The thing that black needs to do, above all else, is learn to integrate effectively with the other colors on a pie-level. This notion of insularity -- what tiny-minded twaddle. (The same is true for red, BTW; the MBC and RDW archetypes need to be retired, period.)
Any card with "swamps matter" or a mana cost made up completely of B's is a steaming turd, regardless of power level. You don't see "plains matter" or multiple cards with GGG costs -- no that would threaten the supremacy of Selesnya!
Oh, and don't cite Griselbrand as the color's 'shining example' -- taking enchantments and turning them into creatures is bro-Magic, folks.
Make that 3 card types - Planeswalkers too. I remember playing at FNM vs. a Mono Black deck with just a bunch of removal and Phyrexian Obliterator. The deck was very annoying and the opponent was 3-0 at the time. Luckily, he couldn't handle Moorland Haunt and this was eventually what won the game. With no way to discard lands and no land destruction, he stood no chance if I draw the Haunt. When I was thinking about the deck later, I realized that it had a weakness to Planeswalkers too.
Land destruction is completely gone from Black (and every other color other than the 5 cost Red destroy land). Discard is pretty strong, but something like Hymn to Tourach would really solidify it. Maybe a functional reprint with target player discards 2 cards of his choice? Also the Tutors have become much worse. Honestly, there's no reason for a Tutor to cost 4. There are no Combo decks in standard, but it will hurt other formats. If there was a Tutor for 1B, no one would play that in Standard. Maybe someone would use it to tutor for Thragtusk. However, it would be broken in other formats, Modern included.
Black actually has "remove counters from things" as an odd part of its color pie. They should expand on that.
But you're right otherwise. Black can really ONLY get rid of creatures, and it is worse at it than white. I'm not sure if black is so underpowered as colors like white and green can just do far too much. It will only get worse though because magic is all about "PLUS IS GOOD NEGATIVE IS BAD!!!" A philosophy black cannot survive under.
WotC wouldn't be changing the direction of the game if he was merely a squeeky wheel. Its funny though, here on MTGS its almost like your not allowed to even suggest it.
Having an opinion and having an intelligent discussion is highly encouraged. However, we have a large number of disgruntled players who would rather blame game mechanics instead of improving their own game, or whom make up facts to support an argument lined with hyperbole. A lot of those types of threads and discussions crop up founded on misinformation and unsupported arguments. It's hard to have a constructive conversation when people's passions get in the way of their logic, which happens often on the internet. When people can't accept that they might be wrong or refuse to budge on a stance, room for any sort of discussion rapidly shrinks into going around and around in a vicious cycle.
Having an opinion and having an intelligent discussion is highly encouraged. However, we have a large number of disgruntled players who would rather blame game mechanics instead of improving their own game, or make up facts to support an argument lined with hyperbole. A lot of those types of threads and discussions crop up with misinformation and unsupported arguments. It's hard to have a constructive conversation when people's passions get in the way of their logic, which happens often on the internet. When people can't accept they might be wrong or refuse to budge on a stance, there's not any room for discussion there, either - it's just going around in circles.
Random discard, efficient counterspells, Non-green LD all make newer players mad so they are not printed anymore even though they could be balanced. It needs to be accepted because to do otherwise is an exercise in frustration.
Look at games like LoL or WoW. Enough people complain and relatively strong mechanics will get nerfed/removed in order to cater to the majority. It's a matter of game integrity vs game selling. And companies have stated which they care more about.
Having an opinion and having an intelligent discussion is highly encouraged. However, we have a large number of disgruntled players who would rather blame game mechanics instead of improving their own game, or make up facts to support an argument lined with hyperbole. A lot of those types of threads and discussions crop up with misinformation and unsupported arguments. It's hard to have a constructive conversation when people's passions get in the way of their logic, which happens often on the internet. When people can't accept they might be wrong or refuse to budge on a stance, there's not any room for discussion there, either - it's just going around in circles.
Say I'm playing Act 2 on the draw
My hand is
Blood Crypt
Isolated Chapel
Godless Shrine
Falkenrath Aristocrat
Doomed Traveller
Skirsdag High Priest
Cartel Aristocrat
This is literally the nut hand i have a 5/5 flyer on turn 3 and assuming a land within 4 draw steps a 4/1 haste on turn 4
My opponent goes swamp go
I Draw a Tragic Slip for my turn and play godless shrine untapped and pass
My opponent goes swamp hymm.
If hymm hits two lands then i lose my hand goes from the nut to almost no plays
If hymm hits Falkenrath land then i am not in great shape but still have a solid hand.
If Hymm hits Tragic Slip Falkenrath then dont really care i still have a 5/5 on turn 3
I can't "Improve my game" to stop hymm for hitting 2 lands and killing me on the spot just like you can't "Improve your game" and stop hymm from hitting slip falkenrath and leaving my with 5/5s on turn 3.
Hymm is not a skill intensive card you cast it and maybe you lucksack into an autowin that is not fun to play with against or a fun game to watch.
Edit: Thought i was quoting the person defending hymm in standard. I apologize for the misquote
Random discard, efficient counterspells, Non-green LD all make newer players mad so they are not printed anymore even though they could be balanced. It needs to be accepted because to do otherwise is an exercise in frustration.
Look at games like LoL or WoW. Enough people complain and relatively strong mechanics will get nerfed/removed in order to cater to the majority. It's a matter of game integrity vs game selling. And companies have stated which they care more about.
I wasn't disagreeing with those things; I was just replying to Yamaha's comment that users aren't allowed to have an opinion here on the forums.
I do have to disagree with your comment regarding WoW, however. I've been playing the game for seven years. Despite the exaggeration and knee-jerk reactions to nerfs in the game, changes very rarely come at the behest of the vocal minority on the internet. Keep in mind that the majority of players of WoW and Magic both aren't here on the forums complaining. It's basic human psychology that people who are content or don't care are more likely to not say anything than those who are displeased.
If changes are made for a direction of something in LoL, WoW or Magic, it's because through testing the developers found that those changes were better for the health of the game; they aren't made because of a loud minority. If they were, these games would be in ruins.
If changes are made for a direction of something in LoL, WoW or Magic, it's because through testing the developers found that those changes were better for the health of the game; they aren't made because of a loud minority. If they were, these games would be in ruins.
Lots of their balance is based on what the majority of the players find "fun" not what is objectively imbalanced. I disagree with that philosophy.
Regarding the idea that land destruction and discard are "un-fun":
It's certainly true that those strategies can be off-putting to casual players (and given that casuals are by far the largest player group, some quote unquote catering to casuals is prudent business-sense; this is a larger discussion for another thread), but the real problem with those strategies (and I contend the real reason they have been downplayed) is that they make it very difficult or even impossible to make a correct decision when choosing whether or not to mulligan, and the larger sense, magnify the effects of Mana Screw and bad luck.
For example, I'm on the draw and choose to keep a hand with three lands. Opponent drops second swamp, plays Hymn to Tourach, and I have the bad luck to discard two lands. (I've both caused this and been on the receiving end of this scenario many times.) If I do not draw a land on my next turn, I'm almost certainly toast (and even then I'm probably in trouble). Now replace that second turn Hymn with third turn and fourth turn Land Destruction spells aimed my way - pretty much the same problem.
In scenario one, unless I have a Force of Will, Force Spike or something; or maybe played a mana elf on turn 1, I have basically no chance to stop getting screwed over - and all just because I didn't play first. I essentially lost due to random chance (or at least because I chose not to play to Blue). Scenario two is a bit better in that I have more opportunities to respond, but there is still a good chance I'll get locked out of the game pretty fast, especially if I do not draw any lands in a timely manner, or if my opponent has more Land Destruction available. Again, I'm arguably being penalized simply for not going first.
Obviously there are ways to build a deck to mitigate both of these scenarios, but (I suppose with the exception of Affinity) that has pretty much always been true for any given strategy, and in these two cases I would argue that it requires such dedication that there is a steep deck-building cost of removing the versatility needed to deal with other types of decks.
Regarding the idea that land destruction and discard are "un-fun":
It's certainly true that those strategies can be off-putting to casual players (and given that casuals are by far the largest player group, some quote unquote catering to casuals is prudent business-sense; this is a larger discussion for another thread), but the real problem with those strategies (and I contend the real reason they have been downplayed) is that they make it very difficult or even impossible to make a correct decision when choosing whether or not to mulligan, and the larger sense, magnify the effects of Mana Screw and bad luck.
I think the "causal balance" issue is VERY relevant to black suffering. But moreso is blacks inability to do anything except discard, kill creatures poorly, or hurt itself.
Honestly my only problem with CHEAP land destruction is that it messes with the already flawed resource system in the game. You can run a deck that is heavy on mana and still get mana screwed... so when one of the only lands you will see all game gets nuked on turn two, that is really discouraging.
Land destruction in a multiplayer game, or when it is attached to a pricier spell (like most recent destruction) or in something long like Commander as a response to fancy lands... that is a lot less soul crushing.
Not only that. White also gets ****ing Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite! Because ... nobody knows why ?!?
Seriously I believe that Black really needs a lot of things. But ultimately it's for the R&D to decide.
I'd just like to point out that Elesh Norn is a really bad example to use here. New Phyrexia was a set where the color pie was meant to be screwy due to it being on Phyrexia and how the mana suns effected them.
I never saw Hymn as unfun. If anything, I saw the random element as something Spikes hate (also applies to Hypnotic Specter and Mind Twist.
And that's the heart of the matter. Newbies hate discard in general. More experienced people are ok with it, but people are weirdly insulted by random discard, in particular. People get way more bent out of shape by hymn to tourach than they do thoughtseize, inquisition of kozilek, or duress, even though in most cases the latter is more consistent and therefore better.
I think experienced players feel like the random discard suddenly means they lost because the other guy "got lucky."
But seriously if the Random discard bugs people so much - they could simply make a Mind Rot costing two black mana or something like that. It still would be a nice card.
So the issue is that a mono-colored deck isn't flourishing in a multi-colored format?
Except, Mono-Black hasn't really flourished since Vampires were viable in Zendikar, and then the last time was far, far, farrrr before that. The only mono-black presence since the Black Summer have ended up being fringe decks that barely rank or see competitive play. Zombies was almost never played over Goblin Bidding or other decks during Odyssey/Onslaught; There weren't any actual mono-black viable decks from then clear up to Zendikar for Vampires; Then, after all that time, Vampires was short lived and was pushed out by the likes of Valakut Ramp and Cawblade; After Innistrad came out, there were fringe mono-black decks that almost never topped, and the most recent incarnation of Mono-Black was Zombies early on when Dark Ascension released, but that quickly went over to multicolor variants and didn't last.
Not that anyone would want to play mono-colored decks as opposed to cutting chaff and playing multicolor decks, anyway, when dual lands and mana fixing have been constant. Zendikar had fetchlands, Scars of Mirrodin had speedlands, Innistrad had enemy checklands, now we have all 10 shocklands and every Core Set in between has had the original checklands. But even with having a good reason not to play mono-color decks, Black has still been terrible since Necropotence put the fear of Black into Wizards.
First I would like to say that black is my favorite color. Our biggest problem is the best cards in black are impossible to cast unless you want to go full mono black. If its a good black card they want to make it almost all colored mana symbols.
Is black really that bad? I would say blue is the colour that has been hit the hardest. Yes, it has powerful cards, but not many, and is currently struggling in the current metagame.
It wasn't long ago that zombies decks were the talk of everything. this wasn't that long ago.
People are still playing unburial rights and aristocrats.
Esper is still a deck.
I suspect upon rotation, people will really see how good black is too. Golgari with red or white is going to be a thing.
Except, Mono-Black hasn't really flourished since Vampires were viable in Zendikar, and then the last time was far, far, farrrr before that. The only mono-black presence since the Black Summer have ended up being fringe decks that barely rank or see competitive play. Zombies was almost never played over Goblin Bidding or other decks during Odyssey/Onslaught; There weren't any actual mono-black viable decks from then clear up to Zendikar for Vampires; Then, after all that time, Vampires was short lived and was pushed out by the likes of Valakut Ramp and Cawblade; After Innistrad came out, there were fringe mono-black decks that almost never topped, and the most recent incarnation of Mono-Black was Zombies early on when Dark Ascension released, but that quickly went over to multicolor variants and didn't last.
Not that anyone would want to play mono-colored decks as opposed to cutting chaff and playing multicolor decks, anyway, when dual lands and mana fixing have been constant. Zendikar had fetchlands, Scars of Mirrodin had speedlands, Innistrad had enemy checklands, now we have all 10 shocklands and every Core Set in between has had the original checklands. But even with having a good reason not to play mono-color decks, Black has still been terrible since Necropotence put the fear of Black into Wizards.
What about Alara Standard, though? You were playing UB Faeries, or BW tokens, or Jund, or 5 color control, which has black, but I guess technically doesn't count for or against anyone.
The only nonblack decks I remember from that time were Boat Brew and UW Reveillark. But Esper Reveillark variants were really good too, it was a matter of taste whether to add black to that.
What about Alara Standard, though? You were playing UB Faeries, or BW tokens, or Jund, or 5 color control, which has black, but I guess technically doesn't count for or against anyone.
The only nonblack decks I remember from that time were Boat Brew and UW Reveillark. But Esper Reveillark variants were really good too, it was a matter of taste whether to add black to that.
That's the point, though, is that Black hasn't been strong enough to stand up by itself as a competitive force. The great majority of the time ever since the Black Summer, Black only sees competitive play is as a splash for utility (generally for removal spells, since discard isn't even necessary with the lack of classic control archetypes). The last time mono-black had any staying power was Zendikar Vampires. Anything since was fringe or quickly got hated out. Even outside of a Standard-centric scope, you rarely see mono-black in other formats. We get the occasional power house cards like Liliana of the Veil, and other cards like Geralf's Messenger, Gravecrawler or Phyrexian Obliterator as recent examples; but, Black consistently lacks the strength to hold a feasible mono-colored deck together. Other colors always offer something so much better, that there's never any reason to play Black alone.
Is black really that bad? I would say blue is the colour that has been hit the hardest. Yes, it has powerful cards, but not many, and is currently struggling in the current metagame.
It wasn't long ago that zombies decks were the talk of everything. this wasn't that long ago.
People are still playing unburial rights and aristocrats.
Esper is still a deck.
I suspect upon rotation, people will really see how good black is too. Golgari with red or white is going to be a thing.
Please note that Delver of secrets dominated standard from the time it was printed until ponder rotated then went on to be a major contender in legacy. How many black cards have been printed in the past few years that have an archetype based around them in legacy? Let alone a common card? Delver has even seen play in modern and if ponder or preordain gets un-banned it will see a lot of play. Not to mention snapcaster
Only reason zombies saw play was as a "sledghammer" deck that hit hard with a mono red card thundermaw hellkite. If that card hadn't been printed to hose lingering souls (note a white uncommon seeing legacy play) zombies would have never taken over for any amount of time. I played the deck. Thundermaw could turn a game around very fast.
Frites is a green ramp/midrange deck that can make use of it's graveyard with rites. it is not however a "black deck". 1 card that is usually used for its white casting cost dose not a black deck make. Aristocrats is kind of a black deck but focuses more on white and red beats but uses the aristocrats as sac outlets and nothing more. an aristocrats list can run only those 2 cards in black and still run.
Also blue/white anything control is sphinx based right now. nothing black about drawing lots of cards AND gaining life. pretty sure that's the opposite of what black likes.
I would say the only 3 cards really worth it in the last few years are Deathrite Shawman, lilli of the veil, and Abrupt decay. nothing else black has offered can make a lasting impression.
Xenphire, The same can be said for blue though. What does blue honestly have that is good? Aetherling? Snapcaster? That is all that comes to mind.
Supreme Verdict, Sphinx's Revelation and Detention Sphere - all powerful cards - require white in their casting costs, although it wouldn't surprise me one bit that many players think of these inherently as blue cards.
Other than mono-red, there hasn't been a good mono-coloured deck that I can think of in ages, so the expectation that one ought to be black is unrealistic.
Like it or not, we are in a multi-coloured format, and in that format, black doesn't have a right to complain. It has seen its fair share of good cards, from Falkenrath Aristocrat, Olivia, Rakdos' Return, Lilliana, Vampire Nighthawk, Obzedat, Blood Baron, Deathrite Shaman, Lotleth Troll, Sin Collector, Dreadbore, Abrupt Decay, Putrefy and basically all of the charms.
I fail to see the problem.
feastofthedead, as for Delver/Snapcaster, the answer to your question is Lilliana of the Veil.
Black should absolutley not get hymn. You can absolutly get auto-wins by discarding your opponents two lands - something that is absolutely unsurvivable in standard but not in legacy.
Personally, I would like to see more creatures like Gatekeeper of Malakir. Competitively costed bears or beasts with ETB discard or ETB sacrifice, possibly requiring harsh triple black costs or life payments.
I also think a BB mind rot would be completely acceptable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Any card with "swamps matter" or a mana cost made up completely of B's is a steaming turd, regardless of power level. You don't see "plains matter" or multiple cards with GGG costs -- no that would threaten the supremacy of Selesnya!
Oh, and don't cite Griselbrand as the color's 'shining example' -- taking enchantments and turning them into creatures is bro-Magic, folks.
Black actually has "remove counters from things" as an odd part of its color pie. They should expand on that.
But you're right otherwise. Black can really ONLY get rid of creatures, and it is worse at it than white. I'm not sure if black is so underpowered as colors like white and green can just do far too much. It will only get worse though because magic is all about "PLUS IS GOOD NEGATIVE IS BAD!!!" A philosophy black cannot survive under.
Having an opinion and having an intelligent discussion is highly encouraged. However, we have a large number of disgruntled players who would rather blame game mechanics instead of improving their own game, or whom make up facts to support an argument lined with hyperbole. A lot of those types of threads and discussions crop up founded on misinformation and unsupported arguments. It's hard to have a constructive conversation when people's passions get in the way of their logic, which happens often on the internet. When people can't accept that they might be wrong or refuse to budge on a stance, room for any sort of discussion rapidly shrinks into going around and around in a vicious cycle.
(Also known as Xenphire)
Random discard, efficient counterspells, Non-green LD all make newer players mad so they are not printed anymore even though they could be balanced. It needs to be accepted because to do otherwise is an exercise in frustration.
Look at games like LoL or WoW. Enough people complain and relatively strong mechanics will get nerfed/removed in order to cater to the majority. It's a matter of game integrity vs game selling. And companies have stated which they care more about.
Say I'm playing Act 2 on the draw
My hand is
Blood Crypt
Isolated Chapel
Godless Shrine
Falkenrath Aristocrat
Doomed Traveller
Skirsdag High Priest
Cartel Aristocrat
This is literally the nut hand i have a 5/5 flyer on turn 3 and assuming a land within 4 draw steps a 4/1 haste on turn 4
My opponent goes swamp go
I Draw a Tragic Slip for my turn and play godless shrine untapped and pass
My opponent goes swamp hymm.
If hymm hits two lands then i lose my hand goes from the nut to almost no plays
If hymm hits Falkenrath land then i am not in great shape but still have a solid hand.
If Hymm hits Tragic Slip Falkenrath then dont really care i still have a 5/5 on turn 3
I can't "Improve my game" to stop hymm for hitting 2 lands and killing me on the spot just like you can't "Improve your game" and stop hymm from hitting slip falkenrath and leaving my with 5/5s on turn 3.
Hymm is not a skill intensive card you cast it and maybe you lucksack into an autowin that is not fun to play with against or a fun game to watch.
Edit: Thought i was quoting the person defending hymm in standard. I apologize for the misquote
I wasn't disagreeing with those things; I was just replying to Yamaha's comment that users aren't allowed to have an opinion here on the forums.
I do have to disagree with your comment regarding WoW, however. I've been playing the game for seven years. Despite the exaggeration and knee-jerk reactions to nerfs in the game, changes very rarely come at the behest of the vocal minority on the internet. Keep in mind that the majority of players of WoW and Magic both aren't here on the forums complaining. It's basic human psychology that people who are content or don't care are more likely to not say anything than those who are displeased.
If changes are made for a direction of something in LoL, WoW or Magic, it's because through testing the developers found that those changes were better for the health of the game; they aren't made because of a loud minority. If they were, these games would be in ruins.
(Also known as Xenphire)
Lots of their balance is based on what the majority of the players find "fun" not what is objectively imbalanced. I disagree with that philosophy.
It's certainly true that those strategies can be off-putting to casual players (and given that casuals are by far the largest player group, some quote unquote catering to casuals is prudent business-sense; this is a larger discussion for another thread), but the real problem with those strategies (and I contend the real reason they have been downplayed) is that they make it very difficult or even impossible to make a correct decision when choosing whether or not to mulligan, and the larger sense, magnify the effects of Mana Screw and bad luck.
For example, I'm on the draw and choose to keep a hand with three lands. Opponent drops second swamp, plays Hymn to Tourach, and I have the bad luck to discard two lands. (I've both caused this and been on the receiving end of this scenario many times.) If I do not draw a land on my next turn, I'm almost certainly toast (and even then I'm probably in trouble). Now replace that second turn Hymn with third turn and fourth turn Land Destruction spells aimed my way - pretty much the same problem.
In scenario one, unless I have a Force of Will, Force Spike or something; or maybe played a mana elf on turn 1, I have basically no chance to stop getting screwed over - and all just because I didn't play first. I essentially lost due to random chance (or at least because I chose not to play to Blue). Scenario two is a bit better in that I have more opportunities to respond, but there is still a good chance I'll get locked out of the game pretty fast, especially if I do not draw any lands in a timely manner, or if my opponent has more Land Destruction available. Again, I'm arguably being penalized simply for not going first.
Obviously there are ways to build a deck to mitigate both of these scenarios, but (I suppose with the exception of Affinity) that has pretty much always been true for any given strategy, and in these two cases I would argue that it requires such dedication that there is a steep deck-building cost of removing the versatility needed to deal with other types of decks.
I think the "causal balance" issue is VERY relevant to black suffering. But moreso is blacks inability to do anything except discard, kill creatures poorly, or hurt itself.
Land destruction in a multiplayer game, or when it is attached to a pricier spell (like most recent destruction) or in something long like Commander as a response to fancy lands... that is a lot less soul crushing.
www.theconnoisseurs.com
I'd just like to point out that Elesh Norn is a really bad example to use here. New Phyrexia was a set where the color pie was meant to be screwy due to it being on Phyrexia and how the mana suns effected them.
(Also known as Xenphire)
And that's the heart of the matter. Newbies hate discard in general. More experienced people are ok with it, but people are weirdly insulted by random discard, in particular. People get way more bent out of shape by hymn to tourach than they do thoughtseize, inquisition of kozilek, or duress, even though in most cases the latter is more consistent and therefore better.
I think experienced players feel like the random discard suddenly means they lost because the other guy "got lucky."
You mean like wrench mind?
So the issue is that a mono-colored deck isn't flourishing in a multi-colored format?
Except, Mono-Black hasn't really flourished since Vampires were viable in Zendikar, and then the last time was far, far, farrrr before that. The only mono-black presence since the Black Summer have ended up being fringe decks that barely rank or see competitive play. Zombies was almost never played over Goblin Bidding or other decks during Odyssey/Onslaught; There weren't any actual mono-black viable decks from then clear up to Zendikar for Vampires; Then, after all that time, Vampires was short lived and was pushed out by the likes of Valakut Ramp and Cawblade; After Innistrad came out, there were fringe mono-black decks that almost never topped, and the most recent incarnation of Mono-Black was Zombies early on when Dark Ascension released, but that quickly went over to multicolor variants and didn't last.
Not that anyone would want to play mono-colored decks as opposed to cutting chaff and playing multicolor decks, anyway, when dual lands and mana fixing have been constant. Zendikar had fetchlands, Scars of Mirrodin had speedlands, Innistrad had enemy checklands, now we have all 10 shocklands and every Core Set in between has had the original checklands. But even with having a good reason not to play mono-color decks, Black has still been terrible since Necropotence put the fear of Black into Wizards.
(Also known as Xenphire)
Pretty good way of putting it.
It wasn't long ago that zombies decks were the talk of everything. this wasn't that long ago.
People are still playing unburial rights and aristocrats.
Esper is still a deck.
I suspect upon rotation, people will really see how good black is too. Golgari with red or white is going to be a thing.
What about Alara Standard, though? You were playing UB Faeries, or BW tokens, or Jund, or 5 color control, which has black, but I guess technically doesn't count for or against anyone.
The only nonblack decks I remember from that time were Boat Brew and UW Reveillark. But Esper Reveillark variants were really good too, it was a matter of taste whether to add black to that.
That's the point, though, is that Black hasn't been strong enough to stand up by itself as a competitive force. The great majority of the time ever since the Black Summer, Black only sees competitive play is as a splash for utility (generally for removal spells, since discard isn't even necessary with the lack of classic control archetypes). The last time mono-black had any staying power was Zendikar Vampires. Anything since was fringe or quickly got hated out. Even outside of a Standard-centric scope, you rarely see mono-black in other formats. We get the occasional power house cards like Liliana of the Veil, and other cards like Geralf's Messenger, Gravecrawler or Phyrexian Obliterator as recent examples; but, Black consistently lacks the strength to hold a feasible mono-colored deck together. Other colors always offer something so much better, that there's never any reason to play Black alone.
(Also known as Xenphire)
Please note that Delver of secrets dominated standard from the time it was printed until ponder rotated then went on to be a major contender in legacy. How many black cards have been printed in the past few years that have an archetype based around them in legacy? Let alone a common card? Delver has even seen play in modern and if ponder or preordain gets un-banned it will see a lot of play. Not to mention snapcaster
Only reason zombies saw play was as a "sledghammer" deck that hit hard with a mono red card thundermaw hellkite. If that card hadn't been printed to hose lingering souls (note a white uncommon seeing legacy play) zombies would have never taken over for any amount of time. I played the deck. Thundermaw could turn a game around very fast.
Frites is a green ramp/midrange deck that can make use of it's graveyard with rites. it is not however a "black deck". 1 card that is usually used for its white casting cost dose not a black deck make. Aristocrats is kind of a black deck but focuses more on white and red beats but uses the aristocrats as sac outlets and nothing more. an aristocrats list can run only those 2 cards in black and still run.
Also blue/white anything control is sphinx based right now. nothing black about drawing lots of cards AND gaining life. pretty sure that's the opposite of what black likes.
I would say the only 3 cards really worth it in the last few years are Deathrite Shawman, lilli of the veil, and Abrupt decay. nothing else black has offered can make a lasting impression.
Supreme Verdict, Sphinx's Revelation and Detention Sphere - all powerful cards - require white in their casting costs, although it wouldn't surprise me one bit that many players think of these inherently as blue cards.
Other than mono-red, there hasn't been a good mono-coloured deck that I can think of in ages, so the expectation that one ought to be black is unrealistic.
Like it or not, we are in a multi-coloured format, and in that format, black doesn't have a right to complain. It has seen its fair share of good cards, from Falkenrath Aristocrat, Olivia, Rakdos' Return, Lilliana, Vampire Nighthawk, Obzedat, Blood Baron, Deathrite Shaman, Lotleth Troll, Sin Collector, Dreadbore, Abrupt Decay, Putrefy and basically all of the charms.
I fail to see the problem.
feastofthedead, as for Delver/Snapcaster, the answer to your question is Lilliana of the Veil.
Personally, I would like to see more creatures like Gatekeeper of Malakir. Competitively costed bears or beasts with ETB discard or ETB sacrifice, possibly requiring harsh triple black costs or life payments.
I also think a BB mind rot would be completely acceptable.