I don't really have anything against most aggro decks, but for whatever reason I always roll my eyes at Red Deck Wins in Standard.
I can imagine a Tournament Organizer going to where they hang out with a "Hey, we're having a tournament this weekend, do you want to come and be the variance?"
That's not what I am loathing. It's the fact that they play easy mode with cash and have the hubris to claim they are better than anyone else.
Maybe it's because I'm a Johnny and they are spikes...
There are competitive budget options as well. There is no reason to cheapen someone's win by saying they only won with their wallet. Classic example but burn/mono-red aggro/R/g aggro always stands a decent chance at winning and depending on the build will cost less than $100.
Just last FNM I show up with my Titan Bloom deck. Now I consider myself to be an OK player, but I just got stomped by someone playing Goblin Tribal. I'm not even talking the Tier 3 modern deck. Im saying someone expecting to play standard just threw together every goblin that was standard legal and proceeded to stomp my face.
All this to say that skill(or lack thereof) will often(not always) be a determining factor in who wins a match. And it always irks me when someone claims people only win because they have reached a point in their life where they can afford to spend money on something the truly enjoy.
I'm usually the last person to say a deck takes no skill play, but burn hardly takes a lick of skill to play.
Under most circumstances I'd say you're right, but some of the best Burn players have the skill to turn unfavorable situations into winning ones.
See Patrick Sullivan against Maverick in the top 8 of an Open a couple years back.
I've seen the clip, but that was also legacy, a format where almost every deck either has coincidental life gain or counterspells main board and burn has access to fireblast which leads to more possible interactions and decisions. Also, Sullivan was hardly in an 'unfavorable position' if I remember correctly. His opponent was likely dead to another burn spell on top on the next turn regardless of the opponent's play. I don't think modern burn can really constitute such dynamic play like you see in legacy. Your options to out-playing your opponent's opposing life gain in modern is leaving up skullcrack, and most modern decks just have to hope they draw whatever card they use against burn to begin with. Modern decks are also are inherently disadvantaged against burn due to typically more painful mana bases which makes match ups like abzan a breeze for burn players.
The good players may still be able to turn unfavorable situations into wins, but at the end of the day the deck is just goldfishing, and sometimes it will just get there. Many of the decks in modern are at the mercy of it and whatever *****ty lifegain spells they have to play against it and hope to draw. I adamantly stand by my statement, and further discourage people from playing the deck.
Also, why did this thread get necro'd by some random griping EDH player? lol
I don't really have anything against most aggro decks, but for whatever reason I always roll my eyes at Red Deck Wins in Standard.
I can imagine a Tournament Organizer going to where they hang out with a "Hey, we're having a tournament this weekend, do you want to come and be the variance?"
Didn't it just win a big tournament?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
There are competitive budget options as well. There is no reason to cheapen someone's win by saying they only won with their wallet. Classic example but burn/mono-red aggro/R/g aggro always stands a decent chance at winning and depending on the build will cost less than $100.
Just last FNM I show up with my Titan Bloom deck. Now I consider myself to be an OK player, but I just got stomped by someone playing Goblin Tribal. I'm not even talking the Tier 3 modern deck. Im saying someone expecting to play standard just threw together every goblin that was standard legal and proceeded to stomp my face.
All this to say that skill(or lack thereof) will often(not always) be a determining factor in who wins a match. And it always irks me when someone claims people only win because they have reached a point in their life where they can afford to spend money on something the truly enjoy.
It's not about cheapening anyone's win. I don't go off telling people they are bad players for playing good cards. However, I personally do not find it satisfying to win with or lose against decks simply because the decks are only equipped with money cards.
Modern is not a good format to put this to the test since there are tons of cheap decks that can make it to the top and also cheap answers to expensive cards. However, take 2 NAYA ZOO decks: one with 4 Tarmagoyfs and one without. One deck will have much higher chances of outperforming the other simply because of a 800$ difference. But again, modern isn't a good example.
However, if you look at the top decks in standard over the last 5 years, you will find that you can easily slap into a deck the most expensive cards of the format and outperform fairly well any other deck. If I were to look at standard right now, I can easily pick the most expensive cards for MARDU, JESKAI, ABZAN, etc. Put them together and still get a competitive deck. Put in 10 walkers, 6-8 bombs, 18 removal/counter/burn spells and all the lands you need. The deck will be ~300$ and will win a fair amount of time.
I think it just sucks to play with/against such decks.
I've seen the clip, but that was also legacy, a format where almost every deck either has coincidental life gain or counterspells main board and burn has access to fireblast which leads to more possible interactions and decisions. Also, Sullivan was hardly in an 'unfavorable position' if I remember correctly. His opponent was likely dead to another burn spell on top on the next turn regardless of the opponent's play. I don't think modern burn can really constitute such dynamic play like you see in legacy. Your options to out-playing your opponent's opposing life gain in modern is leaving up skullcrack, and most modern decks just have to hope they draw whatever card they use against burn to begin with. Modern decks are also are inherently disadvantaged against burn due to typically more painful mana bases which makes match ups like abzan a breeze for burn players.
The good players may still be able to turn unfavorable situations into wins, but at the end of the day the deck is just goldfishing, and sometimes it will just get there. Many of the decks in modern are at the mercy of it and whatever *****ty lifegain spells they have to play against it and hope to draw. I adamantly stand by my statement, and further discourage people from playing the deck.
Also, why did this thread get necro'd by some random griping EDH player? lol
Sullivan was at 5, his opponent was at 13. He had a Sulfuric Vortex in play, along with 4 lands. His opponent had a Jitte, a few creatures, a Qasali Pridemage, and only an untapped Wasteland. Sullivan thought long and hard before casting Flame Rift, putting his opponent at 9 and himself at 1. He did this to telegraph to his opponent that "I can kill you before my next draw step, and this Sulfuric Vortex is integral to my plan." He baited his opponent into tapping his Wasteland to blow up the Vortex, removing his ability to drop his nonbasic land count below Price of Progress range. Upon doing so, Sullivan quickly did away with him using Price and Fireblast.
He was hardly in a favorable position. His opponent had lethal on the board that turn, and could play around either Sulfuric Vortex or Price of Progress. Sullivan recognized that his only out was if his opponent made a mistake, so he crafted the game to present a scenario where there was even a mistake to be made.
THAT is a sign of an excellent Burn player.
I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Modern Burn. That build is a LOT more straightforward.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
I've seen the clip, but that was also legacy, a format where almost every deck either has coincidental life gain or counterspells main board and burn has access to fireblast which leads to more possible interactions and decisions. Also, Sullivan was hardly in an 'unfavorable position' if I remember correctly. His opponent was likely dead to another burn spell on top on the next turn regardless of the opponent's play. I don't think modern burn can really constitute such dynamic play like you see in legacy. Your options to out-playing your opponent's opposing life gain in modern is leaving up skullcrack, and most modern decks just have to hope they draw whatever card they use against burn to begin with. Modern decks are also are inherently disadvantaged against burn due to typically more painful mana bases which makes match ups like abzan a breeze for burn players.
The good players may still be able to turn unfavorable situations into wins, but at the end of the day the deck is just goldfishing, and sometimes it will just get there. Many of the decks in modern are at the mercy of it and whatever *****ty lifegain spells they have to play against it and hope to draw. I adamantly stand by my statement, and further discourage people from playing the deck.
Also, why did this thread get necro'd by some random griping EDH player? lol
Sullivan was at 5, his opponent was at 13. He had a Sulfuric Vortex in play, along with 4 lands. His opponent had a Jitte, a few creatures, a Qasali Pridemage, and only an untapped Wasteland. Sullivan thought long and hard before casting Flame Rift, putting his opponent at 9 and himself at 1. He did this to telegraph to his opponent that "I can kill you before my next draw step, and this Sulfuric Vortex is integral to my plan." He baited his opponent into tapping his Wasteland to blow up the Vortex, removing his ability to drop his nonbasic land count below Price of Progress range. Upon doing so, Sullivan quickly did away with him using Price and Fireblast.
He was hardly in a favorable position. His opponent had lethal on the board that turn, and could play around either Sulfuric Vortex or Price of Progress. Sullivan recognized that his only out was if his opponent made a mistake, so he crafted the game to present a scenario where there was even a mistake to be made.
THAT is a sign of an excellent Burn player.
I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Modern Burn. That build is a LOT more straightforward.
Yeah, its hard to remember the game for me, its a been a while since I've seen it (does anyone have a link to it? I can't seem to find the video). I do remember his opponent lost upon tapping his wasteland to activate pridemage...but it seemed to me, if I remember correctly, that at that point it was almost a toss up. To me, his opponent probably made the correct decision knowing that the chances of him having both price of progress and fireblast were pretty small. Getting rid of sulfuric vortex, while opening him up to the price of progress which he may have suspected, would almost guarantee his victory...barring the fireblast which he may have failed to account for, but more than likely just hoped that sullivan didn't have it. He may have called what he thought was a bluff from sullivan, but sullivan wasn't bluffing. I probably would have also chosen to blow up vortex in that scenario regardless of what Sullivan may have been fishing for.
Anyways, the point remains the same. I don't mind playing burn at all in legacy: there are other decks that are similar in play style yet more consistent, and whatever I happen to play I can rest assured knowing that I have the tools to combat it that aren't just bad cards. Even if I happen to be playing a deck that isn't favored against burn at least I don't have to play feed the clan or dragon's claw. In modern, you either play a deck that can race it, or you have to dedicate several *****ty cards for the match up to your sideboard and hope to draw them in the match up to hope you have a chance.
I feel like many people on this thread have the wrong mindset when they play Magic. Why should you blame your opponent for playing a deck that's better than yours or counters yours? I see so many people hating on combo: why don't you have any counterspells or discard? Hate on dredge: Why don't you have rest in peace, leyline of the void (which dredge folds to instantly) or even a deathrite shaman? Hate on infect: Where is your removal spells, or why aren't your creatures good enough to block? Hate on storm: where is your mindbreak trap or trinisphere? Hate on trinisphere: Why don't you have any artifact removal, counterspells etc.? It sounds to me like the majority of people on this thread are really just poor magic players who lack the ability to plan ahead, and then blame their opponent for having better decks than they do. That being said, I agree that many cards ARE annoying to play against, but often times those cards are a key component of the opponent's strategy. Simply pouting about it and quitting a game is a disservice to you and your opponent. Another thing to consider is that, in a casual environment, how should you expect the opponent to know how much he needs to limit the power level of his deck in order for you to be okay with it? What if you are playing a mono black devotion deck and stomp on someone who has a strictly worse deck, is it then your fault for not catering to his bad deck? Or is it a learning experience for that player and a means to improve himself as a player? Now don't get me wrong, players that gloat about beating you with a superior deck are probably not worth playing with.
That being said,the only decks that "annoy" me are uninspired ones, such as delver, miracles and burn. They only annoy me because they aren't exciting and everyone has seen them a million times before.
The point of this thread is to complain. I dislike getting beaten by combo. It always feels like an unsatisfying loss. Especially my one casual friend who built the Leyline of the Void/Helm of obedience deck.
I think its less about decks that I play against, and more to deal with the lack of competency when piloting a deck. I mainly play EDH now, and nothing is more infuriating than when someone uses a removal spell not on the most common sense target.
The only deck I really don't care for is Reanimator/Show and Tell.
The most annoying deck in competitive magic is burn. 95 % of the time it is just brainless shoot you into face and zero interactions. Then in games two and three it is pretty much same but with extra spice "Did you draw your sideboard cards". I always hope that burn decks get paired against each other so they can feel the high quality of that match.
Way back in the day, I used to loath Land Destruction. Not much bothers me in a competitive setting now though. It's expected.
Infinite combos are pretty annoying in multiplayer casual. If we are all dead turn four, we will play for second place and let the winner rethink his next deck to play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
============================
Hooked on Magic since The Dark.
Blue Rules. Berserk, Fork, Fork, Fork, Fork
"Does trample go around the table?"
============================
In the future, rather than necroing a 2-year-old thread, let's make a new thread instead...
Personally, I find that I enjoy most decks. Group Hug can be annoying at times, but it has its charms as well. There's a few cards here and there that I could do without seeing.
What Iseroc said. Any deck that inhibits interaction. Mill-decks are a pure waste of time, control-decks are as well. The worst are decks full with counter-spells. None of these deck-types require much finesse and none of these deck-types create fun, balanced, exciting and fair games. Some amount of removal and counter-spells is totally normal and legit, but if every second card you play is removal....well....
I can imagine a Tournament Organizer going to where they hang out with a "Hey, we're having a tournament this weekend, do you want to come and be the variance?"
Maybe it's because I'm a Johnny and they are spikes...
RETIRED - GAME SUCKS
Modern:
UUUMerfolksUUU
RGoblinsR
Ad Nauseam
BR 8 Racks RB
WUB Mill BUW
Legacy:
XOps! All splels! X
What I think of MaRo
Just last FNM I show up with my Titan Bloom deck. Now I consider myself to be an OK player, but I just got stomped by someone playing Goblin Tribal. I'm not even talking the Tier 3 modern deck. Im saying someone expecting to play standard just threw together every goblin that was standard legal and proceeded to stomp my face.
All this to say that skill(or lack thereof) will often(not always) be a determining factor in who wins a match. And it always irks me when someone claims people only win because they have reached a point in their life where they can afford to spend money on something the truly enjoy.
I've seen the clip, but that was also legacy, a format where almost every deck either has coincidental life gain or counterspells main board and burn has access to fireblast which leads to more possible interactions and decisions. Also, Sullivan was hardly in an 'unfavorable position' if I remember correctly. His opponent was likely dead to another burn spell on top on the next turn regardless of the opponent's play. I don't think modern burn can really constitute such dynamic play like you see in legacy. Your options to out-playing your opponent's opposing life gain in modern is leaving up skullcrack, and most modern decks just have to hope they draw whatever card they use against burn to begin with. Modern decks are also are inherently disadvantaged against burn due to typically more painful mana bases which makes match ups like abzan a breeze for burn players.
The good players may still be able to turn unfavorable situations into wins, but at the end of the day the deck is just goldfishing, and sometimes it will just get there. Many of the decks in modern are at the mercy of it and whatever *****ty lifegain spells they have to play against it and hope to draw. I adamantly stand by my statement, and further discourage people from playing the deck.
Also, why did this thread get necro'd by some random griping EDH player? lol
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
Didn't it just win a big tournament?
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
It's not about cheapening anyone's win. I don't go off telling people they are bad players for playing good cards. However, I personally do not find it satisfying to win with or lose against decks simply because the decks are only equipped with money cards.
Modern is not a good format to put this to the test since there are tons of cheap decks that can make it to the top and also cheap answers to expensive cards. However, take 2 NAYA ZOO decks: one with 4 Tarmagoyfs and one without. One deck will have much higher chances of outperforming the other simply because of a 800$ difference. But again, modern isn't a good example.
However, if you look at the top decks in standard over the last 5 years, you will find that you can easily slap into a deck the most expensive cards of the format and outperform fairly well any other deck. If I were to look at standard right now, I can easily pick the most expensive cards for MARDU, JESKAI, ABZAN, etc. Put them together and still get a competitive deck. Put in 10 walkers, 6-8 bombs, 18 removal/counter/burn spells and all the lands you need. The deck will be ~300$ and will win a fair amount of time.
I think it just sucks to play with/against such decks.
RETIRED - GAME SUCKS
Modern:
UUUMerfolksUUU
RGoblinsR
Ad Nauseam
BR 8 Racks RB
WUB Mill BUW
Legacy:
XOps! All splels! X
What I think of MaRo
Sullivan was at 5, his opponent was at 13. He had a Sulfuric Vortex in play, along with 4 lands. His opponent had a Jitte, a few creatures, a Qasali Pridemage, and only an untapped Wasteland. Sullivan thought long and hard before casting Flame Rift, putting his opponent at 9 and himself at 1. He did this to telegraph to his opponent that "I can kill you before my next draw step, and this Sulfuric Vortex is integral to my plan." He baited his opponent into tapping his Wasteland to blow up the Vortex, removing his ability to drop his nonbasic land count below Price of Progress range. Upon doing so, Sullivan quickly did away with him using Price and Fireblast.
He was hardly in a favorable position. His opponent had lethal on the board that turn, and could play around either Sulfuric Vortex or Price of Progress. Sullivan recognized that his only out was if his opponent made a mistake, so he crafted the game to present a scenario where there was even a mistake to be made.
THAT is a sign of an excellent Burn player.
I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Modern Burn. That build is a LOT more straightforward.
Yeah, its hard to remember the game for me, its a been a while since I've seen it (does anyone have a link to it? I can't seem to find the video). I do remember his opponent lost upon tapping his wasteland to activate pridemage...but it seemed to me, if I remember correctly, that at that point it was almost a toss up. To me, his opponent probably made the correct decision knowing that the chances of him having both price of progress and fireblast were pretty small. Getting rid of sulfuric vortex, while opening him up to the price of progress which he may have suspected, would almost guarantee his victory...barring the fireblast which he may have failed to account for, but more than likely just hoped that sullivan didn't have it. He may have called what he thought was a bluff from sullivan, but sullivan wasn't bluffing. I probably would have also chosen to blow up vortex in that scenario regardless of what Sullivan may have been fishing for.
Anyways, the point remains the same. I don't mind playing burn at all in legacy: there are other decks that are similar in play style yet more consistent, and whatever I happen to play I can rest assured knowing that I have the tools to combat it that aren't just bad cards. Even if I happen to be playing a deck that isn't favored against burn at least I don't have to play feed the clan or dragon's claw. In modern, you either play a deck that can race it, or you have to dedicate several *****ty cards for the match up to your sideboard and hope to draw them in the match up to hope you have a chance.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
That being said,the only decks that "annoy" me are uninspired ones, such as delver, miracles and burn. They only annoy me because they aren't exciting and everyone has seen them a million times before.
The only deck I really don't care for is Reanimator/Show and Tell.
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
Modern
WUBRG
Way back in the day, I used to loath Land Destruction. Not much bothers me in a competitive setting now though. It's expected.
Infinite combos are pretty annoying in multiplayer casual. If we are all dead turn four, we will play for second place and let the winner rethink his next deck to play.
Hooked on Magic since The Dark.
Blue Rules.
Berserk, Fork, Fork, Fork, Fork
"Does trample go around the table?"
============================
Personally, I find that I enjoy most decks. Group Hug can be annoying at times, but it has its charms as well. There's a few cards here and there that I could do without seeing.