Thanks for the response. Liliana of the Viel and Leyline of the Void have the same initials. I spent a good 10 seconds wondering why the hell it mattered that The Rock was running Leyline of the Void and why the heck he would bring it in against Turbo Eldrazi, and then it all made sense...Originally Posted by SBGpinas
You really think the 2 Brainstorms are going to matter that much? A couple of times, I did draw All is Dust, but it just didn't matter. The turn before I was going to be able to cast it (Cloudpost, Glimmervoid, Eye of Ugin, Cloudpost (coming into play tapped)) he Vindicates one of my Cloudposts. Overall, he drew pretty well. Against Tempo decks (and Combo decks), it's hard not to lose to god draws (i.e. when they've played every card in their hand by turn 4 and have a commanding board state).
Thanks for the advice. Generally, I'm seeing this deck's plan vs:
Aggro/Combo - just try to survive - find Chasm
Midrange - get to turn 3/4 with enough lands to drop your bombs
Control - who cares? the longer the game goes, the more chance you have a winning
The 2 Brainstorm choice is very recent, and a theoretical change. I'm all over on it. currently testing a version with 4 brainstorm again. Take it with a grain of salt.
Even with 2 Brainstorm, I think that yes it is worth it. The reason I went down to 2 is that your colored mana requirements can be very harsh early on, but against Deadguy Brainstorm is your best mana use early.
Lol sorry I thought LotV was the colloquial term for Liliana
Don't forget about Repeals. It gave me a lot of breathing room against the RUG matchup.
I wanted to like this deck, and really think that the idea is cool, but after play-testing this against the field, I've come to the conclusion that it's really hard to consistently win while playing combo unless: a.) you're really fast (Belcher, Dredge) or b.) you have lots of protection (Show'n'Tell/Omniscience, old-school Flash) or c.) you're a well-balanced mix of both (ANT, High Tide)
You shouldn't play this deck like a combo deck, try to play it more like a control deck and you might get better results.
Played a small 3 round legacy tournament yesterday (Sadly, there's not a lot of legacy players where i live). Went 2-1, loosing in the last round against high tide because i missread the situation and didn't needle his candelabra.
my 2 wins was against goblins and monoblack contamination.
Then the situation with no counterspells and very little board or hand control becomes even more of a problem, because control deck implies even more of a "slow clock".
As has been mentioned Ad Nauseam, this is the hardest deck to play in Legacy. I frequently still make play errors that cost me matches. The events where I am well rested, sharp and attentive are the ones I win. The ones where I am slacking, playing sloppy and tired are the ones I do well, but ultimately do not take the top prize. The deck always provides me the tools the win with extremely rare exceptions.
I would be curious as to the math and numbers behind your testing. I have two-fisted tested extensively (20 matches each) and recorded my findings against the major combo archetypes. I post these results often and have in the development thread. So far there are only two combo decks that are not favorable matchups, including post-side games, and those are Elves & MUD. Without those numbers, a statement such as "its really hard to consistently win" is simply anecdotal.
In addition to this, the possibility opens up that a lack of understanding about the deck as was mentioned, such as playing the deck as a combo deck, may be the real reasoning.
From my experience, if a deck is "harder" to play, it means that there is less margin for error within individual matches. The cause for a decreased margin for error can usually be attributed to a lower level of raw power and efficiency. Decks with such a razor thin margin for error are simply ill-suited to be tournament-winning decks. Even the smartest, most seasoned player will have lapses in concentration during matches - therefore, his success in a tournament will then depend on the consistency and power of his deck. Because of this, the top-placing decks are most frequently the most consistent and efficient decks - RUG Delver and Maverick now, Vengevine Survival a while back, and further back CounterTop. Even the best players appreciate a wider margin for error. Only a fool would turn down the opportunity to enjoy a wider margin for error.
I have to admit that my testing has not been exhaustive and mostly does fall under the category of "anecdotal". I have spent the past week playing this deck against the majority of the DTB field (Delver, Goblins, Stoneblade, Miracles, Maverick, Storm) both online and against friends. Clearly my testing has not been as thorough as yours and thus my opinion is not a definitive one. However, as merely an observer from afar, I wanted to add my personal opinion on this creation. I mean not to disrespect the labor involved in tuning and playtesting this deck. I did, though, want to sound a cautionary note about the precarious positioning of this deck, as it currently exists, along historically immutable archetype definitions - based on limited anecdotal experience, of course.I would be curious as to the math and numbers behind your testing. I have two-fisted tested extensively (20 matches each) and recorded my findings against the major combo archetypes. I post these results often and have in the development thread. So far there are only two combo decks that are not favorable matchups, including post-side games, and those are Elves & MUD. Without those numbers, a statement such as "its really hard to consistently win" is simply anecdotal.
The same type of limited anecdotal testing led me to identify U/B Reanimator as the best deck in the time period right after the unbanning of Entomb before the Pros began to acknowledge the potency of that deck, and prior to the Mystical Tutor banning which neutered the deck's versatility and redundancy which made it a clear Tier-1 choice.
Similarly, when Vengevine began to infiltrate the Survival archetype and explode its level of power beyond even the regular Tier-1 denizens, it was relatlively easy to play that deck or even merely look at a decklist to realize the raw power, consistency, and resultant margin for error in that particular iteration - it not only played a full suite of blue protection, but featured an extremely efficient and low-cost engine with multiple redundancy points and powerful alternative win conditions.
You just get that "feeling" of raw power in your hands when you play-tested those decks due to the combination of speed and protection and resiliency that you don't even approach with this deck, aside from the stellar late-game inevitability. The "feeling" that I get from playing this deck is similar to the feeling that I got playing something like Mono Blue Control - it has all of the tools to win vs. anything in the format, and it even has some "blowout" matchups that completely fold to your specific gameplan, but in most matches vs. the tier decks you have to play almost perfectly, and it takes a great toll on you mentally, and even the slightest error can lead to a close loss after a grinding series of turns.
Consistent winning almost always involves an inherent margin for error. Even if you don't play your tightest game, RUG Delver, in your hands as a pilot, will out-efficient the competition and gift you games you shouldn't have won with a different deck that demands tighter play. That's my reasoning behind the "hard to consistently win" statement. Sure, if you can master the lines of play of this deck and count on yourself to maintain razor-sharp focus throughout several hours of tournament play, then maybe you can top8 with this deck regularly. But why play a deck that demands this when you can play a more consistent, efficient deck with better answers that doesn't necessarily punish you for sub-optimal play?
If you play this deck like a control deck, then what are your tools of control? I can use Repeal as a control function rather than a stalling tactic, but in that mode it is still merely a tempo play. I can fetch Glacial Chasm, but that, again, is not a lock as much as it is a stalling tactic for a combo deck, and one that is susceptible to the ubiquitous Wasteland (when you don't have Pithing Needle in every opening hand). This deck doesn't really run any hard card-advantage control tools like board sweepers, unless you play All is Dust.In addition to this, the possibility opens up that a lack of understanding about the deck as was mentioned, such as playing the deck as a combo deck, may be the real reasoning.
I think you're confusing my statement about "needing to play the deck at a higher level than other decks ask" with deck inefficiency or impotency. I'm talking about the 3-4 difficult decisions per-Swiss you'll need to make to ensure a Top-8 placing. If you can't see the power behind the deck in its current form, then I strongly believe you are playing it too aggressively.
Again, if you can't see how this deck is a control deck, then I either question your definition of a control deck, mine being a deck that sacrifices tempo for implied late game card advantage, or you are missing the incredible advantage that this deck generates through massive mana generation.If you play this deck like a control deck, then what are your tools of control? I can use Repeal as a control function rather than a stalling tactic, but in that mode it is still merely a tempo play. I can fetch Glacial Chasm, but that, again, is not a lock as much as it is a stalling tactic for a combo deck, and one that is susceptible to the ubiquitous Wasteland (when you don't have Pithing Needle in every opening hand). This deck doesn't really run any hard card-advantage control tools like board sweepers, unless you play All is Dust.
The fact that each decision has a greater effect on the outcome of the game, and the fact htat minute decisions can drastically affect the chances of winning or losing a game speak to the reduced level of power of a deck. Think of this as you would a football game: teams that win games 20-17 often are worse than teams that blow out opponents 40-6 on average. Each play of every game has more meaning and heft in the former case and random events such as a blocked punt or a fumble recovery can mean the difference between winning and losing. The latter team prevents individual random events from dramatically affecting the outcome of their game - if a single play doesn't go their way, they can still win convincingly by a score of 40-13. Individual decisions making less impact on the outcome of a game is a good thing and speaks to the power level of a deck (or team).
Control decks are all about trading cards, breaking even on card advantage early in the game, and then slowly amassing an insurmountable wall of card advantage through late-game draw engines or something else that generates card advantage (the Eye of Ugin -> Eldrazi engine does indeed qualify) which gives them the ability to 1-for-1 ad infinitum later in the game. I don't see the ability to trade 1-for-1 in the early game. Repeal is a tempo tool but not a really a way to even break even on card advantage in a way that affects the board state permanently like say, a Swords to Plowshares would. You're playing tempo tools - that would fit better in a combo shell - in a control role.Again, if you can't see how this deck is a control deck, then I either question your definition of a control deck, mine being a deck that sacrifices tempo for implied late game card advantage, or you are missing the incredible advantage that this deck generates through massive mana generation.
Tutoring for Glacial Chasm or Glimmerpost are similar tempo plays without the ability to permanently affect the board state. Chasm is a source of virtual card advantage similar to Moat (vs. aggro decks) but in a far more temporary vein.
You play to survive the first few turns, and then late game you have the biggest bombs you could ever want. It is like a normal control deck, except instead of slamming a 4 mana Jace, you have a 15 mana win the game single card combo.
Hey rock lee I've seen you with this deck at a few events and I play at Ice sometimes. I'm the kid who hangs around with Mike Weiss.
Anyway, I was talking to my friend about this deck and he was under the impression that it's "too cute" because in a fast format like legacy inevitability doesn't matter. He has a lot of experience playing legacy, but he's one of those people who won't play an event unless it's with TES or RUG b/c he's elitist. I don't know where he gets this idea because there are plenty of non-combo decks in legacy that you just steamroll, UW miracles and stoneblade for example are always popular b/c Spikes always love to play them.
I think it would be nice if you included matchup analyses for TES, High Tide, other combo etc.
I included a brief breakdown in the 1st post of the Established Decks thread where the other matchup analyses are. Let me know for more combo breakdowns you need/want.
About your friend, I love people who think this way. They are often the ones shaking their head trying to figure out how they just lost to something "too cute." Numbers are all that matter when it comes to meta analysis and deck choice. This deck is putting up those numbers with a highly small number of pilots, something no other archetype is doing per-person playing it. Deck representation is not the same as deck potency.
While we're at it, could someone please explain the proper use of Crop Rotation (besides not walking into a counterspell)?
I know this question may sound foolish, childish even, but Crop Rotation is definite card disadvantage.
The obvious use is 'saving' your land from a Wasteland, in which case you obtain parity.
Crop Rotation requires a colored source, of which this deck has 6. You usually don't want to sacrifice that colored source, so, you'll looking to sacrifice something else. You really don't want to lose a Cloudpost, usually I'm tutoring for Cloudpost or a Glimmerpost (if I need life), or a Glacial Chasm (to save my butt), or an Eye of Ugin if I have sufficient mana. However, the 3rd-4th turn play of 'sac my Tropical Island to grab a Cloudpost' hasn't been that great.
Anyhow, maybe I am just doing it wrong. Back to testing...
I played at the same event as Rock Lee this saturday and as my first tourny with this deck i gotta say its a blast. I ended up a sad 2-2-1 but i learned so much just watching Lee play the deck. The sensei top repeal tricks blew my mind as a dig engine and I feel like this deck is so powerful against so many archetypes. After the event i actually considered testing out batterskull as an anti aggro card. Because i felt as if having it may help stabilize in scenarios where getting the two green for primaeval titan can be hard to get quickly enough to stabilize. I feel though this falls into the same category as wurmcoil engine and I feel like this has probably already been tested but some decks just lose to a big lifelinker which can sometimes be easier to cast than a titan in a pinch.
Thragtusk is not outside the realm of possibility against aggro.
Based on my experience with the deck, I typically use Crop Rotation in the following ways:
1. To fetch silver bullet lands (i.e. Bojuka Bog against Reanimator/Dredge, Glacial Chasm/Tabernacle against aggro, Karakas against SnT decks)
2. In response to Land Denial from my opponent (Wasteland, Sinkhole, Vindicate, etc.)
3. To grab Eye of Ugin or Karakas during the Showtime turn (i.e. the turn you intend to play the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any of the other boys)
I seldom use Crop Rotation as a way to ramp up my lands. I always rely on Exped Map and Primeval Titan to do this. But then again, in most of the actual games where I see the possibility of using Crop Rot as a way to ramp up, my opponents are playing blue, so it was typically too risky to do.
Against Miracles, I've always sided out Crop Rotation Games 2 and 3, and it has worked for me so far.
Against RUG, I tend to keep it as an answer to Wasteland. Even if they counter it, the land dies anyway, so I spent 1 card to rid my opponent of 1 counterspell, which sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Brainstorm is definitely a good way to reshuffle away the excessive Crop Rotations, but current build only has 2. Probably depends on the Metagame if the Brainstorm count will go up again.
I'm actually a bit worried on how it plays against the BUG Delver matchup. I might up the Brainstorm count to fight against the discard, but I'm at a loss on what to cut for extra Brainstorms.
Anybody done extensive testing against BUG?
Don't worry too much on BUG Delver. If you can resolve a Top both of you will go to Top Deck mode eventually and you just need to ramp up. BUG Control however is a different story. It has Dark Confidant and Discard and Counters and Planeswalkers maybe too many problem cards?
I highly doubt that people can switch decks that easy as well as there are a scarcity of Duals in our country lol Underground Seas are pretty rare. RUG people will stick to RUG and will probably not convert :) People will most probably play the same decks they've had and only a few teams can afford to swap decks at will.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote