Printable View
I was just watching/listening to the coverage of the SCG open tonight. During the finals, and possibly before, Evan Erwin was calling for the banning of Survival of the Fittest. Personally, I think he is overreacting and the metagame hasn't adjusted for it yet.
Anyone else have thoughts on the topic?
a resolved survival pretty much means gg right?
The UG Madness deck is very good, as it is very fast. But, with proper sideboarding and deck construction, it can be thwarted. It is a graveyard based deck, as we know, there's a piece of hate or two for that.
I think if it still dominates the meta to a point where nothing can compete, then I think they need to ban (if they feel they have to ban something) a card, then ban Vengevine.
Survival isn't broken without Vengevine, and allows for many other strategies in the format. Bant Survival, RGBSA, and many other builds aren't as fast as Vengevine Survival.
In essence, don't ban Survival if a banning needs to happen. Don't take out 10+ deck with one swoop, take out 1.
-Matt
I agree, but lets be honest they are not going to ban a card they just printed. I was chatting with a friend and we both agree that survival seems better then reanimator or Ant ever was.
This is basically it, but Wizards would most likely ban Survival anyway because it's a "combo engine" that "can't be used fairly" and "crushes scrubs in the MTGO casual room."Quote:
Originally Posted by sdematt
The other issue is that Vengevine Survival decks don't really care about graveyard hate. If you don't hate the yard, they Fireball you with Vengevines; if you do hate the yard, they use Survival to turn low-end guys into high-end guys and beat you down normally. The only way to effectively hate the deck is to hate Survival.
EDIT:
No, it's just more difficult to hate correctly while being more flexible and forgiving than either of those decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlopeeJ
they have banned cards they just printed before. In fact they have pre-emptively banned one card before its official release date if memory serves.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlopeeJ
Any time a new thing happens people call for bannings. This will just shift the meta a little bit. Cards that will see more play:
1. Pithing Needle. People will realize that, hey, Pithing Needle is amazing, to the point of being maindeckable in a world where every deck ever packs some combination of Survival, Vial, Fetchlands, Wasteland, Top, Belcher, Knight of the Reliquary, etc.
2. Ethersworn Canonist. Stops Vengevine combo cold. This will only last until people start packing a single Memnite, but for the moment it works.
3. Peacekeeper. Apparently.
4. Spell Pierce/Spell Snare. Yes, I'm actually calling Spell Pierce underrun. Snare's solid as ever, too.
5. Nature's Claim and Revoke Existence. Nature's Claim -might- be better than Krosan Grip in modern Legacy. Revoke Existence is white's neato cousin.
There's probably plenty more, too.
EDIT: Also, props to my boy Mike Fyrberg for Top 8'ing. Seems like somebody from our crew does it every time there's one down here.
This is probably true. I believe one of main things that people were saying about the banning of mystical tutor was that those decks weren't really dominating the top 8s while Survival has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
I'm not sure I agree 100% it needs banning, but banning the vengevines would be better. And Aggro Zombie is right, if you stop the yard they just win with 4/3 haste for 4 mana. It pretty much is they resolve survial or lose. Also with surival you can get a pretty constant turn 4 Iona/Emrakul
Unless the Loyal Retainer is in play at the exact time you survival up an Emrakul... you are not getting a turn 4 Emrakul. So I wouldn't say that is consistant at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlopeeJ
On the other hand a Turn 4 Iona off the back of Survival is definitely consistent.
As for adding Vengevine or Survival to the Banned List, I am not personally convinced that the deck is all that broken. There are so many ways to stop the combo, Qasali Pridemage, Pithing Needle, Krosan Grip, any Creature Removal (for the creatures that enable the combo), and well the list just goes on. And most decks pack at least one or two different options for stopping the combo. So it really shouldn't be that problematic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdematt
Even with GY hate, it's hard to beat the deck. They can simply transform into NO Pro and steam roll you after you mull into GY hate post board. The deck just wrecks you either way.
I know banning SotF will hurt even players with different builds but Venge-Sur is the most consistent and broken, there's no reason not to play it.
Besides, Survival is highly non-interactive. Casting it and dealing 16+ damage the same turn without any drawback seems so unfair.
I agree if they were to ban a card they shouldn't ban survival they should ban the vengevine; old school survival advantage is not broken by any means. Or any aggro control list of survival for that matter. Vengevine survival is ridiculously good but not unbeatable by any means. There is plenty of hate for it in the current format namely pithing needle naming survival is great. Also, if mystical tutor got unbanned, I'm pretty sure vengevine survival couldn't compete with ANT. ANT beats VV survival cold with mystical tutor.
.Quote:
Unless the Loyal Retainer is in play at the exact time you survival up an Emrakul... you are not getting a turn 4 Emrakul. So I wouldn't say that is consistant at all.
On the other hand a Turn 4 Iona off the back of Survival is definitely consistent
ah yea exactly. survival the retainer on turn 3.... Caste on turn 4 with your one mana then survival for Iona/Emrakul.... Seems pretty good, esp one turn earlier with Noble Hierarch.
No one is saying there isn't answers to an enchantment with an activated ability, this is Legacy there are answers to everything. Listing the answers doesn't really say much and doesn't prove that a card is or isn't broken, esp saying you need 4 swords in hand to beat the 16 damage coming at you.
There are answers to Jesus Christ it's a lion
I don't think anything needs banning. However, if things do get out of hand, then like others have said, Survival isn't the problem, Vengevine is.
Answering a Vengevine deck is easy enough to do. What you have to be able to do is answer it before it goes off.
To that end you also need to be able to answer its transformational sideboard, for which there are now plenty of good answers to that as well.
Has Survival of the Fittest ever been a problem for the Legacy metagame before this deck? In short, no. It has been used in a variety of decks and archetypes, none ever coming close to Goblins in prevalence.
Is vengevival so good that it can't be sideboarded against? In short, no. Above-mentioned options are completely relevant and valid ways to take care of vengevival.
I agree with Aggro-Zombies in that the only real reason for banning the card is Wizards' preoccupation of making the format more "fun" for those who aren't ready to play the streamlined and efficient game that is competitive legacy. However, I don't think this would happen until Vengevine rotates out of Standard because Wizards finally has a valid way to pump Legacy players for actual profit (in the form of booster packs). Once Wizards reaches their return on investment they might ban the card that makes them no money over the card that does make them money (even though one breaks the deck and another does not).
To the player referencing the Memory Jar preemptive banning. That was done in an entirely different context than the proposed banning of Survival of the fittest.
And, as a humorous note to myself: I think it would be funny if a card named "Survival of the Fittest" was banned because it is too strong.
Tacosnape said everything, play Pithing Needle. Please don't ban Survival, banning Vengevine seems better.
I am fully aware that there are different contexts for each banning Wizards has ever done. The recent banning of Mystical Tutor should make that extremely apparent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubiquitous Druid
HOWEVER, my statement with regard to the memory jar pre-emptive banning was in response to someone who claimed that Wizards would NOT ban Vengevine because it is a brand new card and still in standard. In otherwords I was attempting to point out that along with the Affinity Deck's primary cards that have been banned both in Standard, Extended, AND Block Formats during its time in each of those formats Memory Jar was also banned not only when it was brand new, but prior to its existence in any format.
I was just pointing out that Wizards apparently has no objection to banning a card regardless of its age.
If Venge-Sur is still not "out of hand" yet, and "easy to handle" even post board like you guys suggested, with all the tech you mentioned against it, then why did it just topped 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 12th in a 200+ attendance tourney? Outperforming heavy control decks (Counterbalance, Landstill), pure aggro (Goblins, Zoo) and combo (AnT).
edit: The deck has been highly anticipated ever since it's debut in GP Columbus, so it's safe to say it did not "flew under the radar" and people came prepared for it. Not surprisingly, Dredge another GY-deck is nowhere in the Top 15.
re:
Pithing Needle, Qasali, Nature's Claim >> Daze, FoW
E. Cannonist >> Shield Sphere, Memnite
all others >> Natural Order, Progenitus
I agree with you on all the facts, just merely the interpretation. Memory Jar's banning was a one-time, unique event in Magic and a response to Wizards actually saying: "we done fucked up." Affinity in Standard and the un-errated Flash might be a better analogy from which to draw. Both the aforementioned were severely warping a given format by making all other archetypes essentially unplayable. Vengevival is doing no such thing, regardless of its age. I just found Memory Jar a poor analogy with those considerations.Quote:
Originally Posted by DalkonCledwin
fair enough, I was just making a straight mention of the facts with regards to them banning cards that are new or pre-new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubiquitous Druid
You could play Jar for a few weeks, it was "just" emergency banned. :)
I can think of a few reasons it out performed both Dreadstill and Landstill. For one thing it tends to be faster than either of those decks (especially landstill). There are a few other reasons that probably contributed there, but most of them are hypothetical and I prefer not to be hypothetical. As for Goblins and Zoo, it depends on if those two types of decks were really built to handle Vengevival or not. Goblins most of all of the two I can think of not being built to handle it as it is especially dependant on its color base. As far as ANT goes, that depends, is SCG's still classifying all storm decks as Ad Nauseam Tendril even if they aren't? Because not all storm decks are built to handle Vengevival or even capable of being built to handle it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadweight
Ah, I was under the impression that it had been banned prior to it's actual release, but just read the article about the actual banning which says it was indeed an emergency ban. Thanks for keeping me informed :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Grollub
Out of curiosity (not being inflammatory, I just don't know), which event are you referring and what percentages of control archetypes were actually present?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadweight
Playing Landstill I have 10 maindeck answers to Survival on the play or draw in the form of:
4 Force of Will
3 Spell Pierce
3 Spell Snare
and 4 Sideboard slots devoted to Extirpate. Sometimes I also run Stifle depending on the metagame.
Deeds and EE clear the bears they play, and I can usually survive long enough to get them. Sure, they got Force, Daze, etc., but they still have to have a pretty nuts hand to have answers and combo pieces to reliably do everything they want on turn 2 and 3 through as much hate as I pack. Sometimes when ANT has the same kind of luck, I can't stop it. Otherwise, it hasn't posed me that much trouble in my testing. I just think people are overreacting to a new and good deck.
He is talkiing about Star City Games' Open Series in Nashville. And unfortunately we won't know the percentages of the decks in the field at that event until the Too Much Information Article for that event is published (at least not unless we were a judge or T.O. at the event). What we do know is the top-16 decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubiquitous Druid
The card that was banned before its release was mind's desire when legacy didn't exist because the banned lists hadn't been split yet simply because chaining 1 mind's desire into another mind's desire basically meant GOOD GAME SIR.
Vengevine got 4 places in the top 16 because the deck is heavily played. Statistically speaking, if more people play a deck then that deck has a higher chance of getting X spots in a top 16 especially if the deck can compete with every other deck in the format. Of course vengevival blows countertop out of the water; turn 2 counterbalance is nothing compared to a turn 2 survival of the fittest turn 3 2 4/3's swinging. Counterbalance is a completely fair card whereas survival of the fittest is an engine card that when active greatly exceeds counterbalance's power.
The meta will adapt and madness survival will not be OMG LOOK AT THE VENGEVINE'S OMG CAN'T STOP IT PLEASE KILL ME NOW~!~!~!~!~!~!!!!!!!!!!!~! after a few months on the legacy scene the meta will shift to accomodate the deck. I don't believe any card in the madness survival deck needs to be banned.
I like the confidence you have in Landstill, but you need a hand with an awful-lot of permission spells to handle SotF, Wild Mongrel, Aquamoeba, Jitte, and Natural Order. Not to mention they have their own counterpells in their arsenal also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubiquitous Druid
Thanks for clarifying. I would like to know what decks the Vengevival decks went up against (whether it was unequivocally the best deck or if it benefited from a meta that was ill-prepared or underestimated it). Obviously Zoo, Gobos, and other tribal are a good matchup. Storm-combo.dec and dedicated control probably not so great. Just wondered what people were actually playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DalkonCledwin
not every Vengevival deck runs counterspells. The deck that won the Star City Games Open today was a Green and White Vengevival deck that didn't to my knowledge use a single counterspell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadweight
My point is they must have at least 1-2 threats, 1-2 combo pieces, 1-2 protection AND the land/resources to cast them in hand to start. Use permission on the combo pieces and protection and let inconsequential stuff like underwhelming bears resolve. Eventually, I'll find the sweeper I need with a Wild Mongrel or Aquamoeba clock that this deck imposes. As long as you can keep the survival and/or the vines off the table you can be good. In my testing, I've had enough permission to accomplish that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadweight
The top-16 decks were as follows:
1st: GW Vengevival
2nd: GU Vengevival
3rd: Retainer Survival
4th: Canadian Threshold
5th: UW Countertop
6th: GWB Rock
7th: Ooze Vengevival
8th: BUG Landstill
9th: Stiflenaught
10th: 4c Landstill
11th: Ad Nauseam Storm (can't think of what else to call it)
12th: Retainer Survival
13th: a variation of Eva Green
14th: BR Goblins
15th: Mono-Red Goblins
16th: Dredge
Quote:
Originally Posted by DalkonCledwin
That actually doesn't seem unbalanced to me at all. There are Mid-range, control, and combo decks all represented in the top 16. Sure, there are more survival decks than any other but that seems to always rotate on any given big tournament. Alot of it might depend on each players matchup or the quality of the players playing a given archetype. The only conspicuous absence is Zoo (which folds to vengevival and leads me to believe many people were playing it).
The issue here is that Survival could do all of this shit before. Survival builds pre-Columbus could use Natural Order in the sideboard if they wanted, or combo out an Iona or Emrakul if they wanted, etc. The only difference between then and now is the addition of Vengevines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadweight
The issue with Vengevine is that it gives Survival a Fireball. That allows Survival to close out games that it otherwise might not have won, using its namesake card. This is in addition to the usual bag of tricks Survival decks pack; you can run Vengevines as just one more package alongside your normal bullets and core creatures.
That's the reason graveyard hate doesn't affect Vengevine Survival decks: Vengevine is "just" one of several plans. Even something like Extirpate to nab all the Vengevines at once doesn't answer the standard beatdown plan, or any other special package the deck might be running. Furthermore, Pithing Needle, Tormod's Crypt, and Relic of Progenitus suffer from the "dies to maindeck Trygon Predator" syndrome against the Madness builds. Predator is actually really damn hot right now against all of the big decks.
Banning Survival will wipe out a fairly unique portion of the metagame. Banning Vengevine just makes Survival another Tier II option again.
True. But "retainer" and "welder" versions are equally non-interactive and annoying as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
Some thoughts after having played a ton of games with GW Survival and UG Madness:
Survival can't be hated effectively because if you board too much hate for it, then you will just get beaten down by giant dorks while you sit with your useless hate cards in hand/play, and if you don't board enough hate, then you will just lose to Survival. In addition to that, most "hate" cards are pretty weak/easy to deal with. If the Survival player is smart, Pridemage/Grip/Explosives will never matter since he can just play the enchantment when it is possible to get a few activations out of it before it gets destroyed, and those few activations will often be enough to end the game. Survival decks also play their own Pridemages and Krosan Grips, so any permanent-based hate can easily get blown up. Extirpate is a good hate card, but you need to have it in hand and have B open in order not to die, and even if you remove the Vengevines, you still have to deal with the fact that SotF is now "turn every creature into Goyf/KotR". The standard UG Madness list obviously has issues against cards like Peacekeeper, but it can easily make changes that will deal with those kinds of cards. As many have said, Vengevine is the problem. If it wasn't for Vengevine, you could just blow up the SotF and you would be back in the game, but as it is, you cannot allow the opponent th pour any green mana into the enchantment before you destroy it, otherwise you will be in a lot of trouble.
The deck (GW Surv) really only has 1 bad matchup: Storm combo. You might think the deck would have problems against pure control, but this isn't really the case. It's too hard for control decks to keep the board clean of troublesome creatures, avoid getting screwed too hard by Wastelands and at the same time also keep up counterspells for SotF. Hardcasted Vengevines are also hard to deal with since they need to be plowed, otherwise they will just keep coming back. Karakas and KotR make the Emrakul combo decks a near bye, and aggro is generally easy because you have a crazy combo and your creatures on their own are just so much better than theirs.
Survival is like the new ANT of the format, except Survival actually puts more than 1 person in the Top8, is infinitely easier to play and has a very solid backup plan in addition to its main combo. I don't really care if it gets banned or not, but I voted for it in the "most bannable card" thread, and I still think it is. (Technically speaking, it's Vengevine that is the most bannable card, though)
Yeah, I laugh whenever an Extirpater gets killed by Flying mongrels and Rootwallas. It seriously happens way too often!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies
Yes, but they aren't as oppressively good as Vengevine Survival decks, and weren't so even before Vengevine was printed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadweight
This is why Extirpate is a bad card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonius
I wouldn't mind Vengevine being banned. I think survival should stay unbanned though, as it adds diversity to the format.
IMO survival is NOT broken. I play survival myself and its pretty easy to hate. Grips from the board are in almost everydeck. Spellpierce/spellsnare are also everywhere. The combo also takes up alot of slots and you have to DRAW survival + resolve it + squeeze a few activations out of it. The reason why its appearing in such large numbers is that is is cheap to build (relatively) and most importantly FUN to play as well as being relatively simple to pilot. There is a fledgling legacy community where I play and everybody wants to build some form of vengevine survival. The idea of 16+ damage from vengevine in one turn is such an alluring one.
The concept is simple, it seems fun, people love tutoring, people love creatures. For people who have played it/played against it, we know exactly how balanced the card is, but for everyone else they just want to do something broken (which legacy is famous for) that they understand. Storm combo/dredge are complicated decks that take alot to master. Most people are puzzled/baffled/intimidated by these more complicated combo decks due to the many interactions they have to learn. Vengevine survival seems like a "safe" combo deck with force of wills, creatures and all around good investment cards like tropical islands etc. My 2 cents.
even hard casted vengevines are annoying. 4 hasted damage for 4cc is the fastest slow-roll strategy I can think of.
The answer is obvious, unban mystical. Turn 2 Iona seems more fair now that vengevine and survival have been paired effectively.