Why even bother putting non-flying creatures in a 60-card deck? You figure you put about 20-24 lands, 18-20 creatures, and 16-20 spells in a 60-card deck. But a non-flying creature is basically worthless because your opponent could just pick 20 flying creatures and you will lose. I know there are abilities such as Reach (Canopy Spider), spells such as Gain Flying (Angelic Blessing), and even damage spells such as Hurricane, but you are wasting your library on having to put these types of spells to 'fix' the problem of not having a deck full of flying creatures. I suppose just for added flavor you can add a few non-flying creatures but the bottom line is that the flying creatures make the non-flying creatures obsolete.
Tarmogoyf, snapcaster, goblin welder, and dark confidant says hi.
Assuming this isn't a troll, flying creatures tend to cast higher than equally sized non flyers, or are smaller than equally costed creatures. As such, they come out later in the game and are less of an immediate threat.
Flyers are, of course, pretty boss in limited.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Fliers also tend to have lower power/toughness then non-fliers. So while you have an army of 20 1/1, 2/2 and 3/3, I have an army of 20 2/2, 3/3 and 4/4. Provided we land them at the same times, I will win the damage race. So there's that too.
Sure, Flying is a great ability to have. But it's not the end-all in Magic.
Also, Non-Fliers do tend to have more versatile effects. See stuff like Primeval Titan, Huntmaster of the Fells, Snapcaster Mage...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Tarmogoyf, snapcaster, goblin welder, and dark confidant says hi.
Assuming this isn't a troll, flying creatures tend to cast higher than equally sized non flyers, or are smaller than equally costed creatures. As such, they come out later in the game and are less of an immediate threat.
What do you mean by Troll? Flying Trolls tend to cast at a loser cost?
Fliers also tend to have lower power/toughness then non-fliers. So while you have an army of 20 1/1, 2/2 and 3/3, I have an army of 20 2/2, 3/3 and 4/4. Provided we land them at the same times, I will win the damage race. So there's that too.
Sure, Flying is a great ability to have. But it's not the end-all in Magic.
Also, Non-Fliers do tend to have more versatile effects. See stuff like Primeval Titan, Huntmaster of the Fells, Snapcaster Mage...
The troll referred to earlier is another name for someone posting on a topic to intentionally get a confrontation. It has no bearing on the game of Magic the Gathering.
As for non-flying creatures being worthless. This is, as has been stated by others, untrue. Flying creatures tend to have a higher casting cost for their size. A classic example is Grizzly Bear and Wind Drake. Both are 2/2 creatures, the only special thing on the drake is that it has flying. So the CC are 1G and 2U respectively. I can cast my bear on turn 2 and attack on turn 3. You can cast your Wind Drake on turn 3 at the earliest and attack on turn 4. If in a static game where we each do nothing more than attack with these two creatures without blocking, I would win as my creature came down first.
This example is not meant to say that flying creatures are bad. They are not. However, on the same note creatures without flying are not worthless. What makes a creature good depends entirely on the deck for which it was built and it's interaction with the rest of the cards in said deck.
The troll referred to earlier is another name for someone posting on a topic to intentionally get a confrontation. It has no bearing on the game of Magic the Gathering.
Yes Phoenix I know. I am new to Magic and am not sure why my questions are met with suspicion. It just seems such a large advantage to have the flying ability but i appreciate you helping me understand that this is not always the case. Regards, Magnus
Magnus if it makes you feel any better i had the exact same "revelation" when i was new to magic. Fact is - there are lots of things that are more important than whether a creature has flying. Its a good ability that you can sometimes get for free but there some land-based creatures that abilities much better than flying.
Oh, don't get us wrong. Flying IS a huge advantage, at all times. Two creatures that do the same but one has flying and the other does not? The Flier is better. There aren't a lot of keywords that are actually better then Flying, on their own.
It's just that due to the innitiate strength of the keyword Flying, creatures with Flying get toned down a bit in their Power/Toughness department, or they aren't as complex as their non-flying counterparts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
In limited formats where the creature quality is really terrible (think Ravnica, Guildpact, Dissention) flyers have so much value that a 2/2 flyer for 5 is actually better then most of the other creatures. There have been other limited formats where this has been true as well I just cant remember them off the top of my head.
But yea, limited is probably the only format where you can legit overvalue flyers, in constructed it is not nearly as backbreaking or difficult to deal with.
Think about it this way. In legacy, everybody plays with the best cards in the game that don't ruin balance. The VAST majority of the creatures played in that format do not fly.
Flying is rather inefficient. It's more of an ability to win stalemates than anything else, in a way.
But yea, limited is probably the only format where you can legit overvalue flyers, in constructed it is not nearly as backbreaking or difficult to deal with.
The only good thing about this post is the edible chocolate roaches they gave out! Mmm mmm!
*crawl crawl*
Wait a minute, edible roaches don't crawl! EDIBLE ROACHES DON'T CRAWL!
What is this thread about? A quick glance over some tournament decks learns that most creatures in winning decks don't have flying.
That non-flying creatures are worthless is a bold statement. Maybe I should start collecting those statements and have a vote at the end of the year who made the most hyperbolic statement. This week we already had someone who would kill him/herself if infect was reprinted, and someone who would quit Magic for $0.50.
This thread is about a new player who lost some deck with a bunch of fliers and decided to make a sweeping statement about the game as a whole. Luckily the tons of players with any experience showed up to reign him in.
Oh, don't get us wrong. Flying IS a huge advantage, at all times. Two creatures that do the same but one has flying and the other does not? The Flier is better. There aren't a lot of keywords that are actually better then Flying, on their own.
It's just that due to the innitiate strength of the keyword Flying, creatures with Flying get toned down a bit in their Power/Toughness department, or they aren't as complex as their non-flying counterparts.
There are even exceptions when the card is identical except for flying. If you're talking, say, Sengir Vampire, Cockatrice, or The Wretched, flying makes them worse since you can't force nonflying things to block them.
Not to mention:
As to why your post was thought of as a troll, it was because of the way you put it. You didn't call the thread "Why haven't flying creatures rendered non-flyers worthless?" you called it "Non-Flying Creatures are worthless in MTG". That's a statement. Your OP was posted as though it was fact, when by your own admission, you're new to MtG.
Thanks ASW. I learned my lesson and will be more careful about my titles.
This thread is about a new player who lost some deck with a bunch of fliers and decided to make a sweeping statement about the game as a whole. Luckily the tons of players with any experience showed up to reign him in.
No MisterMind. I did not lose some deck. As I was constructing a deck, I felt that flying had a distinct advantage that it led me to open this tread. I did not lose anything to anyone. However, you are correct to state that I am new to Magic.
Maybe then, and only then, would people just quit playing non-flying creatures.
Though flying is often more relevant of a threat in some decks, some creatures that are limited to the ground have great powers or strategies. tarmogoyf, bob, goblin guide, wurmcoil engine, nimble mongoose...I could list good creatures on the ground for hours.
That's true... D/Touch + Flying is a bit weak. Actually, a lot of cool abilities don't synergize with Flying...
Examples? Not sure how synergize is used here, but Flying gives creatures pro and cons just like anything else. Flying allows quick beats, lifelink to trigger when there are no blockers. And in the case with Deathtouch I would definitely trade my Vampire Nighthawk with your Sphinx of Uthuun in limited. On the flip side though, some flyers have 'drawbacks' and also open up the use of Plummet and the such.
What? Flyers suck bro, they can be blocked....you need to invest in "unblockable" creatures. They don't care how big that Goyf is, or if there is a Restoration Angel in play.
Honestly though, go play against a Kiki-Jiki Pod deck (or Jund, or RG Tron) in Modern, or Maverick or Goblins in Legacy. You'll be amazed how fast these "worthless" non-flying things beat you up.
What? Flyers suck bro, they can be blocked....you need to invest in "unblockable" creatures. They don't care how big that Goyf is, or if there is a Restoration Angel in play.
Perhaps I can start building a deck that contains 4x invisible stalker and 4x tormented soul and take it from there. Those cards would be annoying to the opponent. Thanks Adam.
Perhaps I can start building a deck that contains 4x invisible stalker and 4x tormented soul and take it from there. Those cards would be annoying to the opponent. Thanks Adam.
Except you might notice they both are only 1/1. That's not a whole lot of body. Now the Stalker can make great use of equipment since he himself can't be destroyed by cookie-cutter creature destruction (Doom Blade, Tragic Slip, Lightning Bolt...) but the Soul definitely can be nuked just like that.
Unblockable > Horsemanship > Flying, that much is true. But all three are amazing abilities to have.
And no, there isn't any Horsemanship card in recent magic, that is only Portal: Three Kingdoms.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
No, an entire flyer deck alone won't win you the game.
I remember when I started out at magic some 9 years ago.... I had a GREEN DECK!!!!, a BLACK DECK!!!!, and a FLYING DECK!!!!! The flying deck was the most fun, but lacked the raw power of the other two. It's still a great deck for a beginner player to build, gives them a sense of "awww yeah, they can't touch me!" as you race over their heads.
You just need to have some critters on the ground to play defence, some way to stay ahead in the life race, because as a few people have pointed out, you'll be hitting for 2 in the air, they'll be pounding for 4 on the ground. Consider ways of giving your fliers lifelink, or power boosts to keep you ahead.
What colour's do you like to play? Most (barring Green) have a few good fliers to build around.
Assuming this isn't a troll, flying creatures tend to cast higher than equally sized non flyers, or are smaller than equally costed creatures. As such, they come out later in the game and are less of an immediate threat.
Flyers are, of course, pretty boss in limited.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Sure, Flying is a great ability to have. But it's not the end-all in Magic.
Also, Non-Fliers do tend to have more versatile effects. See stuff like Primeval Titan, Huntmaster of the Fells, Snapcaster Mage...
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
What do you mean by Troll? Flying Trolls tend to cast at a loser cost?
Thank you.
As for non-flying creatures being worthless. This is, as has been stated by others, untrue. Flying creatures tend to have a higher casting cost for their size. A classic example is Grizzly Bear and Wind Drake. Both are 2/2 creatures, the only special thing on the drake is that it has flying. So the CC are 1G and 2U respectively. I can cast my bear on turn 2 and attack on turn 3. You can cast your Wind Drake on turn 3 at the earliest and attack on turn 4. If in a static game where we each do nothing more than attack with these two creatures without blocking, I would win as my creature came down first.
This example is not meant to say that flying creatures are bad. They are not. However, on the same note creatures without flying are not worthless. What makes a creature good depends entirely on the deck for which it was built and it's interaction with the rest of the cards in said deck.
Yes Phoenix I know. I am new to Magic and am not sure why my questions are met with suspicion. It just seems such a large advantage to have the flying ability but i appreciate you helping me understand that this is not always the case. Regards, Magnus
It's just that due to the innitiate strength of the keyword Flying, creatures with Flying get toned down a bit in their Power/Toughness department, or they aren't as complex as their non-flying counterparts.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
But yea, limited is probably the only format where you can legit overvalue flyers, in constructed it is not nearly as backbreaking or difficult to deal with.
Standard - N/A
Modern - Infect, Scapeshift
Legacy - TES, High Tide
Flying is rather inefficient. It's more of an ability to win stalemates than anything else, in a way.
There's a big difference between "I think non flyers are weak" to "Non flyers are worthless."
The latter wording is something I'd expect from every other thread here in magic general.
If you're new, then I apologize.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Not to say that flyers aren't tearing up the Standard scene, with The Bug, Blinky the Angel, and Geist and its partner in crime.
*crawl crawl*
Wait a minute, edible roaches don't crawl! EDIBLE ROACHES DON'T CRAWL!
This thread is about a new player who lost some deck with a bunch of fliers and decided to make a sweeping statement about the game as a whole. Luckily the tons of players with any experience showed up to reign him in.
There are even exceptions when the card is identical except for flying. If you're talking, say, Sengir Vampire, Cockatrice, or The Wretched, flying makes them worse since you can't force nonflying things to block them.
No need to apologize Mondu. Thank you
Thanks ASW. I learned my lesson and will be more careful about my titles.
No MisterMind. I did not lose some deck. As I was constructing a deck, I felt that flying had a distinct advantage that it led me to open this tread. I did not lose anything to anyone. However, you are correct to state that I am new to Magic.
Maybe then, and only then, would people just quit playing non-flying creatures.
Though flying is often more relevant of a threat in some decks, some creatures that are limited to the ground have great powers or strategies. tarmogoyf, bob, goblin guide, wurmcoil engine, nimble mongoose...I could list good creatures on the ground for hours.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
Examples? Not sure how synergize is used here, but Flying gives creatures pro and cons just like anything else. Flying allows quick beats, lifelink to trigger when there are no blockers. And in the case with Deathtouch I would definitely trade my Vampire Nighthawk with your Sphinx of Uthuun in limited. On the flip side though, some flyers have 'drawbacks' and also open up the use of Plummet and the such.
Executive Infiltrator of [House Dimir].
My Trade Thread
Current EDH Decks
Braids
Wrexial
Bruna
Marath
Vorel
Tariel WIP
Honestly though, go play against a Kiki-Jiki Pod deck (or Jund, or RG Tron) in Modern, or Maverick or Goblins in Legacy. You'll be amazed how fast these "worthless" non-flying things beat you up.
WBG Karador GBW
R Daretti R
RG Omnath GR
WRG Modern Burn GRW
WB Modern Tokens BW
DCI Rules Advisor as of 5/18/2015
Perhaps I can start building a deck that contains 4x invisible stalker and 4x tormented soul and take it from there. Those cards would be annoying to the opponent. Thanks Adam.
Except you might notice they both are only 1/1. That's not a whole lot of body. Now the Stalker can make great use of equipment since he himself can't be destroyed by cookie-cutter creature destruction (Doom Blade, Tragic Slip, Lightning Bolt...) but the Soul definitely can be nuked just like that.
Unblockable > Horsemanship > Flying, that much is true. But all three are amazing abilities to have.
And no, there isn't any Horsemanship card in recent magic, that is only Portal: Three Kingdoms.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I remember when I started out at magic some 9 years ago.... I had a GREEN DECK!!!!, a BLACK DECK!!!!, and a FLYING DECK!!!!! The flying deck was the most fun, but lacked the raw power of the other two. It's still a great deck for a beginner player to build, gives them a sense of "awww yeah, they can't touch me!" as you race over their heads.
You just need to have some critters on the ground to play defence, some way to stay ahead in the life race, because as a few people have pointed out, you'll be hitting for 2 in the air, they'll be pounding for 4 on the ground. Consider ways of giving your fliers lifelink, or power boosts to keep you ahead.
What colour's do you like to play? Most (barring Green) have a few good fliers to build around.