[article] Attacking is Miserable

[Aggro_zombies]

People who think Legacy is wide-open need to dig under the surface a little bit. The format is very clearly tiered right now, and your chances of making top 8 if you don't bring a Tier I deck are fairly low.

Tier I: Counterbalance with NO, Zoo, Storm
Tier 1.5: Goblins, Dredge, Reanimator, Enchantress, Loam decks, Merfolk
Tier II and below: basically everything else

Really, there are very few good decks, but there are, like, eight million Tier II ones, so people assume you can just show up to a Legacy tournament, play whatever you want, and do well. The truth is, you'll probably end up with a bad to decent record unless the Pairings Gods bless you with great fortune and you lucksack your way into the Top 8. The perception that Legacy is some sort of wide-open field ripe for the breaking is artificial, and the fact that commentators and writers continue to espouse that viewpoint does newer players trying to get into the format a grave disservice. In legacy, you play a good deck, or you scrub out, or you sacrifice a bunch of virgins the night before and get super lucky.

An aside: Zoo is only Tier I here because it's popular: it's easy to pick up, straightforward to play well, and has a bunch of auto-win matchups that also happen to be popular decks. However, it also has auto-lose matchups that also happen to be popular decks, including the Loam decks like Lands, Enchantress, Storm, etc - in other words, decks that aren't interested in fair fights with dorks. Storm doesn't dominate the format because the blue decks hold it down, and Zoo decks that pair up against blue in the first few rounds will likely win and then dodge Storm all the way to the top tables. Zoo decks that don't meet blue decks in the first few rounds either auto-win against jank decks or get paired up against decks that are bad for them and scrub out.

The point here is that there are a lot of very viable ways to control combat in this format, either by ignoring it, locking it down, or tilting it heavily in your favor by cheating the biggest monster into play. All of the best decks aside from the aggro decks have a way to do something unfair, which doesn't help Zoo at all.

That was the point of the article. The metagame is very Rock-Paper-Scissors right now, but rogue decks that can dodge bad matchups can make it to the top tables and make the format appear more open than it really is. Goblins is probably not as good as people are claiming it is right now, considering how it's been around since forever and is only now putting up a good result again (MTGO doesn't count for a large variety of reasons).

[Grollub]

I don't know if this has been addressed, but why is it "legitimate" to run creature hate in the maindeck but not combo hate? It's not like control players are complaining about being "forced" to play cards that halts creatures like Swords to Plowshares...

[Aggro_zombies]

I don't know if this has been addressed, but why is it "legitimate" to run creature hate in the maindeck but not combo hate? It's not like control players are complaining about being "forced" to play cards that halts creatures like Swords to Plowshares...

Because in any given round you're much more likely to see creatures than Tendrils, and the hate cards for those decks don't really overlap.

[4eak]

Zoo and Goblins aren't pure aggro decks w/out FoW, btw. They clearly fluctuate between aggro-control-combo roles depending on the hands they draw and their opponents.

@ Nightmare and Aggro_zombies

I, for one, feel like a lot of what Max said NEEDED to be said, by someone. He's 100% correct - if you're trying to play fair in Legacy, you are doing it wrong.

EDIT: Never mind, actually read your post instead of skimming it. Even so, fair decks in Legacy are at an inherent disadvantage because of all the unfair things you can do and all the ways you have to stop the fair decks from doing their thing

I could be interpreting this article very differently from you both. I just want to make sure we are agreeing to the conclusion here.

The article prescribes combo decks for those who wish to win in the current metagame. That prescription isn't an advocation of the metagame itself though. The conclusion I draw from the article is that the metagame is imbalanced or too limited, perhaps not living up to some expectations, and needs to change. I believe the myth that Max is debunking is some variation of this:

Legacy is a wide-open format with dozens of different strategies and decks, and that you can play more or less anything you want.

The article explains why this is not true. You should play combo in the current metagame because the metagame itself is imbalanced and/or limited. That doesn't mean you should really want to play combo though. The main issue isn't that combo is awesome; the real issue is what is wrong with why combo is so good in this metagame.

Many might argue that Legacy is ideal. I don't think "unfair" is the new "fair".




peace,
4eak

[Antonius]

I'm surprised that eva green and other black archetypes aren't better vs combo. I thought that shoving hymn/duress up there pretty much raped them.

another thought: there's be a lot of talk about unbanning Mind Twist. How would that affect combo? With all of its rituals and fast mana ANT is probably the best deck equipped to power out early twists, but then random control decks--ie, Landstill--could also use twist with counter backup to rape the combo player's hand. I imagine that twist would also make eva green and other black variants way better vs combo

but yeah, I agree with those who recommend building a new deck. With that kind of meta, it seems like its due time for another obscure deck to come out of no where and get catapulted to the limelight. When was the last time that happened? Lands in St Louis? Enchantress at SCG LA?
I think NO/Survival elves or Combo elves should be the next. The archetype is so good but just hasn't put numbers up yet.

[Grollub]

Because in any given round you're much more likely to see creatures than Tendrils, and the hate cards for those decks don't really overlap.

So it's justified to run hate against popular decks, but not against the less popular? The hate cards against combo are generally good against every variation of this decktype, and some even have uses beside that match-up: Chalice vs Zoo and such.

There's plenty of tools to fight combo and graveyard decks, people just need to use them maindeck rather letting their combo matchups start at 0-1 (my latest MUD variation uses Leyline of the Void for instance in maindeck, and I'm loving it; dredge is now winable game 1 and with Helm in the board I'm very happy about being able to play aggro-lock-combo game 2 and 3 if need be).

The article explains why this is not true. You should play combo in the current metagame because the metagame itself is imbalanced and/or limited. That doesn't mean you should really want to play combo though. The main issue isn't that combo is awesome; the real issue is what is wrong with why combo is so good in this metagame.

While it's probably not the intention of the article I rather think he addresses that legacy players generally doesn't want to maindeck hate against combo decks, for only God knows why (people ran maindeck blasts during the day of Academy, various cards to combat Trix and so on and so forth).

[Skeggi]

The point with maindeck Combo hate is that it's generally pointless or you run so much that you basically neglect non-combo match-ups. If you run maindeck, say 2 Gaddock Teeg and 2 Ethersworn Canonist you're not even close to being able to beat Combo game 1 unless you're lucky. If you don't know you're playing against Combo, you won't mull to these cards or drop them asap. The problem with Combo is that you have to know you're playing against it, because all the Combo hate is only effective before your opponent goes off; a single Force of Will simply won't do the trick. Aggro on the other hand, is predictable. You see when it's winning and you can respond to board position. You don't need to know up front if you're playing against Aggro because you'll know as soon as that Tarmogoyf hits the table.

[Aggro_zombies]

So it's justified to run hate against popular decks, but not against the less popular? The hate cards against combo are generally good against every variation of this decktype, and some even have uses beside that match-up: Chalice vs Zoo and such.

There's plenty of tools to fight combo and graveyard decks, people just need to use them maindeck rather letting their combo matchups start at 0-1 (my latest MUD variation uses Leyline of the Void for instance in maindeck, and I'm loving it; dredge is now winable game 1 and with Helm in the board I'm very happy about being able to play aggro-lock-combo game 2 and 3 if need be).

I don't know about you, but my maindecks are only sixty cards. I'd rather focus on the matchup I'm more likely to run into than have a bunch of cards for a deck that's <10% of the meta but which are bad to dead everywhere else.

[DukeDemonKn1ght]

But let me just say this: the Dutch Legacy meta is more advanced than any other meta in the world. Why? Because here in The Netherlands, there is a tournament within travel distance at least 2 times a month. For April alone there are 7 tournaments scheduled, while most of them will have about 20 attendants, there are 2 or 3 which will have a turnout of over 32. In March there were 9 tournaments with about the same turnout. If you know a place where there's more competative Legacy play, I'd like to hear about it.

So let me get this straight: You guys have more Legacy than I could shake a stick at, legal um... "medicinals", cute girls, and free healthcare?

What's the immigration policy like?

[Nightmare]

The article prescribes combo decks for those who wish to win in the current metagame. That prescription isn't an advocation of the metagame itself though. The conclusion I draw from the article is that the metagame is imbalanced or too limited, perhaps not living up to some expectations, and needs to change. I believe the myth that Max is debunking is some variation of this:

I think we're coming to a similar conclusion from different directions, which I'm fine with. You seem to be saying the gist is:

If you play combo, you will be more successful.

I read it slightly differently, saying:

If you play fair, you're likely to be less successful.

What you define as a "combo" deck is subject to debate, but the fact of the matter is, the decks seeing the most success are doing something that isn't fair. Max defines these things with examples such as CB/Top lock; Dredge "drawing" 12+ cards in a turn; Belcher/Tendrils winning on turn 2-3, Reanimator putting hard-to-remove fatties into play on turns 2-3, etc. When you compare that to "Wild Nacatl. Bolt you, swing, Grim Lavamancer," you can see that there's a significant difference between the two.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Seems like someone is applying for a position at Fox News... I thought the sky was falling from Reanimator being too good? Or was it because zoo kept winning? Or wasn't it something like Tarmogoyf being overpowered?

Are we still scared of goblins too? I really can't remember...

I also thought UW Tempo was the best deck in the format!?!? (Lol... no I really didn't)

I, for one, feel like a lot of what Max said NEEDED to be said, by someone. He's 100% correct - if you're trying to play fair in Legacy, you are doing it wrong.

This is the only worth while part of the article to read and most of us already knew it. But most decks don't play fair. NO-> Progenitus, Countertop with Tarmogoyfs, Reanimator with duress + FoW capability, Dredge getting to draw 6+ cards a turn, Loyal Retainers -> Iona in survival of the fittest, the list really could go on and on.

That's really the only thing that the article should be saying, I got lost at why he was arguing against the banning of tarmogoyf (old topic), and trying to say that if you don't play FoW in an aggro deck you're doing it wrong. There are still plenty of blue decks to keep decks like goblins and zoo still winning major tournaments.

[morgan_coke]

Actually, doesn't the article point out that there really is a rock/paper/scissors thing going on right now?

I mean, if you map it out you get:

Zoo/Goblins > Merfolk/CBGoyf

Merfolk/CBGoyf > Storm/random combo

Storm/random combo > Zoo/Goblins

I dunno, but that looks fairly balanced to me.

[jrsthethird]

The only thing I see as being really unfair is ANT/Belcher winning consistently on turn 2/3. Everything else can be played around. This is most likely a bias because I'm not a blue player, but it seems like ANT is really hard to disrupt even when you draw multiple hate cards post-board. Also there's almost no chance for interaction between the Storm player and the opponent.

CounterTop relies on exploiting an interaction
Dredge can be beaten by unorthodox plays (Bolting your own guy, for example)
Iona is not fair but a metagame shift can handle her.
Natural Order requires an inherent 2-for-1 card disadvantage when countered/removed, and there are enough ways to remove Progenitus (easier to kill than Iona IMO)

Regardless, until Storm combo takes over half the Top 8's of a significant number of tournaments, I'll just suck it up to a bad matchup and move on.

[Shugyosha]

I must say, in a combo heavy meta like The Netherlands it's easy to come to this conclusion, and I understand people in other countries have trouble coming to the same conclusion. But let me just say this: the Dutch Legacy meta is more advanced than any other meta in the world. Why? Because here in The Netherlands, there is a tournament within travel distance at least 2 times a month. For April alone there are 7 tournaments scheduled, while most of them will have about 20 attendants, there are 2 or 3 which will have a turnout of over 32. In March there were 9 tournaments with about the same turnout. If you know a place where there's more competative Legacy play, I'd like to hear about it.

North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. If I like I can play two 40-60 players (sometimes more, never less) Legacy tournaments each month. These tournaments exist for years. There are also plenty weekly Legacy tournaments to choose from. The one I play sometimes usually has around 15 players. I fact I think there are fewer players at weekly tournaments because there are so many. Combo ist definately a DTB, nothing more, nothing less.

[AngryTroll]

I think Max is absolutely correct here (as well as his Dredge article from a few weeks ago).

If you play fair, you're likely to be less successful.

...[T]he fact of the matter is, the decks seeing the most success are doing something that isn't fair. Max defines these things with examples such as CB/Top lock; Dredge "drawing" 12+ cards in a turn; Belcher/Tendrils winning on turn 2-3, Reanimator putting hard-to-remove fatties into play on turns 2-3, etc. When you compare that to "Wild Nacatl. Bolt you, swing, Grim Lavamancer," you can see that there's a significant difference between the two.

Dredge and ANT are two of the most "unfair" decks in the format. If you have the time to practice with either one of those decks so that you can beat the hate...why would you play a "fair" deck like Zoo?

[Artowis]

I mean granted Max could have been clearer on certain points, but his overall idea is basically just what Zvi always advocates. "Never Play Fair"

Too many people got hung up on him pumping up combo and missed the whole, 'attacking with 3/3's seems kind of miserable in a format with turn 3 kill / lock decks and control decks with soft-lock engines'.

[SpikeyMikey]

Well, it may take some time to build mana to go off and tutor what you need to get rid of teeg. Zoo is a very fast deck and may need to keep you busy searching for no more than 2-3 turns. Of course if the ANT player already has a perfect hand and only needs to search for a removal, there nothing the Zoo player can do. But this can't happen always




Well, this is an interesting point. I don't really know what to answer; after all, one of the reasons behind the decline of countertop is that people are running maindeck answers to counterbalance. On the other hand I have to admit that it would be pretty boring if every decklist should start with 4x combo hate.

Almost as boring as if every decklist should start with 4xStP. Or if every deck had to pack answers MD to artifacts and enchantments. Yet somehow, we manage to squeeze those things in and the game hasn't gotten boring.

AnT is a very slow combo deck with an FT only 1 turn ahead of what Solidarity had years ago. On the other hand, aggro's FT has increased dramatically. To top that off, AdN is horrible against most aggro leaving them with IGG as their main out and IGG is vulnerable to the same yard hate that everyone packs against Dredge/Reanimator/Lands/yada yada.

Also, I get real irritated when people use random matchup percentages to illustrate their point. Oh, it goes 80/20 against x. Guess what? I track actual game and match records for my decks and even matchups that I consider autowins don't always hit 80%. If I'm still posting 70% against something after 30-40 games, I'm ecstatic.

[Skeggi]

AnT is a very slow combo deck

Say what?

[frogboy]

@Nightmare, 4eak: My points are twofold:

First, when you are playing a deck like Zoo or Goblins, you aren't doing anything particularly powerful, which is a problem.

Second, when you are playing a deck without Force of Will, you can't stop the other guy from doing anything powerful, which is a huge problem if you can't kill him first.

Because the aggro decks without Force of Will can't goldfish particularly fast relative to the rest of the format *and* because they can't slow the other guy's goldfish, they are awful deck choices.

I mentioned Tarmogoyf and Top because a while ago people thought that Tarmogoyf was the reason that aggro decks sucked.

@morgan: The R/P/S analogy is super bad. If you consider combo decks "rock" then you really have like nine different rocks to throw at the pair of scissors, and paper can't cover all of them at once.

@SpikeyMikey: High Tide was a turn four-ish combo deck. Tendrils routinely kills on turn two or three and has turn one capacity. Elaborate on your claim that the fundamental turn of aggro decks has increased, because their goldfish has not. The card Ad Nauseam is very good against aggro decks unless they are on the play, drew specifically Wild Nacatl plus a second creature plus two burn spells, and you didn't have a turn two kill. In that scenario, for Ill-Gotten Gains to perform poorly, they have to board in Tormod's Crypt against a combo deck, which is pretty atrocious, or you can just kill them with Doomsday.

At some point there is going to be an article on why all of the hate cards that people are clinging to like goddamn teddy bears are not actually going to protect them from things that go bump in the night.

[majikal]

The thing about ANT is that you have to be a special kind of asshole to enjoy playing it, and an even more special kind of asshole to master it. So you can literally count on the vast majority of your ANT opponents being terribad with it. When this changes, there may be cause for alarm, but as it stands now, the very nature of the deck itself is what keeps it in check. And I'm okay with that.