Overextended/Neo-Legacy format scenario

[Gibbie_X]

Wizards will look at the outcome of GP Columbus and can decide to overhaul Legacy or not. The format has a variety of decks, and some of the more broke cards are in later sets. With an overhaul, you still get Force of Will, and everyone wants to play with FoW. I thought they were going to make the uber-extended with Mercadian Masks and up. That would include so many good sets, leaving the format susceptible to any decks. It would be like the formation of Legacy when T1 was getting too ridiculous.

[ktkenshinx]

Edit: Better yet, count the number of Tier 1 decks and Established decks on this forum that use duals.

Now count the number that don't.

I bet you that for every one deck you find that doesn't use duals, there are at least 4 that do if not more. Oh, and you still didn't answer my question yet again, so continue to avoid the issue at hand.

A lot of speculation and arbitrariness has surrounded this issue, so I decided to settle it empirically. No more random numbers for either side: we are going to get a number for the Dual Land Count in good Legacy decks.

To do this, I looked at the top 16 (or top 8 where not provided top 16) from the following events, using the decklists provided. Yes, with one exception they are all American SCG Open events, but if one does not think this is representative, then that person is just admitting their bias on the question and is avoiding the hard statistical truth.

GP Madrid: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...eckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2010-02-28&end_date=2010-02-28&city=Madrid
SCG Richmond: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...eckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2010-02-28&end_date=2010-02-28&city=Richmond
SCG Indy: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...eckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2010-03-14&end_date=2010-03-14&event_type=SCLO
SCG Orlando: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...eckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2010-03-28&end_date=2010-03-28&event_type=SCLO
SCG Atlanta: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...eckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2010-05-02&end_date=2010-05-02&event_type=SCLO
SCG Philly: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...eckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2010-06-06&end_date=2010-06-06
SCG Seattle: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deck...eckshow.php?&t[C1]=leg&start_date=2010-06-13&end_date=2010-06-13&start=1&finish=16&event_type=SCLO

Then I looked at how many decks used Dual Lands, and how many they used. Here is what I found. Note: I have provided the Average Total Duals for each event. I have also provided the "Average duals in decks that ran duals" number, if some decks did not run them at all. This gives a good feeling for dual land prevalence in high level events.

GP Madrid
Average total Duals = 5.88
Reanimator: 4
ANT: 6
Zoo: 6
ANT: 5
CounterTop: 6
CounterTop: 8
Zoo: 6
Zoo: 6

SCG Richmond
Average total Duals = 3.56
Average Duals in decks that ran Duals = 5.19
Merfolk: 3
CounterTop: 5
Merfolk: 0
Reanimator: 4
Reanimator: 6
Zoo: 6
Merfolk: 0
CounterTop: 6
Belcher: 2
Merfolk: 0
Merfolk: 0
Angel Stompy: 4
Landstill: 9
Merfolk: 0
Zoo: 6
Zoo: 6

SCG Indy
Average total Duals = 3.75
Average Duals in decks that ran Duals = 4.61
Blue Land: 5
Goblins: 0
Team America: 7
Merfolk (+Goyf): 5
MBC: 0
Landstill: 5
Reanimator: 4
Tezzerator: 1
Merfolk: 0
CounterTop Survival: 7
Belcher: 2
Eva Green: 4
Reanimator: 5
NO CounterTop: 5
Merfolk (+Goyf): 3
Team America: 7

SCG Orlando
Average total Duals = 3.5
Average Duals in decks that ran Duals = 4.66
Goblins: 2
Assault Loam: 6
Merfolk: 0
CounterTop Bant: 6
Bant: 7
Merfolk +W: 2
Reanimator: 4
CounterTop Thopter Depths: 3
MBC: 4
CounterTop Dark Bant: 8
Merfolk: 0
Dredge: 4
MUC: 0
WW: 0
CounterTop NO Bant: 6
Eva Green (+W): 4

SCG Atlanta
Average total Duals = 4.19
ANT: 5
Reanimator: 4
New Horizons: 6
Belcher: 2
Goblins: 4
Reanimator: 4
Zoo: 6
Reanimator: 4
UW Tempo: 4
Goblins: 2
NO CounterTop: 7
Reanimator: 4
Helm of the Void: 4
UR Painter's Grindstone: 4
Merfolk: 3
Show and Tell: 4

SCG Philly
Average total Duals = 4.75
Average Duals in decks that ran Duals = 5.07
Zoo: 6
NO Bant: 6
New Horizons: 6
New Horizons: 6
Zoo: 6
ANT: 4
Zoo: 6
Blue Land: 4
Merfolk (+W): 2
New Horizons: 6
Zoo: 6
CounterTop Thopters: 4
Merfolk: 0
Cat Sligh: 6
Scapeshift Land: 4
Blue Land: 4

SCG Seattle
Average total Duals = 4.63
Average Duals in decks that ran Duals = 5.29
New Horizons: 6
Zoo: 7
Zoo: 8
Merfolk: 3
Reanimator: 4
Zoo: 6
Survival of the Fittest: 6
BW Aggro: 4
Merfolk: 3
Goblins: 0
Mono W Stax: 0
Reanimator: 4
Landstill: 7
Aggro Loam: 6
ANT: 4
Thopter Sword: 6

Total Average Duals = 4.32
Total Average Duals in decks that played with Dual = 4.98

There is the data and there are the numbers. In these 7 events, most decks ran at least a playset of Duals. If you were playing Duals at all, you had at least 5 in your deck, with some as high as 8 or 9. There are a few decks that did not use Duals at all. These are listed below with their ranking in the event.

SCG Richmond
3. Merfolk
7. Merfolk
10. Merfolk
11. Merfolk
14. Merfolk

SCG Indy
2. Goblins
5. MBC
9. Merfolk

SCG Orlando
3. Merfolk
11. Merfolk
13. MUC
14. WW

SCG Atlanta
-none-

SCG Philly
13. Merfolk

SCG Seattle
10. Goblins
11. Mono W Stax

15 decks out of the total 104 decks (6 top 16s and 1 top 8). Only 14% of the decks did not use Duals. What was the average ranking of a deck that did not use Duals in it? Simply add up the rankings and divide by the total:

Average ranking of a no-Dual land deck: 9th

In these events, if you were playing a deck that did not have duals, on average you would not even make the top 8.

Now, I understand that I am presenting these statistics towards the end of showing that duals ARE needed in Legacy decks. Therefore, you might say I have some bias. But that all aside, these numbers are damn clear and they show an indisputable image.

In these 7 events, decks used on average 4+ duals.

Thus, Duals are "necessary" in Legacy, far moreso than any other card; the closest competitor would be Goyf, and I am sure that if I did a survey of him, we would find him to be disturbingly prevalent, but NOT in every deck by any means.

I hope that these statistics are helpful and that we can continue to use evidence like this in our arguments instead of making unsupported generalizations (this is not a jab at any one poster).

-ktkenshinx-

EDIT:

Ktkenshinx posted numbers showing the growth that is based off of hypothetical information. None of his information was as far as I could tell based off of statistical information gained from a economics major who actually knows what they are talking about.

They are not hypothetical numbers up until the last three predictions. Everything else is hard eBay/BLP data.
As to the projections, I was just assuming a steady slope on the graphs, something that I have every indication to believe (looking at those graphs) will be true.
A more intensive economic model, which I COULD use if you really demand it, would probably produce the same results, or at least the same shape.
And as to someone "who actually knows what they are talking about," I have yet to see you produce any solid evidence for your claims. A lot of argument, but not a lot of evidence.

[DalkonCledwin]

And as to someone "who actually knows what they are talking about," I have yet to see you produce any solid evidence for your claims. A lot of argument, but not a lot of evidence.

Exactly what "claims" are you asking me to back up here? I provided proof that Death and Taxes is a Tier 1.5 deck, plenty of it actually. I am debating your claims, you have to prove them, not me. Your evidence that you just provided is sufficient to prove that in very high level tournaments such as the Grand Prix's and Star City Games Opens that Dual Lands are indeed prevalent, but hardly necessary to play on a more general level which is what the vast majority of legacy players do.

It might interest you guys to know that the "white weenie" deck that made 14th place in SCGs Orlando was actually a Death and Taxes build Piloted by the creator of the archetype.

[ktkenshinx]

Exactly what "claims" are you asking me to back up here? I provided proof that Death and Taxes is a Tier 1.5 deck, plenty of it actually. I am debating your claims, you have to prove them, not me. Your evidence that you just provided is sufficient to prove that in very high level tournaments such as the Grand Prix's and Star City Games Opens that Dual Lands are indeed prevalent, but hardly necessary to play on a more general level which is what the vast majority of legacy players do.

I just do not understand your fixation on that deck. It's like saying "We aren't in a recession guys, because this one company is doing great!" Similarly, "Top Legacy decks don't need duals, because this one deck doesn't use them!" You consistently overlook the evidence to the contrary of how many tier 1 decks, not 1.5 or 2 decks, DO use duals and DO demand duals. As to your claims that lack any evidence:

Either way the majority of decks in legacy can easily be made better by the simple inclusion of Tarmogoyf. So arguing that "you can build a deck without tarmogoyf" is tantamount to arguing that you can build a deck without dual lands. At least in my opinion.

Run the numbers. You will find that you are just wrong.

And I would also like to suggest that we do get back onto topic, as we have been sidetracked long enough. The topic at hand is that without proof that the new format is coming, and I mean SIGNIFICANT proof. I see no reason to argue that it is indeed coming. And unfortunately there is no significant proof that a new format is coming. All you guys have is speculation and conjecture about things that have happened, are happening, and why you think Wizards should do something about it.

The objective that I have CLEARLY been advancing is not to say "Wizards is going to make the new format!" I have been showing that there is a NEED for a new format and that Wizards should see the signs as much as we can see them (at least some of us). We are not rumormongering or speculating. We are discussing the state of a format using evidence, not conjecture.

The D&T fixation is a bit absurd at this point. As you yourself advocate, this should be a discussion about the format itself, and if there is argument, it should be focused on the need for this format, not the rumors surrounding it. From time to time we get bogged down with that aspect of the question, and that's alright. But we need to stay on the track of demonstrating a need for a new Eternal format and for assessing the state of the current Legacy. It's a worthwhile question period, whether or not you dislike the new format.

-ktkenshinx-

[DalkonCledwin]

4 on the decks to beat forum that can potentially (or do) run Tarmogoyf and be better for it. (New Horizons, UG Merfolk, Countertop, Zoo)
8 on the established decks forum’s first page out of 20 decks that can potentially (or do) run Tarmogoyf and be better for it. (Vial Goblins, Landstill, Team America, WG D&T, The Rock, UGw Tempo, Bant Survival, Tempo Thresh)

That is just on the main two forums. That is 46% of the decks on the first page of the Established decks forum, and the only page of the decks to beat forum. I am sure that if I expanded that search to include additional pages of the Established deck forum, that number would easily increase to over 50% of the list. The reason people want Tarmogoyf banned, is because it is the single most easily splashed beatstick in existence. There is a reason the card costs 80+ dollars afterall.

I will agree to drop the Death and Taxes discussion for now, as that is in my opinion not pertinent to the discussion at hand. I only brought it up initially because Drago had made an impossible request knowing it was impossible in the first place, and that is a fallacious form of debate. I did not intend to follow his impossible request and fall into the trap of his fallacious debate tactics. Unfortunately debating with Drago seems to be the equivalent of debating with an iron wall.

As for your claim that the evidence points that there is clearly a need for a new format. On that I cannot speak directly. I will say that while I do not like the idea of a new format being created if it supplants legacy entirely…. If a new format can be created in such a way as to supplement the currently existing eternal formats instead of supplanting them, then I have no problem with it, and would probably even start playing said new format happily enough. I hope having said that bridges the gap between us at this point?

[workingdude]

Average ranking of a no-Dual land deck: 9th

In these events, if you were playing a deck that did not have duals, on average you would not even make the top 8.

Now, I understand that I am presenting these statistics towards the end of showing that duals ARE needed in Legacy decks. Therefore, you might say I have some bias. But that all aside, these numbers are damn clear and they show an indisputable image.

The concept of using the top 16 data to figure out the average ranking isn't very strong.

What is the average ranking of any deck in the top 16? By your definition, the average ranking is 8.5. On average you would not make the top 8. This is even wrong intuitively, since we know half of the people will be in the top 8.

Is the average ranking of a non-dual land deck significantly (and therefore indisputably) different than the average ranking of a deck in general? With a sample size that small, the difference between the sample average and the 8.5 expected value is not statistically significant.

[Bardo]

Closed for maintenance.

[Bardo]

Verbal warnings to DragoFireheart and DalkonCledwin. Big props to ktkenshinx, however.

@ All - Stay on topic and be cool.

Re-opened.

[DragoFireheart]

As for your claim that the evidence points that there is clearly a need for a new format. On that I cannot speak directly. I will say that while I do not like the idea of a new format being created if it supplants legacy entirely…. If a new format can be created in such a way as to supplement the currently existing eternal formats instead of supplanting them, then I have no problem with it, and would probably even start playing said new format happily enough. I hope having said that bridges the gap between us at this point?

Your fear of the new overextended simply replacing Legacy (either directly or indriectly) is a justified fear since the format could very easily become very popular for a few reasons.

1. Any and all staples could be reprinted, allowing players to crack open packs instead of hunt for cards on-line.

2. The lack of duals, FoW, Wasteland and Lion's Eye Diamond would significantly warp the meta.

3. The relative cheapness of entry into the format. Since you don't need to buy duals, the price of the higher-tier decks would likely be at least half of current Legacy decks on average.

4. Zoo would likely be extremely powerful as the only significant difference would be the loss of duals and Chain Lightning.


What do you think WoTC would have to do to avoid causing overextended from replacing Legacy?

[Sharpened]

What do you think WoTC would have to do to avoid causing overextended from replacing Legacy?

Isn't asking that question like asking "What do we have to do to avoid intelligent robots from taking over the government?" Overextended doesn't exist.

Today we got this quote from Tom Lapille:

Our goal when we create formats is to help people find players to play against. When a format is not played outside of Pro Tour Qualifier seasons, it isn't doing that job. The previous version of Extended had exactly this problem, so we came up with something that was different from Standard but that we thought people might actually want to play on their own.

Fracturing eternal players between Legacy and this hypothetical "Overextended" seems to be contrary to what wizards is saying their goals are.

[DrJones]

What happened is that they broke Extended by making it rotate every year, so it's completely their fault. I also find the idea of overextended interesting, but it's quite saddening that the DCI had to create the legacy format as a way to ban Mana Drain, and now they have to create another eternal format in order to take out Force of Will from competitive play.

[DragoFireheart]

Isn't asking that question like asking "What do we have to do to avoid intelligent robots from taking over the government?" Overextended doesn't exist.

Overextended is a high possiblity if Legacy continues to go at it's current rate.

Fracturing eternal players between Legacy and this hypothetical "Overextended" seems to be contrary to what wizards is saying their goals are.

Legacy is going to be fractured by the cost of duals. WoTC needs to do something.

[DalkonCledwin]

Legacy is going to be fractured by the cost of duals. WoTC needs to do something.

The problem with this theory is that WotC has continually stated that they have no control over the secondary market. Nor do they seem to have any interest in controlling the secondary market. Thus creating an entire format to bypass the problems of the secondary market seems counterintuitive to that fact.

[ryO!]

Overextended is a high possiblity if Legacy continues to go at it's current rate.

Legacy is going to be fractured by the cost of duals. WoTC needs to do something.

your answer to my previous statement was so damn relevant that i won't bother making my point again. Anyway let's put this aside.

Thing is people also WANT to play with dual land & fow and any legendary staple that serve the name "legacy", so it is not that simple. What i mean is it's not only a matter of price, as Legacy allows people to play "any" (except the banned list) "legendary" that raised the credibility of MTG. That's probably why extended never has any sucess as it was some kind of really bad legacy/t2 hybrid. Seriously ask anyone, i guess for most of them they d rather spend a bit more on duals rather than buying any TurdLand or simply go for T2. Cards alone also attract people without any other consideration.

[DragoFireheart]

The problem with this theory is that WotC has continually stated that they have no control over the secondary market. Nor do they seem to have any interest in controlling the secondary market. Thus creating an entire format to bypass the problems of the secondary market seems counter intuitive to that fact.

Why would it be counter intuitive? WoTC would finally have an eternal format in which they have some control over the prices of secondary market cards: if they want to help overextended grow, they reprint staples. If they want to try and stop it from growing (which they won't: that would be counter intuitive), they stop reprinting staples. Either way, Wotc generate popularity for a eternal format which a lower entry level price, which means more people come to their tournaments which means more money for them.

WoTC doesn't care about the price, but they do care about players paying and playing in their tournaments. By being able to print staples, that makes it easier for people to enter said tournaments. The Legacy format would be a much larger population of players if you could buy packs and maybe crack open that dual land you want, or you crack open a Force of Will and trade it for a dual land.

With Legacy, WotC can't add more duals for the growing population of Legacy players. Prices go up until the price bubbles bursts, which causes everyone to start selling duals since format is dying, causing the price of duals to drop. This would be bad for collectors since now their duals are now losing value. This is also bad for players since if everyone is now losing interest for Legacy, there will be less support for tournaments.



ryO! said:

Thing is people also WANT to play with dual land & fow and any legendary staple that serve the name "legacy", so it is not that simple. What i mean is it's not only a matter of price, as Legacy allows people to play "any" (except the banned list) "legendary" that raised the credibility of MTG. That's probably why extended never has any sucess as it was some kind of really bad legacy/t2 hybrid. Seriously ask anyone, i guess for most of them they d rather spend a bit more on duals rather than buying any TurdLand or simply go for T2. Cards alone also attract people without any other consideration.

Don't use anecdotal evidence. Perhaps now people may be willing to pay $50 for a Tundra, but how about $60? $80? $100? There may also be a few that don't mind the price, but if the prices continue to grow they will be the only ones playing.

People won't play at all if a couple of cards start to cost as much as a HDTV.



Edit:

Here is one other idea that came to mind that would make overextended highly successful.

Does anyone here remember the Master Set from MTGO? The set that had duals and FoWs? If and when WotC makes this new eternal format, they could make a separate set of packs for overextended: old classics like Wild Mongrel or the shocklands from rav or maybe even Tarmogoyfs. These cards would only be legal in the other formats they were normally legal in, but doing this would do a few things:

1. More support for the overextended format since you can simply buy packs in hopes of getting that staple you want. By doing this, Wizards makes it easy for new players to enter overextended, which means more players would be likely to play, which means more tournament support for overextended.

2. WoTC makes more money. Releasing packs for a new set means WoTC could make more money off of everyone buying the overextended packs. Sounds like a nice way to make money off a new format, eh?

3. Any Legacy staples that are not on the reserved list become easier for new Legacy players to obtain. By playing in and buying packs for Overextended, they would be able to collect staples that are also heavily used in Legacy. If they then have the money, they would simply need to buy dual lands.

[ktkenshinx]

The concept of using the top 16 data to figure out the average ranking isn't very strong.

What is the average ranking of any deck in the top 16? By your definition, the average ranking is 8.5. On average you would not make the top 8. This is even wrong intuitively, since we know half of the people will be in the top 8.

Is the average ranking of a non-dual land deck significantly (and therefore indisputably) different than the average ranking of a deck in general? With a sample size that small, the difference between the sample average and the 8.5 expected value is not statistically significant.

Given that we have the most intensive data only for the top 16, this is really all we have to work with. We can, however, do a similar analysis of the data from SCG Seattle (or any SCG Open), which provided us with the extremely useful "Too Much Information" article (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...n_Seattle.html)

Looking at the spreadsheet and using our knowledge of Legacy, we can see what decks were there and how many duals we used. This is going to take some assumptions, but for the most part (MOST part), they are good ones. What are these assumptions? It's the ability to look at a deck and guess if it uses Duals and, on a more difficult level, how many duals it uses.

Looking at the top 20 at the end of the tournament (in terms of points, not in terms of finals), we get the following decks. I have put a "Yes" next to those decks that use Duals and an explanation, if needed.

Zoo: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Zoo: Yes
Zoo: Yes
Survival: Yes
New Horizons: Yes
Merfolk: Yes (We know this build ran Goyf and was played by Kevin Ambler)
B/W Aggro: Yes
Merfolk: Yes (We know this build was the +W version played by Brett Baugh)
Goblins: No (Not the B/R version as seen on the top 16)
Stax: No (Mono white)
Reanimator: Yes
Landstill: Yes
Aggro Loam: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Stax: No (Mono white)
Blue Land: Yes
Zoo: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes

In that top 20 list, only 3 players were not using Dual lands. Everyone else had a deck with probably an average of 4-5 Duals, with decks like Merfolk running fewer (2-3), ANT and Reanimator running about 4, and Zoo/New Horizons running 6.

Let's keep going down the list and see what happens. We will look through the top 50 now, numbers 21 through 50 specifically:

Charbelcher: Yes
Merfolk: Yes (+W on spreadsheet)
Zoo: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Merfolk: No (assuming No because I have no information to indicate otherwise)
Reanimator: Yes
New Horizons: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Merfolk: No (no information indicates otherwise)
Zoo: Yes
New Horizons: Yes
Zoo: Yes
Merfolk: No (as above)
Reanimator: Yes
Goblins: Yes (Note mentions this is +B)
Elves!: : Yes (Note mentions this is +B)
Merfolk: Yes (Note mentions this has Tarmogoyf)
Goblins: : Yes (Another +B version)
Zoo: Yes
B/W Aggro: Yes
Bant Control: Yes
Wizards: Yes (Most likely a UW version ala Winter Wizards, perhaps even with a red splash for Lavamancer)
Survival: Yes
Merfolk: No (Again, no information to say otherwise)
Goblins: Yes (A +B version)
Counter-Top: Yes
Life: Yes (Most Life decks are some permutation of WGB)
Mono Black Control: No (almost definitionally, although some MBC builds use 4 Bayou for additional threats in G2 and G3)
Blue Land: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes

So now we have looked at 50 decks total. Between decks 21 and 50, we see that only 5 decks did not use Duals. Combining that with our Top 20 survey, we see that in the top 50 decks of Seattle, only 8 did not use Duals.

Does the pattern hold? Well let's just check out the next 25 decks for fun. Here comes decks 51 through 75:

Goblins: Yes (The +B version)
Bant Control: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Dredge: No (Some versions are now using 4 Sea for consistency, but I will assume these are the non-Dual versions)
Zoo: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Goblins: Yes (+B)
Slivers: Yes
Goblins: Yes (+B again)
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Merfolk: No (Probably Mono U)
New Horizons: Yes
Goblins: No (Finally a Mono R one)
Counter-Top: Yes
Zoo: Yes
High Tide: No
Stax: No (Mono white variety)
New Horizons: Yes
Burn: No (Here's a mono color strategy hard at work at 72nd place)
Merfolk: No
Reanimator: Yes
Reanimator: Yes

7 more dual-less decks on our list, all of them between 51 and 75 inclusive. That brings the total for our tournament to a whopping 15 of 75. Let's make it a top 100 survey just to be safe:

Reanimator: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
New Horizons: Yes
High Tide: No
Merfolk: Yes (+W)
Reanimator: Yes
Merfolk No (Probably not)
Reanimator: Yes
Enchantress: Yes
New Horizons: Yes
Zoo: Yes
Threshold: Yes
Dredge: No
Elves!: No (No note of +B or anything techy like that)
Aggro Loam: Yes
Zoo: Yes
Zoo: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Blue Land: Yes
Merfolk: Yes (Adding in W)
Blue Land: Yes
Stax: Yes (This one specifies it's a Thopters build, which probably indicates some Duals)
Blue Land: Yes

That adds 4 more to the list to bring our grand total to 19 dual-land-less decks in the top 100 of SCG Seattle.

I'm feeling energetic right now, so I am going to finish off the tournament analyzing the next sets of decks in clumps of 25. Here's 101 through 125.

Mono Black Control: No
Dredge: No
Charbelcher: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Merfolk: Yes (A strange +B version. How exciting)
Bant Control: Yes
Charbelcher: Yes
Blue Land: Yes
Blue Land: Yes
Faeries: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Bant Control: Yes
Faeries: Yes
Dream Halls: Yes
Merfolk: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Goblins: Yes (A +B version again)
Counter-Top: Yes
Goblins: Yes (As above)
Reanimator: Yes
Dredge: No
Hexmage Depths: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Reanimator: Yes

In the bracket: 3 decks without duals
Overall top 125 decks: 22 decks without duals

Here comes 126-150

Charbelcher: Yes
Charbelcher: Yes
Faeries: Yes
B/W Aggro: Yes
Blue Land: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Dredge: No
Reanimator: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Burn: No
Zoo: Yes
Food Chain: Yes (Going to say yes and that this is a Goblins variation)
Reanimator: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Burn: No
Dream Halls: Yes
B/W Control: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Charbelcher: Yes
Zoo: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Dredge: No

In the bracket: 4 decks without duals
Overall top 150 decks: 26 decks without duals

And finally here comes the last 40 or so decks in the tournament:

G/W Aggro: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Dredge: No
Merfolk: Yes (Tarmogoyf)
Mono Black Control: No
Eva Green: Yes
Mono Black Control: No
Reanimator: Yes
Dredge: No
Charbelcher: Yes
Goblins: Yes (+B)
Merfolk: No
Merfolk: No
Dragon Stompy: No
Blue Land: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Ziggurat Zoo: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Dredge: No
New Horizons: Yes
Counter-Top: Yes
Burn: No
Merfolk: No
New Horizons: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Eureka!: Yes
Ad Nauseam: Yes
Goblins: Yes (Adding in B)
New Horizons: Yes
Dredge: No
Merfolk: No
Reanimator: Yes
Charbelcher: Yes
B/W Control: Yes
Helm of the Void: Yes
Enchantress: Yes
Reanimator: Yes
Doran Rock: Yes

That was a more interesting data set, that bottom group of 40.

In the bracket: 12 decks without duals
Overall top 150 decks: 38 decks without duals

That wraps up the data. Here's the analysis.

In the top 20 there were only 3 decks that did not run Dual lands. That was the smallest entry on our list (the top 20 bracket). The largest entry was the bottom 40, where a heft 12 decks lacked dual lands. Almost a third, 33%, of the decks that lacked dual lands showed up in the bottom 20% of the tournament. In the top top 20% of the tournament (the top 40), 6 of the decks did not use dual lands (15%). That's slightly under expected, but the bottom 20% had a huge representation of decks that were not running dual lands.

At SCG Seattle, 38 of the 191 decks did not use Dual Lands.
In the top 40, only 6 decks did not have Dual Lands (15%)
In the bottom 40, 12 decks did not have Dual Lands. (30%)

We would have to look at more tournament data to be sure on this, but I can say with some safety that the decks that were not playing Dual Lands did worse in the tournament overall by a long shot.

So are duals needed to play Legacy? No; 38 of the decks did not play with Duals in the event. But of those 38 decks, 12 of them could not even break the bottom 40. That says a lot about the prevalence of Duals in Legacy and their importance.

-ktkenshinx-

[ryO!]

Why would it be counter intuitive? WoTC would finally have an eternal format in which they have some control over the prices of secondary market cards: if they want to help overextended grow, they reprint staples. If they want to try and stop it from growing (which they won't: that would be counter intuitive), they stop reprinting staples. Either way, Wotc generate popularity for a eternal format which a lower entry level price, which means more people come to their tournaments which means more money for them.

WoTC doesn't care about the price, but they do care about players paying and playing in their tournaments. By being able to print staples, that makes it easier for people to enter said tournaments. The Legacy format would be a much larger population of players if you could buy packs and maybe crack open that dual land you want, or you crack open a Force of Will and trade it for a dual land.

With Legacy, WotC can't add more duals for the growing population of Legacy players. Prices go up until the price bubbles bursts, which causes everyone to start selling duals since format is dying, causing the price of duals to drop. This would be bad for collectors since now their duals are now losing value. This is also bad for players since if everyone is now losing interest for Legacy, there will be less support for tournaments.



ryO! said:



Don't use anecdotal evidence. Perhaps now people may be willing to pay $50 for a Tundra, but how about $60? $80? $100? There may also be a few that don't mind the price, but if the prices continue to grow they will be the only ones playing.

People won't play at all if a couple of cards start to cost as much as a HDTV.



Edit:

Here is one other idea that came to mind that would make overextended highly successful.

Does anyone here remember the Master Set from MTGO? The set that had duals and FoWs? If and when WotC makes this new eternal format, they could make a separate set of packs for overextended: old classics like Wild Mongrel or the shocklands from rav or maybe even Tarmogoyfs. These cards would only be legal in the other formats they were normally legal in, but doing this would do a few things:

1. More support for the overextended format since you can simply buy packs in hopes of getting that staple you want. By doing this, Wizards makes it easy for new players to enter overextended, which means more players would be likely to play, which means more tournament support for overextended.

2. WoTC makes more money. Releasing packs for a new set means WoTC could make more money off of everyone buying the overextended packs. Sounds like a nice way to make money off a new format, eh?

3. Any Legacy staples that are not on the reserved list become easier for new Legacy players to obtain. By playing in and buying packs for Overextended, they would be able to collect staples that are also heavily used in Legacy. If they then have the money, they would simply need to buy dual lands.

i don't think i ve said overextended would endanger legacy. On one hand i tend to totally follows you on the fact that - if - overextended become popular, i guess people will crack some old booster packs (starting from mercadia). On the other hand, and here i am just guessing, do you think it will have that much impact on the scarcity & price of legacy staples ? I guess it can indeed i am just not so sure it s ll be drastic though. Another question, is there that much overextended packs left ?And if those old packs become all of a sudden famous, wizzard won't makes money out of it, because, correct me if i am wrong, they won't release new booster box so the only winers here are shops that have some stocks. But all in all i guess overextended could be seen as some sort of pre-legacy (train there then join legacy) format. Anyhow i don't think legacy is on the edge of dying.
About the prices of duals and old staples don't forget that if legacy became widely more popular it is partly due to the SCG league, so i guess once the format will be stable, new comers wise, it will as well, hopefully, result in a stabilization of the staples prices. The SCG tour was a major turn in legacy, it gaves it a new exponential start which of course affected drastically offer & demand and everything linked in between.

at ktkenshinx thank for all those stats and input but let's not forget that, if indeed you need duals in legacy (you still can live w/o) but you don't need to own all the 40 ...

[quadibloc]

I'm definitely against changing Legacy to turn it into Overextended, and I'm fairly confident that this is one thing Wizards won't do.

Banning the original duals from Legacy would collapse their value the same way reprinting them would, so if Wizards recoils from the one in horror, one would think that it means they are unlikely to do the other.

I favor some kind of Overextended as a new format, because I think it will address the problem with cards rotating out of Extended and being forgotten - that was driving the complaints about the reserved list, and which was made worse by the Extended changes.

The thing is, though, that if they haven't announced this by now - and the prospect of cards becoming worthless after four years will hurt even the sale of really good and exciting sets, like the coming ones are expected to be - maybe they can't for some reason.

And one scenario I have is this: maybe they have been extensively playtesting just such a format, and what they've found is that there is basically no conceivable way, not by tweaking the banlist, not with including Chronicles and 4th Edition onwards in Core Sets in the card pools, not by leaving out Masques block entirely and starting from Invasion instead, not by reprinting Force of Will... that they can make it into a fun format that people will want to play the way they want to play real Legacy.

Hopefully, that particular nightmare is not true, but many criticisms I've seen of Overextended bring me to the point where I have to consider this as at least a possibility.

[unicoerner]

When will we know for sure if Overextended will happen?

[DownSyndromeKarl]

When will we know for sure if Overextended will happen?

When Wizards makes an announcement.