[DGM] Legion's Initiative; Wrath dodgers, WoTC's successful attempt to kill control.

  • #229
    Quote from Nath
    Before saying anything, I'm not english so i'm gonna try to answer as well as i can.:thumbsup:



    I agree with your post probably as much or more than any other in this entire topic; everything you said was spot-on, in my opinion.

    Language is but nothing more than a collection of words, and how you use them determines the strength of your message :).

    Quote from Golden
    Pretty much. It is just a matter of the "control players" either not recognizing it or being unhappy about being pushed to play creatures as a primary form of answer.

    Huntmaster / Thragtusk/ Angel is probably the best control package in standard. With those alongside other options like the Centaur Healer or UW's spells it is unbelievably easy to beat aggro right now. You can lose if you get a slow draw and Naya gets a nut draw, but most of the time it is an easy win.


    I have lost matches with the Verdict/Resto/Thragtusk package...I think the only relatively easy win in the Naya midrange package. Smiter is probably the worst of the bunch, which is a compliment, not an insult--he is a wrecking crew against aggro. Reckoner stops fast aggro dead in its tracks, or else it will result in an easy 2-for-1 (or better if an opponent has nothing over 2 power). Centaur Healer off the sideboard adds even more support at the 3-slot. And of course, Restoration Angel/Thragtusk is pretty darn good, too.

    No we see it, but there's an important distinction that needs to be made. Sure, there are plenty of midrange decks that control the board, but the key divide between these decks and traditional control decks is that they are proactive, and generally only operate at sorcery speed. There are no reactive spell-based decks, because the playable card pool for it is so small, and the creatures are so ridiculous. I mean seriously, divination? Blast of Genius? Ral Zarek's brainstorms apparently cause thunder and lightning, but they also cost six mana, and are sorcery speed.

    Not everyone wants to play midrange, even if it controls the board. One of the things that got a lot of players into this game was the range of strategies that could be used to win. I want to play a reactive deck that doesn't drown in card disadvantage because my opponent is getting a 2-for-1 every time I try to protect myself. I want to play a game where I don't have to play 25 creatures and have one card in hand, swinging through my opponent. I mean, I'm an engineer, and combat math is boring to me. It blows my mind that people find it difficult. Futhermore, I want to have a game that goes longer than 5 turns. At that stage, you've only seen 20% of your deck, and the game is ****ing over.

    That's what people are angry about.


    This is a valid point. Right now, the only form of reactive control that is extremely-popular is Raka-tempo, and even that plays more like a re-active midrange type build.
    Last edited by Demilich Manipulator: 4/30/2013 6:43:21 AM
    Quote from pandafarmer

    Ugh, good riddance... *counter* *counter* *counter* *Keiga* *counter response to Keiga* *Meloku* *counter response to Meloku* *die now*


    Quote from Crumpet

    "Blightsteel Colossus has indestructible" sounds too much like "Blightsteel Colossus can has cheezburger."
  • #230
    "If I'm using creatures in my deck, I'm not playing control!"

    This outlook is, at its core, juvenile. Label it whatever you like, call it tempo or midrange just to avoid calling it control. The goal of these decks is to defeat other decks by interacting with them, knowing the metagame, and knowing how to take the metagame apart.
    With combo on the down low, most decks that are "midrange" or "tempo" actually side into a full-blown control deck. Using Nephalia Drownyard as a win condition is also not unheard of. You don't have to finish with Serra Angel anymore, its ok, control was able to evolve too.


    This card offers no counter play. There's just nothing you can do about this. Well, I mean, I'm glad we have a 2 mana counterspell that you wouldn't lose the game for playing against agro in the meta. Oh wait Negate can't hit creatures? Awkward...


    What one drop play makes this so awkward? Stromkirk Noble? They play the enchantment, you kill the noble, and you are winning. They have no sources of damage in play and you're sitting pretty on the other side of the table at 20 life.
    Alternate scenario where they played this on turn 2? They didn't have a turn 1 play. How am I going to lose once I resolve my planeswalkers on an empty board? The answer to that is not Legion's Initiative.

    Legion's Initiative is best played on turn 4 with RW open. It's secretly a split card. Playing it on turn two provides no protection but lets you curve out better. Being able to hold mana open on turn 4 and beyond is rewarding, but is it any more rewarding than holding open Mana Leak in anticipation for Day of Judgement? And the answer may suprise you. It's no. A flat no. Because when you use spot removal on the attacking boros creature and your opponent sacrifices his enchantment to save his creature, costing him his turn of combat and mana, your control deck is winning.

    My only regret is the continued unplayablility of Pacifism type effects that continue to be printed in white, due to continued creature blink prints.
    Last edited by Kryptnyt: 4/30/2013 7:01:41 AM
  • #231
    It's a shame that the game designers have chosen to go in this direction, but it's easy to recognize the idea that "most players like creatures" despite being one of those who doesn't. I have no interest in creatures, tokens or combo, and actively dislike life gain, and, after playing Yu-Gi-Oh! for many years, was looking forward to building an interactive, sorcery/instant-based deck; I've since reached the conclusion that playing a deck without creatures and being competitive with the creature-heavy decks, especially in Standard, is next to impossible.

    Is it any different in Modern or Legacy?
    Last edited by TobiasX: 4/30/2013 7:03:06 AM
    - TobiasX
  • #232
    "I don't like lands, and yet with the last 19 years of sets it seems Wizards is forcing me to use land cards in order to build a competitive deck. Why do they hate me?"
    Commander Decks UB Sygg - Stream of Answers UB GWU Phelddagrif - Hugs and Handshakes GWU RW Gisela - Firebender RW B Endrek - Correct! 6,000 Thrulls B BU Wrexial - Wrist Deep In Your Graveyard BU GW Trostani - My Wife's Deck GW BR Lyzolda - Chaos Hug BR
    WUBRG Reaper King - The Trouble With Tribals WUBRG
  • #233
    Quote from TobiasX


    Is it any different in Modern or Legacy?


    Yes, it is. In several respects.

    --Because land destruction is more prevalent (especially in Legacy with Wasteland and Sinkhole) and there are more great spells/creatures per converted mana cost, you are more likely to see decks that utilize much cheaper spells.

    --The formats are, overall, faster, but the all-in aggro decks are not nearly as dominant as the decks that utilize tempo advantage. Because of fetchlands, decks are able to play many colors, and utilize the best spells from a wide array of them. The goal is rarely to swarm an opponent with creatures, but to get one to stick and utilize spells like Lightning Bolt, Path to Exile, Spell Pirce/Snare, Vapor Snag, and the like to ensure it gets through.

    --Using decks with few creatures is possible in these formats, although having none is usually an extreme disservice. Deathrite Shaman and Dark Confidant are only two of the many creatures who can bolster your gameplan with their support. But residual damage from cards like The Rack can also be used as a win condition.

    --The decks that have no creatures are the combo decks, which I personally feel defeat the interactive nature that the game is meant to foster...but it is a personal opinion of mine.

    --Control decks take the form not of blue-based draw-go, but boring white-based "prison" style decks that do not allow opponents to attack or cast spells without paying a huge penalty...cards like Sphere of Resistance, Null Rod, Ghostly Prison, Thorn of Amethyst, and others are seen here.

    In Standard, if you enjoy instants and sorceries, look up an old deck that uses Delver of Secrets and a small supporting cast of creatures to win the game with the support of tempo-gaining spells...it is very akin to Modern-style aggro decks.
    Quote from pandafarmer

    Ugh, good riddance... *counter* *counter* *counter* *Keiga* *counter response to Keiga* *Meloku* *counter response to Meloku* *die now*


    Quote from Crumpet

    "Blightsteel Colossus has indestructible" sounds too much like "Blightsteel Colossus can has cheezburger."
  • #234
    Quote from Skeptical Mario
    "I don't like lands, and yet with the last 19 years of sets it seems Wizards is forcing me to use land cards in order to build a competitive deck. Why do they hate me?"


    Give me 50 more cards like Lotus Bloom and I'll happily play a landless deck (or I could just go play Dredge in legacy). It's not the same as a creatureless deck, please try harder.

    @Demilich Manipulator: Thanks for the explanation. I'll take a look at some Delver lists and see if they are any closer to what I'm looking for.
    Last edited by TobiasX: 4/30/2013 8:08:01 AM
    - TobiasX
  • #235
    Quote from Skeptical Mario
    "I don't like lands, and yet with the last 19 years of sets it seems Wizards is forcing me to use land cards in order to build a competitive deck. Why do they hate me?"


    This guy is trying to be sarcastic? because it has failed... this sentence have no sense at all and have no sarcasm at all.
    go vintage and play moxes xd.

    Creatures are too good right now that even control decks have to use them a lot...I only want a balance between creatures and spells...
    What would happend if burn spells were to good that everyone should use them if they want to win? its and extreme example, but its the idea, magic have to be diverse and balanced.

    Spoilerman:cool2:
  • #236
    Quote from TobiasX
    It's a shame that the game designers have chosen to go in this direction, but it's easy to recognize the idea that "most players like creatures" despite being one of those who doesn't. I have no interest in creatures, tokens or combo, and actively dislike life gain, and, after playing Yu-Gi-Oh! for many years, was looking forward to building an interactive, sorcery/instant-based deck; I've since reached the conclusion that playing a deck without creatures and being competitive with the creature-heavy decks, especially in Standard, is next to impossible.

    Is it any different in Modern or Legacy?


    Your conclusion simply isn't true. You can be competitive in Standard with decks that don't make much use of creatures:

    Travis Woo's FogDoor deck is one example, with the only main deck creatures being 3 Snapcasters, which are essentially just extra spells. Here is the list: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=54809

    You can also build competitive Esper control decks that are mostly creatureless. Tune it to your local metagame and I promise you that you will do just fine at your FNM.

    Although FWIW if you were looking for the instant/sorcery deck you should have made the upgrade from Yugioh to Magic a long time ago.
  • #237
    To add on to Delver, I bring him up because he works well with two 2 CMC creatures in particular from Dragon's Maze:

    --Voice of Resurgence punishes opponents who try to disrupt tempo on your turn and provides an extra body to continue swinging after removal.

    --Blood Scrivener rewards a tempo deck for emptying its hand, as card advantage will be directly converted into additional tempo. Most of these decks are built with no spells above a CMC of 3, so emptying the hand is not a pipe dream. Tempo decks should also be able to offer him protection from removal.
    Quote from pandafarmer

    Ugh, good riddance... *counter* *counter* *counter* *Keiga* *counter response to Keiga* *Meloku* *counter response to Meloku* *die now*


    Quote from Crumpet

    "Blightsteel Colossus has indestructible" sounds too much like "Blightsteel Colossus can has cheezburger."
  • #238
    Quote from FieryBalrog
    The argument isn't about the skill floor, it's about the skill ceiling. A 9 year old can easily pick up and play chess much, much easier than he or she can pick up and play Warhammer tabletop or something. That doesn't mean Warhammer is harder- in fact, the opposite is true- but it has a large amount of jargon & rules complexity and a knowledge barrier to entry. So this measurement is almost entirely meaningless.



    Congrats on missing the point entirely with your "honest assessment".

    hmmm, so I obviously don't understand aggro - even though I'm able to design an aggro deck that works so well even my 9 yr old can go 7-2 in states, but I don't "get it" that aggro takes as much skill to build and play as control?
    Oh, and my chess analogy was an analogy about aggro being the skill floor and control being the skill ceiling. Nice try though.

    I think the only person missing the point is not me.
  • #239
    You know what's ironic about this thread?

    I wanted to play R/W aggro for the past few sets and I got hosed by control ALL the time! All I ever saw for the past few sets was U/W/(SOMETHING). Even Boros Charm at 4 didn't seem to cut it. So I don't know what people keep bitching about. This is exactly what aggro needs.
  • #240
    Quote from Golden
    Your conclusion simply isn't true. You can be competitive in Standard with decks that don't make much use of creatures:

    Travis Woo's FogDoor deck is one example, with the only main deck creatures being 3 Snapcasters, which are essentially just extra spells. Here is the list: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=54809

    You can also build competitive Esper control decks that are mostly creatureless. Tune it to your local metagame and I promise you that you will do just fine at your FNM.

    Although FWIW if you were looking for the instant/sorcery deck you should have made the upgrade from Yugioh to Magic a long time ago.


    Yeah, I really wish I'd made the switch back in 2002 when I moved for University. I appreciate that Woo's deck, while ever-so-slightly insane, does use very few creatures. My statement, however, was about the competitiveness of decks with exactly 0 creatures. "Mostly creatureless" and "don't make much use of creatures" isn't really what I'm looking for, but thanks for the reply.

    To add on to Delver, I bring him up because he works well with two 2 CMC creatures in particular from Dragon's Maze:

    --Voice of Resurgence punishes opponents who try to disrupt tempo on your turn and provides an extra body to continue swinging after removal.

    --Blood Scrivener rewards a tempo deck for emptying its hand, as card advantage will be directly converted into additional tempo. Most of these decks are built with no spells above a CMC of 3, so emptying the hand is not a pipe dream. Tempo decks should also be able to offer him protection from removal.

    VoR is a bit too creature-centric, but I agree it can be effective. Blood Scrivener could fit into a ub / esper shell pretty well...

    Quote from R3D CR0WN
    You know what's ironic about this thread?

    I wanted to play R/W aggro for the past few sets and I got hosed by control ALL the time! All I ever saw for the past few sets was U/W/(SOMETHING). Even Boros Charm at 4 didn't seem to cut it. So I don't know what people keep bitching about. This is exactly what aggro needs.

    The format needs to be balanced equal to the proportion of the players that enjoy each of the 3 core themes: aggro, control and combo. However, each should remain a viable option for the players that want to play it (by this I mean each should be capable of winning a significant tournament, such as a Pro Tour or a Grand Prix). Standard is being dominated by aggro (to me: decks that win through combat) to too great a degree right now in my opinion.
    Last edited by TobiasX: 4/30/2013 4:28:42 PM
    - TobiasX
  • #241
    "Yeah, I really wish I'd made the switch back in 2002 when I moved for University. I appreciate that Woo's deck, while ever-so-slightly insane, does use very few creatures. My statement, however, was about the competitiveness of decks with exactly 0 creatures. "Mostly creatureless" and "don't make much use of creatures" isn't really what I'm looking for, but thanks for the reply."

    FWIW you could play either of those decks completely creatureless and be plenty competitive, at least at the FNM level.

    IMO you sound like someone who needs to start thinking outside of the box in order to accomplish your goal. Start brewing with an open mind and I suspect that you will find that there are a lot more possibilities in standard than you think or that the latest SCG top 8 might suggest. I know I recently threw together an enchantment heavy standard deck that was creature-free, plenty of fun, and had no trouble competing with popular standard decks. Recall that most pros/grinders don't actually do much brewing outside of the weeks leading up to an actual Pro Tour. They don't have the time and are generally safer just going with proven power/efficiency. So when you don't see what you want to play in the top 8's, assuming it is something unusual like creature-less, it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't viable. Especially at the local level.
  • #242
    I agree that VoR is creature-centric...sadly, WotC designed the cipher mechanic, the one that makes copies of sorceries, to trigger only if a creature is present, which is ironic...it speaks to just how creature-based the game has become.

    Quote from Golden
    "Yeah, I really wish I'd made the switch back in 2002 when I moved for University. I appreciate that Woo's deck, while ever-so-slightly insane, does use very few creatures. My statement, however, was about the competitiveness of decks with exactly 0 creatures. "Mostly creatureless" and "don't make much use of creatures" isn't really what I'm looking for, but thanks for the reply."

    FWIW you could play either of those decks completely creatureless and be plenty competitive, at least at the FNM level.

    IMO you sound like someone who needs to start thinking outside of the box in order to accomplish your goal. Start brewing with an open mind and I suspect that you will find that there are a lot more possibilities in standard than you think or that the latest SCG top 8 might suggest. I know I recently threw together an enchantment heavy standard deck that was creature-free, plenty of fun, and had no trouble competing with popular standard decks. Recall that most pros/grinders don't actually do much brewing outside of the weeks leading up to an actual Pro Tour. They don't have the time and are generally safer just going with proven power/efficiency. So when you don't see what you want to play in the top 8's, assuming it is something unusual like creature-less, it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't viable. Especially at the local level.


    Overall very good advice. Thinking outside of the box is important in becoming a top tier player, even if it means using proven cards to accomplish this.

    Myself? I love bringing out the potential of cards that I believe are being overlooked, attempting to fit them into proven strategies in order to make a strong deck overall.

    I have been trying to break Nivmagus Elemental since Return to Ravnica. I do not argue against those who consider it a weak option right now given the current metagame, as I have no ground to stand on. However, for once, I am finally seeing real progress in my brews involving it, largely benefiting from the cipher mechanic, a small mana-base, and a strong suite of cheap tempo spells and efficient creatures.

    And this excites me...Nivmagus has the Wild Mongrel ability of growing at a moment's notice, only it requires a mana investment and is permanent. This has always been a powerful ability throughout the history of the game.
    Quote from pandafarmer

    Ugh, good riddance... *counter* *counter* *counter* *Keiga* *counter response to Keiga* *Meloku* *counter response to Meloku* *die now*


    Quote from Crumpet

    "Blightsteel Colossus has indestructible" sounds too much like "Blightsteel Colossus can has cheezburger."
  • #243
    I'm not exactly as pro as most of y'all, but it does appear that people are complaining that you can't make an all-instant/sorcery deck for control anymore? Or that control relies somewhat more heavily on creatures than in the past?

    Doesn't seem too huge of a problem IMO, the power level of creatures now are pretty darn high, but there's always answers for a control player, even to oust Voice of Resurgence etc. Instant speed removal seems rather lacking admittedly.

    Oh yeah, that turn 2 hit for seven Naya deck is pretty wicked, but that's mainly for a great hand right? Luck is always going to factor in this game for the starting hand.

    Honestly aggro isn't hard at all to take down, constant removal does the trick and does it well. As for the distribution of power amongst creatures, sorcery and instants, Wizards will likely correct that in Theros/M14.
  • #244
    Quote from Golden
    FWIW you could play either of those decks completely creatureless and be plenty competitive, at least at the FNM level.

    IMO you sound like someone who needs to start thinking outside of the box in order to accomplish your goal. Start brewing with an open mind and I suspect that you will find that there are a lot more possibilities in standard than you think or that the latest SCG top 8 might suggest. I know I recently threw together an enchantment heavy standard deck that was creature-free, plenty of fun, and had no trouble competing with popular standard decks. Recall that most pros/grinders don't actually do much brewing outside of the weeks leading up to an actual Pro Tour. They don't have the time and are generally safer just going with proven power/efficiency. So when you don't see what you want to play in the top 8's, assuming it is something unusual like creature-less, it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't viable. Especially at the local level.

    I've done a fair amount of brewing since I started playing, and, to date, have been unable to produce a deck that, when testing, was able to keep up with creature decks (using the decks that regularly make top8 as a gauntlet rather than a benchmark for the state of creatureless decks). This doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying but it does mean I'm not just looking at tournament results and complaining. I accept that it may be down to my deck-building skills but I'm not going to stop just because of that.

    I agree that VoR is creature-centric...sadly, WotC designed the cipher mechanic, the one that makes copies of sorceries, to trigger only if a creature is present, which is ironic...it speaks to just how creature-based the game has become.

    Overall very good advice. Thinking outside of the box is important in becoming a top tier player, even if it means using proven cards to accomplish this.

    Myself? I love bringing out the potential of cards that I believe are being overlooked, attempting to fit them into proven strategies in order to make a strong deck overall.

    I have been trying to break Nivmagus Elemental since Return to Ravnica. I do not argue against those who consider it a weak option right now given the current metagame, as I have no ground to stand on. However, for once, I am finally seeing real progress in my brews involving it, largely benefiting from the cipher mechanic, a small mana-base, and a strong suite of cheap tempo spells and efficient creatures.

    And this excites me...Nivmagus has the Wild Mongrel ability of growing at a moment's notice, only it requires a mana investment and is permanent. This has always been a powerful ability throughout the history of the game.

    I feel the cipher mechanic more speaks to WotC's lack of understanding when it comes to the color identity of Blue/Black; they had two mechanics to choose from and couldn't decide which was correct, so they threw both in. At least they managed to get Blue/Red in a better state.

    I'll continue looking for cards I can use to deal with creature decks effectively.

    Quote from Jenkins249
    I'm not exactly as pro as most of y'all, but it does appear that people are complaining that you can't make an all-instant/sorcery deck for control anymore? Or that control relies somewhat more heavily on creatures than in the past?

    Doesn't seem too huge of a problem IMO, the power level of creatures now are pretty darn high, but there's always answers for a control player, even to oust Voice of Resurgence etc. Instant speed removal seems rather lacking admittedly.

    Oh yeah, that turn 2 hit for seven Naya deck is pretty wicked, but that's mainly for a great hand right? Luck is always going to factor in this game for the starting hand.

    Honestly aggro isn't hard at all to take down, constant removal does the trick and does it well. As for the distribution of power amongst creatures, sorcery and instants, Wizards will likely correct that in Theros/M14.

    Honestly I haven't looked at the rest of the thread but my point of view isn't so much a complaint that it isn't possible but that it's how I'd like to play the game and, currently, it doesn't look like I can (to the competitive level I would like to).

    The vast majority of creatures in Standard either provide additional card advantage, or protection, or some other form of benefit, but the end result is that destroying the creature afterwards isn't going to realistically get you anywhere (especially with the creation of Boros Charm. Yay, Boron Charm). Thragtusk may have been among the most blatant additions to this trend but it wasn't the start or the end.

    I hope that you're right in WotC correcting the balance in future sets but, as the majority of players seem to enjoy creatures over other spell types (and MaRo stating in a recent Drive To Work podcast that their focus is on creatures) I have little faith in it.
    - TobiasX
  • #245
    Tobias - That's good to hear, keep at it and you will get there eventually. But also keep in mind that the journey is a big part of the fun when it comes to deck building and tuning. Maybe you won't develop a great creatureless deck, but you should be able to have fun and learn a lot about the game while trying.

    Also, you would do well to look into playing older formats, Modern and especially Legacy/Vintage, where there is just a lot more variety in effective strategies available (including some brutal creatureless decks). The barrier to entry is pretty high, but work at it and you should get there.

    Ultimately I don't think we are ever going to see Standard move significantly back in the direction you want it to. MaRo and co. have made it clear that they think more on-board interactions are best for new players, so that is the kind of format they are trying to set up with Standard.
  • #246
    Magic used to be fun, but the insistent desire to push creatures as far as possible has driven me almost completely out of the game. I still draft now and then but you will almost never see me play anything else. In fact, ive swapped to another card game altogether.

    Building decks and trying something new every week was fun. I used to be able to win tournaments in my area (100+ people playing the net decked finest) playing a new deck every week. I used to build combo, control, then aggro, then midrange, then back again. The diversity was great. Then overpowered cards (typically mythics but recently some rares have moved back into the spotlight) lowered the amount of truly playable cards and created a bottleneck effect in deckbuilding. Once every 6 months i might borrow a deck to play some aggro but then thats it. A far departure from when I would play 3-4 times a week.

    In the end, though, I understand the change. Hasbro is a mega-corp that only cares about the very bottom line and WotC is going to push the bottom line above all else. New players love the changes, and thats really the end all be all in tcgs.

    I just hope, over time, a new tcg takes its place as the premier tcg so i can flex my deckbuilding skills against a broad range of players again.


    Rules Advisor as of 4/23/10

    MTGO Username: Sonicqaz

    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.
  • #247
    Quote from Nath
    This guy is trying to be sarcastic? because it has failed... this sentence have no sense at all and have no sarcasm at all.
    go vintage and play moxes xd.

    Creatures are too good right now that even control decks have to use them a lot...I only want a balance between creatures and spells...
    What would happend if burn spells were to good that everyone should use them if they want to win? its and extreme example, but its the idea, magic have to be diverse and balanced.


    I suppose I did fail at being sarcastic, so let me be blunt: everyone in this thread, stop whining about what is good and what isn't. If your preferred archetype isn't good, get over it; either stick to the kitchen table where you can play a 5-color Worship deck or Mana Echoes combo, or play the metagame so you can win tournaments.
    Commander Decks UB Sygg - Stream of Answers UB GWU Phelddagrif - Hugs and Handshakes GWU RW Gisela - Firebender RW B Endrek - Correct! 6,000 Thrulls B BU Wrexial - Wrist Deep In Your Graveyard BU GW Trostani - My Wife's Deck GW BR Lyzolda - Chaos Hug BR
    WUBRG Reaper King - The Trouble With Tribals WUBRG
  • #248
    Quote from Skeptical Mario
    I suppose I did fail at being sarcastic, so let me be blunt: everyone in this thread, stop whining about what is good and what isn't. If your preferred archetype isn't good, get over it; either stick to the kitchen table where you can play a 5-color Worship deck or Mana Echoes combo, or play the metagame so you can win tournaments.


    Well said, excellent point! Your contribution to this thread is more than appreciated.

    I suppose I did fail at being sarcastic, so let me be blunt: your comments only show that you have failed to read any of the posts in this thread outside of maybe the first. A lot of us are bringing up solid points regarding the present and future of the game; we do not need someone who likes to see himself post "noise" get in the way of adult discussion.

    This thread is not even about archetypes--control embraces several of them, many of which are successful in Standard. But as someone who knows all about the metagame, I am sure you already know that.
    Quote from pandafarmer

    Ugh, good riddance... *counter* *counter* *counter* *Keiga* *counter response to Keiga* *Meloku* *counter response to Meloku* *die now*


    Quote from Crumpet

    "Blightsteel Colossus has indestructible" sounds too much like "Blightsteel Colossus can has cheezburger."
  • #249
    Quote from TobiasX
    The format needs to be balanced equal to the proportion of the players that enjoy each of the 3 core themes: aggro, control and combo. However, each should remain a viable option for the players that want to play it (by this I mean each should be capable of winning a significant tournament, such as a Pro Tour or a Grand Prix). Standard is being dominated by aggro (to me: decks that win through combat) to too great a degree right now in my opinion.


    You mean like how before the last rotation (im my personal experience) you either played Delver or Kessig or you lost?

    There's always going to be some form of meta and aggro just happens to be one of them at this point in time. We have to wait for something better to come around that trounces that, and then something that trounces THAT. That's how the meta works.
    Last edited by R3D CR0WN: 5/1/2013 1:56:02 PM
  • #250
    Quote from R3D CR0WN
    You mean like how before the last rotation (im my personal experience) you either played Delver or Kessig or you lost?

    There's always going to be some form of meta and aggro just happens to be one of them at this point in time. We have to wait for something better to come around that trounces that, and then something that trounces THAT. That's how the meta works.


    A dominant archetype is unavoidable, but, to be honest, I expected better than the current state of Standard from WotC because I didn't realise their apparent aim for Standard: everyone plays creatures. Now that I've accepted that I no longer intend to play in a Standard tournament for a long, long time.

    Quote from Skeptical Mario
    I suppose I did fail at being sarcastic, so let me be blunt: everyone in this thread, stop whining about what is good and what isn't. If your preferred archetype isn't good, get over it; either stick to the kitchen table where you can play a 5-color Worship deck or Mana Echoes combo, or play the metagame so you can win tournaments.

    Or we could go with the third option: keep working on your preferred archetype with the aim of making it good and ignore the people who like putting others down.
    - TobiasX
  • #251
    I'm not super worried about Legion's Initiative, but yes WotC is clearly indicating that they are terrified of people playing non-aggro decks right now.

    The entire block is filled with cards that are better against control than aggro, and even the anti-aggro cards have anti-control abilities tacked on.

    To people saying that Esper is a legit deck choice right now: no it is not. To play Esper to a win, you need to get lucky in accurately predicting the meta AND dodge nutdraws from the two linear no-brainer decks in the format. If you are winning at the FNM level with the deck, A) no one cares and B) your local meta is predictable and skewed towards one end. If you win a high-profile event with the deck, congrats you got very lucky.

    To stave off arguments about pro-level players, yes they get lucky too. In fact they do it a lot. Depending on luck to win a tournament for you isn't a winning strategy however.

    The best non linear-turn-4-win deck atm is Jund, because it has close to 50% matchups across the board and only takes a little bit of the run-good juice to clean up, as opposed to the gallons that it takes anything that isn't jund/rites/blitz to win.
    EDH Decks
    ---
    BRG Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
    WUB Sharuum, the Hegemon
    UGEdric, Spymaster of Trest

    Quote from dorino »
    Lands aren't vital to the game


    Going rogue for the sake of being 'original' is childish. Not playing powerful cards is stupid.

    Running a netdeck on blind faith without testing or tuning is exactly as childish and stupid.

    If you are on either side and feel vindicated by this quote, you are the most childish and stupid.
  • #252
    http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=506323

    'Nuff said. aggro is so simple, even a caveman could do it.
  • #253
    IMO there is no question that it has generally been easier to play aggro than to play control or often combo. I like playing every type of deck, but that fact is why I will often choose an aggro deck, or very linear combo deck, if I am jumping into a format that I am unfamiliar with (i.e. borrowing some friend's cards to play in a Legacy tournament).

    Although with blocking becoming a bigger and bigger part of standard I think that gap is closing in that particular format. In the past your creature combat decisions tended to be pretty simple: attack. But now standard does actually involve more limited-style combat due to the fact that the best "control" cards are often creatures.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes