http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=1280
Blurb:
Check it out!!!Survival of the Fittest is putting up unseemly – even gaudy – performance statistics. By any reasonable accounting, it’s dominating the Legacy format, if measured primarily by performance on the StarCityGames (SCG) Legacy Open series. I won’t rehash that data. Admittedly, there is some question about the scope of the data – whether its exclusive reliance on American tournament performance is truly representative of global metagame dominance. More than a few European players point to the European championships as counter-evidence (Editor’s Note: as well as the LCL series and every other large European tournament that is not SCG). But with that caveat, there is more than enough statistical evidence of Survival dominance.
I really enjoyed the read, Stephen. My sentiments exactly on the Survival or Vengevine argument, there's a lot of support for looking more into the latter, not the former in the area Legacy community, and I'm sure it's no different everywhere else.
The only real hope that players can have right now is that WOTC will approach the next B/R update more cautiously, but sometimes that's too much to ask.
I'll also comment on the actual... comments of the article, I'm not all against banning Basking Rootwalla. From someone who plays the deck, none of the builds, from GW to UG variants, have a source of actual card advantage (since most or all lists cut Squee anyways), and one of the crucial pieces to the explosive, in-your-face 3+ Vengevine chain is Basking Rootwalla + 0cc creature, it does make some amount of sense to look into it. I've tested pretty much all the variants and without Rootwalla, the deck is not quite as explosive, and cannot "cheat" on the amount of creatures it plays.
Delver enthusiast and avid practitioner of blind flipsmanship.
Follow me on Twitter: @AllSunsDawn
I never got around to posting in the huge discussion over on StarCity, but I noticed that a lot of people were saying how Survival wasn't a problem until Vengevine came along. Specifically, people said that Loyal Retainers was no big deal, and it wasn't really a thing until Vengevine was printed, anyway, etc.
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and Vengevine were in the same set. Assembling a bunch of Vengevines costs five or six. Retainers + Emrakul costs five or six, although it's seven if you want Emrakul to be Angry. The Ooze combo costs six or seven. Chapin played dedicated Angry Emrakul at Columbus. To say that Survival has been fine for a long time and would be okay in the wake of a Vengevine banning seems questionable.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
The Ooze combo is clearly the bigger issue there, though. Why would Survival decks revert to Emrakul and Retainers when the Ooze combo kills the opponent in a single shot, can be activated at instant speed, doesn't require you to pass the turn, doesn't require the combat step, and is immune to basically all removal spells?Originally Posted by frogboy
Ooze is simply better than Vengevine and, if given time, Survival decks will likely swing in that direction.
Either way, the banning of Mystical Tutor set a precedent that would require the DCI to ban Survival if it wishes to adhere to it.
If by "Ok" you mean it in the binary sense of "Bannable versus OK," framed as two mutually exclusive options, then I would firmly put Vengevineless Survival in the "OK" category given the evidence we currently have. There is simply no evidence that Survival without vengevine would be dominant statistically. That doesn't' mean it wouldn't be, but bannings aren't justified on speculation alone.
Once again why Steve's articles are a good read. He argues a point, you can choose to agree to disagree, but he backs his OPINION with arguments, and that's important.
And just to point it out, people like Steve, or those who play Vintage/eternal much more than the bulk of us, have a greater insight on the B/R implications. If people are screaming that VV should not be banned etc, then the good example of such a situation would be the restriction of TfK, instead of the true engine/culprit cards (Time Vault, Tezz, now Jace 2). In such a light, the banning of VV follows a similar logic i.e. it does not kill the archetype, and without VV, the Survival archetype will exist, and will be healthy.If the purpose of the Banned and Restricted List as a policy tool is to promote format diversity (see above), then banning Vengevine is a more logical decision than banning Survival. The reason is simple: Survival appears more likely to contribute to format diversity without Vengevine than Vengevine would without Survival. For years, Survival has been a quiet archetype in the Legacy format, and has been quite popular among certain Legacy players. As between those two options, banning Vengevine is far more logical in light of this criterion than Survival, even though it may strike many as counter-intuitive. It’s only counter-intuitive because people incorrectly put stock in the sloppy heuristics critiqued above. In light of the actual criterion behind Banned and Restricted List policy, it becomes the most logical option.
@Aggro_zombies: as good as the Ooze combo sounds on paper, in practice (this is from personal play-testing), it is the subpar strategy, I'll still opt for VV beats. Ooze despite difficult to be fizzled via removal, is very easily hated via Extirpate/Crypt/Relic/Macabre, all of which will continue to see play as long as Vengevival is popular. Having 1 Extirpate to hit just 1 card e.g. Devourer in the GY sounds bad, but it's a huge tempo against Oozevival. They have spent GGG2BB + 1G (survival's cost) to attempt to kill, and the worst GY hate card (Extirpate) against it still fizzles it. I play Ooze as a backup plan in my Survival deck, and usually don't go for it since it does not guarantee me wins if I fail. Other options (Welder, VV) will keep the board position for future turns if fizzled.
Here's the issue, as ugly as Vengevivals are dominating the scenes, it's the same deal with Standard, Extended, Vintage (Jund/Faeries, Dark Depths/Hypergenesis, MUD/Vaultkey.decs). Legacy is the most diverse format to date, and we're currently undergoing what the non-Legacy metas are going through: having a slightly above power level deck, that may argubly be the best deck in Legacy. For the longest time, there is NO best deck in Legacy. You could say there was a best deck in Standard/Vintage/Extended for a certain period, but Legacy metas adapt so diversely it's hard to tell. Countertop was the 'best' deck at a time, until it was outclassed by other decks. Merfolks came in, along with Zoo, then Lands shook the format, followed by Reanimator/ANT. Survival currently holds a longer dominance than any of these decks, but it's Legacy, how long have we seen a good deck hold its place for some time? Not at all, cause the format's awesome. We're kinda like Standard now, aka having a slightly overpowering deck dominating for its time. But just as Jund enjoys its dominance, decks hated it out by MDing crap like Spreading Seas. Is Legacy prepared to that point to truly beat the Vengevival meta? If we are, it won't be a problem, just as Jund got hated out. Jund/Vengevival are great decks, and they themselves will evolve, but when people are tired of playing against hate e.g. Jund/Dredge, you switch to different decks, and that's when meta evolves again. Currently we are not doing this.
People will argue: "If you go to a tournament, which deck would you play? The best deck of course! Vengevival!". This is a true statement, however, people don't consider the other point of view. There ARE decks that can beat Vengevival without sacrificing other matchups. If you TRULY anticipate a Vengevival field, then you consider playing a deck that primarily beats Vengevival, so you might piece up a Vengevival deck that hates Vengevival, but you still run into issues of other anti-Vengevival decks targetting you. To deny that you cannot create a deck that can beat Vengevival and yet have decent matchups against other jank/non-Vengevival decks, is to deny the potential of this format. I for one, know that Welder Survival has a faster speed than Vengevival, but it loses to other matchups. Tweaked countertop lists (e.g. I think it was Probasco's new list in an article earlier) has a good matchup. UGBw Landstill has a good matchup. Elves combo, Burn, Sligh all have decent matchups agianst Vengevival. Once again, we're stuck with the mentality "I can't play crap to beat Vengevival or I'll lose to everything else". Then here's my question: "What is everything else? Effing Vengevivals?! There you go!" and the fact that you worry too much about your non-Vengevival matchups means that you are not taking Vengevival as serious as it should be. Once again, are we ready to play Spreading Seas if that's what it takes to beat Jund? I think as Legacy players, we are overly spoiled by the awesomeness and diversity of our format that we fail to realize that when time comes to beat a deck, we HAVE to do it to beat it, either by playing Jund or really beat the crap out of Jund with Spreading Seas.
Even if Vengevival stays dominant, like the Jund-syndrome (slightly overpowering deck in its format + overly popular deck + easy to pilot deck), I don't think Survival deserves to be banned because of this fact. You can disagree, but this is just my opinion :) And if the DCI treats Legacy like a true Eternal format, they would consider bannings in light on how they view Vintage bannings e.g. taking time (over a year to decide on TfK's restriction, and banning TfK instead of the engine/culprit cards).
B/R should never try to kill archetypes, but rather, focus on killing the 'unfun' and cards that cause the format to degrade. Steve pointed out that the existence of the DCI B/R is to allow for bannings/unbannings/restrictions/unrestrictions. I don't see a problem with VV getting banned over Survival. It does better for the format as of NOW. If they print another mistake creature that breaks Survival, then that's a time for the future to decide for the FUTURE of the format whether Survival should go. Who knows, they may print some crazy shit like Jace 3 again, where Survival would never be relevant.
There are a few issues with this:
- Most players will not play Extirpate in their boards. In addition to being incredibly narrow (since it is usually THE GOGGLES against graveyard-centric decks), it is black, and there are plenty of decks that will not want to splash only for sideboard cards.
- If you play the combo pieces in the correct order, you can go off in response to a Crypt, Faerie, or Relic activation.
- Survival decks still have a plan B of being standard midrange beatdown decks.
- Assuming Vvine is banned instead of Survival, Ooze lists would likely go -4 Vines, +4 disruption spells to help stabilize the deck against hate.
Remember that the Ooze Survival lists have access to discard spells, making it possible to scout for hate spells first. Not having a Vvine kill may make the deck a little more brittle, but it's quite possible it could be retooled to either fight the hate or circumvent it with additional beats. Also remember that very few of these sorts of hate cards are in the main, and in games two and three Survival pilots can bring in counter-hate cards like Needle to keep themselves from getting blown out.
Would you mind elaborating on how in each points?
- Most players will not play Extirpate in their boards. In addition to being incredibly narrow (since it is usually THE GOGGLES against graveyard-centric decks), it is black, and there are plenty of decks that will not want to splash only for sideboard cards.
As far as I know, Extirpate is worth running in the SB, argubly over Pithing Needle against Vengevival. This is my take on Survival. If I shut down VV, I am dealing with a horrible Survival deck. Bant Survival/GW Survival are the only decks that I will worry now. From playing, Vengevivals don't run any Squees so Extirpate on VV sets them back and limits their Survival activations to dumping Rootwallas in play. But if you think Extirpate is not good in a Vengevival meta, that's your opinion. AFAIK, I'll be running 3-4 Extirpate + 3-4 Needles in my SB as long as the deck's popular
- If you play the combo pieces in the correct order, you can go off in response to a Crypt, Faerie, or Relic activation.
I cannot see this happen at all. If a Crypt/Relic is in play, you can just activate it in response to Ooze's casting. If they dropped a Ooze first then went off to fetch up pieces, then that would work unless they have more GY hate, but this assumption is highly unlikely. It will involve them tapping 2BB to cast Ooze and have GG floating to find the combo to go off. If by then (turn 5-6) your opponent hasn't killed or disrupted you or stopped Survival, the game was already over. Casting Ooze 2BB with GG open is highly unlikely situation but I can see the Ooze playing doing this against GY hate. In most cases, that dedication would involve passing the turns to set it up. And in such a situation, I'll just play non-Survival Ooze since it's faster, more resilient and has tons of disruption
- Survival decks still have a plan B of being standard midrange beatdown decks.
I'm aware of that and I do not disagree. Survival is inherently either a combo aggro deck or a mid-range aggro deck (i.e. designs of Survival fall under combo aggro e.g. Welder Survival, Vengevival, or mid-range toolbox approaches like RGBSA, ATS)
- Assuming Vvine is banned instead of Survival, Ooze lists would likely go -4 Vines, +4 disruption spells to help stabilize the deck against hate.
The question now becomes. Is a non-Vengevival Ooze Survival deck stronger than Vengevival? If it is, then Survival is the big reason to go. If it's not, Vengevine is the main culprit, and for the health of the format NOW, VV has to go. If a future card XYZ breaks Survival again, then B/R decides the health of the meta in the FUTURE. That's the whole purpose of B/R, to keep formats healthy. I personally argue that if Survival stays and VV leaves, the format will be quite healthy. Ooze Survival even with +4 Disruption spells is still a turn 4 win at best. I would imagine it having problems against most decks in the format when it cannot rely on a strong backup plan of free 4/3 hasters.
I was mostly trying to say that the position that Vengevine broke Survival might be flawed given that there is another engine in Rise that is very good with Survival, plus the Ooze combo that debuted with Scars. People have said that Vengevine is the problem, not Survival, and I'm unconvinced that Survival decks with a different kill wouldn't be dominant without the existence of Vengevine. At the very least, it's not something that can simply be handwaved away.
When in doubt, mumble.
When in trouble, delegate.
I understand your point, and my reply was completely responsive to it. Your point is that even if VV were banned, Survival might be a problem. My point is that we ban cards based on performance evidence. There is simply no evidence that Survival without vengevine would be dominant statistically. That doesn't' mean it wouldn't be, but bannings aren't justified on speculation alone.
To that extent, we can handwave it away, or introduce the speculative corallary: "I'm not convinced that even without Survival that VV wouldn't be a problem."
@SMenendian on Twitter
Check out my podcast!
My Eternal Central Article Archive (new articles)
My Star City Games Article Archive (300+ Vintage articles since 2002) r on GUSH, check it out .
Mind's Desire is banned without any evidence supporting it. I don't know a single person who thinks this is a wrong decision either.
There is more to banning a card than performance, statistical evidence, or anything else of that sort.
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
yes, and the article acknowleges that. I point to the Flash and Trinisphere examples in Vintage, both of which were banned because of non-interactivity concerns.
Survival is no Flash. Survival is no Necropotence either. I knew Necropotence. I played with Necropotence. I was friends with Necropotence. Survival is no Necrpotence.
@SMenendian on Twitter
Check out my podcast!
My Eternal Central Article Archive (new articles)
My Star City Games Article Archive (300+ Vintage articles since 2002) r on GUSH, check it out .
I think the point he made in the article was that aside from mystical tutor no cards in legacy have been banned based on performance and to ban survival (or vengevine) would break president.
I really liked the article.
When someone says that Survival would be a problem without Vengevine, you say "there is no evidence to support this."
I was pointing out that this is irrelevant to the problem.
Besides, you already know there wouldn't be any evidence to support this. If Necro were unbanned and everyone was running around with Necro-Tendrils decks, we wouldn't have any evidence that Necro-Trix would be a problem either. But we know it would be a problem.
Any similarity between Necro and Survival is not in raw power. It is in mechanics.
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
The comparison to Necropotence is the notion that despite a succession of problematic archetypes, the DCI persisted under the mistaken presumption that it could address the problem without addressing the core issue, and that banning anything other than Survival would repeat the same mistake. In the case of necropotence, the DCI repeatedly banned cards in decks in which Necropotence was present until finally confronting the so-called 'real issue' directly, and then banned Necropotence.
The 'evidence' I'm suggesting is absent is evidence that Survival would be dominant if VV were as well as evidence that Survival follows the meta-trajectory of Necro, and would eventually necessitate another banning. While characterized differently, this evidence is similar in nature. In the case of Necropotence, we had year after year of problematic archetypes emerging around Necropotence. In the case of Survival, we've had 6 years of fair use in Legacy, followed by a few months of abuse.
While it's a truism that you could theoretically continue to ban cards in the hopes of containing Necropotence, the argument that Survival is just like Necropotence is the argument that it will continue to necessitate further bannings. When Necro was finally banned, there was plenty of historical evidence to suggest that this would be the case. Except for its very earliest usage (and even this is debatable), Necropotence was never fair. Survival has had 6 years of fair use. Necropotence and Survival are apples and Oranges.
That's why I think other comparisons, like Trinisphere and Workshop, are more appropriate. When Trinisphere and Crucible were printed, folks in Vintage complained about Workshops. There were several options. The DCI could restrict Workshop, a card that generated unfair amounts of mana, or it could restrict a particular application of that mana. People cited necro as a reason to restrict Workshop. The DCI, wisely, especially from this historical vantage point, correctly restricted Trinisphere.
The case for restricting Workshop was arguably even more compelling given the fact that Workshop had actually been restricted before in the same format. Like Survival, it was a card that had been abused in tournament play. Yet, they restricted the card that had only seen print for a short while rather than the mana engine. The DCI is confronted with a similar situation, but, even clearer. Workshop in 2005 had been unrestricted in Vintage for 7 years, and generally considered fair for most of that time. The case is the same today with Survival in Legacy.
People speculatively invoke the Necro comparison, but, again, that argument fails because Necropotence never enjoyed, like Workshop or Survival, a sustained period of legal, but fair use in the middle of its run.
On some level, it's an epistemological question: how do we know what we know? When a card has been fair for 6 years, it loses all pretension to being inherently or inevitably problematic. Pointing to 1999 and old extended or type two is simply unavailing with the interim period has starkly refuted older assumptions.
TL;DR:
Necropotence never enjoyed an extended period of fair use during it's run; Survival has been fairly used in Legacy for the last 6 years. There is no evidence -- either performance data or a relevant historical record -- to suggest that Survival would follow a similar trajectory.
@SMenendian on Twitter
Check out my podcast!
My Eternal Central Article Archive (new articles)
My Star City Games Article Archive (300+ Vintage articles since 2002) r on GUSH, check it out .
Decks of SCG Legacy Open from 2010 Top 8s:
PS: I love infografx
P.P.S: I agree with the article and think Vengevine needs to go.
West side
Find me on MTGO as Koby or rukcus -- @MTGKoby on Twitter
* Maverick is dead. Long live Maverick!
My Legacy stream
My MTG Blog - Work in progress
That lends credence to my argument that you would generate more format diversity by banning VV than Survival.Decks of SCG Legacy Open from 2010 Top 8s:
PS: I love infografx
@SMenendian on Twitter
Check out my podcast!
My Eternal Central Article Archive (new articles)
My Star City Games Article Archive (300+ Vintage articles since 2002) r on GUSH, check it out .
That was an excellent article summing up what needs to be done. I would have liked a small bit discussion about how unbanning Mystical could play into it, but that's slightly off the path you were on.
You've basically summed up my beliefs in a wonderfully written, concise article. Well done!
-Matt
Sadly, I think Survival has had it's day. It's one of those cards that will eventually become a problem due to newer cards having better and better interactions with it. It's similar to Intuition or Gifts Ungiven as to it's not the card itself that's really a problem, but how it interacts with others. All are a tutor of a sort and nothing more. Survival would eventually have the same problem with another creature eventually when one is printed that's too good and accidentally makes Survival look like the bad guy again.
Ooze and Vengevine are the problems due to the "free" nature of the cards, but Survival will take the heat as it's the way to make these tricks consistent. Survival isn't busted or broken, but it sure enables amazing synergy in other cards. It's similar to Fastbond. Fastbond actually sucks in a format with no cards that interact with it well. Pick up a pre-con deck and add 4 fastbonds and then try and tell me it's busted. Sure, you can get some odd fast starts sometimes, but for the most part it's a bad draw. Add Crucible of Worlds, Storm Couldron, or Gush and it's pretty damned amazing all of a sudden. Every card that's printed has the possibility of making Fastbond stupid good and well if there's a card to get hit, it's usually the one that has potential to be busted by something else that's printed later.
Survival will take this one for the team. Though I still wish they would hold out until people start building against it more to see if it's reluctance of opposing decks to change that is powering it or if it's really just getting too good for it's own good.
I will kind of be surprised in a way if they do ban it though. People whined about Counterbalance way more. And if there's anything that sucks, it's getting locked out by Countertop and they let that one go.
I have played fair decks that contained Necropotence for a period of about 6 years across several formats before it was eventually banned. I don't believe you at all.
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
