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...