Survival of the Fittest

[Volrath]

l
o
l
z

Indeed.

[markbris]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/s..._Tibbetts.html

Round 1 Feature Match from SCG Richmond.

Notice that the guy is playing rock, a supposedly good deck for beating Survival, has him on the ropes the first game, Survival gets ripped and its game over when Alix was like a turn away from death. Second game the guy drops a needle, extirpates the vengevines, gets rid of two survivals and still loses to natural order. Pretty ez to stop with just a couple hate cards eh? And this from a deck that already has maindeck answers for it.

Oh and Jeremy Tibbets is at least decent at the game.

Before the hating comes in, I'd be fine if they kept it legal for a while as I'm working on my own answers to it and I don't mind trying to crack it but I can see the reasons for the ban.

[SurFitOfTheVine]

Wait a minute, since when does survival beat combo?.

Don't be so narrow and ignorant. Combo decks are not all the same. TES is not consistent enough to beat Survival. Other ANT decks are though.

[deviant]

I'm 4-0 combined against these in sanctioned matches. Just saying. I'm pretty sure I can pilot my GW list and go 2-1 against that gauntlet.

I assume the loss is TES?

I have yet to lose a match to Survival, ever.
(hint: I like to count storm when I play)

It would be a pity to ban survival this soon. I truly believe the metagame can shift and handle this "problem" by itself.

EDIT: Oh, and if someone is wondering how I can believe survival shouldn't be banned as it's power level is more than comparable to those of mystical, land tax, whathaveyou on the banned list, the explanation is rather simple: I think that list is a little too long

MORE EDITING: I too, believe they will ban it though, not banning it would be like admitting banning mystical was a mistake, and I do not think they are willing to admit they made a mistake.

[SurFitOfTheVine]

I assume the loss is TES?

I have yet to lose a match to Survival, ever.
(hint: I like to count storm when I play)

It would be a pity to ban survival this soon. I truly believe the metagame can shift and handle this "problem" by itself.

EDIT: Oh, and if someone is wondering how I can believe survival shouldn't be banned as it's power level is more than comparable to those of mystical, land tax, whathaveyou on the banned list, the explanation is rather simple: I think that list is a little too long

You haven't been playing against decent players then. Sorry.

[Tacosnape]

I assume the loss is TES?

The loss would probably be either Dredge or TES. I'm not picking specifically. I'm just saying this. If I took my GW Survival and went in, back to back to back, against TES, Dredge, and Burn, I would expect to be 2-1 by the time I was done. In any case, I'm 1-0 against TES, 2-0 against Dredge, and 1-0 against Burn. I'm well aware that on occasion TES or Dredge will win the die roll and erase me game 1 before I get to respond, and then my board will only be enough to get me there one of the two next games. But I pack a very strong and very versatile hate package for Combo, and while I wouldn't be thrilled to get a TES pair up, I wouldn't be intimidated either. For someone who talks about how the metagame can adapt, Survival can adjust its sideboard to beat TES a lot easier than the rest of the format can adjust to beat Survival.

I also like how it's all the Storm Combo players bellowing how Survival is fair and should be left alone. There can't -possibly- be any bias here, considering they like that the format is completely dominated by a deck that actually is a fair matchup for them, can they?

[Piceli89]

In all honesty, even if I would not mind Survival remaining as the format is pretty easy for us Stormers right now, I'm still of the idea it's just too good to be left there. I won't add any "you can play SurvivalHaterator.dec and still get blown" argumentation, there are plenty in this discussion.

I'd just say that Survival, as of now, resembles me what Oath of Druids is in Vintage. They both cost 2 and require another card in play to, practically, lead you to victory 80% of the times by cheating on huge and/or fast beefs. While I know this comparison is inaccurate because Survival requires mana for activations and Oath doesn't, I think I rendered the feeling. I've seen games won on the back of a turn-before-death Survival, which otherwise would have been lost due to wrong plays, I've seen people topdecking Survival in a dead situation and winning as soon as they drew a creature.
I've seen tempo decks Stifling, Wasting, Snaring, FoWing, and then losing because the opponent topdecked Survival and it resolved. Pretty fair I'd dare to say.

I agree that Mystical Tutor got dumb as soon as they unbanned Entomb and printed Ad Nauseam. It was beneficial to axe it, even for the fact that it's better to avoid future broken cards being tutored cheaply.
Survival is a chaining Demonic Tutor effect at instant speed that can't be dealt unless you play it tapped out. You Needle it and they respond with pridemage. You Pridemage it and they respond with Witness. You let it resolve on turn 2, and you've basically lost the game. You let it resolve in tight/topdeck situations with nothing on the board, and in a pair of turns Vengevines, Oozes, but also Squees and whateverelse have buried you under "combos" or a massive card advantage machine.

Hate me as much you want, tell me that it's sufficient to run Pithing Needle or Extirpate or 4 Snares or play another deck or getting good at the game. The truth is, "that shit is retarded and needs to be banned" (quote). If you want to keep the format at an overall power-level equity, Sotf is clearly a meter above everything else. And I'm saying this with the awareness that, if it gets banned, the meta will shift back to Counterbalance against Zoo and the rest.

[frenchy-man]

(Awards FieryBalrog 22 lesbian points for general awesomeness. Redeemable, like always, as soon as I have excess lesbians in stock.)

Like seriously. The discussion isn't even whether to ban something. It's which piece to ban. If the duo were to be left alone, Two of the Five decks I keep assembled in my box would have the Vengevine Survival combo in it. And you can cry all you want. A piece WILL be banned. With this much outrage and controversy over it, Wizards will ban some piece of it whether you think they should or not. So in another couple weeks, GG, naysayers.



Maybe the Europeans don't play Survival as much, or can't play it well. Since you apparently want to get into a continent war.

Or, we could just stick to things that we know are true. That, for better and worse, the European metagame changes more slowly than the US one does. The US, generally, is quicker to pick up a new good deck when we should, but also quicker to abandon an old good one prematurely.

OR, we could just avoid regional cliches together and try to have an intelligent discussion based on merit, but judging by your last couple posts (Europe isn't "Everywhere else," for the record,) I'd say that's out.



I'm 4-0 combined against these in sanctioned matches. Just saying. I'm pretty sure I can pilot my GW list and go 2-1 against that gauntlet.

On what are you based to claim that european meta doesn't change as fast as US meta ? Forgive us if we mainly don't play survival because we tested enough to know it is not the best deck. By the way, you lost your credibility when you said that survival has a good MU vs combo... It ill probably be my new signature...

Oh, and tell me why American people are ot able to win their own legacy GPs...

[Meekrab]

Dear anybody talking about being X-0 versus {some deck} where X is less than 10,

lol sample size

Love,
meekrab.

[deviant]

Haha! That is partly true, but then again - did you see any CB players devastated when they snipped mystical? Of course a strong personal bias plays a part in everyones opinion. If you ask a dedicated zoo player what he thinks, yes you are in fact wasting your time you should already know how he feels about survival.

I may have more trust on the format solving itself than most people (this seems to hold true to every banning discussion, in every format.) but I just feel like it's really narrow (you know the unfortunate stereotype of americans who only care about stuff that happens inside their borders and ignore everything on the other side just because it isn't american? Yeah, this banning discussion (not specifically here) is at times making me wonder if there is some base to that stereotype.. (not intended as a flame, calm down) to ban an engine that is only a problem in the SCG opens, that seem to be tournaments where most people attending just play the deck that won the last one.

I just would prefer to have as little bans as possible, and if they really have to ban the engine I hope they at least snip the vengevines, not the survival. That card has been in the format for ages w/o problems, it is not the card SotF that is the "issue" to anyone here.



And I'm just going to use this opportunity to thank that guy who seems to think the playskill of the survival player magically makes the mu good for them. That's just.. yeah. You keep on telling that to people, we combo players gotta pay our respects to the people paving the road for us.

EDIT: I've faced survival decks easily more than 10 times in tournaments..
Love you too,
kozel on mtgo

[jazzykat]

Survival has been a staple and fun card since the beginning of this format. It was a fun and even card, I would argue that with the banning of mystical survival and other aggro decks had a more than fair shot at doing well against them all the while punishing Control hard. With VV and no mystical I am having quite a bit of trouble sometimes against the UG varieties. It seems that it's ok if an aggro combo deck is going over 60% vs. the non-combo part of the field and 50/50 with the fast combo?

VV is the problem. Whatever else happens I hope they don't ban SotF, <Sarcasm>hey maybe they would ban LED that would make everyone happy right? </Sarcasm>

[frenchy-man]

Btw : legacy Cachan in France (near Paris) : 235 players. Only 1 survival in top 8 (GW). Others (I am not totally sure) : Ustax (by the god kLu), rock, landstill, reanimator, merfolk and dunno for the two others (but probably no survival).
I don't think that the meta is not sain...

[Dark Ritual]

Lol, TES sucks too much? Sorry, but if that's true then Mr. Cook top 8'ed a GP with a 'crap' deck and made everyone look bad. Only reason he lost to Caleb Durwald was because his d. returns turned up a pile of crap cards that typically doesn't happen very much when you draw 7 cards in TES.

Also, survival is beginning to catch on in Europe. If the deck is left untouched (which I seriously doubt at this point), in half a year at most VV survival will be sweeping up the european metagame as well. Like tacosnape said, Europe is slower to switch to decks that are very good than americans.

[Catitas]

When some of you say that you are X- Y against any deck, please recall when you were playing against a bye and still lost(guess what i've lost against goblins with tendrils, that alone doesnt mean that goblins is a matchup for ANT)... while some argue that maybe survival players are bad in europe, perhaps they should bring survival here to try and see by themselves...Other say that europe meta is slower...does anyone remember where Reanimator show up in legacy? yes gentleman in holand and then in GP Madrid...so yes we europeans do have a very slow meta, i dont recall any SCG with reanimate before madrid or the dutch nations 2009...

So instead of trying to argue about our meta, try to innovate in yours...Your problem is simply one you're all playing with the same, none of you wants to beat survival, then you come here complayning about it... See top8s in europe they support what im telling you...

Last weekend in spain there was a 86 player tournment and survival was almost half meta, but turned out that in top8 there was no survival or storm, guess why? Decent sideboards... Probably in US most of you dont recall what is a sideboard...

heres the top8, and please pay atencion to the sides...

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=5359

[FieryBalrog]

Last weekend in spain there was a 86 player tournment and survival was almost half meta, but turned out that in top8 there was no survival or storm, guess why? Decent sideboards... Probably in US most of you dont recall what is a sideboard...

heres the top8, and please pay atencion to the sides...

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=5359

lolz. All those decklists tell me is that "Probably in Spain most of you can't afford to switch to decent decks". Top deck has 61 cards, mindbreak trap, and wheel of sun and moon? That's the killer sideboard?

I don't see anything there that isn't bog standard fare. "half the meta survival" either that's false or you guys are still playing ATS.

[SurFitOfTheVine]

Here's why the European meta is slower:

http://www.magiccardmarket.eu/

Bare in mind that 1.00 EUR = 1.34158 USD

This means that people in the US can buy an expensive deck for 1/3 of it's price here in Europe.

[Nidd]

Also, survival is beginning to catch on in Europe. If the deck is left untouched (which I seriously doubt at this point), in half a year at most VV survival will be sweeping up the european metagame as well. Like tacosnape said, Europe is slower to switch to decks that are very good than americans.

Might as well call that a difference in the metagame.

[SpikeyMikey]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/s..._Tibbetts.html

Round 1 Feature Match from SCG Richmond.

Notice that the guy is playing rock, a supposedly good deck for beating Survival, has him on the ropes the first game, Survival gets ripped and its game over when Alix was like a turn away from death. Second game the guy drops a needle, extirpates the vengevines, gets rid of two survivals and still loses to natural order. Pretty ez to stop with just a couple hate cards eh? And this from a deck that already has maindeck answers for it.

Oh and Jeremy Tibbets is at least decent at the game.

Before the hating comes in, I'd be fine if they kept it legal for a while as I'm working on my own answers to it and I don't mind trying to crack it but I can see the reasons for the ban.

I've had dozens of games where I've been on the ropes and ripped any number of cards that suddenly swung things back in my favor. It happens. I remember way back in the day in T1, I was playing G1 of Keeper vs. Keeper. We were both in topdeck mode and he rips Ancestral, draws 3, drops a Masticore and passes turn. I untap, pull Hollistic Wisdom, proceed to masturbate furiously with Ancestral Recall and Time Walk, find and drop Morphling and beat him to death without ever passing the turn again. I was probably one of half a dozen people in the world playing Wisdom in Keeper because everyone else felt the power level was too low. We play an Eternal format. Any threat, unanswered, will be your ass in short order. How many swings with a KotR does New Horizons need to kill you? 2? 3? How many times have you played against storm combo and thought you had them on the ropes before they rip a timely Ritual or IT that compliments the rest of the cards in their hand and suddenly you're taking a Tendrils for 26 to the dome?

Frankly, I just don't think that Survival is deserving of a ban yet. For that matter, I don't think Survival is deserving of a ban at all. All these half-cocked wanna-be theorists talking about resuable DT's are off their rocker. It takes a very specific kind of card to improve Survival of the Fittest at a rate faster than the rest of the field is improving. Survival's value has been going down for years, occasionally to be bouyed back up by some new toy like Iona only to drift back into the borderland of playability. Why? Because you're spending 3 mana just to drop it and search. You spend 3 mana and 2 cards to Eladamri's Call (NOT DT. Call. If you want to make comparisons, there's no reason to get ridiculously hyperbolic about it). Generally speaking, any single creature card in your deck that you wanted to fetch out, you'd rather spend 2 mana and 1 card and ACTUALLY Call. Unless you need to fetch 2 creatures and 1 needs to be in your yard (Loyal/Iona). Unless you need to fetch 4-6 creatures and 2-4 of them need to be in your yard. Very specific cards that require your deck to be built around Survival of the Fittest. And it's not even a matter of "do I need them in my yard?" It's a matter of "can they win me the game if I put all this effort into setting this up?" Don't believe me? Try and play Bloodghast Survival and see how busted it is. Without Vengevine, Survival is still just trade-bait instead of a tier 1 deck.

[D. Watta]

I'd like to make a suggestion regarding the forum:

We are all anticipating the "results" of the potential banning of Survival, or, I suppose, the unbanning of Mystical (but this is a moot point).

I have had an observation and would like to know if anyone else has found this to be the case--

I started playing Survival last year after noticing a list (SurviVeteran) of a variant of RGBSA. It was immediately intriguing and, I was amazed to find, could win with tactful play even when a Survival was not on line. The beauty of an amalgamation of singletons working together to neutralize the opponent's threats and to enable you to "survive" with or without the namesake card was something I became thoroughly inspired by in Deck Building.

Then came Vengevine. I immediately hopped on the hype wagon and bought up a set of Vines and have since been playing UG madness. It's a solid deck that satisfies the Timmy and the Spike in all of us. However, and this is where the observation occurs, it does little for the Johnny in us all.

What I mean is this: I set about experimenting with a few other, slightly older, more compelling Survival builds. I repeatedly found, and much to my agitation, that there was simply no reason to be playing Survival without Vengevine. Suddenly, such a dynamic card that opened up so many options, had become, not only in deckbuilding, but also in actual play, a tragically limited and linear card. There used to be a series of economic and highly strategic choices necessary in utilizing Survival to it's full potential. Now it's just a string of Vengevines.

A few people have cited the "design restrictions" set upon Wizards in things like Mystical and, thus, Survival. Personally, I have found profound design restrictions as well as play restrictions set upon a card as beautiful as Survival by the existence of Vengevine.

To put it short, though I don't believe it is necessary, if something were to happen on the B/R list, I would actually [I]welcome[I] a ban on Vengevine. It has nullified the creative influence of one of the most dynamic cards in Legacy. Also, it is the singular two cc green card that enables players to not have goyfs.

[FieryBalrog]

I actually love that a UG deck exists that not only dominates, it dominates while running Wild Mongrel over Goyf. I love that a GW deck can shoot for the top tier. I love both those things very much.

What I don't love is that it's so over the curve. Survival decks are driving on a V8 while the rest of us are driving a V6.

In my opinion the best thing to do would not be to ban survival, or even vengevine; it would be to print some actual solid activation or search hate, so that Survival can be effectively hated out. Take Aven Mindcensor, shave a mana off and ditch the flying, and you have a solid card. Take suppression field, make it 1 per activation, and throw it on a grizzly bear for the same mana cost. I don't know, just ideas.

However, I'm realistic. This isn't going to happen, if they do anything they're going to ban survival, and it probably deserves to be banned given the general criteria for bannings.