[Article] Why Survival Shouldn't Be Banned, But Will Be Anyawy

[Lemnear]

Survival is always considered as the ENABLER of present and may future combos/plays so I took the Fetchlands/islands as example for this narrow and repeating description, which lacks a lots as you realized yourself.

Every single card has the potential to be broken with future printings but that doesn't mean we have to ban Moonlace NOW if they might print a enchantment for U that lets you draw 10 cards if it becomes colorless. The present should be an indicator for WotC's actions ...

The point is: Survival got Genesis, Squee, Loyal Retainer, Iona and now Vengevine over 12 years since it's printing and was always a tier 2 strategy until now ... the 2 main uses; convert useless dudes into bigger ones out of the deck and reanimation of dumped creatures with recurring nightmare etc. were well known and played since day 1 of it's printing.

NOW people started to complain about both facts to be out of bounds?! Dumping mana dudes for Goofy or Knight is now considered broken (even if it costs 1GG and a card); fatties (Iona, Chuck Norris, Vine) to reanimate them (Walla-action, Retainer) too.

Watch those 3 facts:
- It can exchange creatures in your hand for creatures out of your deck for mana.
- It enables reanimation strategies
- GW-Survival kills turn 4 with a perfect grip of 7 and a goldfish opponent

I guess every one can call this ban-worthy as he likes but I refuse to accept much of the logic to ban a card because of the fact that it MIGHT be able to do. All of that sounds like "Ban Ad Nauseum! It CAN draw hundreds of cards!" or the like

[ChrisElrod]

Anyone watch the most recent Magic Show where they interviewed Patrick Chapin for most of it?
He made some strong comments on the power level of the deck.

However, I do believe that banning vengevine would be better than banning survival, and I personally am not in the favor of the shortest possible banned list simply for the sake of having it be relatively short. I'd much rather have a metagame that includes one of the historically most interesting archetypes than one that instead has a banned list a few cards shorter.

[GGoober]

I personally am not in the favor of the shortest possible banned list simply for the sake of having it be relatively short. I'd much rather have a metagame that includes one of the historically most interesting archetypes than one that instead has a banned list a few cards shorter.

I think this is the heart of the debate. Most people feel that the banlist should be as concise and only consists of cards that are the true culprit/enablers of engines/engines etc. This train of thought thinks about the impact of the CURRENT bannings/restrictions and imposes restrictions/limitations for FUTURE metagames.

Other people (Steve, including myself and many others) feel that the banlist should be there to govern the health of metagames and conciseness isn't too relevant as long as it is maintaining the metastate. This train of thought thinks about the impact of the CURRENT bannings/restrictions and imposes restrictions/limitations for CURRENT metagames.

I personally believe that the latter belief is what the B/R should be all about, whether WotC/DCI adheres to this belief is their own philosophy, but I'm under the impression that was the situation. Referring to emergency bannings, Affinity in Standard, Bitterblossom/BBElf/Jace 2 in Standard, whether a card is banned/unbanned has all tied to this philosophy so far, i.e. maintaining the health of the format for CURRENT considerations. "Truly" broken cards like Necro and Ancestrall Recall are obviously banned for easy reasons that even a 6 year old can understand.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I completely agree with this article.

[Smmenen]

So, what, your article goes to the heart of my assumptions by assuming Vengevine is the problem and then begging the question?

No, my article goes to the heart of your argument that “Survival is the real problem” by pointing out that the idea that there is a ‘real problem’ is the problem.

All you’ve done is flip the script, by assuming that my suggestion to ban VV is based on the conclusion that VV is the ‘real problem,’ not Survival. On the contrary, I’m trying to show you that it’s the idea that there is a ‘real” or “root problem” that’s the problem.

Let’s step back for a moment and recap the entire debate.

My Position is this:

1) Nothing Should be Banned At this Time.

2) IF, However, The DCI decides to Ban Something, I would Ban VV instead of Survival.

My position is a dual position: it’s a position with an alternative option.

The Pro-Ban Survival Crowd obviously disagrees with (1), but they also disagree with (2).

Why? They disagree with two for a very simple reason:

The Pro-Ban Survival Crowd believes that Survival is the “Real” Or “Root” problem. They seem to take this position for one of two reasons:

1) Survival is the “INSERT WORD” Card, not VV.

This idea can be phrased in a number of ways: Survival is the” degenerate” card. Survival is the “recurrable source of card advantage.” Survival is the” real engine.” Survival is the “enabler.” ETC, I think you get the idea here.

OR

(2) Survival is likely to/going to/inevitably will cause more bannings if it isn’t banned now.

The idea here is that if we don’t ban Survival now, it will prompt more bannings, including its own.

Both reasons are wrong.

(1) is wrong because its 1) inaccurate in terms of representing the reality of the situation, and 2) irrelevant to the issue. (2) is wrong because I think the evidence suggests the opposite conclusion. Let me explain.

Dealing with (1):

Neither Vengevine nor Survival are broken. It’s the interaction of the two, situated within the context of the Legacy metagame that is the problem. You are trying to reduce a problem that is an emergent property an interaction to a particular card. That’s simply not an accurate assessment of the situation. It’s like asking: which is the ‘root’ cause of the water molecule: is it oxygen or is it hydrogen? It’s NEITHER. It’s the interaction of both together. Water is an emergent property of the interaction of the two atomic components. You are being far too reductionist. You are creating a false dichotomy: the grand , eluctable Either/Or dichotomy. Instead, it’s a BOTH/AND problem. Neither Survival nor VV are the problem: it’s when you put them together that you have a problem.

More importantly, the idea of whether a card is “[Insert term: broken, degernate, the enabler, etc” is just irrelevant. Cards aren’t banned on that basis. Whether a card is “broken,” “unfair,” “degenerate,” a “fast tutor,” “fast mana,” etc. is completely irrelevant to banning. The reason we ban cards is because they either

a) dominate a metagame

OR

b) lead to too many fast kills/ lock people out of the game before the game has begun. (there is a third category of Shahrazad, Chaos Orb, and ante, of course).

THEREFORE, The terms that you are using are completely irrelevant to the discussion. They are useless and misleading (and thereby terrible) heuristics. I tried valiantly to make this clear in the article:

As I said in the article:

[b\those frameworks are simply terrible heuristics for decision making. [/b]Each tutor and mana source is unique both in its application and contextual power. It’s only in the context of a metagame, not because of some principle regarding a card’s characteristic, that a card deserves to be banned. These labels are labels that hyperbolic and imprecise columnists use in internet debates or the DCI uses to justify decisions based on flimsy evidence. There is no such thing, in the context of B/R list policy, as “inherently broken.” And, even if there were, cards aren’t banned because they are “inherently broken,” but because they are contextually broken, and dominate a metagame. It’s time for us to get away from such poor linguistic forms.

In summary, my response to (1) is twofold: a) It’s an inaccurate and reductionist description of reality, and b) it’s irrelevant to the issue of whether to ban a card because cards aren’t banned because of such labels.

Dealing with (2):

I simply disagree with it. I don’t think it’s inevitable or even likely that Survival will prompt further bannings. The conclusion that it will or is likely to do so rests on evidence, historical evidence and knowledge of the kinds of cards Wizards prints. Therefore, it’s an inductive conclusion based upon information we have.

We can also marshal that evidence that suggests that it’s probably untrue, which is my position. My conclusion is also inductive, but it ends up the opposite position. Six years of fair use, despite plenty of GY based abusive creatures, suggests that (2) is far from a given. We can quibble at the margin about HOW likely it is, but I would put it at under 50%, which explains my position of why Survival shouldn’t be banned.

So, tell me, which of these statements is true?

"Survival is broken because it can find Vengevine."

or,

"Vengevine is broken because it can found by Survival."

Neither. The reason why is now clear, given everything I just said. Part of the purpose of this article was to critique the language and conceptual frameworks that magic players use in these kinds of debates. The words we use are a product of conceptual frameworks. These frameworks are flawed, and our language is thereby flawed. Using terms like “broken,” “degenerate,” “inherently unfair,” or trying to box cards into a particular category like “tutor,” “unfair mana engine,” is equally terrible and useless. We Do Not Ban Cards For Being “Broken,” etc.. (See above). Your statement not only uses a completely irrelevant terminology (terrible heuristics) (and, also, I would argue meaningless), it’s also a false dichotomy, and just wrong. The reasons for this were just laid out above.

You're assuming that Wizards is infallible.

No, I’m not. Their fallibility is irrelevant to the issues at hand.

Tarmogoyf was a mistake, as per Mark Rosewater's admission.

“Mistake” means nothing in the context of the Legacy banned list. Being a mistake does not supply criteria to distinguish between which mistakes deserve banning and which don't. The only thing that matters is whether a card is a problem sufficient to warrant banning. That's a metagame question, not a question about a categorical label.

Ultimately, it seems that, from my perspective, your confusion stems from some fundamental conceptual misunderstandings that are expressed in conventional language about "brokenness," "mistakes," etc. These words actually mean nothing, they import nothing tangible or substantial. They simply are terrible heuristics. And even if they do, they are irrelevant to the analysis. We don't ban cards in Legacy for having such labels. Otherwise, the banned list would be managed on the basis of arguing whether certain cards fit into certain categories, and tournament data would be largely irrelevant.

[Rico Suave]

That's fine: whether Necropotence was ever fair or not is not critical to my argument.

My point is that Survival has now had 6 years of fair use in its most recent applications. The most recent applications of Necropotence were increasingly degenerate. Therefore, Survival is not comparable to Necropotence, if your argument is that Survival will follow the Necropotence trajectory. All of the evidence is contrary to that view: Survival has followed anything BUT the trajectory of Necropotence.

Survival is more like Mishra's Workshop: a card that was busted back in the day, has been fair for a while, and now has as broken application, but once that application is gone, it will be fair again.

The entire point was you were claiming to have statistical evidence that Survival will be OK without Vengevine, but you don't have this. You can claim to know what Survival was like before Worldwake, which was quite a while ago I might add, but combos involving Ooze and Retainer-Emrakul were NOT printed until after Vengevine was already in the card pool. Saying you think that removing Vengevine will fix any problems with Survival is one thing, but saying you have proof of this is preposterous.

This is where the comparison to Necro comes in. Necro was fine for a long time too - until suddenly a new way of thinking along with a couple new cards made the skull very dangerous. Do you honestly think people are going to pass up on the Ooze combo in favor of Genesis recursion?

[GGoober]

I don't see the hype in Ooze combo. It was the same hype as Iona/Retainers, and I would argue that Iona/Retainers sometimes locks out just as strong as the Ooze win.

I've played Survival Ooze and found it clunky. You win when you assemble it, but it still takes effort fighting past disruption to get it out. I'm not sure how the GB Ooze Survival lists perform, but if I were to analyze how they did well, it was attributed to Vengevines in the deck as the primary win condition. Ooze combo is very clunky and slow (even slower against Dazes). Post-board, you have to play around GY hate in all its form. You can drop Ooze with GG floating to bypass GY hate but that would mean:

1) Resolving Survival
2) Resolving a casted Ooze (probably tutored by Survival, implying Survival sticks for 1-2 turns)
3) If you resolved a casted Ooze, you have to have GG open immediately if there is GY hate to win in response to Crypt/Relic/StP
4) If your opponent Extirpates at this stage, you have been time walked for quite a number of turns wasting mana on useless cards.

If you are assuming no disruptions from steps 1)-4), then it just shows that your opponents need to uninstall MTG and go play another game.

The truly superior Ooze combo is in fact not a Survival shell, but a non-Survival shell (on N&D). It is faster, less clunky, and runs enough disruption. You can never pack enough disruption in a Survival shell and hinge against your bad matchups (combo). The reason why GB Ooze Survival is powerful now is because of Vengevines. Vengevines in Ooze Survival is still the primary win-condtiion. You only go for Ooze when they've burned out of answers, and you can get a win right there.

If VV is out of the equation, I'll bet you that non-Survival Ooze decklists are stronger than Survival Ooze decklists. For argument's sake, even if Survival Ooze got popular, I stress again how it would not be as viable and strong when compared to other variants: Welder Survival (wins/locks 2 turns faster than Ooze) or Bant Survival.

Currently Vengevival just outclasses the old Survival lists: RGBSA, Elves, Welder, Bant. Note that Vengevival packs Ooze/Iona/NOrder as a SECONDARY win. And even if there is no evidence suggesting this, it is all clear on paper. The evidence being: There are no Survival Ooze non-VV lists that do well, nor are there Survival Iona non-VV lists that do well. There do exists Vengevine non-Ooze/non-Iona lists that do well, and there exists Vengevine non-Ooze/yes-Iona or Vengevine yes-Ooze/non-Iona lists that do well. The evidence isn't directly revealed, but should be clear.

[Smmenen]

The entire point was you were claiming to have statistical evidence that Survival will be OK without Vengevine, but you don't have this.

A review of your earlier posts illustrates that this was clearly not your point, nor reasonably related to your point. Your point was that evidence of tournament performance is not essential to management of the B/R list. You stated:

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.

And:

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.

You now claim that your point was that I don’t have statistical evidence to support the claim (which you ascribe to me) that Survival will be fair without VV. Your original point, and the point you are now making, but claim to be your original point, are contradictory, or at least, in strong tension. A point that tournament data doesn’t matter would suggest that my evidence or lack thereof wouldn’t matter either.

In any case, you are obviously wrong that I don't have *any* evidence that Survival without VV would be fair. The lack of tournament dominance by Survival prior to abuse with VV is evidence a-plenty that Survival without VV would likely be fair. Is it proof positive, 100%? No. but there is no such proof in magic nor is such a standard of proof ever required in this context, or any other policy context.

You can claim to know what Survival was like before Worldwake, which was quite a while ago I might add,

And the wrong time frame. The question isn’t how Survival decks performed before Worldwake, but how they’ve performed once the current incarnation of VV has been in place. The relevant time frame isn’t when a card is printed, but when it begins to see play.

but combos involving Ooze and Retainer-Emrakul were NOT printed until after Vengevine was already in the card pool.

Yes, but Retainer decks were used both at the Legacy Grand Prixs this year, and the Legacy Champs, as well as the many SCG Opens. WE have data that Retainer Survival decks are not tournament dominant.

Saying you think that removing Vengevine will fix any problems with Survival is one thing, but saying you have proof of this is preposterous.

Except that I didn’t say I had “proof.” What’s preposterous is being accused of saying something I never said.

Control+F my article or this thread for “proof” or “proves,” and you will discover that I never used the term “proof” or any derivation, nor would I. I don’t use the term “proof” because I’m more careful than that.

The idea of proof is actually a meaningless concept without a standard for application. It’s relative. There are many standards of proof. In law, there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far below 100% proof, and there is proof by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is just 51%. With respect to the question of whether Survival would be fair without VV, that is simply not susceptible to proof unless we have a predetermined agreement on what standard of proof we are to employ.

I’m trying to understand how you arrived at the view that I was advancing proof of something, and the only conclusion I can come to is that you have simply misread my posts, and interpreted my statements regarding “evidence,” and transformed them into statements about “proof.”

“Evidence” and “proof” are not the same thing. Evidence can be introduced to support a particular conclusion, but evidence does not “prove” a conclusion unless there is a particular standard of proof already in place. Otherwise, it simply supports a particular conclusion over another.

I HAVE used the term “evidence” repeatedly, but that’s not the same thing as proof. Evidence lends credence to a conclusion. It makes one conclusion more credible and another less. It’s not proof. It’s only proof if we have an agreed upon standard of proof, and a framework for establishing when that standard has been met, as courts of law do.

[xXxBretWeedxXx]

It all seems pretty obvious to me. Survival has a history of being a problem card before. I has been placed on the extended banned list. Vengevine isn't even seeing Standard play right now, Survival would be dominating the Standard landscape if they reprinted it in the next expansion without Vengevine even being printed. Wizards doesn't make cards like Survival anymore, they try to put those types of abilities on creatures (ex: Magus of the Jar, Fauna Shaman) to make them fair and that works. Wizards nkows what constitutes a broken card. Which do you think they view as the problem the card designed for Standard or that card they tried power level down for Standard?

[ryO!]

Facts

survival
- It can exchange creatures in your hand for creatures out of your deck for mana.
- It enables reanimation strategies
- GW-Survival kills turn 4 with a perfect grip of 7 and a goldfish opponent

let's add the pro ban facts

- it still have the aggro plan
- it can cast progenitus

scary isn't it?

i mean banning SotF this sound really right, when a problem pops what the best way to deal with it?
it is definitely to dig a hole, bury it and avoid, at all cost, dealing with it !

Anyway yeah it 's probably right Sotf is the new necropotence, i would also ban summone'rs pact for that matter. I mean a free tutor ? Seriously, Crazy !

damn this is getting pathetic.

on the other hand the article was really nice & interesting and unfortunately probably true about the end of this story.

[GGoober]

Using Survival-not-being-printed-in-standard is just an absurd metric to measure the 'brokenness' of the card. How about we reprint Wastelands, Top, Goblin Lackey in Standard? Does that mean that these cards should be banned as well?

Formats are goverened the way they are. Argubly if FoW was in Standard, it would be ''fair'', as long as WotC backups the aggro strategy strongly. Because FoW is actually argubly weak in Standard. What threats are you going to FoW that are relevant in Standard that are backbreaking? FoW is much stronger in the eternal format because of its applications in the format itself. If you're bringing a Legacy card to Standard for sake of comparison, then you are entirely wrong. And if you do e.g. my case with FoW in standard, it will only prove a point if you look at whether the card can be suited for the format. Apparently Survival will be too overpowering in Standard, but so would a huge plethora of cards right now. This is an absurd metric to govern the 'brokenness' of a card. Because WotC is maintaining the power level of Standard. They are slowly increasing it, but they have no interest to make Standard's power level into Vintage/Legacy. That's why the format exists, and the power-level gap exists. To bring a card from Legacy and compare it to Standard-doesn't-see-prints-of-such-broken-cards is just unacceptable as an argument.

Survival clearly has some power level inbuilt into it, argubly quite broken. But so does Lackey, Top, etc. Whether the card fits in Legacy, is observed by history and data. And Survival decks have been underplayed and reletively fair despite its 'broken' nature because the meta keeps it in check. Vengevival is a different story, because the interaction of Vengevine + Survival is not just powerful, but it guarantees its interaction even if one piece of the synergy is removed (if you've dumped VV in your yard with Survival, you no longer need Survival to win).

(and I quote 'broken' in quotes because 'brokenness' is subjective. Bloodbraid Elves was 'broken'/'busted' in Standard, but not really in Legacy. Survival is 'broken' in Standard but not really in Legacy, and not in Vintage. Mystic Remora is 'broken' in Vintage but not at all in Standard.)

[Smmenen]

It all seems pretty obvious to me. Survival has a history of being a problem card before.

But it also has a history of being a perfectly fair card in the most recent history, six years in Legacy. Which is more relevant? In my view, ancient history is far less relevant than recent history in the relevant format.

The idea that Survival is the “real problem” is partly rooted in a historically rooted perception of Survival as “a problem card, broken, degenerate,” etc. Yet, modern history has, at a minimum, cast great doubt on that assumption. That’s a major point of my article.

I has been placed on the extended banned list.

Yeah, in 2001. It was also banned with Replenish. And Morphling dominated Vintage in 2001.

Lots of cards become less abusive over time. Tons and tons of cards were banned in 2001 that are now perfectly fine. Mind Over Matter, Dream Halls, etc. etc. In fact, I believe that Mind Twist would be fair in legacy today. The fact that a card has once been troubling is far less relevant than its most recent history.

If a 50 year old man applies for a job, and he has a juvenile record of drug use and minor crimes, we don’t hold it against him when he’s demonstrated 30 years of good behavior until the last few months. In magical terms, Survival was bad for 3 years, and good for the last 6. Which do we credit? Moreover, which do we find to be more persuasive: the idea that Survival will likely be fair if VV were banned, or that Survival will likely not be fair if VV were banned? I find the former to be more likely.

Vengevine isn't even seeing Standard play right now,

And? How is that relevant whatsoever?
Trinisphere was restricted in Vintage when it was seeing almost no play in Standard. Standard and Legacy are completely different formats that have no bearing on each other whatsoever.
The only reason people invoke standard is the idea that a card’s ‘true’ degeneracy is cross-format. This patently untrue. See Trinisphere.

Which do you think they view as the problem the card designed for Standard or that card they tried power level down for Standard?

I already addressed this question above. NEITHER card is the “real problem.” The problem is the interaction between both cards. As I said:

The Pro-Ban Survival Crowd believes that Survival is the “Real” Or “Root” problem. They seem to take this position for one of two reasons:

1) Survival is the “INSERT WORD” Card, not VV.

This idea can be phrased in a number of ways: Survival is the” degenerate” card. Survival is the “recurrable source of card advantage.” Survival is the” real engine.” Survival is the “enabler.” ETC, I think you get the idea here.

OR

(2) Survival is likely to/going to/inevitably will cause more bannings if it isn’t banned now.

The idea here is that if we don’t ban Survival now, it will prompt more bannings, including its own.

Both reasons are wrong.

(1) is wrong because its 1) inaccurate in terms of representing the reality of the situation, and 2) irrelevant to the issue. (2) is wrong because I think the evidence suggests the opposite conclusion. Let me explain.

Dealing with (1):

Neither Vengevine nor Survival are broken. It’s the interaction of the two, situated within the context of the Legacy metagame that is the problem. You are trying to reduce a problem that is an emergent property an interaction to a particular card. That’s simply not an accurate assessment of the situation. It’s like asking: which is the ‘root’ cause of the water molecule: is it oxygen or is it hydrogen? It’s NEITHER. It’s the interaction of both together. Water is an emergent property of the interaction of the two atomic components. You are being far too reductionist. You are creating a false dichotomy: the grand , eluctable Either/Or dichotomy. Instead, it’s a BOTH/AND problem. Neither Survival nor VV are the problem: it’s when you put them together that you have a problem.

More importantly, the idea of whether a card is “[Insert term: broken, degernate, the enabler, etc” is just irrelevant. Cards aren’t banned on that basis. Whether a card is “broken,” “unfair,” “degenerate,” a “fast tutor,” “fast mana,” etc. is completely irrelevant to banning. The reason we ban cards is because they either

a) dominate a metagame

OR

b) lead to too many fast kills/ lock people out of the game before the game has begun. (there is a third category of Shahrazad, Chaos Orb, and ante, of course).

THEREFORE, The terms that you are using are completely irrelevant to the discussion. They are useless and misleading (and thereby terrible) heuristics. I tried valiantly to make this clear in the article:

As I said in the article:

[b\those frameworks are simply terrible heuristics for decision making. [/b]Each tutor and mana source is unique both in its application and contextual power. It’s only in the context of a metagame, not because of some principle regarding a card’s characteristic, that a card deserves to be banned. These labels are labels that hyperbolic and imprecise columnists use in internet debates or the DCI uses to justify decisions based on flimsy evidence. There is no such thing, in the context of B/R list policy, as “inherently broken.” And, even if there were, cards aren’t banned because they are “inherently broken,” but because they are contextually broken, and dominate a metagame. It’s time for us to get away from such poor linguistic forms.

In summary, my response to (1) is twofold: a) It’s an inaccurate and reductionist description of reality, and b) it’s irrelevant to the issue of whether to ban a card because cards aren’t banned because of such labels.

Dealing with (2):

I simply disagree with it. I don’t think it’s inevitable or even likely that Survival will prompt further bannings. The conclusion that it will or is likely to do so rests on evidence, historical evidence and knowledge of the kinds of cards Wizards prints. Therefore, it’s an inductive conclusion based upon information we have.

We can also marshal that evidence that suggests that it’s probably untrue, which is my position. My conclusion is also inductive, but it ends up the opposite position. Six years of fair use, despite plenty of GY based abusive creatures, suggests that (2) is far from a given. We can quibble at the margin about HOW likely it is, but I would put it at under 50%, which explains my position of why Survival shouldn’t be banned.

[Rico Suave]

Steve,

Go back in this thread. You'll see Max make this point:

"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."

You made a post right after that.

Guess what? The very next post was me responding to what you said. It followed through on the same train of thought that Max had begun. Maybe this will help illuminate the line of thought behind my posts.

If you want to create a massive wall of text telling me what I'm thinking or what my opinion is, you can go to hell. Show some respect.

For the very small portion of your post that was relevant:

In any case, you are obviously wrong that I don't have *any* evidence that Survival without VV would be fair. The lack of tournament dominance by Survival prior to abuse with VV is evidence a-plenty that Survival without VV would likely be fair. Is it proof positive, 100%? No. but there is no such proof in magic nor is such a standard of proof ever required in this context, or any other policy context.

You have never even seen an environment with Ooze but without Vengevine. You have no evidence that this environment will be OK.

[Lemnear]

let's add the pro ban facts

- it still have the aggro plan
- it can cast progenitus

scary isn't it?

i mean banning SotF this sound really right, when a problem pops what the best way to deal with it?
it is definitely to dig a hole, bury it and avoid, at all cost, dealing with it !

Anyway yeah it 's probably right Sotf is the new necropotence, i would also ban summone'rs pact for that matter. I mean a free tutor ? Seriously, Crazy !

damn this is getting pathetic.

on the other hand the article was really nice & interesting and unfortunately probably true about the end of this story.

I talk about Survival and it's synergy with Vengevine and you talk about beats in a certain deck? Where's the point? I mentioned the third point in my post because everyone acts like Vengevival is unanswerable. It's not. Survival gives lots of possible interactions Necro doesn't.

You obviously never played Necro; there's no way you've ever done by repeating this bullshit spread over the web without a second thought. The only thing both card have in common is the type. Once Necro resolves you can't do anything against your opponent drawing nuts from it.

Your argument is to ban Survival because it shares a color with Natural Order and Tarmogoyf? That is the plain stupiest suggestion anyone made in the last few years of magic. Congrats!

By the Way: I've never seen anyone CAST Progenitus because of survival in play.

[Smmenen]

Steve,

Go back in this thread. You'll see Max make this point:

"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."

You made a post right after that.

Guess what? The very next post was me responding to what you said. It followed through on the same train of thought that Max had begun. Maybe this will help illuminate the line of thought behind my posts.

And, again, I addressed this point, that "survival without VV wouldn't be dominant.' That's a straw man position. I'm not saying that it definitely wouldn't be dominant, just that I think it's most likely it wouldn't be dominant without VV.
As I said: the lack of tournament dominance by Survival prior to abuse with VV is evidence a-plenty that Survival without VV would likely be fair. Is it proof positive, 100%? No. but there is no such proof in magic nor is such a standard of proof ever required in this context, or any other policy context.

It's my view, based upon 6 years of fair use, that Survival will likely be fair if VV is banned.

If you want to create a massive wall of text telling me what I'm thinking or what my opinion is, you can go to hell.

Isn't that exactly what you did to me, telling me what my position was? You described it as "preposterous" that I claimed to "have proof" have Survival will be fair without VV. Yet, as I carefully demonstrated, I never used the word proof or said that I had proof of anything, and that you misinterpreted my use of the word "evidence" as "proof." Also, as I pointed out:

Control+F my article or this thread for “proof” or “proves,” and you will discover that I never used the term “proof” or any derivation, nor would I. I don’t use the term “proof” because I’m more careful than that.

The idea of proof is actually a meaningless concept without a standard for application. It’s relative. There are many standards of proof. In law, there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is far below 100% proof, and there is proof by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is just 51%. With respect to the question of whether Survival would be fair without VV, that is simply not susceptible to proof unless we have a predetermined agreement on what standard of proof we are to employ.

Evidence” and “proof” are not the same thing. Evidence can be introduced to support a particular conclusion, but evidence does not “prove” a conclusion unless there is a particular standard of proof already in place. Otherwise, it simply supports a particular conclusion over another.

I HAVE used the term “evidence” repeatedly, but that’s not the same thing as proof. Evidence lends credence to a conclusion. It makes one conclusion more credible and another less. It’s not proof. It’s only proof if we have an agreed upon standard of proof, and a framework for establishing when that standard has been met, as courts of law do.

Show some respect.

I have shown respect. You were the one who called a claim I didn't make "preposterous." Who's really the honest debater? Carefully explaining a position (what you call a wall of text) is not disrespectful.

For the very small portion of your post that was relevant:

You have never even seen an environment with Ooze but without Vengevine. You have no evidence that this environment will be OK.

And again, by that standard, we have no evidence that a Vengevine format without Survival will be ok, so VV should be banned. Your point here cuts both ways.

But, in truth, we do have evidence that Survival without VV wouldn't dominate. The evidence is not 100%, but it is evidence. It's admission in court: before VV, Survival was fair. That doesn't mean that it will still be fair, but it's IS evidence that it would be fair. Again, you are getting hung up on having "proof." Evidence is not proof. It's evidence. It supports a conclusion, but doesn't prove it.

[ramanujan]

Wow,

It's on like donkey kong in here. Anyway, I wanted to say that I really enjoyed the article, and that I see and agree with your position. Like you said, it doesent really matter anyway as the die is already cast on this topic. For what it is worth, I cannot see Vengevine banned because it is a creature that wins by attacking. I do believe that if there has to be a ban that it should be VV but you can add that previous sentence to the long list of why they would choose survival ( wrongly) instead.

Peace

[2Rach]

As an addition to the "what about Ooze/Retainer/Iona/Emrakul/other creature" argument; Smennen keeps talking about the last 6 years without understanding that the creature-power correction has only been going for the last 2-3 years. Mystical Tutor had strong spells since the start of the game to play around with, with recent help from the new creature push focusing on fatties lately, to become a powerhouse. Survival of the Fittest has just started gaining ground in the catch-up race with MT due to the new creatures being printed.

I think I'm done for now, typing on a phone is tedious.


EDIT:
...and the future is going to be filled with more and more Legacy competitive creatures being printed.

[FieryBalrog]

Yes, the trend in printing more and more ridiculous creatures is something that needs to be taken into consideration. A ton of the most powerful effects go on creatures these days, in part because its more "fair" and in part because Wizards wants creatures to be the face of the game to casuals and Timmies, who are by far the largest crowd of MTG players.

If you tried to make a list of the 10 'best' creatures in the game right now, I wager on most lists 8-9 of them will be from Ravnica onwards.

Maybe Fauna Shaman was/is an omen.

[MattH]

Preserving Survival in the long term is not important as it has proven itself a repeat offender across many formats.

No, that is wrong. That is a myth, practically a lie. Show me ONE other time, in any format, when Survival has been dominant. Not just good - it's always been good, but dozens of cards have 'always been good' without being broken or dominant. If you're going to make (depressingly common) hyperbolic claims like this, you need to back them up.

[MattH]

Cross-posted from SCG:

What it is, however, is one of the most dominate set of strategies of all time, over an extended period of time (a season, not just a weekend).

Well here is your fundamental error. You're assuming that 3 months is enough time in Legacy for a card or strategy to prove too problematic to fix except by ban. But, it isn't. Eternal metagames such as Legacy are qualitatively unlike standard or extended or block, and you'd be a fool to apply the same metrics to them.

There's a variety of reasons for this. One, card availability. A lot of players can't just drop their zoo or merfolk deck and try to metagame against Survival that way. For them, it's Fish or stay home. That impacts the metagame: these decks provide food for the Survival decks, propelling them higher in the tournament than they might if all players could, with relative ease, maneuver into any deck of their choice.

Two, your data for dominance is based entirely off of SCG results. However, you're not accounting for the fact that the player base is qualitatively different for these events, with a higher proportion of Legacy dilettantes who just want to be handed a decent deck to pilot, who put in no innovation to the format. Nothing wrong with that (it's the same approach I take to Standard!), but it's a real phenomenon that a serious commentator needs to take into account.

Three, there is no Legacy 'hive mind'. The collective brainpower spent on solving Legacy problems per time is at least one and probably two orders of magnitude lower than for Standard. Coupled with the deeper card pool (thus, more options to investigate) you need to allow way more time for solutions to emerge.

Basically, think of how much time you'd allow something to dominate standard, the multiply it by 10. That's how much time you need to allot for Legacy to solve a problem, without being premature in your decision. Survival's been dominating for six whole months? That's like 18 days of Standard dominance. Banning Survival is not a rational act but one of hysteria. Sadly, we seem to live in a time when hysteria holds sway.