Split the tempo versions of bug from the shardless/controlish versions IMO.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Running:
:symb::symu::symg: BUG Tempo
:symb::symg::symw: JUNK
:symg::symr::symb: JUND
Currently Building:
:symu::symw: Miracle Control
:symb::symu::symr: ANT
Regarding the BW Stoneblade and Deadguy discussion... After much thought I'm still not sure where I stand on it. On one hand, there is a very main-line list that could be described as either. For awhile, it really did seem like the decks were converging. Stoneblade dropped Bitterblossom, and Deadguy picked up Souls and Liliana. Vindicate appeared on both sides. BW Stoneblade needs a cool name, and Deadguy is as cool as it gets in a format of acronyms and game mechanics.
On the other hand, Deadguy really has become a mix of Durward lists and the Vial plan, if only because it's mostly myself and another poster exploring this very overlooked DRS territory. I've played BWg Stoneblade, and it's different.
If they are to be combined, which would be economical though it would force the players to preface every post with a clarifying statement about the list they run, I suggest using the Deadguy name and filing the deck under Control. BWx Stoneblade already belongs there, and even the much more aggressive Durward list plays like a control deck in a lot of matchups.
One fires the discard, controls the removal battle with disruptive drops, then seals the point with a threat that the opposing resources can't handle. Along the way the light removal handles whatever snuck through the discard and is more dangerous than that monolithic threat is. Against aggro it's going for Jitte, Batterskull, Souls, and Liliana. Against control it's going for a Dark Confidant and Liliana plus life gain from equipment. It's almost never in a damage race.
It's not perfect, but it's better than classing BWx Stoneforge as dedicated aggro. That would be pretty off.
Currently Running:
:symb::symu::symg: BUG Tempo
:symb::symg::symw: JUNK
:symg::symr::symb: JUND
Currently Building:
:symu::symw: Miracle Control
:symb::symu::symr: ANT
I would vote for 3 BUG lists since BUG midrange -and- BUG aggro are pretty different, midrange uses planeswalkers where the full aggro does not, full aggro uses delvers and sometimes even stifle, where midrange does not, also midrange is the only of the 3 that seems to use dark confidant, as far as BUG control goes, that one's different enough from the other 2 that it's already it's own thread. ^.^
I feel like 2 is probably sufficient. I think that the Team America thread can be merged with a BUG Delver, as they are both temo oriented decks.
BUG control, as I think Warden showed, has the creatureless version and the Shardless Agent Version, and while these are different, I think there is enough overlap to contain them both in th BUG Control Thread.
That being said, there definitely needs to be an overhaul of the primers for both of those threads to address these different builds and newer cards (DRS, AD) that have been added to the deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy Decks UBG Reanimator RUB Delver R Burn UR Delver UBW Tin Fins UBGR ANT
Another suggestion I have is to seperate the "established" section into two sections, perhaps "tier 1" and "tier2", or something along those lines. I feel like the majority of those decks, though they can be competitive, are a really small percentage of the meta, and additionally rarely make the top 8 of major events. I seems like this may be misleading to new community members/ legacy players who are trying to find out about the top decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy Decks UBG Reanimator RUB Delver R Burn UR Delver UBW Tin Fins UBGR ANT
Another suggestion I have is to seperate the "established" section into two sections, perhaps "tier 1" and "tier2", or something along those lines. I feel like the majority of those decks, though they can be competitive, are a really small percentage of the meta, and additionally rarely make the top 8 of major events. I seems like this may be misleading to new community members/ legacy players who are trying to find out about the top decks.
I don't really like this idea. I think this information is better confined to a (stickied?) thread here in Legacy General covering the state of the metagame and the most widely played decks. If people want to read that, say, RUG Delver is far more played than Enchantress, they can do that. But I think we shouldn't delineate between different decks that are consistent and can take down any local (or larger) tournament.
Just because it's rare to come across High Tide or Enchantress doesn't mean that it's not just as capable of winning any given event as RUG Delver or Miracles. We should make note of what decks are popular and which ones are under the radar, but I think that's not something that we should formalize in separate subforums.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I think there should be "Established" for the tier 2-3 stuff and then "Decks to Beat". Just steal the deck classifications directly from The Source (no, seriously). We don't want people getting into the format to think that things like White Stax and MUC are real decks on par with the others.
If anyone wants to help write primers, by all means volunteer! I wrote the current TA thread out of necessity.
...
Please voice additional ideas and concerns in this thread.
A project that I've just started undertaking is working on revamping the 12-Post thread into a Primer to either sticky in Developing or move into Established (likely under control). It's not entirely done yet, but it's something that I'd like to bring attention to if the Legacy forums are undergoing a spring cleaning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I'm not sure where to put it. The reason for my change in position is I just realized that Lormador, just about the only person who posts in DGA anymore, has been discussing the same list with us in BWx StoneBlade. I figure if I didn't notice, the difference can't be that big.
I think there should be "Established" for the tier 2-3 stuff and then "Decks to Beat". Just steal the deck classifications directly from The Source (no, seriously). We don't want people getting into the format to think that things like White Stax and MUC are real decks on par with the others.
We had this and changed it to [deck archetype] which is way better. Keeping on top of DTB is essentially an arbitrary decision. It's a BIG can of worms + something you need to constantly be on top of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
We had this and changed it to [deck archetype] which is way better. Keeping on top of DTB is essentially an arbitrary decision. It's a BIG can of worms + something you need to constantly be on top of.
I mean I guess it's "good" in the sense that it requires less work lol. It's bad in the sense that it's providing less information to the readers. I certainly wouldn't want someone trying to break into legacy to visit my legacy forum and then go out and build something awful like white stax or dragon stompy because no one bothered to let them know that these aren't "real" legacy decks.
I mean I guess it's "good" in the sense that it requires less work lol. It's bad in the sense that it's providing less information to the readers. I certainly wouldn't want someone trying to break into legacy to visit my legacy forum and then go out and build something awful like white stax or dragon stompy because no one bothered to let them know that these aren't "real" legacy decks.
I really didn't want to do this but since you're looking for a rationale:
You need to eliminate all biases. Even saying a deck is "the top" needs to factor in a variety of bias -- including but not limited to: deck piloting difficulty, expenses, and speed of play. I'll use Lands.dec as the marquee example. It's glacial slow, hard to pilot, and requires very obscure and costly cards (tabernacle I look at you). Its representation is therefore a whole lot less. Is it any worse than say Esperblade? I wouldn't immediately make that correlation but many DO because of the lack of representation.
Where am I going? Due to under-representation, the odds of you seeing a top 8 let alone a 1st place finish is marginalized.
Furthermore, what constitutes top decks? This is philosophical in nature. Although I am exaggerating the following, the American netdecker will inherently think SCG is the be-all, end-all of magic tournaments. There are different national and regional meta-games. Hell, look at the format right now in Europe vs America. Same set of cards with very different outlooks. To constantly tabulate every tournament (even if you set a cut-off for X sized events) is a gargantuan task.
Assuming you were able to reduce all biases and magically record-keep events, then what? That's been a major factor in the past. A long story short, a DTB is arbitrary. The standards for being a top deck don't exist. People just invent some arbitrary cut-off.
If you're really researching the format, you'd read. MTGS does a great job but I wouldn't stop here. And not to knock down the average internet reader, but it's amazing to discover how little people read. We have great primers but I doubt someone new to the format really sifts through them in their entirety. It's technically the correct move but I can count a handful of users who claim they've read through entire threads. If you're buying a legacy deck and willing to blow that kind of cash, I'd hope to god you at least brushed up on the literature + tested.
------------
With all that being said, is anyone willing to write a BW(x) Aggro primer? Should the two relevant threads just be merged?
For a final verdict on BUG, I am leaning on [aggro], [midrange], and [control].
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That which nourishes me, destroys me
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
Second the BUG aggro/BUG control. However it might be worth holding off on adding BUG midrange at least for now... it just feels like a Junk deck but with less white spells. I don't know if that warrants giving it its own primer just yet. DRS + Decay have only been a part of the meta for a few months so who knows what will develop. Also, I think we should be on the watch for a 4CC control deck that combines BUG control + Stoneblade.
One more thing, while there may be differences... MUD stompy seems to be awfully similar to Forgemaster... is there a need for the deck to still be in developing, or should it be merged with Forgemaster?
And yet neither the go-to site for Legacy, nor any of the other format sub-forums on MTGS, have any problem making the disctiction based on deck performance.
I mean if the problem is that it's too much work, or that people will get upset when their pet deck is not in the "Decks to Beat" or "Proven" section or whatever, I can understand.
Let's just not pretend that it's impossible to classify decks based on performace, that a slightly different meta in Europe presents an insurmountable problem, or that it's somehow not strictly better to differentiate between real competitive decks and White Stax/MUC/The Gate/etc etc etc.
I mean you mention reading the primers, but the primers are written by proponents of the decks. I guarantee that the White Stax primer doesn't say "this is not a good deck, don't build this deck, going into an unknown meta don't sideboard against this deck because no one plays it, etc."
Let's get things organized in a way that is actually helpful to new readers. The other format sub-forums can do it, The Source can do it, I'm pretty sure we can do it.
People of this forum prefer this layout. I'm sorry if it bothers you. I honestly don't see a point in singling out the four or five best decks in a separate sub forum.
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
:symb::symu::symg: BUG Tempo
:symb::symg::symw: JUNK
:symg::symr::symb: JUND
Currently Building:
:symu::symw: Miracle Control
:symb::symu::symr: ANT
So 2 threads? One in aggro one in control?
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
On the other hand, Deadguy really has become a mix of Durward lists and the Vial plan, if only because it's mostly myself and another poster exploring this very overlooked DRS territory. I've played BWg Stoneblade, and it's different.
If they are to be combined, which would be economical though it would force the players to preface every post with a clarifying statement about the list they run, I suggest using the Deadguy name and filing the deck under Control. BWx Stoneblade already belongs there, and even the much more aggressive Durward list plays like a control deck in a lot of matchups.
One fires the discard, controls the removal battle with disruptive drops, then seals the point with a threat that the opposing resources can't handle. Along the way the light removal handles whatever snuck through the discard and is more dangerous than that monolithic threat is. Against aggro it's going for Jitte, Batterskull, Souls, and Liliana. Against control it's going for a Dark Confidant and Liliana plus life gain from equipment. It's almost never in a damage race.
It's not perfect, but it's better than classing BWx Stoneforge as dedicated aggro. That would be pretty off.
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
Aye
:symb::symu::symg: BUG Tempo
:symb::symg::symw: JUNK
:symg::symr::symb: JUND
Currently Building:
:symu::symw: Miracle Control
:symb::symu::symr: ANT
BUG control, as I think Warden showed, has the creatureless version and the Shardless Agent Version, and while these are different, I think there is enough overlap to contain them both in th BUG Control Thread.
That being said, there definitely needs to be an overhaul of the primers for both of those threads to address these different builds and newer cards (DRS, AD) that have been added to the deck.
UBG Reanimator
RUB Delver
R Burn
UR Delver
UBW Tin Fins
UBGR ANT
UBG Reanimator
RUB Delver
R Burn
UR Delver
UBW Tin Fins
UBGR ANT
I don't really like this idea. I think this information is better confined to a (stickied?) thread here in Legacy General covering the state of the metagame and the most widely played decks. If people want to read that, say, RUG Delver is far more played than Enchantress, they can do that. But I think we shouldn't delineate between different decks that are consistent and can take down any local (or larger) tournament.
Just because it's rare to come across High Tide or Enchantress doesn't mean that it's not just as capable of winning any given event as RUG Delver or Miracles. We should make note of what decks are popular and which ones are under the radar, but I think that's not something that we should formalize in separate subforums.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
Burn is extremely out of date. No Vexing Devil in the primer Reanimator could use some work, no mention of Griselbrand in the primer at all.
Legacy Burn
NO Combo Elves
Reanimator
Trades
Burn Primer
:symg:Free Gaea's Cradle:symg:
*sigh* typical.
I've changed my opinion, I think we should merge DGA and BW StoneBlade, simply because every other forum does.
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
I'm not opposed. Need someone to volunteer to do this.
RJ, what you you classify it under? Aggro or Control? And any reasoning for the change?
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
A project that I've just started undertaking is working on revamping the 12-Post thread into a Primer to either sticky in Developing or move into Established (likely under control). It's not entirely done yet, but it's something that I'd like to bring attention to if the Legacy forums are undergoing a spring cleaning.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
We had this and changed it to [deck archetype] which is way better. Keeping on top of DTB is essentially an arbitrary decision. It's a BIG can of worms + something you need to constantly be on top of.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
That way a good day
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
I really didn't want to do this but since you're looking for a rationale:
You need to eliminate all biases. Even saying a deck is "the top" needs to factor in a variety of bias -- including but not limited to: deck piloting difficulty, expenses, and speed of play. I'll use Lands.dec as the marquee example. It's glacial slow, hard to pilot, and requires very obscure and costly cards (tabernacle I look at you). Its representation is therefore a whole lot less. Is it any worse than say Esperblade? I wouldn't immediately make that correlation but many DO because of the lack of representation.
Where am I going? Due to under-representation, the odds of you seeing a top 8 let alone a 1st place finish is marginalized.
Furthermore, what constitutes top decks? This is philosophical in nature. Although I am exaggerating the following, the American netdecker will inherently think SCG is the be-all, end-all of magic tournaments. There are different national and regional meta-games. Hell, look at the format right now in Europe vs America. Same set of cards with very different outlooks. To constantly tabulate every tournament (even if you set a cut-off for X sized events) is a gargantuan task.
Assuming you were able to reduce all biases and magically record-keep events, then what? That's been a major factor in the past. A long story short, a DTB is arbitrary. The standards for being a top deck don't exist. People just invent some arbitrary cut-off.
If you're really researching the format, you'd read. MTGS does a great job but I wouldn't stop here. And not to knock down the average internet reader, but it's amazing to discover how little people read. We have great primers but I doubt someone new to the format really sifts through them in their entirety. It's technically the correct move but I can count a handful of users who claim they've read through entire threads. If you're buying a legacy deck and willing to blow that kind of cash, I'd hope to god you at least brushed up on the literature + tested.
------------
With all that being said, is anyone willing to write a BW(x) Aggro primer? Should the two relevant threads just be merged?
For a final verdict on BUG, I am leaning on [aggro], [midrange], and [control].
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Meta games are continent dependent. What's true in Europe isn't necessarily true in America or Japan.
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
One more thing, while there may be differences... MUD stompy seems to be awfully similar to Forgemaster... is there a need for the deck to still be in developing, or should it be merged with Forgemaster?
Legacy Burn
NO Combo Elves
Reanimator
Trades
Burn Primer
:symg:Free Gaea's Cradle:symg:
I mean if the problem is that it's too much work, or that people will get upset when their pet deck is not in the "Decks to Beat" or "Proven" section or whatever, I can understand.
Let's just not pretend that it's impossible to classify decks based on performace, that a slightly different meta in Europe presents an insurmountable problem, or that it's somehow not strictly better to differentiate between real competitive decks and White Stax/MUC/The Gate/etc etc etc.
I mean you mention reading the primers, but the primers are written by proponents of the decks. I guarantee that the White Stax primer doesn't say "this is not a good deck, don't build this deck, going into an unknown meta don't sideboard against this deck because no one plays it, etc."
Let's get things organized in a way that is actually helpful to new readers. The other format sub-forums can do it, The Source can do it, I'm pretty sure we can do it.
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
Level 1 Judge
Currently Playing:
W Death and Taxes
BGR ScapeWish Nic Fit
BGR Punishing Nic Fit
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod