I noticed that no one had posted this. We haven't had an Unlocking Legacy in a while, so some of you might have missed this.
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...nstraints.html
Whether it be buildings, software, Magic decks, or anything else, to design something is to create a solution for a given problem. An architect's problem is that he or she needs to design a building that fits the needs of his client. The designers of Magic decks are trying to solve a problem too. Their problem is to create a deck that is capable of winning a tournament.
Great idea, but a bit of a tease. It would have been nice at another section or two longer.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
Yeah, this could have been much more in depth. It only scratched the surface on two things that we already know: Competitive decks need to deal with tarmogoyf and counterbalance.
I agree. Storm combo is a huge design restraint, arguable more than Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, that was overlooked. There are a number of decks that can deal with Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance but that perform poorly because they have little hope against combo. Some historical design constraints would have been very welcome, like Goblin Lackey or something like Affinity in Standard.Originally Posted by SpatulaOfTheAges
Storm Combo is not an important design constraint, because nobody plays it.
The article was brief, but that brevity does serve to highlight the relative dominance of Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance over all of the other metagame pressures in the format. Those two considerations are far and away the biggest constraints on designing new Legacy decks.
Now, that statement contains a lot of scary words, but this is still something to be expected in a healthy format. There is a best deck, with a powerful strategy, and other viable decks must be designed with that strategy in mind. It is the fact that there are so many other viable decks that leads to there being a lack of other design constraints as important as Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance. Nothing else is prevalent enough to demand such notice.
Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance are the only two design constraints that I believe apply to virtually every deck and are prevalent enough to take into consideration. Storm does suffer from lack of prevalence at least in my experience.
My article also gave concrete methods that other decks have used to address both of these constraints. The only other part that I was thinking of adding to the article were examples of decks that illustrated adapting to both of these constraints. I felt that this topic could potentially be long enough that it would perhaps form another article that would be more focused on the design of those decks and might lose the central point of this article. Perhaps someone can tell me what else they would have liked to see added to the article.
I'm impressed that you're using the picture from the pool.
The E.P.I.C. Syndicate: I mean, if they play a lullaby for babies they should at least play the Monster Mash when somebody dies.
Thanks for making me puke up my breakfast.
I disagree. Any midrange board control deck, like Train Wreck or Enchantress, with a curve mostly higher than 3 and plenty of removal, can beat Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, but they cant beat combo. That's what's keeping them from being top decks, that they cant beat combo. How is that an irrelevant design constraint?
It doesn't matter how much or how little a deck sees play for it to constrain design. Storm combo pushes out board control, just as how Counterbalance pushes out decks that curve out at two and cant fight it. I think they're both equally relevant, and should have been mentioned.
Its not an irrevelant design constraint, but a deck like TrainWreck is prevented by more than just combo keeping it out of the format. Its not particularly strong against aggressive decks like Zoo, Elves, Goblins, maybe even Merfolk. In fact, I'm not sure I would want to play TrainWreck against anything that isn't Counterbalance and Tarmogoyf. There are many things that keep TrainWreck out of the format, one of which is combo, but it isn't the most important one.
I did go out of my way to point out that there were other Legacy design constraints. The article was not meant as list of all Legacy design constraints but to highlight the most important ones. I am not saying combo isn't revelant, its just not central to design in Legacy.
Comments like this make me believe that the meta is somewhat healthy and balanced.
With regard to Storm combo, even if you look at the DTB forum, ANT is the deck with the highest points not listed in the DTB forum. I'll admit the point difference is significant, but I would still argue that its a deck to consider. I mean people design their sideboards substantially to deal with Ichorid, yet the deck is not widely played to the extent that people SB prepare for it. Additionally, unless your deck already has a decent game against combo, then it should be considered a design constraint. Doug Linn's article "Legacy's Allure - Gauntlet of Power" even notes that if you're deck is going to be able to compete and win, storm based combo is something that must be considered in one's deck designing as it a choice deck for many skilled players and you're likely to face it or another combo based deck at least once.
It just seems difficult for me to envision designing a deck that doesn't consider answers to combo. Its essentially like one is leaving the game to pure chance they their draw is horrific and you draw the nuts. Some decks are naturally designed to do better with cards like Duress, FoW, Daze, CB etc. But for decks that lack countermagic and or disruption it just seems stupid. Even decks running discard aren't necessarily in a better position as Bryant Cook and others have noted recent storm decks' ability to play through discard meaning that unless one is extremely skilled or lucky (prob needing both), then you better have an additional plan.
Yeah, and when I was playing TT at the SCG 5k, I totally didn't vs Storm round 4.
/facepalm
What about Chalice, wouldn't we be seeing a lot more 1cc spells if it wasn't for chalice. Or even lower curves if it wans't for 3sphere? I know that when I am tuning my deck I definitely consider both cards.
Also, Blood Moon/Back to Basics and Wastelands, these cards are of extreme importance to the format, everyone would be playing Multicolored decks if it weren't for those cards. If that isn't a constraint then I don't know what is.
And yes, I feel like having an answer for first turn Lackey is a very relevant constraint as well. Most decks that don't have an answer to a first turn lackey (or at the very least, a plan) won't make it to the top tables.
With that said, I agree with the sentiments of the other posters and felt that this article was lacking in a lot of areas.
Surface deal to the obvious cards that have been recognized there. Dig deeper and you gain the truth about the format.
(B and W the best stand alone colors out of all the colors in the format)
I never consider Chalice when thinking about a Legacy deck. I put as many 1 and 2 drops into my deck as make sense with no attention to Chalice of the Void or Trinisphere. I can't even remember the last time someone played either card against me in a tournament.
Everyone is playing multi-color decks even though Wasteland exists along with Blood Moon and Back to Basics. The number of mono-chromatic decks is very low.
Goblin Lackey was a design constraint for Legacy, but since most decks are setup to deal with Tarmogoyf they are naturally able to deal with a 1/1 creature as well. In some sense you could say Goblin Lackey constraint has been overridden by a much larger constraint namely Tarmogoyf.
This is actually just wrong. Train Wreck and Enchantress have plenty of problems with Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance, and with a lot of other decks in the format, as well. The fact that they might get paired against Storm Combo once in a blue moon has very little to do with their lack of success.
If a deck's combo matchup was really as much of a litmus test as you're making it out to be, we wouldn't have Aggro Loam, Vial Goblins, or Survival in the DTB forum. The idea that a viable Legacy deck must be able to beat Storm Combo is ridiculous.
Counterbalance pushes out decks that can't beat it because Counterbalance sees a lot of play. To argue otherwise is pretty silly. To use your own example, Counterbalance Threshold loses to Train Wreck, but that doesn't mean that Train Wreck exerts any sort of constraint upon Threshold's design.It doesn't matter how much or how little a deck sees play for it to constrain design. Storm combo pushes out board control, just as how Counterbalance pushes out decks that curve out at two and cant fight it. I think they're both equally relevant, and should have been mentioned.
If you aren't likely to have to beat a deck in order to win a tournament, why in the hell would you let that deck influence your design?
Well, if Doug Linn said it, it must be true.
As a design constraint, Ichorid is very similar to Storm. Neither archetype sees enough play to warrant changes in the designs of competitive decks. If people are packing their sideboards full of Ichorid hate, anyway, then it is probably out of an irrational fear of losing to the deck.
Of course there is some chance involved in random pairings. It is your task as a tournament player to maximize your chances of winning whatever matchups you are faced with in a tournament. To do this, you must design a deck to have the best matchups, on average, against the expected field.It just seems difficult for me to envision designing a deck that doesn't consider answers to combo. Its essentially like one is leaving the game to pure chance they their draw is horrific and you draw the nuts. Some decks are naturally designed to do better with cards like Duress, FoW, Daze, CB etc. But for decks that lack countermagic and or disruption it just seems stupid. Even decks running discard aren't necessarily in a better position as Bryant Cook and others have noted recent storm decks' ability to play through discard meaning that unless one is extremely skilled or lucky (prob needing both), then you better have an additional plan.
Every change you make to a deck in order to improve one of its matchups will affect all of its other matchups, as well. When it comes to fighting powerful linear strategies such as Ichorid and Storm Combo, many times it is difficult to significantly improve your deck's matchup against them without making great sacrifices against most other decks. Those Tormod's Crypts and Orim's Chants aren't exactly coming in every other round. Those slots are better utilized by cards that further improve your odds against more prevalent decks.
Think about it this way. What is the value, in terms of helping you win tournaments, of a playset of Tormod's Crypts that get dusted off for one round in every other tournament? How does that compare to the value of a playset of REBs that get boarded in every two or three rounds? Even if those Crypts turn what would have been a loss into a win every single time they get shuffled in (which is rather doubtful), those Blasts are still pulling more weight if they turn an L into a W only a quarter of the time they're used.
This is an extremely simplified analysis, but the point stands, and it applies to maindeck card choices (and even more fundamental design issues), as well.
Yeah, I know, that sucks. I got paired against Storm in the first round of Eli's $1K tourney this past weekend. I had nothing for him and he rolled me. However, I felt good knowing that my deck was that much better prepared for 24 out of the 26 people I was competing against that day (Bryant Cook was playing Storm, as well). I'll accept that as bad luck, and better play on my part probably would have allowed me to avoid my second loss in round 4, which would have put me in the Top 8, anyway.
The bottom line is that I can count on one hand the number of times I have been paired against Storm Combo this year. Why would I design my deck for such a rare occurrence?
No, we wouldn't. I'm not sure what format you're playing, but Legacy revolves completely around 1cc and 2cc cards. It's your loss if you aren't playing them.
Likewise, everyone is playing multicolored decks. However, people do consider these cards when designing decks, mostly when building manabases (more basic Islands show up because of this). You are right that nonbasic hate is a design constraint in Legacy, but it doesn't have quite as powerful an effect on the format as Tarmogoyf and Counterbalance do.Also, Blood Moon/Back to Basics and Wastelands, these cards are of extreme importance to the format, everyone would be playing Multicolored decks if it weren't for those cards. If that isn't a constraint then I don't know what is.
While this used to be very true, Goblins has fallen far out of favor since then. It still places often enough to be a DTW, but being unable to reliably answer a first-turn Lackey is hardly as critical as it once was.And yes, I feel like having an answer for first turn Lackey is a very relevant constraint as well. Most decks that don't have an answer to a first turn lackey (or at the very least, a plan) won't make it to the top tables.
Fixed.
Good article -- a little high-level & brief, but I don't know why anyone would say it was inaccurate.
What? Why the quote-hack?
Oh, I wouldn't really call it a hijack -- more of an elaboration. 1st turn lackey isn't as steep an obstacle in the current tournament meta, largely b/c of the prevalence of goyf. Just finishing your thought.
That.The only other part that I was thinking of adding to the article were examples of decks that illustrated adapting to both of these constraints.
Early one morning while making the round,
I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
I went right home and I went to bed,
I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote