When you go w/o knowing the meta you're gambling. You might do well or might not.
Seriously if you meta knowledge is giving worse results you must rethink your meta crush strategy. On that regard, i would PTQs are almost impossible to predict. If you think 'the meta is x, i will go y' there will be people who predict your predict and will get a z that crush your y. Other people will predict the prediction that predicted your prediction and so on. It's nearly impossible to know were the majority of the meta will be sitting.
The best strategy is always bring a deck with balanced match ups and more important that you have a lot of practice with.
Most of the time, I just assume that everyone will be playing the "best deck." This hasn't worked as well for me recently, but in the past year or so, you could have guessed Junk Reanimator or Jund at certain times. My meta predictions have been pretty spot on, with an exception of guessing Caw Blade (before bans) and then facing 0 Caw Blade in 8 rounds of Swiss and 2 rounds of top 8. That one was really odd considering that I only play tested my Boros vs. Caw Blade the 3 weeks up to that PTQ. I got knocked out by UB Infect !?! (by Kibler).
I think that most decks can beat most other decks (given that they're top Tier). It really comes down to drawing hate, cards that are good in the matchup, and mulling to cards that are good in the matchup along with some luck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
It is possible for combo to be more powerful in standard than modern.
Modern has all of Standard's cards, plus decades more. How on Earth would your above statement be true?
Of course, Shahrazad, falling star, and chaos orb are banned for a differed [sic] reason, but they are non ante cards that are banned--something people tend to forget.
You're still saying this as if they're banned for reasons of power. Literally, they're only banned because WotC decided that subgames and manual dexterity-based cards shouldn't be part of competitive, Sanctioned Magic. Bringing these cards up is no more valid than bringing up the Ante cards. They're all equal in that they use mechanics that should be limited to Un-Sets, not real cards.
Vintage decks are most certainly not legacy decks plus power
I never said they were. At the same time, you're kidding yourself if you think that the two formats don't share archetypes. Sneak/Show, Dredge, Goblins, etc. are all archetypes that exist (in some form) within both formats.
Honestly, even if you were right on one or two points, you're wrong on so many others (defiantly so), that there's just no point in even trying to converse with you. (The Standard vs Modern combo statement is probably the most severe.)
you're out of touch man. vintage isn't all turn 1 kills, not at all. (it isn't mostly turn 1 kills either) even the non-blue decks play disruption that can prevent them.
If I'm wrong on this one, relatively small point, sure. The power level and speed of Vintage still make for shorter games. And again, I definitely feel that the length of the games plays a role in how skill-testing a format is.
If the store owner says that I can't trade in the premises, I'll just go outside. If he says that I can't trade within 10m of his premises, I'll go to 11 meters. If he says that he doesn't want to see me trading, I will put a basket over his head and continue trading.
Yes, he's a local legend. He's only known to take his clothes off before he goes into the Ladies' Lockerroom. Nobody knows what he does in there because he's invisible, but it's almost certainly tons of masturbating.
Modern has all of Standard's cards, plus decades more. How on Earth would your above statement be true?
You're still saying this as if they're banned for reasons of power. Literally, they're only banned because WotC decided that subgames and manual dexterity-based cards shouldn't be part of competitive, Sanctioned Magic. Bringing these cards up is no more valid than bringing up the Ante cards. They're all equal in that they use mechanics that should be limited to Un-Sets, not real cards.
I never said they were. At the same time, you're kidding yourself if you think that the two formats don't share archetypes. Sneak/Show, Dredge, Goblins, etc. are all archetypes that exist (in some form) within both formats.
Honestly, even if you were right on one or two points, you're wrong on so many others (defiantly so), that there's just no point in even trying to converse with you. (The Standard vs Modern combo statement is probably the most severe.)
If I'm wrong on this one, relatively small point, sure. The power level and speed of Vintage still make for shorter games. And again, I definitely feel that the length of the games plays a role in how skill-testing a format is.
How combo can be better in standard than modern:
Standard is a slower format than modern. Modern has cards similiar to stifle, and has better counterspells than standard. Modern also has Thalia. Modern has much more card diversity in the ways it can deal with a combo. A turn 3 combo in standard would be game over, banned. A turn 3 combo in modern is acceptable.
If a turn 3 combo existed inside standard it would be unable to be dealt with, as such, combo can be more powerful in standard because of the meta game.
Yes, there are similiar archetypes in vintage and legacy. Dredge was originally a vintage deck before it was a legacy deck.
Different archetypes exist in different formats. For a while in both Legacy and Standard reanimating Griselbrand was a tier one deck, also it wasn't bad in Vintage, either, I hear. Now, are they the same deck because the core strategy is the same? I wouldn't think so.
Modern and legacy both have tier 1.5 storm combo decks. But they're no where near similar.
Quote from edward mass »
Vintage is just a faster version of Legacy, so all the two 2 wins become turn 1s. How skill-intensive is it to play with your self until you kill your opponent? (And how much skill is said opponent using, assuming they don't have the means to stop you?) Again, the "I FoW or a I lose" scenario isn't the pinnacle of a skill-tester, IMHO.
Is where you basically said vintage is legacy plus power.
About the banned thing? I wasn't even quoting you, so I do not see how it has any relevance. I was simply reminding someone that Vintage certainly DOES have a banned list, and that said banned list does include cards that are NOT ante. That was my entire statement, it was one sentence.
for the rest of everything, here's a list of fallacious arguments you're using:
Argument by dismissal, ad hominem, argument from authority, bad analogy, Argument From Spurious Similarity, Argument By Selective Reading, there are a lot more, I'm sure, I got bored after looking half way through the 'A' section.
Now, if you'd like to continue to correct my spelling mistakes, I'll have to send you some of my fiction before my next writer's group meeting.
So few people are actually considering EDH as a viable constructed format, and I don't know why. It's WAY more complex than Standard or Modern because of the diversity of decks and the different deckbuilding options. Most Rafiq of the Many decks won't be exactly the same, and will almost never play out the same every time you play it. Add in the fact that you have multiple opponents and things can get pretty skill intensive...
Legacy requires the most skill and I don't think it's close. Mistakes that you make on turn 2 of a Legacy game can ultimately decide a game that was otherwise very close even on turn 8-10, whereas a Vintage or Modern game probably won't last that long through an early play error and Standard games usually allow a good player to compensate for early mistakes a lot more easily. Playing tight in a Legacy game, especially a grindy creature matchup, WILL win the game even through basic variance much of the time if the decks are optimized. There are outliers (Belcher comes to mind) but by and large the combo decks are harder to play optimally, the creature decks are harder to play optimally, the control decks are harder to play optimally, and the prison decks ... exist at all, unlike in other formats, which add up to a format that punishes play errors heavily and offers a TON of opportunities to make them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Gabgabdevo for the awesome sig image!
I'm always looking for foil Madcap Skills and Ghitu Fire-Eater, [trade thread link forthcoming]
Legacy is the most skill intensive format.
There's a lot more decks to prepare for, thinking to it and ways to cost yourself a game than there are in standard/modern. Although this also depends on which deck you play.
I agree with most that it's legacy but I find it crazy how some people crap all over modern. Modern certainly more skill intensive than standard, and there ARE a ton of strong archetypes, just lots are inconsistent compared to the frontrunners.
We get you hate the banlist, unban everything, etc. The format is still twice as skill intensive and interesting vs standard.
I would say that for a lot of games Legacy and Vintage require the most skill, but when they get dumb they're really super herp-a-derp stupid. There are a lot of openers that just don't let the opponent play any magic at all, so definitely those require zero skill.
On the other hand Standard and Modern are much more likely to have longer and more interactive games, but they have a smaller number of possible "live" cards on the opposing side at any given moment so the maximum skill-testing situations are not as complex.
So I guess you want to go with Legacy or Vintage if you want to experience the highest levels of skill testing in MtG, but you'd want to stick to Standard and Modern if you want to avoid the dumbest levels of derp. Pick your poison.
I would say that for a lot of games Legacy and Vintage require the most skill, but when they get dumb they're really super herp-a-derp stupid. There are a lot of openers that just don't let the opponent play any magic at all, so definitely those require zero skill.
On the other hand Standard and Modern are much more likely to have longer and more interactive games, but they have a smaller number of possible "live" cards on the opposing side at any given moment so the maximum skill-testing situations are not as complex.
So I guess you want to go with Legacy or Vintage if you want to experience the highest levels of skill testing in MtG, but you'd want to stick to Standard and Modern if you want to avoid the dumbest levels of derp. Pick your poison.
Standard and Modern at the moment play faster than legacy. Seriously, go watch a Starcity stream and compare the legacy and standard match times if you don't believe me. Last weekend's standard final lasted 30 minutes over the course of three games, including shuffling, and a judge intervention to rewind part of the third match. The first game finished in under two minutes, and the second game finished in around the same amount of time. If a legacy game finishes in two minutes, one of the players was probably woefully unprepared, and someone probably got a bit lucky.
Legacy has plenty of powerful plays, but it's nowhere near as degenerate as you're making it out to be. Prison isn't really a thing at the moment, and the combo decks are fast, but if you're having trouble interacting with a combo deck, that's your fault, not your opponent's, because you should have packed some form of disruption, whether it be land hate (wasteland, stifle, and many, many more), hatebears (thalia), colourless disruption (chalice), hand destruction (thoughtseize, inquisition of kozilek), or counters (FoW, Daze, flusterstorm). If you play nothing but creatures with no disruption, and no viable win condition other than swinging in blindly, you aren't interacting yourself, so you can't reasonably complain when a combo player destroys you.
In other formats, interaction is a choice; in legacy, it isn't. If your deck doesn't interact with your opponent or do something powerful early, you're going to lose.
Standard and Modern at the moment play faster than legacy.
It's not about the speed of the format. It's about the ability to play Magic. Usually first turn Chalice/Trinisphere means Magic will not be played, double Wasteland means Magic will not be played, a lucky Hymn means Magic will not be played, second turn Show and Tell means Magic will not be played,
first turn 20 goblins means Magic will not be played, second turn dredge the whole deck means Magic will not be played, turn zero Leyline means Magic will not be played, first/second turn Blood Moon means Magic will not be played, etc.
Sure, in terms of pure speed Standard and Modern are not too shabby but it's not like I can usually drop a permanent on turn two and insta-win with it. The only exception I can think of is Rest in Peace against Junk Aristocrats, and even then Junk Aristocrats can still function as a really bad weenie deck. It's not like "stick Blood Moon and the game is over".
if you're having trouble interacting with a combo deck, that's your fault, not your opponent's
Even if you pack disruption, you can still just lose a game by not drawing it in your opening grip. In fact, I would say that the powerful hate just makes games even less skill intensive and more reliant on luck of the draw. I've won with Dredge against decks packing four LotV, because they mulliganed to oblivion. I've also lost to turn zero LotV. Those games were 100% luck-based. I'm not saying these games define Legacy and Vintage, but they do happen often enough that we can't pretend that they don't count. In Standard this really only happens in mana-screw situations, but mana-screw happens in Legacy and Vintage too (and probably happens even more often, because of Wasteland and lock pieces).
In other formats, interaction is a choice; in legacy, it isn't. If your deck doesn't interact with your opponent or do something powerful early, you're going to lose.
Standard and Modern games tend to be decided by a series of interactions. It's hard to play a game in those formats where very little interaction happens, outside of mana-screw. In Legacy and Vintage there are many common scenarios where a single early interaction decides the course of the whole game. The lower the number of key interactions, and the lower the number of turns before they happen, the less skill-intensive and the more luck-based games become.
To be fair to Vintage and Legacy, games also get a lot more skill intensive the more cards get drawn and searched out. This mitigates the above issues somewhat, but I think formats like Standard and Modern get the same benefits just by letting players see more cards through having more draw steps.
In the end my conclusion is the same. No other formats can touch the skill-intensiveness of the most complex Vintage and Legacy scenarios, but those formats are also unparalleled in terms of producing games that might as well have been decided by a coin-toss.
Modern has all of Standard's cards, plus decades more. How on Earth would your above statement be true?
Quite easily.
Obviously, the most powerful Standard combo deck is going to lose vs. the most powerful Modern combo deck.
But that wasn't what Tybalt was saying. He was saying that combo could be more powerful in Standard relative to its format than combo in Modern. Modern has stronger combos --- but also stronger anti-combo disruption, with the result that combo can be weaker in Modern metagames than in Standard metagames.
There have been many Standard metagames wherein combo held a stronger position (greater metagame percentage) in its format than many Modern metagames.
So few people are actually considering EDH as a viable constructed format, and I don't know why. It's WAY more complex than Standard or Modern because of the diversity of decks and the different deckbuilding options. Most Rafiq of the Many decks won't be exactly the same, and will almost never play out the same every time you play it. Add in the fact that you have multiple opponents and things can get pretty skill intensive...
That's because it isn't. Even most "serious" EDH players aren't interested in playing competitive EDH tourneys because it is a broken format when played at that level. The deck building options at the truly competitive level of EDH (i.e. your deck needs to be able to stop a good Hermit Druid player on turn 2) are actually more limited than at the competitive level of Legacy.
And the multiple opponents thing both ups and lowers the skill needed, as it adds significantly more chance to the games. It is very easy to lose EDH games where you have the best deck, are the best player, and played the best, simply because you got teamed up on.
Regarding "fast Standard" and "degenerate Modern":
Fast Standard games are often ended on resignations, not full play outs. Similar is true of Modern (though some decks can, technically, win outright in less than ten minutes). Meanwhile, slow Legacy/Vintage games are typically attrition-based and/or instances where stubborn players refuse to scoop.
A better way of assessing format speed (and power), is determining which turn was the winning one. If I take over the game by turn 2 or 3, but still need extra time to actually play it out, (whether by comboing off or controlling my opponent to death,) that game still technically ended on the turn I took it over.
Looking at it this way, Legacy/Vintage games are just as fast, if not faster. The actual play times may vary, but a someone still takes over the game relatively early on.
Obviously, the most powerful Standard combo deck is going to lose vs. the most powerful Modern combo deck.
But that wasn't what Tybalt was saying. He was saying that combo could be more powerful in Standard relative to its format than combo in Modern. Modern has stronger combos --- but also stronger anti-combo disruption, with the result that combo can be weaker in Modern metagames than in Standard metagames.
There have been many Standard metagames wherein combo held a stronger position (greater metagame percentage) in its format than many Modern metagames.
I've seen his attempt to argue this retroactively. This isn't in line with my point, which is that Standard hasn't had the tools (for YEARS) to build a committed combo deck (that rolls the metagame). The rare occasions where they have, it's been a goof up by WotC and led directly to archetype-nerfing bannings.
In short, my point --which no one addressed head-on, though admittedly it was actually meant to be rhetorical--was that Standard's card pool is just Modern's but smaller. There is no arguing this, just as there is no way to argue that Vintage is slower than Legacy.
About the banned thing? I wasn't even quoting you, so I do not see how it has any relevance. I was simply reminding someone that Vintage certainly DOES have a banned list, and that said banned list does include cards that are NOT ante. That was my entire statement, it was one sentence.
Because the existence of a restricted list rather than a ban list makes the format more about naturally drawing those 1 of's that make the deck function so much better.
As far as I can see, Aazadan wasn't arguing that a banned list doesn't exist; He was making the very logical, on-point statement that Vintage substitutes Banning with Restricting in the case of powerful cards.
Your response, Tybalt? To try and correct him whilst not even directly addressing his actual point. And you continued to defiantly defend this action every time I called you on it and proved you were off point (and largely just wrong).
Now, if you'd like to continue to correct my spelling mistakes, I'll have to send you some of my fiction before my next writer's group meeting.
And it's random nonsense like this that underscores why replying to you is such a pointless headache.
Most skill intensive is Legacy, Modern/Standard is around the same, Draft is close to Legacy, EDH is a joke, Sealed is mostly luck but does involve some deck building skill.
Regarding "fast Standard" and "degenerate Modern":
Fast Standard games are often ended on resignations, not full play outs. Similar is true of Modern (though some decks can, technically, win outright in less than ten minutes). Meanwhile, slow Legacy/Vintage games are typically attrition-based and/or instances where stubborn players refuse to scoop.
A better way of assessing format speed (and power), is determining which turn was the winning one. If I take over the game by turn 2 or 3, but still need extra time to actually play it out, (whether by comboing off or controlling my opponent to death,) that game still technically ended on the turn I took it over.
Looking at it this way, Legacy/Vintage games are just as fast, if not faster. The actual play times may vary, but a someone still takes over the game relatively early on.
I've seen his attempt to argue this retroactively. This isn't in line with my point, which is that Standard hasn't had the tools (for YEARS) to build a committed combo deck (that rolls the metagame). The rare accusations where they have, it's been a goof up by WotC and led directly to archetype-nerfing bannings.
In short, my point --which no one addressed head-on, though admittedly it was actually meant to be rhetorical--was that Standard's card pool just Modern's but smaller. There is no arguing this, just as there is no arguing that Vintage is slower than Legacy. (Why are we even having this argument?)
And here's what you quoted:
As far as I can see, Aazadan wasn't arguing that a banned list doesn't exist; He was making the very logical, on-point statement that Vintage substitutes Banning with Restricting in the case of powerful cards.
Your response, Tybalt? To try and correct him whilst not even directly addressing his actual point. And you continued to defiantly defend this action every time I called you on it and proved you were off point (and largely just wrong).
And it's random nonsense like this that underscores why replying to you is such a pointless headache.
Ignoring the issue, and attacking the man.
You can't argue against the fact that you've made many inaccurate statements that I have countered and dismissed, so instead you've decided to target something I did not say to you, a one off comment that really has nothing to do with this thread in the least, and then you've added to it by directing insults to my direction so that you can pretend the rest of the body of my posts (the parts discrediting you) are either wrong because I am wrong, or do not matter because I am wrong.
The fact is, you can not diffute my responses, as such you've directed your arguments to me, personally.
I will take this as an admission of your being wrong.
EDIT: Your post, you said 'is like saying combo could be more powerful in standard than modern', and if they printed a modern potent combo in standard the lack of available counter magic would make it unbeatable, as such Wizards specifically does not do this. The fact is, is that you stated a theoretical event, one that wizards specifically avoids, and then when you were disputed you made it sound like you were referencing the real world. You are saying you're not wrong, because it doesn't happen. That doesn't make you right, when dealing with a hypothetical situation saying 'it doesn't work like that IRO' isn't ever a good response.
So few people are actually considering EDH as a viable constructed format, and I don't know why. It's WAY more complex than Standard or Modern because of the diversity of decks and the different deckbuilding options. Most Rafiq of the Many decks won't be exactly the same, and will almost never play out the same every time you play it. Add in the fact that you have multiple opponents and things can get pretty skill intensive...
That's because it is not a viable constructed format. As in, you're never going to see an EDH PTQ.
Right now it is a casual constructed format, and if the power levels of the decks are similar, then yes, it requires a very large amount of player skill, and interpersonal skill, which is why I love the format so much.
I agree with most that it's legacy but I find it crazy how some people crap all over modern. Modern certainly more skill intensive than standard, and there ARE a ton of strong archetypes, just lots are inconsistent compared to the frontrunners.
We get you hate the banlist, unban everything, etc. The format is still twice as skill intensive and interesting vs standard.
I disagree that modern is more skill intensive than standard. A lot of the tier one modern decks (jund, affinity, twin, pod, tron) have nut draws on the play that are actually just unbeatable. There are also a lot of sideboard cards that simply prevent your opponent from playing magic. I'm not critiquing the format itself - in fact, it's a far superior format to standard. Still inherent card pool and card complexity isn't what makes a format difficult to play, and outside of fetching lands which is a tough part of the game, modern games are simply smoother and less back and forth than standard games... at least to me. Basically, modern and legacy games tend to come down to 1-2 "big decisions" that heavily affect the outcome -- which can be as simply as fetching out the correct land, baiting a counter with the correct card, and making every point of damage count in combat. Standard games are generally won by several "small decisions" like mulligans, sequencing, combat math.
It's not that Midrange vs Midrange requires less skill than other matches - it's that constantly playing aggro vs aggro means only using a subset of the skills that you'd need in a more diverse format.
When fast combo, draw/go, and prison exist, players have to constantly reevaluate various lines of play, the strength of opening hands, even card selection and deck selection. This forces players to think about the game from different angles and makes them better MTG players (and strategists in general).
Note that in such a format (currently only Legacy) all the skills needed to play Midrange vs Midrange ae still required in order to play optimally.
It's not about the speed of the format. It's about the ability to play Magic. Usually first turn Chalice/Trinisphere means Magic will not be played, double Wasteland means Magic will not be played, a lucky Hymn means Magic will not be played, second turn Show and Tell means Magic will not be played,
first turn 20 goblins means Magic will not be played, second turn dredge the whole deck means Magic will not be played, turn zero Leyline means Magic will not be played, first/second turn Blood Moon means Magic will not be played, etc.
I'm guessing you don't play much Legacy? Most of those scearios are either bad plays (aka, T1 &T2 Wasteland), can be played around, and/or are very unlikely.
In Legacy you have to be prepared for these strategies or else you'll lose with the sense that you "didn't get to play". Try running some of those strategies and you'll see just how hard they can be to pull of and how much "play" is still left in the match.
The larger the card pool, the more skill is required to do well at said format.
Vintage>Legacy>Modern>Standard
I don't think think it's that straight forward. Would you say every Standard environment is exactly as skill intensive as every other Standard with the same size pool?
Of course size matters, but you have to consider the size of the playable card pool. When Flash was banned in Legacy, the cardpool shrank, but the playable cardpool grew and the game became richer.
Does Vintage have a larger playable cardpoool than Legacy?
Most of the time, I just assume that everyone will be playing the "best deck." This hasn't worked as well for me recently, but in the past year or so, you could have guessed Junk Reanimator or Jund at certain times. My meta predictions have been pretty spot on, with an exception of guessing Caw Blade (before bans) and then facing 0 Caw Blade in 8 rounds of Swiss and 2 rounds of top 8. That one was really odd considering that I only play tested my Boros vs. Caw Blade the 3 weeks up to that PTQ. I got knocked out by UB Infect !?! (by Kibler).
I think that most decks can beat most other decks (given that they're top Tier). It really comes down to drawing hate, cards that are good in the matchup, and mulling to cards that are good in the matchup along with some luck.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Modern has all of Standard's cards, plus decades more. How on Earth would your above statement be true?
You're still saying this as if they're banned for reasons of power. Literally, they're only banned because WotC decided that subgames and manual dexterity-based cards shouldn't be part of competitive, Sanctioned Magic. Bringing these cards up is no more valid than bringing up the Ante cards. They're all equal in that they use mechanics that should be limited to Un-Sets, not real cards.
I never said they were. At the same time, you're kidding yourself if you think that the two formats don't share archetypes. Sneak/Show, Dredge, Goblins, etc. are all archetypes that exist (in some form) within both formats.
Honestly, even if you were right on one or two points, you're wrong on so many others (defiantly so), that there's just no point in even trying to converse with you. (The Standard vs Modern combo statement is probably the most severe.)
If I'm wrong on this one, relatively small point, sure. The power level and speed of Vintage still make for shorter games. And again, I definitely feel that the length of the games plays a role in how skill-testing a format is.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
I would say probably either legacy or standard.
*DCI Rules Advisor*
How combo can be better in standard than modern:
Standard is a slower format than modern. Modern has cards similiar to stifle, and has better counterspells than standard. Modern also has Thalia. Modern has much more card diversity in the ways it can deal with a combo. A turn 3 combo in standard would be game over, banned. A turn 3 combo in modern is acceptable.
If a turn 3 combo existed inside standard it would be unable to be dealt with, as such, combo can be more powerful in standard because of the meta game.
Yes, there are similiar archetypes in vintage and legacy. Dredge was originally a vintage deck before it was a legacy deck.
Different archetypes exist in different formats. For a while in both Legacy and Standard reanimating Griselbrand was a tier one deck, also it wasn't bad in Vintage, either, I hear. Now, are they the same deck because the core strategy is the same? I wouldn't think so.
Modern and legacy both have tier 1.5 storm combo decks. But they're no where near similar.
Is where you basically said vintage is legacy plus power.
About the banned thing? I wasn't even quoting you, so I do not see how it has any relevance. I was simply reminding someone that Vintage certainly DOES have a banned list, and that said banned list does include cards that are NOT ante. That was my entire statement, it was one sentence.
for the rest of everything, here's a list of fallacious arguments you're using:
Argument by dismissal, ad hominem, argument from authority, bad analogy, Argument From Spurious Similarity, Argument By Selective Reading, there are a lot more, I'm sure, I got bored after looking half way through the 'A' section.
Now, if you'd like to continue to correct my spelling mistakes, I'll have to send you some of my fiction before my next writer's group meeting.
Special thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios for the avatar and Inkfox Aesthetics for the sig.
Vaevictus Asmadi, Creator of [The Spirit of EDH]
EDH Decks
BRGProssh, the Chump-Block DragonBRG
BRGVaevictis Asmadi-Hoarder of ManaBRG
Thanks to Gabgabdevo for the awesome sig image!
I'm always looking for foil Madcap Skills and Ghitu Fire-Eater, [trade thread link forthcoming]
There's a lot more decks to prepare for, thinking to it and ways to cost yourself a game than there are in standard/modern. Although this also depends on which deck you play.
We get you hate the banlist, unban everything, etc. The format is still twice as skill intensive and interesting vs standard.
On the other hand Standard and Modern are much more likely to have longer and more interactive games, but they have a smaller number of possible "live" cards on the opposing side at any given moment so the maximum skill-testing situations are not as complex.
So I guess you want to go with Legacy or Vintage if you want to experience the highest levels of skill testing in MtG, but you'd want to stick to Standard and Modern if you want to avoid the dumbest levels of derp. Pick your poison.
Standard and Modern at the moment play faster than legacy. Seriously, go watch a Starcity stream and compare the legacy and standard match times if you don't believe me. Last weekend's standard final lasted 30 minutes over the course of three games, including shuffling, and a judge intervention to rewind part of the third match. The first game finished in under two minutes, and the second game finished in around the same amount of time. If a legacy game finishes in two minutes, one of the players was probably woefully unprepared, and someone probably got a bit lucky.
Legacy has plenty of powerful plays, but it's nowhere near as degenerate as you're making it out to be. Prison isn't really a thing at the moment, and the combo decks are fast, but if you're having trouble interacting with a combo deck, that's your fault, not your opponent's, because you should have packed some form of disruption, whether it be land hate (wasteland, stifle, and many, many more), hatebears (thalia), colourless disruption (chalice), hand destruction (thoughtseize, inquisition of kozilek), or counters (FoW, Daze, flusterstorm). If you play nothing but creatures with no disruption, and no viable win condition other than swinging in blindly, you aren't interacting yourself, so you can't reasonably complain when a combo player destroys you.
In other formats, interaction is a choice; in legacy, it isn't. If your deck doesn't interact with your opponent or do something powerful early, you're going to lose.
It's not about the speed of the format. It's about the ability to play Magic. Usually first turn Chalice/Trinisphere means Magic will not be played, double Wasteland means Magic will not be played, a lucky Hymn means Magic will not be played, second turn Show and Tell means Magic will not be played,
first turn 20 goblins means Magic will not be played, second turn dredge the whole deck means Magic will not be played, turn zero Leyline means Magic will not be played, first/second turn Blood Moon means Magic will not be played, etc.
Sure, in terms of pure speed Standard and Modern are not too shabby but it's not like I can usually drop a permanent on turn two and insta-win with it. The only exception I can think of is Rest in Peace against Junk Aristocrats, and even then Junk Aristocrats can still function as a really bad weenie deck. It's not like "stick Blood Moon and the game is over".
Even if you pack disruption, you can still just lose a game by not drawing it in your opening grip. In fact, I would say that the powerful hate just makes games even less skill intensive and more reliant on luck of the draw. I've won with Dredge against decks packing four LotV, because they mulliganed to oblivion. I've also lost to turn zero LotV. Those games were 100% luck-based. I'm not saying these games define Legacy and Vintage, but they do happen often enough that we can't pretend that they don't count. In Standard this really only happens in mana-screw situations, but mana-screw happens in Legacy and Vintage too (and probably happens even more often, because of Wasteland and lock pieces).
Standard and Modern games tend to be decided by a series of interactions. It's hard to play a game in those formats where very little interaction happens, outside of mana-screw. In Legacy and Vintage there are many common scenarios where a single early interaction decides the course of the whole game. The lower the number of key interactions, and the lower the number of turns before they happen, the less skill-intensive and the more luck-based games become.
To be fair to Vintage and Legacy, games also get a lot more skill intensive the more cards get drawn and searched out. This mitigates the above issues somewhat, but I think formats like Standard and Modern get the same benefits just by letting players see more cards through having more draw steps.
In the end my conclusion is the same. No other formats can touch the skill-intensiveness of the most complex Vintage and Legacy scenarios, but those formats are also unparalleled in terms of producing games that might as well have been decided by a coin-toss.
Quite easily.
Obviously, the most powerful Standard combo deck is going to lose vs. the most powerful Modern combo deck.
But that wasn't what Tybalt was saying. He was saying that combo could be more powerful in Standard relative to its format than combo in Modern. Modern has stronger combos --- but also stronger anti-combo disruption, with the result that combo can be weaker in Modern metagames than in Standard metagames.
There have been many Standard metagames wherein combo held a stronger position (greater metagame percentage) in its format than many Modern metagames.
That's because it isn't. Even most "serious" EDH players aren't interested in playing competitive EDH tourneys because it is a broken format when played at that level. The deck building options at the truly competitive level of EDH (i.e. your deck needs to be able to stop a good Hermit Druid player on turn 2) are actually more limited than at the competitive level of Legacy.
And the multiple opponents thing both ups and lowers the skill needed, as it adds significantly more chance to the games. It is very easy to lose EDH games where you have the best deck, are the best player, and played the best, simply because you got teamed up on.
Fast Standard games are often ended on resignations, not full play outs. Similar is true of Modern (though some decks can, technically, win outright in less than ten minutes). Meanwhile, slow Legacy/Vintage games are typically attrition-based and/or instances where stubborn players refuse to scoop.
A better way of assessing format speed (and power), is determining which turn was the winning one. If I take over the game by turn 2 or 3, but still need extra time to actually play it out, (whether by comboing off or controlling my opponent to death,) that game still technically ended on the turn I took it over.
Looking at it this way, Legacy/Vintage games are just as fast, if not faster. The actual play times may vary, but a someone still takes over the game relatively early on.
I've seen his attempt to argue this retroactively. This isn't in line with my point, which is that Standard hasn't had the tools (for YEARS) to build a committed combo deck (that rolls the metagame). The rare occasions where they have, it's been a goof up by WotC and led directly to archetype-nerfing bannings.
In short, my point --which no one addressed head-on, though admittedly it was actually meant to be rhetorical--was that Standard's card pool is just Modern's but smaller. There is no arguing this, just as there is no way to argue that Vintage is slower than Legacy.
And here's what you quoted:
As far as I can see, Aazadan wasn't arguing that a banned list doesn't exist; He was making the very logical, on-point statement that Vintage substitutes Banning with Restricting in the case of powerful cards.
Your response, Tybalt? To try and correct him whilst not even directly addressing his actual point. And you continued to defiantly defend this action every time I called you on it and proved you were off point (and largely just wrong).
And it's random nonsense like this that underscores why replying to you is such a pointless headache.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
EDH: Xenagos, God of Revels.
Ignoring the issue, and attacking the man.
You can't argue against the fact that you've made many inaccurate statements that I have countered and dismissed, so instead you've decided to target something I did not say to you, a one off comment that really has nothing to do with this thread in the least, and then you've added to it by directing insults to my direction so that you can pretend the rest of the body of my posts (the parts discrediting you) are either wrong because I am wrong, or do not matter because I am wrong.
The fact is, you can not diffute my responses, as such you've directed your arguments to me, personally.
I will take this as an admission of your being wrong.
EDIT: Your post, you said 'is like saying combo could be more powerful in standard than modern', and if they printed a modern potent combo in standard the lack of available counter magic would make it unbeatable, as such Wizards specifically does not do this. The fact is, is that you stated a theoretical event, one that wizards specifically avoids, and then when you were disputed you made it sound like you were referencing the real world. You are saying you're not wrong, because it doesn't happen. That doesn't make you right, when dealing with a hypothetical situation saying 'it doesn't work like that IRO' isn't ever a good response.
That's because it is not a viable constructed format. As in, you're never going to see an EDH PTQ.
Right now it is a casual constructed format, and if the power levels of the decks are similar, then yes, it requires a very large amount of player skill, and interpersonal skill, which is why I love the format so much.
I disagree that modern is more skill intensive than standard. A lot of the tier one modern decks (jund, affinity, twin, pod, tron) have nut draws on the play that are actually just unbeatable. There are also a lot of sideboard cards that simply prevent your opponent from playing magic. I'm not critiquing the format itself - in fact, it's a far superior format to standard. Still inherent card pool and card complexity isn't what makes a format difficult to play, and outside of fetching lands which is a tough part of the game, modern games are simply smoother and less back and forth than standard games... at least to me. Basically, modern and legacy games tend to come down to 1-2 "big decisions" that heavily affect the outcome -- which can be as simply as fetching out the correct land, baiting a counter with the correct card, and making every point of damage count in combat. Standard games are generally won by several "small decisions" like mulligans, sequencing, combat math.
*DCI Rules Advisor*
When fast combo, draw/go, and prison exist, players have to constantly reevaluate various lines of play, the strength of opening hands, even card selection and deck selection. This forces players to think about the game from different angles and makes them better MTG players (and strategists in general).
Note that in such a format (currently only Legacy) all the skills needed to play Midrange vs Midrange ae still required in order to play optimally.
I'm guessing you don't play much Legacy? Most of those scearios are either bad plays (aka, T1 &T2 Wasteland), can be played around, and/or are very unlikely.
In Legacy you have to be prepared for these strategies or else you'll lose with the sense that you "didn't get to play". Try running some of those strategies and you'll see just how hard they can be to pull of and how much "play" is still left in the match.
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
Vintage>Legacy>Modern>Standard
I don't think think it's that straight forward. Would you say every Standard environment is exactly as skill intensive as every other Standard with the same size pool?
Of course size matters, but you have to consider the size of the playable card pool. When Flash was banned in Legacy, the cardpool shrank, but the playable cardpool grew and the game became richer.
Does Vintage have a larger playable cardpoool than Legacy?
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