Sorry, its dumbed down. Vall me a snob, elitist, whatever stupid label you dream up, dont care. If you think todays standard is anywhere nearly as cool and interesting as older magic, like from masques up, your a bologna sandwich.
You know, I used to be very biased in regards to the loss of archetypes, especially control. Yes, LD, combo and discard are gone from standard, but control, much to my surprise, is alive and well...and still as annoying as hell to play against and with.
I put together a UW Control deck that, quite honestly, is a *****. It's also taking games into overtime hell. Last week I went 1-0-2 with it. I swore I'd never play the deck again it's so incredibly stifling in this aggro environment. And with 8 counters and 4 snappys, draw-go is anything but dead.
But it's an exhausting match that too often, because of time limits, ends in nothing better than a draw.
And while my opponents certainly had no fun playing against it, it's questionable as to how much fun I had given that I went undefeated for the night and still didn't make the top 4. THAT'S discouraging.
So there may be something to be said for WotC wanting to nerf certain archetypes. As a stubborn old school player, it took me a long time to come to terms with this. But I sure as hell don't want to spend 3 hours of my night with nothing better than a 1-0-2 record.
Now, last night I played mono white humans, went 4-1-0 and came in first.
Sometimes there is something to be said for simplicity.
Sorry, its dumbed down. Vall me a snob, elitist, whatever stupid label you dream up, dont care. If you think todays standard is anywhere nearly as cool and interesting as older magic, like from masques up, your a bologna sandwich.
grammar fixed and sig'd. L o freaking L
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
If this game is so easy, you guys must be winning a lot of PTQs and GPs.
Because luck isn't a factor.
Because other people aren't also good.
Because dumbing down the game makes is easier and not harder for the better players to win these events.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
I feel that luck has become infinitely more applicable in the game than it used to be, and that is a very bad thing. The game tries hard to market itself as a skillful, strategic game, and that is just no longer true. Back in "the day," if both players were topdecking and one topdecked a creature and the other topdecked land, it wasn't game over right there. The biggest, baddest creature was Akroma, and on a decent life total it took at least two hits to kill someone. Most of the time, they drew a 2-4 power creature, and you had three to five turns to react. It was likely that you also drew a creature or removal spell in that buffer time, and since creatures back then weren't invincible (shroud/hexproof/undying/regen didn't matter/indestructible) you were usually good to keep playing the game. There is a lot more skill involved when your plays are met with resistance and a sequence of threats/answers.
Now, we have hexproof 6/6 partial flyers for 3, undying zombie death machines, regenerating uncounterable untargetable trolls, creatures that come back from the graveyard every turn, creatures that actively punish you for killing them to stay alive, Miracle cards that just say "oops, I win", swords of "if I get an uncontested equip or my creature is hexproof I win," etc.
I had three games last fnm where I was on the draw against aggro, kept a hand of double Slagstorm, only to be met with "T1 Bird, T2 Sword, T3 Rancor, Equip, deal 10, T4 GG." I had spells to interact and they were useless. I had games where I drew double Dismember against Geist of St. Traft and double Slagstorm against Phyrexian Obliterator. I had games where I had stabilized, played excellent and tight Magic, and was about to get Elesh Norn vs. Zombies, but I realized that I would die to Blood Artist just for doing the very thing that I NEED to do to stay alive.
Oh, I thought he was talking about playing a spell that is countering a spell with counters on it as it comes into play, but I see you guys were just discussing whether he was flashing a creature with flash in order to flash a flashback or just flashing a creature with flash but not needing flash in order to flashback a spell without flash.
A game can be very simple while at the same time being very deep. Both Chess and Go are fairly simple games. They're simpler than most video games by far, but they are also very deep and very skill intensive.
This.
I didn't read the rest of the pages, but there is a LOT less interaction in Standard. Many people don't like this, but I guess it makes it easier for new comers to the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
The only thing that annoys me overall are bombs/win conditions with too much built in protection. That's my only gripe with the game as is.
The best comparison I can make is between an older "bomb card" , Marit Lage off Dark Depths, and a newer one, Emrakul. Let's assume for the sake argument that we have a similar engine for getting them both out at roughly the same time: Ie, Vampire Hexmage and Show and Tell.
The fun and chaotic part about Marit Lage, despite being so over the top in P/T and flying and indesctrutible, is the fact that you still need to protect her. She can one shot you in a regular 60 card game, but she can ALSO be exiled by just about effect, blinked and removed as a token forever, enchanted with a Pacifism, Cloned, Stolen with something, bounced with a Karakas, slapped with a Spirit Link or something equally hilarious. The onus is on ME , through discard or equipment or whatever, to protect the thing that I've just unleashed.
Emrakul or maybe perhaps Iona, on the other hand, seems to exemplify the bad side of modern design. The cards just have means built into them that say, "I win you the game, and I'm also ridiculously hard to answer." Protection from Colored Spells or shutting off the primary color of your opponents deck been proven time and time again to be enough to end the vast majority of games on the spot. Of the answers to Marit Lage I posted, only Karakas, Oblivion Ring/Journey to Nowhere, and Clone work on Emrakul, and the same for Iona, minus maybe even Clone effects depending on what your colors are and etc.
Maybe I'm just plain wrong, but the golden rule of, "every sick nasty bomb has an equally awesome answer" seems to be broken alot more these days, not even in 2 card combos where one protects the other, but IN THE CARD itself.
Planeswalkers are another big offender of this rule. In a game where, barring degeneracy, incremental advantage is key, the best of these Planeswalkers offer so much advantage coming out of 1 card, it's insane. I'm just talking about dry mathematical analysis here, not even anything subjective. I've been in situations where I resolved a Gideon Jura (Blue/White/Black control, standard, playing against a RUG delver list splashing white for Geist), and, in the postgame where I'm crunching the numbers on the work Gideon did (One resolved 3WW permanent card), it was, roughly:
-About 7-8 life, possibly more.
- Essentially three extra turns to draw cards, make moves from an advantageous position. I wouldn't quite call it 3 Time Warps, but I wouldn't call it 3 Explores either.
-In his dying breath, killing a tapped Huntsmaster.
So this Gideon Jura, doing admittedly an above average performance here, was, for 3WW:
and what exactly did I do? What mental finesse did I use to accomplish this? "+2 my gideon." "+2 my gideon" "+2 my gideon." "-2 my gideon."
I've had similar experiences with Elspeth, Knight Errant, Jace the Mindsculptor, and Ajani Vengeant When one card adds up to so much value, it starts to make the game become "autopilot." There are rarely even situations where I'm not sure which planeswalker ability to use on a given turn, most of the time it seems fairly obvious.
I dont think it is fair to compare magic of 1996/1997 to magic of today. As a player that left the game in the Mirage Block and just came back, I think there are some things that are "harder" to deal with, while other things are just down right easy.
My personal bias is it took me months to unlearn how I played magic at competitive level in the mid 90s. Now dealing with the stack is much more easier, but I made a ton of mistakes learning that I could things I use to be able to do.
The main reason magic is different is the internet. The game use to be about being a deck builder and pilot, if you werent both, you werent good. If you didnt have a playtesting crew, your walking into events blind. I think Magic R&D has controlled the environment to much. LD isnt fun, but here is 0, 1 and 2 casting cost counters. Limiting blacks discard, and boom green ramps into big fatties. I just feel the environment is so slated into certain types of archetypes while killing others cause someone thinks it isnt fun.
With the internet, your ability to ramp up deck building is at hyper speed, better players are rewarded with deck lists from MTGO dailies, SCG and other event deck lists. So finding the top decks is alot easier, cause instead of having regional deck types, you have the entire world sharing information. Im not saying it is auto pilot, but better players dont have to have a decent deck builder skill, or a deck builder in their crew anymore. Now at the GP level, you have a different meta than what youll find at most FNMs, so that isnt really what I am saying, but dont tell me that the "Pros" arent looking at MTOG Dailies for information.
Overall the different mechs in each expansions, planes walkers has made the game more complex than giant spider versus elf with giant growth, or dark ritual to hymn. I think in some ways the game is more interesting, but you can never go back to that 1st starter deck and a couple boosters in 1995 trying to figure how to make a playable deck, trading for lands, thinking 20 lands for 60 cards was right. You just cant compare how interesting the game was on its most basic level that drew players in, to a tier one deck at a Pro Tour. What I think makes magic special is that at all levels of play and all levels of card bases, the game is interesting still.
I didnt read the 5 pages of responses. The game has not been dumbed down, it has been streamlined and less complicated. Less Complicated doesnt mean dumbed down. Wotc has made the game easier to pick up whether its a complete new player or a older player getting back in.
Infalliable, thank you. You have my sincere apologies about the misspel(s) as well as the grammatical discrepancies. I am typing via mobile. I'm not particuarly skilled at texting lol.
Sorry, but since it is an opinion post, yes I think today's Standard is dumbed down. Why? Because the complexity of the metagame does not contain certain strategies that Magic had years ago. Strategically the game has less options and variation in archtypes. One, the card pool is much smaller. Second, spells are at an all time low in regards to effectiveness, by threat and by combination.
This does, in fact mean I don't care for Standard as it is now. This doesn't mean I will never like it again. There are other formats I enjoy, so I simply put any effort towards deck theorizing and construction in other formats.
I can't convince anyone who didn't play years ago. And, if you did play years ago, and honestly think today's Standard magic is more interesting, more complex, AND more diverse than older magic......like I said before, your a bologna sandwich.
Infalliable, thank you. You have my sincere apologies about the misspel(s) as well as the grammatical discrepancies. I am typing via mobile. I'm not particuarly skilled at texting lol.
Sorry, but since it is an opinion post, yes I think today's Standard is dumbed down. Why? Because the complexity of the metagame does not contain certain strategies that Magic had years ago. Strategically the game has less options and variation in archtypes. One, the card pool is much smaller. Second, spells are at an all time low in regards to effectiveness, by threat and by combination.
This does, in fact mean I don't care for Standard as it is now. This doesn't mean I will never like it again. There are other formats I enjoy, so I simply put any effort towards deck theorizing and construction in other formats.
I can't convince anyone who didn't play years ago. And, if you did play years ago, and honestly think today's Standard magic is more interesting, more complex, AND more diverse than older magic......like I said before, your a bologna sandwich.
I have been playing since the beginning and I will say the best Standard environment I feel we ever had was during RAV/TSP and into TSP/LOW Standard seasons. I never really enjoyed constructed prior to Invasion block. I played a lot of limited prior to Invasion instead of playing constructed.
Right. Homogeneity, and, sometimes, complete singularity, where a deck becomes so refined and proven, that the nature of it is that there can be little / no deviation because it already makes use of the absolute, "cream of the crop" . Modern is still a format I have hope for, as is about 90 percent of the decks are fun and interesting to play with/against, tons of rogue decks are completely viable (granted they all seem to plucking from the same pile of goodstuff, then adding on some creative spins, but that's fine.) And things are likely to get even better after a few more banning/unbanning cycles, and hopefully more prolific events.
Legacy is just plain strange to me in some ways now, like for instance how you're likely to see more variation between two Burn decks than between two Reanimator decks. Just odd to me because my memories of playing against Reanimator in the old days were accompanied by this feeling of dread that you weren't quite sure what they were going to unearth. Now, you pretty much do know, but it's somehow more terrifying... (hint, it's exponentially more powerful)
I feel that luck has become infinitely more applicable in the game than it used to be, and that is a very bad thing. The game tries hard to market itself as a skillful, strategic game, and that is just no longer true. Back in "the day," if both players were topdecking and one topdecked a creature and the other topdecked land, it wasn't game over right there. The biggest, baddest creature was Akroma, and on a decent life total it took at least two hits to kill someone. Most of the time, they drew a 2-4 power creature, and you had three to five turns to react. It was likely that you also drew a creature or removal spell in that buffer time, and since creatures back then weren't invincible (shroud/hexproof/undying/regen didn't matter/indestructible) you were usually good to keep playing the game. There is a lot more skill involved when your plays are met with resistance and a sequence of threats/answers.
Now, we have hexproof 6/6 partial flyers for 3, undying zombie death machines, regenerating uncounterable untargetable trolls, creatures that come back from the graveyard every turn, creatures that actively punish you for killing them to stay alive, Miracle cards that just say "oops, I win", swords of "if I get an uncontested equip or my creature is hexproof I win," etc.
I had three games last fnm where I was on the draw against aggro, kept a hand of double Slagstorm, only to be met with "T1 Bird, T2 Sword, T3 Rancor, Equip, deal 10, T4 GG." I had spells to interact and they were useless. I had games where I drew double Dismember against Geist of St. Traft and double Slagstorm against Phyrexian Obliterator. I had games where I had stabilized, played excellent and tight Magic, and was about to get Elesh Norn vs. Zombies, but I realized that I would die to Blood Artist just for doing the very thing that I NEED to do to stay alive.
This is what pushed me out of standard, too much luck, and too many times killing a creature did absolutely nothing to help me stay alive. I topdeck Wurmcoil Engine, they topdeck Elesh Norn, I still lose.
It's all about who gets the biggest bombs and the biggest bang for their buck, creatures (any card in general even) that don't give absurd value simply don't get played, regardless of whether or not they are good.
Wolfir Avenger would have once been considered an amazing card, now it's just meh.
Yes. I remember they days where we actually had good counterspells, discard and land destruction. I remember the days where standard decks weren't all about creature decks. I remember the days when spells were a lot better. I miss DotS and mana burn.
Game is now: either play a deck that relies on creatures or find another format or quit.
I never meant to say combat damage and creatures shoudln't count. Why they have to become the actual centerpiece of gameplay and strategy is beyond me. Whether spells or creatures are more exciting depends on the player, but I think it would be nice if we had good spell power and spell based decks and combo decks with good creatures too.
If I play Draw-Go, I count combat and creatures as important (as well as other permanents) and I always did, hence the need for cards like Nevs Disk, Treachery, Masticore, Vedalken Shackles, Countertop etc. If I didn't, I'd lose and deserve to do so because I failed to recognize Magic has multiple threat types.
These daze? Creatures, Planeswalkers, and bonfire. Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Not to be an arrogant you know what, but you get my drift.
Im glad blue become dumb, thanks for that wizards. Blue tempo the new yucky dirty old bologa I always hoped for. Not. Sure blue isnt dumb. Who wants effective counterspells, good card drawing spells, library manipulation that stays in each cycle, and a way to control creatures thats not switcheroo. Switcheroo and Devastation Tide. Think about that, and what used to be.....control magic, vedalken shackles, sowers. Switcheroo and devastation tide.
Im so glad they removed damage on the stack. It was dunb and unrealistic. I think the game feels allot more realistic with out. It made no sence. Im going to kill you after I die.
What the internet did to the game today from 10 years ago is with big tournaments (sometimes multiple ones) that information is getting back to the hive mind player base with in minutes instead of days or a month. (remember waiting for the new issue of your Magic magazine of choice?) If you were a net decker you were always playing with old tech.
As for LD, draw go type control, and the other types of decks found 'unfun', Wotc knows from different numbers what the masses want and dont want.
Good deck builders are far and few between today. Single players dont break metas, its play groups that design and break metas. I have found the majority of players are just netdeckers that wait for the next big deck to copy.
Not that I'm being disingenuous but I know that I can't type out what I think or think what I think I think; but, the range of complexity of MTG has increased, with a shift of the mean complexity towards the simpler end.
I speculate that this is largely to attract fresh meat and to make MTG, all elements, particularly official play, more accessible* and quicker*.
*Indeed, I chose these adjectives for their various uses.
I'm surprised people think stacking damage adds play complexity. Honestly, how often was the correct play anything besides stack, do my thing? You actually get to make real decisions now. Do I sac this Apprentice to draw a card or do I kill his dude? This is a good example of the rules being simplified (new players no longer have to learn that damage stacks) and the game becoming more skillful.
Also, for those who don't remember the Dark Times, the Internet was a vastly different beast in the Mirage days (even years later) than it is now. I didn't start playing competitively until the first Extended PTQ season. In my area at least (NC, SC, VA), very rarely would you play against a net deck in tournaments. I was one of the many, many people without net access, so I wouldn't even know I'd played against net decks until the next issue of The Sideboard came out. In my first PTQ, I played against Lauer Necro, Finkel Prison, and some fun rogue decks including an all shroud build running Jolrael's Centaur and Deadly Insect. The Insect deck was 2-0 when I played him. Very different times.
I feel that the removal of damage on the stack when they've made the game more creature ability based seems very counter intuitive.
There are a lot of cards that used to be good that no longer are. For instance Merfolk looter.
Damage on the stack led to many interesting interactions and difficult plays that I feel the game to be currently lacking.
It was always difficult to decide if I should sac my Mogg Fanatic and do an extra point of damage or not. Thankfully, I no long have to make that decision. I could never keep track of all those complicated damage on the stack interactions like that.
I feel that the removal of damage on the stack when they've made the game more creature ability based seems very counter intuitive.
There are a lot of cards that used to be good that no longer are. For instance Merfolk looter.
Damage on the stack led to many interesting interactions and difficult plays that I feel the game to be currently lacking.
How is this the case? Finding the correct 'damage on the stack' play is usually very easy to do by anyone who has played the game for 3 months. Once someone gets burned by the damage on the stack thing 1 or 2 times, they typically catch on.
Without damage stacking, your Sakura-Tribe Elder has a decision to make. Does it want to step in front of Dark Confidant and trade, or does it want to just absorb two damage and find a land? Well that depends on my hand......and I really need to ramp. But wait, didn't my opponent mulligan? I dont think he drew a land this turn either. I dont want him drawing anymore cards....
Removing damage on the stack leads to decision making that effects the outcome of the game, rather than letting some poor on the board misplay trick decide the outcome, which was only a way to pick up free wins against bad players.
With that said, the game is being dumbed down, and to say that it isn't is absurd. Wizards, in article after article after article, has said they are dumbing down the game. They have removed the interactive spells from the game in favor of uber-powerful creatures that are well above the curve or very hard to remove. Or both. This requires a bit more luck, as the game devolves into more of what you draw than what you do with what youve drawn.
The game is still skill intensive, however its getting less so. Personally, I dont have a playgroup to play the older formats, and I dont like Standard, so I stick to draft, which still has much of what makes Magic skill intensive left in tact (AVR not withstanding).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rules Advisor as of 4/23/10
Regarding Stoneforge Mystic
Quote from oranges2 »
This guy, would either eat up several turns worth of mana to get a slow permanent that relies on your already have some board presence (after wasting said mana), or dies without generating any advantage.
It was always difficult to decide if I should sac my Mogg Fanatic and do an extra point of damage or not. Thankfully, I no long have to make that decision. I could never keep track of all those complicated damage on the stack interactions like that.
How to play Unsummon tempo or combat trick or save a durdle for a removal spel? amirte?
But you act like the new version of Mogg Fantic is more skill testing (goblin arsonist). Oh, wait it isn't. How about this one.
Player A
Bird of Paradise
Random x/1(not attacking)
Player B
Mogg Fantic(What is more important stoping the attack or the ramp?)
or Goblin Arsonist(herp derp easy mode)
Which card makes players B choice harder?
Also, doesn't damage effectively still go on the stack with first strike and double strike. So it is even really counter intuitive now and you can still do those DOTS tricks.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
How to play Unsummon tempo or combat trick or save a durdle for a removal spel? amirte?
Combat tricks still work. Why would you think they were gone?
Unsummon tricks and flicker tricks are the only thing we really lost, and the exchange we made was well worth it. Besides, few of the bounce tricks were ever constructed playable, because using a unsummon trick was massive tempo loss.
But you act like the new version of Mogg Fantic is more skill testing (goblin arsonist). Oh, wait it isn't. How about this one.
Player A
Bird of Paradise
Random x/1(not attacking)
Player B
Mogg Fantic(What is more important stoping the attack or the ramp?)
or Goblin Arsonist(herp derp easy mode)
Which card makes players B choice harder?
You are looking at other cards instead of the actual rules change.
Let's look at Mogg Fanatic, the card in question, pre-rules change and post-rules change. The situation is the exact same as your suggested one, with one caveat: There is an actual creature attacking.
Pre-rules change: Mogg Fanatic blocks the creature and sacrifices, dealing damage to both sources.
Post-rules change: Mogg Fanatic blocks the creature and has a choice in who it sacrifices to deal damage to.
If there isn't something attacking, the situation pre-rules change (Sacrifice to hit the birds now or wait) is handled the exact same post-rules change.
Also, doesn't damage effectively still go on the stack with first strike and double strike. So it is even really counter intuitive now and you can still do those DOTS tricks.
If you mean "X does damage first and then sacrifices or bounces or whatever", congratulations, you just learned that having First Strike gives you an advantage over normal combat!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The wedding is over. Now it's time for the honeymoon.
Combat tricks still work. Why would you think they were gone?
I was talking about how you can play unsummon... It used to be tempo, protection and combat trick. It can no longer be played as a combat trick. Which make it significantly less interesting and complex. AKA it's easier to play AKA a reason removing DOTS dumbs down the game.
Unsummon tricks and flicker tricks are the only thing we really lost, and the exchange we made was well worth it. Besides, few of the bounce tricks were ever constructed playable, because using a unsummon trick was massive tempo loss.
Limited is kinda of you know a thing. Even if it wasn't used that way most often it was still used that way from time to time.
You are looking at other cards instead of the actual rules change.
We don't play in a vacuum. Mogg Fanatic likely would have been reprinted had DOTS not been removed.
If you mean "X does damage first and then sacrifices or bounces or whatever", congratulations, you just learned that having First Strike gives you an advantage over normal combat!
Congratulations you just argued understand DOTS is easy to understand works like first strike does now and didn't need to be removed.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I put together a UW Control deck that, quite honestly, is a *****. It's also taking games into overtime hell. Last week I went 1-0-2 with it. I swore I'd never play the deck again it's so incredibly stifling in this aggro environment. And with 8 counters and 4 snappys, draw-go is anything but dead.
But it's an exhausting match that too often, because of time limits, ends in nothing better than a draw.
And while my opponents certainly had no fun playing against it, it's questionable as to how much fun I had given that I went undefeated for the night and still didn't make the top 4. THAT'S discouraging.
So there may be something to be said for WotC wanting to nerf certain archetypes. As a stubborn old school player, it took me a long time to come to terms with this. But I sure as hell don't want to spend 3 hours of my night with nothing better than a 1-0-2 record.
Now, last night I played mono white humans, went 4-1-0 and came in first.
Sometimes there is something to be said for simplicity.
grammar fixed and sig'd. L o freaking L
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Because luck isn't a factor.
Because other people aren't also good.
Because dumbing down the game makes is easier and not harder for the better players to win these events.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Now, we have hexproof 6/6 partial flyers for 3, undying zombie death machines, regenerating uncounterable untargetable trolls, creatures that come back from the graveyard every turn, creatures that actively punish you for killing them to stay alive, Miracle cards that just say "oops, I win", swords of "if I get an uncontested equip or my creature is hexproof I win," etc.
I had three games last fnm where I was on the draw against aggro, kept a hand of double Slagstorm, only to be met with "T1 Bird, T2 Sword, T3 Rancor, Equip, deal 10, T4 GG." I had spells to interact and they were useless. I had games where I drew double Dismember against Geist of St. Traft and double Slagstorm against Phyrexian Obliterator. I had games where I had stabilized, played excellent and tight Magic, and was about to get Elesh Norn vs. Zombies, but I realized that I would die to Blood Artist just for doing the very thing that I NEED to do to stay alive.
-regarding Snapcaster Mage.
This.
I didn't read the rest of the pages, but there is a LOT less interaction in Standard. Many people don't like this, but I guess it makes it easier for new comers to the game.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)The best comparison I can make is between an older "bomb card" , Marit Lage off Dark Depths, and a newer one, Emrakul. Let's assume for the sake argument that we have a similar engine for getting them both out at roughly the same time: Ie, Vampire Hexmage and Show and Tell.
The fun and chaotic part about Marit Lage, despite being so over the top in P/T and flying and indesctrutible, is the fact that you still need to protect her. She can one shot you in a regular 60 card game, but she can ALSO be exiled by just about effect, blinked and removed as a token forever, enchanted with a Pacifism, Cloned, Stolen with something, bounced with a Karakas, slapped with a Spirit Link or something equally hilarious. The onus is on ME , through discard or equipment or whatever, to protect the thing that I've just unleashed.
Emrakul or maybe perhaps Iona, on the other hand, seems to exemplify the bad side of modern design. The cards just have means built into them that say, "I win you the game, and I'm also ridiculously hard to answer." Protection from Colored Spells or shutting off the primary color of your opponents deck been proven time and time again to be enough to end the vast majority of games on the spot. Of the answers to Marit Lage I posted, only Karakas, Oblivion Ring/Journey to Nowhere, and Clone work on Emrakul, and the same for Iona, minus maybe even Clone effects depending on what your colors are and etc.
Maybe I'm just plain wrong, but the golden rule of, "every sick nasty bomb has an equally awesome answer" seems to be broken alot more these days, not even in 2 card combos where one protects the other, but IN THE CARD itself.
Planeswalkers are another big offender of this rule. In a game where, barring degeneracy, incremental advantage is key, the best of these Planeswalkers offer so much advantage coming out of 1 card, it's insane. I'm just talking about dry mathematical analysis here, not even anything subjective. I've been in situations where I resolved a Gideon Jura (Blue/White/Black control, standard, playing against a RUG delver list splashing white for Geist), and, in the postgame where I'm crunching the numbers on the work Gideon did (One resolved 3WW permanent card), it was, roughly:
-About 7-8 life, possibly more.
- Essentially three extra turns to draw cards, make moves from an advantageous position. I wouldn't quite call it 3 Time Warps, but I wouldn't call it 3 Explores either.
-In his dying breath, killing a tapped Huntsmaster.
So this Gideon Jura, doing admittedly an above average performance here, was, for 3WW:
Heroe's Reunion
3 slightly better Explores
Death Stroke
and what exactly did I do? What mental finesse did I use to accomplish this? "+2 my gideon." "+2 my gideon" "+2 my gideon." "-2 my gideon."
I've had similar experiences with Elspeth, Knight Errant, Jace the Mindsculptor, and Ajani Vengeant When one card adds up to so much value, it starts to make the game become "autopilot." There are rarely even situations where I'm not sure which planeswalker ability to use on a given turn, most of the time it seems fairly obvious.
My personal bias is it took me months to unlearn how I played magic at competitive level in the mid 90s. Now dealing with the stack is much more easier, but I made a ton of mistakes learning that I could things I use to be able to do.
The main reason magic is different is the internet. The game use to be about being a deck builder and pilot, if you werent both, you werent good. If you didnt have a playtesting crew, your walking into events blind. I think Magic R&D has controlled the environment to much. LD isnt fun, but here is 0, 1 and 2 casting cost counters. Limiting blacks discard, and boom green ramps into big fatties. I just feel the environment is so slated into certain types of archetypes while killing others cause someone thinks it isnt fun.
With the internet, your ability to ramp up deck building is at hyper speed, better players are rewarded with deck lists from MTGO dailies, SCG and other event deck lists. So finding the top decks is alot easier, cause instead of having regional deck types, you have the entire world sharing information. Im not saying it is auto pilot, but better players dont have to have a decent deck builder skill, or a deck builder in their crew anymore. Now at the GP level, you have a different meta than what youll find at most FNMs, so that isnt really what I am saying, but dont tell me that the "Pros" arent looking at MTOG Dailies for information.
Overall the different mechs in each expansions, planes walkers has made the game more complex than giant spider versus elf with giant growth, or dark ritual to hymn. I think in some ways the game is more interesting, but you can never go back to that 1st starter deck and a couple boosters in 1995 trying to figure how to make a playable deck, trading for lands, thinking 20 lands for 60 cards was right. You just cant compare how interesting the game was on its most basic level that drew players in, to a tier one deck at a Pro Tour. What I think makes magic special is that at all levels of play and all levels of card bases, the game is interesting still.
Sorry, but since it is an opinion post, yes I think today's Standard is dumbed down. Why? Because the complexity of the metagame does not contain certain strategies that Magic had years ago. Strategically the game has less options and variation in archtypes. One, the card pool is much smaller. Second, spells are at an all time low in regards to effectiveness, by threat and by combination.
This does, in fact mean I don't care for Standard as it is now. This doesn't mean I will never like it again. There are other formats I enjoy, so I simply put any effort towards deck theorizing and construction in other formats.
I can't convince anyone who didn't play years ago. And, if you did play years ago, and honestly think today's Standard magic is more interesting, more complex, AND more diverse than older magic......like I said before, your a bologna sandwich.
I have been playing since the beginning and I will say the best Standard environment I feel we ever had was during RAV/TSP and into TSP/LOW Standard seasons. I never really enjoyed constructed prior to Invasion block. I played a lot of limited prior to Invasion instead of playing constructed.
Legacy is just plain strange to me in some ways now, like for instance how you're likely to see more variation between two Burn decks than between two Reanimator decks. Just odd to me because my memories of playing against Reanimator in the old days were accompanied by this feeling of dread that you weren't quite sure what they were going to unearth. Now, you pretty much do know, but it's somehow more terrifying... (hint, it's exponentially more powerful)
This is what pushed me out of standard, too much luck, and too many times killing a creature did absolutely nothing to help me stay alive. I topdeck Wurmcoil Engine, they topdeck Elesh Norn, I still lose.
It's all about who gets the biggest bombs and the biggest bang for their buck, creatures (any card in general even) that don't give absurd value simply don't get played, regardless of whether or not they are good.
Wolfir Avenger would have once been considered an amazing card, now it's just meh.
Game is now: either play a deck that relies on creatures or find another format or quit.
BUG Dredge BUG]
WUBRG Storm WUBRG
UBR FaerieStalker UBR
EDH
Sygg, River Cutthroat (1vs1)
Maga, Traitor to Mortals (multiplayer)
If I play Draw-Go, I count combat and creatures as important (as well as other permanents) and I always did, hence the need for cards like Nevs Disk, Treachery, Masticore, Vedalken Shackles, Countertop etc. If I didn't, I'd lose and deserve to do so because I failed to recognize Magic has multiple threat types.
These daze? Creatures, Planeswalkers, and bonfire. Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Not to be an arrogant you know what, but you get my drift.
Im glad blue become dumb, thanks for that wizards. Blue tempo the new yucky dirty old bologa I always hoped for. Not. Sure blue isnt dumb. Who wants effective counterspells, good card drawing spells, library manipulation that stays in each cycle, and a way to control creatures thats not switcheroo. Switcheroo and Devastation Tide. Think about that, and what used to be.....control magic, vedalken shackles, sowers. Switcheroo and devastation tide.
As for LD, draw go type control, and the other types of decks found 'unfun', Wotc knows from different numbers what the masses want and dont want.
Good deck builders are far and few between today. Single players dont break metas, its play groups that design and break metas. I have found the majority of players are just netdeckers that wait for the next big deck to copy.
I speculate that this is largely to attract fresh meat and to make MTG, all elements, particularly official play, more accessible* and quicker*.
*Indeed, I chose these adjectives for their various uses.
Also, for those who don't remember the Dark Times, the Internet was a vastly different beast in the Mirage days (even years later) than it is now. I didn't start playing competitively until the first Extended PTQ season. In my area at least (NC, SC, VA), very rarely would you play against a net deck in tournaments. I was one of the many, many people without net access, so I wouldn't even know I'd played against net decks until the next issue of The Sideboard came out. In my first PTQ, I played against Lauer Necro, Finkel Prison, and some fun rogue decks including an all shroud build running Jolrael's Centaur and Deadly Insect. The Insect deck was 2-0 when I played him. Very different times.
There are a lot of cards that used to be good that no longer are. For instance Merfolk looter.
Damage on the stack led to many interesting interactions and difficult plays that I feel the game to be currently lacking.
It was always difficult to decide if I should sac my Mogg Fanatic and do an extra point of damage or not. Thankfully, I no long have to make that decision. I could never keep track of all those complicated damage on the stack interactions like that.
How is this the case? Finding the correct 'damage on the stack' play is usually very easy to do by anyone who has played the game for 3 months. Once someone gets burned by the damage on the stack thing 1 or 2 times, they typically catch on.
Without damage stacking, your Sakura-Tribe Elder has a decision to make. Does it want to step in front of Dark Confidant and trade, or does it want to just absorb two damage and find a land? Well that depends on my hand......and I really need to ramp. But wait, didn't my opponent mulligan? I dont think he drew a land this turn either. I dont want him drawing anymore cards....
Removing damage on the stack leads to decision making that effects the outcome of the game, rather than letting some poor on the board misplay trick decide the outcome, which was only a way to pick up free wins against bad players.
With that said, the game is being dumbed down, and to say that it isn't is absurd. Wizards, in article after article after article, has said they are dumbing down the game. They have removed the interactive spells from the game in favor of uber-powerful creatures that are well above the curve or very hard to remove. Or both. This requires a bit more luck, as the game devolves into more of what you draw than what you do with what youve drawn.
The game is still skill intensive, however its getting less so. Personally, I dont have a playgroup to play the older formats, and I dont like Standard, so I stick to draft, which still has much of what makes Magic skill intensive left in tact (AVR not withstanding).
Rules Advisor as of 4/23/10
Regarding Stoneforge Mystic
How to play Unsummon tempo or combat trick or save a durdle for a removal spel? amirte?
But you act like the new version of Mogg Fantic is more skill testing (goblin arsonist). Oh, wait it isn't. How about this one.
Player A
Bird of Paradise
Random x/1(not attacking)
Player B
Mogg Fantic(What is more important stoping the attack or the ramp?)
or Goblin Arsonist(herp derp easy mode)
Which card makes players B choice harder?
Also, doesn't damage effectively still go on the stack with first strike and double strike. So it is even really counter intuitive now and you can still do those DOTS tricks.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Combat tricks still work. Why would you think they were gone?
Unsummon tricks and flicker tricks are the only thing we really lost, and the exchange we made was well worth it. Besides, few of the bounce tricks were ever constructed playable, because using a unsummon trick was massive tempo loss.
You are looking at other cards instead of the actual rules change.
Let's look at Mogg Fanatic, the card in question, pre-rules change and post-rules change. The situation is the exact same as your suggested one, with one caveat: There is an actual creature attacking.
Pre-rules change: Mogg Fanatic blocks the creature and sacrifices, dealing damage to both sources.
Post-rules change: Mogg Fanatic blocks the creature and has a choice in who it sacrifices to deal damage to.
If there isn't something attacking, the situation pre-rules change (Sacrifice to hit the birds now or wait) is handled the exact same post-rules change.
If you mean "X does damage first and then sacrifices or bounces or whatever", congratulations, you just learned that having First Strike gives you an advantage over normal combat!
Thanks to Rivenor of Miraculous Recovery Signatures!
I was talking about how you can play unsummon... It used to be tempo, protection and combat trick. It can no longer be played as a combat trick. Which make it significantly less interesting and complex. AKA it's easier to play AKA a reason removing DOTS dumbs down the game.
Limited is kinda of you know a thing. Even if it wasn't used that way most often it was still used that way from time to time.
We don't play in a vacuum. Mogg Fanatic likely would have been reprinted had DOTS not been removed.
Congratulations you just argued understand DOTS is easy to understand works like first strike does now and didn't need to be removed.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.