So was perusing the legacy deck results and realized that Delver decks have been in the final round of 10 of the past 11 legacy opens. Why is that?
Unless you plan to play only at large competitive events, I think it's unfair to assume that the legacy metagame consists of what you see at the top tables of large competitive events. Aside from the fact that there are dozens of decks capable of hitting top8 (as others here have illustrated), what you see at a local level is TOTALLY different from what you see at large events.
I have 5 legacy decks. Loam pox, zombie bombardment, UR delver, BUG delver, and maverick. If I were to go to a large event, I would most likely bring one of the delver decks because 1) they are probably the most competitive overall, 2) they have the fewest "bad" matchups, and 3) they are vastly easier to play correctly than my other competitive choice (maverick).
However, at the LGS I usually play maverick or pox. Maverick because it's challenging and there are a million little nuances and tricks that force me to think and become a better magic player every time I play it, and pox because it's a pet deck and I find it much easier to play (sometimes I'm just not up to the intellectual challenge of maverick). In totally casual games I might bust out the zombie bombardment deck because it's just cool, but it's very hard to play and bad against aggro so I don't tend to play it if anything is on the line.
The point is, published results do not define "legacy," and top-8 tables least of all, unless you're an aspiring pro player, which I'm guessing you're not given your question (I do not mean any offence by that comment... I am also not an aspiring pro player!) At my LGS I have seen Tier 1 lists occasionally, but more often I see people playing the decks they find fun and "competitive enough," which usually means they are not the kinds of decks you'd be likely to see at top tables. I'm talking things like Tezzerator, infect, werewolf stompy, 4-color loam, weird combo decks, things that resemble Tier 1 lists but are tweaked to include some pet cards or budget limitations, and straight-out brews. the variety is tremendous!
My store is a wide swath of different control decks and different aggro decks, but most standard players would agree that the past 11 standard open decklists define the format pretty well. It shows which decks are dominant, which decks are quasi-competitive, and which decks are strong enough to have a one shot at a tournament. I mean how do you guys define a metagame? Collecting tournament results from every LGS across the country? Show me a better place to understand the deck numbers and competitiveness of each deck outside roughly 3 months of open deck lists.
Oh and a little off topic, i was going through the individual decklists of the legacy decklists and that maverick deck looks like a difficult yet fun deck to play.
So was perusing the legacy deck results and realized that Delver decks have been in the final round of 10 of the past 11 legacy opens. Why is that?
Unless you plan to play only at large competitive events, I think it's unfair to assume that the legacy metagame consists of what you see at the top tables of large competitive events. Aside from the fact that there are dozens of decks capable of hitting top8 (as others here have illustrated), what you see at a local level is TOTALLY different from what you see at large events.
I have 5 legacy decks. Loam pox, zombie bombardment, UR delver, BUG delver, and maverick. If I were to go to a large event, I would most likely bring one of the delver decks because 1) they are probably the most competitive overall, 2) they have the fewest "bad" matchups, and 3) they are vastly easier to play correctly than my other competitive choice (maverick).
However, at the LGS I usually play maverick or pox. Maverick because it's challenging and there are a million little nuances and tricks that force me to think and become a better magic player every time I play it, and pox because it's a pet deck and I find it much easier to play (sometimes I'm just not up to the intellectual challenge of maverick). In totally casual games I might bust out the zombie bombardment deck because it's just cool, but it's very hard to play and bad against aggro so I don't tend to play it if anything is on the line.
The point is, published results do not define "legacy," and top-8 tables least of all, unless you're an aspiring pro player, which I'm guessing you're not given your question (I do not mean any offence by that comment... I am also not an aspiring pro player!) At my LGS I have seen Tier 1 lists occasionally, but more often I see people playing the decks they find fun and "competitive enough," which usually means they are not the kinds of decks you'd be likely to see at top tables. I'm talking things like Tezzerator, infect, werewolf stompy, 4-color loam, weird combo decks, things that resemble Tier 1 lists but are tweaked to include some pet cards or budget limitations, and straight-out brews. the variety is tremendous!
A great thing about legacy is those brews some times do quite well just because the power of the cards in the format.
Now..imgine if you banned brainstorm. I bet you this list would triple. =D
The decks that run it would get a lot worse - perhaps no longer competitive - while the decks which are currently strong without it would be (relatively) even stronger. There is nothing to suggest that tier two decks not running Brainstorm would suddenly be able to compete with the Brainstormless decks already in the top tier.
Brainstorm facilitates a lot of different strategies - it enhances diversity.
Delver decks do well largely because they are popular - particularly in North America. The play style is mainstream (attack, block, and disrupt), and the high end staples are not obscure. If as many Legacy players had Imperial Recruiters as the number who own Goyfs, there might be a different story.
Yeah every format technically has infinite different decks and combinations, but it does seem like each format has an overbearing deck in terms of tournament results, especially legacy. I mean if you dip all the way down to top 16 and include every variant of a deck, even standard would have a list that long.
Not even close. here's a better list of established Legacy decks with less redundancy:
RUG 27, 1st, 2 times
Patriot/RWU 22, 1st, 4 times
Sneak & Show 22, 1st, 3 times
Esperblade/Deathblade 19, 1st, 1 time
BUG Delver/Team America 15, 1st, 3 times
Elves 15, 1st, 2 times
Shardless BUG 15, 1st, 1 time
Ad Nauseam 14, 1st, 2 times
Death and Taxes 13, 1st, 1 time
Reanimator 12, 2nd
Jund 12, 2nd,
Miracles 10, 5th
UR Delver 7, 2nd
Maverick 7, 4th
Omni tell 5, 1st, 1 time
UW Stoneblade 5, 1st, 1 time
Nic fit 5, 4th
Grixis Delver 4, 11th
Merfolk 4, 2nd
MUD 4, 4th
Imperial Painter 4, 6th
Bant 3, 1st, 2 times
Affinity 3, 3rd
Goblins 3, 4th
Belcher 3, 4th
Junk 3, 5th
Pox 2, 1st, 1 time
Stiflenought 2, 3rd
Dredge 2, 3rd
UB Tezzeret 2, 8th
Oops all spells 2, 2nd place
4 color delver 2, 5th place
Pod 2, 6th place
RWU Landstill 2, 9th
12 post 2, 11th
Lands 2, 13th
Standard has nothing like this list of distinctive archetypes and strategies. Even Time-Spiral/Ravnica Standard couldn't boast anywhere near this level of diversity.
Note also this list is out of Date (new list in the works). RUG is no longer the top deck - that is now Team America followed by Patriot Delver and Esper/Death Blade.
@ Jam, this is a thread about diversity - not card density! Delvers are only run in tempo decks - there is only so much strategic variety within tempo. Brainstorm is run in Combo, Midrange, Tempo, and Control. There is tremendous strategic variety within Brainstorm decks - more than the entire standard meta.
The variety in Legacy is a variety of strategy. These Legacy decks play differently, not because of the cards you are using, but because of the thought process and lines of play that make each of them effective.
This guy knows what he's talking about and this particular quote is brilliantly concise. Perhaps it's time for a new Taldier quote in my sig...
I'll coment a player from a foreign (Japan) meta. No delver is not necessarily dominating. But the color blue is. In essense, it's not the delver, it's the fact that blue has it all: beat with the tnn, counter with the force, dig with the ponder, avoid flooding with the brainstorm, card advantage with the snap caster. All those cards are "beatable" but combined makes it awe fully hard. 21 blue decks in the previous list and with multiple top eights. The non blues have very few top eights. So no, unless you play blue, the meta is not diverse.
So no, unless you play blue, the meta is not diverse.
Again, diversity in Legacy comes from varied strategies - not card density or colour make-up! Is this so hard a concept?
Also, most "blue" decks are three coloured decks heavy in blue. Mono red, white and black, and green decks have all had top 8 finishes in the last six months (most have eve had 1st place) - not true of mono blue.
And the segment I quoted makes no sense. The diversity of the Legacy meta is not dependent on what any one particular player is running.
Understand, Dredge is not really a Magic: The Gathering deck. When a card is playable in it, it doesn't mean it's a tournament playable card. It means it's playable in whatever crazy fantasy world that Dredge operates in.
The format was very diverse up until November 2013. But then True-Name Nemesis got printed and the format became three archetypes for the most part :
1)Play TNN (Delver/UXx Midrange)
2)Have lots of answers for TNN (Miracles)
3)Ignore TNN (Combo)
That's not true. TNN is stupid, but its just another creature. Its not more stupid than a 3 drop Emrakul, or a 2 drop 5/6. TNN is just another powerful creature people need to be prepared for when deckbuilding. This is anecdotal, but in my 30~ round of competitive legacy I have played since TNNs release I don't think more than 4 or 5 TNNs have been cast against me (while playing Miracles or deathblade myself).
My store is a wide swath of different control decks and different aggro decks, but most standard players would agree that the past 11 standard open decklists define the format pretty well. It shows which decks are dominant, which decks are quasi-competitive, and which decks are strong enough to have a one shot at a tournament. I mean how do you guys define a metagame? Collecting tournament results from every LGS across the country? Show me a better place to understand the deck numbers and competitiveness of each deck outside roughly 3 months of open deck lists.
Oh and a little off topic, i was going through the individual decklists of the legacy decklists and that maverick deck looks like a difficult yet fun deck to play.
It tracks a lot more legacy tournaments results, not just SCG opens.
And yes, maverick is a really cool and difficult deck despite basically being "just a GWx aggro deck". And again to emphasis the diversity that exists in legacy, even just maverick has many sub-archtypes:
- pure GW
- GWr with punishing fire
- GWu with gaea's cradle, sigarda and rafiq
- GWb with a slight black splash for DRS and decay
- GWB with a big black splash for discard and Bob as well
- GWx with dark depths, thespian stage combo
I guess I will just kindly disagree. I do t know who came up with the definition of diversity, but when half of the aforementioned top eight decks include, heavily, the color blue, I don't think the meta game is diverse. See dual prices in blue duals, especially volcanic island. Again look at how many of the blue heavy decks made top eight versus non? The numbers are staggerng compared to, say, a year earlier.
Just to emphasize my point, in the list provided in the beginning of this article, there were 21 blue decks, 15 black decks and 11 red decks (even including uwr miracles which only play blast and moon). I didn't count lands and or dredge strategies as any color. This is diverse? Not to mention the number of top eights differ greatly.
I counted (not nitty gritty detail) 144 blue decks out of 210 that top 8d in the list provided earlier. Healthy? I think not.
I guess I will just kindly disagree. I do t know who came up with the definition of diversity, but when half of the aforementioned top eight decks include, heavily, the color blue, I don't think the meta game is diverse. See dual prices in blue duals, especially volcanic island. Again look at how many of the blue heavy decks made top eight versus non? The numbers are staggerng compared to, say, a year earlier.
Perhaps you should stop counting color as an archetype? Tell me that facing a delver deck feels the same as facing a miracles deck or a storm deck. Color doesn't make diversity. Strategy does.
Yes It does many times, actually. Oh another brainstorm to dig, another force to stop anything they want, another tnn I literally cannot beat, snapcaster for value etc etc, I feel like I'm repeating myself...
If you're not playing Brainstorm, you're probably playing a tier 2 deck.
If you're not playing Force of Will, you're probably playing a tier 2 deck.
And replying to my post saying "_____ is a good deck that doesn't play Brainstorm (Elves, Painted Stone, D&T)!!" doesn't really change anything. There are a few decks, maybe, that can be called tier 1 without playing the two cards above.
Yet it is a format where, subject to a banned list, every card ever printed is legal.
The whole "blue decks" line is just nonsense. But to be more straightforward, it could only come from someone who completely fails to understand the format.
"Blue" is not a strategy. The color of the cards in your hand do not define your strategies and lines of play. That is a Standard mindset. The word "blue" does not tell you if you are the beatdown or the control in a given matchup.
You are essentially labeling basic concepts like "card advantage" as meta warping.
Brainstorm is a single card, but it is not a strategy. The phrase "brainstorm decks" is utterly meaningless because it tells you absolutely nothing about the decks you are trying to describe. Brainstorm is a simple concept that draws cards and manipulates your library. It can be used offensively to dig for a kill, it can be used defensively to look for an answer or hide important spells from discard. Even that simple understanding of the card demonstrates its strategic diversity.
On top of that, its not like the tables are being cluttered with mono-blue decks. In fact I'd venture to say there are almost none at all. Obviously you are going to be able to make up some twisted nonsense when you claim that all decks that include any blue cards at all are the same in your messed up version of reality.
Now..imgine if you banned brainstorm. I bet you this list would triple. =D
The decks that run it would get a lot worse - perhaps no longer competitive - while the decks which are currently strong without it would be (relatively) even stronger. There is nothing to suggest that tier two decks not running Brainstorm would suddenly be able to compete with the Brainstormless decks already in the top tier.
Brainstorm facilitates a lot of different strategies - it enhances diversity.
I'm not so sure about that. Brainstorm-less decks would still have Ponder and Preordain, both of which are good enough to be banned in Modern, and one of which is good enough to be restricted in Vintage. Brainstorm doesn't facilitate diversity. It just ensures consistency, replacing two cards you don't need with two from the top of your library at the cost of zero card disadvantage, one mana, and one life.
If you ban brainstorm, you've still got FoW/Ponder/Preordain holding the blue decks together. You just won't see the disproportionate ratios of blue top8 decks that we currently see. It'll give a chance to other decks to shine. Some of them will hit t8 more often, but many of them won't.
Yes It does many times, actually. Oh another brainstorm to dig, another force to stop anything they want, another tnn I literally cannot beat, snapcaster for value etc etc, I feel like I'm repeating myself...
I'm really not sure what to tell you if you legitimately think that playing against a combo deck, a midrange deck, a control deck, and a tempo deck feel the same just because of Brainstorm and Force of Will. I may as well say that playing against Miracles feels the same as playing against UWR Delver because of Swords to Plowshares or that playing against Shardless BUG, Canadian Thresh, and Aggro Loam are the same because of Tarmogoyf. Are Canadian Thresh, Jund, and Burn the same because of Lightning Bolt? Should I even get into Thoughtseize?
If you're not playing Brainstorm, you're probably playing a tier 2 deck.
If you're not playing Force of Will, you're probably playing a tier 2 deck.
And replying to my post saying "_____ is a good deck that doesn't play Brainstorm (Elves, Painted Stone, D&T)!!" doesn't really change anything. There are a few decks, maybe, that can be called tier 1 without playing the two cards above.
Yet it is a format where, subject to a banned list, every card ever printed is legal.
That isn't diversity.
Once again. ARCHETYPES. I don't know why this has to be repeated so many times. The format could be mono purple for all I care. Deck color is not a strategy. The reason Legacy is considered diverse: you can play many different STRATEGIES.
If you're not playing Brainstorm, you're probably playing a tier 2 deck.
If you're not playing Force of Will, you're probably playing a tier 2 deck.
That isn't diversity.
I'd like to point out that "tiers" doesn't have as much meaning in legacy as one might believe. Tier often means less played, not better. A "tier 2" belcher, dredge, or pox deck can beat a "tier 1" delver deck very easily depending on the players and the cards in the decks. At a GP last year, I beat 5 delver decks in a row. Claiming that certain decks belong in certain tiers doesn't mean that the decks in lower tiers cannot win despite their lack of certain cards.
And before you say that playing 5 delver decks out of 8 rounds is not diverse (the other three were Dream Halls combo, Aluren combo, and Jund), there was plenty of variety between those. I saw delver with red for burn, delver with green for 'goyf, and delver with white for stoneforge. A few of them ran black for discard. All of them played differently such that I had to adjust my play for each of them.
so people who disagree with you completely fail to understand the format?
Everything you've said so far in this thread has indicated that you have no idea what youre talking about.
I'm guessing you had some aborted and less than productive introduction to the format and immediately pulled away without actually gaining an understanding of the thought processes behind how these decks are played.
Either that or youre just willfully ignorant/malicious.
Legacy has actual variety and creativity in the strategies and lines of play that are used. The "percentage use" of Brainstorm is irrelevant because Brainstorm is simply a basic building block that increases the format's consistency. It doesnt control or guide a deck's strategy.
Im assuming you dont complain that all food with salt in it is the same.
I am sensing some real condescending attitudes, as if no one could possibly, ever have a reasonable argument that Legacy isn't diverse. I think there is more than one way to define diverse, clearly. Perhaps that is why we have differing opinions. Here is my opinion with a little more elaboration:
Let us say I am the prototypical pure competitive Magic player. I have some SCG Open top 8s and day 2 GP finishes, but never got into Legacy. Now, I want to extend my competitive MTG playing into Legacy! Again, I am the prototypical pure competitive MTG player. I want to win. I want the highest finishes in big tournaments.
That guy should be playing a blue deck with Force of Will and Brainstorm, most likely it should be Delver. He could play: Jund, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD, Painted Stone. But let me ask you a question: could you honestly, in good-faith, give this imaginary guy the advice to build a deck that is NOT a deck with Force of Will and Brainstorm? I don't think you could. Maybe you could to spite me in this argument, but if you truly had to give advice to this guy, I don't think you could reasonably advise that guy to play a deck that isn't blue.
To the people saying: its not about color or card choice, its about archetype - hmmm. I think WotC, when they make banned list decisions, would disagree with you. Just look at the recent banning of ole Deathrite Shaman in Modern. DRS was being played everywhere, in a myriad of different archetypes. But it was getting out of control. The card was too powerful. People were splashing green or black solely to play it.
Here, we have the same thing. This is a fetchland format. You can play a 3 color deck with ease. And in fact, that is precisely what is dominating the format. 3-color blue decks with Force of Will, Brainstorm, and usually Delver. So you jam Force of Will, Brainstorm, and probably Delver, together with the best cards from 2 other colors, and voila! You have one of the best decks in the format. You'll lose sometimes, sure, but overall, you're more likely (putting personal skill aside) to perform well in big tournaments than the guy not playing Force of Will - Delver - Brainstorm.dek.
One last thing. All of these statistics you guys are shelling out along the lines of "OMG, look at this HUGE list of different decks from Legacy tournaments I compiled! Therefore, you're wrong" is missing the point. Think back to formats and years where a deck really, really dominated a format. Affinity 10+ years ago in Standard. CawBlade in Standard 3 years ago. Look at the tournament results from those days - guess what? There are other decks that make the top 8! That doesn't change the fact that a few cards are far too powerful and are dominating the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Unless you plan to play only at large competitive events, I think it's unfair to assume that the legacy metagame consists of what you see at the top tables of large competitive events. Aside from the fact that there are dozens of decks capable of hitting top8 (as others here have illustrated), what you see at a local level is TOTALLY different from what you see at large events.
I have 5 legacy decks. Loam pox, zombie bombardment, UR delver, BUG delver, and maverick. If I were to go to a large event, I would most likely bring one of the delver decks because 1) they are probably the most competitive overall, 2) they have the fewest "bad" matchups, and 3) they are vastly easier to play correctly than my other competitive choice (maverick).
However, at the LGS I usually play maverick or pox. Maverick because it's challenging and there are a million little nuances and tricks that force me to think and become a better magic player every time I play it, and pox because it's a pet deck and I find it much easier to play (sometimes I'm just not up to the intellectual challenge of maverick). In totally casual games I might bust out the zombie bombardment deck because it's just cool, but it's very hard to play and bad against aggro so I don't tend to play it if anything is on the line.
The point is, published results do not define "legacy," and top-8 tables least of all, unless you're an aspiring pro player, which I'm guessing you're not given your question (I do not mean any offence by that comment... I am also not an aspiring pro player!) At my LGS I have seen Tier 1 lists occasionally, but more often I see people playing the decks they find fun and "competitive enough," which usually means they are not the kinds of decks you'd be likely to see at top tables. I'm talking things like Tezzerator, infect, werewolf stompy, 4-color loam, weird combo decks, things that resemble Tier 1 lists but are tweaked to include some pet cards or budget limitations, and straight-out brews. the variety is tremendous!
Oh and a little off topic, i was going through the individual decklists of the legacy decklists and that maverick deck looks like a difficult yet fun deck to play.
A great thing about legacy is those brews some times do quite well just because the power of the cards in the format.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
The decks that run it would get a lot worse - perhaps no longer competitive - while the decks which are currently strong without it would be (relatively) even stronger. There is nothing to suggest that tier two decks not running Brainstorm would suddenly be able to compete with the Brainstormless decks already in the top tier.
Brainstorm facilitates a lot of different strategies - it enhances diversity.
Delver decks do well largely because they are popular - particularly in North America. The play style is mainstream (attack, block, and disrupt), and the high end staples are not obscure. If as many Legacy players had Imperial Recruiters as the number who own Goyfs, there might be a different story.
Not even close. here's a better list of established Legacy decks with less redundancy:
RUG 27, 1st, 2 times
Patriot/RWU 22, 1st, 4 times
Sneak & Show 22, 1st, 3 times
Esperblade/Deathblade 19, 1st, 1 time
BUG Delver/Team America 15, 1st, 3 times
Elves 15, 1st, 2 times
Shardless BUG 15, 1st, 1 time
Ad Nauseam 14, 1st, 2 times
Death and Taxes 13, 1st, 1 time
Reanimator 12, 2nd
Jund 12, 2nd,
Miracles 10, 5th
UR Delver 7, 2nd
Maverick 7, 4th
Omni tell 5, 1st, 1 time
UW Stoneblade 5, 1st, 1 time
Nic fit 5, 4th
Grixis Delver 4, 11th
Merfolk 4, 2nd
MUD 4, 4th
Imperial Painter 4, 6th
Bant 3, 1st, 2 times
Affinity 3, 3rd
Goblins 3, 4th
Belcher 3, 4th
Junk 3, 5th
Pox 2, 1st, 1 time
Stiflenought 2, 3rd
Dredge 2, 3rd
UB Tezzeret 2, 8th
Oops all spells 2, 2nd place
4 color delver 2, 5th place
Pod 2, 6th place
RWU Landstill 2, 9th
12 post 2, 11th
Lands 2, 13th
Standard has nothing like this list of distinctive archetypes and strategies. Even Time-Spiral/Ravnica Standard couldn't boast anywhere near this level of diversity.
Note also this list is out of Date (new list in the works). RUG is no longer the top deck - that is now Team America followed by Patriot Delver and Esper/Death Blade.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
You must have missed this post, so I'll quote it:
This guy knows what he's talking about and this particular quote is brilliantly concise. Perhaps it's time for a new Taldier quote in my sig...
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
BGElvesBG and BUGNissa ElvesBUG Faithful Elfer since May 1st, 2015
Results: SCG IQ Top 8, Monthly Modern Masters Top 4
Again, diversity in Legacy comes from varied strategies - not card density or colour make-up! Is this so hard a concept?
Also, most "blue" decks are three coloured decks heavy in blue. Mono red, white and black, and green decks have all had top 8 finishes in the last six months (most have eve had 1st place) - not true of mono blue.
And the segment I quoted makes no sense. The diversity of the Legacy meta is not dependent on what any one particular player is running.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething Spicyhttps://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
1)Play TNN (Delver/UXx Midrange)
2)Have lots of answers for TNN (Miracles)
3)Ignore TNN (Combo)
Modern:
Something new every week
Legacy:
Something new everyweek
That's not true. TNN is stupid, but its just another creature. Its not more stupid than a 3 drop Emrakul, or a 2 drop 5/6. TNN is just another powerful creature people need to be prepared for when deckbuilding. This is anecdotal, but in my 30~ round of competitive legacy I have played since TNNs release I don't think more than 4 or 5 TNNs have been cast against me (while playing Miracles or deathblade myself).
I would recommend TCdecks: http://www.tcdecks.net/formato.php?format=Legacy
It tracks a lot more legacy tournaments results, not just SCG opens.
And yes, maverick is a really cool and difficult deck despite basically being "just a GWx aggro deck". And again to emphasis the diversity that exists in legacy, even just maverick has many sub-archtypes:
- pure GW
- GWr with punishing fire
- GWu with gaea's cradle, sigarda and rafiq
- GWb with a slight black splash for DRS and decay
- GWB with a big black splash for discard and Bob as well
- GWx with dark depths, thespian stage combo
Just to emphasize my point, in the list provided in the beginning of this article, there were 21 blue decks, 15 black decks and 11 red decks (even including uwr miracles which only play blast and moon). I didn't count lands and or dredge strategies as any color. This is diverse? Not to mention the number of top eights differ greatly.
I counted (not nitty gritty detail) 144 blue decks out of 210 that top 8d in the list provided earlier. Healthy? I think not.
BGElvesBG and BUGNissa ElvesBUG Faithful Elfer since May 1st, 2015
Results: SCG IQ Top 8, Monthly Modern Masters Top 4
BGElvesBG and BUGNissa ElvesBUG Faithful Elfer since May 1st, 2015
Results: SCG IQ Top 8, Monthly Modern Masters Top 4
If you're not playing Force of Will, you're probably playing a tier 2 deck.
And replying to my post saying "_____ is a good deck that doesn't play Brainstorm (Elves, Painted Stone, D&T)!!" doesn't really change anything. There are a few decks, maybe, that can be called tier 1 without playing the two cards above.
Yet it is a format where, subject to a banned list, every card ever printed is legal.
That isn't diversity.
other decks are good but in a long tournament they're probably going to lose to brainstorm's consistency, that's why blue decks dominate.
"Blue" is not a strategy. The color of the cards in your hand do not define your strategies and lines of play. That is a Standard mindset. The word "blue" does not tell you if you are the beatdown or the control in a given matchup.
You are essentially labeling basic concepts like "card advantage" as meta warping.
Brainstorm is a single card, but it is not a strategy. The phrase "brainstorm decks" is utterly meaningless because it tells you absolutely nothing about the decks you are trying to describe. Brainstorm is a simple concept that draws cards and manipulates your library. It can be used offensively to dig for a kill, it can be used defensively to look for an answer or hide important spells from discard. Even that simple understanding of the card demonstrates its strategic diversity.
On top of that, its not like the tables are being cluttered with mono-blue decks. In fact I'd venture to say there are almost none at all. Obviously you are going to be able to make up some twisted nonsense when you claim that all decks that include any blue cards at all are the same in your messed up version of reality.
I'm not so sure about that. Brainstorm-less decks would still have Ponder and Preordain, both of which are good enough to be banned in Modern, and one of which is good enough to be restricted in Vintage. Brainstorm doesn't facilitate diversity. It just ensures consistency, replacing two cards you don't need with two from the top of your library at the cost of zero card disadvantage, one mana, and one life.
If you ban brainstorm, you've still got FoW/Ponder/Preordain holding the blue decks together. You just won't see the disproportionate ratios of blue top8 decks that we currently see. It'll give a chance to other decks to shine. Some of them will hit t8 more often, but many of them won't.
Once again. ARCHETYPES. I don't know why this has to be repeated so many times. The format could be mono purple for all I care. Deck color is not a strategy. The reason Legacy is considered diverse: you can play many different STRATEGIES.
I'd like to point out that "tiers" doesn't have as much meaning in legacy as one might believe. Tier often means less played, not better. A "tier 2" belcher, dredge, or pox deck can beat a "tier 1" delver deck very easily depending on the players and the cards in the decks. At a GP last year, I beat 5 delver decks in a row. Claiming that certain decks belong in certain tiers doesn't mean that the decks in lower tiers cannot win despite their lack of certain cards.
And before you say that playing 5 delver decks out of 8 rounds is not diverse (the other three were Dream Halls combo, Aluren combo, and Jund), there was plenty of variety between those. I saw delver with red for burn, delver with green for 'goyf, and delver with white for stoneforge. A few of them ran black for discard. All of them played differently such that I had to adjust my play for each of them.
Everything you've said so far in this thread has indicated that you have no idea what youre talking about.
I'm guessing you had some aborted and less than productive introduction to the format and immediately pulled away without actually gaining an understanding of the thought processes behind how these decks are played.
Either that or youre just willfully ignorant/malicious.
Legacy has actual variety and creativity in the strategies and lines of play that are used. The "percentage use" of Brainstorm is irrelevant because Brainstorm is simply a basic building block that increases the format's consistency. It doesnt control or guide a deck's strategy.
Im assuming you dont complain that all food with salt in it is the same.
Let us say I am the prototypical pure competitive Magic player. I have some SCG Open top 8s and day 2 GP finishes, but never got into Legacy. Now, I want to extend my competitive MTG playing into Legacy! Again, I am the prototypical pure competitive MTG player. I want to win. I want the highest finishes in big tournaments.
That guy should be playing a blue deck with Force of Will and Brainstorm, most likely it should be Delver. He could play: Jund, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD, Painted Stone. But let me ask you a question: could you honestly, in good-faith, give this imaginary guy the advice to build a deck that is NOT a deck with Force of Will and Brainstorm? I don't think you could. Maybe you could to spite me in this argument, but if you truly had to give advice to this guy, I don't think you could reasonably advise that guy to play a deck that isn't blue.
To the people saying: its not about color or card choice, its about archetype - hmmm. I think WotC, when they make banned list decisions, would disagree with you. Just look at the recent banning of ole Deathrite Shaman in Modern. DRS was being played everywhere, in a myriad of different archetypes. But it was getting out of control. The card was too powerful. People were splashing green or black solely to play it.
Here, we have the same thing. This is a fetchland format. You can play a 3 color deck with ease. And in fact, that is precisely what is dominating the format. 3-color blue decks with Force of Will, Brainstorm, and usually Delver. So you jam Force of Will, Brainstorm, and probably Delver, together with the best cards from 2 other colors, and voila! You have one of the best decks in the format. You'll lose sometimes, sure, but overall, you're more likely (putting personal skill aside) to perform well in big tournaments than the guy not playing Force of Will - Delver - Brainstorm.dek.
One last thing. All of these statistics you guys are shelling out along the lines of "OMG, look at this HUGE list of different decks from Legacy tournaments I compiled! Therefore, you're wrong" is missing the point. Think back to formats and years where a deck really, really dominated a format. Affinity 10+ years ago in Standard. CawBlade in Standard 3 years ago. Look at the tournament results from those days - guess what? There are other decks that make the top 8! That doesn't change the fact that a few cards are far too powerful and are dominating the format.