But still, instead of turn 1 5/5 that hurts me when you block I can get turn 2 guy that hurts you when you block. It speaks volumes for how far creatures have come.
But still, instead of turn 1 5/5 that hurts me when you block I can get turn 2 guy that hurts you when you block. It speaks volumes for how far creatures have come.
I haven't played against Obliterator much, but cards like Wurmcoil Engine, Thragtusk, Giraffe's Messenger, and the Titans make Obliterator almost sound fair.
I played against Obliterator at FNM last night. It was the only reason I didn't go 3-0. I really just didn't have an answer.
I played against Obliterator at FNM last night. It was the only reason I didn't go 3-0. I really just didn't have an answer.
But still, instead of turn 1 5/5 that hurts me when you block I can get turn 2 guy that hurts you when you block. It speaks volumes for how far creatures have come.
That's the thing, you don't get a turn two Obliterator, you get a turn four obliterator. Also, instead of being able to cast it off a single black source (even without the ritual), you now basically need all of your lands to produce black mana if you want to be casting it in even a remotely timely manner.
But still, instead of turn 1 5/5 that hurts me when you block I can get turn 2 guy that hurts you when you block. It speaks volumes for how far creatures have come.[/quote] That's the thing, you don't get a turn two Obliterator, you get a turn four o
A true DrawGo deck is one of the least interactive experiences ever. Without these newfangled anti-control cards you hate so much, the game goes one of two ways: Either you are able to leverage enough card advantage to ensure a steady stream of counters/disruption to stop your opponent from doing anything, or you aren't. Played & built properly, a drawgo deck renders the opponent's deck essentially meaningless.
The problem is not that DrawGo decks are unbeatable. They never were. (Although they were dominant for a long time) The problem is that very few of the choices the opponent makes matter. When your deck is made up of Counterspell , Mana Drain , Force of Will , and card advantage, you have no reason to ever actually change your playstyle, no matter what the opponent is playing.
Quite simply, any archetype that is able to largely ignore what the opponent does is not a healthy archetype to have around. Drawgo did that. It took a large amount of skill to make a DrawGo deck deliver on the promise of stopping just about anything without caring much what the opponent is running, but once you had that skill the opponent was no longer playing Magic. They were playing 'Mother May I?'
You're not talking about Drawgo here. You're talking about a very narrow category of Drawgo decks, namely counterspell decks.
Drawgo, by definition, is a deck that you play on your opponent's turn. For example, I played a deck for many months (before CoS's massacre) that was very archetypal of Drawgo. I had 8 counters, but also five 2-mana spot removal, two Dismember, Think Twice , Forbidden, and won the game via mill (Nephalia Drownyard and Memory Adept) or Nicol Bolas (oh yeah) or Karn. There were also safety valves via Whipflare and Devastaton Tide.
That wasn't a counterfeast. With only 8 counters (three mana leak, four three-mana counters), we were very far from "play a spell, counter, go" every turn. In a given eraly game, I would counter one, maybe two spells. I had to think fully on what to counter and what to kill, what I could let sit on the battlefield and what I needed to remove ASAP. The cards from my opponent mattered a lot : Hexproof, uncounterable, Regeneration and Sigarda were all things that hurt me a lot. I had to make sure those didn't get to the battlefield, else, I often rolled over and died.
Of course, CoS killed that deck. That and Zealous Conscript.
Tl;dr : Don't assume all Drawgo decks are counterspell.dec. That's false. Drawgo is much broader than that. I would't play a counter deck ever. It's not good, it's boring for the opponent, and nothing really happens in the game. However, Drawgo is my second favorite archetype, right behind Tapout control.
You're not talking about Drawgo here. You're talking about a very narrow category of Drawgo decks, namely counterspell decks.Drawgo, by definition, is a deck that you play on your opponent's turn. For example, I played a deck for many months (before
But still, instead of turn 1 5/5 that hurts me when you block I can get turn 2 guy that hurts you when you block. It speaks volumes for how far creatures have come.
That's the thing, you don't get a turn two Obliterator, you get a turn four obliterator. Also, instead of being able to cast it off a single black source (even without the ritual), you now basically need all of your lands to produce black mana if you want to be casting it in even a remotely timely manner.
Why, exactly, can't you get a turn 2 Obliterator? I mean, technically you can get either of them turn 1 if you have the apropriate cards, but there's no reason you can't use the same dark ritual to play an obliterator turn 2.
Considering that neither of these cards are really played outside of mono black, the color requirements are fairly moot. Negator may as well cost 3 black, he'd still see exactly as much play.
Anyway, this is exactly why I don't hang around magic forums much anymore. You try to make a point and everyone argues and derails you with nonsense. I say "In some matchups, Pyroclasm may as well be Wrath of God " and everyone will go "NO! U CAN REGENERATE! IT WILL NEVER KILL A TITAN!" I obviously know that. Jesus, I'm just trying to make a point, shut up and take it. There's no need to try to one-up eachother on obvious technicalities, you know what I meant by what I said. Obliterator compared to Negator was the EXAMPLE of power being pushed in creatures, what I said wasn't REALLY about specific cards at all.
But still, instead of turn 1 5/5 that hurts me when you block I can get turn 2 guy that hurts you when you block. It speaks volumes for how far creatures have come.[/quote] That's the thing, you don't get a turn two Obliterator, you get a turn four o
The four-black mana cost of Obliterator can't be ignored. It's a major drawback. If Obliterator had costed 3B, it would have seen far more play. As it is right now, you need a mono-black deck to cast it on turn four.
Negator, on the other hand, can go into any deck that happens to run black.
Heavy colored cost are a drawback you can't just ignore. There's a reason Geralf's Messenger is better than your average three-mana creature. It costs three black. It's something to consider.
Now, power of creatures have been pushed. However, saying that Obliterator is Negator for one more mana and the reversal of its abilities is reducting.
The four-black mana cost of Obliterator can't be ignored. It's a major drawback. If Obliterator had costed 3B, it would have seen far more play. As it is right now, you need a mono-black deck to cast it on turn four.Negator, on the other hand, can go
I think the efficiency of creatures is a side argument. It is impossible to argue that creatures haven't gotten better. However I don't think that makes creature decks any less strategic, just stronger than in the past. Another angle to look at is how drastically removal has improved and the quantity of good removal in standard at any given time.
I think the efficiency of creatures is a side argument. It is impossible to argue that creatures haven't gotten better. However I don't think that makes creature decks any less strategic, just stronger than in the past. Another angle to look at is ho
I think the efficiency of creatures is a side argument. It is impossible to argue that creatures haven't gotten better. However I don't think that makes creature decks any less strategic, just stronger than in the past. Another angle to look at is how drastically removal has improved and the quantity of good removal in standard at any given time.
I'm not sure if you meant that removal has increased in power drastically or if we hsould look at it to see if that's the case. Can you clarify?
I'm not sure if you meant that removal has increased in power drastically or if we hsould look at it to see if that's the case. Can you clarify?
Another thing about the difference between Negator and Obliterator is the environment they were in. Negator was in an environment of heavy combo. Those decks played few creatures, so Negator was just a 3 mana 5/5. One of the key black decks of that extended format (after the undoubtedly necessary bans) was Napster. It used the very aggressive black creatures such as Negator, combined with vampiric tutor to fetch specific hate cards, along with discard to get rid of relevant cards. Dark Ritual powered threats and hate out early. In that format, the drawback was irrelevant, mono-black decks were playable, and the format was fast enough to justify using ritual to power out a negator.
Consider Obliterator's impact. In Standard, Extended, and Modern, there is no Dark or Cabal ritual. Thus, Obliterator is three turns slower in those formats, and it has to be played in a mono-black or near mono-black deck. In modern and extended, that's not really a good idea. In standard, I don't honestly know what's good. In Legacy and Vintage, spending 2 cards and 2 mana just to put a creature out isn't worth it, especially in a format with Daze , Force of Will , Swords to Plowshares , Path to Exile , Go for the Throat , etc. If you're playing rituals, play combo. Don't play them fairly.
TL;DR: Context matters. Sure, Obliterator is better in a vacuum. Because of the formats that they were present in, Negator mattered more.
Another thing about the difference between Negator and Obliterator is the environment they were in. Negator was in an environment of heavy combo. Those decks played few creatures, so Negator was just a 3 mana 5/5. One of the key black decks of that e
Negator, on the other hand, can go into any deck that happens to run black.
It's literally NEVER run outside of heavy black decks. Mono black pretty much exclusively. Once in a while those decks splash for tools but for all intents and purposes they are BLACK BLACK BLIGGITY BLACK.
Black NEVER used to get undercosted creatures without drawbacks. This is an undercosted creature with a perk. That's the bottom line. Colored mana costs are to be considered, but obviously if a card is good enough to be run you will tune your deck in a way that will run it. It's not like you have no control over the rest of your deck or something. Battle of Wits is a good card, but not in a 60 card deck. You build your deck with your cards in mind. We can argue all day about how bad Delver of Secrets would be in a mono green deck or how aweful Lord of Atlantis would be in a deck without other merfolk but that's really neither here nor there.
It's literally NEVER run outside of heavy black decks. Mono black pretty much exclusively. Once in a while those decks splash for tools but for all intents and purposes they are BLACK BLACK BLIGGITY BLACK.Black NEVER used to get undercosted creatures
Negator, on the other hand, can go into any deck that happens to run black.
It's literally NEVER run outside of heavy black decks. Mono black pretty much exclusively. Once in a while those decks splash for tools but for all intents and purposes they are BLACK BLACK BLIGGITY BLACK.
Black NEVER used to get undercosted creatures without drawbacks. This is an undercosted creature with a perk. That's the bottom line. Colored mana costs are to be considered, but obviously if a card is good enough to be run you will tune your deck in a way that will run it. It's not like you have no control over the rest of your deck or something. Battle of Wits is a good card, but not in a 60 card deck. You build your deck with your cards in mind. We can argue all day about how bad Delver of Secrets would be in a mono green deck or how aweful Lord of Atlantis would be in a deck without other merfolk but that's really neither here nor there.
Negator was played in mono-black just because it so happens that the decks that could support it were mono-black. If it were Standard, I'm pretty sure Delver deck would think about it, what with their ability to keep all creatures off the board. It's an easily splashable 5/5 trampler, for God's sake. Sure, Delver is only ever played in UW decks. That doesn't mean that I couldn't play it effectively in a UG or UB shell if I wanted to.
As for Black never getting undercosted creatures with no drawback, Hypnotic Specter .
Four black mana doesn't require "tuning". It requires running monoblack or monoblack with a splash off duals. You don't just run it into a BR deck or anything, just like Lord of Atlantis is only playable in Merfolk decks and Plague Stinger is only playable in infect decks. That's a downside, and a major one at that. It means that if you play Obliterator, you can't run other good cards in other colors that would boost the power of your deck, because you're running Obliterator. It's not a downside on the card, but it's a downside on all the other cards you run in the deck. For example, a UB deck could run Mana Leak and Dissipate to help protect your creatures. If you add Obliterator in the deck, forget those counters. You won't be able to play them, even if you do need some counterspells.
Heavy-colored cards have always been undercosted when compared to light-colored ones. That's the principle of multicolored cards, also. There force you into a certain type of deck, so they cost less than their more open counterparts.
It's literally NEVER run outside of heavy black decks. Mono black pretty much exclusively. Once in a while those decks splash for tools but for all intents and purposes they are BLACK BLACK BLIGGITY BLACK.Black NEVER used to get undercosted creatures
A 3 mana 2/2 flyer with an insane secondary ability in the color that runs black and has access to Dark Ritual is somewhat undercosted.
Swamp. Dark Rit. Specter is a very annoying first turn play.
A 3 mana 2/2 flyer with an insane secondary ability in the color that runs black and has access to Dark Ritual is somewhat undercosted. Swamp. Dark Rit. Specter is a very annoying first turn play.
I'm not going to wade through pages of arguments over what is or isnt overpowered. But..
Just answering the OP coming from my point of view, I think a big part of the dislike for the more purely creature based gameplay that seems to be getting pushed now is simply that creatures are there on the table. They are slower, you see them coming. Combat between creatures is just a mathematical equation. You can see all the information right there on the board and evaluate the best decisions. Matches come down to drawing creatures, playing them, and then just not making any combat mistakes while hoping your opponent either draws worse or messes up.
However when spells, and particularly instants, have a greater role in the game, it becomes all about hidden information. Its the stuff in your hand that matters, often far more than whats on the table. You know things that your opponent doesnt and you have to guess the things that he knows which you dont. Any action you take, your opponent might have some sort of unexpected reaction to. This causes you to play the person across the table instead of just their cards on the table. Bluffing and misdirection have a much larger role than they do in a creature based game. I cant speak for others, but I personally really enjoy that aspect of gameplay and wish it played a larger role in standard.
I'm not going to wade through pages of arguments over what is or isnt overpowered. But..Just answering the OP coming from my point of view, I think a big part of the dislike for the more purely creature based gameplay that seems to be getting pushed
A true DrawGo deck is one of the least interactive experiences ever.
lol
I wonder if anyone realizes that any answer is by definition interactive.
An uninteractive deck is Turbo-Stasis. It's been answered these days; Koth or Garruk would end Turbo-Stasis very quickly. But at the time, it was very uninteractive.
Bigger question: When did green become the "bad creature" color?
Also, Prismatic Omen is being replaced by an artifact. Seriously. It seems everything green's supposed to do good, everyone else does better now.
But no, the Specter's annoying because of the serious card advantage. That's the difference between a Bolt to the face and Blightning . The former is just fine at or maybe . The latter needs to be at or likely even more.
I wonder if anyone realizes that any answer is by definition interactive.An uninteractive deck is Turbo-Stasis. It's been answered these days; Koth or Garruk would end Turbo-Stasis very quickly. But at the time, it was very uninteractive.@Dragon_Nut:
A true DrawGo deck is one of the least interactive experiences ever.
lol
I wonder if anyone realizes that any answer is by definition interactive.
An uninteractive deck is Turbo-Stasis. It's been answered these days; Koth or Garruk would end Turbo-Stasis very quickly. But at the time, it was very uninteractive.
Bigger question: When did green become the "bad creature" color?
Also, Prismatic Omen is being replaced by an artifact. Seriously. It seems everything green's supposed to do good, everyone else does better now.
But no, the Specter's annoying because of the serious card advantage. That's the difference between a Bolt to the face and Blightning . The former is just fine at or maybe . The latter needs to be at or likely even more.
Nitpick: Prismatic Omen does things that the artifact doesn't do. The artifact also costs one more mana.
I wonder if anyone realizes that any answer is by definition interactive.An uninteractive deck is Turbo-Stasis. It's been answered these days; Koth or Garruk would end Turbo-Stasis very quickly. But at the time, it was very uninteractive.@Dragon_Nut:
yes, granted it takes a couple more cards to do that but seriously for a cold cast it is only 2 mana more and can net more cards per turn than yawgmoth's if played right in current environment. and yes in the nonstandard there is more creature removal for each color than there is enchantment remove for each color(b/r not having any as far as i know) but there is enough alternatives in the form of artifacts or other means which i cant think of off the top of my head to deal with bothersome enchantment.
creatures are just getting a much steeper ability/power:cost ratio in the positive while spells have been doing the same in the opposite direction. seems everything is built around get some creatures out asap, be able to protect them/keep them out/modify them somehow, wreck face and the only place wizards seems to want spells is in the protect/keep/modify creature category more and more.
@bay-falconer yawgmoth's bargain is broken but attach it to a 7/7 flying lifelink beatstick , that can be cheated into
I personally don't like creatures being the only viable win condition. Currently, the only way to beat a creature deck is to either play better creatures or to stall them with instants and sorceries until you can win... By playing a big creature. Wizards doesn't even try to make decent enchantments anymore unless they are auras or boost creatures in some way. I'm actually fairly new (I started in new phyrexia) and have been wanting to build a casual creatureless deck, but there just aren't the cards to do it with.
I personally don't like creatures being the only viable win condition. Currently, the only way to beat a creature deck is to either play better creatures or to stall them with instants and sorceries until you can win... By playing a big creature. Wiz
Yes, it's noninteractive. You literally do not care which spell I'm casting. If it causes you problems, you counter it. It doesn't matter what I'm casting because Mana Leak is good for it. Or Counterspell is or Mana Drain is etc.
Sure, you can run out of counters. That's not interactivity. That's me getting the luck to draw more threats than you draw counters or you choosing threats poorly.
I understand the appeal of DrawGo. DrawGo is the only deck that can always win with a decent bit of luck and a highly skilled player at the helm against any other non-draw-go deck. (In the absence of uncounterable spells)
It takes skill to run DrawGo properly. Lots of skill. It is easy to screw up DrawGo. The problem is that when DrawGo is run at its best it tends to beat any non-degenerate archetype without giving the opponent a chance to compete. Morever, it requires minimal tuning to the metagame in the absence of uncounterable spells.
Yes. There are cards that dodge counters. Cards like Thrun, The Last Troll and Bloodbraid Elf . These cards stop DrawGo from stopping every single card with the same two or three options. These are the same cards you complain about.
You complain about the cards that stop DrawGo from stopping everything with the same two cards and then point back to them when somebody points out the noninteractivity.
Could counters be better than they are now? Yes. But what with Snapcaster Mage and Delver of Secrets still in the format, you'll have to wait a bit. Control will come back, but DrawGo will not.
Can you speak English? Because you clearly have no ****ing idea what the word 'interaction' means.
EVERY scenario there you just posted was interaction. Every single one.
Because Player B is interacting with Player A's cards - Player B is doing something that changes the effect of Player A's action.
They're also somewhat ridiculously wrong, those examples; Mana Leak doesn't stop all those cards, and you can't just play your counterspell every turn because that means you can be baited into exhausting your resources or opening up a hole to slip through the threat that actually counts. This is a big part about playing competitive magic. If your deck folds to a single counterspell, it's because you're a bad deckbuilder and/or player, not because counterspells are too powerful. In fact, they're intrinsically weaker than removal spells, but hit a broader range of targets. Indeed, the primary reason they see play is because there is no other alternative to answer nonpermanent spells!
Furthermore, Draw-Go is not "The only deck that can always win when it's lucky and has a skilled pilot". That's just rubbish - there are plenty of decks that Draw-Go CAN'T beat, pretty much ever. Things with flash beat it. Things that are uncounterable beat it - hell, it autoloses to Thrun. Lands can beat it!
You know the real deck that can beat anything with a bit of luck and a tank of skill? Red Deck Wins (and similar Aggro); indeed, that is Aggro's primary appeal - sometimes it gets a godhand that cannot be beaten, and it gets them more often than other archetypes do.
Noninteraction is when the game/play is the same whether or not the other player is real or just a goldfish in a bowl.
In the absense of counterspells, Geist of Saint Traft is very non-interactive. Your opponent cannot counter him, nor can they kill him with removal. The only avenue for interaction is by blocking him or forcing him to block. That makes Geist of Saint Traft more noninteractive than, say Thragtusk. Thragtusk can be countered, but it can also be targeted with a Doom Blade. It too can be blocked or forced to block. Thragtusk is therefore more interactive than Geist of Saint Traft.
Invisible Stalker is similarly noninteractive. Cards with evasion are more noninteractive than those without. Because the number of ways you can interact with them is less. It's very simple, you see?
What you are complaining about with Mana Leak is not uninteractivity. You're just calling it noninteractivity because you think it makes your complaint sound more legitimate by using a word that sounds like a technical game design term.
What you're complaining about is actually TOO MUCH interactivity. You find it is too easy for your opponent to interfere with what you want to do.
Your problem something you find unfun, and that's perfectly legitimate! You don't have to dress it up to make that a legitimate complaint.
In general, interactivity is preferred to noninteractivity for two main reasons. The first is balance; if you don't give players a way to stop their opponents from carrying out their plan, then every game of Magic turns into being entirely about topdecks, combat math, and trying to kill your opponent with your unstoppable plan before they can play their unstoppable plan, trading bombs and haymakers like bar room brawlers. Part of this is illustrated by cards like Thragtusk, the Titans, etc; those cards are so powerful and give so much value even when they're removed (especially if they're not removed the second they come into play) that counterspells are literally the only way that you can trade with them profitably! It's absurd to complain about people playing counterspells when the alternative is to cut their own wrists against your bombs. If we had no ETB effects on creatures, then it would be just as absurd to complain about Doom Blades.
The second reason is because Magic isn't solitaire. It's a game of two people, and so if you're not going to give them any way to interact, then why did you bother having them play against each other?
This second point doesn't mean you should have unbridled interaction either, though. If it's too easy for each player to interact, you get the reverse effect; games where noone achieves anything because their opponents are constantly stopping them. It's all about finding the sweet spot where you don't just get to play whatever you want, but you can't just stop your opponent from doing anything.
Let's say you're running AllBlueCounters.dek and I'm running NotCounters.dekI cast...... Does it matter?I'm running Wolf Run! I cast Huntmaster of the Fells !You say... Mana Leak .
You know the real deck that can beat anything with a bit of luck and a tank of skill? Red Deck Wins (and similar Aggro); indeed, that is Aggro's primary appeal - sometimes it gets a godhand that cannot be beaten, and it gets them more often than other archetypes do.
Funny thing is, I predicted a Bargain variant for Edgar Markov, but my variant required you play three colors and exile cards from your graveyard for each 1 life = 1 card conversion. Which is still broken as all hell, but not nearly as power creepy.
and yes in the nonstandard there is more creature removal for each color than there is enchantment remove for each color(b/r not having any as far as i know) but there is enough alternatives in the form of artifacts or other means which i cant think of off the top of my head to deal with bothersome enchantment.
And you forgot: Unless you're playing Legacy or Vintage (and Bargain would only be in Vintage), you have Dark Ritual . And Replenish , come to think of it.
Wait, you mentioned Seance ? LOLAnyway, I have three words for you: dies to removal !Funny thing is, I predi
my point is they are putting all these power effects on creatures that are constantly getting cheaper to play and harder to combat/keep gone while doing the exact opposite with spells. it would be nice if the pendulum would swing back once in a while to allow those who would like build a creatureless deck or maybe be able to ease newer players entering into local vintage/legacy matches without getting the begeezes knocked out of them from cards they simply might not have access to do to international shipping or limited local secondary market card pool.
im not saying every set needs to be broken, but a balance of these silly powerful creatures one block/set and a block or set of equally powerful spells each cycle would go along way to make allot of players feel their play style included. and anything seriously game damaging can be banned or restricted in that respective format. hell maybe then they could create a singleton format with decks built of only cards on a banned list.
my point is they are putting all these power effects on creatures that are constantly getting cheaper to play and harder to combat/keep gone while doing the exact opposite with spells. it would be nice if the pendulum would swing back once in a while
1. New players like creatures, and thus in order to make one's self seem more salted, hating them gives you credibility. This is to say that some people claim to hate creatures without honest consideration because they heard LSV say how much he hates playing aggro decks.
2. For us "Non-pro"s, it isn't a matter of hating the card type, but disliking the commitment attached to casting them. Creatures are permanents, and easily removed ones, so it's terribly difficult to see many creatures as viable investments for your mana when your opponents can trade 1 of their cards for multiple cards of yours. This is to say that creatures are good, in the same way enchantments and artifacts are, but combat tricks, Auras and Equipment are "bad" because they require even more commitment to your creatures, creating a strain on your ability to recover from unfavorable trades or board wiping spells. Creatures reduce the game's variance and put one player further ahead and the other further behind- This is often seen by new players as adding extra "skill" to the game, but greatly reduces the number of plays that can be made, which often require quite a bit of skill to foresee and work out.
As for the viability of critterless decks, I think there should be some emphasis on making artifacts and enchantments effective alternatives to creatures, but there shouldn't be additional incentive to not play creatures.
Generally it's one of two reasons.1. New players like creatures, and thus in order to make one's self seem more salted, hating them gives you credibility. This is to say that some people claim to hate creatures without honest consideration because th
And I have to wonder why? Why do people believe creatures to require less skill?
Because barring some oddball Johnny stuff that won't work 97% of the time, all you have to do is turn them sideways until either you or your opponent loses. Then you shuffle up, and do it again.
I do not believe that the vast amount of very different reasons why people play Magic can be satisfied by "will I turn dragons sideways or will I turn goblins sideways?". Especially those of us that don't get into fantasy at all and play the game for entirely diffenent reasons. I think that the cross-section of the Magic community is such that most players won't be satisfied if Magic constisted of just turning cardboard sideways until someone lost.
What is it about instants and sorceries that makes them superior in terms of skill level?
Because you don't just turn them sideways until someone loses. If memory serves me correctly, turning them sideways does nothing at all. And there begins something to do. Something to think about, or something that you can show off, something epic, or something that you can shout the name of like they do on YuGiOh. Whatever floats your boat.
Because barring some oddball Johnny stuff that won't work 97% of the time, all you have to do is turn them sideways until either you or your opponent loses. Then you shuffle up, and do it again.I do not believe that the vast amount of very different
And I have to wonder why? Why do people believe creatures to require less skill?
Because barring some oddball Johnny stuff that won't work 97% of the time, all you have to do is turn them sideways until either you or your opponent loses. Then you shuffle up, and do it again.
I do not believe that the vast amount of very different reasons why people play Magic can be satisfied by "will I turn dragons sideways or will I turn goblins sideways?". Especially those of us that don't get into fantasy at all and play the game for entirely diffenent reasons. I think that the cross-section of the Magic community is such that most players won't be satisfied if Magic constisted of just turning cardboard sideways until someone lost.
What is it about instants and sorceries that makes them superior in terms of skill level?
Because you don't just turn them sideways until someone loses. If memory serves me correctly, turning them sideways does nothing at all. And there begins something to do. Something to think about, or something that you can show off, something epic, or something that you can shout the name of like they do on YuGiOh. Whatever floats your boat.
Red burn decks run instants and sorceries mostly and those are literally the simplest decks around. The argument that instants and sorceries are more complex or require more skill than creatures is a load of crap that needs to be called out as just that.
Because barring some oddball Johnny stuff that won't work 97% of the time, all you have to do is turn them sideways until either you or your opponent loses. Then you shuffle up, and do it again.I do not believe that the vast amount of very different
Red burn decks run instants and sorceries mostly and those are literally the simplest decks around. The argument that instants and sorceries are more complex or require more skill than creatures is a load of crap that needs to be called out as just that.
That wasn't my argument. I was saying that instants and sorceries introduce aspects of the game that may appeal to a wider variety of players than creatures alone could not. The red burn deck would fall under the "Whatever floats your boat" category. Of course, the list I gave above was not and was not intended to be exhaustive.
That wasn't my argument. I was saying that instants and sorceries introduce aspects of the game that may appeal to a wider variety of players than creatures alone could not. The red burn deck would fall under the "Whatever floats your boat" category.
it seems to me that veterans think aggro decks are easier to pilot. and it takes more skill to use a deck full of sorceries and instants, etc to get to their combo piece and then win
frankly, i likesorceries on a stick. there is a finesse to a well tuned aggro deck.
people get angry at netdeckers too, but you still have to be able to pilot the deck to win
it seems to me that veterans think aggro decks are easier to pilot. and it takes more skill to use a deck full of sorceries and instants, etc to get to their combo piece and then winfrankly, i likesorceries on a stick. there is a finesse to a well tu
Red burn decks run instants and sorceries mostly and those are literally the simplest decks around. The argument that instants and sorceries are more complex or require more skill than creatures is a load of crap that needs to be called out as just that.
That wasn't my argument. I was saying that instants and sorceries introduce aspects of the game that may appeal to a wider variety of players than creatures alone could not. The red burn deck would fall under the "Whatever floats your boat" category. Of course, the list I gave above was not and was not intended to be exhaustive.
I disagree with that too. Creatures can literally do anything that instants and sorceries can and more. Creatures have far more design space than any other card type.
That wasn't my argument. I was saying that instants and sorceries introduce aspects of the game that may appeal to a wider variety of players than creatures alone could not. The red burn deck would fall under the "Whatever floats your boat" category.
I tried to find a modern one as well but I remembered that modern is mtgo only.
Granted it was kinda a noob as his op would of been dead but he got cought up in creatures turns sideways.
To bad a lot of them still suck.Actually burn is not as straight forward as you think.www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLt_h8h3j14&feat...I tried to find a modern one as well but I remembered that modern is mtgo only.Granted it was kinda a noob as his op woul
And I have to wonder why? Why do people believe creatures to require less skill?
Because barring some oddball Johnny stuff that won't work 97% of the time, all you have to do is turn them sideways until either you or your opponent loses. Then you shuffle up, and do it again.
It's because the learning curve for creature combat progresses to an unspecified point, then stops. When the game is nothing but a table full of meat, every possible configuration is "solvable", in that everything is public, and the outcome is detirministic.
What is it about instants and sorceries that makes them superior in terms of skill level?
And there begins something to do. Something to think about, or something that you can show off, something epic, or something that you can shout the name of like they do on YuGiOh.
Because instants and sorceries are hidden, it's impossible to glance over a table full of cards and reasonably predict what's going to happen.
Here's a simple excercise to illustrate the point:
Play a game of Blackjack, Go Fish, Poker, Scrabble, UNO, Clue, or any other game with random component distribution and hidden information.
Then, play that same game, but everyone's hand is revealed.
Because barring some oddball Johnny stuff that won't work 97% of the time, all you have to do is turn them sideways until either you or your opponent loses. Then you shuffle up, and do it again.[/quote]It's because the learning curve for creature com
I think this hidden information argument is somewhat flawed. Creatures are as much hidden information as sorceries are. It doesn't matter if you have to play around Creeping Mold or Acidic Slime. Or if you delay your pyroclasm and your opponent played a lord, punishing you for it. You know just as little about creatures as you do with sorceries until your opponent plays them. However, creatures continue to be relevant even after you play them. Some time ago, I might have bought an argument that creatures need one turn to be active, but the amount of etb crap that is put out these days is insane, so not really.
I think this hidden information argument is somewhat flawed. Creatures are as much hidden information as sorceries are. It doesn't matter if you have to play around Creeping Mold or Acidic Slime. Or if you delay your pyroclasm and your opponent playe
So I'm back now. And since everybody else seems to be violently in agreement, I obviously am needed to keep giving everybody something to be angry against.
Can't answer everybody in one post, but let's see who I can keep angry first:
On Mana Leak interactiveness thing: Mana Leak as a choice is an action. It becomes an interaction only if you care what the opponent does. If you don't care what your opponent casts, it's just an action. Interaction is when you have multiple options (To use the simplest example Negate and Essence Scatter ) and can't always use the same one.
Counterpoint to my own point: The word 'interaction' is one on which no two magic players can agree on an exact definition, so using it was probably a poor choice on my part.
Why am I ignoring Cavern of Souls ? Because Cavern of Souls (Or similar cards) is a lot of the reason why CounterspellDeck is unplayable and thus the reason you have an issue to begin with. It's not the only reason you can no longer run CounterspellDeck, but it's part of it. If CoS (And similar cards) didn't exist, CounterspellDeck would be closer to being playable and thus you would all be closer to running the deck you want to anyways. No format including Cavern can include a tier one CounterspellDeck, so using it as an argument for why CounterspellDeck is fair while arguing that CounterspellDeck should be tier 1 is a contradictory argument.
Yes, instants do give you options. But I'm not suggesting removing them. You are suggesting removing creatures. (Or at the very least weakening them enough that using them can become a liability) Decks still use instants and sorceries (Obviously, otherwise Delver wouldn't be very useful) in addition to creatures. Nobody anywhere is arguing that they shouldn't be a part of gameplay.
What I am trying to argue is that creatures becoming important to decks does not reduce total skill required. The game involving hidden information is still there. It's still important to be able to judge what your opponent is holding and whether they have an answer. Creatures just add another important factor to consider.
As long as they don't cause instants to stop being run (And they haven't), making creatures relevant only serves to increase the complexity rather than reduce it.
On Griselbrand : Having to pay in 7 life chunks is rather important. You can't just disregard that when comparing it to Yawgmoth's Bargain .
Honestly though, I think one of the biggest issues here is the constant assumption that there existed for a very long period of time a golden age where creatureless decks were tier one. Looking at a list of World Championship decks for here (wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/World_Cham...) I found two or three examples of creatureless or near-creatureless decks scattered throughout, but almost every deck ran several creatures or ran token producing instants or sorceries that it used to win the game.
So I guess my new questions are these: How many creatures can a deck have before you consider the skill level required to run it to have dropped significantly? How high level of a tournament does a deck have to win before you consider it seriously competitive? And what is the most recent example of a deck you feel fit your ideal deck archetype?
Because you still can build a creatureless deck. It just can't win pro tours. So how well does a creatureless deck have to be able to do before you'll concede that Magic is back on track to being 'smart' again?
So I'm back now. And since everybody else seems to be violently in agreement, I obviously am needed to keep giving everybody something to be angry against.Can't answer everybody in one post, but let's see who I can keep angry first:On Mana Leak inter
However, creatures continue to be relevant even after you play them.
Creatures begin hidden, then become and remain deterministic once played.
The real root of the issue is: Wizards is obviously playing favorites, and it just plain sucks to be to be the "other kid" in the deal.Creatures begin hidden, then become and remain deterministic once played.
However, creatures continue to be relevant even after you play them.
Creatures begin hidden, then become and remain deterministic once played.
Exactly. Sorceries, on the other hand, are hidden, and then become irrelevant. Like, don't get me wrong, I like doing creatureless things (or would, if I played), but there's no more bluffing when using Momentary Blink compared to Restoration Angel, and you don't have to play around Overrun more than big haste dudes.
Creatures begin hidden, then become and remain deterministic once played.[/quote]Exactly. Sorceries, on the other hand, are hidden, and then become irrelevant. Like, don't get me wrong, I like doing creatureless things (or would, if I played), but th
The penchant of the simple is what is being eschewed with creatureless decks.
I, for one, feel like an idiot if I'm caught playing Magic with a bunch of creature cards stacked in front of me. Why? Well, aside from the juvenility of the whole concept, if I was interested in playing army men, I'd be playing Warhammer instead. After all, Magic cards have two modes. Off and On. Creature combat makes for lacklustre strategy in a game intended to be about casting spells.
The penchant of the simple is what is being eschewed with creatureless decks.I, for one, feel like an idiot if I'm caught playing Magic with a bunch of creature cards stacked in front of me. Why? Well, aside from the juvenility of the whole concept,
The penchant of the simple is what is being eschewed with creatureless decks.
I, for one, feel like an idiot if I'm caught playing Magic with a bunch of creature cards stacked in front of me. Why? Well, aside from the juvenility of the whole concept, if I was interested in playing army men, I'd be playing Warhammer instead. After all, Magic cards have two modes. Off and On. Creature combat makes for lacklustre strategy in a game intended to be about casting spells.
If you have 5+ creatures, and your opponent has 5+ creatures, I could kinda see your point. The issue is, games where you only have one or two creatures out at any one time sort of depicts a fairly empty world. Planeswalkers duel in all sorts of environments ideally filled with wildlife, groups of creatures, towns and cities (and this is above and beyond the stuff you are both summoning), and sometimes places devoid of life. The only way to depict a more lush, rich, and diverse environment is to put a little more emphasis on creatures.
If you have 5+ creatures, and your opponent has 5+ creatures, I could kinda see your point. The issue is, games where you only have one or two creatures out at any one time sort of depicts a fairly empty world. Planeswalkers duel in all sorts of envi
The penchant of the simple is what is being eschewed with creatureless decks.
I, for one, feel like an idiot if I'm caught playing Magic with a bunch of creature cards stacked in front of me. Why? Well, aside from the juvenility of the whole concept, if I was interested in playing army men, I'd be playing Warhammer instead. After all, Magic cards have two modes. Off and On. Creature combat makes for lacklustre strategy in a game intended to be about casting spells.
If you have 5+ creatures, and your opponent has 5+ creatures, I could kinda see your point. The issue is, games where you only have one or two creatures out at any one time sort of depicts a fairly empty world. Planeswalkers duel in all sorts of environments ideally filled with wildlife, groups of creatures, towns and cities (and this is above and beyond the stuff you are both summoning), and sometimes places devoid of life. The only way to depict a more lush, rich, and diverse environment is to put a little more emphasis on creatures.
Interesting point. I could see that being the case were I not surrounded by Kobolds and Memnites half the time...except that my creatureless ante deck is like a dozen times more engaging than any of my decks designed around plopping dudes on the field. Same goes for my creatureless RW control deck back in the day. I honestly have more fun building a virtual castle of enchantments or casting huge chains of spells than playing beastlord.
If you have 5+ creatures, and your opponent has 5+ creatures, I could kinda see your point. The issue is, games where you only have one or two creatures out at any one time sort of depicts a fairly empty world. Planeswalkers duel in all sorts of envi
Mana Leak as a choice is an action. It becomes an interaction only if you care what the opponent does. If you don't care what your opponent casts, it's just an action. Interaction is when you have multiple options (To use the simplest example Negate and Essence Scatter ) and can't always use the same one.
This is completely wrong though. Negate and Essence Scatter are arguably less interactive than Mana Leak . All of those are less interactive than Counterspell . The more things you can counter in their deck with the spell you are holding, the more options you have. The more options you have, the more potential interaction and room for error there is.
This is completely wrong though. Negate and Essence Scatter are arguably less interactive than Mana Leak . All of those are less interactive th
This is completely wrong though. Negate and Essence Scatter are arguably less interactive than Mana Leak . All of those are less interactive than Counterspell . The more things you can counter in their deck with the spell you are holding, the more options you have. The more options you have, the more potential interaction and room for error there is.
I'd disagree. While you have a point in that limited answers like Negate and Essence Scatter can individually be used on fewer cards overall and are thus less "interactive" in-game, overall I'd say they increase interaction, because they force you to interact with your opponent on a metagame level and also potentially in-game before they're cast, which is the point I believe Dragon_Nut was trying to make.
When you're building a deck and your options are all limited answers, you're forced to make metagame calls and think about the environment you're likely to face. You're forced to respond to what you believe your opponents are going to be playing and doing. If there's a universal answer available, then you can just ignore what your opponent is doing and throw that in. With a universal answer, you don't need to care about what kind of threat your opponent might throw at you, because you can use it on anything at all.
I'd disagree. While you have a point in that limited answers like Negate and Essence Scatter can individually be used on fewer cards overall and are thus less "interactive" in-ga
My personal hate for creatures, as everyone here knows, is that so many of green's are strictly worse than what other colors get. And sometimes they have stupid levels of dyssynergy:
Blightwidow : I can see someone saying, almost like a YMTC troll, "This card creates tension. It makes one wonder: Do I attack to get two poison counters on my opponent, or block to stop his flyer?" I'd say you attack every time because at four mana, you're running close to the end of infect's lifespan. Better yet, run a real threat like Cystbearer or Razor Swine or Blight Mamba or Blighted Agent . If you want a big ass, Priests of Norn . If you need a four-drop, Phyrexian Vatmother or Ogre Menial . If you want an answer to flying, Viral Drake[c] or [c]Dismember .
Kessig Recluse : I'd play this, with lifelink, and Silhana Ledgewalker 's ablity, for less. (For the record, Silhana Ledgewalker is herself obsoleted by Invisible Stalker .) You know, what black gets. But at least its two keywords have synergy. Unlike the latest addition to the "this sucks but we think we're geniuses" crowd...
Predatory Rampage : Awesome. A triple Anthem is great when I'm not being blocked. Lure is great when it's on only one creature. Really, R&D, you've outdone yourself this time. You know that?
My personal hate for creatures, as everyone here knows, is that so many of green's are strictly worse than what other colors get. And sometimes they have stupid levels of dyssynergy: Blightwidow : I can see someone s
My personal hate for creatures, as everyone here knows, is that so many of green's are strictly worse than what other colors get. And sometimes they have stupid levels of dyssynergy:
Blightwidow : I can see someone saying, almost like a YMTC troll, "This card creates tension. It makes one wonder: Do I attack to get two poison counters on my opponent, or block to stop his flyer?" I'd say you attack every time because at four mana, you're running close to the end of infect's lifespan. Better yet, run a real threat like Cystbearer or Razor Swine or Blight Mamba or Blighted Agent . If you want a big ass, Priests of Norn . If you need a four-drop, Phyrexian Vatmother or Ogre Menial . If you want an answer to flying, Viral Drake[c] or [c]Dismember .
Kessig Recluse : I'd play this, with lifelink, and Silhana Ledgewalker 's ablity, for less. (For the record, Silhana Ledgewalker is herself obsoleted by Invisible Stalker .) You know, what black gets. But at least its two keywords have synergy. Unlike the latest addition to the "this sucks but we think we're geniuses" crowd...
Predatory Rampage : Awesome. A triple Anthem is great when I'm not being blocked. Lure is great when it's on only one creature. Really, R&D, you've outdone yourself this time. You know that?
How can you complain about green getting bad creatures? It has recently gotten probably the best card in Innistrad block which is 12 x power for five mana , no less; a great sideboard creature
Then how come thers no ug control? or mgs? or hell a bant list in the top 8?
The only thing green has thats worth a crap is mana dorks and cards that share an aditional color to there mana cost to make them decent.
When was elves a t1, standard deck?
Then how come thers no ug control? or mgs? or hell a bant list in the top 8?The only thing green has thats worth a crap is mana dorks and cards that share an aditional color to there mana cost to make them decent.When was elves a t1, standard deck?
How can you complain about green getting bad creatures? It has recently gotten probably the best card in Innistrad block which is 12 x power for five mana , no less;
Good luck getting that 12/12. Also, it's two 12/12s for ten mana and two of the same card. Not likely to happen. (And nigh-impossible in limited.)
Deadly Recluse depends on you pretending reach is a good ability. (PROTIP: Flying is better.)
Good luck getting that 12/12. Also, it's two 12/12s for ten mana and two of the same card. Not likely to happen. (And nigh-impossible in limited.)Oh that guy's so awesome. It would suck if I were to *insert random anti-weenie sweeper*Hexproof, but ea
I don't hate creatures... but I do think they've been power creeping a lot harder than other card types.
I think the real issues is " 'Veteran' Players rail against the current direction because Wizards hates Control these days"
I think my biggest beef is with Thrun, the Last Troll and other "Unanswerables". With Hexproof replacing Shroud. With creature quality increasing as answer quality decreases.
On Regeneration: There was a time, for instance, when regeneration implicitly saved you from combat, because the best kill spells (Wrath of God , Terror ) didn't allow it. In the interveening years, Regeneration has grown more powerful not because it changed or the rules changed, but because the card pool has undergone a metamorphisis to the likes to Doom Blade and Day of Judgment . A proliferation of -X/-X kill does somewhat make up for it, but Regeneration versus Can't Be Regenerated is a mild case
(Fun Fact: The most recent "Can't be regenerated" clause is M12 on Incinerate , but to find direct or mass kill with it, you have to go back to 10th Edition for Terror and several others. On the other hand, "Can't be countered" was introduced in Tempest, and remained unique until Invasion. Of 34 uncounterable cards in Gatherer, most of them, 26, are in Modern.)
On Hexproof: Let me get this out of the way -- I don't hate Hexproof in isolation. When it was the rather hard-to-find Troll Shroud, it was nice. I personally always considered it a bit of an homage to Autumn Willow , one of the first Shroud creatures, who had an exemption avaliable.
My problem is with Hexproof replacing Shroud in designs. This is because Shroud is a vastly more interesting mechanic. Do you feel that is an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary proof? Allow me:
While it does not take inherantly more skill to play with spells than with creatures, it does take more skill to play well with Shroud than with Hexproof. Hexproof, quite simply, requires no action on the deckbuilder-user's part. It just makes the creature it's on better: Of two otherwise equal creatures, one with Hexproof and one without, the correct choice is always to use the one with Hexproof. Not so with shroud. Shroud forces you to consider its inclusion on a deckbuilding level and think about your plays in the game. Are you planning to attach things to your creatures, or pump them with spells? If so, you at least want to limit the shroud density in your deck, because while they can't get wrecked they also can't be improved (Honestly, I wish the Keywords were reversed -- Shroud hiding the creature from the enemies, Hexproof indicating an immunity to magical shenanigains, but that's neither here nor there.)
Magic has been, and should be a thinking man's game, and it saddens me when a mechanic that encourages one to think has its support cut in favor of one that doesn't. Shroud and hexproof could even exist side by side, but that's not the view from above.
I think this begins to illustrate my stand. Here's the thing: A lot of control elements are being marginalized because "It's not fun to X" where X is "not have your spells resolve" (From Counters) "Not be able to cast spells" (From Discard or LD), or "Lose your awesome smashy thing unexpectedly".
You know what I say? I have a new term for X -- "Have no recourse". Let's take a look at recent offender Thrun, the Last Troll . You can't stop him entering the battlefield -- LD is too slow and ineffectual to keep a green deck off 4, and he can't be countered. You might hit him with discard, but good luck with that. Once he's on the board he regenerates, which means damage (including most combat) is worthless as a means of disposal, and he has Hexproof to laugh off any spot removal you hoped to have -- you need a board wipe, and most of those he can just regenerate through anyway -- Black Sun's Zenith could do it, or you could force a sacrifice (assuming your opponent had literally no other creatures). That's it. Sigarda, Host of Herons is probably even worse. She's cheap and hexproof and Forced Sacrifice won't hit her. She doesn't regenerate, so she's theoretically easier to bring down with sweepers or creature combat, but then evasion makes the latter a bit harder right back.
In other words -- if you'd like a picture of futile struggling, try plaung a deck that can answer that which can be answered againsth the modern creature base. I really hope you enjoy digging for Black Sun's Zenith .
But you know? Sigarda and Thrun are both mythics. You don't hear me complaining about Progenitus (It's long been known that if you untap with , you deserve to win ), so why about them? The answer is, it's not so much that Sigarda and Thrun exist, it's that they represent a pattern. "Immune" creatures are trickling down to lower rarities in increasing quantity -- you see them in Limited sometimes, and kitchen table casual. Good answers and preventative measures, however, have not. Dismember and Tragic Slip are nice, but they're hardly the control elements for a new era.
Frankly, I feel like the control archetype only survives because of distributed load deck design -- that amongst the mass of players one sees an option the developers missed nerving. Control, as well as aggro (and combo) should be supported.
In short: I'm kinda' feeling the hate here, and it comes riding the latest crop of creatures.
I don't hate creatures... but I do think they've been power creeping a lot harder than other card types.I think the real issues is " 'Veteran' Players rail against the current direction because Wizards hates Control these days"I think my biggest beef
So 4 and 14 years ago. yep perfect examples you have there.
And I have educated myself My point still stands that green sucks on its own.
MGS = mono green stompy.
And I am the child? I am not the one making childish remarks.
So 4 and 14 years ago. yep perfect examples you have there.And I have educated myself My point still stands that green sucks on its own.MGS = mono green stompy.And I am the child? I am not the one making childish remarks.
... Honestly though, I think one of the biggest issues here is the constant assumption that there existed for a very long period of time a golden age where creatureless decks were tier one. Looking at a list of World Championship decks for here (wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/World_Cham...) I found two or three examples of creatureless or near-creatureless decks scattered throughout, but almost every deck ran several creatures or ran token producing instants or sorceries that it used to win the game.
So I guess my new questions are these: How many creatures can a deck have before you consider the skill level required to run it to have dropped significantly? How high level of a tournament does a deck have to win before you consider it seriously competitive? And what is the most recent example of a deck you feel fit your ideal deck archetype?
Because you still can build a creatureless deck. It just can't win pro tours. So how well does a creatureless deck have to be able to do before you'll concede that Magic is back on track to being 'smart' again?
This seems to contradict your entire point. Since we can agree that creatures were always playable, the constant power creep is clearly unneccesary and only creates a meta which is much more heavily based on creatures.
Claiming that everyone who complains about creatures wants creatures to be removed completely is just a straw man argument. Trying to say that standard has not been consistently progessing into a more and more heavily creature focused meta is nearly as silly.
Thats what people are complaining about. Not that creatures exist, simply that they have become increasing dominant to the point that the game becomes almost entirely focused around creature combat and abilities. Which to some of us, is boring.
This seems to contradict your entire point. Since we can agree that creatures were always playable, the constant power creep is clearly unneccesary and only creates a meta which is much more heavily based on creatures. Claiming that everyone who co
How can you complain about green getting bad creatures? It has recently gotten probably the best card in Innistrad block which is 12 x power for five mana , no less;
Good luck getting that 12/12. Also, it's two 12/12s for ten mana and two of the same card. Not likely to happen. (And nigh-impossible in limited.)
he didn't mean a 12/12 but the card does provide 12 power in most cases, 4 printed, 4 buff for itself, 4 buff for another creature, that's 12 power for 5 mana if the other creature has soulbond as well, all the better
Good luck getting that 12/12. Also, it's two 12/12s for ten mana and two of the same card. Not likely to happen. (And nigh-impossible in limited.)[/quote]he didn't mean a 12/12but the card does provide 12 power in most cases, 4 printed, 4 buff for it
This is completely wrong though. Negate and Essence Scatter are arguably less interactive than Mana Leak . All of those are less interactive than Counterspell . The more things you can counter in their deck with the spell you are holding, the more options you have. The more options you have, the more potential interaction and room for error there is.
I'd disagree. While you have a point in that limited answers like Negate and Essence Scatter can individually be used on fewer cards overall and are thus less "interactive" in-game, overall I'd say they increase interaction, because they force you to interact with your opponent on a metagame level and also potentially in-game before they're cast, which is the point I believe Dragon_Nut was trying to make.
When you're building a deck and your options are all limited answers, you're forced to make metagame calls and think about the environment you're likely to face. You're forced to respond to what you believe your opponents are going to be playing and doing. If there's a universal answer available, then you can just ignore what your opponent is doing and throw that in. With a universal answer, you don't need to care about what kind of threat your opponent might throw at you, because you can use it on anything at all.
I have never heard the term interaction applied to deckbuilding, only to play. Metagame calls aren't even interacting with my opponent, they are interacting with possible opponents.
I'd disagree. While you have a point in that limited answers like Negate and Essence Scatter can individually be used on fewer cards overall and are thus less "interactive" in-ga
Because Green doesn't do control. UG madness was aggro-control. MGS? Bant sees play. Pod, bant fish, etc.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the design involved with is far too into "Kreturs merter"- and it would be more resonant and leave more room for play if G cards focused more on flooding the field with PERMANENTS, as opposed to just creatures (Land, enchantments, tokens etc.) It just seems to me like if were geared more for board advantage and less for setting up Wrath blowouts, it would be much more fun to play outside of decks that win on turn 5 or 6.
That said, Bant is a different kind of beast entirely methinks.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with :G: use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the
Because Green doesn't do control. UG madness was aggro-control. MGS? Bant sees play. Pod, bant fish, etc.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the design involved with is far too into "Kreturs merter"- and it would be more resonant and leave more room for play if G cards focused more on flooding the field with PERMANENTS, as opposed to just creatures (Land, enchantments, tokens etc.) It just seems to me like if were geared more for board advantage and less for setting up Wrath blowouts, it would be much more fun to play outside of decks that win on turn 5 or 6.
That said, Bant is a different kind of beast entirely methinks.
Every core set should just have Plow Under me thinks.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with :G: use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the
Because Green doesn't do control. UG madness was aggro-control. MGS? Bant sees play. Pod, bant fish, etc.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the design involved with is far too into "Kreturs merter"- and it would be more resonant and leave more room for play if G cards focused more on flooding the field with PERMANENTS, as opposed to just creatures (Land, enchantments, tokens etc.) It just seems to me like if were geared more for board advantage and less for setting up Wrath blowouts, it would be much more fun to play outside of decks that win on turn 5 or 6.
That said, Bant is a different kind of beast entirely methinks.
UG Control was big throughout Mirrodin-Kamigawa; it was basically a handful of counterspells like Leak and Condescend, damage-soaking creatures like Sakura-Tribe Elder, and then Crystal Shard+Eternal Witness to generate sick CA, with Rude Awakening as a kill.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with :G: use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the
Veterans don't hate creatures. They hate seeing the game they came into ten or fifteen or nineteen years ago evolve towards all-creatures-all-the time, while the spells we found perfectly acceptable are either becoming increasingly overcosted, glued on to a creature as a ETB effect, or just eliminated entirely.
Most of the time, we'd rather just have Vindicate, but all we seem to get now is "Vindicate Angel ", and it's quite obvious to us it was done solely to justify up-costing the hell out of what used to be (or should be) a simple spell by gluing on a bloated body.
The penchant of the simple is what is being eschewed with creatureless decks.
I, for one, feel like an idiot if I'm caught playing Magic with a bunch of creature cards stacked in front of me. Why? Well, aside from the juvenility of the whole concept, if I was interested in playing army men, I'd be playing Warhammer instead. After all, Magic cards have two modes. Off and On. Creature combat makes for lacklustre strategy in a game intended to be about casting spells.
Ask any women how mature she thinks you are for not running creatures in your "umm, pokemon..." deck and get back to me.
Ask any women how mature she thinks you are for not running creatures in your "umm, pokemon..." deck and get back to me.
I don't hate creatures... but I do think they've been power creeping a lot harder than other card types.
I think the real issues is " 'Veteran' Players rail against the current direction because Wizards hates Control these days"
I think my biggest beef is with Thrun, the Last Troll and other "Unanswerables". With Hexproof replacing Shroud. With creature quality increasing as answer quality decreases.
On Regeneration: There was a time, for instance, when regeneration implicitly saved you from combat, because the best kill spells (Wrath of God , Terror ) didn't allow it. In the interveening years, Regeneration has grown more powerful not because it changed or the rules changed, but because the card pool has undergone a metamorphisis to the likes to Doom Blade and Day of Judgment . A proliferation of -X/-X kill does somewhat make up for it, but Regeneration versus Can't Be Regenerated is a mild case
(Fun Fact: The most recent "Can't be regenerated" clause is M12 on Incinerate , but to find direct or mass kill with it, you have to go back to 10th Edition for Terror and several others. On the other hand, "Can't be countered" was introduced in Tempest, and remained unique until Invasion. Of 34 uncounterable cards in Gatherer, most of them, 26, are in Modern.)
On Hexproof: Let me get this out of the way -- I don't hate Hexproof in isolation. When it was the rather hard-to-find Troll Shroud, it was nice. I personally always considered it a bit of an homage to Autumn Willow , one of the first Shroud creatures, who had an exemption avaliable.
My problem is with Hexproof replacing Shroud in designs. This is because Shroud is a vastly more interesting mechanic. Do you feel that is an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary proof? Allow me:
While it does not take inherantly more skill to play with spells than with creatures, it does take more skill to play well with Shroud than with Hexproof. Hexproof, quite simply, requires no action on the deckbuilder-user's part. It just makes the creature it's on better: Of two otherwise equal creatures, one with Hexproof and one without, the correct choice is always to use the one with Hexproof. Not so with shroud. Shroud forces you to consider its inclusion on a deckbuilding level and think about your plays in the game. Are you planning to attach things to your creatures, or pump them with spells? If so, you at least want to limit the shroud density in your deck, because while they can't get wrecked they also can't be improved (Honestly, I wish the Keywords were reversed -- Shroud hiding the creature from the enemies, Hexproof indicating an immunity to magical shenanigains, but that's neither here nor there.)
Magic has been, and should be a thinking man's game, and it saddens me when a mechanic that encourages one to think has its support cut in favor of one that doesn't. Shroud and hexproof could even exist side by side, but that's not the view from above.
I think this begins to illustrate my stand. Here's the thing: A lot of control elements are being marginalized because "It's not fun to X" where X is "not have your spells resolve" (From Counters) "Not be able to cast spells" (From Discard or LD), or "Lose your awesome smashy thing unexpectedly".
You know what I say? I have a new term for X -- "Have no recourse". Let's take a look at recent offender Thrun, the Last Troll . You can't stop him entering the battlefield -- LD is too slow and ineffectual to keep a green deck off 4, and he can't be countered. You might hit him with discard, but good luck with that. Once he's on the board he regenerates, which means damage (including most combat) is worthless as a means of disposal, and he has Hexproof to laugh off any spot removal you hoped to have -- you need a board wipe, and most of those he can just regenerate through anyway -- Black Sun's Zenith could do it, or you could force a sacrifice (assuming your opponent had literally no other creatures). That's it. Sigarda, Host of Herons is probably even worse. She's cheap and hexproof and Forced Sacrifice won't hit her. She doesn't regenerate, so she's theoretically easier to bring down with sweepers or creature combat, but then evasion makes the latter a bit harder right back.
In other words -- if you'd like a picture of futile struggling, try plaung a deck that can answer that which can be answered againsth the modern creature base. I really hope you enjoy digging for Black Sun's Zenith .
But you know? Sigarda and Thrun are both mythics. You don't hear me complaining about Progenitus (It's long been known that if you untap with , you deserve to win ), so why about them? The answer is, it's not so much that Sigarda and Thrun exist, it's that they represent a pattern. "Immune" creatures are trickling down to lower rarities in increasing quantity -- you see them in Limited sometimes, and kitchen table casual. Good answers and preventative measures, however, have not. Dismember and Tragic Slip are nice, but they're hardly the control elements for a new era.
Frankly, I feel like the control archetype only survives because of distributed load deck design -- that amongst the mass of players one sees an option the developers missed nerving. Control, as well as aggro (and combo) should be supported.
In short: I'm kinda' feeling the hate here, and it comes riding the latest crop of creatures.
You really shouldn't complain about Thrun when he was printed right next to Dismember which was run as a 4-of in basically every deck of any color (even if some copies were sideboarded).
You really shouldn't complain about Thrun when he was printed right next to Dismember which was run as a 4-of in basically every deck of any color (even if some copies were sideboarded).
Because Green doesn't do control. UG madness was aggro-control. MGS? Bant sees play. Pod, bant fish, etc.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the design involved with is far too into "Kreturs merter"- and it would be more resonant and leave more room for play if G cards focused more on flooding the field with PERMANENTS, as opposed to just creatures (Land, enchantments, tokens etc.) It just seems to me like if were geared more for board advantage and less for setting up Wrath blowouts, it would be much more fun to play outside of decks that win on turn 5 or 6.
That said, Bant is a different kind of beast entirely methinks.
Every core set should just have Plow Under me thinks.
Or some difficult to deal with alternative means of putting it's damage on the board. I've often wondered why there aren't utility lands which use mana to damage your opponent without the conduit of a creature or of animation into a manland. Or why there aren't Enchantments that snowball damage based on some kind of "work for me" counter. I mean to say that while Obstinate Baloth is a sweet creature, it simply can't "seal the deal" reliably, because it's so easily removed- But if Obstinate Baloth was there purely for value, and there were other reliable means of using your G mana to pull ahead, control wouldn't be such an uncommon thing.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with :G: use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the
The penchant of the simple is what is being eschewed with creatureless decks.
I, for one, feel like an idiot if I'm caught playing Magic with a bunch of creature cards stacked in front of me. Why? Well, aside from the juvenility of the whole concept, if I was interested in playing army men, I'd be playing Warhammer instead. After all, Magic cards have two modes. Off and On. Creature combat makes for lacklustre strategy in a game intended to be about casting spells.
Ask any women how mature she thinks you are for not running creatures in your "umm, pokemon..." deck and get back to me.
Maybe it'd have a better reputation if the cards in the first place if the cards were less about doofy Pokemon and more about discard and counters. Why does it matter if I ask women, anyhow? Sexist.
Anyway, what I was saying, which didn't get redressed, is that Magic cards can't maneuver very much, leading to comparitively simple strategies.
Ask any women how mature she thinks you are for not running creatures in your "umm, pokemon..." deck and get back to me.[/quote]Maybe it'd have a better reputation if the cards in the first place if the cards were less about doofy Pokemon and more ab
You really shouldn't complain about Thrun when he was printed right next to Dismember which was run as a 4-of in basically every deck of any color (even if some copies were sideboarded).
You really shouldn't complain about Thrun when he was printed right next to Dismember which was run as a 4-of in basically every deck of any color (even if some copies were sideboarded).
You really shouldn't complain about Thrun when he was printed right next to Dismember which was run as a 4-of in basically every deck of any color (even if some copies were sideboarded).
I was gonna say this, but I assumed for the sake of my own sanity that he was implying Thrun was a good thing to have because Dismember can't kill it.
Thrun, the Last Troll has Hexproof.[/quote]I was gonna say this, but I assumed for the sake of my own sanity that he was implying Thrun was a good thing to have because Dismember can't kill it.
You really shouldn't complain about Thrun when he was printed right next to Dismember which was run as a 4-of in basically every deck of any color (even if some copies were sideboarded).
I was gonna say this, but I assumed for the sake of my own sanity that he was implying Thrun was a good thing to have because Dismember can't kill it.
Precisely, Thrun landed a spot in a few decks, Dismember landed several spots in nearly every deck. You need efficient creatures to fight efficient removal. If all we had hitting the field was Serra Angel then we wouldn't be in a creature centric meta. That's why the power level of creatures has been able to increase without creating a crazy imbalance. Most creatures are still dealt with for a few mana, and those that are tricky can still typically be dealt with cheaply one way or another. This is precisely why Lightning bolt was rotated out, it was stifling creature design at lower mana costs.
Thrun, the Last Troll has Hexproof.[/quote]I was gonna say this, but I assumed for the sake of my own sanity that he was implying Thrun was a good thing to have because Dismember can't kill it. [/quote]Precisely, Thrun
This is precisely why Lightning bolt was rotated out, it was stifling creature design at lower mana costs.
Well nowadays they just print 6/6 flyers at four mana, so why not just bring back Lightning Bolt and make every two mana creature a 2/4 or 3/4? That would work.
Well nowadays they just print 6/6 flyers at four mana, so why not just bring back Lightning Bolt and make every two mana creature a 2/4 or 3/4? That would work.
Precisely, Thrun landed a spot in a few decks, Dismember landed several spots in nearly every deck. You need efficient creatures to fight efficient removal. If all we had hitting the field was Serra Angel then we wouldn't be in a creature centric meta. That's why the power level of creatures has been able to increase without creating a crazy imbalance. Most creatures are still dealt with for a few mana, and those that are tricky can still typically be dealt with cheaply one way or another. This is precisely why Lightning bolt was rotated out, it was stifling creature design at lower mana costs.
We didn't play the same Standard, I guess. Dismember was big at one point, in half the decks, then completely dissapeared for over a year. Go for the Throat was played more heavily than Dismember, and it doesn't fit into every deck.
Four life isn't nothing.
As an aside, hi JTI!
We didn't play the same Standard, I guess. Dismember was big at one point, in half the decks, then completely dissapeared for over a year. Go for the Throat was played more heavily than Dismember, and it doesn't fi
Because Green doesn't do control. UG madness was aggro-control. MGS? Bant sees play. Pod, bant fish, etc.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the design involved with is far too into "Kreturs merter"- and it would be more resonant and leave more room for play if G cards focused more on flooding the field with PERMANENTS, as opposed to just creatures (Land, enchantments, tokens etc.) It just seems to me like if were geared more for board advantage and less for setting up Wrath blowouts, it would be much more fun to play outside of decks that win on turn 5 or 6.
That said, Bant is a different kind of beast entirely methinks.
On the topic of green control decks, control (specifically land destruction or discard) is the only way to play werewolves with any success. Sadly, we don't really have a Stone Rain or Mind Twist in Standard right now, and won't ever again, most likely.
What's funny about green is, despite its creatures obsession, in my experience, a draft is eight guys picking nongreen cards and then divvying up the last green cards. Why? No evasion. (And often strictly worse and finally making reach relevant oh wait and this is the last Core Set survivor? just embarrassing Seriously, guys, is +0/+1 too much to ask?) And no removal of creatures; in fact, I'm pretty sure green's artifact removal was dialed down in SOM, for some reason.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with :G: use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the
they are pretty much bringing mind twist back in rtr with rakdos's return granted it costs 1extra red mana to play but it also doubles as some direct damage. even if they prevent the damage they still drop their hand.
they are pretty much bringing mind twist back in rtr with rakdos's return granted it costs 1extra red mana to play but it also doubles as some direct damage. even if they prevent the damage they still drop their hand.
they are pretty much bringing mind twist back in rtr with rakdos's return granted it costs 1extra red mana to play but it also doubles as some direct damage. even if they prevent the damage they still drop their hand.
Yes, because random cards and choosen cards are totally the same thing. =/
Yes, because random cards and choosen cards are totally the same thing. =/
they are pretty much bringing mind twist back in rtr with rakdos's return granted it costs 1extra red mana to play but it also doubles as some direct damage. even if they prevent the damage they still drop their hand.
Yes, because random cards and choosen cards are totally the same thing. =/
Well, it's not like Mind Twist in Standard would be all that good any way. The amount of discard spells it obsoletes is absurd. And that's as an X spell.
Bay's crusade against green is becoming like a million times more annoying than Kevin's idealistic vision of white.
Yes, because random cards and choosen cards are totally the same thing. =/[/quote]Well, it's not like Mind Twist in Standard would be all that good any way. The amount of discard spells it obsoletes is absurd. And that's as an X spell.Bay's crusade a
Because Green doesn't do control. UG madness was aggro-control. MGS? Bant sees play. Pod, bant fish, etc.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the design involved with is far too into "Kreturs merter"- and it would be more resonant and leave more room for play if G cards focused more on flooding the field with PERMANENTS, as opposed to just creatures (Land, enchantments, tokens etc.) It just seems to me like if were geared more for board advantage and less for setting up Wrath blowouts, it would be much more fun to play outside of decks that win on turn 5 or 6.
That said, Bant is a different kind of beast entirely methinks.
On the topic of green control decks, control (specifically land destruction or discard) is the only way to play werewolves with any success. Sadly, we don't really have a Stone Rain or Mind Twist in Standard right now, and won't ever again, most likely.
What's funny about green is, despite its creatures obsession, in my experience, a draft is eight guys picking nongreen cards and then divvying up the last green cards. Why? No evasion. (And often strictly worse and finally making reach relevant oh wait and this is the last Core Set survivor? just embarrassing Seriously, guys, is +0/+1 too much to ask?) And no removal of creatures; in fact, I'm pretty sure green's artifact removal was dialed down in SOM, for some reason.
Can you please stop spouting this in every thread?
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with :G: use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the
they are pretty much bringing mind twist back in rtr with rakdos's return granted it costs 1extra red mana to play but it also doubles as some direct damage. even if they prevent the damage they still drop their hand.
Yes, because random cards and choosen cards are totally the same thing. =/
it is when you are pumping enough mana to drop their hand or with-in 1 card of it which is what you should be doing with it since there is enough discard out there for 1 to 3 mana that will get rid of a card per mana(+1). i am just saying that you get a similar effect as mind twist with the bonus of it doing damage. oh yeah and you can rock 4 in a deck....can you do that with mindtwist?
Yes, because random cards and choosen cards are totally the same thing. =/[/quote]it is when you are pumping enough mana to drop their hand or with-in 1 card of it which is what you should be doing with it since there is enough discard out there for
Because Green doesn't do control. UG madness was aggro-control. MGS? Bant sees play. Pod, bant fish, etc.
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the design involved with is far too into "Kreturs merter"- and it would be more resonant and leave more room for play if G cards focused more on flooding the field with PERMANENTS, as opposed to just creatures (Land, enchantments, tokens etc.) It just seems to me like if were geared more for board advantage and less for setting up Wrath blowouts, it would be much more fun to play outside of decks that win on turn 5 or 6.
That said, Bant is a different kind of beast entirely methinks.
On the topic of green control decks, control (specifically land destruction or discard) is the only way to play werewolves with any success. Sadly, we don't really have a Stone Rain or Mind Twist in Standard right now, and won't ever again, most likely.
What's funny about green is, despite its creatures obsession, in my experience, a draft is eight guys picking nongreen cards and then divvying up the last green cards. Why? No evasion. (And often strictly worse and finally making reach relevant oh wait and this is the last Core Set survivor? just embarrassing Seriously, guys, is +0/+1 too much to ask?) And no removal of creatures; in fact, I'm pretty sure green's artifact removal was dialed down in SOM, for some reason.
Can you please stop spouting this in every thread?
He probably thinks sounding like a more extreme Burning_Forest gives him credibility :P
Honestly, there's something that has always bothered me, Green has the tools for control decks but aren't given any kind of real choke other than creatures. Control decks I play with :G: use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the
This is precisely why Lightning bolt was rotated out, it was stifling creature design at lower mana costs.
Well nowadays they just print 6/6 flyers at four mana, so why not just bring back Lightning Bolt and make every two mana creature a 2/4 or 3/4? That would work.
Uh, no? Using a removal spell on a creature is one for one. Might as well make every creature an indestructable 8/8 for 1 so nobody's creatures die. Removal shouldn't be at ridiculous mana costs, have ridiculous draw backs, and I shouldn't need to two for one to kill a single creature. In this game there should be answers to every thing and the strategy of the game shouldn't only just be run a bunch of big creatures out and smash for win. Additionally, if you want a creature centric format, go play limited. (not directed at you; you in the plural sense).
Well nowadays they just print 6/6 flyers at four mana, so why not just bring back Lightning Bolt and make every two mana creature a 2/4 or 3/4? That would work. [/quote]Uh, no? Using a removal spell on a creature is one for one. Might as well make ev
The penchant of the simple is what is being eschewed with creatureless decks.
I, for one, feel like an idiot if I'm caught playing Magic with a bunch of creature cards stacked in front of me. Why? Well, aside from the juvenility of the whole concept, if I was interested in playing army men, I'd be playing Warhammer instead. After all, Magic cards have two modes. Off and On. Creature combat makes for lacklustre strategy in a game intended to be about casting spells.
Ask any women how mature she thinks you are for not running creatures in your "umm, pokemon..." deck and get back to me.
this woman has run monoblack vamps, r/b vamps, r/g aggro, naya weenies, naya aggro and will be playing selesnya this time around so ahhh yeah, i find players that just say "no" a bunch of times before they hit their combo boring and not fun to play with
Ask any women how mature she thinks you are for not running creatures in your "umm, pokemon..." deck and get back to me.[/quote]this woman has run monoblack vamps, r/b vamps, r/g aggro, naya weenies, naya aggro and will be playing selesnya this time
This is precisely why Lightning bolt was rotated out, it was stifling creature design at lower mana costs.
Well nowadays they just print 6/6 flyers at four mana, so why not just bring back Lightning Bolt and make every two mana creature a 2/4 or 3/4? That would work.
Uh, no? Using a removal spell on a creature is one for one. Might as well make every creature an indestructable 8/8 for 1 so nobody's creatures die.
Wait five or so years; we're getting there. And there will also be countermagic with "Sorcery" in it's type line that says, "Counter target spell. A spell can't be countered if it is on the stack. If the spell that isn't countered is a creature, you lose ten life and that spell's controller may search his or her library for up to 85 creature cards and put them onto the battlefield tapped and attacking".
Additionally, if you want a creature centric format, go play limited. (not directed at you; you in the plural sense).
I agree with this. I don't think that Standard or any other constructed format should be the place for creature-centrism. We have Limited for that, which is sometimes more fun that Constructed formats. You heard it here first!
Gasp!You've gone nuts lately. Why not just visit our homes and give us a swift backhand to the throat?Well nowadays they just print 6/6 flyers at four mana, so why not just bring back Lightning Bolt and make every two mana creature a 2/4 or 3/4? That
they are pretty much bringing mind twist back in rtr with rakdos's return granted it costs 1extra red mana to play but it also doubles as some direct damage. even if they prevent the damage they still drop their hand.
Yes, because random cards and choosen cards are totally the same thing. =/
it is when you are pumping enough mana to drop their hand or with-in 1 card of it which is what you should be doing with it since there is enough discard out there for 1 to 3 mana that will get rid of a card per mana(+1). i am just saying that you get a similar effect as mind twist with the bonus of it doing damage. oh yeah and you can rock 4 in a deck....can you do that with mindtwist?
Saying "You should be casting it for this much mana." is a bad argument, because that completely negates the fact that its an x spell. Wit's End is a weak card, the most you should pay to make your opponent discard their hand is five mana, anything more is too much.
The thing about Mind Twist is that it is a good spell at and anything above that. Even casting it for you could get lucky and snag one of your opponents more crucial cards. It is not only cheaper, but random discard is much more relevant at any range, making it a much more solid x spell.
Yes, because random cards and choosen cards are totally the same thing. =/[/quote]it is when you are pumping enough mana to drop their hand or with-in 1 card of it which is what you should be doing with it since there is enough discard out there for
I honestly think that people who bash on creatures are being elitists for no reason.
That being said, I might have a warped view on the matter since all I play is a casual which mixes the stronger creatures of today with lightning bolts, condemns, and two mana counterspells.
I honestly think that people who bash on creatures are being elitists for no reason.That being said, I might have a warped view on the matter since all I play is a casual which mixes the stronger creatures of today with lightning bolts, condemns, and
The penchant of the simple is what is being eschewed with creatureless decks.
I, for one, feel like an idiot if I'm caught playing Magic with a bunch of creature cards stacked in front of me. Why? Well, aside from the juvenility of the whole concept, if I was interested in playing army men, I'd be playing Warhammer instead. After all, Magic cards have two modes. Off and On. Creature combat makes for lacklustre strategy in a game intended to be about casting spells.
Ask any women how mature she thinks you are for not running creatures in your "umm, pokemon..." deck and get back to me.
this woman has run monoblack vamps, r/b vamps, r/g aggro, naya weenies, naya aggro and will be playing selesnya this time around so ahhh yeah, i find players that just say "no" a bunch of times before they hit their combo boring and not fun to play with
Conversely, I find it boring to play against someone that throws out creatures every turn until I die on turn 4 or 5 because I didn't draw a Wrath or other form of stalling. And I do believe my gender is irrelevant.
I'm not saying either of our opinions are more or less valid than the other, they are after all, just that. Opinions.
Ask any women how mature she thinks you are for not running creatures in your "umm, pokemon..." deck and get back to me.[/quote]this woman has run monoblack vamps, r/b vamps, r/g aggro, naya weenies, naya aggro and will be playing selesnya this time
Every core set should just have Plow Under me thinks.
I can't stop laughing remembering all the players and how their facial expression changes when that spell comes up........They'll do a double take on the card and say something like "Wait, my lands go.... where?" One player is definately having all the fun with this card
On topic, I consider myself to be a vet but I do not hate creatures. I love playing both creature centric strategies and other strategies. I think why so many vets speak poorly against the creature centric strategies is because as combo and control make up less and less of the metagame then it gets a little stale. Sure different decklists will utilize different cards but in the end they have so many similarities when compared with decklists of the past.
The other thing to consider is that things change. In this case there have been widespread changes in MtG to pander to the newer audience. Even the vets who realize that this is a good thing overall will still complain that they aren't exactly pleased by these changes. I think that standard today requires less skill than it did during time spiral block (the block for the vets with all the nostalgia). At the very least it requires less knowledge of the game which will benefit the newer player more than the vet (who will be more likely to know more about the game). Some vets have attributed this to the rise of creature power level, others will point to the weaker counterspells or lack of combo options but in reality this is simply the NWO at work. I really don't think the vets actually hate creature centric strategies, though many of them likely prefer formats where decks with fewer creatures (control/combo decks) have a larger piece of the pie.
I can't stop laughing remembering all the players and how their facial expression changes when that spell comes up........They'll do a double take on the card and say something like "Wait, my lands go.... where?" One player is definately having all t
I honestly think that people who bash on creatures are being elitists for no reason.
absolute nonsense Every psychiatric journal i have ever read is quite clear when they study stuff like that, being an elitist is a good reason in itself.
In the non-sarcastic answer. Upstream(lots of investment in the game) players unintrested in continual improvement are heavily psychologically incensitized to increase a games complexity and sacrafice it's depth. In other words they desire to increase the gap between bottom and middle players, and increase the gap between middle and top tier players. This after all improves their effective standing in the community, making the right choices easy to descern once known but hard to figure out in the first place.
Which was pointed out very early in the thread, creature focused strategies are really ****ing interactive, while non-creature focused strategies are basically "Do you have counterspell? no? ok, i win."
absolute nonsenseEvery psychiatric journal i have ever read is quite clear when they study stuff like that, being an elitist is a good reason in itself.In the non-sarcastic answer.Upstream(lots of investment in the game) players unintrested in contin
The push for creatures to be on the same level as everything else was a necessity in order to make formats more diverse.
I, personally, am more worried about the day where Auras become overpowered.
The push for creatures to be on the same level as everything else was a necessity in order to make formats more diverse.I, personally, am more worried about the day where Auras become overpowered.
I honestly think that people who bash on creatures are being elitists for no reason.
absolute nonsense Every psychiatric journal i have ever read is quite clear when they study stuff like that, being an elitist is a good reason in itself.
In the non-sarcastic answer. Upstream(lots of investment in the game) players unintrested in continual improvement are heavily psychologically incensitized to increase a games complexity and sacrafice it's depth. In other words they desire to increase the gap between bottom and middle players, and increase the gap between middle and top tier players. This after all improves their effective standing in the community, making the right choices easy to descern once known but hard to figure out in the first place.
Sure. We're just trying to bury noobs in lingo so they can't use their skill on us.
Which was pointed out very early in the thread, creature focused strategies are really ****ing interactive, while non-creature focused strategies are basically "Do you have counterspell? no? ok, i win."
And yet, every time I recall a good game of Magic, it was never creature-centric. Must be me dumping loads of cheese on noobs and their Craw Wurms.
Creatures basically have one move. They turn sideways. They almost never need check for morale. They don't do much of anything. The most you can do, in terms of creature combat, is orbit threats around a weenie. Whoop de doo! That "feigned flank" strategy is sure a vast and varied battleground, in that there game of Magic. Moreoever, the game designers hoist some turds on us when they say, give us a giant bug that obsoletes Erhnam Djinn. I do not want to see cards that are 'better" than something designed by someone with a clue. There hasn't been a creature technically good enough to, say, obsolete Juzam Djinn. And by technically, I mean in terms of quality of manufacture, as opposed to giving us some squiggle monster with numbers arbitrarily slapped on it that obsoletes something classic. A good game of Magic will probably consist of blue and black raging out discards and countermagic, in any event. Maybe some Kobolds get summoned, but that's about the extent of interesting creatures in M:TG.
As for elitism and its merits, I'm for bashing the figurative deformed baby on the cliffside. Makes Spartans of us.
absolute nonsenseEvery psychiatric journal i have ever read is quite clear when they study stuff like that, being an elitist is a good reason in itself.In the non-sarcastic answer.Upstream(lots of investment in the game) players unintrested in contin
Diverse? I guess you've never looked at a legacy field before.
Actually, that's just about the only format I play/played. That is, until I moved to Ireland and lost my gaming group about a year ago. But anyhow, yes, you are correct that Legacy is a diverse format. However, looking over any aggro deck, you will see a lot of new creatures, rather than old ones, being the ones to keep the deck together. I tried making a Zoo deck before Alara block. I wasn't exactly spoilt for choices back then. Now? I don't have nearly enough space to put all the good stuff for such a deck in there.
Heck, before Tarmogoyf , did anyone actually do anything but laugh upon hearing the words "aggro" and "deck" in conjunction? These days, Goyf is actually one of the weaker creatures in some aggro decks. Not to say that he isn't still the best creature overall, just that aggro now has better choices. I, for one, see that as an improvement in terms of diversity. I mean, I even got a card with which to combat Storm. Aggro is a real deck now, and I am quite content with that.
As for elitism and its merits, I'm for bashing the figurative deformed baby on the cliffside. Makes Spartans of us.
Are we also to take the Spartan approach to combat training, then?
Actually, that's just about the only format I play/played. That is, until I moved to Ireland and lost my gaming group about a year ago. But anyhow, yes, you are correct that Legacy is a diverse format. However, looking over any aggro deck, you will s
I honestly think that people who bash on creatures are being elitists for no reason.
absolute nonsense Every psychiatric journal i have ever read is quite clear when they study stuff like that, being an elitist is a good reason in itself.
In the non-sarcastic answer. Upstream(lots of investment in the game) players unintrested in continual improvement are heavily psychologically incensitized to increase a games complexity and sacrafice it's depth. In other words they desire to increase the gap between bottom and middle players, and increase the gap between middle and top tier players. This after all improves their effective standing in the community, making the right choices easy to descern once known but hard to figure out in the first place.
Which was pointed out very early in the thread, creature focused strategies are really ****ing interactive, while non-creature focused strategies are basically "Do you have counterspell? no? ok, i win."
For somebody with such an exquisite vocabulary, you missed the mark and created an arguement of correlation, in which you placed your own causation for the sake of argument. I admire your ability to make text walls, but your "I'm right, because I can justify it" attitude makes my inner scientist cringe.
1. You've made the assumption that "Upstream" players particularly care about their standing in the community. While there certainly are a few a few wankers who like to throw themselves around for some kind of recognition, the simple fact is that most members of the magic community don't have a particular amount of respect for anybody until they sit down and play a game or six with us.
2. You (like the OP) have assumed that being an experienced player makes somebody dislike creature strategies (correlation, without real causation), but in reality it's experienced players knowing how to properly weigh the benefits and risks of creature based strategy- Not some kind of frivolous bias.
absolute nonsenseEvery psychiatric journal i have ever read is quite clear when they study stuff like that, being an elitist is a good reason in itself.In the non-sarcastic answer.Upstream(lots of investment in the game) players unintrested in contin
I've played on and off since '94. I have always prefered creatureless or creature light strategies to heavy creature or agro based.
I think a big part of the reason for this is perception. If my opponent is playing agro and has a creature on the board, I know almost everything I need to know to predict what is going to happen. I can count down the number of potential turns I have left in both best and worst case scenarios. My opponent has no real mental advantage because I see everything they see. There is no element of surprise and virtually no interaction outside of the combat phase. I know that if I lose, 99 times out of 100 it will be during my opponents combat phase. It is predictable and to me, kind of boring.
Contrast that with a combo or control deck. If my opponent is playing a creatureless combo deck, every turn is a question. If I know what their combo is, I can make an educated guess how many turns I have left based on the number and types of land they have in play, but I can never really know for sure what pieces they have in their hand. I have no real idea how many turns I have left to win or lose or if it will happen during my turn or my opponents. I have to make decisions with only the most vague knowledge that could be disasterous if I err only slightly on the side of agression or caution. The game becomes far more cerebral with a much smaller margin for error, and for me much more fun.
I think it is that element of surprise that is both exiting for some players, and frustrating for others. I think that newer players in particular do not like to be surprised by the abrupt endings that combo decks almost always have, or the constant sense of uselessness that control decks tend to inspire in people. Against combo and control decks, newer players feel cheated because they couldn't see their doom or were simply powerless to do anything about it. Creatures are a known element that are easy to quantify.
I've played on and off since '94. I have always prefered creatureless or creature light strategies to heavy creature or agro based.I think a big part of the reason for this is perception. If my opponent is playing agro and has a creature on the boa
Creatures basically have one move. They turn sideways. They almost never need check for morale. They don't do much of anything.
They can block, they can have combat keywords that alter the assumptions of, they can have any ability you can slap on other card types, they can have sabetour abilities changing the evaluation of what is a good block or not, and they have more hooks than any other card type for cards to affect.
As for elitism and its merits, I'm for bashing the figurative deformed baby on the cliffside. Makes Spartans of us.
The spartans who became the hollow backwater of the greek city states because the brutal demands they made on their people stifled prevented them from improving their military, economy, and goverment?
1. You've made the assumption that "Upstream" players particularly care about their standing in the community. While there certainly are a few a few wankers who like to throw themselves around for some kind of recognition, the simple fact is that most members of the magic community don't have a particular amount of respect for anybody until they sit down and play a game or six with us.
2. You (like the OP) have assumed that being an experienced player makes somebody dislike creature strategies (correlation, without real causation), but in reality it's experienced players knowing how to properly weigh the benefits and risks of creature based strategy- Not some kind of frivolous bias
I do not think every upstream player hates creature strategies, I'm certainly an upstream player myself even if i've been focusing more on kaijudo with it's rerelease/rebranding/whatever in recent times. But those who are going on exagerated rants about how terrible creatures are to be playable, and how the game should be all muc and combo all the time are doing it for status/signaling reasons. It's a specific type of upstream player, and an explanation of why.
Well, no creature strategies aren't much more interactive if they don't use/invalidate the combat phase(there are slightly more hooks you can use on them however, but i won't count R&Ds vicious cycle of enchantments sucking so people don't run enchantment removal against enchantments interactivity.) which you prefer if i said "the combat phase is extremely interactive when both sides are playing creatures with meaningful bodies."? And obviously invisible stalker isn't a very interactive card, it literally says "you can't interact with this" twice on the card. And geralfs messenger randomly burning you is well, just burn.
On the other hand, there is nothing non-interactive about your opponent getting an early fatty(does which one matter?), forcing you to chump block while you fish for an answer, you've altered your intended strategy as a response to your opponents but you (probably) haven't had it invalidated. That's good, that's interaction.
They can block, they can have combat keywords that alter the assumptions of, they can have any ability you can slap on other card types, they can have sabetour abilities changing the evaluation of what is a good block or not, and they have more hooks
Had to laugh at the "Maybe some Kobolds get summoned, but that's about the extent of interesting creatures in M:TG" comment.
Kobolds other than being slightly mechanically interesting in MTG, are very, very boring creatures (and happen to be the butt of jokes in World of Warcraft).
Had to laugh at the "Maybe some Kobolds get summoned, but that's about the extent of interesting creatures in M:TG" comment.Kobolds other than being slightly mechanically interesting in MTG, are very, very boring creatures (and happen to be the butt
Kobolds other than being slightly mechanically interesting in MTG, are very, very boring creatures (and happen to be the butt of jokes in World of Warcraft).
Kobolds are apparently universally "bad". Ready Player One, which is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for the MMORPG set, makes them the standard enemy in Noob Cave.
Kobolds are apparently universally "bad". Ready Player One, which is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for the MMORPG set, makes them the standard enemy in Noob Cave.
TL;DR= creatures are cool with me, but are dumbing down the game due to new lazy players.
personally as someone who started back in late '93 i enjoy creatures, thats what won games back then aside from channel/fireball, it was this way until legends came out with all its wacky powerful enchants and spells, but mainly enchants, nether void, abyss, all hallows eve,chains of metaphistales(the card that helped restrict balance).
my beef is that everything creature has gotten more silly powerful for cheaper while non-creatures power have stayed static with the exception of ever raising casting costs. i think one of the problems older players have with this is we remember when you sat at a table for a tournament you had to be prepared to face a much more diverse and challenging field of opponents where your creature kill maindeck might be dead cards, or you might not run any creature kill and you get spun by a big fattie. you just never knew you had to think ahead and prepare for many possibilities(hence the creation of the sideboard, they werent always legal). now days you can main deck creature kill in every deck and know it will get some use. every deck now has to have some sort of creature in it, whether it is performing the function of what used to be an enchantment, or artifact, or if they just took an older spell ability and put it on a new creature. if you want interaction between your cards in standard deck you better have creatures in it.
to me it is the newer player base of little bastards that were raised getting trophies just for showing up that has led to this state. the game isnt any harder from when i was a teenager people aren't any less intelligent(debatable) but the fact the newest generation doesnt actually like to have to put serious thought or time into something to figure out how to make it useful. they would much rather have something tongue and cheek spoonfed to them with neon lights that says this creature and this card wins game. most of them wouldn't have the patients to try and figure out how to shutdown hardcore combo/LD without building decks to specifically to hose them or to build their own deck without hitting up every mtg forum/lab to have someone else build their deck this is why all the top decks are variations of the same theme in each standard rotation.
quoted for truth ! I haven't read all the responses, but this is what I think too...
creatures used to be less powerfull....Savanah lions was a rare bigger creatures had downsides! today they're all upside..
Wizards making tribal insta-play decks doesn't help either...
quoted for truth !I haven't read all the responses, but this is what I think too...creatures used to be less powerfull.... Savanah lions was a rare bigger creatures had downsides! today they're all upside..Wizards m
quoted for truth ! I haven't read all the responses, but this is what I think too...
creatures used to be less powerfull....Savanah lions was a rare bigger creatures had downsides! today they're all upside..
Wizards making tribal insta-play decks doesn't help either...
Only two of the rare fatty cycle in Alpha (Lord of the Pit and Force of Nature ) had downsides. Tribal has always existed. Even the first gold block, Invasion, had kavu tribal and the Brass Herald cycle. And Elvish Champion and Lord of the Undead , come to think of it. Remember, this is in a gold block, where the entire point is to force players to diversify their decks.
Only two of the rare fatty cycle in Alpha ( Lord of the Pit and Force of Nature ) had downsides. Tribal has always existed. Even the first gold block, Invasion, had kavu tribal and
use some of the great hosing or removal spells, but I feel the design involved with 
less. (For the record, Silhana Ledgewalker 
