Meandeck Open (12/28/08) - TOP EIGHT LISTS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirdape3

When you have a deck that's proven from a source that is proven, why change it? PChapin did well at Worlds with the deck, Steve took the exact same list and also did well with it.

---

I would hardly call this proven. Most pros don't spend very much time on legacy because it is not worth their effort. Well, yet...hopefully Wizards is just starting to support the format and there will be more and more high level Legacy tournaments. For now the majority of them just pick up decks that are handed to them when the odd Legacy event occurs.

But anyway, someone please tell me how you can justify a 1 of stifle in this deck. Especially when you are running 3 Daze and only 2 Thoughtseize. Is it going to be that much of a "savage rip" in the late game? I'm just kind of confused by these card choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adan

Another Top8 that proves how fucking random Legacy is. Period.

Smmenen's deck is also an absolute rape of Threshold, meh.

---

If you are such a rational, logical thinker, why do you resort to such ridiculous hyperbole?

If I had adopted those minor tweaks you suggested, the difference would have been tiny. That can hardly be described as an "absolute rape."

I am very surprised that there is no thread on Ubgw Threshold. Care to suggest a list you consider optimal?

Your deck did well, there is no question.
But it is a bit unorthodox, you have to admit.
I know you just copied a list and went with it, but WHY is what I want to know.
Why not play with it and tune it, why just play what is written before you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yawg07

Your deck did well, there is no question.
But it is a bit unorthodox, you have to admit.
I know you just copied a list and went with it, but WHY is what I want to know.
Why not play with it and tune it, why just play what is written before you?

---

The explanation is in my article on Monday, and it's a bit non-intuitive. It has to do with my article this week.

One thing I've noticed in Threshold lists is the lack of white. Swords to Plowshares is too good, imo, to not run. I also think that black is too good to not run. I have no idea what the argument is against 4 color, but if it hinges on the mana base, all I can say is that I did quite a bit of testing, and in that testing and in the tournament, it was very good. I could see minor tweaking, but the four color mana base worked fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yawg07

When I was there Steve M was saying that I got a ton of people to come along and he wondered if it was because Chapin was there.
My answer was simply "No.... we came here because there was a big tournament."

---

At least meeting him didn't cost you $711.00.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Afro

At least meeting him didn't cost you $711.00.

---

Ha!

I was genuinely curious what it was that brought that big crew from Rittman Ohio to Cbus. It was great to meet those guys, and I'm glad that Ohio has so many legacy competitors! We've got to keep this stuff going. The Ohio/PA/MI region can stand toe to toe with everyone else.

The fact is that none of these "pros" ever play legacy. The real legacy pros are unknown due to wizards lack of support for the format. On the contrary, this GP will hopefully surely prove that legacy is an interesting and fun format and we will be able to learn who the real "pros" are in time. The last GP was an epic fail on wizards part and doesnt count. No legacy veterans even gave this tournament the time of day because they have all the cards and didnt want to be beaten by someone who was able to just proxy 20 cards and beat them due to a bad match up or something. The facts will be brought to the table come march and then we can all argue some more about "pros" and how "random" this format is. The End.

Looking over the lists:

1. the UW control deck looks very elegant and reminiscent of keeper
2. the UGbw thresh list has some very interesting less than 4 ofs.
A. I understand 3 dazes as that was common a year or 2 ago and tends to make sense.
B. The singleton EE also has merit as you can often dig for it because the control/removal suite should keep you in pretty good stead.
C. The 2 Thoughtseize and 1 Stifle are bewildering. The only reason I would play less than 4 is if I was only concerned with slow control decks, but then it is normally cut down to 3. Is there some type of magic ratio of disruption that people are trying to run and supplementing them with singletons?
D. 3 LotV? Is there some type of mulliganing math that proves 3 in your SB is better than 4 if you really need the slots or something?

I won't pay $711 to meet Pat Chapin but I would love to know what he was thinking when he made this deck!

Also, I think that play skill and preparation can go a heck of a long way towards winning with "suboptimal" (who really knows if the list is?) decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smmenen

Ha!

I was genuinely curious what it was that brought that big crew from Rittman Ohio to Cbus. It was great to meet those guys, and I'm glad that Ohio has so many legacy competitors! We've got to keep this stuff going. The Ohio/PA/MI region can stand toe to toe with everyone else.

---

Damn right! Also, cash prize was an EXCELLENT thing, by the way. Keep that up and we'll be back for sure.
I did notice that out of those 55 people, if you were to point out the noisiest, craziest people, it was us :laugh:
Except for Pyror, he is VERY calm and collected. That doesn't mean you can't get him going, though.
I was off the hook that day, I couldn't shut up, hahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yawg07

I was off the hook that day, I couldn't shut up, hahaha

---

Yeah, no need at all to brush up on your New York accent ever again.

Really. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kilz88

No legacy veterans even gave this tournament the time of day because they have all the cards and didnt want to be beaten by someone who was able to just proxy 20 cards and beat them due to a bad match up or something.

---

Seriously, shut up.

Magic is a game of strategy, not of who has the most money. Who gives a shit if the cards are real or not? If someone was able to build a good deck and pilot it well, they deserve to Top8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smmenen

If you are such a rational, logical thinker, why do you resort to such ridiculous hyperbole?

---

Because I can. :cool:

And well, it's obvious that "XY is pro, XY knows best!" is stupid. If certain people can elaborate on their choices and explain why they decided to run a certain card, I'm fine with it.

For example: Survival.

Survival decklists always look random like hell. But when I decided to try and play Survival, I IMed Di and he explaind me why his deck actually looked like it did back then and told me things to consider, tricks and whatsover.

But in this situation where everyone is just staring at a certain list with this huge "WTF?!" written on their foreheads, the pilot himself just saying "I simply netdecked it, I have nothing to do with it" adn we don't have any reasoning why the deck looks like it is, it's just dead wrong to say "The designer is a pro, he knows best".

Quote:

---

If I had adopted those minor tweaks you suggested, the difference would have been tiny. That can hardly be described as an "absolute rape."

---

I admit that I was exaggerating, but there is no reason to play a suboptimal build just because "it makes no difference".

Quote:

---

I am very surprised that there is no thread on Ubgw Threshold. Care to suggest a list you consider optimal?

---

The core of your deck is UGb, check out the UGb Threshold thread.
I played such a build myself, but without white splash (I had it during some period of time but I found the manabase unstable. But I have not played it since ages, but I might try it again).

I don't mean to turn this into another "OMFG teh pros suckzorzzz at our beloved format"-Thread, but I really think Adan has a point there. Now, certainly Chapin is a hell of a player and deckbuilder, but you should be allowed to question some of his choices. And in that list there are some really weird ones which Adan pointed out in his first post. So for us non-premium account guys Steve, could you please point them out. Sure, they wouldn't change the deck much, but playing a strictly suboptimal deck "because the pro said so" doesn't seem like an entirely good reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch

I don't mean to turn this into another "OMFG teh pros suckzorzzz at our beloved format"-Thread, but I really think Adan has a point there. Now, certainly Chapin is a hell of a player and deckbuilder, but you should be allowed to question some of his choices. And in that list there are some really weird ones which Adan pointed out in his first post. So for us non-premium account guys Steve, could you please point them out. Sure, they wouldn't change the deck much, but playing a strictly suboptimal deck "because the pro said so" doesn't seem like an entirely good reasoning.

---

I'm curious: which choices would you characterize as "really weird" as opposed to maybe, just a little off or slightly suboptimal?

You can't use "because a pro built it" as a logical argument for why one deck is better than another. But you can use it as a perfectly justified reason for why you're playing one deck in a tournament and not another -- when you netdeck, the whole point is that you're copying the work of someone else who designed a good deck and did well with it. You may not know why they made certain choices, but you trust in their ability to have made those choices well. Once you actually have experience with the build, the reason for those choices may become evident to you, or if they don't, you can then change them. But the proposition that you can change the deck and make it better, rather than worse, merely by looking at it, when a very good player brought it to its current form with actual work and testing, is questionable at best.

Again, this is not a logical argument for the deck being better. In that respect, it's a non-argument. It's an argument for why you have more confidence in the design of one deck than another in cases where you aren't willing or able to put the work into designing a deck yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smmenen

I'm curious: which choices would you characterize as "really weird" as opposed to maybe, just a little off or slightly suboptimal?

---

Weird:
1 Stifle (I honestly don't understand this one at all)
1 Engineered Explosives (a one off that you can't tutor for?)
2 Thoughtseize (discard is good in the early game, so you want to draw it soon, therefore you should play a playset)
3 Leyline of the Void (I still think 4 is the mathematically optimal number here)

Suboptimal:
3 Counterbalance (I would always play 4 of these. Just way to good)
3 Daze (See above)
1 Serum Visions (I think I read about it somewhere, that Portent > Serum Visions)
18 land (seems like at least one, maybe two too many)

I'm more interested in the metagame breakdown. Somebody gonna do that?

'Cause I do 'em soemthing fierce. And way more punctual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zach Tartell

I'm more interested in the metagame breakdown. Somebody gonna do that?

'Cause I do 'em soemthing fierce. And way more punctual.

---

Oh Zach, you're so modest <3

I think there was one, maybe two Goblin decks haha
However there were a lot of "better than goblins" AKA Merfolk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spirit of the wretch

Weird:
1 Stifle (I honestly don't understand this one at all)
1 Engineered Explosives (a one off that you can't tutor for?)
2 Thoughtseize (discard is good in the early game, so you want to draw it soon, therefore you should play a playset)
3 Leyline of the Void (I still think 4 is the mathematically optimal number here)

Suboptimal:
3 Counterbalance (I would always play 4 of these. Just way to good)
3 Daze (See above)
1 Serum Visions (I think I read about it somewhere, that Portent > Serum Visions)
18 land (seems like at least one, maybe two too many)

---

Ok, so none of them were "really weird," just "weird," and "suboptimal." That's what I was trying to clarify. It seems like there is alot of extreme verbiage being thrown around.