In your opinion which modern decks are the hardest to master? I often hear that Melira Pod and Amulet of Vigor are difficult to play, but wonder what other decks take a lot of practice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
- Modern WBB/W TokensWB WUBAd NauseamWUB
- Commander WG Captain Sisay's LegendsWG
Having played the majority of the tier 1 and tier 2 decks in modern I can tell you that there is no 'easy' deck in modern. Every deck takes a lot of practice to do well. Sure you can pick up splinter twin, get lucky and win some matches, but you won't do well in a PTQ for example.
My personal choice goes to UWR or UW control decks. There are just so many angles of play and you are often reacting to the opponent. The wrong response usually leads to the end of the game for you, while the right response does not win you the game.
I would say that Tempo Twin is the hardest deck to pilot well. I've played a lot of magic. A lot of decks. It's one that I still have trouble playing optimally, yet it's one of the strongest decks in the format in the right hands.
UWR Control. It's the deck that wins if you have a good pilot it's also why when the meta is in large flux, uwr gets played less but at the same time has all the answers so both need to be put together correctly and needs to be played well to win.
I think there is also the aspect of some decks not playing perfectly 100% of the most powerful cards. Gifts control sort of does this, grixis control is also very dependent on its draws so playing cards then realizing you should have saved them makes it hard to play, its sort of not up to you sometimes.
I really fundamentally disagre with you on control/midrange. What makes the game hard is knowing when to play what, the more interactive the deck the more you need to know other decks and your deck your opponents play and uwr is nothing but reaction with well placed threats. And so the more interactive + more lines of play available to you the more difficult it becomes to make the right choice. You can't just answer every threat etc..
I know likely we will agree to disagree and I'm not saying midrange is not up there in difficulty but control and really any pure control decks imo are hardest to play.
All decks are hard to play. All decks require skill. Some decks require different kinds of skill than others. Some require you to know the meta and build around certain things. Others require you to know matchups and have a better than adverage sideboard game. Some decks have many choices while playing. Some decks really require you to be able to trick or bait opponents.
Decks are only easy to play if you know what your doing, it fits your style, or you've played with it a lot.
That article is very tilted in the persona of the author. He admits early his play style, lays out the criteria to base the rankings, then goes on to ignore some of the criteria because how he feels about certain decks.
I agree more with Lantern where all decks can be hard to play depending on your play style. Some people just dont get certain decks and how they should play.
Between combat math, tempo, managing a clock, judgement calls, knowing when to go all-in, and racing against combo/control's inevitability, it's very demanding to play well.
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
All decks are hard to play. All decks require skill. Some decks require different kinds of skill than others.
I totally agree with this.
When I was younger and an inexperienced player, I used to think that creature based and combo decks were easy to play (you know, attack and goldfish) and control was on the difficult side. The more I played the more I realized how wrong I was. Every deck is hard to play properly.
Some decks may give you more free wins than others, but at the end of the day, if you really want to perform well, you'll have to learn how to play your deck and the format as well. Every deck requires skill, just no the same kind of skill.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. - René Descartes
I'd say of the tier 1 decks, pod is the hardest. There's a lot of tricky boarding and threat of disruption there, with many lines of play. It can be tough to figure out when to combo out or go the midrange beat route. I don't think twin affinity or UWR are very hard at all. Or jund. Excluding affinity (which vomits it's hand and doesn't involve a lot of choice) they play individually exceptional cards. Yes, they may not always make the most optimal choice, but there are no real BAD choices in jund. Same with UWR. Counter and remove , stick any threat. Twin does have some choices, but it's a lot easier when your opponents playing two mana down in case of insta lose. Pod can put you down a tutor track that you can't reverse, making it harder. It's a meaningful decision.
Overall, most of these decks are played BECAUSE they aren't terribly hard to play. It means you're less likely to make an error in a long tournament, inflating their success rate.
I'd say of the tier 1 decks, pod is the hardest. There's a lot of tricky boarding and threat of disruption there, with many lines of play. It can be tough to figure out when to combo out or go the midrange beat route. I don't think twin affinity or UWR are very hard at all. Or jund. Excluding affinity (which vomits it's hand and doesn't involve a lot of choice) they play individually exceptional cards. Yes, they may not always make the most optimal choice, but there are no real BAD choices in jund. Same with UWR. Counter and remove , stick any threat. Twin does have some choices, but it's a lot easier when your opponents playing two mana down in case of insta lose. Pod can put you down a tutor track that you can't reverse, making it harder. It's a meaningful decision.
Overall, most of these decks are played BECAUSE they aren't terribly hard to play. It means you're less likely to make an error in a long tournament, inflating their success rate.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Playing Affinity is not easy at all. The board state can get very complex at times and what you play and when you play it can decide a game as early as turn one. Toss an Arcbound Ravager in the mix and you have some crazy combat math. I'm not saying that is the hardest deck to pilot, but it's not close to be an easy deck to play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have. - René Descartes
I'd say of the tier 1 decks, pod is the hardest. There's a lot of tricky boarding and threat of disruption there, with many lines of play. It can be tough to figure out when to combo out or go the midrange beat route. I don't think twin affinity or UWR are very hard at all. Or jund. Excluding affinity (which vomits it's hand and doesn't involve a lot of choice) they play individually exceptional cards. Yes, they may not always make the most optimal choice, but there are no real BAD choices in jund. Same with UWR. Counter and remove , stick any threat. Twin does have some choices, but it's a lot easier when your opponents playing two mana down in case of insta lose. Pod can put you down a tutor track that you can't reverse, making it harder. It's a meaningful decision.
Overall, most of these decks are played BECAUSE they aren't terribly hard to play. It means you're less likely to make an error in a long tournament, inflating their success rate.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Playing Affinity is not easy at all. The board state can get very complex at times and what you play and when you play it can decide a game as early as turn one. Toss an Arcbound Ravager in the mix and you have some crazy combat math. I'm not saying that is the hardest deck to pilot, but it's not close to be an easy deck to play.
Sorry, you're right, it's not the easiest, I didn't mean it like that. The easiest IMO is storm. I realllllly don't see the difficulty there. It's not hard to know when you have enough or know when you have to try to storm anyway cause otherwise you lose. It requires ALMOST no knowledge of the meta game and plays out almost the same way everytime.
I'd say of the tier 1 decks, pod is the hardest. There's a lot of tricky boarding and threat of disruption there, with many lines of play. It can be tough to figure out when to combo out or go the midrange beat route. I don't think twin affinity or UWR are very hard at all. Or jund. Excluding affinity (which vomits it's hand and doesn't involve a lot of choice) they play individually exceptional cards. Yes, they may not always make the most optimal choice, but there are no real BAD choices in jund. Same with UWR. Counter and remove , stick any threat. Twin does have some choices, but it's a lot easier when your opponents playing two mana down in case of insta lose. Pod can put you down a tutor track that you can't reverse, making it harder. It's a meaningful decision.
Overall, most of these decks are played BECAUSE they aren't terribly hard to play. It means you're less likely to make an error in a long tournament, inflating their success rate.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Playing Affinity is not easy at all. The board state can get very complex at times and what you play and when you play it can decide a game as early as turn one. Toss an Arcbound Ravager in the mix and you have some crazy combat math. I'm not saying that is the hardest deck to pilot, but it's not close to be an easy deck to play.
Sorry, you're right, it's not the easiest, I didn't mean it like that. The easiest IMO is storm. I realllllly don't see the difficulty there. It's not hard to know when you have enough or know when you have to try to storm anyway cause otherwise you lose. It requires ALMOST no knowledge of the meta game and plays out almost the same way everytime.
The same could be said of most combo decks. They really dont care about game state, board position or in some cases life totals, they just goldfish into a win. Yes some are easier to disrupt then others, but that is on the opponent not the guy playing the combo deck.
I'd say of the tier 1 decks, pod is the hardest. There's a lot of tricky boarding and threat of disruption there, with many lines of play. It can be tough to figure out when to combo out or go the midrange beat route. I don't think twin affinity or UWR are very hard at all. Or jund. Excluding affinity (which vomits it's hand and doesn't involve a lot of choice) they play individually exceptional cards. Yes, they may not always make the most optimal choice, but there are no real BAD choices in jund. Same with UWR. Counter and remove , stick any threat. Twin does have some choices, but it's a lot easier when your opponents playing two mana down in case of insta lose. Pod can put you down a tutor track that you can't reverse, making it harder. It's a meaningful decision.
Overall, most of these decks are played BECAUSE they aren't terribly hard to play. It means you're less likely to make an error in a long tournament, inflating their success rate.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Playing Affinity is not easy at all. The board state can get very complex at times and what you play and when you play it can decide a game as early as turn one. Toss an Arcbound Ravager in the mix and you have some crazy combat math. I'm not saying that is the hardest deck to pilot, but it's not close to be an easy deck to play.
Sorry, you're right, it's not the easiest, I didn't mean it like that. The easiest IMO is storm. I realllllly don't see the difficulty there. It's not hard to know when you have enough or know when you have to try to storm anyway cause otherwise you lose. It requires ALMOST no knowledge of the meta game and plays out almost the same way everytime.
The same could be said of most combo decks. They really dont care about game state, board position or in some cases life totals, they just goldfish into a win. Yes some are easier to disrupt then others, but that is on the opponent not the guy playing the combo deck.
That article is very tilted in the persona of the author. He admits early his play style, lays out the criteria to base the rankings, then goes on to ignore some of the criteria because how he feels about certain decks.
I agree more with Lantern where all decks can be hard to play depending on your play style. Some people just dont get certain decks and how they should play.
I think arguing about what's hardest between the decks that obviously require a lot of thought (because they have a lot of decisions and care a ton about figuring out what your opponent may have), like Pod, UWR control and Affinity, is absurd and impossible to do without bias, if there's a correct answer at all. That said, it's obvious that not all decks are "hard to play depending on your play style" unless your play style is "terrible at MTG." Bogles, burn, Living End and storm are so thoughtless the vast majority of the time that it's absurd to think that someone who can play Pod properly can't figure out how to play one of them well. I'd agree that many combo decks are easy to play, but they have various levels of it. Twin and Scapeshift are easier to play than the tempo/control decks they're similar to, but they're still not just straight combo decks. Winning with them is easy - anyone with any knowledge of MTG knows when to try to go off - but getting to that point can be challenging.
Tell Finkle that storm is thoughtless. I'd love to hear his reply.
It can kill on turn three and runs probe so you don't take real risks without more knowledge than most decks. It has the highest redundancy and draw or any tier one magic deck. Yes there are choices, but it's the same choices against almost any deck. If you can repeatedly goldfish test your deck and gain ALMOST as much experience as playing against a real deck, it's not the play part that's particularly difficult. Where finkle really shines is his deck construction. The mans a master of probability, he knows how to tune the deck better than any other. I'm not saying he's a bad player either, obviously not, but the decks just not that hard to play.
That article is very tilted in the persona of the author. He admits early his play style, lays out the criteria to base the rankings, then goes on to ignore some of the criteria because how he feels about certain decks.
I agree more with Lantern where all decks can be hard to play depending on your play style. Some people just dont get certain decks and how they should play.
I think arguing about what's hardest between the decks that obviously require a lot of thought (because they have a lot of decisions and care a ton about figuring out what your opponent may have), like Pod, UWR control and Affinity, is absurd and impossible to do without bias, if there's a correct answer at all. That said, it's obvious that not all decks are "hard to play depending on your play style" unless your play style is "terrible at MTG." Bogles, burn, Living End and storm are so thoughtless the vast majority of the time that it's absurd to think that someone who can play Pod properly can't figure out how to play one of them well. I'd agree that many combo decks are easy to play, but they have various levels of it. Twin and Scapeshift are easier to play than the tempo/control decks they're similar to, but they're still not just straight combo decks. Winning with them is easy - anyone with any knowledge of MTG knows when to try to go off - but getting to that point can be challenging.
I agree with most of your post. I disagree with the bold part. I have seen players who can run Pod pretty well, just be lost trying to play Living End or Bogle. I have seen guys who play UWR control/midrange decks be clueless at how to storm off or play a burn deck. Different players gravitate toward certain play styles and certain decks (and in some cases certain colors) which makes it difficult for them to play other type decks. The player that can play multiple different styles optimally is the exception, not the rule, at least from what I have seen in my many years of playing.
That article is very tilted in the persona of the author. He admits early his play style, lays out the criteria to base the rankings, then goes on to ignore some of the criteria because how he feels about certain decks.
I agree more with Lantern where all decks can be hard to play depending on your play style. Some people just dont get certain decks and how they should play.
I think arguing about what's hardest between the decks that obviously require a lot of thought (because they have a lot of decisions and care a ton about figuring out what your opponent may have), like Pod, UWR control and Affinity, is absurd and impossible to do without bias, if there's a correct answer at all. That said, it's obvious that not all decks are "hard to play depending on your play style" unless your play style is "terrible at MTG." Bogles, burn, Living End and storm are so thoughtless the vast majority of the time that it's absurd to think that someone who can play Pod properly can't figure out how to play one of them well. I'd agree that many combo decks are easy to play, but they have various levels of it. Twin and Scapeshift are easier to play than the tempo/control decks they're similar to, but they're still not just straight combo decks. Winning with them is easy - anyone with any knowledge of MTG knows when to try to go off - but getting to that point can be challenging.
I agree with most of your post. I disagree with the bold part. I have seen players who can run Pod pretty well, just be lost trying to play Living End or Bogle. I have seen guys who play UWR control/midrange decks be clueless at how to storm off or play a burn deck. Different players gravitate toward certain play styles and certain decks (and in some cases certain colors) which makes it difficult for them to play other type decks. The player that can play multiple different styles optimally is the exception, not the rule, at least from what I have seen in my many years of playing.
Yes but were trying give non-cop out answers rather than just say "they're all equally hard!" Some decks are ON AVERAGE harder to learn and play for the AVERAGE player.
That article is very tilted in the persona of the author. He admits early his play style, lays out the criteria to base the rankings, then goes on to ignore some of the criteria because how he feels about certain decks.
I agree more with Lantern where all decks can be hard to play depending on your play style. Some people just dont get certain decks and how they should play.
I think arguing about what's hardest between the decks that obviously require a lot of thought (because they have a lot of decisions and care a ton about figuring out what your opponent may have), like Pod, UWR control and Affinity, is absurd and impossible to do without bias, if there's a correct answer at all. That said, it's obvious that not all decks are "hard to play depending on your play style" unless your play style is "terrible at MTG." Bogles, burn, Living End and storm are so thoughtless the vast majority of the time that it's absurd to think that someone who can play Pod properly can't figure out how to play one of them well. I'd agree that many combo decks are easy to play, but they have various levels of it. Twin and Scapeshift are easier to play than the tempo/control decks they're similar to, but they're still not just straight combo decks. Winning with them is easy - anyone with any knowledge of MTG knows when to try to go off - but getting to that point can be challenging.
I agree with most of your post. I disagree with the bold part. I have seen players who can run Pod pretty well, just be lost trying to play Living End or Bogle. I have seen guys who play UWR control/midrange decks be clueless at how to storm off or play a burn deck. Different players gravitate toward certain play styles and certain decks (and in some cases certain colors) which makes it difficult for them to play other type decks. The player that can play multiple different styles optimally is the exception, not the rule, at least from what I have seen in my many years of playing.
Yes but were trying give non-cop out answers rather than just say "they're all equally hard!" Some decks are ON AVERAGE harder to learn and play for the AVERAGE player.
How is the truth a cop out? The average player is what I am talking about. Observe players and you will notice the majority of players gravitate toward the same type decks. Give a player a deck out of his wheel house, and its going to be difficult for them to play the deck.
This really goes back to whats harder to play? Aggro? Control? Mid range? Tempo? All have decisions that make each deck different to play. That is not a cop out, its the truth. What is hard fr you to play, may be quite easy for me or another player to play.
That article is very tilted in the persona of the author. He admits early his play style, lays out the criteria to base the rankings, then goes on to ignore some of the criteria because how he feels about certain decks.
I agree more with Lantern where all decks can be hard to play depending on your play style. Some people just dont get certain decks and how they should play.
I think arguing about what's hardest between the decks that obviously require a lot of thought (because they have a lot of decisions and care a ton about figuring out what your opponent may have), like Pod, UWR control and Affinity, is absurd and impossible to do without bias, if there's a correct answer at all. That said, it's obvious that not all decks are "hard to play depending on your play style" unless your play style is "terrible at MTG." Bogles, burn, Living End and storm are so thoughtless the vast majority of the time that it's absurd to think that someone who can play Pod properly can't figure out how to play one of them well. I'd agree that many combo decks are easy to play, but they have various levels of it. Twin and Scapeshift are easier to play than the tempo/control decks they're similar to, but they're still not just straight combo decks. Winning with them is easy - anyone with any knowledge of MTG knows when to try to go off - but getting to that point can be challenging.
I agree with most of your post. I disagree with the bold part. I have seen players who can run Pod pretty well, just be lost trying to play Living End or Bogle. I have seen guys who play UWR control/midrange decks be clueless at how to storm off or play a burn deck. Different players gravitate toward certain play styles and certain decks (and in some cases certain colors) which makes it difficult for them to play other type decks. The player that can play multiple different styles optimally is the exception, not the rule, at least from what I have seen in my many years of playing.
Yes but were trying give non-cop out answers rather than just say "they're all equally hard!" Some decks are ON AVERAGE harder to learn and play for the AVERAGE player.
How is the truth a cop out? The average player is what I am talking about. Observe players and you will notice the majority of players gravitate toward the same type decks. Give a player a deck out of his wheel house, and its going to be difficult for them to play the deck.
This really goes back to whats harder to play? Aggro? Control? Mid range? Tempo? All have decisions that make each deck different to play. That is not a cop out, its the truth. What is hard fr you to play, may be quite easy for me or another player to play.
Because that answer contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation. It's like when asked being "if the weather is nice" during a hailstorm, responding with "yes of course!". When the person you answered walks into the storm and they complain to you this isn't nice weather, you respond "well I think all weather is nice!". Point is, while your answer is technically true, it is a politically safe answer to the point where it's actually worse than if you'd said nothing at all. Everyone generally gets what you're saying and accepts it as true. Just give an opinion backed up by *YOUR* measure of difficulty, be that number of interactions, number of choices, or difficulty of stack manipulation or any other measure relevant to you pertaining to difficulty.
Hardest deck to win with? ChimneyImp.dec. Deck with the most potential to win provided flawless play? Probably Kiki Pod (his play wasn't even flawless, could've won G1 in the finals); the deck has so many lines of play and so many ways to win out of nowhere, not to mention the perfect manabase management you need to run the deck smoothly. Hardest Tier 1 deck to win with? Melira Pod; the deck has no favorable matchup against any of the other Tier 1 decks, is grossly overplayed which means everyone and their grandmother knows how to play against it and is prepared for it with tons of hate in their sideboard, and finally also has tons of lines of play and decisions that can be easy to misplay. Hardest deck for me? Probably any aggro deck; I find them incredibly boring to play and I tend to be greedy with opening hands which means as long as I have enough mana to cast my cards, I'm probably gonna keep the hand. You can't do that with aggro, but at the same time 1 card less means a lot more to aggro because you generally don't have much in the way of card advantage and you need to kill your opponent before they can stabilize. I also generally dislike decks that scoop to a single card post-sideboard, like Affinity vs Shatterstorm and RUG Scapeshift vs Slaughter Games.
In general decks with lots of decisions and choices tend to be more difficult to pick up and play well. This makes decks like gifts and pod very difficult to pick up and play well.
That being said there are also lots of non transferable skills. For instance just because you can play pod adequately does not mean you can switch to play storm or boggles easily. I would say that out of the top performing decks, boggles and living end are the easiest to pick up and play well, but they're decks whose skills and lines of play don't easily translate to other decks.
I would also say the fact that you can name very good players for some specific decks, but not others says a lot to how much of a difference playing well with the deck is. For instance we all know of finkel as a very good storm player, pardee as an excellent pod player, shoktroopa on u tron, but you rarely hear of solid boggles players or something. That certainly suggests that the difference between someone really good playing the deck and someone only average is minimal, which would suggest that it's easier and more forgiving to play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
That article is very tilted in the persona of the author. He admits early his play style, lays out the criteria to base the rankings, then goes on to ignore some of the criteria because how he feels about certain decks.
I agree more with Lantern where all decks can be hard to play depending on your play style. Some people just dont get certain decks and how they should play.
I think arguing about what's hardest between the decks that obviously require a lot of thought (because they have a lot of decisions and care a ton about figuring out what your opponent may have), like Pod, UWR control and Affinity, is absurd and impossible to do without bias, if there's a correct answer at all. That said, it's obvious that not all decks are "hard to play depending on your play style" unless your play style is "terrible at MTG." Bogles, burn, Living End and storm are so thoughtless the vast majority of the time that it's absurd to think that someone who can play Pod properly can't figure out how to play one of them well. I'd agree that many combo decks are easy to play, but they have various levels of it. Twin and Scapeshift are easier to play than the tempo/control decks they're similar to, but they're still not just straight combo decks. Winning with them is easy - anyone with any knowledge of MTG knows when to try to go off - but getting to that point can be challenging.
I agree with most of your post. I disagree with the bold part. I have seen players who can run Pod pretty well, just be lost trying to play Living End or Bogle. I have seen guys who play UWR control/midrange decks be clueless at how to storm off or play a burn deck. Different players gravitate toward certain play styles and certain decks (and in some cases certain colors) which makes it difficult for them to play other type decks. The player that can play multiple different styles optimally is the exception, not the rule, at least from what I have seen in my many years of playing.
They clearly aren't good pod players. I can see misplaying with Bogles, although it's fairly unacceptable and unlikely to matter, but Living End? Really? How do you misplay Living End? Suspend it? Try to cascade with only two guys in the yard or wait until a ton? Get it countered by an obvious counter? Those are all just idiotic plays that would show in your Pod playstyle, too (like trying to cast Pod against UUUX or trying to grab the last piece of whatever combo you use when they have tons of cards/mana to interrupt it by killing a dude, etc.). Playstyle isn't even really much of a thing to begin with. That's more about preference in deck choice than it is about playing the deck. It's not like a competent player who loves to beatdown is going to play Pod and just ignore the interactions/combos and go straight for Gavony Township+beaters - he'd either play it correctly (or he isn't competent) or just not play Pod.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
WBB/W TokensWB
WUBAd NauseamWUB
- Commander
WG Captain Sisay's LegendsWG
My personal choice goes to UWR or UW control decks. There are just so many angles of play and you are often reacting to the opponent. The wrong response usually leads to the end of the game for you, while the right response does not win you the game.
Modern: Jund Legacy: RUG Delver EDH: Captain Sisay
FREE BLOODBRAID ELF
GWBoglesGW///URDelverUR WVial-knightsW
I know likely we will agree to disagree and I'm not saying midrange is not up there in difficulty but control and really any pure control decks imo are hardest to play.
GWBoglesGW///URDelverUR WVial-knightsW
Decks are only easy to play if you know what your doing, it fits your style, or you've played with it a lot.
That article is very tilted in the persona of the author. He admits early his play style, lays out the criteria to base the rankings, then goes on to ignore some of the criteria because how he feels about certain decks.
I agree more with Lantern where all decks can be hard to play depending on your play style. Some people just dont get certain decks and how they should play.
Between combat math, tempo, managing a clock, judgement calls, knowing when to go all-in, and racing against combo/control's inevitability, it's very demanding to play well.
"OH GOD MY BRAIN IS EXPLOADING AT HOW BAD THE ART IS ON MY OWN CARD"
-A friend's first impression of Ancestral Recall
10/10, I tapped.
When I was younger and an inexperienced player, I used to think that creature based and combo decks were easy to play (you know, attack and goldfish) and control was on the difficult side. The more I played the more I realized how wrong I was. Every deck is hard to play properly.
Some decks may give you more free wins than others, but at the end of the day, if you really want to perform well, you'll have to learn how to play your deck and the format as well. Every deck requires skill, just no the same kind of skill.
Overall, most of these decks are played BECAUSE they aren't terribly hard to play. It means you're less likely to make an error in a long tournament, inflating their success rate.
Sorry, you're right, it's not the easiest, I didn't mean it like that. The easiest IMO is storm. I realllllly don't see the difficulty there. It's not hard to know when you have enough or know when you have to try to storm anyway cause otherwise you lose. It requires ALMOST no knowledge of the meta game and plays out almost the same way everytime.
The same could be said of most combo decks. They really dont care about game state, board position or in some cases life totals, they just goldfish into a win. Yes some are easier to disrupt then others, but that is on the opponent not the guy playing the combo deck.
Yes you could say that about most combo decks
I think arguing about what's hardest between the decks that obviously require a lot of thought (because they have a lot of decisions and care a ton about figuring out what your opponent may have), like Pod, UWR control and Affinity, is absurd and impossible to do without bias, if there's a correct answer at all. That said, it's obvious that not all decks are "hard to play depending on your play style" unless your play style is "terrible at MTG." Bogles, burn, Living End and storm are so thoughtless the vast majority of the time that it's absurd to think that someone who can play Pod properly can't figure out how to play one of them well. I'd agree that many combo decks are easy to play, but they have various levels of it. Twin and Scapeshift are easier to play than the tempo/control decks they're similar to, but they're still not just straight combo decks. Winning with them is easy - anyone with any knowledge of MTG knows when to try to go off - but getting to that point can be challenging.
It can kill on turn three and runs probe so you don't take real risks without more knowledge than most decks. It has the highest redundancy and draw or any tier one magic deck. Yes there are choices, but it's the same choices against almost any deck. If you can repeatedly goldfish test your deck and gain ALMOST as much experience as playing against a real deck, it's not the play part that's particularly difficult. Where finkle really shines is his deck construction. The mans a master of probability, he knows how to tune the deck better than any other. I'm not saying he's a bad player either, obviously not, but the decks just not that hard to play.
I agree with most of your post. I disagree with the bold part. I have seen players who can run Pod pretty well, just be lost trying to play Living End or Bogle. I have seen guys who play UWR control/midrange decks be clueless at how to storm off or play a burn deck. Different players gravitate toward certain play styles and certain decks (and in some cases certain colors) which makes it difficult for them to play other type decks. The player that can play multiple different styles optimally is the exception, not the rule, at least from what I have seen in my many years of playing.
Yes but were trying give non-cop out answers rather than just say "they're all equally hard!" Some decks are ON AVERAGE harder to learn and play for the AVERAGE player.
How is the truth a cop out? The average player is what I am talking about. Observe players and you will notice the majority of players gravitate toward the same type decks. Give a player a deck out of his wheel house, and its going to be difficult for them to play the deck.
This really goes back to whats harder to play? Aggro? Control? Mid range? Tempo? All have decisions that make each deck different to play. That is not a cop out, its the truth. What is hard fr you to play, may be quite easy for me or another player to play.
Because that answer contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation. It's like when asked being "if the weather is nice" during a hailstorm, responding with "yes of course!". When the person you answered walks into the storm and they complain to you this isn't nice weather, you respond "well I think all weather is nice!". Point is, while your answer is technically true, it is a politically safe answer to the point where it's actually worse than if you'd said nothing at all. Everyone generally gets what you're saying and accepts it as true. Just give an opinion backed up by *YOUR* measure of difficulty, be that number of interactions, number of choices, or difficulty of stack manipulation or any other measure relevant to you pertaining to difficulty.
Hardest deck to win with? ChimneyImp.dec. Deck with the most potential to win provided flawless play? Probably Kiki Pod (his play wasn't even flawless, could've won G1 in the finals); the deck has so many lines of play and so many ways to win out of nowhere, not to mention the perfect manabase management you need to run the deck smoothly. Hardest Tier 1 deck to win with? Melira Pod; the deck has no favorable matchup against any of the other Tier 1 decks, is grossly overplayed which means everyone and their grandmother knows how to play against it and is prepared for it with tons of hate in their sideboard, and finally also has tons of lines of play and decisions that can be easy to misplay. Hardest deck for me? Probably any aggro deck; I find them incredibly boring to play and I tend to be greedy with opening hands which means as long as I have enough mana to cast my cards, I'm probably gonna keep the hand. You can't do that with aggro, but at the same time 1 card less means a lot more to aggro because you generally don't have much in the way of card advantage and you need to kill your opponent before they can stabilize. I also generally dislike decks that scoop to a single card post-sideboard, like Affinity vs Shatterstorm and RUG Scapeshift vs Slaughter Games.
My opinion.
GWUB 4C Gifts Control
Commander:
GWU Derevi
BGW Ghave
BUG Muldrotha
Tiny Leaders:
BGW Doran
BGU Leovold
That being said there are also lots of non transferable skills. For instance just because you can play pod adequately does not mean you can switch to play storm or boggles easily. I would say that out of the top performing decks, boggles and living end are the easiest to pick up and play well, but they're decks whose skills and lines of play don't easily translate to other decks.
I would also say the fact that you can name very good players for some specific decks, but not others says a lot to how much of a difference playing well with the deck is. For instance we all know of finkel as a very good storm player, pardee as an excellent pod player, shoktroopa on u tron, but you rarely hear of solid boggles players or something. That certainly suggests that the difference between someone really good playing the deck and someone only average is minimal, which would suggest that it's easier and more forgiving to play.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
They clearly aren't good pod players. I can see misplaying with Bogles, although it's fairly unacceptable and unlikely to matter, but Living End? Really? How do you misplay Living End? Suspend it? Try to cascade with only two guys in the yard or wait until a ton? Get it countered by an obvious counter? Those are all just idiotic plays that would show in your Pod playstyle, too (like trying to cast Pod against UUUX or trying to grab the last piece of whatever combo you use when they have tons of cards/mana to interrupt it by killing a dude, etc.). Playstyle isn't even really much of a thing to begin with. That's more about preference in deck choice than it is about playing the deck. It's not like a competent player who loves to beatdown is going to play Pod and just ignore the interactions/combos and go straight for Gavony Township+beaters - he'd either play it correctly (or he isn't competent) or just not play Pod.