Goblins, solidarity, thresh and storm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Printable View
Goblins, solidarity, thresh and storm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Clamp only supports decks with creatures, and pushes decks with cheap disposable creatures over the top. It would make Elves the strongest combo deck by a large margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by tescrin
it does not really support control decks it supports swarm decks, which are aggro decks.
Clamp would push the format towards all cheap creature swarms decks, which is horrible diversity.
BS works in a much more varied range of deck types, you have to run blue, but with legacy mana bases that it a small price on deck design.
Plus Landstill and The Rock. At least that many lists were highly competitive. Burn was a mainstay. Suicide Black was played much more often than any variant of it is played now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds
Threshold was emerging from Gro at that point and had not yet become a dominant list. That was reserved for 2007 when Tarmogoyf was printed and replaced Werebear, which in turn had replaced Quirion Dryad as the Gro elements turned into Threshold elements.
The beginning of the blue shell dominance was in 2007. That's when it was not unusual to see 4 blue shell lists in the top 8 with 4 other lists from various non-blue archetypes represented as well. By 2009 The Rock had become Survival Rock and Aggro Loam and Dredge had also emerged to compete for the other 4 slots. Storm had diversified with the printing of Ad Nauseum. It was the premature banning of Survival of the Fittest in 2010 that put us firmly on the path we've since followed. A green engine that did not meld smoothly into the blue shell was banned and since then we've watched the blue shell run over every thing in it's path.
1. GoblinsQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds
2. Thresh
3. Solidarity
Large gap
4. Landstill
5. Rest with less than 2% of the metagame per archetype
I even linked the Source a few pages back
In the interest of being sick of hearing about banning things,
Demonic Consultation vs Imperial Seal. Is either of them at all safe or is the problem that they could work well in not combo or what?
I got bored so I decided to go to MTG top8: http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE
I wish I had tournament data as opposed to top 8 data, but this is all I have to work with. So for the past 2 months, the metagame was 40% aggro, 32% control, and 28% combo. There were 221 decks, and in order from most popular to least, this was the data.
1) UR delver (27, 12%)
2) Stoneblade (24, 11%)
3) Miracles (19, 9%)
4) Show and Tell (18, 8%)
5) Storm (14, 6%)
6) Lands (10, 5%)
6) Jeskai Delver (10, 5%)
8) Elves (8, 4%)
8) Infect(8, 4%)
10) Temur Delver (7, 3%)
10) Reanimator (7, 3%)
10) Merfolk (7, 3%)
13) MUD (6, 3%)
14) Death and Taxes (5, 2%)
14) Maverick (5, 2%)
14) Burn (5, 2%)
17) Sultai Delver (4, 2%)
18) Nic Fit (3, 1%)
18) Shardless Sultai (3, 1%)
18) 12 Post (3, 1%)
18) Dredge (3, 1%)
22) Dragon Stompy (2, 1%)
22) Bant (2, 1%)
22) Mono R Sneak (2, 1%)
22) Jeskai Ascendancy 2, 1%)
26) Jund (1, 0%)
26) Affinity (1, 0%)
26) Sultai Control (1, 0%)
26) Aggro Loam (1, 0%)
26) Azban (1, 0%)
26) Landstill (1, 0%)
26) Countertop (1, 0%)
26) Belcher (1, 0%)
26) Food Chain (1, 0%)
26) Painter (1, 0%)
26) Aluren (1, 0%)
26) Grixis Delver (1, 0%)
26) Ninjas (1, 0%)
26) Mono Blue Delver (1, 0%)
26) Thopters (1, 0%)
26) UW Control (1, 0%)
26) Dark Depths (1, 0%)
If you look at the top 10 rankings, there's 12 different archtypes represented (including ties).
Archtype data: 6 different archtypes make up roughly 50% of the top 8s. Out of the top 12 archtypes (because of ties), the top 4 most top 8'd decks take up 16.9%, 15.1%, 12.3%, and 11.3% of the total, respectively.
Color data: 88.7% of the top 10 that top 8'd run blue, 71.9% of the decks that top 8'd ran blue.
Card penetrance.
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Brainstorm: 176/221 = 79.6%
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Force of Will: 159/221 = 71.9%
Let's compare the same data for 2011 (before Miracle cards were printed) using MTG top 8, the meta game was 43% aggro, 31% control, and 26% combo. There were 1868 decks, but I took out random rogue decks because looking through them is a pain so my data is out of 1799 decks.
1) Merfolk (129, 7%)
2) Maverick (128, 7%)
3) Bant (125, 7%)
4) Zoo (122, 7%)
5) Stoneblade (104, 6%)
6) Storm (85, 5%)
7) Sultai aggro/midrange (80, 4%)
8) Temur Delver (78, 4%)
9) Dredge (75, 4%)
10) Countertop (71, 4%)
11) Junk (68, 4%)
12) Show and Tell (53, 3%)
13) Goblins (48, 3%)
13) High Tide (48, 3)
15) Reanimator (45, 2%)
16) Temur Order (40, 2%)
17) Sultai Control (37, 2%)
18) Burn (31, 2%)
18) Thopters (31, 2%)
20) Painters (30, 2%)
21) Landstill (29, 2%)
21) Aggro Loam (29, 2%)
23) Elves 28 (28, 1%)
24) Affinity (27, 1%)
25) Death and Taxes (26, 1%)
25) MUD (26, 1%)
25) Hive Mind (26, 1%)
28) Team Italia (18, 1%)
29) Enchantress (17, 1%)
29) Doomsday (17, 1%)
30) Lands (15, 1%)
32) Belcher (13, 1%)
33) Suicide Black (12, 1%)
34) Dreadstill (11, 1%)
34) Faeries (11, 1%)
36) Cephalid (9, 0%)
37) Infect (7, 0%)
38) UR Delver (6, 0%)
38) Pox (6, 0%)
40) Nic Fit (6, 0%)
41) White Weenie (5, 0%)
41) New Horizons (5, 0%)
41) BUG Threshold (5, 0%)
41) Titanpost (5, 0%)
45) Eva Green (4, 0%)
46) Aluren (3, 0%)
47) Dragon Stompy (2, 0%)
48) Faerie Stompy (1, 0%)
48) Slivers (1, 0%)
48) Stax (1, 0%)
Archtype data: 9 different archtypes make up roughly 50% of top 8s. Out of the top 10 archtypes, the top 4 most top 8'd decks take up 12.9%, 12.8%, 12.5, and 12.2% of the total, respectively.
Color data: 74.9% of the top 10 that top 8'd run blue, 58.5% of the decks that top 8'd ran blue.
Card penetrance (I estimated because I didn't have time to search throw every deck, so I just looked at the decks and counted them up. Basically every blue deck except Merfolk ran Brainstorm, and every blue deck except storm ran Force of Will)
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Brainstorm: 923/1799 = 51.3%
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Force of Will: 967/1799 = 53.8%
So, pretty diverse. So what happened?
In late 2011, Innistrad got printed. With it came Delver and Miracles. The meta is 43% aggro, 31% control, and 26% combo. The most number of top 8s in 2012 were:
1) Temur Delver (155, 15%)
2) Stoneblade (108, 11%)
3) Maverick (99, 10%)
4) Miracles (73, 7%)
5) Show and Tell (67, 7%)
6) Goblins (41, 4%)
7) Dredge (37, 4%)
8) Storm (36, 4%)
9) Sultai Aggro / Midrange (29, 3%)
10) Reanimator (28, 3%)
11) Bant (23, 2%)
12) Elves (21, 2%)
13) Merfolk (19, 2%)
14) UR Delver (17, 2%)
14) BUG Control (17, 2%)
14) High Tide (17, 2%)
17) Belcher (15, 1%)
18) Nic Fit (14, 1%)
19) Burn (13, 1%)
19) MUD (13, 1%)
19) Aggro Loam (13, 1%)
19) The Rock (Junk) (13, 1%)
23) Pikula (12, 1%)
24) Hive Mind (11, 1%)
25) Lands (Eternal Garden) (9, 1%)
26) Death & Taxes (8, 1%)
27) Enchantress (7, 1%)
28) Zoo (6, 1%)
28) Pox (6, 1%)
28) Threshold (Other) (6, 1%)
28) Aluren (6, 1%)
32) Jund (5, 0%)
32) Zombi Bombardement (5, 0%)
34) Weenie White (4, 0%)
34) Countertop Thopters (4, 0%)
36) Affinity (3, 0%)
36) Counter Top (no thopter) (3, 0%)
36) Painter (3, 0%)
39) Infect (2, 0%)
39) Faerie Stompy (2, 0%)
39) Faeries (2, 0%)
39) Dreadstill (2, 0%)
39) Landstill (2, 0%)
39) Titan Post (2, 0%)
45) Doomsday (1, 0%)
45) Shoal Infect (1, 0%)
45) Food Griffin (1, 0%)
45) Cephalid Breakfast (1, 0%)
Archtype data: 5 different archtypes make up roughly 50% of top 8s. Out of the top 10 archtypes, the top 4 most top 8'd decks take up 23.0%, 16.0%, 14.7%, and 10.8% of the total, respectively.
Color data: 73.7% of the top 10 that top 8'd run blue, 65.0% of the decks that top 8'd ran blue.
Card penetrance (I estimated because I didn't have time to search throw every deck, so I just looked at the decks and counted them up. Basically every blue deck except Merfolk ran Brainstorm, and every blue deck except storm ran Force of Will)
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Brainstorm: 923/1799 = 63.0%
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Force of Will: 967/1799 = 61.3%
So, Delver gave blue a boost. Then in 2012, DRS and Abrupt decay got printed which caused fair, mana denial decks to not be as good. Then with the Legends rule change, Elves became a real deck. For the data of 2013, this it it. I used similar procedures, just didn't include every single deck. There were 1035 decks.
Archtype data: 7 different archtypes make up roughly 50% of top 8s. Out of the top 10 archtypes, the top 4 (Stoneblade, Temur Delver, Show and Tell, Sultai Delver), most top 8'd decks take up 15.8%, 13.1%, 13.0%, and 11.3% of the total, respectively.
Color data: 77.0% of the top 10 that top 8'd run blue, 65.8% of the decks that top 8'd ran blue.
Card penetrance (I estimated because I didn't have time to search throw every deck, so I just looked at the decks and counted them up. Basically every blue deck except Merfolk ran Brainstorm, and every blue deck except storm ran Force of Will)
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Brainstorm: 923/1799 = 63.4%
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Force of Will: 967/1799 = 59.6%
Data for 2014 to get an idea of what it was like precruise. 1851 decks:
Archtype data: 7 different archtypes make up roughly 50% of top 8s. Out of the top 10 archtypes, the top 4 (Miracles, Sultai Delver, Stoneblade, UR Delver), most top 8'd decks take up 16.3%, 15.6%, 12.3%, and 10.1% of the total, respectively.
Color data: 77.5% of the top 10 that top 8'd run blue, 68.0% of the decks that top 8'd ran blue.
Card penetrance (I estimated because I didn't have time to search throw every deck, so I just looked at the decks and counted them up. Basically every blue deck except Merfolk ran Brainstorm, and every blue deck except storm ran Force of Will)
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Brainstorm: 923/1799 = 65.6%
Decks that ran atleast 1 copy of Force of Will: 967/1799 = 63.0%
Moral of the story?
- Treasure Cruise is OP
- Brainstorm is fine and it hasn't really changed in penetrance since Delver
- Zoo became terrible after 2011
I just started testing Treasure Cruise in a non-Delver deck. It is strong, not OP. I'm actually starting to think that Delver is the problem. From UR to 4C-, every aggro deck wants him. My candidates for banning includes this guy and Ponder.Quote:
- Treasure Cruise is OP
- Brainstorm is fine and it hasn't really changed in penetrance since Delver
Wait what. You really concider delver a problem. Cool because that is what I also think. The problem with the current blue shell is that we have something we should not have in our color and that is a overly efficient beater like Delver. So I think is this a gretaQuote:
Death
I just started testing Treasure Cruise in a non-Delver deck. It is strong, not OP. I'm actually starting to think that Delver is the problem. From UR to 4C-, every aggro deck wants him. My candidates for banning includes this guy and Ponder.
step maybe some other players want also to make this step and actually test things like you did.
Treasure Cruise seems really great in not just aggro decks but the more midrange/control creature decks with deathrite, stoneforge, TNN, jace, etc. There is a bit less synergy but not much.
The reason is that treasure cruise doesn't just synergize extremely well with heavy cantrip strategies, it syngergizes really well with counterspells.
The card advantage of force of will is now no big deal, just reaload with cruise.
play out ur threat (delver, sfm, whatever), play counterspells to protect it, and reload with cruise. These decks are now so difficult to outgrind if you don't jump out to a very early lead.
Now all you have to do if you're the mid range control deck is counter the threats that were in their initial grip, then once they're low on cards you reload with cruise and that's game. It's even more scary in these midrange sfm goodstuff decks because their cruises rarely whiff like they do in more cantrip heavy UR delver decks.
Yes they can't support 4 TC most times, but when they do resolve one of their 2-3 cruises it is utterly back breaking
It is not "me" vs. "you". If for some reason I was forced to play this abysmal degenerated format at this point I would obviously play a Brainstorm deck, too. But not because Cantrips in general are OP, but because Brainstorm in particular is OP. Fortunately there is no law that forces me to do this so I can focus on different card games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
Your talk about consistency is complete nonsense. Consistency is just one part of the strength of a deck, not the sole factor. Maverick is one of the most consistent decks ever of all formats. It just isn't powerful enough, mainly because other decks can use BS while they can't - not because it lacks Serum Visions or some other solid unbroken Cantrip. But hey, let's make GSZ search for green creatures with "CMC = X+3" instead of "X" and turn Watchwolf into a 6/6 Shroud and then claim that Creature decks are just superior and that "This is proven again and again by the Green shell. "
Also look at this on reddit. Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/MTGLegacy/co...or_archetypes/
Starcity posted all of the day two decklists from SCG Philly, making it pretty easy to determine how various archetypes performed against each other on day two, including in the top 8. I analyzed day two matches here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MTGLegacy/co...or_archetypes/
After the original post, I realized that we also know the archetypes played by a few players with day one video feature matches who did not make day two. In addition, many of the players who made day two played against each other on day one. Altogether, there are 225 day one matches where we know both archetypes involved, allowing me to analyze 566 matches instead of 341.
I looked at all SCG Philly matches where we know both archetypes involved, labeling all archetypes playing in fewer than 30 day two matches "Other" for brevity. Here are the results:
Death and Taxes vs:
Mirror: 7-7
Elves: 1-6
Grixis Control: 1-0
Jeskai Stoneblade: 1-4
Miracles: 2-0
Sneak and Show: 0-4
Storm 0-0
Temur Delver: 1-2
U/R Delver: 7-12
Other: 14-17
Overall non-mirror: 27-45
Elves vs:
Death and Taxes: 6-1
Mirror: 2-2-2
Grixis Control: 1-2-1
Jeskai Stoneblade: 5-0
Miracles: 1-1-2
Sneak and Show: 0-4
Storm 1-4
Temur Delver: 0-3
U/R Delver: 3-5
Other: 17-8-1
Overall non-mirror: 34-28-4
Grixis Control vs:
Death and Taxes: 0-1
Elves: 2-1-1
Mirror: 3-3
Jeskai Stoneblade: 2-1
Miracles: 3-2-1
Sneak and Show: 1-0
Storm: 3-1
Temur Delver: 3-3
U/R Delver: 7-3
Other: 12-5
Overall non-mirror: 33-17-2
Jeskai Stoneblade vs:
Death and Taxes: 4-1
Elves: 0-5
Grixis Control: 1-2
Mirror: 0-0
Miracles: 3-1
Sneak and Show: 3-0
Storm: 2-2
Temur Delver: 0-2
U/R Delver: 6-7
Other: 13-15-1
Overall non-mirror: 32-35-1
Miracles vs:
Death and Taxes: 0-2
Elves: 1-1-2
Grixis Control: 2-3-1
Jeskai Stoneblade: 1-3
Mirror: 0-0-2
Sneak and Show: 0-0
Storm: 1-1
Temur Delver: 1-3
U/R Delver: 4-1
Other: 12-14-1
Overall non-mirror: 22-28-4
Sneak and Show vs:
Death and Taxes: 4-0
Elves: 4-0
Grixis Control: 0-1
Jeskai Stoneblade: 0-3
Miracles: 0-0
Mirror: 0-0
Storm: 1-5
Temur Delver: 1-2
U/R Delver: 4-7
Other: 14-11-1
Overall non-mirror: 28-29-1
Storm vs:
Death and Taxes: 0-0
Elves: 4-1
Grixis Control: 1-3
Jeskai Stoneblade: 2-2
Miracles: 1-1
Sneak and Show: 5-1
Mirror: 1-1
Temur Delver: 0-1
U/R Delver: 7-4
Other: 9-7
Overall non-mirror: 29-20
Temur Delver vs:
Death and Taxes: 2-1
Elves: 3-0
Grixis Control: 3-3
Jeskai Stoneblade: 2-0
Miracles: 3-1
Sneak and Show: 2-1
Storm: 1-0
Mirror: 2-2
U/R Delver: 5-1
Other: 11-9-2
Overall non-mirror: 32-16-2
U/R Delver vs:
Death and Taxes: 12-7
Elves: 5-3
Grixis Control: 3-7
Jeskai Stoneblade: 7-6
Miracles: 1-4
Sneak and Show: 7-4
Storm: 4-7
Temur Delver: 1-5
Mirror: 18-18-2
Other: 43-42-2
Overall non-mirror: 83-85-2
I guess blue decks are just popular and not so much OP lol.
How did Death and Taxes go 0-4 against Sneak and Show is what I want to know.
No StP in hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by ironclad8690
Edit: In all non-trolliness... I've lost to goblins while playing TES in game one. I've lost to elves playing miracles, these things do happen. A T2 win from Sneak show is not unheard of. I've also seen quite a few budget D&T lists and Karakas is the last thing those decks usually pick up.
Sometimes RNGesus decides to take a massive shit on your day and that happensQuote:
Originally Posted by ironclad8690
Maybe due to cutting down on Revokers in the current Delver meta? It's the keycard alongside Karakas to make their life a living hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by ironclad8690
Still a rather questionable result.
Demonic Consultation is absurd, as it's basically an Instant-speed Demonic Tutor for one less mana. Just keep that in mind: Demonic Tutor is already crazy powerful, and Demonic Consultation is better. Your odds of "missing" with it are extremely low.Quote:
Originally Posted by kusumoto
Imperial Seal seems safer (Sorcery speed makes it more reasonable than Vampiric Tutor) but still rather risky. And honestly, the fact the card is currently more expensive than some of the Power 9 means an unbanning would bring it to impossibly high levels unless they decide to reprint it in something with a reasonable print run.
It can easily support control decks, it it just doesn't support creature-light control decks just as Brainstorm-based creature heavy decks pretty much aren't a thing. It can support many kinds of combo decks, it can support all manner of aggressive and midrange strategies.Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmcc13
What is a creature-heavy-control deck in your books which can use Clamp as a reliable draw engine aka running Creatures with 1 toughness or the ability to sacrifice them? I can't imagine more than Veteran Explorer to qualify for such a deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
Talking of it: GSZ + Explorer + Dryad Arbosr + Clamp sounds nuts. Convert every Fetchland into drawing two fresh cards for 1 mana is Hardcore
Ok lets go trough this one by one to look why consitency is the only thing you want besides a good power/cost relation of your threats.Quote:
Tao
Your talk about consistency is complete nonsense. Consistency is just one part of the strength of a deck, not the sole factor. Maverick is one of the most consistent decks ever of all formats. It just isn't powerful enough, mainly because other decks can use BS while they can't - not because it lacks Serum Visions or some other solid unbroken Cantrip. But hey, let's make GSZ search for green creatures with "CMC = X+3" instead of "X" and turn Watchwolf into a 6/6 Shroud and then claim that Creature decks are just superior and that "This is proven again and again by the Green shell. "
First we look what you want when you build a deck. You want a reliable mana base but avoid beeing flooded or screwd. Than you want a finisher for the game so 1 or 2 maybe 3 threats. Than you want the ability to disturb the other gameplan or ensure that you are faster than him. Great so with this in mind you build a deck. So what you want is that you can say my plan is to deploy a CB top combo that you can do this as fast as possible in th most games you play. Cantrips help to achiev this quiet well and with the
number of increasing cantrips the consitency of this plan (not of the cantrips) increases.
So lets say your plan to win the game is a good one(like Tendrils for 20) concitency of the plan wins you the game.
Cantrips reduce the number of lands you need because they replace themselfs and thin the deck not by 1 but too. That is the reason why you play fetchlands because they double your chances for a non land card. Also you have more flexibility in the number of copies for threats and disruption because cantrips make it easier to find them.Quote:
Your talk about consistency is complete nonsense. Consistency is just one part of the strength of a deck, not the sole factor.
So if I play 4 ponder and 4 brainstorm I can afford to play 2 or 3 lands less and also to play only 3 CBS instead of 4 because I only want to find 1CB in the regular game and the cantrips ensure that I do this because they thin the libary and manipultate the draw I get.
This is what you call consitency. Concistency is the factor which discribes how often you will be able to execute your gameplan without problematic or even dead draws. You could say that you want to streamline you deck toward a percentage which is slightly over 70% to susceed in a controled field so that you donīt lose to unlucky draws.
You are wrong. As I googled Maverick decks i found this http://www.mtgtop8.com/archetype?a=128. This seems a lot of good placements including 1 top 8 in an SCG Tournement.Quote:
Maverick is one of the most consistent decks ever of all formats. It just isn't powerful enough, mainly because other decks can use BS while they can't - not because it lacks Serum Visions or some other solid unbroken Cantrip.
For me the deck looks not as bad as you want to make it. If there is a problem than that it is to slow. It needs to much mana to deploy a threat and canīt protect it effective enough because is has next to nothing permanent answers for opposing threats. And it takes to long to either lock you out or beat you down.
The consitency of the deck has nothing to do with the problem it has.
which will not happen because if I play blue cantrips I will find the Geen Sun more often and faster than you do and therefore I will win again because cantrips decrease dead draws.Quote:
But hey, let's make GSZ search for green creatures with "CMC = X+3" instead of "X" and turn Watchwolf into a 6/6 Shroud and then claim that Creature decks are just superior and that "This is proven again and again by the Green shell. "
Pardon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
Those numbers cannot be compared to the cantrips driven shells. There's a gap between BS decks and the rest of the field, and while we're all competitive minds and will be playing w/e gives us the best percentage, it's kinda sad that the gaming experience narrowed into whoever resolves more cantrips to resolve more bombs; if I'd want to play Vintage, I heard there's a format for that kind of games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
GSZ is not powerful enough. Except for Elves, it brings no other deck to tier1 status, and Elves work only because it's simply an Academy.dec proxy that looks like a who's who of B&R list. To make the GSZ decks more powerful, you need something similar to what Elves got, I'd say you'd be looking at SotF, yet it cannot be unbanned, because turn4 Iona/Grisly/Emrakul is too much for this format... oops, all Show and Tell.
Otoh, bringing more decks that win out of nowhere - those bombs! - might not be the best idea ever, so maybe it's Earthcraft that can leave the prison to make say Tress or w/e better.
Because cantripping into Delver (plus stuff) or cantripping into "I can haz count to ten" or cantripping into CB/top or JTMS or SnT is what's strategical difference is left. Why there' so much love for this "rich and diverse fileld" whose richness and diversity reminds me of Necroknights vs. Crusade vs. UW Deck vs. Erhnam+Geddon/Burn is beyond m understanding.
If there'd be more possibilities (like SotF and/or Earthcraft at very least), wouldn't that strategically enrich the metagame? And if BS would be gone as some people propose - note that I'm not the one, as I'm telling for N-th fucking time that I'm ambivalent about BS ban -, wouldn't the field open wide with the potential result being more strategical diversity?
But what can I know, I don't own cards, so I must simply be wrong...
So consistency is NOT the only thing a deck wants. Good that we agree on that. And on top synergy and that good power / cost relation decks might also benefit from elements of Card Advantage, Synergy, Speed, Ramp, Pressure, Disruption, Flexibility, Removal, Combos and approximately 200 other concepts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
So while playing Serum Visions increases your consistency, a DR Shaman gives the player Mana Ramp to pull ahead that way, a Goblin Lackey will put pressure on your opponent and threaten to win if the opponent has no solution, a Mother of Runes will threaten to invalidate all of the opponent's spot removal and a Thoughtseize will disrupt the opponent's game plan. This is all good and fun fair as long as these cards are balanced.
Well, no shit. Especially Brainstorm but also Ponder are OP, and that's the whole problem, not cantrips by themselves. If players could only use Preordain and Serum Visions instead of BS and Ponder everything would be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
I did not read the thread recently, so maybe I miss something
Is there a rumor that Survival of the Fittest may be unbanned? I suddenly see the price of Survival today...
MaybeQuote:
Originally Posted by GoblinZ
It all started with the December MOCS promo Vengevine, which basically doesn't see play anywhere. And now the sudden price increase similiar to Bitterblossom before its unban, although it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy:
"Survival might get unbanned!" --> people buy, price increase --> "Look, the price is rising, Survival is really going to get unbanned!" --> people buy, price increase --> etc.
If Survival is really going to be unbanned, then why doesn't Vengevine increase as well?
As if that would stop Treasure cruise from pushing people against the wall on the back of stuff like SDT, Thought Scour and/or Mental Note.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tao
Really? Ok you play a fetchland because they decrease the land count in your deck by 2 not 1 if you draw 1. The reason is thatQuote:
Bed Decks Palyer
Quote Originally Posted by Teveshszat View Post
That is the reason why you play fetchlands because they double your chances for a non land card.
Pardon?
they take out a land in addtion to themself when you use the land. This increases the chance that you draw a non land card really hard. the reason for this is that when you play fetchlands you can play a sliglty smaller number of real lands and is again increases the chance to not draw a land. So you could say fetchlands increase the consistency because they help you to avoid dead draws(to many lands in this case).
His argument was that Maverick is not placing well anymore. This is only to prove this argument wrong. Because actually they place well. You ofcourse canīt compare the deck against blue shell because the blue shell is better in concitency and ofcourse in the tempo and cost efficiency. Maverick is an outdated deck what you expect is just not realistic.Quote:
Bed decks player
Those numbers cannot be compared to the cantrips driven shells. There's a gap between BS decks and the rest of the field, and while we're all competitive minds and will be playing w/e gives us the best percentage, it's kinda sad that the gaming experience narrowed into whoever resolves more cantrips to resolve more bombs; if I'd want to play Vintage, I heard there's a format for that kind of games.
Btw in every rescource management game it resolves arround efficiency and therefore card draw and cantrips a favored in every
game which does that. Thats the reason why some print next to nothing draw effects.
And still concitency is the most important because it enhances all the other aspetcs to the level you want. So while consistency is only one aspect it is the most important because it wins you the game.Quote:
Tao
So consistency is NOT the only thing a deck wants. Good that we agree on that. And on top synergy and that good power / cost relation decks might also benefit from elements of Card Advantage, Synergy, Speed, Ramp, Pressure, Disruption, Flexibility, Removal, Combos and approximately 200 other concepts.
Card advantge becomes a better strategy if you can pay the cost (TC), Synergeic effects are more likely to work when you can draw the right combination (cantrips help), Speed gets better when you need less lands (cantrips help), Ramp is better when you can get more effiecient mana engines and less basic lands (cantrips again), Pressure jeah cantrips can make the deck a little airy, Disruption (you donīt need so many situaraional cards because cantrips help t find them(better disruption less dead draws), fexibililty is the definition of cantrips, removal you find them faster and need less copies of them (only because cantrips), combos you have cardx and need y cantrips help.
You see each strategy gets better with cantrips therefore consitency is what you want to max for your deck and cantrips are the best way for it.
Just test it for yourself add cantrips or Sensei`s top in a without them before. I bet you will win more often than before.
But you can only utilize the mana when you have a useful card you can play. So you can say a deathrite canQuote:
DR Shaman gives the player Mana Ramp to pull ahead that wa
help you to enhance an advantage but canīt help you to come back from a disadvantge (like haveing the wrong card in hand). Btw having the wrong card is what you makes lose games very often.
The Lackey only pressures you at turn 1 and canīt outrun a delver so concidering that we putting the goblin against an equal agressive deck blue wins with UR Delver because a lackey is not enough pressure against a delver + cantrips to find vairous removal and counters.Quote:
a Goblin Lackey will put pressure on your opponent and threaten to win if the opponent has no solution, a Mother of Runes will threaten to invalidate all of the opponent's spot removal and a Thoughtseize will disrupt the opponent's game plan. This is all good and fun fair as long as these cards are balanced.
A mother of runes is quiet a pain but also can be beaten when the cantrip finds you the second spotremoval or the sweeper you need to deal with the whole board. But this again onyl can be done in time when you have cantrips. So again cantrips are what you want to execute your gemaplan and disrupt theirs.
The Thoughseize is the most classic. Concidering you donīt took a 1 off from us cantrips shine very brightly because the increase the chance that you find the missing card intime and render the disruption useless. with out cantrips it is a great disruption with them its just a temporary anoyance.
Cantrips are and wil be the cards you want to include in every deck to a certain degree because they just help you and that is what makes blue so strong the power to just have the better math than the rest of the decks.
It is scientifically proven that the Theory of Fetchlands Deck Thinning is wrong. You may just as believe in watermen and fauns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
Hypergenensis function or something like that.
It's not "wrong". The effect is real, but pretty marginal depending on the total lands you have left in your deck and under the sole aspect of "prevent drawing lands"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer
Don't use the word "scientifically" for a bold and wrong claim. There are engineers and scientists in the Forum
@Teveshszat: you are thick. Do you know that expression?
Tao made quite a simple point. We all know that Lackey, et al are Magic cards and therefor need a Magic game to have a purpose. And that game may or may not have a game state for which said card is beneficial. You also need to be a human to play. Hands are preferred but not required. I think that Tao will concede all of this.
Amazingly though, none of these cards help with diminishing variance and yet all have the potential to help win the game in some fashion. In fact, I would add Swamp to that list. It also has potential to do the same and does nothing for seeing the right card at the right time. If Tao is wrong about this, we would all play 60 cantrips and nothing else.
It would be just ducky if you could concede that point so that the conversation can have a chance (albeit small) at bearing fruit.
Ah yes. I expected insults like this because you display your lack of arguments with it. I, from my point of view, am more the logical type which shoudl explain why I prefer mathamatical facts above feelings from persons.Quote:
Finn
@Teveshszat: you are thick. Do you know that expression?
Nope I also can place a Ki in front of you to play against you. This maybe will be easier for you because this is not an game with complete information but a computer can also play this game.Quote:
Finn
You also need to be a human to play
No because than you are lacking of threats and the cantrips canīt win you the game because you missed a basic deckbuilding rule.Quote:
Finn
If Tao is wrong about this, we would all play 60 cantrips and nothing else.
And there is the word i love potential. All the cards have the POTENTIAL to win you the game. All cantrips increase the chance that you can make use of this potential to win the game so again cantrips are the factor which makes the difference between a deck with and without them.Quote:
Finn
Amazingly though, none of these cards help with diminishing variance and yet all have the potential to help win the game in some fashion.
And why should I do this because you see Iam not wrong and different persons also tried to explain it to you. All I try is to show you why the blue shell is so dominant as now and why banning Brainstorm or and Ponder is not the solution.Quote:
Finn
It would be just ducky if you could concede that point so that the conversation can have a chance (albeit small) at bearing fruit.
I belief all of this and even more. I mean I play a game were Iam a great Planeswalker who has godlike powers If I wouldQuote:
Bed Decks Players
You may just as believe in watermen and fauns. Hypergenensis function or something like that.
not believe that such thing could exsist I would not play this game.
But this doesnīt mean that I donīt know effects of cards and yes while the fetch effect isnīt that great it is there.
The problem is that you claimed that fetchlands double your chance of increasing a nonland card, which is absurd. What a fetchland does is marginally increase your chance of drawing a nonland card; taking an extra land out of your deck isn't doubling it. For example, if you have 20 lands left in your library, and 50 cards in your library, cracking a fetch changes your odds of getting a nonland card from 30/50 to 30/49. 30/49 - 30/50=1.2%. A 1.2% increase is a far cry from a 100% increase as you claim. For that matter, even the more vague "increases the chance that you draw a non land card really hard" is wrong, because a 1.2% chance is not a particularly big increase. Admittedly, over the course of several turns it will rise, but it's still fairly low and does not "double" your odds as you claimed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
The problem is that the marginal increase in drawing nonlands is not worth the extra damage you take. 1.2% higher chance of drawing a nonland card? Not exactly worth being 5% closer to losing the game. It's the amazing level of the color fixing or synergy with Brainstorm that makes the fetchlands worth it, not decreasing land count. (which isn't even always a positive thing if we ignore the life loss, because what if you need more lands? Then you're decreasing your chance of getting lands when you fetch, plus taking damage on top of that)
Survival was also the Community Cup promo this year, which might make people think they are considering unbanning it. I mean why make a promo of a card that they had just put in a set (as a non chase rare, for that set) that was decently drafted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
People might be thinking there is some new combo to use, or expecting vine to get banned in its SotF's place, or looking at contanment priest as well as graffdiggers cage and thinking vine will not work well enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Though considering it was going for so much and pretty, much only seeing play in commander decks, I would expect an increase a couple months after every commander set once the new players who bought those decks have met some more experienced players, started building their own, and started looking beyond their immediate collections to pick cards, and every new green player eventually sees it and goes "I want one". January being a good time for an increase because of all the holiday gift money people are able to drop on cards they could not afford normally. This would also explain vine not going up as it does not draw the attention of every EDH player like survival does.
I think the price increase is rumors + EDH players spending Christmas money, which is probably the same thing that happened with Bitter Blossom last year, only the rumor was true then.
Vine sucks? You are better off just tinking for 30 trample damage on your third turn than dicking around with your graveyard?
Wait some people can write all the wrong stuff they want and when I exaggerte 1 fact to reinforce myy point all tell that Iam wrong.Quote:
Lord Seth
he problem is that you claimed that fetchlands double your chance of increasing a nonland card, which is absurd
this sound really like an discussion were people just donīt want to see that they are wrong and take every little bit from the information which is not 100% accurate to distrack us from this fact.
Than why are non blue decks playing fetchlands in the firstplace? Because in general the ability to find the right land you need and the decreasement of the land count is worth 1 lifepoint because you know life is just another resource.Quote:
It's the amazing level of the color fixing or synergy with Brainstorm that makes the fetchlands worth it, not decreasing land count.
I never claimed that the exact percentage is over 50% or so. I said it doubled and yes is a bit exagerted but double mean not over 50 or even over 1% it just says its twice as much as the percentage before.Quote:
30/50 to 30/49. 30/49 - 30/50=1.2%. A 1.2% increase is a far cry from a 100% increase as you claim.
Treasure Cruise is really annoying to play against. If two regular decks are fighting for control and end up in topdeck mode, and one of them draws Treasure Cruise, the game ends.
It's just too easy to cast in Legacy. I very rarely say this about a card, but I hope Treasure Cruise gets the axe.
I really hope Mind Twist gets unbanned. Hymn is better in most situations anyway...Twist can be a blow out with Ancient Tomb/City of Traitors or Dark Rituals though...
I think it would be a fun card to have in the format and its weak too Spell Pierce and Daze so I don't think it would be too OP
In that same situation, if the player were to top deck Jace then the outcome would be the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by M+1
So if you're main argument for banning TC is that it breaks the other guy's back in a top deck war... Well, many cards in legacy already do that :cool:
I don't think so, not in the same way. TC cost 1 mana and gives you three cards instantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_L
Jace cost 4 mana, and only a few dedicated control decks play it for that reason. And it takes Jace two or three turns to net you the same amount of cards as TC.
Exactly, a suspended Ancestral Visions also does the same thing. There's a reason TC is played at 1/2 the rate of Brainstorm it's far more conditional and just not as good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_L
Given WotC's recent insanity my assumption is that they won't unban Mind Twist but they will instead print a delve version of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_L
Because spells that blue has an answer too but that wreck everybody else is exactly what we need right now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_L
Treasure Cruise breaks a primary system in the game, the rate at which the two players draw cards. That's why it should be banned. It does this conditionally but the condition is not hard to meet just playing the game of Magic in a normal fashion for Legacy. I will be surprised if Treasure Cruise is not banned on Monday. There are other cards that should go before it but it is the most obvious offender that nobody can well defend in the current landslide into a blue meta.
Very few lists have actually found the best ways to abuse Treasure Cruise in this meta. If you play it with other effects that net you cards you will get so far ahead of most lists that they can't compete. If you play it with cantrips you'll draw a lot of cards but if you play it with really powerful cards that have an actual effect on the game you will just dominate most matchups. Try Standstill and Treasure Cruise together as an example with just fetches, Brainstorm and a few cheap spells that hit the GY quickly. Put some real power in beside these and you will regularly outdraw the opponent by a wide margin and also have better cards in hand than them in the process.