[Premium Article] CounterTop Depths in Legacy

[Jeff Kruchkow]

It is to me. The information is that the AdN players sucked. ANT Shouldn't lose to Merfolk.

I would argue this point. Sure folk doesnt have CB+Top, but it does have stifle+waste backed up with FoW, daze and a relatively fast clock. Not exactly the dream matchup for storm combo.

[Maveric78f]

Sure folk doesnt have CB+Top, but it does have stifle+waste backed up with FoW, daze and a relatively fast clock.

This is neither new nor interesting information.

I love this game.

[Rico Suave]

It is to me. The information is that the AdN players sucked. ANT Shouldn't lose to Merfolk.

Merfolk have traditionally been stellar against combo for over a decade now.

Very little has changed except the names of the cards.

[deadlock]

2. The list put up looks a lot like EPIC Painter/NL Painter but I guess all the lists start looking the same when we use the same shell. Having worked a lot in the painter category I can tell you that not having any creature removal was AWFUL after a while. This combo can come online by turn 3 at the fastest just like painter, and instead of artifact hate and all creature removal, gets owned by stifle, wasteland and creature removal. Albeit, wasteland is only relevant if you have played the comboey land before the hexmage.

Interesting that you say that, my impression was that not needing dedicated creature removal is one of the evolutionary steps of the 'combo-control' decks like Dreadstill, Autumn Painter (great looking deck btw!) and now this CB-Depths.

Many have expressed their view on CB-decks in general and how much hate it has to handle, based on this - do you still think 4 CB is the right number or maybe its time to go down to 3 CB maindeck?

[jazzykat]

Interesting that you say that, my impression was that not needing dedicated creature removal is one of the evolutionary steps of the 'combo-control' decks like Dreadstill, Autumn Painter (great looking deck btw!) and now this CB-Depths.

Many have expressed their view on CB-decks in general and how much hate it has to handle, based on this - do you still think 4 CB is the right number or maybe its time to go down to 3 CB maindeck?

Assuming this question was adressed at me:

Regarding no MD removal, you can see how most of these hybrid decks have been placing lately (i.e. out of the top 8). I think it is necessary to have removal because Quali Pridemage single handedly owns painter/grind and dreadnaughts while providing a decent clock and outclassing your goyfs with theirs.

Regarding # of CB's, I still feel that 4 is the right number. I can't think of an opening hand where I don't want it. Having an extra one is moot because if you've stuck a CB then you are well on your way to victory.

[Maveric78f]

If you adopt a game plan based on the countertop softlock, then the best answer to hate is more countertops (or a transformationnal side).

[deadlock]

Regarding # of CB's, I still feel that 4 is the right number. I can't think of an opening hand where I don't want it. Having an extra one is moot because if you've stuck a CB then you are well on your way to victory.

If you adopt a game plan based on the countertop softlock, then the best answer to hate is more countertops (or a transformationnal side).

While this is true against decks, were CB is devastating - keep in mind that sometimes you will face a deck, were CB can potentially (soft)lock them out, but in many cases its either too slow or gets neutralized.
I am thinking of the Merfolk matchup here, were having SOME CB's is still good, but i wouldnt rely on it, because of there speed and Vial.

[Jim Higginbottom]

I took 34th in philly with TES...I think half of my opponents that day ran countertop either in a traditional NLU or via dreadstill (which I beat even though I think the odds are stacked against me at like 80%).

[SpencerForHire]

While this is true against decks, were CB is devastating - keep in mind that sometimes you will face a deck, where CB can potentially (soft)lock them out, but in many cases its either too slow or gets neutralized.
I am thinking of the Merfolk matchup here, where having SOME CB's is still good, but i wouldnt rely on it, because of their speed and Vial.

I feel that three is a pretty solid amount as you ever want to see multiples unless your first copy was destroyed/countered. However, your count in a match such as Merfolk isn't going to be what make or breaks you and having extra in that matchup means you don't have to think twice about pitching one to Force of Will with the concern in mind that you may not see another one soon enough. I would also say that the weakness of CB in that matchup is not the speed of the opposing deck but their ability to play around it with Aether Vial combined with the large amount of three drops which Counter/Top strategies struggle to deal with in general due to their own curve.

[hi-val]

Your point is valid. However, soliciting an argument and citing with a pay-to-use source is probably not going to be effective. Do you at least see how this is the case?

So this is tangential at best, but a lot of academic discourse relies on access to huge libraries or expensive databases to engage in a discussion. In law school, we need Lexis or West, which is thousands of dollars a month, and in my girlfriend's library science program, she needs lots of expensive and pretentious journals. So citing pay-to-access information isn't unprecedented, but not typical in an internet discussion : )

/JSTOR is for amateurs

[TorpidNinja]

/JSTOR is for amateurs

Ouch; or for universities with a messed up budget. Le sigh.

[frogboy]

So this is tangential at best, but a lot of academic discourse relies on access to huge libraries or expensive databases to engage in a discussion. In law school, we need Lexis or West, which is thousands of dollars a month, and in my girlfriend's library science program, she needs lots of expensive and pretentious journals. So citing pay-to-access information isn't unprecedented, but not typical in an internet discussion : )

/JSTOR is for amateurs

Sure, but I don't cite NBER papers when talking about the stimulus package online. Just think about your audience.

[from Cairo]

I took 34th in philly with TES...I think half of my opponents that day ran countertop either in a traditional NLU or via dreadstill (which I beat even though I think the odds are stacked against me at like 80%).

Zoo definitely hadn't reached a saturation point in that earlier event. The metagame shifts that have attacked Dreadstill's viability took some time to develop. The wheels of Legacy turn faster than those of Vintage, but they're still slow compared to Block/Standard/Extended.

Yeah and then Combo will pray on Zoo until it dies back down, and then CB Top strategies will gain strength again. I think I've heard this before...

This all sort of ties into the meta shifting discussion. I don't think the format will see a huge shift to Combo to combat Zoo. There seems to be a disproportionate amount of players that just don't touch Storm Combo even when it is favored against the field.

Also based on my experience, for every 1 combo player that can battle through a field of Counter/Top hate there's a dozen that will punt easy agro match ups. Some of it I guess is just learning to master the deck and the lines of play and what hands are workable, etc.

[Bardo]

For example, suppose we aren't talking about magic, but debating some point of law, social science, or scientific fact. I might cite a law review article or research journal, yet those articles might only be accessible if you have access to a database that require a user fee or a subscription.

I respect this analogy, except to point out the obvious: we're discussing the Legacy metagame--a fairly unpopular format of a collectible trading card game, not the legal nuances of personal protections afforded by the 4th Amendment and email. There, subscription to a paid content service provider wouldn't be as unreasonable. Still, if your sentiment is honest (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), I appreciate the comparison.

I suppose what bugs me is this: in academic discourse, people highlight the research of others to make a point. From what I can tell, your article links are entirely self-referential. That's what I meant by "obnoxious debating technique." I certainly wouldn't have used that phrase if you were pointing to the original research of others.

[Smmenen]

I respect this analogy, except to point out the obvious: we're discussing the Legacy metagame--a fairly unpopular format of a collectible trading card game, not the legal nuances of personal protections afforded by the 4th Amendment and email. There, subscription to a paid content service provider wouldn't be as unreasonable. Still, if your sentiment is honest (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), I appreciate the comparison.

I suppose what bugs me is this: in academic discourse, people highlight the research of others to make a point. From what I can tell, your article links are entirely self-referential. That's what I meant by "obnoxious debating technique." I certainly wouldn't have used that phrase if you were pointing to the original research of others.

One of the fun things I do for SCG is write bimonthly metagame reports on Vintage for SCG. I aggregate all of the tournament results from the two month period. I look at what the most winning decklists are, and I breakdown all of the decklists by engine. I graph the distribution of decks in the metagame, and the trend lines for both archetypes and engine over time.

This data is hugely valuable for understanding the health of the Vintage metagame. So probably one of the best examples where I tend to reference my own articles is in the context of Vintage banned and restricted list debates on the Mana Drain. If you ever see such a thread, you'll see numerous links to articles I've written.

But the reason is obv: that's where all of the data is. People have alot of misconceptions about what's dominating, and what's not. I can point to my articles to prove or disprove lots of those claims. I can also make a simple graphical case for restriction by showing that something is dominating.

Back in the day, Phil Stanton used to do those articles. A few years ago, I'd just link folks to his articles. But he quit writing, and I took up the job.

The reason I'm linking my articles is because my articles is where the information is. In this case, SCG is providing me with lots of tournament data from the SCG Legacy $5k. So, of course, I'm referencing my own articles in this case as well. But if someone else were doing it, then I'd like those articles, whether they were premium or not.

Some folks are into fantasy football or baseball. Alot of the improtant statistics are easily available on espn.com or SI.com. However, there are pay subscriptions that have a bunch of detailed analysis for fantasy enthusiasts. If I were trying to prove some statistical or other claim about something related to it, I'd link to the article or the fact, whether it was free or not.

SCG is giving me tons of data about the Legacy $5k. They are sending me all of the decklists and matchup results from each of the tournaments. For the first two $5k, I just data mined to look at top 16 penetration, and as I just graphed earlier in this thread, the clustering/distribution of these archetypes throughout the field.

But we're taking it a step further. SCG gave me a full matchup results spreadsheet, so I've created a massive grid showing the results of every matchup in the field. I'll be publishing that grid, and what I think it tells us, a week from Monday. Now, the article, of course, will be premium. But it will be hugely valuable to folks as they try to make sense of the Legacy metagame. I'll probably be linking to it alot to evaluate alot of claims that people make about matchups and the format.

On the whole premium thing, it's important to remember that premium subscriptions is what makes this sort of information available in the first place. I enjoy writing about Magic, but it takes alot of time. Given my busy schedule, I'd probably be writing 3-5 articles a year if it weren't for premium. And that's not just true of me. Premium means alot more content/analysis out there. Having premium has hopefully brought alot of additional attention to Legacy, and it has definitely done that for Vintage. I've got alot of Legacy content coming up, including a checklist that I'm publishing Monday.

[Smmenen]

I took 34th in philly with TES...I think half of my opponents that day ran countertop either in a traditional NLU or via dreadstill (which I beat even though I think the odds are stacked against me at like 80%).

Your matchups:

Round 1: CounterTop-Goyf. You lost 0-2.
Round 2: CounterTop-Goyf. You won 2-1.
Round 3: Canadian Threshold. You lost 1-2.
Round 4: Zoo. You won 2-1
Round 5: Elves. You won 2-0
Round 6: CounterTop-Goyf. You lost 1-2
Round 7: Dreadstill. You won 2-0.
Round 8: Ad Nauseam Mirror. You won 2-0.

You were the only Ad Nauseam player to win a match against CounterTop-Goyf. Congrats there!

Ad Nauseam is a rough deckchoice!

[deadlock]

4 Sensei's Divining Top
4 Counterbalance

4 Dark Confidant
4 Tarmogoyf
2 Vendilion Clique

4 Vampire Hexmage
4 Dark Depths

4 Brainstorm
4 Daze
4 Force Of Will
4 Ponder

1 Island
1 Swamp
1 Flooded Strand
1 Misty Rainforest
4 Polluted Delta
2 Scalding Tarn
3 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
1 Urborg, Tomb Of Yawgmoth


SB: 2 Threads Of Disloyalty
SB: 4 Blue Elemental Blast
SB: 2 Extirpate
SB: 1 Hydroblast
SB: 2 Krosan Grip
SB: 4 Ravenous Trap

Smmenen I am aware that my question might be answered in the article, so feel free to ignore it:
While designing the deck, did you thought about just going BU? Both BB and UU are already tough to get, removing green would make it a little easier.

Instead of Goyf, 3 Tombstalker could be added to the deck as they serve a similiar role. With less pressure on the manabase, a couple of Wastelands could be added and more Urborgs. Wasteland and Stifle both protect the combo and can randomly screw out opponents.

Something like:
// Lands
2 [PLC] Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
2 [ZEN] Island (7)
3 [TE] Wasteland
4 [ON] Flooded Strand
4 [ON] Polluted Delta
4 [B] Underground Sea
3 [CS] Dark Depths

// Creatures
4 [ZEN] Vampire Hexmage
3 [FUT] Tombstalker
4 [RAV] Dark Confidant

// Spells
3 [CHK] Sensei's Divining Top
3 [CS] Counterbalance
3 [M10] Ponder
3 [LRW] Thoughtseize
4 [IA] Brainstorm
3 [SC] Stifle
4 [AL] Force of Will
4 [NE] Daze

The slight mana denial plan makes Daze stronger and enables Spell Pierce from the board, which somewhat negates the lack of green for Grip.
Alternativly remove Stifle and Waste and either add Spell Snares or max out CB/Top + more manabase consistency, the deck would lose some agility though

[Smmenen]

That's a good question.

I considered UB, at first, but here was the deciding factor: from my experience in Magic generally, I really appreciate how powerful hybrid decks are. The less linear you are, the more resilient you tend to be.

I really didn't want this deck to be focused on comboing with Dark Depths. I wanted it to have as many paths to victory as possible, and I felt that Goyf provided a number of huge advantages:

First, it is an excellent win condition.

Secondly, By using Goyf, you actually force opponents to deal with that game plan, which has indirect benefit of 1) making it Easier to combo out with Dark Depths (since your opponent's resources will be tied up in dealing with Goyf), and 2) far more lethal when you do (for the same reason).

Third, the costs of using goyf are minimal.

I looked at Depths not as an additional mana source, but as a spell that I hold in my hand until I want to use it. For that reason, DD has no additional pressure on the mana base. Which means that a green splash imposed no further demands on my mana base than U/B. You can maybe run a basic or two more, but likely not. Because if you don't play green, then you probably play 2 Urborg, if not 3.

I like your suggestion, which is a legitimate direction to go, almost Team Americaish. But I wanted to deemphasize the Dark Depths combo so that, ironically, it would become more powerful.

That's one of the problems I think many of the earlier posters who didn't have premium struggled with. They think: DD combo! Why not build your deck more centrally around it! That's too linear for this format.

[BreathWeapon]

The problem tho' is Tarmogoyf isn't really a game plan any more because it's every one's game plan, if you're not running removal or your not running Qasali Pridemage/Grim Lavamancer etc. he's kind of just a wall. Something like Tombstalker however is going to go the distance, just because there's nothing else that's going to stop him - you need an asymetrical threat. That said, it's hard to argue against Goyfs inclusion in anything, but I don't think unassisted Goyf is really a plan B. I've probably ended more games with Living Wish -> Tombstalker than I have with Goyf lately.

[Rico Suave]

Except Tombstalker isn't a 2nd turn play like Tarmogoyf.