that's another thing about current design direction that messes up the color pie and metagame in general.
So Wizards is moving towards a creature-based interaction. But not all colors are equal since some colors have much better creatures. How is that fair for weaker colors? How can blue and black compete fairly on this new world order where creatures dominate, when they get weaker creatures?
So Wizards throws them a bone once in a while. What happens is, even if they only get ONE over the curve creature, the entire playerbase cries foul. Whereas green, white, and red can have easily 10 creatures over the curve, it's just the norm.
So the obvious solution is for blue and black to have better noncreature spells. But that isn't the solution players want, either. Spells too strong diminish the creatures of other colors. Then control would dominate, but players apparently hate playing against control because their beautiful creature decks wouldn't win as much.
So what we're left with is, players want blue and black to have both weaker creatures and weaker spells, while green, white, and red creatures and spells continue to power-creep upwards nonchalantly.
That's a fair point, although I think blue has generally been just fine in this new era, and is just in a blip of a lull at this very moment. But black has had its struggles for a while, rarely being more than a support color in competitive decks (whereas green is everywhere right now, there is always a viable R/x aggro deck, there is usually a viable W/x aggro or control deck, and U/x tempo or control has generally been on top more often than not).
To be fair, if you look at recent blocks you can see a definitely attempt to push black's aggro capabilities. First with Zen block vampires, then with Inn block Zombies. I think part of the problem has been the tribal nature of those strong black creatures, really restricting their usage vs the more generically strong cards we have seen other color gets.
that's another thing about current design direction that messes up the color pie and metagame in general.
So Wizards is moving towards a creature-based interaction. But not all colors are equal since some colors have much better creatures. How is that fair for weaker colors? How can blue and black compete fairly on this new world order where creatures dominate, when they get weaker creatures?
So Wizards throws them a bone once in a while. What happens is, even if they only get ONE over the curve creature, the entire playerbase cries foul. Whereas green, white, and red can have easily 10 creatures over the curve, it's just the norm.
So the obvious solution is for blue and black to have better noncreature spells. But that isn't the solution players want, either. Spells too strong diminish the creatures of other colors. Then control would dominate, but players apparently hate playing against control because their beautiful creature decks wouldn't win as much.
So what we're left with is, players want blue and black to have both weaker creatures and weaker spells, while green, white, and red creatures and spells continue to power-creep upwards nonchalantly.
We've been in multicolour lala land for a bit now, I think claimining that Blue is worse-off due to, generally speaking, having weaker creatures is premature.
I'll agree that over INN and RTR mono blue creatures haven't been worldbeaters BUT the best spell (Sphinx's Revelation) and the best creature (Geist of Saint Traft) in Standard are Blue so it's definitely not fair to say Blue is getting the shaft.
yeah black sometimes has themes that can be turned into a single deck. but blue hasn't had that since the last tribal block. Zendikar pushed vampires, but not merfolk. Scars pushed infect, but blue can barely make Grand Architect work, due to lack of good blue creatures. Innistrad again has vampires, but where is blue's tribe? It was supposed to be zombies, but whoever heard of blue zombies?
Which raises the question, where is the monoblue aggro or even mostly blue aggro with few spells? Why in this creature-dominated design, blue aggro, not tempo, is nowhere to be found? I look at the current metagame, and only FOUR blue creatures are played; the fifth is only half blue. Why is one color left out of the push for creatures? And people wonder why blue decks resort to noncreature strategies? The answer is actually obvious: R&D messed up.
Which raises the question, where is the monoblue aggro or even mostly blue aggro with few spells? Why in this creature-dominated design, blue aggro, not tempo, is nowhere to be found? I look at the current metagame, and only FOUR blue creatures are played; the fifth is only half blue. Why is one color left out of the push for creatures? And people wonder why blue decks resort to noncreature strategies? The answer is actually obvious: R&D messed up.
I don't agree with you here. Why should every color be good at playing mono-x aggro?
As for blue's creatures, I don't really see anything different now than in the past. Blue sees plenty of play, mostly for its non-creature stuff, along with a few tempo oriented or finisher type creatures. As long as blue is good enough to be played, which it certainly is, I don't really get your complaint.
Creatures getting better doesn't mean that every color necessarily needs to be a "creature color" in terms of getting a high volume of competitively costed beaters. But it does mean that development has to work to make sure that colors like blue and black have their own space that is still viable and on roughly equal footing with the more "aggro" colors. I would say that they have done that just fine with blue.
I don't agree with you here. Why should every color be good at playing mono-x aggro?
As for blue's creatures, I don't really see anything different now than in the past. Blue sees plenty of play, mostly for its non-creature stuff, along with a few tempo oriented or finisher type creatures. As long as blue is good enough to be played, which it certainly is, I don't really get your complaint.
Creatures getting better doesn't mean that every color necessarily needs to be a "creature color" in terms of getting a high volume of competitively costed beaters. But it does mean that development has to work to make sure that colors like blue and black have their own space that is still viable and on roughly equal footing with the more "aggro" colors. I would say that they have done that just fine with blue.
You underestimate how much better creatures have gotten.
Creatures were competitive before, and they are suffocating now. You can't play a deck of non-creature spells because you will just be overwhelmed by creatures that do the same thing your non creature spells do( cards like fiend hunter ) but come with a body attached.
Wrath is barely a viable answer anymore, because power and toughness levels have also been pushed to absurdity and single creature clocks are so powerful.
There are no more tradeoffs in magic, every competitive threat is now better than any dedicated answer that can be played against it. You are forced to answer threats with more threats. If the card doesn't do everything, just throw it out of your deck and find a card that does, there is no shortage.
You underestimate how much better creatures have gotten.
Creatures were competitive before, and they are suffocating now. You can't play a deck of non-creature spells because you will just be overwhelmed by creatures that do the same thing your non creature spells do( cards like fiend hunter ) but come with a body attached.
Wrath is barely a viable answer anymore, because power and toughness levels have also been pushed to absurdity and single creature clocks are so powerful.
There are no more tradeoffs in magic, every competitive threat is now better than any dedicated answer that can be played against it. You are forced to answer threats with more threats. If the card doesn't do everything, just throw it out of your deck and find a card that does, there is no shortage.
???
That doesn't really address anything I was saying there. My point was simply that just because creatures on the whole are getting better, we shouldn't expect every color to be able to run an effective mono-aggro deck at all times in standard, which is essentially what the previous poster was bashing Wizards for.
And I have been playing for a LONG time, since 94, so I certainly have a good sense for how much better creatures have gotten. Especially those at 3 cmc and above. And I fundamentally I don't really disagree with you, in fact you are kind of repeating what I said earlier. Thragtusk is the best "control" card in Standard right now IMO. Restoration Angel and Snappy aren't far behind. Although I do think you are overstating things a bit. I mean look at more controlling Jund builds in Standard now and you see a very successful deck that runs some creatures, but also plenty of powerful non-creature spells.
But overall I think there is no question that Standard is about creatures. And that is the way WoTC wants it to be...which is ok. I trust them and if they think it is the best way to run things I am cool with that. Even though as a veteran player I prefer more variance in the styles of game play.
I don't agree with you here. Why should every color be good at playing mono-x aggro?
As for blue's creatures, I don't really see anything different now than in the past. Blue sees plenty of play, mostly for its non-creature stuff, along with a few tempo oriented or finisher type creatures. As long as blue is good enough to be played, which it certainly is, I don't really get your complaint.
Creatures getting better doesn't mean that every color necessarily needs to be a "creature color" in terms of getting a high volume of competitively costed beaters. But it does mean that development has to work to make sure that colors like blue and black have their own space that is still viable and on roughly equal footing with the more "aggro" colors. I would say that they have done that just fine with blue.
Actually, U by it self (if you do not count the UX hybrids and golds) are rather poor. Supreme Verdict Barely counts as U since it is double white also and Revelation i believe is also double W. Counters have been getting weaker or more expensive with each set (to the point where counters may not even exist anymore like LD), and U's "removal" (aka bounce) is being trumped by everything having ETB abilities. Remember back when bouncing a creature actually did something to an opponent other than make him smile so he can use the creature again?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
You underestimate how much better creatures have gotten.
Creatures were competitive before, and they are suffocating now. You can't play a deck of non-creature spells because you will just be overwhelmed by creatures that do the same thing your non creature spells do( cards like fiend hunter ) but come with a body attached.
Wrath is barely a viable answer anymore, because power and toughness levels have also been pushed to absurdity and single creature clocks are so powerful.
There are no more tradeoffs in magic, every competitive threat is now better than any dedicated answer that can be played against it. You are forced to answer threats with more threats. If the card doesn't do everything, just throw it out of your deck and find a card that does, there is no shortage.
UWR's whole strategy is to 1 for 1 you over and over again before revelationing you out of the game. Jund midrange's strategy is to 2 for 1 you over and over again (although it does use creatures to gain a lot of its advantages). Esper is also a tier 1 deck. My point is that there are plenty of grindy decks in standard, so it's not fair to say that there are not more tradeoffs. Sure, you can't just put 8 wraths and counters in your deck and hope to get there, but I see that as a good thing. People have to tune their decks and play the right answers to win with control decks, which is how it should be.
Actually, U by it self (if you do not count the UX hybrids and golds) are rather poor. Supreme Verdict Barely counts as U since it is double white also and Revelation i believe is also double W. Counters have been getting weaker or more expensive with each set (to the point where counters may not even exist anymore like LD), and U's "removal" (aka bounce) is being trumped by everything having ETB abilities. Remember back when bouncing a creature actually did something to an opponent other than make him smile so he can use the creature again?
What's your point?
No color tends to excel on its own, especially right now in Standard, which is why virtually every competitive is 2+ colors. Sometimes you get good mono-colored decks, but those tend to be the exception.
And it isn't like bounce is suddenly terrible. I think it was less than a year ago that Vapor Snag was like the top removal spell in Standard. Or just before that when creatures costing 3+ had to pass the Jace bounce test. To me a lot of this complaining just looks like people getting worked up because their thing isn't great RIGHT NOW, forgetting that Magic is and always has been very cyclical in terms of what strategies are at the top.
No color tends to excel on its own, especially right now in Standard, which is why virtually every competitive is 2+ colors. Sometimes you get good mono-colored decks, but those tend to be the exception.
And it isn't like bounce is suddenly terrible. I think it was less than a year ago that Vapor Snag was like the top removal spell in Standard. Or just before that when creatures costing 3+ had to pass the Jace bounce test. To me a lot of this complaining just looks like people getting worked up because their thing isn't great RIGHT NOW, forgetting that Magic is and always has been very cyclical in terms of what strategies are at the top.
Except U is actually very weak even as a Base. It is a splash color through and through now. R has becoem a very powerful base color (many aggro decks are Rx not Xr), G is a exceptionally powerful base, W makes the base of most weenie decks and is the base of nearly all the control decks right now (W bieng the major base due to Supreme Verdict and Revelation both being major W), B is actually a pretty strong base that needs something to support it (Bx aggro is still viable as tier 1.5 and Bx control is actually good).
As for the bounce thing, you have remember that U has been losing alot of stuff while not getting much back. First and foremost counters have been severely weakened. Also, despite Giest and Snaps, U has very weak creatures. Delver is of medium level because, as we can obviously see, he needs alot of support to be good (which the eternal formats have with cards like Top but standard does not). Additionally, the bounce spells have not, themselves, gotten weaker but teh creatures have gotten to such a point that bouncing them does little to nothing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
Except U is actually very weak even as a Base. It is a splash color through and through now. R has becoem a very powerful base color (many aggro decks are Rx not Xr), G is a exceptionally powerful base, W makes the base of most weenie decks and is the base of nearly all the control decks right now (W bieng the major base due to Supreme Verdict and Revelation both being major W), B is actually a pretty strong base that needs something to support it (Bx aggro is still viable as tier 1.5 and Bx control is actually good).
As for the bounce thing, you have remember that U has been losing alot of stuff while not getting much back. First and foremost counters have been severely weakened. Also, despite Giest and Snaps, U has very weak creatures. Delver is of medium level because, as we can obviously see, he needs alot of support to be good (which the eternal formats have with cards like Top but standard does not). Additionally, the bounce spells have not, themselves, gotten weaker but teh creatures have gotten to such a point that bouncing them does little to nothing.
At this very moment that might all be true. But look even just 6 months or 1 year back and none of its is. Blue has been at the core of some great tempo decks that jumped to the top of multiple formats.
Again, one color in particular being a little weak in Standard at any given time is just the norm.
At this very moment that might all be true. But look even just 6 months or 1 year back and none of its is. Blue has been at the core of some great tempo decks that jumped to the top of multiple formats.
Again, one color in particular being a little weak in Standard at any given time is just the norm.
The article is a bit old, but the point remains the same; blue is by far the least played colour in high level comps right now:
To the best of my knowledge, Esper hasn't taken out a single major comp since GTC became legal. In fact, it's all the way down in 7th place for top 8 positions over the post-GTC season. I wouldn't call that a tier 1 deck, and Esper is apparently the best control deck in standard?
The elephant in the room is that Wizards does not know what to do with black and blue. Control is a necessary part of the game, and enables diversity in the types of strategies that can be played, but blue tends to win on the stack, period. It's not fun for other players to do something, and have a blue player shut them down, because the interaction isn't at all fair. When they nerf those elements though, blue is more or less unplayable, which is what we're seeing now. The best colours are clearly in the Naya spectrum, while blue and black are both splash colours that don't have the power to form the basis of a competitive deck.
Here's what they should be doing: give all colours some form of counter magic so that they can exchange with blue on the stack. Give blue hard counters, and give the other colours softer counters that fit with their flavour. This lets you power up spells again, because suddenly everyone is able to interact through non-creature spells, as well as through creatures. Counterspells are not a form of removal -- they are a distinct strategy that is separate from removal. In the same way that most colours have ways to kill threats, destroy permanents, draw through their library, tutor, etc, they should all have a way of countering spells.
The result of this is that we could have both good spells and good creatures. We could have control in modern and standard, because people could play control in the colour of their choice without having to play blue. Then you could bring back blue's good spells, because blue players would actually have to contend with other colours being able to counter their ****. Bingo, we'd be one step closer to balance.
The current iteration of the future future league needs to go. They either need new people doing the testing, or they need more people doing the testing. Their results seem incredibly skewed, which ends up with cards being printed to hate out decks that don't need hating, or they just entirely miss a deck.
Also, I will be incredibly happy when everything Zac Hill had a hand in is no longer standard, because that guy has, in my opinion, ruined a lot of what drew me into this game in the first place.
Totally agreed. I'm also tempted to add Mark Rosewater to that list, but that guy isn't going anywhere.
Actually, I think it would be cool for them to have MTGO players do the testing. They don't need to include any flavour or images, just the card rules, and players could test unspecified future sets in thousands of games. It might take away some of the wow factor of the mechanics being introduced, but players would jump at the chance, and there would be a much higher volume of data generated. The quality assurance would probably improve overnight.
To the best of my knowledge, Esper hasn't taken out a single major comp since GTC became legal. In fact, it's all the way down in 7th place for top 8 positions over the post-GTC season. I wouldn't call that a tier 1 deck, and Esper is apparently the best control deck in standard?
The elephant in the room is that Wizards does not know what to do with black and blue. Control is a necessary part of the game, and enables diversity in the types of strategies that can be played, but blue tends to win on the stack, period. It's not fun for other players to do something, and have a blue player shut them down, because the interaction isn't at all fair. When they nerf those elements though, blue is more or less unplayable, which is what we're seeing now. The best colours are clearly in the Naya spectrum, while blue and black are both splash colours that don't have the power to form the basis of a competitive deck.
Here's what they should be doing: give all colours some form of counter magic so that they can exchange with blue on the stack. Give blue hard counters, and give the other colours softer counters that fit with their flavour. This lets you power up spells again, because suddenly everyone is able to interact through non-creature spells, as well as through creatures. Counterspells are not a form of removal -- they are a distinct strategy that is separate from removal. In the same way that most colours have ways to kill threats, destroy permanents, draw through their library, tutor, etc, they should all have a way of countering spells.
The result of this is that we could have both good spells and good creatures. We could have control in modern and standard, because people could play control in the colour of their choice without having to play blue. Then you could bring back blue's good spells, because blue players would actually have to contend with other colours being able to counter their ****. Bingo, we'd be one step closer to balance.
Again, nothing in that article shows that this is more than a blip, an aberration in a long run of blue being at/near the top of standard/constructed. Heaven forbid blue actually be the worst color sometimes....you know, kinda like every other color has been for significant stretches.
I absolutely see what you are saying wrt some of blue's best abilities getting nerfed and WoTC needing to figure out how to make up the difference. But I think to a degree we have already seen where they can go with that: tempo effects and control effects. Just because those things aren't on top right now doesn't mean that they can't be in the near future. There is plenty of blue design space that interacts well with a creature heavy environment.
I mostly just see a big knee-jerk reaction to blue being weak for once. And the idea that you can't play control right now is laughable. Yes, the best control decks run some dudes, but that doesn't stop them from being control decks. You want the best control deck in standard? Look at Jund.
Personally I think Thragtusk, Snappy, and Restoration Angel are at the crux of Standard's current problems.
Thragtusk was always on the verge of being too good...then they printed Restoration Angel and pushed it well over the top. For aggro to be viable they had to make it faster, like reliably turn 4/5 fast, or else it just gets buried by the value and lifegain of the Thragtusk decks.
The you have Snapcaster, another "almost too good" card that was pushed even harder by the Angel. What does that mean? It means that until Snapcaster goes they have to be very, very careful about the other stuff they print (like no Lightning Helix).
Personally I think Thragtusk, Snappy, and Restoration Angel are at the crux of Standard's current problems.
Thragtusk was always on the verge of being too good...then they printed Restoration Angel and pushed it well over the top. For aggro to be viable they had to make it faster, like reliably turn 4/5 fast, or else it just gets buried by the value and lifegain of the Thragtusk decks.
The you have Snapcaster, another "almost too good" card that was pushed even harder by the Angel. What does that mean? It means that until Snapcaster goes they have to be very, very careful about the other stuff they print (like no Lightning Helix).
Agreed, but none of these creatures would have been a problem if their mana cost more accurately reflected their power. There are no drawbacks anymore; it's always good things, all the time. Thragtusk should have cost, at the very least, 3GG, maybe even 4GG. I mean, 5 life and a 3/3 token are nothing to sneeze at. He could have gained 3 life, and left a 2/2 token, and still been one of the best creatures in standard. As for resto, it's an enabler more than anything. In a vacuum, it's an efficient card, but when it's combined with crazy ETB effects, it starts to get absurd. Snaps is another good one. He probably should have been costed slightly higher for what he does, since he effectively doubles the consistency of your spells.
But I think there's a deeper reason for all of this; I think the mechanics of the game are fundamentally skewed at the moment. The control elements that were once the sole domain of blue need to be shifted into other colours, so that all colours are able to win on the stack given the right tools. If that happened, we could see good spells again, because the ability to shut them down would be far more prevalent. It would make the stack more interactive, and effectively remove the justification for absurd creatures. It would also open up design space for different control archetypes, and would make sense if treated the right way. I mean, in a game about magical duels, only one colour knows how to shut down enemy spells? That never made sense to me. I think all colours should have that capability, within the context of their colour identity, e.g. paying life to counter, red counters that deal damage, a green creature that sacs to counter (like Judge's Familiar), etc. I think blue should always have hard counter, in the same way that black gets destruction, and other colours should have their own forms of counter that fit within their identity.
But I think there's a deeper reason for all of this; I think the mechanics of the game are fundamentally skewed at the moment. The control elements that were once the sole domain of blue need to be shifted into other colours, so that all colours are able to win on the stack given the right tools. If that happened, we could see good spells again, because the ability to shut them down would be far more prevalent. It would make the stack more interactive, and effectively remove the justification for absurd creatures. It would also open up design space for different control archetypes, and would make sense if treated the right way. I mean, in a game about magical duels, only one colour knows how to shut down enemy spells? That never made sense to me. I think all colours should have that capability, within the context of their colour identity, e.g. paying life to counter, red counters that deal damage, a green creature that sacs to counter (like Judge's Familiar), etc. I think blue should always have hard counter, in the same way that black gets destruction, and other colours should have their own forms of counter that fit within their identity.
I see what you are saying, and I definitely wouldn't mind that from a personal standpoint.
But at the same time I think it is kind of arrogant to ignore the expertise and experience of the R+D team, in terms of knowing what is best for the game in the long run. The reality is that Magic is doing extremely well right now, so even if I don't love the direction that Standard has gone (which I don't) I can't really say that they are doing it wrong. As long as they are keeping the player base large/strong then that is enough for me. There are so many other ways to play the game that it is pretty easy to find one that better suits my/your preferred style. But what I can't do is play this game I love if I don't have people to play with.
So ultimately I just take a more holistic view of it. Maybe it is best for the game as a whole if Standard is a simpler beast, focused on on-board interactions, with minimal stack battles and combo.
Totally agreed. I'm also tempted to add Mark Rosewater to that list, but that guy isn't going anywhere.
Seems pretty harsh.
MaRo is the same guy who was involved in bringing us plenty of silly/broken non-creature stuff in the past. But after 15+ years of doing this he apparently feels that this is the best direction for Magic to take right now. I think you should give that guy, who has so much experience and has had time to learn from his mistakes, a lot more credit.
Mark Rosewater has been invovled with Magic: The Gathering for most of it's lifetime: If you enjoyed Magic at one time he likely had a hand in it.
That article about how Blue is the new Green is such a bunch of BS: how do they determine what is a Blue Deck? And who the hell plays Monocolour in Standard right now anyway?! It's all hyperbole from a selec few minority of competitive players who are having a hard time keeping up with the times, nothing to see here.
Relative color strength is a very touchy subject, but I do not believe that the author of the article has successfully captured the spirit of competitive MTG. And I am not going to nitpick how he claims Green Sun's Zenith was from Zendikar (it was from Mirrodin Besieged)--I have a more relevant basis.
His data supports the hypothesis that green is a more popular color than it has ever been, to the extent in which it likely eclipses blue. It typically has the modes of interaction that are not only the easiest to play, but the cheapest to afford; these two factors contribute to fields that feature a larger showing of these decks than their expensive, decision-intensive counterparts. Back then, green was significantly lagging behind the color pie, but with the push of multcolored spells and decks, it has gained enough ground to become usable.
Most popular does not beget most powerful. It is a common mistake to equate the two.
Relative color strength is a very touchy subject, but I do not believe that the author of the article has successfully captured the spirit of competitive MTG. And I am not going to nitpick how he claims Green Sun's Zenith was from Zendikar (it was from Mirrodin Besieged)--I have a more relevant basis.
His data supports the hypothesis that green is a more popular color than it has ever been, to the extent in which it likely eclipses blue. It typically has the modes of interaction that are not only the easiest to play, but the cheapest to afford; these two factors contribute to fields that feature a larger showing of these decks than their expensive, decision-intensive counterparts. Back then, green was significantly lagging behind the color pie, but with the push of multcolored spells and decks, it has gained enough ground to become usable.
Most popular does not beget most powerful. It is a common mistake to equate the two.
He's looking at the frequency with which blue appears in competitive decks at major competitions. If that's the case, difficulty shouldn't be a factor, as the population includes the best players in the game, or at least the most competitive. They will err towards the most powerful decks, because those decks give them a better chance of winning. Yeah the GSZ thing was a mistake, but I think everything else he discusses is actually pretty close to the mark.
CGOW: he's not looking at monocoloured decks, he's looking at colour frequency at major comps. As in, a BUG deck would count as both black, green and blue. By measuring the frequency, you can get a gauge for what colours are being used the most, and what colours are perceived as being the most powerful. Using this metric, he's telling us that blue doesn't have the strength to provide the basis for a competitive deck right now, and he's right. There's isn't really anything controversial about his methodology. It's got nothing to do with monocolour, and if professional players are complaining, shouldn't we be listening?
CGOW: he's not looking at monocoloured decks, he's looking at colour frequency at major comps. As in, a BUG deck would count as both black, green and blue. By measuring the frequency, you can get a gauge for what colours are being used the most, and what colours are perceived as being the most powerful. Using this metric, he's telling us that blue doesn't have the strength to provide the basis for a competitive deck right now, and he's right. There's isn't really anything controversial about his methodology. It's got nothing to do with monocolour, and if professional players are complaining, shouldn't we be listening?
Considering Sphinx's Revelation and Geist of Saint Traft remain some of the absolute most powerful T2 cards at the moment
I wouldn't take anyone who claims blue is getting shafted seriously no
I agree that blue isn't the dominant colour anymore but I really don't think that's a problem
of course it skewed against blue. with other colors, you can play aggro, midrange, control, ramp, combo (reanimation). with blue, you can play control, maybe. obviously NOT aggro, even though that goes against the NWO where creatures are the centerfold of interaction. R&D made sure that blue will not get any of that action.
of course it skewed against blue. with other colors, you can play aggro, midrange, control, ramp, combo (reanimation). with blue, you can play control, maybe. obviously NOT aggro, even though that goes against the NWO where creatures are the centerfold of interaction. R&D made sure that blue will not get any of that action.
Again with the drastic overstatements.
It was less than a year ago that people were complaining about the blue-based Hexproof decks and/or Delver. Blue has rarely played traditional aggro, but it continues to be just fine as a midrange/tempo/control color.
As for what the pros think...no, it doesn't matter. If you look at interviews of pros you will find that many of them are biased towards playing blue, so them complaining about it not being good enough isn't very meaningful.
Im sorry but the color being shafted the most right now is Black.
U is still everywhere. U has counters, draw spells, bounce, and some of the most powerful creatures right now (Snapcaster and Giest of St. Traft).
W I would argue is the most powerful color right now. It has some of the best aggro creatures right now (Champion and Silverblade), has rediculous spells (Boros Charm, Revelation, and the uncounterable wrath), has one of the best miracles (Entreat), has value flyer of the year (Resto Angel), and pretty much is in every deck short of Jund now.
G is obviously a huge color since it has Thragtusk and Centaur Healer (backbone of Bant), Farseek, and BTE (the backbone of the Naya Blitz decks everywhere).
R has become a huge color compared to last season (R players everywhere complained about being shafted). It is played in Control, Midrange, and aggro as a very vital part and has very powerful cards as well (Ash Zealot is still a very painful card).
B honestly has become reduced to being nothing more than removal fodder for the other colors. B has lost alot of its power after NWO came into play. For instance, lets see what B used to have compare to cards now:
B was the color that had the most powerful temporary ramp in the form of rituals. Now B barely has any rituals (actually I do not believe they have any). Red now has all the rituals.
B had tutors to help find things. B still has tutors, but now they all cost 5 or more and have been pushed out in the same way LD has since they are "too powerful or too complex." I can understand a 2 mana tutor anything being too strong but something as simple as the other tutors that had built in counters are now deemed too powerful.
B had some of the most powerful creatures and abilities in the game, that came at a cost. The demons and horrors of old were actually powerful creatures. Well above the curve, but came with harsh penalties. Suicide B was actually a thing in days of old. B was the color of sacrifice and power. Now, B is paying sacrifice for creatures that, for the other colors would be normal. B used to have the likes of cards like Death Cloud, Pox, Ichorid, and Phyrexian Negator. Now B has been weakened down to a "vampire color" of drain effects (of which most are horrid) because they are easier for new players to grasp than a spell that hurts both players.
Additionally, look at why people adding or even playing B now-a-days. It is for removal. that is it. Jund plays B for removal and Olivia (although they never play her black ability, mainly just her ping), Junk plays B for removal, reanimator (which the flashback have the time anyway) and lingering souls flash back, Rb adds black for removal and their aristocrat. The only deck that plays B for more than removal and a creature or two is Aristocrats.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's a fair point, although I think blue has generally been just fine in this new era, and is just in a blip of a lull at this very moment. But black has had its struggles for a while, rarely being more than a support color in competitive decks (whereas green is everywhere right now, there is always a viable R/x aggro deck, there is usually a viable W/x aggro or control deck, and U/x tempo or control has generally been on top more often than not).
To be fair, if you look at recent blocks you can see a definitely attempt to push black's aggro capabilities. First with Zen block vampires, then with Inn block Zombies. I think part of the problem has been the tribal nature of those strong black creatures, really restricting their usage vs the more generically strong cards we have seen other color gets.
We've been in multicolour lala land for a bit now, I think claimining that Blue is worse-off due to, generally speaking, having weaker creatures is premature.
I'll agree that over INN and RTR mono blue creatures haven't been worldbeaters BUT the best spell (Sphinx's Revelation) and the best creature (Geist of Saint Traft) in Standard are Blue so it's definitely not fair to say Blue is getting the shaft.
Which raises the question, where is the monoblue aggro or even mostly blue aggro with few spells? Why in this creature-dominated design, blue aggro, not tempo, is nowhere to be found? I look at the current metagame, and only FOUR blue creatures are played; the fifth is only half blue. Why is one color left out of the push for creatures? And people wonder why blue decks resort to noncreature strategies? The answer is actually obvious: R&D messed up.
........................
I don't agree with you here. Why should every color be good at playing mono-x aggro?
As for blue's creatures, I don't really see anything different now than in the past. Blue sees plenty of play, mostly for its non-creature stuff, along with a few tempo oriented or finisher type creatures. As long as blue is good enough to be played, which it certainly is, I don't really get your complaint.
Creatures getting better doesn't mean that every color necessarily needs to be a "creature color" in terms of getting a high volume of competitively costed beaters. But it does mean that development has to work to make sure that colors like blue and black have their own space that is still viable and on roughly equal footing with the more "aggro" colors. I would say that they have done that just fine with blue.
You underestimate how much better creatures have gotten.
Creatures were competitive before, and they are suffocating now. You can't play a deck of non-creature spells because you will just be overwhelmed by creatures that do the same thing your non creature spells do( cards like fiend hunter ) but come with a body attached.
Wrath is barely a viable answer anymore, because power and toughness levels have also been pushed to absurdity and single creature clocks are so powerful.
There are no more tradeoffs in magic, every competitive threat is now better than any dedicated answer that can be played against it. You are forced to answer threats with more threats. If the card doesn't do everything, just throw it out of your deck and find a card that does, there is no shortage.
???
That doesn't really address anything I was saying there. My point was simply that just because creatures on the whole are getting better, we shouldn't expect every color to be able to run an effective mono-aggro deck at all times in standard, which is essentially what the previous poster was bashing Wizards for.
And I have been playing for a LONG time, since 94, so I certainly have a good sense for how much better creatures have gotten. Especially those at 3 cmc and above. And I fundamentally I don't really disagree with you, in fact you are kind of repeating what I said earlier. Thragtusk is the best "control" card in Standard right now IMO. Restoration Angel and Snappy aren't far behind. Although I do think you are overstating things a bit. I mean look at more controlling Jund builds in Standard now and you see a very successful deck that runs some creatures, but also plenty of powerful non-creature spells.
But overall I think there is no question that Standard is about creatures. And that is the way WoTC wants it to be...which is ok. I trust them and if they think it is the best way to run things I am cool with that. Even though as a veteran player I prefer more variance in the styles of game play.
Actually, U by it self (if you do not count the UX hybrids and golds) are rather poor. Supreme Verdict Barely counts as U since it is double white also and Revelation i believe is also double W. Counters have been getting weaker or more expensive with each set (to the point where counters may not even exist anymore like LD), and U's "removal" (aka bounce) is being trumped by everything having ETB abilities. Remember back when bouncing a creature actually did something to an opponent other than make him smile so he can use the creature again?
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
UWR's whole strategy is to 1 for 1 you over and over again before revelationing you out of the game. Jund midrange's strategy is to 2 for 1 you over and over again (although it does use creatures to gain a lot of its advantages). Esper is also a tier 1 deck. My point is that there are plenty of grindy decks in standard, so it's not fair to say that there are not more tradeoffs. Sure, you can't just put 8 wraths and counters in your deck and hope to get there, but I see that as a good thing. People have to tune their decks and play the right answers to win with control decks, which is how it should be.
What's your point?
No color tends to excel on its own, especially right now in Standard, which is why virtually every competitive is 2+ colors. Sometimes you get good mono-colored decks, but those tend to be the exception.
And it isn't like bounce is suddenly terrible. I think it was less than a year ago that Vapor Snag was like the top removal spell in Standard. Or just before that when creatures costing 3+ had to pass the Jace bounce test. To me a lot of this complaining just looks like people getting worked up because their thing isn't great RIGHT NOW, forgetting that Magic is and always has been very cyclical in terms of what strategies are at the top.
Except U is actually very weak even as a Base. It is a splash color through and through now. R has becoem a very powerful base color (many aggro decks are Rx not Xr), G is a exceptionally powerful base, W makes the base of most weenie decks and is the base of nearly all the control decks right now (W bieng the major base due to Supreme Verdict and Revelation both being major W), B is actually a pretty strong base that needs something to support it (Bx aggro is still viable as tier 1.5 and Bx control is actually good).
As for the bounce thing, you have remember that U has been losing alot of stuff while not getting much back. First and foremost counters have been severely weakened. Also, despite Giest and Snaps, U has very weak creatures. Delver is of medium level because, as we can obviously see, he needs alot of support to be good (which the eternal formats have with cards like Top but standard does not). Additionally, the bounce spells have not, themselves, gotten weaker but teh creatures have gotten to such a point that bouncing them does little to nothing.
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
At this very moment that might all be true. But look even just 6 months or 1 year back and none of its is. Blue has been at the core of some great tempo decks that jumped to the top of multiple formats.
Again, one color in particular being a little weak in Standard at any given time is just the norm.
The article is a bit old, but the point remains the same; blue is by far the least played colour in high level comps right now:
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/blakerasmussen-design-results-03212013-blue-is-the-new-green/
To the best of my knowledge, Esper hasn't taken out a single major comp since GTC became legal. In fact, it's all the way down in 7th place for top 8 positions over the post-GTC season. I wouldn't call that a tier 1 deck, and Esper is apparently the best control deck in standard?
The elephant in the room is that Wizards does not know what to do with black and blue. Control is a necessary part of the game, and enables diversity in the types of strategies that can be played, but blue tends to win on the stack, period. It's not fun for other players to do something, and have a blue player shut them down, because the interaction isn't at all fair. When they nerf those elements though, blue is more or less unplayable, which is what we're seeing now. The best colours are clearly in the Naya spectrum, while blue and black are both splash colours that don't have the power to form the basis of a competitive deck.
Here's what they should be doing: give all colours some form of counter magic so that they can exchange with blue on the stack. Give blue hard counters, and give the other colours softer counters that fit with their flavour. This lets you power up spells again, because suddenly everyone is able to interact through non-creature spells, as well as through creatures. Counterspells are not a form of removal -- they are a distinct strategy that is separate from removal. In the same way that most colours have ways to kill threats, destroy permanents, draw through their library, tutor, etc, they should all have a way of countering spells.
The result of this is that we could have both good spells and good creatures. We could have control in modern and standard, because people could play control in the colour of their choice without having to play blue. Then you could bring back blue's good spells, because blue players would actually have to contend with other colours being able to counter their ****. Bingo, we'd be one step closer to balance.
Totally agreed. I'm also tempted to add Mark Rosewater to that list, but that guy isn't going anywhere.
Actually, I think it would be cool for them to have MTGO players do the testing. They don't need to include any flavour or images, just the card rules, and players could test unspecified future sets in thousands of games. It might take away some of the wow factor of the mechanics being introduced, but players would jump at the chance, and there would be a much higher volume of data generated. The quality assurance would probably improve overnight.
Again, nothing in that article shows that this is more than a blip, an aberration in a long run of blue being at/near the top of standard/constructed. Heaven forbid blue actually be the worst color sometimes....you know, kinda like every other color has been for significant stretches.
I absolutely see what you are saying wrt some of blue's best abilities getting nerfed and WoTC needing to figure out how to make up the difference. But I think to a degree we have already seen where they can go with that: tempo effects and control effects. Just because those things aren't on top right now doesn't mean that they can't be in the near future. There is plenty of blue design space that interacts well with a creature heavy environment.
I mostly just see a big knee-jerk reaction to blue being weak for once. And the idea that you can't play control right now is laughable. Yes, the best control decks run some dudes, but that doesn't stop them from being control decks. You want the best control deck in standard? Look at Jund.
Thragtusk was always on the verge of being too good...then they printed Restoration Angel and pushed it well over the top. For aggro to be viable they had to make it faster, like reliably turn 4/5 fast, or else it just gets buried by the value and lifegain of the Thragtusk decks.
The you have Snapcaster, another "almost too good" card that was pushed even harder by the Angel. What does that mean? It means that until Snapcaster goes they have to be very, very careful about the other stuff they print (like no Lightning Helix).
Agreed, but none of these creatures would have been a problem if their mana cost more accurately reflected their power. There are no drawbacks anymore; it's always good things, all the time. Thragtusk should have cost, at the very least, 3GG, maybe even 4GG. I mean, 5 life and a 3/3 token are nothing to sneeze at. He could have gained 3 life, and left a 2/2 token, and still been one of the best creatures in standard. As for resto, it's an enabler more than anything. In a vacuum, it's an efficient card, but when it's combined with crazy ETB effects, it starts to get absurd. Snaps is another good one. He probably should have been costed slightly higher for what he does, since he effectively doubles the consistency of your spells.
But I think there's a deeper reason for all of this; I think the mechanics of the game are fundamentally skewed at the moment. The control elements that were once the sole domain of blue need to be shifted into other colours, so that all colours are able to win on the stack given the right tools. If that happened, we could see good spells again, because the ability to shut them down would be far more prevalent. It would make the stack more interactive, and effectively remove the justification for absurd creatures. It would also open up design space for different control archetypes, and would make sense if treated the right way. I mean, in a game about magical duels, only one colour knows how to shut down enemy spells? That never made sense to me. I think all colours should have that capability, within the context of their colour identity, e.g. paying life to counter, red counters that deal damage, a green creature that sacs to counter (like Judge's Familiar), etc. I think blue should always have hard counter, in the same way that black gets destruction, and other colours should have their own forms of counter that fit within their identity.
I see what you are saying, and I definitely wouldn't mind that from a personal standpoint.
But at the same time I think it is kind of arrogant to ignore the expertise and experience of the R+D team, in terms of knowing what is best for the game in the long run. The reality is that Magic is doing extremely well right now, so even if I don't love the direction that Standard has gone (which I don't) I can't really say that they are doing it wrong. As long as they are keeping the player base large/strong then that is enough for me. There are so many other ways to play the game that it is pretty easy to find one that better suits my/your preferred style. But what I can't do is play this game I love if I don't have people to play with.
So ultimately I just take a more holistic view of it. Maybe it is best for the game as a whole if Standard is a simpler beast, focused on on-board interactions, with minimal stack battles and combo.
Seems pretty harsh.
MaRo is the same guy who was involved in bringing us plenty of silly/broken non-creature stuff in the past. But after 15+ years of doing this he apparently feels that this is the best direction for Magic to take right now. I think you should give that guy, who has so much experience and has had time to learn from his mistakes, a lot more credit.
That article about how Blue is the new Green is such a bunch of BS: how do they determine what is a Blue Deck? And who the hell plays Monocolour in Standard right now anyway?! It's all hyperbole from a selec few minority of competitive players who are having a hard time keeping up with the times, nothing to see here.
His data supports the hypothesis that green is a more popular color than it has ever been, to the extent in which it likely eclipses blue. It typically has the modes of interaction that are not only the easiest to play, but the cheapest to afford; these two factors contribute to fields that feature a larger showing of these decks than their expensive, decision-intensive counterparts. Back then, green was significantly lagging behind the color pie, but with the push of multcolored spells and decks, it has gained enough ground to become usable.
Most popular does not beget most powerful. It is a common mistake to equate the two.
He's looking at the frequency with which blue appears in competitive decks at major competitions. If that's the case, difficulty shouldn't be a factor, as the population includes the best players in the game, or at least the most competitive. They will err towards the most powerful decks, because those decks give them a better chance of winning. Yeah the GSZ thing was a mistake, but I think everything else he discusses is actually pretty close to the mark.
CGOW: he's not looking at monocoloured decks, he's looking at colour frequency at major comps. As in, a BUG deck would count as both black, green and blue. By measuring the frequency, you can get a gauge for what colours are being used the most, and what colours are perceived as being the most powerful. Using this metric, he's telling us that blue doesn't have the strength to provide the basis for a competitive deck right now, and he's right. There's isn't really anything controversial about his methodology. It's got nothing to do with monocolour, and if professional players are complaining, shouldn't we be listening?
Considering Sphinx's Revelation and Geist of Saint Traft remain some of the absolute most powerful T2 cards at the moment
I wouldn't take anyone who claims blue is getting shafted seriously no
I agree that blue isn't the dominant colour anymore but I really don't think that's a problem
........................
Again with the drastic overstatements.
It was less than a year ago that people were complaining about the blue-based Hexproof decks and/or Delver. Blue has rarely played traditional aggro, but it continues to be just fine as a midrange/tempo/control color.
As for what the pros think...no, it doesn't matter. If you look at interviews of pros you will find that many of them are biased towards playing blue, so them complaining about it not being good enough isn't very meaningful.
U is still everywhere. U has counters, draw spells, bounce, and some of the most powerful creatures right now (Snapcaster and Giest of St. Traft).
W I would argue is the most powerful color right now. It has some of the best aggro creatures right now (Champion and Silverblade), has rediculous spells (Boros Charm, Revelation, and the uncounterable wrath), has one of the best miracles (Entreat), has value flyer of the year (Resto Angel), and pretty much is in every deck short of Jund now.
G is obviously a huge color since it has Thragtusk and Centaur Healer (backbone of Bant), Farseek, and BTE (the backbone of the Naya Blitz decks everywhere).
R has become a huge color compared to last season (R players everywhere complained about being shafted). It is played in Control, Midrange, and aggro as a very vital part and has very powerful cards as well (Ash Zealot is still a very painful card).
B honestly has become reduced to being nothing more than removal fodder for the other colors. B has lost alot of its power after NWO came into play. For instance, lets see what B used to have compare to cards now:
B was the color that had the most powerful temporary ramp in the form of rituals. Now B barely has any rituals (actually I do not believe they have any). Red now has all the rituals.
B had tutors to help find things. B still has tutors, but now they all cost 5 or more and have been pushed out in the same way LD has since they are "too powerful or too complex." I can understand a 2 mana tutor anything being too strong but something as simple as the other tutors that had built in counters are now deemed too powerful.
B had some of the most powerful creatures and abilities in the game, that came at a cost. The demons and horrors of old were actually powerful creatures. Well above the curve, but came with harsh penalties. Suicide B was actually a thing in days of old. B was the color of sacrifice and power. Now, B is paying sacrifice for creatures that, for the other colors would be normal. B used to have the likes of cards like Death Cloud, Pox, Ichorid, and Phyrexian Negator. Now B has been weakened down to a "vampire color" of drain effects (of which most are horrid) because they are easier for new players to grasp than a spell that hurts both players.
Additionally, look at why people adding or even playing B now-a-days. It is for removal. that is it. Jund plays B for removal and Olivia (although they never play her black ability, mainly just her ping), Junk plays B for removal, reanimator (which the flashback have the time anyway) and lingering souls flash back, Rb adds black for removal and their aristocrat. The only deck that plays B for more than removal and a creature or two is Aristocrats.
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.