Soooo I'm guessing everyone here listened to our podcast episode?
Yea. Was a great distraction when I was at work. Would listen again.Originally Posted by Patrunkenphat7
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
Yup, I did. I liked your opinion on the new Lands-build. Personally, I don't like the Molten Vortex. I do however like the black splash.
Also, I liked how you guys had different views on Eldrazi, which (almost obviously) is translated in this thread as 'Chalice of the Void'. I didn't do extended research, but if you guys really came up with this aggro Eldrazi build: chapeau!
"Be it ever so crumbled, there's no place like home."
RGCL (GQ)
Youtube-playlist dedicated to RGCL
Yes! I'm sorry your thread got derailed by complaints of Oops & Belcher that probably belong in the banned list thread.
As a dedicated Lands player I always like hearing and reading opinions/analysis of the deck. I plan to give another listen - at least to the opening section.
I enjoyed you podcast very much. I agree with Dice about Phil's position on Eldrazi/Chalice. But this was good because it reflects the opinion of many players and provided entertainment and controversy. As Chatto says, it's no surprise this thread devolved into a debate about Eldrazi, Chalice, and what is good for Legacy.
I loved the analogy to the Star Wars asteroid chase. That sequence in Empire Strikes Back is among the best moments in the entire franchise. Next time Phil should consider piloting a Millennium Falcon instead of a Star Destroyer.
Edit - you guys were given some credit for deck innovation here:
http://thegraymerchants.com/?p=1517
Supremacy 2020 is the modern era game of nuclear brinksmanship! My blog:
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com
You can play Lands.dec in EDH too! My primer:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/t...lara-lands-dec
But Modern is wholly different to what you are pointing out here. It is filled with way more lopsidedness than Legacy. It's filled with way more Miracles vs 12-post type matchups, if you'd like. If you take most of the (pre-eldrazi) Legacy Tier 1-1½ deck matchups then most of the so called lopsided matchups aren't THAT bad. Miracles vs Elves favors Miracles? Sure, but it's not a hopeless matchup. The same goes with D&T vs Sneak and Show/Reanimator and even Delver vs Lands - while clearly favoring Lands - isn't like 80-20 imo.
In Modern on the other hand you are much more likely in a given tournament to run into matchups where you are either incredibly favorued to win or incredibly favoured to lose.
And (not directed at you, but at the discussion on variance) it actually ends up being a state where 'variance' means you don't know what you will face from round to round, and not that there is a high amount of varying outcomes once the game begins and people draw their cards. An Eldrazi deck will win a very high percentage of the time vs Storm regardless of what the Eldrazi and Storm players draw in their opening 7 and off the top of their deck for instance. That's possibly just an outlier as I don't think - so far - the Eldrazi deck has turned out to be quite the boogey man that some (myself included) feared it would be. I mean it sucks for Storm - which is my deck of choice - but other than that it seems that most of the blue decks have managed to cope with it.
I also think it's a complete fallacy that Eldrazi "crushes" Miracles. It might have landed a suckerpunch when it first arrived, but Miracles have adapted and is still the most winning deck on MTGO. Miracles has a lot of tools to deal with Eldrazi, chief among them being Terminus and 7-8 Swords to Plowshares. Add to that varying forms of sideboard hate and Miracles is going to be FINE against Eldrazi. It might not be as favoured as most other creature decks are for Miracles (perhaps only in the 50-50 range) but I don't see this development as dethroning Miracles.
So yeah, I don't think the sky has fallen. But I also don't think it's something to aspire to, getting to a point where we have more lopsidedness than we do now. I don't mind that there is a small'ish risk that I might get blown out of round one or two at a Legacy GP because my tier 1 deck gets paired up with one of the few people playing a tier 2 deck that crushes mine. But I wouldn't enjoy it very much if the whole of tier 1 was filled with 80-20 matchups and I just have to cross my fingers that the gods of "variance" don't pair me up against more than 2 of those other tier 1 decks for 15 rounds.
Yeah hehe, sorry man, this thread has, as they say, been hijackedI did listen, and I do appreciate your brewing. I'm eager to hear how the shardstill list progresses!
And this is a Red Herring because you were also referred to arguments from MaRo and Garfield and those were not Appealing To Authority because the content of their arguments were provided.
You don't want to touch this becuase you insist that your opinion (while"humbly" claiming there is no right or wrong) supports a strategically superior game while people who enjoy Decision Theory and risk management apparently prefer a circus to an intellectual exercise. Get of your high horse.
Supremacy 2020 is the modern era game of nuclear brinksmanship! My blog:
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com
You can play Lands.dec in EDH too! My primer:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/t...lara-lands-dec
Please take this part of the discussion to PM's.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
Yes, sorry. I enjoyed it as always, though I would've liked to hear more about your experience with the deck. It felt like it got sort of crammed into the last ten minutes.
Well, massive or negligibly small depends on perspective. I think over time it will probably add up to something like a 2% transfer of EW% for a top player playing a below average player at a GP. The effect will be hard to 'see' as it will exist in the absence of something rather than the presence of something. That there is *some* transfer is true by our definition of variance. Pretty much everyone celebrated the rule when it was announced, but the reality is for 50% of magic players, Wizards just waved a wand and lowered your win %. But just like nobody thinks they're a bad driver, nobody thinks they're a bad player, so who's gonna complain? And most likely 'losing to mana screw less' makes people happier than 'losing to good players more' makes them miserable, so everyone's better off.
Overall 'variance' is sorta like inflation, it's not an argument about whether it should exist or not exist, it's an argument over what direction it should be pushed. Obviously magic shouldn't be chess, and even I think that unlikely topdecks / busted openings / etc. add some spice to the game. But Finn's arguments that 'variance is an integral part of the game, and messing with it is bad.' is absurd because every new card that gets printed affects the variance of the game. Wizards is the central bank and they get to attempt to push variance in one direction or another by designing new cards and occasionally tweaking rules.
And just like inflation is good for some people and bad for others, so is this new deck. It's not surprising that a Lands/Stax player likes this new deck, as does a hardcore brewer (Finn) - as high variance formats provide more opportunities for rogue decks. My friend who had never played vintage before showed up to Eternal Weekend Vintage Champs with an unpowered hatebear deck with Mana Tithes that we brewed the night before and went 6-4. When everyone is doing high-variance things, you can steal wins with all kinds of random cards.
And - from the other side - a Storm player doesn't like it and somebody else who thinks the existence of the deck lowers his overall win % (me) doesn't like it. Not even because I think it's a bad matchup for the decks I play, it's probably 50-50. But I feel like most 50-50 matchups give me some room to outplay my opponent so they're 'not really 50-50', whereas this one doesn't. I either have the cards or they do. Anyway, we all just want the economy to go in our direction. Probably not many Storm players out there who think this deck is good for legacy and that's not some crazy coincidence.
It's also not surprising that the new scry rule - proposed by Pat Chapin - benefits pros more than anyone else. That one was kinda like putting economic policy in the hands of bankers. I'm not gonna suggest any truly devious motive - he probably believes it genuinely benefits the game, and I do too. But does anyone think he would ever propose a new rule that *increased* variance and led to him losing more games?
I agree with all of this and mulliganing is the most skill-intensive part of the deck - but as you say, it only takes a modest degree of familiarity with the deck to do this correctly. Recently DTT-era Omnitell, while maybe not *as* easy, was also a linear T1 deck that could be piloted fairly well by a computer program, which is one reason a lot of people hated it. Don't remember any 40s being poured out in its honor when they banned DTT.
Legacy at its best ("imo") can be the most skill-intensive format when it comes to game play - familiarity with a very large meta and subtle card and rules interactions is rewarded. Tiny mistakes are punished in ways they aren't in other formats - you can sometimes survive an early mistake in Standard or Modern, but in Legacy you'll often just lose on the spot. Didn't play around Terminus/Stifle/etc.? Sorry.
But at its worst ("imo") the games can be as deterministic as 'War'. You do your thing, I do my thing, my thing wins.
Just to cover something. I am not happy the deck exists because I am a Lands player, I am not throwing a party for it because it's a good matchup. I am happy the deck exists because I actually think it does good things for the format. I feel the deck is a net benefit due its impact on what was looking for be a very inbreed meta.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
more rogue decks = more fun? or less fun?
I'm not accusing anyone of being purely self-interested, even Pat Chapin, I'm just saying 'Isn't it interesting that everyone's opinions align with what happens to be good for them?' If they print a new card that absolutely wrecks Lands and you argue that it's great for legacy your views on that matter will have more credibility attached. Still curious to see if we can find a dedicated Storm player who thinks this deck is good for legacy.
More fun for people like you who like to brew, less fun for people who like to win consistently.
I think Painter is good for Legacy, I think Moon has its place. I am not against decks that beat mine, I am against aggressive hybridisation. I believe that the Turbo Xerox style has become so ambiguous that this is beneficial. Because we really did need something to throw a wrench in the works of what's seemed to be an unstoppable engine of assimilation and integration.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
Well, a Lands player saying Painter is good for legacy is like a Storm player saying MUD was good for legacy a year ago. Sure. Once in a blue moon you have to play it. Cute deck, always gonna have its fans, just a tad too inconsistent to ever be T1.
But if one day Painter becomes +10% of the format and you are essentially guaranteed to face at least one t1 Blood Moon at a large tournament, even multiple times if you're unlucky - will you still sing its praises? Probably a little less.
Mate, I will say that Reanimator (A feck that is quite commonly played locally and I have to face 3 out of every 4 weeks I play) is a terrible match for me and I think it is a fine deck in the format. And it really is a bad match. It normally ends with anything of relevance in my hand and just about nothing on the table. I am not out for personal gain here, I have the cards to play just about any deck you care to name and I CHOOSE to play Lands because I like it. I mean, I was playing it before it blew up if that is any indication of my views on it. It would take more than Painter at 10% to make me stop.
My issue is this, the top decks of the format have been rather stagnate since about December in 2013. This was the start of the domination of the format by Miracles and America and the beginning of the decline of Thresh. It is also around this time that Jund was a big deal, something that would quickly end with Team USA taking most of the Jund market share out and closing down that deck. Following this you have the rise of SnT and then DnT, the two somewhat battling it out but ending mostly with back and forth of the two, with each dropping in and out of the top tables as the seasons ebbed and flowed. But Miracles never really changed. The deck has been DTB since Feb 14 only dropping out once and that was due to a record low amount of tournaments for the month in question. So for over 2 years, the format has wrapped itself around one deck while others bounced in and out.
During this time, Elves has come and gone, but still respectfully holds its own, DnT has done the same, Blade Control had the good fortune of being something people payed attention to and then learnt not to bother, Cruise Delver happened (RIP) and Omnishow did too. But the decks that have managed to really hold there own in the format have been build around a core of cards, Brainstorm, Ponder, Terminus and to a point Probe with little movement to change that. (For the record I do understand that many of the deck I just mentioned are not in fact Blue, but if you want the stats I can post up how much time they have spent as DTB's compared to those that are. Its not pretty.) In fact the last time a deck was warping the meta around itself the way Miracles does was Maverick back in the dying light of 2013. Just before Miracles became a thing.
I would argue that a lot of the fall of Maverick had to do with the rise of Miracles as a deck. Maverick as a deck also has on my records the second highest meta penetration of any deck, sitting just behind Miracles. It was not seen as a major issue though because it was not really "Unfun" if I may use the word to play against. But it does not matter, the tide changed and the deck fell. I am sure that a lot of people were not pleased then about it and I know more than one person now still is not happy. But if we accept that this happens, the guard changes, then we accept that nothing it really permanent in this format. Lest we remember High Tide or Goblins, the brave and the dead now who at one point had many seeking the ban of Lackey.
So if we accept that right now the Meta is warped around a best deck, that took that crown from another best deck before it, then ask why we have an aversion to this happening again? Because from my personal viewpoint Maverick is a deck I would rather play against than Miracles but the guard changed. Now people might rather play against Miracles then Eldrazi but maybe the guard will change somewhat. (I am not suggesting that Terminus is going away) It's going to happen, it was always going to happen at some point. Everything that has a beginning has an end Neo and maybe it is time for this cycle to end.
I for one want to see change, if that means that Lands becomes less of a force so be it. But I do not enjoy that a single deck can hold so much sway over the format without a natural predator that can really hold its own against it. If Eldrazi can eat into Miracles market share, only for itself to be taken down by Jund, Junk and Aggro Loam decks that themselves lose to Storm and Miracles then I will take that as a win. Because at this point other than personal choice, if you where going to play in a large event and wanted to win why would you not play Miracles?
This is not about my deck of choice, because where I play we have 20 odd people who are unlikely to change what they play. What this means to me is when I write up the DTB updates I am seeing some real hope for change. Eldrazi as a deck is likely to have next to zero impact on my life personally. I mean I am the only guy in my store that I know of that owns it. Does not really help me much if I have to face a deck 3 out of 4 weeks I can not beat but never see this new one I can now does it?
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
This is a very good wrap up of the discussion here. Brewer mentality and player mentality are different. Brewers create new stuff for players to tune it better. It's division of labor. There is always the next "non interactive" decks people dislike such as belcher, dredge, all spells, sneak show, omni-tell, and now eldrazi. It's just a part of the meta and the hype will pass eventually.
I think the argument here is not that anything that disrupts an existing deck is automatically good, but rather something that disrupts a dominant deck or strategy is good. If lands was dominating the format and they printed something that made Blood Moon decks better or more consistent, then yeah, probably a good thing for the format overall.
Even if they printed something that hosed Lands when it's not dominating, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing automatically. It could be, if it turns out Lands is keeping another deck from dominating the format, but that's pretty hard to see until after the fact.
I think the biggest thing is the deep seeded emotional understanding that the right play is the right play regardless of outcomes. The ability to make a decision 5 straight times, lose 5 times because of it, and still make it the 6th time if it's the right play. - Jon Finkel
"Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupation of men engaged in rash undertakings."
Well it's not about 'making you stop', lots of Storm players aren't stopping despite the overall unfavored meta. It's whether or not you say 'I think this card is great for legacy!' after they print a new card that suddenly makes Painter 10% of the meta.
Two things here:
a. I like Miracles. I think it's great that the most complicated and decision-dense deck in magic also happens to be the best deck in legacy. I think that's something that the format should be proud of. My real issues with the deck are how much of an element time becomes in competitive play.
b. I don't think this deck will ultimately overthrow the king, Miracles is one of the more flexible decks when it comes to changing its curve and can be built to be a 50-50 matchup, especially the Joe Lossett version of the deck. The deck still plays 4 boardwipes main and that's about the best thing you can have against a Stompy deck. But like I said before (vs. Dnt) - it is a *true* 50-50 matchup because the games where the Miracles player loses, they didn't have much opportunity to play out of the situation. Miracles currently has lots of 50-50 matchups on paper that are in fact strongly favored towards whoever the better player is.
No, instead Eldrazi destroys Storm, which was probably the 2nd best deck in the format. So the assassin killed the Vice President. It also randomly wrecks the 1-drop-dense not-Miracles decks that don't have as much room to shift their curve because having a tight curve is a key element of the deck's strategy - Delver, Burn, etc.
This thread has devolved into everyone arguing with Iatee's biased notions and assertions and personal opinions that he wants to argue as facts. If you guys didn't participate in the original Eldrazi thread, that's what that thread became as well.
It's an interesting and relevant debate. Is it really that bad to have unfold here? It was a direct off-shoot from the podcast after all
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
