A game which is not based on skill would rely on an absurd amount of luck to win 19 out of 20 games. Such a game would likely not have any professionals, either.
There is an element of luck in this game, which causes those who are less-skilled to keep coming back for more. Without this, MTG would likely lose a lot of its popularity.
my point is maybe instead of using the word "skill" we should use the word "knowledge" or something.
Knowledge is the key aspect of skill in MTG... but they are not the same and knowledge is not the only factor in determining MTG skill.
I agree with this.
I know a lot about the limited format, what cards should be valued as priority picks, and how winning draft decks are constructed. I have as much knowledge as the typical 1900+ rating sharks.
However, I am horrible at picking cards on the fly that mesh well together, lose track of signals, have a tendency to be too stubborn and committal to certain color combos, and often end up with a deck that does OK, but will routinely get crushed by someone who is experienced and skilled in the format. I could likely get better if I put in the time and energy, but my love for Constructed and the financial side of the game always takes precedence.
This argument is going in circles now. Any time you have an array of choices, there is skill involved in determining and making the right choice. The more choices you have, the greater the impact of skill versus variance on the outcome of the game. That is to say, in the absence of choices, luck of the draw, and individual card power, will determine who wins. When there are a lot of choices to be made, the player that is better at planning ahead, or reading their opponent, will incrementally take control of the game.
This is why gifts ungiven is considered to be one of the most skill intensive cards in magic. There are so many different ways to play it, and it plays off the skill of both players. Sometimes you'll want to tutor for 4 cards to get the card advantage, other times, you'll want three to force a difficult choice. Maybe you want two creatures in the graveyard, in which case you only choose two cards. Maybe you're faking by sacrificing a good card in order to get a more situational one that your opponent doesn't know you need. That's not even taking into account your opponent's ability to read your play, and give you the two cards that you don't want.
Once again, this is where the disparity between control and aggro comes in. There are very few decisions to be made in aggro other than what order you play your creatures, keeping from overextending, when to press an attack, etc. However, these are decisions that all decks have to make at some stage if they're playing creatures. What aggro decks don't do that control decks do, is create choice, by rearranging the library, tutoring, digging, reacting to the opponent, etc. These are all subtle decisions that impact on the course of the game, and are often difficult to make. They also leverage knowledge of your deck, and knowledge of your opponent.
Incidentally, this is also the reason these effects tend be overcosted and sorcery speed nowadays; they're hugely powerful because they limit variance, and Wizards wants Timmy to win so he keeps buying packs. They're also effects that experienced players can see are powerful, but that newer players don't really understand, i.e. the necropotence effect. Wizards are actively trying to avoid creating cards like that nowadays, and as a result, the only formats left with real control and library manipulation are vintage and legacy.
To be fair, this argument is going in circles because of posts like the one you just made. I will present to you this decklist, a product of brainstorming some ideas about how to utilize the cards in DGM:
The quality of the deck is unimportant--it was pretty much something we devised on the back of a bar napkin, but if one had to group it as either "aggro" or "control", it would most definitely be aggro. It aims to win the game before an opponent can react and stabilize.
There are very few decisions to be made in aggro other than what order you play your creatures, keeping from overextending, when to press an attack, etc. ...
...is one of the misconceptions that keeps this thread going in circles. Tempo-based aggro decks have many other decisions to make, with the wrong one costing a person a game (and the right one sometimes winning it).
Children can be skilled, and can be very very smart. Don't underestimate them.
Teach anyone any sport or game and they can get good at it, and can discover things about the game that others can't. diversity is a good thing in all of gaming.
Yes, both children grew up to be quite skilled players. But neither of them at that young age could possibly have won with a control deck. It took skill for my 9 yr. old son to go 7-2 at states. Enough skill to know his deck and know to hold one mana open for when they T4 wrathed so he could mana tithe. enough skill to know which Kithkin to play when.
But no way could he have played a control deck. It was beyond him.
That's the difference in aggro skill and control skill. Sorry if that ruffles some peoples feathers or sounds arrogant. It's simply honest assessment. A true control deck is much harder to play. An aggro deck requires you know all about your deck and enough about what stops it to work around it. A control deck requires you to understand how every other deck in the meta works and quickly grasp what an unexpected deck is doing too and be able to think a few turns ahead and pick the best strategy to deal with it on the fly.
Sorry, there's no comparison in skill levels required. But now the playing field is much more level and the games don't require the same degree of thought. It's not like going from chess to checkers, but it's definitely not chess anymore.
To be fair, this argument is going in circles because of posts like the one you just made. I will present to you this decklist, a product of brainstorming some ideas about how to utilize the cards in DGM:
The quality of the deck is unimportant--it was pretty much something we devised on the back of a bar napkin, but if one had to group it as either "aggro" or "control", it would most definitely be aggro. It aims to win the game before an opponent can react and stabilize.
...is one of the misconceptions that keeps this thread going in circles. Tempo-based aggro decks have many other decisions to make, with the wrong one costing a person a game (and the right one sometimes winning it).
Sure, but that's the point of tempo. It's its own archetype, and leverages the strengths of control to make an aggressive strategy better. The Aristocrats does the same thing: it uses the depth of interaction between those particular creatures to get additional value, and eventually overwhelm the opponent.
The thing is, neither are typical aggro decks. Believe me, I would rather most aggro decks played in this way, because it would make the game far more interesting and skill based. The fact is, they don't. Most aggro decks play themselves, and the same is true of many midrange decks as well. In fact, the general aggro deck aims to be as un-interactive as possible. The faster it is, the less chance that you can do something in response, and thus we end up with Naya blitz blowing people out on turn 3.
My best and favorite deck is a more control oriented version of the traditional Ravager Affinity deck and after playing it for as long as I have I have concluded that sufficiently advanced aggro is indistinguishable from control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
@_@
Reprint Misdirection and Dominate . There, now you can you lose to your own cards instead of being mad at blue.
Sure, but that's the point of tempo. It's its own archetype, and leverages the strengths of control to make an aggressive strategy better. The Aristocrats does the same thing: it uses the depth of interaction between those particular creatures to get additional value, and eventually overwhelm the opponent.
The thing is, neither are typical aggro decks. Believe me, I would rather most aggro decks played in this way, because it would make the game far more interesting and skill based. The fact is, they don't. Most aggro decks play themselves, and the same is true of many midrange decks as well. In fact, the general aggro deck aims to be as un-interactive as possible. The faster it is, the less chance that you can do something in response, and thus we end up with Naya blitz blowing people out on turn 3.
And here is where I agree with pretty much your entire post.
When I build an aggro deck, it is always based upon tempo...not trying to take out my opponent with a lightning-fast clock, but by being able to extend my own window. It is far easier to win a game when you have a degree of control over the window in which you have to win as opposed to "racing" against a window that may or may not already be shut.
I still consider it to be aggro. But it is a very skillful brand of it, and I agree that Aristocrats also falls into this subset...although I think it is a tad bit janky. Although I love the Blasphemous Act "I win" button off of Reckoner.
If the question at hand is "do decks like Naya Blitz require less skill than the typical control deck?" then the answer is unquestionably "yes". A newcomer looking at that deck should know exactly what to do with it after 15 minutes of inspection. And these aggro decks are far more popular than those that concentrate on slowing an opponent down for this very reason.
I have seen people dismiss tempo lists as "piles" in the past...heck the deck I posted may look like one. However, I can also explain just how dangerous Nivmagus is with 8 cipher spells and can easily be a 3/4+ for 1 mana, how Voice of Resurgence makes it difficult for opponents to disrupt my tempo, how threatening a turn 2 Quirion Dryad is, and why 20 lands, if anything, almost feels like too much for this deck.
I have plenty of decisions to make in the course of play...decisions that usually result in wins to the skilled player.
TL;DR: We are in complete agreement on all fronts.
AYO you control players need to get off your high horses. Aggro is not strictly easier than control. In fact, the aggro mirror is one of the toughest match-ups there is. Which is harder- reading your opponent to know if they have a sweeper and playing accordingly, or deciding whether to play Supreme Verdict on turn four? (hint: play supreme verdict on turn four, then play terminus on turn six, then you win. Two cards.). Mulligan decisions are also harder with aggro.
Legion's Initiative? Are people actually considering playing this card? When do you play it? Instead of T2 Burning Tree? Instead of T3 Reckoner? Instead of T4 Hellrider? Aggro isn't really in the business of low-impact plays.
There is approximately 1 'control' deck that has a chance at winning, and it is WUR 'control' with 13 creatures in the main, none of which are true finishers. For the sake of accuracy, I'm going to go ahead and call that a tempo deck.
Ummm, Esper, Bant? Both those decks are doing quite well thank you.
While I agree that the folks at Wizards don't seem to be giving much love to the non-creature based decks let's not forget that they just printed two of the best creature hosiers ever in Supreme Verdict and Sphinx's Revelation. Not to mention Snapcaster Mage. And the Charms.
While I'd love the return of UB draw go but let's not pretend that the only competitive decks are Agro.
AYO you control players need to get off your high horses. Aggro is not strictly easier than control. In fact, the aggro mirror is one of the toughest match-ups there is. Which is harder- reading your opponent to know if they have a sweeper and playing accordingly, or deciding whether to play Supreme Verdict on turn four? (hint: play supreme verdict on turn four, then play terminus on turn six, then you win. Two cards.). Mulligan decisions are also harder with aggro.
I do love the bickering between who is more victimized, Aggro or Control. A lot Control players are more humble and desire a game where both decks are on equal footing with one another, not having one knee jerked because the other sells more packs amongst newer players. That is what we are trying to convey, except the OP, that is definitely just QQing over a mediocre card.
It's just that any form of discourse regarding Aggro online is usually met with such condescending comments as "control needs more nerfing" or "it is our time in the spotlight." That kind of attitude is pity and disrespectful in my view. Do Aggro players truly wish to see control disappear forever, or do they want to prove themselves against a worthy opponent?
magic onlines round timers even "forces" people to play aggro instead of combo or control..
have you ever played elfball on magic online? i've lost easily winnable games just due to how the stack works on magic online and losing due to time because of 39393939 triggers
magic onlines round timers even "forces" people to play aggro instead of combo or control..
have you ever played elfball on magic online? i've lost easily winnable games just due to how the stack works on magic online and losing due to time because of 39393939 triggers
Then you have the option of playing a disenchant effect and maybe drawing it early enough to matter. If you do play it in the deck and draw it, they have the option of holding it until you are about to die. On the last turn they drop it post combat main phase, you try to blow it up, they activate it, and they tell you 'it's okay if you have a wrath effect I win either way now.'
This has probably been mentioned already, considering the age and length of this thread, but I don't have time to read through everything; this doesn't actually work. The card returns the creatures to the battlefield at the beginning of the next combat. So if they flash out their guys at the end of their turn, they'll return at the beginning of your combat phase and you'll be free to hit them with your Terminus or other board wipe of choice.
This has probably been mentioned already, considering the age and length of this thread, but I don't have time to read through everything; this doesn't actually work. The card returns the creatures to the battlefield at the beginning of the next combat. So if they flash out their guys at the end of their turn, they'll return at the beginning of your combat phase and you'll be free to hit them with your Terminus or other board wipe of choice.
Hold up
Those are sorceries, are you able to cast them once the combat phase has begun? I would assume that no, you'd have to wait after combat for the second main phase.
It doesn't really change things that much but reading your post made me wonder
Those are sorceries, are you able to cast them once the combat phase has begun? I would assume that no, you'd have to wait after combat for the second main phase.
It doesn't really change things that much but reading your post made me wonder
Not without a Quicken effect. But you can just skip past your combat phase and cast them in your second main.
Yes, both children grew up to be quite skilled players. But neither of them at that young age could possibly have won with a control deck. It took skill for my 9 yr. old son to go 7-2 at states. Enough skill to know his deck and know to hold one mana open for when they T4 wrathed so he could mana tithe. enough skill to know which Kithkin to play when.
But no way could he have played a control deck. It was beyond him.
The argument isn't about the skill floor, it's about the skill ceiling. A 9 year old can easily pick up and play chess much, much easier than he or she can pick up and play Warhammer tabletop or something. That doesn't mean Warhammer is harder- in fact, the opposite is true- but it has a large amount of jargon & rules complexity and a knowledge barrier to entry. So this measurement is almost entirely meaningless.
Okay, this card, is malicious. I'm not even joking. Control had approximately zero things it can do against this.
To be fair, WotC built a mechanic for Boros, battalion, that requires the Boros player to over-extend right into opposing board sweepers. Doing that and then not giving Boros tools to prevent being blown out for doing what they're supposed to do would've been rather punishing to the Boros players.
Now IMHO, I thought Boros Charm was likely enough for that. But I haven't kept up with the Standard metagame lately, it's moving far far far too fast. Maybe they thought Charm wasn't enough, or alternatively they intended this card for a completely different kind of deck like the Midrange flicker/value decks that some of the folks here are trying to build around it.
I agree there's been a gradual change in the types of control deck that tend to get played. But the whole time Titans were in standard, some variant of U/B or U/W control was always competitive, so the stall stall stall stall into traditional big finisher variety of control decks didn't exactly go extinct with Dr Teeth. The Esper control deck was only out of Standard for 4 months, for that matter, before the GTC shocklands made that shard's mana playable again.
I've never understood why people think the strength of a control deck is directly tied to the power level of sweepers. Most of what people call "mid-range" these days are an extension of control strategies. To me, control decks are a combination of principles:
-Survive
-Generate Card Advantage
-Finish
These days, it just seems like those first two principles are largely accomplished through creatures instead of sweepers. Just because you aren't playing 16 counterspells, 7 sweepers, and 12 card draw spells, and 3 finishers doesn't mean you aren't playing control.
Maybe the whole control/aggro debate is pointless. Really when it comes down to it, the reason we play is to have fun right? We're all nerds.
Personally, games where I play against control just suck the life out of me. I play something, they kill it, I play something, they kill it, I play something, they Sphynx and then kill my stuff.
In contrast, playing aggro vs. aggro is one of the most fun things I've ever played. Watching stuff on the board clash is really cool.
I'm sure that there are people who feel just the opposite and prefer to keep everything in hand and watch the opponent suffer due to controlly shenanigans, or to see their face drop when a particularly juicy Sphynx's Revelation goes off and you go from 5 to 13 life.
Also, some folks are drawing the line between control and aggro too hard, there's such thing as incorporating both, and things such as Naya Midrange isn't the same as aggro at all, they take time to set up and play big beefy guys as opposed to little one and two drops early game.
I feel that control players are kind of obnoxious for saying that aggro requires no skill too, it's as if skill in a card game is super duper important in life.
Anyhow, we're all nerds. Some of us big and fat and can barely fit in a seat at FNMs, some of us so skinny and scrawny a gentle breeze can pick us up, and some of us relatively normal. Then again the fat guys tend to have the most to overcompensate in card games because they don't have much going on for them in real life.
Oh right, regarding Legion's Initiative, rarely early game will an aggro player have an open RW mana, and keeping it open slows them down greatly and putting a huge hole in the aggro strategy of barfing out guys fast. The Original Poster of this thread should really just stop playing the game if he can't play his preferred type of deck in this format. Control had answers to all things aggro, is it so much a big of a deal that aggro now has answers to wraths and board wipes? There's still hard counters and bounce cards that are a pain in the ass to deal with.
Also, if the sole purpose of your control deck is board wipes, it's going to be easier to counter you than if you had a relatively wide array of controlly strategies.
Have to say it, the original poster of this thread should get some cheese with his whine.
I've never understood why people think the strength of a control deck is directly tied to the power level of sweepers. Most of what people call "mid-range" these days are an extension of control strategies. To me, control decks are a combination of principles:
-Survive
-Generate Card Advantage
-Finish
These days, it just seems like those first two principles are largely accomplished through creatures instead of sweepers. Just because you aren't playing 16 counterspells, 7 sweepers, and 12 card draw spells, and 3 finishers doesn't mean you aren't playing control.
Pretty much. It is just a matter of the "control players" either not recognizing it or being unhappy about being pushed to play creatures as a primary form of answer.
Huntmaster / Thragtusk/ Angel is probably the best control package in standard. With those alongside other options like the Centaur Healer or UW's spells it is unbelievably easy to beat aggro right now. You can lose if you get a slow draw and Naya gets a nut draw, but most of the time it is an easy win.
Pretty much. It is just a matter of the "control players" either not recognizing it or being unhappy about being pushed to play creatures as a primary form of answer.
Huntmaster / Thragtusk/ Angel is probably the best control package in standard. With those alongside other options like the Centaur Healer or UW's spells it is unbelievably easy to beat aggro right now. You can lose if you get a slow draw and Naya gets a nut draw, but most of the time it is an easy win.
No we see it, but there's an important distinction that needs to be made. Sure, there are plenty of midrange decks that control the board, but the key divide between these decks and traditional control decks is that they are proactive, and generally only operate at sorcery speed. There are no reactive spell-based decks, because the playable card pool for it is so small, and the creatures are so ridiculous. I mean seriously, divination? Blast of Genius? Ral Zarek's brainstorms apparently cause thunder and lightning, but they also cost six mana, and are sorcery speed.
Not everyone wants to play midrange, even if it controls the board. One of the things that got a lot of players into this game was the range of strategies that could be used to win. I want to play a reactive deck that doesn't drown in card disadvantage because my opponent is getting a 2-for-1 every time I try to protect myself. I want to play a game where I don't have to play 25 creatures and have one card in hand, swinging through my opponent. I mean, I'm an engineer, and combat math is boring to me. It blows my mind that people find it difficult. Futhermore, I want to have a game that goes longer than 5 turns. At that stage, you've only seen 20% of your deck, and the game is ****ing over.
That's what people are angry about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
my point is maybe instead of using the word "skill" we should use the word "knowledge" or something.
Knowledge is the key aspect of skill in MTG... but they are not the same and knowledge is not the only factor in determining MTG skill.
I agree with this.
I know a lot about the limited format, what cards should be valued as priority picks, and how winning draft decks are constructed. I have as much knowledge as the typical 1900+ rating sharks.
However, I am horrible at picking cards on the fly that mesh well together, lose track of signals, have a tendency to be too stubborn and committal to certain color combos, and often end up with a deck that does OK, but will routinely get crushed by someone who is experienced and skilled in the format. I could likely get better if I put in the time and energy, but my love for Constructed and the financial side of the game always takes precedence.
This is why gifts ungiven is considered to be one of the most skill intensive cards in magic. There are so many different ways to play it, and it plays off the skill of both players. Sometimes you'll want to tutor for 4 cards to get the card advantage, other times, you'll want three to force a difficult choice. Maybe you want two creatures in the graveyard, in which case you only choose two cards. Maybe you're faking by sacrificing a good card in order to get a more situational one that your opponent doesn't know you need. That's not even taking into account your opponent's ability to read your play, and give you the two cards that you don't want.
Once again, this is where the disparity between control and aggro comes in. There are very few decisions to be made in aggro other than what order you play your creatures, keeping from overextending, when to press an attack, etc. However, these are decisions that all decks have to make at some stage if they're playing creatures. What aggro decks don't do that control decks do, is create choice, by rearranging the library, tutoring, digging, reacting to the opponent, etc. These are all subtle decisions that impact on the course of the game, and are often difficult to make. They also leverage knowledge of your deck, and knowledge of your opponent.
Incidentally, this is also the reason these effects tend be overcosted and sorcery speed nowadays; they're hugely powerful because they limit variance, and Wizards wants Timmy to win so he keeps buying packs. They're also effects that experienced players can see are powerful, but that newer players don't really understand, i.e. the necropotence effect. Wizards are actively trying to avoid creating cards like that nowadays, and as a result, the only formats left with real control and library manipulation are vintage and legacy.
4 Nivmagus Elemental
2 Voice of Resurgence
3 Quirion Dryad
2 Snapcaster Mage
4 Hands of Binding
4 Hidden Strings
4 Unsummon
4 Call of the Conclave
4 Thought Scour
3 Spell Rupture
2 Simic Charm
4 Breeding Pool
2 Temple Garden
3 Hinterland Harbor
3 Glacial Fortress
2 Sunpetal Grove
2 Island
The quality of the deck is unimportant--it was pretty much something we devised on the back of a bar napkin, but if one had to group it as either "aggro" or "control", it would most definitely be aggro. It aims to win the game before an opponent can react and stabilize.
...is one of the misconceptions that keeps this thread going in circles. Tempo-based aggro decks have many other decisions to make, with the wrong one costing a person a game (and the right one sometimes winning it).
Yes, both children grew up to be quite skilled players. But neither of them at that young age could possibly have won with a control deck. It took skill for my 9 yr. old son to go 7-2 at states. Enough skill to know his deck and know to hold one mana open for when they T4 wrathed so he could mana tithe. enough skill to know which Kithkin to play when.
But no way could he have played a control deck. It was beyond him.
That's the difference in aggro skill and control skill. Sorry if that ruffles some peoples feathers or sounds arrogant. It's simply honest assessment. A true control deck is much harder to play. An aggro deck requires you know all about your deck and enough about what stops it to work around it. A control deck requires you to understand how every other deck in the meta works and quickly grasp what an unexpected deck is doing too and be able to think a few turns ahead and pick the best strategy to deal with it on the fly.
Sorry, there's no comparison in skill levels required. But now the playing field is much more level and the games don't require the same degree of thought. It's not like going from chess to checkers, but it's definitely not chess anymore.
Sure, but that's the point of tempo. It's its own archetype, and leverages the strengths of control to make an aggressive strategy better. The Aristocrats does the same thing: it uses the depth of interaction between those particular creatures to get additional value, and eventually overwhelm the opponent.
The thing is, neither are typical aggro decks. Believe me, I would rather most aggro decks played in this way, because it would make the game far more interesting and skill based. The fact is, they don't. Most aggro decks play themselves, and the same is true of many midrange decks as well. In fact, the general aggro deck aims to be as un-interactive as possible. The faster it is, the less chance that you can do something in response, and thus we end up with Naya blitz blowing people out on turn 3.
Reprint Misdirection and Dominate . There, now you can you lose to your own cards instead of being mad at blue.
And here is where I agree with pretty much your entire post.
When I build an aggro deck, it is always based upon tempo...not trying to take out my opponent with a lightning-fast clock, but by being able to extend my own window. It is far easier to win a game when you have a degree of control over the window in which you have to win as opposed to "racing" against a window that may or may not already be shut.
I still consider it to be aggro. But it is a very skillful brand of it, and I agree that Aristocrats also falls into this subset...although I think it is a tad bit janky. Although I love the Blasphemous Act "I win" button off of Reckoner.
If the question at hand is "do decks like Naya Blitz require less skill than the typical control deck?" then the answer is unquestionably "yes". A newcomer looking at that deck should know exactly what to do with it after 15 minutes of inspection. And these aggro decks are far more popular than those that concentrate on slowing an opponent down for this very reason.
I have seen people dismiss tempo lists as "piles" in the past...heck the deck I posted may look like one. However, I can also explain just how dangerous Nivmagus is with 8 cipher spells and can easily be a 3/4+ for 1 mana, how Voice of Resurgence makes it difficult for opponents to disrupt my tempo, how threatening a turn 2 Quirion Dryad is, and why 20 lands, if anything, almost feels like too much for this deck.
I have plenty of decisions to make in the course of play...decisions that usually result in wins to the skilled player.
TL;DR: We are in complete agreement on all fronts.
Legion's Initiative? Are people actually considering playing this card? When do you play it? Instead of T2 Burning Tree? Instead of T3 Reckoner? Instead of T4 Hellrider? Aggro isn't really in the business of low-impact plays.
Ummm, Esper, Bant? Both those decks are doing quite well thank you.
While I agree that the folks at Wizards don't seem to be giving much love to the non-creature based decks let's not forget that they just printed two of the best creature hosiers ever in Supreme Verdict and Sphinx's Revelation. Not to mention Snapcaster Mage. And the Charms.
While I'd love the return of UB draw go but let's not pretend that the only competitive decks are Agro.
I do love the bickering between who is more victimized, Aggro or Control. A lot Control players are more humble and desire a game where both decks are on equal footing with one another, not having one knee jerked because the other sells more packs amongst newer players. That is what we are trying to convey, except the OP, that is definitely just QQing over a mediocre card.
It's just that any form of discourse regarding Aggro online is usually met with such condescending comments as "control needs more nerfing" or "it is our time in the spotlight." That kind of attitude is pity and disrespectful in my view. Do Aggro players truly wish to see control disappear forever, or do they want to prove themselves against a worthy opponent?
Just my two cents.
have you ever played elfball on magic online? i've lost easily winnable games just due to how the stack works on magic online and losing due to time because of 39393939 triggers
cool story bro, not everyone plays mtgo
Hold up
Those are sorceries, are you able to cast them once the combat phase has begun? I would assume that no, you'd have to wait after combat for the second main phase.
It doesn't really change things that much but reading your post made me wonder
The argument isn't about the skill floor, it's about the skill ceiling. A 9 year old can easily pick up and play chess much, much easier than he or she can pick up and play Warhammer tabletop or something. That doesn't mean Warhammer is harder- in fact, the opposite is true- but it has a large amount of jargon & rules complexity and a knowledge barrier to entry. So this measurement is almost entirely meaningless.
Congrats on missing the point entirely with your "honest assessment".
0 Karn
W Darien
U Arcanis
B Geth
R Norin
G Yeva
UW Hanna
RB Olivia
WB Obzedat
UR Melek
BG Glissa
WR Aurelia
GU Kraj
BRU Nicol Bolas
RGB Prossh
BGW Ghave
GUB Mimeoplasm
WUBRG Sliver Overlord
GWU Treva, the Renewer
EDH Spike:
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls
Trades
To be fair, WotC built a mechanic for Boros, battalion, that requires the Boros player to over-extend right into opposing board sweepers. Doing that and then not giving Boros tools to prevent being blown out for doing what they're supposed to do would've been rather punishing to the Boros players.
Now IMHO, I thought Boros Charm was likely enough for that. But I haven't kept up with the Standard metagame lately, it's moving far far far too fast. Maybe they thought Charm wasn't enough, or alternatively they intended this card for a completely different kind of deck like the Midrange flicker/value decks that some of the folks here are trying to build around it.
I agree there's been a gradual change in the types of control deck that tend to get played. But the whole time Titans were in standard, some variant of U/B or U/W control was always competitive, so the stall stall stall stall into traditional big finisher variety of control decks didn't exactly go extinct with Dr Teeth. The Esper control deck was only out of Standard for 4 months, for that matter, before the GTC shocklands made that shard's mana playable again.
Thanks Argentleman;)
WB Teysa token aggroBW (retired)
MAKING (Onmath, Numot, maybe something in Esper)
-Survive
-Generate Card Advantage
-Finish
These days, it just seems like those first two principles are largely accomplished through creatures instead of sweepers. Just because you aren't playing 16 counterspells, 7 sweepers, and 12 card draw spells, and 3 finishers doesn't mean you aren't playing control.
Personally, games where I play against control just suck the life out of me. I play something, they kill it, I play something, they kill it, I play something, they Sphynx and then kill my stuff.
In contrast, playing aggro vs. aggro is one of the most fun things I've ever played. Watching stuff on the board clash is really cool.
I'm sure that there are people who feel just the opposite and prefer to keep everything in hand and watch the opponent suffer due to controlly shenanigans, or to see their face drop when a particularly juicy Sphynx's Revelation goes off and you go from 5 to 13 life.
Also, some folks are drawing the line between control and aggro too hard, there's such thing as incorporating both, and things such as Naya Midrange isn't the same as aggro at all, they take time to set up and play big beefy guys as opposed to little one and two drops early game.
I feel that control players are kind of obnoxious for saying that aggro requires no skill too, it's as if skill in a card game is super duper important in life.
Anyhow, we're all nerds. Some of us big and fat and can barely fit in a seat at FNMs, some of us so skinny and scrawny a gentle breeze can pick us up, and some of us relatively normal. Then again the fat guys tend to have the most to overcompensate in card games because they don't have much going on for them in real life.
Oh right, regarding Legion's Initiative, rarely early game will an aggro player have an open RW mana, and keeping it open slows them down greatly and putting a huge hole in the aggro strategy of barfing out guys fast. The Original Poster of this thread should really just stop playing the game if he can't play his preferred type of deck in this format. Control had answers to all things aggro, is it so much a big of a deal that aggro now has answers to wraths and board wipes? There's still hard counters and bounce cards that are a pain in the ass to deal with.
Also, if the sole purpose of your control deck is board wipes, it's going to be easier to counter you than if you had a relatively wide array of controlly strategies.
Have to say it, the original poster of this thread should get some cheese with his whine.
Pretty much. It is just a matter of the "control players" either not recognizing it or being unhappy about being pushed to play creatures as a primary form of answer.
Huntmaster / Thragtusk/ Angel is probably the best control package in standard. With those alongside other options like the Centaur Healer or UW's spells it is unbelievably easy to beat aggro right now. You can lose if you get a slow draw and Naya gets a nut draw, but most of the time it is an easy win.
No we see it, but there's an important distinction that needs to be made. Sure, there are plenty of midrange decks that control the board, but the key divide between these decks and traditional control decks is that they are proactive, and generally only operate at sorcery speed. There are no reactive spell-based decks, because the playable card pool for it is so small, and the creatures are so ridiculous. I mean seriously, divination? Blast of Genius? Ral Zarek's brainstorms apparently cause thunder and lightning, but they also cost six mana, and are sorcery speed.
Not everyone wants to play midrange, even if it controls the board. One of the things that got a lot of players into this game was the range of strategies that could be used to win. I want to play a reactive deck that doesn't drown in card disadvantage because my opponent is getting a 2-for-1 every time I try to protect myself. I want to play a game where I don't have to play 25 creatures and have one card in hand, swinging through my opponent. I mean, I'm an engineer, and combat math is boring to me. It blows my mind that people find it difficult. Futhermore, I want to have a game that goes longer than 5 turns. At that stage, you've only seen 20% of your deck, and the game is ****ing over.
That's what people are angry about.