Many of the early Maverick lists used Vial, so it's completely logical for it to revert back. The reason why just about every aggro deck plays Vial is that it's basically the best option, especially with the return of CB. GSZ still works here too, so I'm sure that'll see some play too.
Seriously, I hope all of the people complaining that the metagame post Misstep is better than the one previous actually played it, because pre-Misstep it was way better. I really enjoyed the diversity of the Misstep top 8s.... oh wait, those were all just Hive Mind, Stoneblade, and RUG, with the occasional deck squeaking in. Yeah, made me really want to play legacy when the color I despise is blue
@XantidSwarm: Landstill has always been around in the form of Dreadstill, which places well occasionally. Stoneblade may have become a deck on its own if Misstep was never printed, as Batterskull emerged simultaneously.
@Bilbo: First, there are several forms of CT, which makes it just as diverse as the meta of RUG, U/W, and BUG were. Second, there are actually good contenders now that aren't control decks. Third, there are plenty of decks now that eat CT (merfolk), unlike the Misstep meta where the top decks had positive matchups against just about everything.
@Tomthumb: I don't even play combo and I can assure you that the combos in Legacy are not lucksack, they require some of the most skill in the format and massive evaluation of lines of play. Also, your statement about Aggro being weaker should be followed by the word temporarily, because eventually control decks will eat the combo levels down to where aggro decks can swarm in to kill the control decks. Then combo will resurge to kill the aggro decks. It's this thing called metagaming, and it actually exists in this meta, unlike post-Misstep where the same few decks were there the entirety of it. Also, I do enjoy playing those decks, because I like this thing called synergy. Synergy is way better than I counter all of your plays, play wincon, concede?
\\
@Tomthumb: I don't even play combo and I can assure you that the combos in Legacy are not lucksack, they require some of the most skill in the format and massive evaluation of lines of play.
It's not difficult to memorize the lines of play you make with these decks. People that are good at playing many of these combo decks are good at understanding one moderately complex idea (how the deck functions) but most of them are *not* good at Magic or at playing a game of magic. They are playing a different game that is far stupider and not nearly as fun.
Also, your statement about Aggro being weaker should be followed by the word temporarily, because eventually control decks will eat the combo levels down to where aggro decks can swarm in to kill the control decks. Then combo will resurge to kill the aggro decks. It's this thing called metagaming, and it actually exists in this meta, unlike post-Misstep where the same few decks were there the entirety of it. ?
I don't think you're right. Control decks couldn't really control the combo decks before unless they were Counterbalance decks, which is what the metagame is going to consist of; control and counterbalance decks. I do not foresee aggro decks being in the top tier anymore. In any case, I don't think rock/paper/scissors magic is fun since the matchups are decided before the round begins, and there is no opportunity for skill to play a real role. The MM era metagame was plenty diverse and allowed real control/strategy to exist. We can kiss that goodbye forever.
I agree withe everything you are saying and made similar points in the thread about MM being banned. We are going back to a world of lucksack combo, CB decks winning game one and then grinding out the rest of the time, and so on. Aggro decks will be much weaker now because combo will be stronger, which gives me some comfort. I want people to pay for getting misstep banned.
Dude, you really need to shut up. Combo decks are not luck based, they are some of the most skill intensive decks you can play. Obviously you've never played one or you'd realize that. Or you have gold fished with one and won on turn 2-3 a few times and were like OMG OVERPOWERED!!!!!! I've played TES for about a year now and the first 3 months of me playing it was just trying to understand all of the interactions and figuring out the play style of the deck so I can win through counters. Sure I get bad hands or kill myself off of Ad Nauseam once in a while but it is just as luck based as any other deck is. And TES isn't even the most complicated combo deck, DDFT is. So stop talking crap about decks you know nothing about. You were most likely one of the people complaining about Survival being banned.
Also, if you even played before NPH, you'd realize that Countertop was on the decline. It couldn't keep up with the aggro metagame that was dominating at the time. Last spring I played in a tournament where I played against Zoo, NO Show, Counter Slivers, Countertop, and Deadguy Ale. This summer I played in a tournament against 4 Stoneblade decks and Maverick. This is why Mental Misstep is banned. Too much of the format was revolving around it and blue in general. There was no variance in decks. Every SCG open had different decks place in the top 16 every week. No one deck was dominate. Now there was only really Stoneblade and NO RUG.
You're acting so aggressive that I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, tomthumb.
The metagame was much more diverse (more different decks were viable and could perform well) before MM than after and you are highly overestimating combo decks that have existed for years. Storm and others won't just start destroying the format in a way they never did before, they are just another deck that had trouble with the MM metagame and will be more viable with it gone. You aren't giving Storm players the credit they're due too. A player that just memorizes a line of play isn't playing optimally. Combo players need to be familiar with all the decks they face as well as their own in order to play well and make the best decisions they can.
I don't agree with or understand your reasoning that MM was a strategic card. It was a hard counter with no drawback, making it the easiest of all free counters to use because you don't need to consider the costs of using it like you do with Daze or FoW.
1.Tom, go play DDFT at a major tournament and tell me otherwise that combo players don't play some of the hardest decks in the format.
2. Rock/Paper/Scissor style Magic keeps the metagame alive, as people actually have to change their decks more than a couple cards through a metagame shift. The matchups aren't decided purely by who is playing what, and we even have sideboarding to deal with bad MUs. The whole concept of this exists in like every other format, it's just heavily pronounced in Legacy.
3. Really, you want a real control deck to be viable in Legacy? That's pretty much the thing that I hat most in this world. I actually like to sit down, have fun with an opponent, and play a game of Magic, not sit down, and watch my entire hand get countered and Jace ticking up. Yeah, fun times there...
Dude, you really need to shut up. Combo decks are not luck based, they are some of the most skill intensive decks you can play.
It depends on what you mean by skill. As I said above, they are some of the most complicated decks in that their game plan is very complicated. Once you understand how they are work they are actually pretty simple and don't require a great deal of skill to play. People that play them well are good at something, but I don't think that thing is what I would call "Magic".
Obviously you've never played one or you'd realize that. Or you have gold fished with one and won on turn 2-3 a few times and were like OMG OVERPOWERED!!!!!! I've played TES for about a year now and the first 3 months of me playing it was just trying to understand all of the interactions and figuring out the play style of the deck so I can win through counters.
Every deck has to play through counters.
Sure I get bad hands or kill myself off of Ad Nauseam once in a while but it is just as luck based as any other deck is. And TES isn't even the most complicated combo deck, DDFT is. So stop talking crap about decks you know nothing about. You were most likely one of the people complaining about Survival being banned.
Survival was its own archetype and was too powerful. MM allowed new decks to be viable and hurt other decks, but it was not the core of a deck in the same way that Survival was. This isn't a good analogy.
Also, if you even played before NPH, you'd realize that Countertop was on the decline.
If you guys keep saying this enough times it might even become true. The data from big events says that you are wrong.
It couldn't keep up with the aggro metagame that was dominating at the time. Last spring I played in a tournament where I played against Zoo, NO Show, Counter Slivers, Countertop, and Deadguy Ale.
I have no idea how competitive this tournament was so I consider data from it worthless. No offense intended.
This summer I played in a tournament against 4 Stoneblade decks and Maverick. This is why Mental Misstep is banned. Too much of the format was revolving around it and blue in general. There was no variance in decks.
At magic events there were plenty of different decks that were viable. Many good players choose to play Stoneblade and NO RUG because they reward good play in a way other decks do not, and that allowed them to win. It's silly to think other decks weren't viable.
1.Tom, go play DDFT at a major tournament and tell me otherwise that combo players don't play some of the hardest decks in the format.
Respond to my points and then tell me I don't understand what makes a deck hard to play.
2. Rock/Paper/Scissor style Magic keeps the metagame alive, as people actually have to change their decks more than a couple cards through a metagame shift. The matchups aren't decided purely by who is playing what, and we even have sideboarding to deal with bad MUs.
If it is the case that the metagame works as you described then it is all based on MU and skill has no role to play. If that were not the case than Combo could not always beat Aggro and Aggro could not always beat Control etc. Now obviously 'always' is hyperbolic, but you get the point.
The whole concept of this exists in like every other format, it's just heavily pronounced in Legacy.
3. Really, you want a real control deck to be viable in Legacy? That's pretty much the thing that I hat most in this world. I actually like to sit down, have fun with an opponent, and play a game of Magic, not sit down, and watch my entire hand get countered and Jace ticking up. Yeah, fun times there...
I'm sorry that you don't enjoy that kind of magic I enjoy, but I don't really have any concern for your point of view. Magic games should not be determined by who wins the dice roll/draws the right hand or by which matchup you are facing.
[QUOTE=UnderwaterGuy;/comments/4004372]You're acting so aggressive that I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, tomthumb.
The metagame was much more diverse (more different decks were viable and could perform well)
Why is that good? The MM era metagame was diverse enough to be interesting, and skilled players could test with all of the top decks. If there are 40 viable decks then you can't prepare for everything and your matchs end up being determined by who you get paired against, rather than skill, which is bad. With that said, most of the decks that were "viable" before MM was printed were actually terrible anyway.
before MM than after and you are highly overestimating combo decks that have existed for years. Storm and others won't just start destroying the format in a way they never did before, they are just another deck that had trouble with the MM metagame and will be more viable with it gone. You aren't giving Storm players the credit they're due too. A player that just memorizes a line of play isn't playing optimally.
I didn't say they were playing optimally, I said that is what they have to do to play those decks. Adjusting for any particular situation will make a combo deck better, but that is true of every deck. The truth is that these decks are not hard to play once you understand them.
Combo players need to be familiar with all the decks they face as well as their own in order to play well and make the best decisions they can.
I don't agree with or understand your reasoning that MM was a strategic card. It was a hard counter with no drawback, making it the easiest of all free counters to use because you don't need to consider the costs of using it like you do with Daze or FoW.
Knowing what to counter and when to counter it make hard counter skill intensive cards, but my point is that MM made the metegame more strategic, not that the card itself was hard to use.
I've been reading pages and pages of discussion about this...Mental Misstep slowed down the format considerably, and whether or not its banning was actually warranted is a solid debate. However, I think back to Survival's banning, and I remember what was said when that happened: that it didn't need to be banned.
I know the numbers: 70%+ win pct against the field, but our European players said it was barely making waves over there. I had been playing RecSur for years, and then I switched to 4c Survival Control. Did Vengevine push the limits of what Survival should be allowed to do? Yes. But players in the American metagame refused to change their decks, or their sideboards to deal with the increasing numbers of Survivals. 4 Tormod's Crypt and 2-3 Krosan Grip should have been enough to slow the deck down enough for the opposing player to gain control, as the European meta has shown us.
The American meta is RIDICULOUSLY slow to adapt to any changes. So slow, that most players don't do it because they're too lazy to change their pet decks. Natural Order/Show and Tell decks can be worked around, but might even be harder to deal with than Survival. To beat a Show and Tell'd Emrakul or Progenitus on turn 2 or 3, you would need to have an overwhelming board presence already, or drop one of a select few cards that can deal with it.
Personally, I haven't played much Legacy since Survival was banned due to outside reasons called life, so I cannot talk on the state of MM, but from what I saw, its printing forced the ENTIRE format, maindeck and sideboard, to adapt to its inclusion. The fact that any deck could play it made it worse (Wizards has always said that free spells always need to be examined under a microscope). Unfortunately, a majority of Legacy tournaments are played on US soil, and since us Americans are slow to respond to the decks popping up, we should all just play linear 60 card decks with SB answers to combat ONLY what screws us, instead of sweeping SB answers to the entire format, and eventually, Jace TMS, Natural Order, Emrakul, AEther Vial, Goblin Ringleader, and any other card that facilitates any kind of deck will be banned, until we're playing with Serra Angels again.
that "skill intensive" argument is such a completely useless and meaningless thing. It's complete bull**** that Stoneblade and NO RUG were played because they are fun or because they are skill intensive. They're played because they're incredibly good decks and they consistently win.
If you are going to break down the decks you hate like storm then anyone can do the exact same thing to those two decks.
NO RUG, play some ramp and accelerate into Progenitus for the win. If that strategy seems like it will fail then use creature beatdown.
That isn't more complicated or more skill intensive than TES and it shares a lot in that it has multiple ways to win. Every deck ever has a win condition and acting like that win condition and strategy makes the deck simple is just foolish.
Mental Misstep was just a feedback loop that got out of hand. Sort of like a giant Ponzi Scheme.
Whoever says that NO RUG and Stoneblade are fun decks must have a really screwed idea of what "fun" is. Weeks before the banning of Jace/SFM in Standard I had to attend a GPT with a borrowed Caw Blade because it was the only deck that had any chance. Playing eight consecutive rounds against UW Caw was as fun as pulling teeth. Skill intensive? Maybe, but I doubt it's harder to pilot than even some aggro decks and it's much easierthan any Pod deck.
Was MM Legacy as bad? Nope, but it would inevitably arrive at that stage sooner or later. My local meta was largely unscathed by MM, but in the last few weeks there has been a lot of people who were "catching up" with the US.
that "skill intensive" argument is such a completely useless and meaningless thing. It's complete bull**** that Stoneblade and NO RUG were played because they are fun or because they are skill intensive. They're played because they're incredibly good decks and they consistently win.
But *why* did they consistently win? Because in the hands of a good player they perform very, very well given that they reward good play. Think of Caw-Blade after the Jace and Stoneforge bannings. Good players kept playing that deck because in the hands of a good player it was possible to do really well over and over again.
If you are going to break down the decks you hate like storm then anyone can do the exact same thing to those two decks.
NO RUG, play some ramp and accelerate into Progenitus for the win. If that strategy seems like it will fail then use creature beatdown.
It's not just about ramp, it's about being able to control and then win with your combo. If you can't win with your combo then win using another win condition. Like Caw-Blade, NO RUG has many different lines of play, which make it good.
That isn't more complicated or more skill intensive than TES and it shares a lot in that it has multiple ways to win. Every deck ever has a win condition and acting like that win condition and strategy makes the deck simple is just foolish.
TES is not really THAT hard to play in a match once you understand it.
I've been reading pages and pages of discussion about this...Mental Misstep slowed down the format considerably, and whether or not its banning was actually warranted is a solid debate. However, I think back to Survival's banning, and I remember what was said when that happened: that it didn't need to be banned.
I know the numbers: 70%+ win pct against the field, but our European players said it was barely making waves over there. I had been playing RecSur for years, and then I switched to 4c Survival Control. Did Vengevine push the limits of what Survival should be allowed to do? Yes. But players in the American metagame refused to change their decks, or their sideboards to deal with the increasing numbers of Survivals. 4 Tormod's Crypt and 2-3 Krosan Grip should have been enough to slow the deck down enough for the opposing player to gain control, as the European meta has shown us.
The American meta is RIDICULOUSLY slow to adapt to any changes. So slow, that most players don't do it because they're too lazy to change their pet decks. Natural Order/Show and Tell decks can be worked around, but might even be harder to deal with than Survival. To beat a Show and Tell'd Emrakul or Progenitus on turn 2 or 3, you would need to have an overwhelming board presence already, or drop one of a select few cards that can deal with it.
Personally, I haven't played much Legacy since Survival was banned due to outside reasons called life, so I cannot talk on the state of MM, but from what I saw, its printing forced the ENTIRE format, maindeck and sideboard, to adapt to its inclusion. The fact that any deck could play it made it worse (Wizards has always said that free spells always need to be examined under a microscope). Unfortunately, a majority of Legacy tournaments are played on US soil, and since us Americans are slow to respond to the decks popping up, we should all just play linear 60 card decks with SB answers to combat ONLY what screws us, instead of sweeping SB answers to the entire format, and eventually, Jace TMS, Natural Order, Emrakul, AEther Vial, Goblin Ringleader, and any other card that facilitates any kind of deck will be banned, until we're playing with Serra Angels again.
Sorry for the rant, but just sayin'...
You are right, im an american player and I have to admit people adapt slowly. Myself included, that is why bans happen is cause their isnt any inovation.
Not about the combo decks being luck sack, Have to disagree. I know personally from playing ANT and TES that combo decks can be skill intensive. Yes a good hand is part of luck, but so is alot of magic.
I think SCG indy will be chaos and then the event following will probably dictate the meta. As far as the SCG event numbers go, the top 16 was more diverse pre mm than post. Yes countertop is good, it will be to people adapt again, same with High Tide and other fast combos. People will need to adapt to survive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Banner by Rivenor @
Miraculous Recovery Signatures
But *why* did they consistently win? Because in the hands of a good player they perform very, very well given that they reward good play. Think of Caw-Blade after the Jace and Stoneforge bannings. Good players kept playing that deck because in the hands of a good player it was possible to do really well over and over again.
I have absolutely zero experience playing Legacy blue control decks and the first time I picked UW Stoneblade a week ago I was beating face across the room. No, it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the deck, a pro should be able to win a Standard PT with just an Event precon. It's just cardboard after all, right?
TES is not really THAT hard to play in a match once you understand it.
No, it isn't. But that doesn't make it an "autopilot" deck. In my opinion it's much more difficult to play than "turn two SFM fetch Batterskull go".dec even if you are experienced with it.
Netdecking already made Standard stagnant. Now the SCG Opens have done much more damage to Legacy than any help to develop the format it could have provided. They've done more harm than good.
I have absolutely zero experience playing Legacy blue control decks and the first time I picked UW Stoneblade a week ago I was beating face across the room.
1. You have probably played Control in other formats and the same principles apply. And playing against decks teaches you how they work almost as well as playing with them.
2. I have no idea if the people you were playing against were good or what sort of decks they were using.
3. Maybe you are just a very good player.
etc
No, it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the deck, a pro should be able to win a Standard PT with just an Event precon. It's just cardboard after all, right?
strawman
No, it isn't. But that doesn't make it an "autopilot" deck. In my opinion it's much more difficult to play than "turn two SFM fetch Batterskull go".dec even if you are experienced with it.
We all know that Stoneblade is a control deck and you have to know how to control the game with it. It is true that it generates a lot of tempo, but that is to be expected of a deck like that in legacy. SFM--->Batterskull might not even be good enough now that its ability to control the game has been lessened. We'll see.
Netdecking already made Standard stagnant. Now the SCG Opens have done much more damage to Legacy than any help to develop the format it could have provided. They've done more harm than good.
I disagree. They have made it actually evolve and allow metagames to be figured. People just won't want to change their pet decks and are upset that there are good players posting decklists that can destroy their goblin deck, which they have no changed in 5 years.
But *why* did they consistently win? Because in the hands of a good player they perform very, very well given that they reward good play. Think of Caw-Blade after the Jace and Stoneforge bannings. Good players kept playing that deck because in the hands of a good player it was possible to do really well over and over again.
It's not just about ramp, it's about being able to control and then win with your combo. If you can't win with your combo then win using another win condition. Like Caw-Blade, NO RUG has many different lines of play, which make it good.
TES is not really THAT hard to play in a match once you understand it.
That is some INCREDIBLY bad reasoning man. They consistently won because they were good. That has nothing to do with how hard they are to play at all.
Your comments about NO RUG only cement my point that it is a deck with multiple ways to win, like TES.
Playing counterspells doesn't just automatically make a deck hard to play and I don't understand why you would think it does.
TES is not really THAT hard to play in a match once you understand it.
Neither is any other deck ever. Honestly, I could beat you with TES all day long no matter what deck you pick. I'll even let you sideboard pre game and I'll still win. Why? Because I've spent the last year learning this deck inside and out and I'm very confident I can beat any deck in the format at any time. Hell, I'll even let you start the game out with Counterbalance and Top just to make it a challenge for me.
Also, you speak of alternate win conditions. NO RUG has what, Tarmogoyf as it's only other win condition? Or Vendillion Clique if you want to count that too. And Stoneblade has...Spellstutter Sprite and Mutavault. Yeah, if you can't control the game to get out your combo, hope to god that your opponent has absolutely no board presence and win. Seems like a great strategy. And yes, combo decks have more than one way to win the game as well.
That is some INCREDIBLY bad reasoning man. They consistently won because they were good. That has nothing to do with how hard they are to play at all.
Yes, it does. What makes a deck good? The fact that it responds well to good play can make it good. Duh.
As for the guy saying he could beat me with TES, maybe you could. If it really is so unbeatable in the hands of someone who understands it then my comments are even more prescient, duh.
Whoever says that NO RUG and Stoneblade are fun decks must have a really screwed idea of what "fun" is. Weeks before the banning of Jace/SFM in Standard I had to attend a GPT with a borrowed Caw Blade because it was the only deck that had any chance. Playing eight consecutive rounds against UW Caw was as fun as pulling teeth. Skill intensive? Maybe, but I doubt it's harder to pilot than even some aggro decks and it's much easierthan any Pod deck.
Was MM Legacy as bad? Nope, but it would inevitably arrive at that stage sooner or later. My local meta was largely unscathed by MM, but in the last few weeks there has been a lot of people who were "catching up" with the US.
Maybe they just have a different idea of fun than you do? Not everyone has played endless CawBlade mirrors in Standard to get burnt out on Mystic/Jace. I don't play Standard at all, but one look at Mystic and I knew it was to white what Tarmogoyf is to green and what Dark Confidant is to black. And since I never play green (I just don't find it fun), and I don't own Bob or have ever had a deck that would run him, I run Mystic. And it's fun. Some people actually do enjoy interactive/skill intensive decks. The only reason Mystic/Jace get so much hate now isn't because they're OP (don't get me wrong, not saying they aren't), it's merely because their dominance is recent. A couple of years from now and they'll be looked at the same way 'Goyf and Bob are currently.
But, yes. Americans are slow as hell to adapt, and that's the only reason Misstep got banned. Misstep wasn't owning the European meta like it was here in America.
I'll tell you guys a secret. Europeans think Americans are slow to adapt and vice versa. Arguing back and forth over who is 'slower to adapt' means nothing. We have our metagame and you have your metagame.
Also I find it absolutely hilarious Tomthumb that you say you don't want the game determined by the dice roll and who draws a better hand because guess what aggro mirrors come down to who draws the better hand and often who goes first. In fact, a lot of magic games come down to who draws the better hand plain and simple. It's just that a good hand in combo usually results in the aggro player losing assuming the combo pilot isn't incompetent.
Anyways, saying that once you know every secret about playing storm combo the deck becomes a lot easier to play guess again. I've played combo decks for years and I still go into the think tank while playing combo because you have to make very critical decisions that if you misplay you can lose horrendously.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
Furthermore, when the talk starts to degenerate into whether deck A is more skillfull than deck B and whether americans or europeans are best, then I call that a good place for a break.
This.
I said it prior to the banning, but the arguments are just getting more degenerate and it's no longer productive. Saying one region is slow or better is just stupid. Each region is *different* so live with it.
I for one am excited to go into a dynamic meta and if it's bad, we can discuss that in the coming weeks. The bannings happened so all we can do is play Magic. So let's do that.
Bottom line at its core the metagame was completely binary during MM's tenure, there was a "best deck" and a deck that tries to prey on the best deck. In this case it was Mental Misstep vs. Anti-Mental Misstep. The only reason why it might be perceived as different from Flash or even Survival is the fact that Mental Misstep isn't a threat and as such it isn't as overt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On Mono Black in Commander:
Quote from BlackJack68 »
But whomever your commander is, Cabal Coffers is really in charge.
Folks, if you see something you think is trolling, don't point it out: REPORT IT. Pointing it out will get you infracted for Backseat Moderation. This is a general courtesy reminder that will serve as a verbal warning for all participants in this thread. The next instance of trolling and/or backseat moderation WILL BE infracted. Play nice, everyone.
Bottom line at its core the metagame was completely binary during MM's tenure, there was a "best deck" and a deck that tries to prey on the best deck. In this case it was Mental Misstep vs. Anti-Mental Misstep. The only reason why it might be perceived as different from Flash or even Survival is the fact that Mental Misstep isn't a threat and as such it isn't as overt.
I think you used to many big words for the general populous:
Before MM-ban decks were MM.dec and anti-MM.dec. Even in this meta, the MM.decs were dominate; boasting an excellent win percentage against the field, not just t8/t16 performances. It didn't seem as broken as flash/survival because the card wasn't winning the game in the same manner that combo decks do not win from Dark Ritual, High Tide or Rite of Flame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Maverick -- Storm Click here for trade thread
Trade thread under reconstruction. Because you can't spell slaughter without laughter.
I'm not trying to troll anyone, and I apologize if my posts made anyone angry. I just want to make one more comment before leaving this thread. If MM deserved to be banned, why not ban Force of Will and Brainstorm? Those spells are *at least* as powerful as MM. If MM was banned because it warped the format than FOW and Brainstorm definitely deserve to be banned for the same reason. Every Starcity Games Legacy open final in history has had FOW in it, and Brainstorm is such a powerful spell that it had to be restricted in Vintage; the card filtering and draw provided by Brainstorm are both insane (especially with fetches in the format). Tons of different combo decks that would be viable are held in check by the existence of these spells. And don't say that FOW is weaker because it's card disadvantage-the quick decks it is used to fight against only get one chance to go off so losing a card is irrelevant if you stop them from going off. So, I guess my question is this: why ban MM if you leave these cards unbanned? MM made some decks much weaker, but FOW does the same thing. Why should one powerful blue spell be left to keep things in check while another powerful blue spell is banned for being "format warping"? It seems arbitrary to think that the Legacy keeps combo in check "just enough" (ie at a level players are comfortable with). It really does seem like MM was banned because it changed the metagame, not because it "warped" it. Players were angry that their pet archetypes were no longer playable, and Wizards eventually caved into the pressure. I understand that can come across as insulting, but I don't want to insult anyone or make them angry. I am just trying to give a realistic assessment of the situation.
Since we are touching on the touchy subject of which decks are viable, I guess I can say a bit about the decks that became unplayable because of MM. The funny thing is that most of the decks that became "obsolete" because of MM were already very weak when compared to the rest of the metagame. Some famous Magic personality (I think it was Mike Flores but I'm not sure) said that most people in Legacy play unplayable decks, and I think he was right. Decks like Goblins really had almost no chance to beat decks like Breakfast and High Tide, but the existence of other weak decks hid how weak those decks actually were since many of the people who would play against a deck like Goblins were themselves piloting unplayable decks. The reason that they became "unviable" after MM was printed is that there were answers to those decks that did not come in the form of better decks per se. Any weak deck can run MM, which means that if your deck can be shutdown by MM you will probably lose. So the only thing MM got rid of was the illusion that these decks were viable. With that said, some strong decks were definitely hurt my MM, like Countertop and High Tide.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Seriously, I hope all of the people complaining that the metagame post Misstep is better than the one previous actually played it, because pre-Misstep it was way better. I really enjoyed the diversity of the Misstep top 8s.... oh wait, those were all just Hive Mind, Stoneblade, and RUG, with the occasional deck squeaking in. Yeah, made me really want to play legacy when the color I despise is blue
@XantidSwarm: Landstill has always been around in the form of Dreadstill, which places well occasionally. Stoneblade may have become a deck on its own if Misstep was never printed, as Batterskull emerged simultaneously.
@Bilbo: First, there are several forms of CT, which makes it just as diverse as the meta of RUG, U/W, and BUG were. Second, there are actually good contenders now that aren't control decks. Third, there are plenty of decks now that eat CT (merfolk), unlike the Misstep meta where the top decks had positive matchups against just about everything.
@Tomthumb: I don't even play combo and I can assure you that the combos in Legacy are not lucksack, they require some of the most skill in the format and massive evaluation of lines of play. Also, your statement about Aggro being weaker should be followed by the word temporarily, because eventually control decks will eat the combo levels down to where aggro decks can swarm in to kill the control decks. Then combo will resurge to kill the aggro decks. It's this thing called metagaming, and it actually exists in this meta, unlike post-Misstep where the same few decks were there the entirety of it. Also, I do enjoy playing those decks, because I like this thing called synergy. Synergy is way better than I counter all of your plays, play wincon, concede?
Standard:
:symr:/:symg: Valakut 2.0 (Wolf Run Green)
Legacy:
:symr:/:symb: Vial Goblins
:symr:/:symg:/:symw: Zoo
:symg:/:symw:/:symr: Maverick
Commander:
:symg:/:symb:/:symw: Karador, Ghost Chieftain
I don't think you're right. Control decks couldn't really control the combo decks before unless they were Counterbalance decks, which is what the metagame is going to consist of; control and counterbalance decks. I do not foresee aggro decks being in the top tier anymore. In any case, I don't think rock/paper/scissors magic is fun since the matchups are decided before the round begins, and there is no opportunity for skill to play a real role. The MM era metagame was plenty diverse and allowed real control/strategy to exist. We can kiss that goodbye forever.
Dude, you really need to shut up. Combo decks are not luck based, they are some of the most skill intensive decks you can play. Obviously you've never played one or you'd realize that. Or you have gold fished with one and won on turn 2-3 a few times and were like OMG OVERPOWERED!!!!!! I've played TES for about a year now and the first 3 months of me playing it was just trying to understand all of the interactions and figuring out the play style of the deck so I can win through counters. Sure I get bad hands or kill myself off of Ad Nauseam once in a while but it is just as luck based as any other deck is. And TES isn't even the most complicated combo deck, DDFT is. So stop talking crap about decks you know nothing about. You were most likely one of the people complaining about Survival being banned.
Also, if you even played before NPH, you'd realize that Countertop was on the decline. It couldn't keep up with the aggro metagame that was dominating at the time. Last spring I played in a tournament where I played against Zoo, NO Show, Counter Slivers, Countertop, and Deadguy Ale. This summer I played in a tournament against 4 Stoneblade decks and Maverick. This is why Mental Misstep is banned. Too much of the format was revolving around it and blue in general. There was no variance in decks. Every SCG open had different decks place in the top 16 every week. No one deck was dominate. Now there was only really Stoneblade and NO RUG.
The metagame was much more diverse (more different decks were viable and could perform well) before MM than after and you are highly overestimating combo decks that have existed for years. Storm and others won't just start destroying the format in a way they never did before, they are just another deck that had trouble with the MM metagame and will be more viable with it gone. You aren't giving Storm players the credit they're due too. A player that just memorizes a line of play isn't playing optimally. Combo players need to be familiar with all the decks they face as well as their own in order to play well and make the best decisions they can.
I don't agree with or understand your reasoning that MM was a strategic card. It was a hard counter with no drawback, making it the easiest of all free counters to use because you don't need to consider the costs of using it like you do with Daze or FoW.
2. Rock/Paper/Scissor style Magic keeps the metagame alive, as people actually have to change their decks more than a couple cards through a metagame shift. The matchups aren't decided purely by who is playing what, and we even have sideboarding to deal with bad MUs. The whole concept of this exists in like every other format, it's just heavily pronounced in Legacy.
3. Really, you want a real control deck to be viable in Legacy? That's pretty much the thing that I hat most in this world. I actually like to sit down, have fun with an opponent, and play a game of Magic, not sit down, and watch my entire hand get countered and Jace ticking up. Yeah, fun times there...
Standard:
:symr:/:symg: Valakut 2.0 (Wolf Run Green)
Legacy:
:symr:/:symb: Vial Goblins
:symr:/:symg:/:symw: Zoo
:symg:/:symw:/:symr: Maverick
Commander:
:symg:/:symb:/:symw: Karador, Ghost Chieftain
Every deck has to play through counters.
Survival was its own archetype and was too powerful. MM allowed new decks to be viable and hurt other decks, but it was not the core of a deck in the same way that Survival was. This isn't a good analogy.
If you guys keep saying this enough times it might even become true. The data from big events says that you are wrong.
I have no idea how competitive this tournament was so I consider data from it worthless. No offense intended.
At magic events there were plenty of different decks that were viable. Many good players choose to play Stoneblade and NO RUG because they reward good play in a way other decks do not, and that allowed them to win. It's silly to think other decks weren't viable.
Respond to my points and then tell me I don't understand what makes a deck hard to play.
If it is the case that the metagame works as you described then it is all based on MU and skill has no role to play. If that were not the case than Combo could not always beat Aggro and Aggro could not always beat Control etc. Now obviously 'always' is hyperbolic, but you get the point.
I'm sorry that you don't enjoy that kind of magic I enjoy, but I don't really have any concern for your point of view. Magic games should not be determined by who wins the dice roll/draws the right hand or by which matchup you are facing.
Why is that good? The MM era metagame was diverse enough to be interesting, and skilled players could test with all of the top decks. If there are 40 viable decks then you can't prepare for everything and your matchs end up being determined by who you get paired against, rather than skill, which is bad. With that said, most of the decks that were "viable" before MM was printed were actually terrible anyway.
I didn't say they were playing optimally, I said that is what they have to do to play those decks. Adjusting for any particular situation will make a combo deck better, but that is true of every deck. The truth is that these decks are not hard to play once you understand them.
Knowing what to counter and when to counter it make hard counter skill intensive cards, but my point is that MM made the metegame more strategic, not that the card itself was hard to use.
I know the numbers: 70%+ win pct against the field, but our European players said it was barely making waves over there. I had been playing RecSur for years, and then I switched to 4c Survival Control. Did Vengevine push the limits of what Survival should be allowed to do? Yes. But players in the American metagame refused to change their decks, or their sideboards to deal with the increasing numbers of Survivals. 4 Tormod's Crypt and 2-3 Krosan Grip should have been enough to slow the deck down enough for the opposing player to gain control, as the European meta has shown us.
The American meta is RIDICULOUSLY slow to adapt to any changes. So slow, that most players don't do it because they're too lazy to change their pet decks. Natural Order/Show and Tell decks can be worked around, but might even be harder to deal with than Survival. To beat a Show and Tell'd Emrakul or Progenitus on turn 2 or 3, you would need to have an overwhelming board presence already, or drop one of a select few cards that can deal with it.
Personally, I haven't played much Legacy since Survival was banned due to outside reasons called life, so I cannot talk on the state of MM, but from what I saw, its printing forced the ENTIRE format, maindeck and sideboard, to adapt to its inclusion. The fact that any deck could play it made it worse (Wizards has always said that free spells always need to be examined under a microscope). Unfortunately, a majority of Legacy tournaments are played on US soil, and since us Americans are slow to respond to the decks popping up, we should all just play linear 60 card decks with SB answers to combat ONLY what screws us, instead of sweeping SB answers to the entire format, and eventually, Jace TMS, Natural Order, Emrakul, AEther Vial, Goblin Ringleader, and any other card that facilitates any kind of deck will be banned, until we're playing with Serra Angels again.
Sorry for the rant, but just sayin'...
If you are going to break down the decks you hate like storm then anyone can do the exact same thing to those two decks.
NO RUG, play some ramp and accelerate into Progenitus for the win. If that strategy seems like it will fail then use creature beatdown.
That isn't more complicated or more skill intensive than TES and it shares a lot in that it has multiple ways to win. Every deck ever has a win condition and acting like that win condition and strategy makes the deck simple is just foolish.
Whoever says that NO RUG and Stoneblade are fun decks must have a really screwed idea of what "fun" is. Weeks before the banning of Jace/SFM in Standard I had to attend a GPT with a borrowed Caw Blade because it was the only deck that had any chance. Playing eight consecutive rounds against UW Caw was as fun as pulling teeth. Skill intensive? Maybe, but I doubt it's harder to pilot than even some aggro decks and it's much easierthan any Pod deck.
Was MM Legacy as bad? Nope, but it would inevitably arrive at that stage sooner or later. My local meta was largely unscathed by MM, but in the last few weeks there has been a lot of people who were "catching up" with the US.
It's not just about ramp, it's about being able to control and then win with your combo. If you can't win with your combo then win using another win condition. Like Caw-Blade, NO RUG has many different lines of play, which make it good.
TES is not really THAT hard to play in a match once you understand it.
You are right, im an american player and I have to admit people adapt slowly. Myself included, that is why bans happen is cause their isnt any inovation.
Not about the combo decks being luck sack, Have to disagree. I know personally from playing ANT and TES that combo decks can be skill intensive. Yes a good hand is part of luck, but so is alot of magic.
I think SCG indy will be chaos and then the event following will probably dictate the meta. As far as the SCG event numbers go, the top 16 was more diverse pre mm than post. Yes countertop is good, it will be to people adapt again, same with High Tide and other fast combos. People will need to adapt to survive.
Banner by Rivenor @
Miraculous Recovery Signatures
Trade List:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=351191
I have absolutely zero experience playing Legacy blue control decks and the first time I picked UW Stoneblade a week ago I was beating face across the room. No, it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the deck, a pro should be able to win a Standard PT with just an Event precon. It's just cardboard after all, right?
No, it isn't. But that doesn't make it an "autopilot" deck. In my opinion it's much more difficult to play than "turn two SFM fetch Batterskull go".dec even if you are experienced with it.
Netdecking already made Standard stagnant. Now the SCG Opens have done much more damage to Legacy than any help to develop the format it could have provided. They've done more harm than good.
1. You have probably played Control in other formats and the same principles apply. And playing against decks teaches you how they work almost as well as playing with them.
2. I have no idea if the people you were playing against were good or what sort of decks they were using.
3. Maybe you are just a very good player.
etc
strawman
We all know that Stoneblade is a control deck and you have to know how to control the game with it. It is true that it generates a lot of tempo, but that is to be expected of a deck like that in legacy. SFM--->Batterskull might not even be good enough now that its ability to control the game has been lessened. We'll see.
I disagree. They have made it actually evolve and allow metagames to be figured. People just won't want to change their pet decks and are upset that there are good players posting decklists that can destroy their goblin deck, which they have no changed in 5 years.
That is some INCREDIBLY bad reasoning man. They consistently won because they were good. That has nothing to do with how hard they are to play at all.
Your comments about NO RUG only cement my point that it is a deck with multiple ways to win, like TES.
Playing counterspells doesn't just automatically make a deck hard to play and I don't understand why you would think it does.
Neither is any other deck ever. Honestly, I could beat you with TES all day long no matter what deck you pick. I'll even let you sideboard pre game and I'll still win. Why? Because I've spent the last year learning this deck inside and out and I'm very confident I can beat any deck in the format at any time. Hell, I'll even let you start the game out with Counterbalance and Top just to make it a challenge for me.
Also, you speak of alternate win conditions. NO RUG has what, Tarmogoyf as it's only other win condition? Or Vendillion Clique if you want to count that too. And Stoneblade has...Spellstutter Sprite and Mutavault. Yeah, if you can't control the game to get out your combo, hope to god that your opponent has absolutely no board presence and win. Seems like a great strategy. And yes, combo decks have more than one way to win the game as well.
As for the guy saying he could beat me with TES, maybe you could. If it really is so unbeatable in the hands of someone who understands it then my comments are even more prescient, duh.
Maybe they just have a different idea of fun than you do? Not everyone has played endless CawBlade mirrors in Standard to get burnt out on Mystic/Jace. I don't play Standard at all, but one look at Mystic and I knew it was to white what Tarmogoyf is to green and what Dark Confidant is to black. And since I never play green (I just don't find it fun), and I don't own Bob or have ever had a deck that would run him, I run Mystic. And it's fun. Some people actually do enjoy interactive/skill intensive decks. The only reason Mystic/Jace get so much hate now isn't because they're OP (don't get me wrong, not saying they aren't), it's merely because their dominance is recent. A couple of years from now and they'll be looked at the same way 'Goyf and Bob are currently.
But, yes. Americans are slow as hell to adapt, and that's the only reason Misstep got banned. Misstep wasn't owning the European meta like it was here in America.
Also I find it absolutely hilarious Tomthumb that you say you don't want the game determined by the dice roll and who draws a better hand because guess what aggro mirrors come down to who draws the better hand and often who goes first. In fact, a lot of magic games come down to who draws the better hand plain and simple. It's just that a good hand in combo usually results in the aggro player losing assuming the combo pilot isn't incompetent.
Anyways, saying that once you know every secret about playing storm combo the deck becomes a lot easier to play guess again. I've played combo decks for years and I still go into the think tank while playing combo because you have to make very critical decisions that if you misplay you can lose horrendously.
Currently Playing:
Retired
This.
I said it prior to the banning, but the arguments are just getting more degenerate and it's no longer productive. Saying one region is slow or better is just stupid. Each region is *different* so live with it.
I for one am excited to go into a dynamic meta and if it's bad, we can discuss that in the coming weeks. The bannings happened so all we can do is play Magic. So let's do that.
My Trade Thread
Current Decks:
Legacy:
GWR Punishing Maverick
UW Miracles
UR Sneak and Show
GWB Enchantress
I think you used to many big words for the general populous:
Before MM-ban decks were MM.dec and anti-MM.dec. Even in this meta, the MM.decs were dominate; boasting an excellent win percentage against the field, not just t8/t16 performances. It didn't seem as broken as flash/survival because the card wasn't winning the game in the same manner that combo decks do not win from Dark Ritual, High Tide or Rite of Flame.
Maverick -- Storm
Click here for trade threadTrade thread under reconstruction.
Because you can't spell slaughter without laughter.
Since we are touching on the touchy subject of which decks are viable, I guess I can say a bit about the decks that became unplayable because of MM. The funny thing is that most of the decks that became "obsolete" because of MM were already very weak when compared to the rest of the metagame. Some famous Magic personality (I think it was Mike Flores but I'm not sure) said that most people in Legacy play unplayable decks, and I think he was right. Decks like Goblins really had almost no chance to beat decks like Breakfast and High Tide, but the existence of other weak decks hid how weak those decks actually were since many of the people who would play against a deck like Goblins were themselves piloting unplayable decks. The reason that they became "unviable" after MM was printed is that there were answers to those decks that did not come in the form of better decks per se. Any weak deck can run MM, which means that if your deck can be shutdown by MM you will probably lose. So the only thing MM got rid of was the illusion that these decks were viable. With that said, some strong decks were definitely hurt my MM, like Countertop and High Tide.