5 record (49.15%), so pilots had pretty dismal results. Granted, some have contended (including the DCI) that ANT is a difficult deck to pilot, but that in the hands of a pro, it was absolutely degenerate. So if this were true, we would expect significant top 16 penetration where the best pilots start to separate themselves from everyone else, but ANT decks--which made up 5.54% of the field--made up only 2.68% of top 16; in other words, it was less than half as likely as an average deck to place in the top 16!

Contrast that with the performance of Survival decks

Denver (8/22/10)
- 10 Survival decks (8.00%)
- 34-24-4 against the field (58.06%); U/G Madness, 28-16-3 (62.77%)
- 1 out of top 16 (8th place)

Minneapolis (8/29/10)
- 16 Survival decks (9.47%)
- 67-32-5 against the field (66.83%); U/G Madness, 58-28-0 (67.44%)
- 5 out of top 16 (3rd, 8th, 12th, 13th, 15th place)

Baltimore (9/19/10)
- 25 Survival decks (10.73%)
- 102-60-8 against the field (62.35%); U/G Madness, 65-38-5 (62.50%)
- 5 out of top 16 (2nd, 4th, 5th, 12th, 15th place)

Nashvile (10/17/10)
- Complete data currently unavailable
- 5 out of top 16 (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 12th place)

I don't think people fully realize how dominating Survival decks--and in particular, Madness--have been in the metagame. Ever since the deck debuted at Columbus, the deck has posted stellar results, boasting over 62.50% wins in each of the three SCG tournaments for which data are available, with excellent top 16 penetration. For the three tournaments available, 51 Survival decks (comprising 9.68% of the format) made up almost one quarter of the top 16 spots in those three tournaments!

Moreover, some have suggested that the metagame would adapt to Madness as it had to Reanimator. But what they may not realize is that it only took one tournament for Reanimator to fall from a top performer (59.03%) to a sub-50% deck (47.57% in Indianapolis, 48.44% in Orlando). The notion that the format also needed to "adjust" to ANT is ridiculous, as it put up only 3 top 16 slots in 7 tournaments, compared to the 5 that Survival decks now routinely put up every tournament. But in any case, whereas the format was fast to adjust to Madness and never allowed ANT to be a serious contender in significant quantities (which isn't to say that it isn't a threat to win in the hands of a great pilot), it's allowed Survival to put up unprecedented performances for four straight tournaments, despite being the deck that everyone is gunning for.

More discouragingly (for the diversity of the format, but not for a Survival pilot), the deck apparently has a positive matchup against every single major archetype in the format. The following includes all the data I found from Jared Sylva's articles:

- 27-22-5 (54.63%) against Merfolk
- 36-14-3 (70.75%) against Countertop
- 16-8-0 (66.67%) against Goblins
- 14-12-1 (53.70%) against Zoo
- 3-3-0 (50.00%) against Ad Nauseam
- 7-3-1 (68.18%) against Dredge
- 4-0-0 (100.00%) against Enchantress
- 9-1-0 (90.00%) against Charbelcher

I'm not sure why Sylva chose to include the likes of Enchantress and Charbelcher in his data as significant archetypes, but hopefully, that dispels the notion that a fringe deck like Enchantress is capable of "hating out" Survival decks.

Some counterpoints

I saw a lot of counterpoints being raised throughout the thread, and I can't remember exactly who posed each issue, but here's the argument against Survival

Is it necessary to ban a key card everytime a deck becomes successful? After all, Merfolk posted 5 out of the top 16 spots at SCG Baltimore, but no one is asking for the banning of Lord of Atlantis.

It should be noted that even though the tournament was considered a vindication of the Merfolk deck, it was rather Survival decks that performed much better. Consider that Survival decks made up only 25 of the 233 decks in the format, compared to Merfolk's 34, but still achieved 5 of the top 16 slots. Moreover, Merfolk only won 55.53% of its non-mirror matchups, compared to 62.35% for Survival decks. And Merfolk, despite being lauded as a foil to Madness, still only went 50% against Survival decks (15-15-2), at its best performance ever! In other words, even in a remarkable weekend for the fish that had everyone flipping out, Merfolk still did worse than Survival on an average weekend.

The deck isn't that broken/fast. Storm combo can kill on turn 1-2 with a good hand, whereas most non-LED Madness builds cannot kill before turn 3 (with Wild Mongrel) or even turn 4 (with Survival).

This is true, but storm combo is also more susceptible to hate. Furthermore, if you prevent the Survival engine, you may only have to deal with one Vengevine; if you prevent all discard outlets or supplement with graveyard hate, you may not have to deal with any, and U/G Madness decks (but not G/W) become bad aggro decks. But a bad aggro deck is still more threatening than a goldfish, which is what the likes of Storm combo and Reanimator are if you can prevent them from comboing out.

You can just hate the deck with cards anti-Survival measures or anti-Graveyard hate.

To some extent, this is true, but a threat is always better than an answer because you may not draw into your hate card (or the right type of hate) when you need it, and in the meantime, you are diluting the potency of your own deck by playing so much hate, often to the point that you can get beaten down by bad creatures backed by an Umezawa's Jitte. Mono-green madness decks or G/W can just go straight beatdown with much more powerful creatures, and the Survival player can also opt for a Natural Order plan out of the sideboard to bypass your hate entirely.

The metagame can adapt to this presence.

I believe that Legacy is a large enough format that metagame forces are capable of policing itself to some extent, and I have little doubt that one can construct a deck that has a positive matchup against Survival builds. However, that deck must also be strong enough to compete with the rest of the format, and so far, there is no presence that prevents Survival from rampaging over the format to the tune of a 63% win percentage. The format may not necessarily degenerate into something ridiculous like 1/3 Survival, 1/3 Storm, and 1/3 bad prison decks as a result of Survival, but if prison strategies and storm combos are some of the strategies necessary to keep Survival in check (as has been postulated in this thread), then Survival is clearly a format-warping presence that makes the format less fun. At that point, whatever benefits there are to keeping Survival legal are outweighed by its disadvantages, and I would have no qualms about banning it. I hope this doesn't become the case.

Other "shells" like Force of Will/Brainstorm/Duals/Fetches are even more commonly played too, but no one is calling for their banning.

The fundamental difference is that those shells enable a variety of decks, all of which might hope to win 50-55% of its games. Survival of the Fittest/Vengevine enables only a relatively small number of decks, but all of which are looking at 60-65 or 70%.

Other cards can be deemed format-warping too.

In my opinion, the only card in recent memory that I would deem format warping is Counterbalance in combination with Sensei's Divining Top, and even then, those decks didn't post the results as stunning as Survival. Moreover, Counterbalance is a combo only with Sensei's Divining Top; Survival combos with any of 20+ creatures in the deck. Counterbalance is also relatively slow, getting dropped on turn 2 at the earliest, and possibly locking you out on turn 3 only with a good Top. Even then, you have many turns to answer the lock with something like Krosan Grip. On the other hand, Survival takes far less investment and means you will likely take lethal damage within two turns, and even if answered before then, you are probably looking at serious card disadvantage under the gun of several hasty, recurring 4/3s and various Rootwallas.

I do not believe other combo decks are format warping. Certainly, if you are not playing blue, you are severely undermanned in that matchup, but at least you can rely on blue decks, prison strategies, and black disruption keeping conventional combo in check. Nothing exists right now to keep Survival in check.

Vengevine should be banned instead.

Perhaps, but other Survival of the Fittest strategies that don't use Vengevine are also performing exceedingly well (and possibly Necrotic Ooze-based decks). But more fundamentally, a cheap, recurrable tutor like Survival is much more repugnant to the DCI than a normal creature (although it is true that Vengevine breaks all sorts of normal rules too).

Conclusion

As with any card, the DCI should think carefully before banning Survival of the Fittest, because there is an inherent benefit to keeping as many cards as possible legal in the Legacy format, and it is possible that metagame forces will eventually counteract Survival so that it isn't so broken anymore. But this is a much more potent deck than the likes of Reanimator and ANT, both in terms of overall performance and penetration by top players, and it's one that is much more difficult to hate and is much more resilient, so parallels to the format adjusting to those decks are limited in utility.

---

After considering the results of SCG Charlotte (7 Survival decks in the top 16), I'm going to amend my previous post by saying that I am unfortunately jumping on the "ban wagon"; that is, something in the Survival decks needs to be banned. However, whereas previously I thought that if anything needed to be banned, Survival was certainly it, I am now open to the possibility of banning Vengevine.

In many ways I would prefer that, because as powerful as Survival is, it has a very beautiful and elegant design that transcends Magic expansions. It is also one of the iconic cards that I grew up with, and one with which I have a lot of fun playing casually. Vengevine makes no sense to me whatsoever from a design perspective and represents blatant power creep without introducing anything interesting in terms of flavor or mechanics; although I immediately recognized the card's power in competitive Magic, I hated it the moment it was spoiled. (Why does an angry plant have haste? Why does it recur? Why on the second creature cast? How did they come up with that P/T? How did they come up with that casting cost? And of course, why Mythic, from purely a flavor perspective excluding all financial considerations?) But that being said, as much as I prefer Survival as a card to Vengevine, the former seems to be the more likely candidate for banning given all the precedents the DCI has made in its previous decisions.

I have become convinced that something needs banning because the deck is still dominating the format in unprecedented ways, despite the fact that it has been recognized for quite some time as the top deck. This suggests that the metagame is unable to adapt to the deck, and in principle, the solution has been to ban the broken card causing the format to become unhealthy. In other words, Survival of the Fittest is destined to die because it is too powerful, which is bitterly ironic in the Darwinian sense!

Of course, there have been many objections made as to why the card shouldn't be banned, but I'll address some new issues and attempt to clarify some old ones.

Legacy players need to adapt to this new top deck by playing some hate cards, and let metagame forces regulate the format internally.

I think it is very naive to suggest that Legacy players playing at an SCG tournament are not aware that they need to prepare for Survival decks. In fact, recent decklists show that non-Survival players are adapting their decks (or their choice of decks) for just that, but to no avail. To me, this suggests a combination of two things: 1) that the strategy is too strong to be overcome by hate and 2) that the strategy is very adaptable in a way that renders it extremely resilient to hate. But it's far too simplistic to say "play more Pithing Needle, Extirpate, and Krosan Grips lulz". It clearly isn't working.

Note that the mere existence of hate cards isn't sufficient to balance the strategy. You have to draw the right type of hate at the right time, and you risk diluting your strategy if your opponent doesn't draw into what you're hating (and this isn't unique to Survival). Moreover, if you're holding a card like Extirpate or Krosan Grip, you need to keep mana open at all times. And finally, your opponent can just ignore your hate with a beatdown plan against a diluted deck, or just overrun you with a 10/10 pro-everything Hydra Avatar.

Cards like Tormod's Crypt, Relic of Progenitus, Chalice of the Void, etc. would serve as "hate" for Yawgmoth's Will, if it were ever unbanned, and every deck certainly would have access to them, but hopefully no one would argue that Will is safe for the format.

Survival of the Fittest is not necessarily too fast for a format that is capable of Turn 1 wins.

I don't think the brokeness of a card is best measured by how fast you can kill someone with it, but rather, by how frequently resolving the card leads to victory. Although I may certainly be off with this estimate, I would say that at least 80-90% of the time, when a Survival of the Fittest resolves early, the Survival player wins the game; much higher than say, a Tarmogoyf, Lackey, or an Aether Vial, which may lead to victory perhaps 60% of the time. That's probably on par with a resolved Ad Nauseam, except Survival is a 2-mana enchantment rather than a 5-mana instant that requires all kinds of deck constraints (which inherently prevents you from running it as a 4-of), which gets exponentially weaker in the late game as your life total diminishes, and which requires you to often go "all-in" into countermagic.

No one complained when Deck X (Reanimator, Ad Nauseam, Merfolk, etc.) was broken.

I've already addressed Reanimator and Ad Nauseam in extensive detail in my last post. Some have argued that as recently as 3 months ago, Merfolk was the clear deck to beat, but there were no cries for banning any cards central to that strategy.

In the SCG tournaments since GP Columbus, when Saito won with U/B Merfolk (the only Merfolk deck in the top 8), here's how Merfolk decks have fared:

Denver (8/22/10)
- 19 Merfolk decks (15.20%)
- 45-47-6 against the field (48.98%)
- 2 out of top 16 (1st and 13th place)

Minneapolis (8/29/10)
- 19 Merfolk decks (11.24%)
- 47-55-3 against the field (46.19%)
- 2 out of top 16 (9th and 16th place)

Baltimore (9/19/10)
- 34 Merfolk decks (14.59%)
- 107-85-7 against the field (55.53%)
- 5 out of top 16 (1st, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 11th place)

Nashville (10/17/10)
- Complete data currently unavailable
- 0 out of top 16

Charlotte (10/31/10)
- Complete data currently unavailable
- 2 out of top 16 (13th and 16th)

The performance of the two decks are not comparable at all. In fact, some have attributed the high numbers of Survival decks in the Top 16's to the number of players piloting those decks, but in fact, there were many more Merfolk decks in Denver, Minneapolis, and Baltimore than Survival decks (and in fact, more at each tournament)--they just didn't fare nearly as well, despite claims that Merfolk was "dominating". Although data is still unavailable for Nashville and Charlotte, I highly doubt this trend has changed much.

I'll check all of Sylva's data (beginning from December 2009) if I ever get a chance, but from what I recall, no archetype consistently puts up more than 55% over the course of several tournaments in statistically significant sample sizes, because other decks are gunning for it. So the fact that Survival has put up about 63% over the course of three tournaments (probably five once data from Nashville and Charlotte come in) is alarming.

Most of the players interviewed at SCG Charlotte claimed that Survival did not need to be banned.

That is indeed true, and their responses sounded much like this: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...pcol07/welcome

Just replace SCG Charlotte with GP Columbus '07 and Survival of the Fittest with Flash.

Metagame forces will eventually keep Survival in check. Players should start playing Decks X, Y, and Z, which stomp Survival.

If metagame forces are capable of keeping Survival in check, I agree that it should not be banned, and I hope that this can be demonstrated to be the case by December 20. But so far, there is no evidence that metagame forces are restoring balance to the format, but rather, it seems that Survival is becoming even more dominant.

People have recommended many decks which should stomp Survival (Ad Nauseam, Merfolk, etc.), but as far as metagame data show, that is not the case. Survival currently represents a metagame problem, whereas your personal experiences with decks X, Y, and Z--whatever they may be--constitute anecdotal evidence inconsistent with metagame-wide evidence drawn from SCG data.

Once again, I have no doubt that in a vacuum, you could construct a list of 75 cards that beats Survival consistently, but it must be viable in a real tournament setting. Sadly enough, the only deck I currently recall that has an advantage on Survival (albeit on very small sample size) is Legacy Allies. I'm only half joking, and I seriously hope that this isn't anyone's idea of "evolving" the format.

Other cards exist that are more played than Survival of the Fittest (Island, Brainstorm, Wasteland, Force of Will, Tarmogoyf, etc.)

This is something I've mentioned before, but which bears repeating: just because a card is widely played doesn't mean it is format-warping. In fact, in most cases, their ubiquity is good because they lend to the diversity of the format; most of those cards above are played in dozens of distinct competitive decks, none of which are overly powerful in the format. Moreover, cards like Brainstorm and Force of Will help make the format less "swingy" by smoothening out draws or preventing broken early plays, diminishing the impact of luck and allowing skill to become more of a factor.

Survival of the Fittest may be able to contribute in a healthy way to the diversity of the format and by opening up decision trees for the pilot if it weren't so dominating in the format, and it certainly did back in the days of Angry Tradewind Survival. But that is no longer the case, as it is dominant in a way that cripples the diversity of the format, and rather than forcing the pilot to think through the many decision trees possible with a creature-based toolbox, is a "bomb" that wins the game while running largely on autopilot.

Link to the recent 5k SCG in Charlotte for anyone wondering:

SCG 5k Charlotte

I think Vengevival may have gotten too good, but the fact that it can't kill on turn1-2 along with the fact that the tutor effect of SotF is not anywhere near the power level of Mystical Tutor in Reanimator/ANT decks leads me to believe it may not be banned.

Then again, the way that Fauna Shaman was printed leads me to believe that WoTC acknowledges that SotF could be too powerful. Maybe Vengevival is the final straw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

I think Vengevival may have gotten too good, but the fact that it can't kill on turn1-2 along with the fact that the tutor effect of SotF is not anywhere near the power level of Mystical Tutor in Reanimator/ANT decks leads me to believe it may not be banned.

---

I don't understand the constant comparisons between MT and SotF. MT's job has alway been to increase the consistency of your engine, whereas SotF is, in itself, a single card engine. If you want to compare MT to anything in the Survival decks it should be Moeba or Mongrel, because these are the tools Survival uses to increase it's consistency (some would say increase it beyond a certain acceptable level).

As an aside, I believe the banning of MT is indirectly responsible for the Survival problem. That's what you get for tinkering with a healthy format.

I think the problem may come with lists like Hatfield that package Enlightened tutor to make a bigger consistence of the deck ( or the engine ). But ET is not as powerfull as MT is i think.

I think Mystical Tutor is active while Enlightened Tutor is more reactive. Whatever you tutor for via MT can be casted at the same time the tutor was done while for cards that are tutored by ET, there is that waiting time (and since all of it would be sorcery speed).

Having Brainstorm and to some extent, Sensei's Divining Top, couldn't help MT's case of getting unbanned.

Well back to Survival of the Fittest. I personally think that the meta will evolve. Everyone was frustrated too when CounterTop first started ripping the top8s and locking folks out of the game.

Hopefully at the end of all this, whatever decision is made, the format will be better.

Wait...

...wasn't Show and Tell the card people were complaining about before this(not that it was ever as prevalent, but still)?

Does "playerbase refuses to adapt" count as a legitimate reason to ban a card in WotC's eyes? Hopefully not.

Speaking of the Hatfieldish Enlightened Tutor versions, I just piloted a variation of said deck, went a commanding 4-0 last night in my local tournament, taking down Belcher, BG Hexmage Depths, Landstill, and Sligh. After the tournament, I really further believe Vengevine needs the axe. Regardless of what incarnation of this deck I play, be it sellout aggro with LED's, the GW Goyf/Knight versions, UG Madness version, or even BG with Putrid Imp and discard, the deck just -feels- too powerful.

Against Belcher, his turn one on the play involved dropping a Belcher on the board, but not being able to activate it. Turn two I rail him for 16 with Vengevines. Turn three he topdecks LED and hits his Taiga as the 9th card, I kill him at 1. I lose game 2 after we both mull to 5 and he somehow still gets 14 ETW tokens on turn one. Game 3 I have too much hate and aggro his face off.

Against Hexmage Depths, game one he's dead by turn three, game 2 I fight through, not kidding, a Leyline of the Void, a Pernicious Deed, and two Pithing Needles, put him up to 55 after STP'ing two Marit Lages, and still managed to end up winning on like turn thirty with a Jitte-carrying Rootwalla and a hardcast Vengevine.

Landstill was my easiest match of the night. Turn one Survival drew a Force. Turn two Survival stuck. EE at 2 came, but I managed to get three Vengevines in the yard before it blew, recurred them, and won. Game two involved Survival, Choke, more Vengevines.

Burn involved me crushing him game one with an Arrogant Wurm + Jitte, Game 2 involved me dying to 5 1-for-3's and a Fireblast in 3 turns, and game 3 involved me swinging for 16 on turn 2 again.

FWIW, this is the list I was playing:

4 Windswept Heath
4 Misty Rainforest
3 Savannah
6 Forest
1 Plains
1 Tree of Tales

4 Noble Hierarch
4 Wild Mongrel
4 Basking Rootwalla
4 Vengevine
3 Arrogant Wurm
1 Loaming Shaman
1 Qasali Pridemage
1 Shield Sphere
4 Elvish Spirit Guide

4 Survival of the Fittest
4 Enlightened Tutor
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
1 Seal of Primordium
2 Umezawa's Jitte

SB:
4 Swords to Plowshares
2 Mindbreak Trap
1 Choke
1 Defense Grid
1 Oblivion Ring
1 Ground Seal (Funny against Extirpate and Faerie Macabre)
2 Pithing Needle (I'd cut this down to 1 for a Ratchet Bomb next time, as E-tutor for Ratchet Bomb would have saved me game 2 against Belcher)
1 Faerie Macabre
1 Tormod's Crypt
1 Ethersworn Canonist

So yeah, I'm now 12-0 in sanctioned matches with three different versions of Vengevine Survival, beating the aforementioned decks, Dredge, The Rock, Goblins, Countertop, and a few others that escape me at the moment. And I've powered my way through Leylines, Extirpates, Needles, Snares, Forces, or what have you. I ordinarily keep 4-5 decks assembled so when people start to hate the holy hell out of one of my decks, I can switch. With Vengevine Survival, I don't care. I just go in and win anyway.

I really think Vengevine may have crossed the line. Or maybe it's just going to take a ridiculous renovation of the metagame, annihilation of several old archetypes and reshaping of others.

I did some testing last nite with Arrogant Wurm in a non-blue build with LED. I can confirm how ridiculous some of the plays were. We tested against Pox, and Pox was too slow to handle it pre-board.

Example:

LED, pop- discarding 2 Vengevine, Basking Rootwalla, Arrogant Wurm. Cast both with madness, attack for 8 turn 1. Untap, attack for 13 turn 2.

IMO, Vengevine needs to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rukcus

I did some testing last nite with Arrogant Wurm in a non-blue build with LED. I can confirm how ridiculous some of the plays were. We tested against Pox, and Pox was too slow to handle it pre-board.

Example:

LED, pop- discarding 2 Vengevine, Basking Rootwalla, Arrogant Wurm. Cast both with madness, attack for 8 turn 1. Untap, attack for 13 turn 2.

IMO, Vengevine needs to go.

---

And Storm/Belcher decks can go off turn 2 or 1. What's your point?

The point is the deck can still do well even with hate, whereas Belcher can't do so. If Survival decks did not have VVs, then it cannot simply dump the VV in the yard and use it as a 12-16 power backup plan. I think it is with this very reason that the deck is strong. If your opponents don't deal with Survival you lose, if you dealt with Survivals, setting up VV in the yard and triggering them with small drops will still spell death, especially against control decks (there's only 4 StP against 4 VV that all come out within 1-2 turns).

The deck can be hated, but it involves more than 4-6 cards, which IMO is a little silly since Dredge, a deck notorious for being 'broken' unless you hated it, only required about 4 slots to hate it effectively. VV Survival requires both hate for the engine (Survival) and a way to deal with the inevitability of VV (i.e. you have to remove them in play or in the yard with StP/Path or Crypt/Extirpate). Chances are it seems that even though the meta is adjusting to the deck, drawing one of the two types of hate is not better than drawing the threat i.e. you can have the wrong hate against Survival at the wrong time.

However, this brings a strong re-evaluation of hate-cards. Krosan Grip is NOT effective against Survival with vengevines. It is often too slow and 1-2 VV in the yard would cause some problems. The best way to hate Vengevival is really GY hate because it deals with the card that caused the problem in the first place: VV. However, this is not 100% effective as compared to Dredge since hating the GY means that they can just go fetch Goyfs and big beats instead of chaining VV. The 2-modes of attack depending on which hate-cards you drew makes the deck pretty resilient (and carefully thinking again, I would say Extirpate is the best card against Vengevival because it doesn't give information that you're hating the yard i.e. you don't reveal it until you cast it, so you can catch the VV if they opt for that road, or hold it to destroy Survival and then pate it away). Every other form of hate is either: 1) revealling information e.g. Crypt/Leyline so that they can opt for a beatdown mode or 2) not effective e.g. Grip because they will just chain VV and get 4-12 free power for later.

I think that most decks can deal with Survival (refer to past performances and variations of successful Survival iterations), but VV hits the Legacy scene new, i.e. even without Survival say a deck running Buried Alive/Intuition, the meta hasn't seen how to effectively deal with Vengevine. Obviously now we notice that GY hate is the way to deal with VV, but when VV is coupled with an engine that has tremendous synergy and speed, it becomes hard to hate either piece to the win strategy. But I think the single most important hate against Vengevival is GY hate. As much as Survival will end up being broken, decks in Legacy simply cannot deal with 12-16 free power swinging in that comes back even after board sweeping. It's inevitable that Survival will out-advantage a deck if not answered but I think the main threat here is not really Survival, it's the VV that comes out too fast for most decks to handle, without running the relevant hate cards in game 1.

I believe that's the strategy of the deck:
- Kill if Survival is unanswered and win
- Try to get VV in the yard with Fauna, some activations of Survival/LED etc if Survival is answered, then beat face with a potential 8-12 power in the yard a turn. And since I know that the format is dominated by only StP that can deal with VV game 1, I'm going to win because I have recurring 2-3 VV against your 1 StP and attempts to topdeck StP, any other spell is irrelevant against VV at this point.
- SB games: you hate my Survival I think I'm cool, I'll just try to dump VV. If you have GY-hate, that's a little tricky for me, but I'll still slow-roll and force you to Crypt early unless you have Extirpate. And knowing you brought in 8 SB cards against me, I think I won't dilute my aggro plan and just smash your face since your MD is weaker now.

I think this is why I think the deck is strong, and wouldn't be possible without VV. However, I'm still positive even with VV it's dealable, i.e. I think I build my decks so that I won't get steam-rolled but it won't be too favorable a matchup. The issue will really become if the deck becomes as powerful as Dredge game 1, and is much harder to hate in games 2/3, then it would begin to warp the format into: VV Survival v.s. 10+SB card v.s. VV Survival or a MD that is anti VV-Survival (e.g. MD relics etc). If that day comes, it would be similar to Flash Hulk metas i.e. either Flash or anti-Flash decks in the meta.

But it is obvious who's the main culprit. Seemingly broken Survival decks e.g. Iona/Retainers, Emrakul/Retainers, Bant Survival, EPIC Elf/NOgenitus had their spotlights for a few weeks-months, but they were never this successful. Are these Survival decks no longer viable? Are they entirely outclassed by Vengevival? I think so, just as many people claim to ban Survival, I think the claim isn't justified because the card has existed forever and the previously mentioned decks are all tier 1-2 decks that do well in tournaments, but if you look back at the anomaly Survival penetration, you notice that all of them had VV. Whether its UG, GW, GB, LED builds etc. All of them played VV. All of them played Survival too, but the Survival decks in the past without VV were not as successful as this. I think we know who's the murderer here, let's see if WotC agrees that VV is the problem. Banning Survival implies that WotC is willing to ignore history, the history of Survival decks, its diversity, its failures and successes, and that they are willing to accept that future printings of cards that do not take too much of the eternal format in mind e.g. Vengevine will yet to be printed again, and the same will happen again. Who knows? Maybe in the future there will be a card that has tremendous synergy with Standstill (e.g. a card that forced an opponent to cast a spell and lets you return an enchantment back into play herp derp, just raising an example), would that mean that Standstill be banned? Because cards like Standstill/Survival are known to be good in the format, yet criticized because they weren't tier 1. Now we have a new card printed that broke the deck, so we're going back to ban the old card when clearly the new card is at fault? I would imagine if such a Standstill 'enabler' was printed, everyone would be playing with Standstill.dec, would Standstill be at fault?

I would prefer nothing get banned, but I hope my point is clear: if there is a need for a ban, it's VV not Survival. By banning Survival, WotC decides that they feel that the engine itself is broken but what they really show is their inability to make decisions when this-said engine has existed in the meta for years untouched and they have no consideration for newer cards that impact the format. Although really, non of us saw Leyline/Helm, Survival/Vengevine until creative minds discovered them. That's the beauty of this format, and it's why I play it, so please be prudent on the bannings if there ever is one.

When will WotC perform the bannings, if any?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metalwalker

I would prefer nothing get banned, but I hope my point is clear: if there is a need for a ban, it's VV not Survival. By banning Survival, WotC decides that they feel that the engine itself is broken but what they really show is their inability to make decisions when this-said engine has existed in the meta for years untouched and they have no consideration for newer cards that impact the format. Although really, non of us saw Leyline/Helm, Survival/Vengevine until creative minds discovered them. That's the beauty of this format, and it's why I play it, so please be prudent on the bannings if there ever is one.

---

I keep hearing that BUG Jacestill decks hose the hell out of Vengevival decks. Not all is lost. We should give this deck another month and see what happens. See if other niche yet competitive decks can grow in a new meta.

Worse comes to worse, something gets banned.

I've been a Survival player for some years, and I still remember the two main points they gave me while building a version of mine:

- A good Survival deck should manage to win without Survival
- Assuming no disruption from your opponent (because his/her deck can't disrupt you or you are just playing against the wall), a resolved Survival should win you the game in 2-3 turns

Nothing has actually changed to me, except that the Vengevine plan has caught most decks unprepared. Diversity is key to Survival decks, those that aren't die easily to hate, that explains why specific hate doesn't completely make the cut against the most successful versions. Vengevine is the most common of their strategies, but it's not the only one. This is why I think it's a matter of thinking in more general terms. For example, possible plans would be:

All builds rely on creatures = Shut down all creatures (e.g. Humility)
Most builds abuse activated abilities from Vial, Survival, Fauna Shaman, Knight of the Reliquary, etc. = Shut down all activated abilities (e.g. Suppression Field)
Most versions win through combat damage = Shut down their combat phase (e.g. Ensnaring Bridge)

And so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

And Storm/Belcher decks can go off turn 2 or 1. What's your point?

---

Because aggro decks aren't supposed to have a turn 2 clock. You could compare it to Dredge, but it is significantly more consistent and can fight through hate much easier.

Traditionally it has been Aggro > Control > Combo > Aggro. These checks/balances ensure that the format stays diverse and different strategies are viable. Vengevine breaks this balance because it has the same clock as a combo deck and destroys all other aggro decks in addition to control.

Just look at the results from SCG Charlotte, you'll see that the format is already warping into Survival decks vs Anti-Survival decks (e.g. The Rock).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keys

Because aggro decks aren't supposed to have a turn 2 clock. You could compare it to Dredge, but it is significantly more consistent and can fight through hate much easier.

---

So Vengevival is a combo/aggro deck. BUG Jacestill decks are stomping the crap out of Venggie decks.: they run enough disruption to stop the combo while also running mass removal to stop the creature swarms.

Quote:

---

Just look at the results from SCG Charlotte, you'll see that the format is already warping into Survival decks vs Anti-Survival decks (e.g. The Rock).

---

First, I don't see any rock decks. Second, I do see a lot of Dark Horizon Decks. Finally, I do see a variety of decks. It's simply that Vengevival is the flavor of the month at the moment.