All B/R update speculation.

[Amon Amarth]

Plenty of control AND combo decks only win via the combat phase (e.g. Team America, Combo Elves, etc.) This still doesn't classify them as aggro-decks because their overall gameplan is reliant on a particular approach that would classify as other archetypes.

Goblins sometimes does have the nuts aggressive draw, but it often switches gears depending on the matchup and plays more midrange/controlling. And I would say that T1 Lackey is a very 'combo-y' play, since it generally wins the game if unopposed.

You have to realize that role =/= strategy. Goblins can assume the control role or even combo people out occasionally but it's main goal is to swarm with lots of creatures. That is it's strategy. Any deck can change it's role depending on the game state. Burn can start aiming its bolts at creatures to make sure that its Goblin Guides get through. Would you classify it as a control deck at that point? Aggro-control? No. Elves wants to attack with lots of dorks or an Emrakul or whatever but it needs a couple specific cards like Heritage Druid + Nettle Sentinel to get to it's endgame. That said, classifying most decks is nebulous at best at I think we're all talking past each other at this point so...

Unban Black Vise, Mind Twist, Earthcraft, Mind's Desire.. am I missing anything? Then we can, perhaps, get to the real juicy stuff.

[caiomarcos]

Stoneblade is not a "dedicated" control deck?
Goblins is not a aggro deck?
Why not?

Stoneblade controls the board with StP, FoW, and Jace. It wins with a few efficient threats. Follows the same gameplan control decks always have.

Historically, dedicated control decks have never been proactive like blade builds are, or can be, with Jace and Stoneforge Mystic. That's what, at least for me, makes them not true/dedicated control.

Rock controls the board with smother, stp, deed... and is not and never was dedicated control.
Zoo controls the board with Path, bolt, Qasali... goblins control the board with wasteland, rishadan, gempalm etc.
Your definition of control is lacking. Being a control deck is not having a few control elements in the list, is playing controllingly.

I see those blade decks today more like accelarated blue. They have many control elements, but the game plan is aggressive:

"This version of Blue Control differed from everything since Mana Vault had been legal in Standard for turn 2 Air Elementals... The goal here was to utilize Grim Monolith to exploits Blue's then-greatest strengths. Its best cards in-Block (excepting Windfall etc.) were not finesse counters but its raw muscle, namely Morphling, Treachery, and the bulk card drawing spells, which could themselves serve as finishers. Rather than worrying about holding back early game for Counterspell as Blue players may have historically done, PatrickJ.dec aficionados set up Grim Monolith early game in order to make their best cards faster and stronger. Racing with the third turn Morphling was a common game plan for this deck."
http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/DDB/a...rick_j_dec.htm

[dunk]

They will unban Black Vise once Land Tax is a tier 1 deck.

[Kich867]

Lackey is a 'combo-y' play. You make a good point sir. Combo undertones are there in Goblins.

I don't feel Goblins is controlling though. It just has more awesome creatures than other aggro decks.
Zoo plays lightning bolts. Should we call it aggro control since it can bolt creatures when needed?

I think this whole conversation is getting into needless amounts of semantics. Goblins is an aggro deck. Goblin Lackey is an aggressive play that furthers an aggressive strategy.

Not only that. The distinction between these decks is literally useless. It's fundamentally and entirely pointless to ever segregate decks into arbitrary archetypes as it stands anyways. If your deck can't do some amount of control, isn't very aggressive, and doesn't have synergy, then your deck probably sucks. If you have to arbitrarily assign things, note that all decks have some level of the 3 "Archetypes" built into them, go with whichever one it leans towards the most.

Typically, control decks stop options. Aggro decks don't care about your options. Combo decks don't even care about the opponent.

[Julian23]

LZoo plays lightning bolts. Should we call it aggro control since it can bolt creatures when needed?

In Zoo vs. Merfolk, definitely. In the general context of the metagame, no. It's the difference of assuming the control roll in a specific matchup as opposed to (or in conjunction with) what a deck generally wants to do.

[joemauer]

Historically, dedicated control decks have never been proactive like blade builds are, or can be, with Jace and Stoneforge Mystic. That's what, at least for me, makes them not true/dedicated control.

Rock controls the board with smother, stp, deed... and is not and never was dedicated control.
Zoo controls the board with Path, bolt, Qasali... goblins control the board with wasteland, rishadan, gempalm etc.
Your definition of control is lacking. Being a control deck is not having a few control elements in the list, is playing controllingly.

I see those blade decks today more like accelarated blue. They have many control elements, but the game plan is aggressive:

"This version of Blue Control differed from everything since Mana Vault had been legal in Standard for turn 2 Air Elementals... The goal here was to utilize Grim Monolith to exploits Blue's then-greatest strengths. Its best cards in-Block (excepting Windfall etc.) were not finesse counters but its raw muscle, namely Morphling, Treachery, and the bulk card drawing spells, which could themselves serve as finishers. Rather than worrying about holding back early game for Counterspell as Blue players may have historically done, PatrickJ.dec aficionados set up Grim Monolith early game in order to make their best cards faster and stronger. Racing with the third turn Morphling was a common game plan for this deck."
http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/DDB/a...rick_j_dec.htm

Stoneblade decks are the same shell as old control decks.
It runs counterspells(8-12 maindecked), creature removal(4-6 maindeck), and card filter/draw(7-11 maindeck) with a few win conditions. Its win conditions are Stoneforge Mystic which generally just tutors up Batterskull or Jitte to win with, Jace which acts as a card draw and board control card, Snapcaster Mage which is really an instant that creates a free 2/1 token, and sometimes Vendillion Clique which is a preemptive counterspell as well.

I fail to see how Jace is aggressive. Land Jace turn four(at earliest) so you can win five turns later. Turn nine is good game. Sounds like a control decks.

Stoneforge Mystic won't get Batterskull down until turn three. Turn four is the first time it can attack. So you can win by turn seven if undisrupted. Relying on one card to win by turn seven, at the earliest, sure sounds like a control deck to me.

[caiomarcos]

Stoneblade decks are the same shell as old control decks.
It runs counterspells(8-12 maindecked), creature removal(4-6 maindeck), and card filter/draw(7-11 maindeck) with a few win conditions. Its win conditions are Stoneforge Mystic which generally just tutors up Batterskull or Jitte to win with, Jace which acts as a card draw and board control card, Snapcaster Mage which is really an instant that creates a free 2/1 token, and sometimes Vendillion Clique which is a preemptive counterspell as well.

I fail to see how Jace is aggressive. Land Jace turn four(at earliest) so you can win five turns later. Turn nine is good game. Sounds like a control decks.

Stoneforge Mystic won't get Batterskull down until turn three. Turn four is the first time it can attack. So you can win by turn seven if undisrupted. Relying on one card to win by turn seven, at the earliest, sure sounds like a control deck to me.

Thanks for reminding me of Clique, I forgot that by turn four this control deck might have a 4/4 lifelink vigilance and a 3/1 flier (maybe carring an equipment). The definition of non-aggressive. Or not.
That's why those lists thrived. They have many control elements and still be quite aggressive and pro active. Rock played like this, but blue tools are much better at doing this.
Control decks today CAN play agressively, they have the option to do so, a pretty good and strong one. Dedicated control decks could not do that.

Anyway, back on topic - I think Vise is fair game. 5 damage, divided through a few turns, is fine. The best part is that Vise can punish players for stockpiling cards in hand, something that does not exist today, diversifying a bit more from the creature-only method of killing opponents (I know, burn and combo but still).

[Vacrix]

This is quite ridiculous. Goblins is a control/combo/aggro deck? What the fuck?

Yeah and storm combo isn't a combo deck; its a system deck.. but its still a 'combo' deck. Its a deck has an easier time with aggro decks and a harder time with control decks. There is no rock paper scissors to the Legacy metagame; its far too complex for that but trying to say that a deck is control/combo/aggro defeats the entire purpose of those classifications in the first place. For example, a combo deck like Sneak Show might have a 12 card countersuite but that doesn't make it a combo/control deck. Its just a combo deck that protects its combo with Countermagic.

I'm with IBA. Just because Black Vise is good enough to see play doesn't mean its going to break open the format. Unless you're playing a deck designed around keeping a lot of cards in the opponents hand, its not going to break open the format in any current decks that would just cut something to run Vise, MD or SB.


Also, in regards to Misstep getting unbanned.. Somehow I doubt this will ever happen unless the fundamental curve of Legacy changes. If it does though, I can't imagine that Snapcaster would be legal at the same time.

[dunk]

I know that Black Vise is not a good card, but I still don't think the DCI would allow it, as it kind of makes real control completely unplayable on it's own ( unless some sort of Counterbalance deck, which often plays with 1 or 2 handcards only, even "early" in the game ). Of course it's hard to say if and how things would change, but I don't think that with Vise allowed decks would have time to durdle around with Stoneforge and Jace ( assuming a Vise deck can deal with either Stoneforge or Skull ). A few borderline decks would also get punished. And this while adding nothing to beat Combo or Canadian.
Maybe the whole scenario is unlikely and controlish decks can deal better with Vise than I think of them, but I still don't see them taking the risk. And yeah, mentioning Tax as an argument for not unbanning it was no joke. Why give players an oldschool tool to durdle around just to effectively ban it again by unbanning Vise?


Also, regarding Mental Misstep: It's a shame the card was only around for so few months. The problem with Legacy usually is that the format is slow adjusting to new cards. Most people have never witnessed how Misstep really changed the format. BUG and UW control were probably the best decks, NO Rug had its best days, and any combo deck playing too many 1 mana cards ( maybe except for High Tide ) were just unplayable. The only real creature deck left in the meta was Merfolk, which also had its zenith at that time, mainly to people not adjusting or playing too clumsy decks. I loved that time. But yeah, I don't want to know what the format would have looked like with Snapcaster and Misstep allowed... probably nothing would have had a chance against UW.

[Hopo]

I wonder if anyone who prematurely and without rationale cried for the ban of Show and Tell will actually step in and admit that they didn't think too much about their views. It would probably be a good moment for some self reflection which might be valuable in the future as well.

One should be patient and stay away from hyperbole to avoid looking lite an idiot afterwards. Trust me, I know.

[Eyynuuw Errtrolng]

Wait.. What?

What are we banning this time around? I'm so ready. Just let me know what the card is for this month. I have a bunch of reasons ready and categorized, they're so good that card names aren't even needed. Like, Can just stick "Smurf" in their places and it's still good.

Oh, Also, for Anyone who wants to join us, PM me and I'll notify you all as soon as we launch.


TY

[joemauer]

Wait.. What?

What are we banning this time around? I'm so ready. Just let me know what the card is for this month. I have a bunch of reasons ready and categorized, they're so good that card names aren't even needed. Like, Can just stick "Smurf" in their places and it's still good.

Oh, Also, for Anyone who wants to join us, PM me and I'll notify you all as soon as we launch.


TY

This month? You haven't even been around for more than a month, son.

As far as the banning of Show and Tell goes, it will happen eventually. Powercreep will catch up to it sooner or later.

Edit: Just noticed who I responded to. Eyynuuw Errtrolng, say it slowly and it says You know, your trolling.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

People need to stop believing in the trinity of magic, as in aggro, control, and combo. Very few decks qualify for one and only one of those categories.

This post deserves more attention.

I would go further though and say that these distinctions were largely illusory to start with and have become only more so since.

There are threats, and there are answers, and there's resources and resource manipulation, and that's all that really exists in the game.

[caiomarcos]

This post deserves more attention.

I would go further though and say that these distinctions were largely illusory to start with and have become only more so since.

There are threats, and there are answers, and there's resources and resource manipulation, and that's all that really exists in the game.

I agree that this trinity is not very good, or even very bad, at classifying decks, but I see no better option.

[Mr. Safety]

I read a good article on Gameboardgeek.com about magic...and I think it's really good at summing up the game. All good decks play more than one section of the metagame clock, and the metagame clock is more than just aggro/control/combo. This is by far the best fundamental description of the game that I have read. I re-read it often when trying to figure out what's wrong with a deck I'm building. The article begins with the 'trinity' (which is in itself not a fallacy but rather just a gross over-simplification) but quickly moves on to how to really understand how to arm-wrestle against full categories of decks.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3702...-the-gathering

If you check it out, let me know if it was as helpful to you as it was to me (PM me.) Curious...

[Eyynuuw Errtrolng]

As far as the banning of Show and Tell goes, it will happen eventually. Powercreep will catch up to it sooner or later.
.

Yes, Show and Tell and you both have some amazing stats lately.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I read a good article on Gameboardgeek.com about magic...and I think it's really good at summing up the game. All good decks play more than one section of the metagame clock, and the metagame clock is more than just aggro/control/combo. This is by far the best fundamental description of the game that I have read. I re-read it often when trying to figure out what's wrong with a deck I'm building. The article begins with the 'trinity' (which is in itself not a fallacy but rather just a gross over-simplification) but quickly moves on to how to really understand how to arm-wrestle against full categories of decks.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3702...-the-gathering

If you check it out, let me know if it was as helpful to you as it was to me (PM me.) Curious...

I didn't know dbuel actually did Magic related things.

This still wasn't particularly accurate. You get more nuance than the RPS system of Aggro-control-combo, but only somewhat more. It's still a rough guide that fails in practice.

I agree that this trinity is not very good, or even very bad, at classifying decks, but I see no better option.

Not making presumptions about what beats what independent of testing?

[Vacrix]

What do you guys think about unbanning Fastbond? I've been thinking, it seems like one of those things that could never come off, but I think it would only get played in Elves, Lands, and perhaps storm combo, all of which relatively don't see a whole lot of play or top 8s these days. I think its possible that control has powercreeped so far ahead that its time for it to get brought up in discussion as potentially unbannable.


EDIT:
Perhaps its too strong. Terramorphic Expanse + Crucible, Emrakul seems a bit OP. There might be too many degenerate decks that could abuse this card. Still I'd like to hear thoughts on what decks would play it, or what combinations best abuse it.

[sdematt]

Fastbond makes too many things FAR too good. Go play Cube with Fastbond, and you'll know what I'm talking about. The thing's just busted. Even in Beta Cube, where all the cards surrounding Fastbond are garbage, turn 1 Fastbond into land land Howling mine is good enough.

I'm not saying Cube=Legacy, I'm saying Fastbond is busted.

-Matt

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You know what I miss? Survival. Every tournament I miss seeing that deck. The lists were always really cool and it could be built a bunch of ways. Until Vengevine was printed it was always a good card and never a broken one. I don't see any justification at all for keeping it on the banned list instead of Vengevine.

Anyway.

At least the list has less obviously-not-broken-cards than it once did (a lot less, actually, to give Wizards credit.)

Still, I'd like to see these straight up come off:

Black Vise
Earthcraft
Goblin Recruiter
Mind Twist
Worldgorger Dragon