What makes it a tempo deck? Free countermagic? Vial? Most current iterations don't even run Wasteland anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quasim0ff
Printable View
What makes it a tempo deck? Free countermagic? Vial? Most current iterations don't even run Wasteland anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quasim0ff
And wasteland isn't synonymous with a tempo deck. The overall strategic purpose of most fish (which are usually BANT) is that of a tempo deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
If you really all want to see aggro played just unban recruiter and Survival. Vengevine survival would be a legit aggro deck in current legacy alternative to elves!, at least until people start running a bit more hate for it (needle would kill top and SotF, RiP would hate both delve and SotF etc...). I'm not convinced that food chain gobs is that much better than regular gobs, but it's worth a shot. Both those cards are pretty unsinergistic with most top decks (don't go in most blue decks, can't fit in elves, SnT, Lands etc...)
Not so sure about Elves. It might not be a 1-1 trade upgrade, but Survival Elves was a thing back in the day (try to find a list, it was a beautiful thing), and if Elves has a problem, it is that its engines have tension with each other and with the best cards to solve the deck's problem matchups. NO, GSZ, Therapy want stuff on the field, Glimpse stuff in hand, Glimpse, NO to play (small green) creatures and not interactive cards, cards like Teeg sabotage the deck's primary threat against combo, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheizen64
The Vengevival engine could prove pretty useful in defusing those tensions and open more sideboard cards for inclusion as well. Not saying that it will, but the potential is there.
Did you just ignore that Survival did to linear aggro the last time it was legal? It streamlined all creature-strategies into a single Aggro-Combo core and eradicated all linear aggro decks like Zoo, Goblins or Meerfolk at that time. Survival was never a card to push "aggro" but to hand creature-centric decks a combo finish and card-quality/-advantage tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheizen64
WotC clearly stated that they banned StoF because hate CAN'T GET HOLD of it, because you can tutor answers to hate in response or sidestep certain angles of hate like graveyard-solutions simply by not using the combo-package SotF provides but the card-advantage/-selection more only. The idea to really control Survival at any point of the game is plain absurd with Reclamation Sage/Eternal Witness around and the Survival Package so Compact that you can squeeze it in any aggro deck and just smash faces if your opponent focuses on fighting Survival. We have seen all that before and it did not work out well. Is it too much to ask if you guys learn from the past?
The same is true for Recruiter. You guys complain that games against SDT take forever but are fine if your opponent can use Recruiter to sort oh and stack their deck (room for cheating) for minutes several times per game? Never wondered why WotC never bothered to unban Recruiter? Logistic reasons might be the most obvious ones. I know all that bullshit from Vintage and old Extended
Learn from the past, so let's ban SnT, Time Spiral, Disciple of the vault etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
SotF has lost a lot of power in the last year since nothing better than Vengevine has been printed to abuse it, and nothing better than Iona, meanwhile other decks gained a lot in power and a lot of cards incidentally good against it are commonly run now (DRS, AD, Terminus), as well as decks which just ignore it (SnT based ones). But i guess you just can't see it and you'll ignore this extremely simple and clear-cut point that was presented to you dozens of times because of your intellectual dishonesty, as always.
This said, i'm done. All i've ever read from you on this argument were snarky one liners and flames towards all people that ever presented a different opinion than yours, no matter how many facts and lists and testing they eventually brought, all was "obviously stupid and dishonest" to you. I'm done being flamed after trying to conceive lists and tests as arguments in the discussion only to have to read whatever snarky remark you had toward posters that did not fit into the perfect world cantrip cartel format worldview. I'm done repeating the same points and bring the same arguments time and time again only to be dismissed by "it would clearly be broken and you're stupid if you can't see why" claiming intellectual superiority never actually brininging a single decklist that supported ur claims. At least IBA flamed but he brought out lots of different lists and interesting testing in B&R discussions. At least he, like me, was able to change his opinions after seeing lists , like the case in the channel and fastbonds debates. You're just not interested in this discussion, only in stifling it and feel superior while doing it. Ignore list it is.
Would SotF be containable in today's meta? I'm not sure. I can assume it wouldn't be as bad as it was, but it still looks dangerous for now. There are safer cards to unban first, at the very least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheizen64
Regardless, I do agree that Survival will not help linear aggro. Any deck running it becomes aggro/combo almost by definition I would think.
Calling me out on Intellectual dishonesty while talking about Disciple which was never banned outside of Standard in terms of "learning from the past" is funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheizen64
Yeah, the game never saw TNN, DRS, Griselbrand, SFM, etc. got printed since SotF saw the banhammer, just to name a few. Tutoring for an Emrakul or Iona with S&T on the Stack is nothing you consider possible, because you choose to "ignore these extremely simple and clear-cut points presented to you dozens of times, because you're intellectual dishonest, as always."
I'd want to build a SotF TinFins-ish build. Bin a Griselbrand, tutor a Children of Korlis, reanimate Griselbrand, ???, fun!
Don't know if it's viable, but it sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.
Why did you bother with all that? I don't care which decks have Tops in them since the card is perfectly benign. Try to get this in your head because I hate repeating it...if what you want is to assassinate Miracles, ban Brainstorm and Miracles will die. Or don't. There is nothing wrong with Miracles, only the stupid homogeneity of the card quality engine it shares with 3/4 of the format. Other methods of quality control are entirely outclassed, and that shit is monotonous.Quote:
Originally Posted by MGB
You called me "intellectual dishonest" several times for not seeing everything in regards to B&R matters in clear-cut black & white, but ponder about potential side effects of certain bannings and whine about flaming, if I respond to your bold and empty arguments with snarky comments? You haven't seen me flaming at all and I'm not in the mood either. I just tend to call people out for showing at least a logic line of thought which lead to their ideas with at least a grain of self reflection of ideas, which I rarely get in this thread. If you want an example take the "we would have 10% more aggro decks without Terminus!" Stuff earlier today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheizen64
You talk about "facts, lists, and testing" at the same time you deny that DRS, GSZ, TNN, Griselbrand and other cards which are pretty easy fits for the Survival concept saw print post Survival ban. Dood, your definition of "facts" is pretty iffy, if I dare to say. Did you present us any lists or testing which take all these newer printings into consideration at all? You did not. Never. I only remember a user (and I'm not sure if it was you or another dear Sourcer) tried to point out how "FAIR" SotF is against todays metagame BY RUNNING STRICTLY PRE-BAN SURVIVAL LISTS AND CARDS. Intellectual Dishonesty much? It's like makin points about Necropotence with the help of lists from '96 played against todays Miracles/S&T while ignoring Infernal Tutors or Storm cards printed years later. We had the discussion in this thread and I consider these so-called "lists" and "testing" still hilarious. I hope most other users reading this would agree that all testing of Survival lists against the current meta is invalid if the mana-acceleration grounds on Birds of Paradise rather than DRS
Is there a way from hiding specifically this annoying thread?
Nope, you know nothing. Please read and learn why Recruiter is banned: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post882997Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I made that post 10 days ago, and it is now 16 pages away. The posting rate of some individuals in this thread is... unreasonable.
Did you not know? Post quality is measured in the same way as DPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by M+1
I can't imagine why people want Survival of the Fittest unbanned. The card is absolutely bonkers and should have been banned way back at the start of the format. I've hated that card since I saw it at the Exodus Pre-release. Take your copies and burn em up, it's broke in half and it isn't getting unbanned. It's incredibly unfun to play against.
A lot of people in this thread are making a case for that not being an argument because "there will always be a best deck."Quote:
Originally Posted by frogczar
Survival of the Fittest is a whole different thing when people are playing main list disenchant effects (Abrupt Decay and Council's Judgement) and when Rest in Peace is available and commonly played in sideboards. Spell Pierce is a 2-of in most aggro-control lists. Thalia makes SotF cost 3 to play when the SotF player is on the draw. Elves would be slower with SotF than they currently are and the Plan B aspect wouldn't work well because they rely on heavy concentrations of elves to actually win games.
SotF was a problem in a meta where GY hate was Relic of Progenitus and Tormod's Crypt, both one shot deals, and Leylines of the Void, which was a hard card for many lists to jam as GY hate. It's going to face a different reality if it's ever unbanned.
It's not an isslue of whether or not survival would be the best deck (nor is it an issue of whether or not Survival would be fun to play against). The question is whether or not the format will become extremely narrow with very few competitive decks. That's why it was banned in the first place. The environment is likely more hostile to SotF than it was then, but it's uncertain if this would be sufficient to keep SotF at bay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
Assuming Miracles doesn't get nerfed somehow Survival of the Fittest is going to be dealing with putting 2 Vengevines on the bottom of their library during their attack step.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
More hostile isn't the way to describe the changes. Completely new meta with new assumptions is the way to describe them. Dredge was a great deck back in the day too, only limited by the number of people willing to win game 1 and then take their chances against hate games 2 and 3. Now the hate is so strong that Dredge doesn't even win game 1 reliably.
"It's incredibly unfun to play against."Quote:
Originally Posted by frogczar
By that logic, let's ban Show and Tell, Belcher and Bridge from Below.
I guess this kind of lines is what some people refer as considering Survival with old lists / poor plays: if you play against miracle with an active survival, you are actually close to have already won. Against instand speed terminus, why didn't you shut up this top with revoker? where is your Teeg + sylvan safekeeper / MoR?Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolofaTook
And even if you didn't, they would have used a terminus while you can grow back 8-12 power of hasty creatures without even resolving a single spell.
A counterbalance is annoying? I can have creatures at any ccm, let alone tutoring for reclamation sage (which protect you vs RiP, revoker, needle, ...).
People argue that DRS will be good against survival, without looking at how good it will be WITH survival.
That's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Print a more viable Eidolon is good for aggro for example r/g r/g as cc instead of RR as
Print a good AGGRO solution to countertop
Print a good AGGRO solution against 2nd turn Emrakul
This is why aggro can't win now: everyone ha solution to aggro creatures, aggro should have 3 colors at least to have solution to each single deck. Black for combo, red for blue decks, green to pressure...etc etc while Terminus fit perfectly against any creature in the meta.
OR wizzard slow the meta, banning some speedy cards like brainstorm (that saves you from having a bad hand to fix with topdeck) or printing something good for aggro decks.
I can't immagine how could be a fight on the board in combat phase more boring than, brainstorm, ponder, divining top -> find my solution
or to Jace i lock your topdeck
or s&t -> Omin -> Emrakul oh look i win
Why do we have to ban Brainstorm just to weaken Miracles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Banning Brainstorm is another argument entirely - if you have a problem with Brainstorm, then you aren't the first, but I don't think it's necessarily bad to have in the format.
I want to knock Miracles down a peg to let other control decks and other aggro decks breathe a little easier. The best way to do this is to ban Sensei's Divining Top. Banning Brainstorm would also have a similar effect, but that would have far too much collateral damage. Banning SDT hurts Miracles and only Miracles, and that is exactly the point I was trying to make with that tcdecks breakdown.
Banning SDT = little to no collateral damage or tampering with the integrity of Legacy as a whole. Very simple outcome: Miracles is weaker.
Banning Brainstorm = tons of collateral damage, a veritable ****storm of possible outcomes. Very complex outcomes that are hard to predict.
A really good aggro card that was printed at r/g r/g instead of rr would just fold into RUG Delver. Think about it. Volcanic Island, Tropical Island, win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulabnar
How did you misinterpret my post? I clearly did not say banning terminus would increase aggro decks by 10%. I said terminus is played in 10% of decks and alluded to how potent the card is vs aggro. Not understanding what people are saying could be misinterpreted as dishonesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I'm just stepping in to say that adding or removing a single card from the format, EVEN IF it only effects one deck on the surface, will never have a simple outcome. There are too many moving parts in the game to consider ANYTHING a simple outcome (deck construction, established meta, theoretical changes to what the decks to beat are, behavior of the players themselves, cards that already exist but have not had their time to shine, cards that are already set to be printed it future sets that will benefit greatly due to possible changes, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by MGB
Also, is the lack of other control decks the fault of Miracles being that good? Or is it that the rest of the current Tier1 decks are that good and Miracles is the only control deck that can reasonably keep pace with them?
Or it could just be that it's the most popular and thus had the most representation.
Miracles tends to top other control lists. It's a turn faster at getting setup than most control lists and it's really hard to win through the creature removal if you're playing just a few high impact creatures, even if they're hard to interact with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watersaw
I don't think other control lists have declined because they're not as good at managing the metagame. I think they've declined because they're not as good at managing the metagame AND they tend to have problems beating Miracles.
One of the things about Miracles that goes largely unrecognized is that it's a combo and control list. SDT/CB, SDT/Entreat, SDT/Terminus, then the Legends builds with Karakas/Vendilion Clique and Karakas/Venser. That's two card combos winning many of the games that Miracles wins. Jace is mostly responsible for the rest.
There are a billion ways to design aggro cards that wouldn't work in RUG.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolofaTook
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolofaTook
You realize this is just patently false, right? Other control decks, especially other control decks that don't run 8+ cards that are dead game 1, tend to have even-to-favorable matchups against Miracles. The 4-TNN BUG Control deck that had success on the SCG circuit last spring had a fantastic Miracles matchup. Ur Landstill during the Treasure Cruise era had a comically favorable Matchup against Miracles. The Grixis Landstill deck in the New & Developing forum's game against Miracles is almost as good as Ur's was. Grixis Pyromancer Control has the worst Miracles matchup of any of the decks I've named, and even there Miracles is even at best. The big thing that Miracles has working to its advantage as the only major pure control archetype is that there's little reason not to play Terminus and Entreat once you're running CounterTop, and CounterTop is the only way that pure control can reliably beat combo.
I hear you, mate. You are coming at this from the angle of "Miracles must go." I keep telling you that I don't see why. I'm pretty sure that getting rid of Top would simply end the deck rather than knocking it down a peg. But your reasons as stated in this quote are extremely flimsy. It looks as though you just don't like the deck because it beats you or edges out your favorite pet deck or something. I dunno. Maybe you might want to state them clearly for us. But really Miracles is not doing anything oppressive. Just being the best is not a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by MGB
Also, it is not as if there are other pure (nearly pure, Foolofatook - nothing is pure in the brothel that is Legacy) control decks waiting in the wings. There has not been another viable pure control deck since 2005 or something like that. Years ago, we all wanted there to be some way that such a deck could exist in such a fast and varied environment as Legacy. The idea that we have one, and that there is now this witch hunt to bring it down is pretty crazy in the grand scheme of things. As best decks go, it is very mild.
You: Miracles is a problem and must go. I say we take Top.
Me: If you are going to ban something, take the actual culprit; Brainstorm.
So, you can see that I disagree with where you are coming from, so our views on which card to get rid of are going to be different as a result. I don't think you can just ban Brainstorm, but I am quite certain that it is the boogeyman of the format. If you did though, Miracles would be amongst the first decks to completely fall apart due to the number of dead cards you would routinely have in your opening 7. Bring on the complex outcomes.
Then it's good, that I NEVER talked about why Recruiter was BANNED but why I SUSPECT it wasn't UNBANNED in the meanwhile. Reading is techQuote:
Originally Posted by M+1
Funny how there seems to be a consensus about that Miracle is the only control deck, while it's not even the most played nor the most sucessful.
I will be sad if miracle disappears (not because it's my petdeck, I play mostly elves), it is a deck which as an original gameplay and which brings interesting plays from both sides of the table in most MUs.
Also I feel like there is as much differences between ponder miracle and legends miracle than between UR delver and RUG delver or BUG delver.
Except Miracles has been THE top control deck since ages and is a top contender of the format, quite often being THE best performing deck of the month.Quote:
Originally Posted by dte
And that doesn't even include MODO where it has an iron grip on the format.
I think miracles just need an errata. They shouldn't let you miracles a sorcery card on an opponent's turn.
exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by LOLWut
"If you contorl an island when this come into play sacrifice it"
gg
Except they wouldn't print it because it would be "inelegant design" or whatever Maro would call it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulabnar
Also you could make it cost 3 more if you control island, it could be a mechanic, and is pure speculationQuote:
Originally Posted by Barook
just to say that wiz can print aggro cards not blue base deck fitting if they want with just a simple mechanic
This is probably true but giving them a split cost of non-blue is not one of those ways. If it was Abrupt Decay wouldn't have folded into BUG like a bug in a rug.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOLWut
The obvious design type would be a more extreme adaptation of one they already used with Sea Drake. Give the spell or creature a "When %t is played sacrifice 2 fetchlands. When %t enters the battlefield sacrifice 2 Islands." That would *probably* keep it out of the blue shell.
Just as a side note my BUG Control list beat Dredge, ANT, Burn and Enchantress last night and lost to Miracles *again*. I've played variants of this list since Treasure Cruise was banned and it beats the living crap out of just about everything it faces but loses to Miracles every time I play it.
Let's examine this more closely. Here are the stats for Miracles matches at major events post TC ban:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Top contender my ass!Quote:
Miracles vs:
Burn: 9-0
Death and Taxes: 21-18-4
Deathblade: 8-6-2
Dredge: 3-4-1
Elves: 18-6-2
Grixis Control: 6-9-1
Infect: 8-9
Jeskai Delver: 3-4-1
Jeskai Stoneblade: 5-9-1
Maverick: 7-2
Mirror: 31-31-14
MUD: 1-3
Omnitell: 11-5
Reanimator: 7-7-3
RG Lands: 5-10-4
Shardless Sultai: 8-15-3
Sneak and Show: 5-8-1
Storm: 16-12-10
Sultai Delver: 20-24-4
Temur Delver: 13-17-3
Twelvepost: 6-6
Other: 95-79-13
Overall non-mirror: 256-230-50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGB
Fortunately I've brought stats on Miracles vs other control decks (including control-ish midrange decks):Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolofaTook
- vs Grixis Control: 6-9-1
- vs RG Lands: 5-10-4
- vs MUD: 1-3
- vs Shardless Sultai: 8-15-3
- vs Deathblade: 8-6-2
- vs Death and Taxes: 21-18-4
Apparently Miracles is bad against most of these decks, and hardly crippling against the others! The suggestion that Miracles is keeping other control decks down is baseless and false. The biggest factor keeping other control decks down is the $800.00 price tag on Tabernacle.
Get out of here with your arguments backed by facts, miracles is opressing us all and should be banned out of existance without hurting our own blue decksQuote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
/s