|
1 year ago ::
Jan 04, 2012 - 5:34PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2008
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Top Decks article, which goes live Thursday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 05, 2012 - 7:50AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2011
|
I left MTG right after Fallen Empires and I've only just started playing again shortly after the start of Innistrad, so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what is the reason for the Arid Mesa  s and Scalding Tarn  s in iammrjojo's Lava Spike deck? There are no Plains  or Island  s, even in his sideboard and I don't see any spells or effects that are activated off of him taking damage, so why not just play 20 Mountain  s instead of 12 Mountain s and 4 each of the sac lands? At best he can confuse his opponent into *thinking* that he's playing off-color cards, but I doubt that's worth the 1 life, especially since they are unlikely to be fooled for long or change their own play much even if they are. So, am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 05, 2012 - 8:17AM
#3
|
|
|
I left MTG right after Fallen Empires and I've only just started playing again shortly after the start of Innistrad, so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what is the reason for the Arid Mesa s and Scalding Tarn s in iammrjojo's Lava Spike deck?
There are no Plains or Island s, even in his sideboard and I don't see any spells or effects that are activated off of him taking damage, so why not just play 20 Mountain s instead of 12 Mountain s and 4 each of the sac lands? At best he can confuse his opponent into *thinking* that he's playing off-color cards, but I doubt that's worth the 1 life, especially since they are unlikely to be fooled for long or change their own play much even if they are.
So, am I missing something?
The most important reason is Grim Lavamancer  . Paying 1 life is well worth being halfway towards 2 extra damage.
A less important reason is deck thinning. Decks like that don't need more than 3 or so lands, so every land they draw afterwards is a dead card. By fetching another basic out of your deck, you very slightly decreased the chance of drawing a land on your subsequent draws.
For bonus, there is Searing Blaze  in his sideboard, which means you can get landfall on your opponent's turn.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 05, 2012 - 8:19AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2011
|
The most important reason is Grim Lavamancer . Paying 1 life is well worth being halfway towards 2 extra damage.
A less important reason is deck thinning. Decks like that don't need more than 3 or so lands, so every land they draw afterwards is a dead card. By fetching another basic out of your deck, you very slightly decreased the chance of drawing a land on your subsequent draws.
For bonus, there is Searing Blaze in his sideboard, which means you can get landfall on your opponent's turn.
Thanks for pointing those things out.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 05, 2012 - 10:42AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2011
|
Great article, yeah it seems like its going to be tough to come up with a good viable control deck, since the format is so fast. It would be helpful if control had a way to deal with the aggresive early threats- something along the lines of daze or force of will, or is that too powerful?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 05, 2012 - 10:53AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2011
|
Maybe unbanning something like mental misstep would give control a better edge against aggro? Even unbanning ancestral vision might give control more of a chance- or on second thought, it might just make people splash blue in non control decks. It could also possibly have too great of an effect on decks that already utilize those existing colors, I.e storm or deceiver exarch. Potentially doing more harm than good. But idk, I guess well just have to wait and see to find out the right tools control needs to be viable again. Modern still feels like a very lively and interesting format regardless
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 05, 2012 - 12:56PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 15, 2011
|
I've seen almost every one of these combo decks on Magic Online (the exception being the Hive Mind deck, and I've only seen variations of the Martyr and kitchenfink decks). All the rest are copied by players looking to win really fast, and it's incredibly boring.
One of the best parts of Magic is deck building. It's awesome to strategize how to accomplish something and then make it happen, but the other half of Magic is playing the game. There is an opponent sitting across from you wanting the same enjoyment out of the game that you do. While it's fun to laugh gleefully (occasionally, and maybe all the time for some) at playing a Pact and having your opponent be forced to copy it, inevitably losing the next turn, it makes that opponent question why they should bother playing. In other words, once I see a combo working and I have no answer (and most combos operate on the idea that there isn't an answer), my further actions are irrelevant.
Imagine a game of baseball in which the team at bat always hit homeruns, and their opponents have no chance to catch the ball. Naturally, we have an answer to everything: just strike them out every time, then they can't hit a homerun. Unfortunately, in Magic, that usually means something out of the ordinary is going on, such as a person looking to pull off a combo not drawing the right cards, even on multiple mulligans. They just concede. I didn't really win though, I didn't even get to play. (The baseball equivalent there is that each player at bat is a new game. Sometimes you strike out, but when you don't, you hit a homerun, every time.)
That's the flaw in "combo" decks or decks that want to end the game as quickly as possible (not all decks do). I suppose this might be more of an observation of online play than offline. People seem to think there is a scorecard somewhere, that winning as many games as possible in as quickest time as possible (no matter how) actually means something. It doesn't. These combo decks posted fall into that category. They teach players that they don't have to think: they just have to copy a deck and hopefully win in a few turns if the deck "works" as intended. I would argue that they are not even playing the game, let alone their opponent.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 05, 2012 - 4:41PM
#8
|
|
|
I've seen almost every one of these combo decks on Magic Online (the exception being the Hive Mind deck, and I've only seen variations of the Martyr and kitchenfink decks). All the rest are copied by players looking to win really fast, and it's incredibly boring.
One of the best parts of Magic is deck building. It's awesome to strategize how to accomplish something and then make it happen, but the other half of Magic is playing the game. There is an opponent sitting across from you wanting the same enjoyment out of the game that you do. While it's fun to laugh gleefully (occasionally, and maybe all the time for some) at playing a Pact and having your opponent be forced to copy it, inevitably losing the next turn, it makes that opponent question why they should bother playing. In other words, once I see a combo working and I have no answer (and most combos operate on the idea that there isn't an answer), my further actions are irrelevant.
Imagine a game of baseball in which the team at bat always hit homeruns, and their opponents have no chance to catch the ball. Naturally, we have an answer to everything: just strike them out every time, then they can't hit a homerun. Unfortunately, in Magic, that usually means something out of the ordinary is going on, such as a person looking to pull off a combo not drawing the right cards, even on multiple mulligans. They just concede. I didn't really win though, I didn't even get to play. (The baseball equivalent there is that each player at bat is a new game. Sometimes you strike out, but when you don't, you hit a homerun, every time.)
That's the flaw in "combo" decks or decks that want to end the game as quickly as possible (not all decks do). I suppose this might be more of an observation of online play than offline. People seem to think there is a scorecard somewhere, that winning as many games as possible in as quickest time as possible (no matter how) actually means something. It doesn't. These combo decks posted fall into that category. They teach players that they don't have to think: they just have to copy a deck and hopefully win in a few turns if the deck "works" as intended. I would argue that they are not even playing the game, let alone their opponent.
Actually it can mean something. If you win a tournament that way, you win prizes. That's why we have a banlist. To make sure the most powerful decks, which people need te be running if it's a serious event, are actually fun to play. If those uninteractive combo decks dominate the field, Wizards needs to do something about it.
At the moment however, the Modern meta seems to be pretty balanced and open.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 06, 2012 - 12:59AM
#9
|
|
|
this is why i hate modern. all the decks are non interactive combo decks.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 9:12AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2009
|
That token deck looks sweet!
Consider banning gitaxian probe, it doesn't seem like it will do much besides combos
|
|
|
