Fundamentally the issue is with interaction. Wizards has decided (rightly so IMO) that creatures are the fundamental way of interacting with the opponent. If creatureless decks/combo are too good/fast, it forces everyone to play blue for counterspells, or you get too reliant on hate cards, or its two people playing solitaire. Lets just compare draws to see who wins. There needs to be an axis where MOST decks interact. Since almost all decks will be playing creatures or answers to creatures, I think Wizards is focusing on allowing two card combos that hinge on creatures and are shying away from combos where each piece isn't a creature. If creatureless combo is too good, entire classes of decks can't exist. Maybe its fun for you to lock someone out of a game entirely but at the end of the day, Wizards needs to decide what kind of game is going to be the most fun for the most people, and what kind of game will allow people to play a wide variety of decks. IMO the game just isn't fun if both players aren't interacting (also why they've nerfed land destruction) so they've made the ability to interact with creatures the common thread.
Fundamentally the issue is with interaction. Wizards has decided (rightly so IMO) that creatures are the fundamental way of interacting with the opponent. If creatureless decks/combo are too good/fast, it forces everyone to play blue for counterspells, or you get too reliant on hate cards, or its two people playing solitaire. Lets just compare draws to see who wins. There needs to be an axis where MOST decks interact. Since almost all decks will be playing creatures or answers to creatures, I think Wizards is focusing on allowing two card combos that hinge on creatures and are shying away from combos where each piece isn't a creature. If creatureless combo is too good, entire classes of decks can't exist. Maybe its fun for you to lock someone out of a game entirely but at the end of the day, Wizards needs to decide what kind of game is going to be the most fun for the most people, and what kind of game will allow people to play a wide variety of decks. IMO the game just isn't fun if both players aren't interacting (also why they've nerfed land destruction) so they've made the ability to interact with creatures the common thread.
Pretty much this. If wizards simply gave interactive tools to all colors, it would go a long way to making 'unfair' decks fair to a lot of people. A simple 'you have hexproof until end of turn' instant that can be main decked would go a long way.
As for prison decks, I personally think they will never make a comeback. I play mono-white control with Ghostly Prisons, and one thing I found is that my deck worked a lot better if I aggro'd it up. I would spend so much time trying to permanently lock down my opponent, when really I just needed to lock them down long enough to get out a baneslayer angel and swing a few times. Trying to lock opponents out of the game is not nearly as effective as slowing them down long enough to kill them. It's why we see so much more tempo than hard control - using extra resources to attack now instead of hoping to totally control the battlefield (and giving your opponent the chance to top-deck something in the meantime) before moving.
Also, I want cycling back.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
I do not understand how people can actually be "locked out" of a game of MTG. When this term is used corectly what it means is the person "locked out" has actually lost, in the same way they have lost any other normal game of magic. If they have not got a hope of getting back into the game, they scoop and move on to game 2, in the same way people scoop when they see the twin components on the board, or see a belcher deck go off in legacy. They can control the time of their scooping to optimise their chance of success.
I have played a modern FNM with a fun RW lockdown stax style list. If someone was locked out (eg down to zero permanents with a world queller and kher keep on the table), they just scooped- the cards in question could have been a splinter twin on an exarch. It was fun for four reasons.
(a) The matches were novel to the players there, they enjoyed a different type of match. Variety is the spice of life. They thought the matches fun and thought the deck innovative. They also had a decent chance of winning, as these strategies are rarely tier one, and this particular one in not even the best RW lockdown deck.
(b) The deck was made with otherwise unplayable dirt cheap cards, and who does not like to see a bunch of expensive cards lose to cheap ones? That is the fun of MTG. I had the same experience playing against tier one decks at this weekend's PTQ, beating them with huge soltari priests they could not block in GW aggro. Many bad cards are made good by allowing low creature strategies- eg magus of the tabernacle.
(c)It was an excellent learning experience, and inspired others to make their own version. That does not happen with affinity etc- these are close to solved decks.
(d)The games went long. How much fun is there to be had when the match is over by t3 or 4? Prison decks always go long- and long drawn out matches are normally more fun than short ones with nutty hands. Plenty of time for both players to make decisions before any actual "locking" occurs.
If you want to play a game where a specific version of "fun" is promoted there is EDH and other casual formats.
I would rather the modern player base be smaller and have less people who sign up to Bocephus' point of view on prison decks. It really is not much fun having the "fun police" complaining that the opponent's strategy does not match their idea of fun. If we all banned one thing we disliked about magic there would be no MTG at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
I do not understand how people can actually be "locked out" of a game of MTG. When this term is used corectly what it means is the person "locked out" has actually lost, in the same way they have lost any other normal game of magic. If they have not got a hope of getting back into the game, they scoop and move on to game 2, in the same way people scoop when they see the twin components on the board, or see a belcher deck go off in legacy. They can control the time of their scooping to optimise their chance of success.
I have played a modern FNM with a fun RW lockdown stax style list. If someone was locked out (eg down to zero permanents with a world queller and kher keep on the table), they just scooped- the cards in question could have been a splinter twin on an exarch. It was fun for four reasons.
(a) The matches were novel to the players there, they enjoyed a different type of match. Variety is the spice of life. They thought the matches fun and thought the deck innovative. They also had a decent chance of winning, as these strategies are rarely tier one, and this particular one in not even the best RW lockdown deck.
(b) The deck was made with otherwise unplayable dirt cheap cards, and who does not like to see a bunch of expensive cards lose to cheap ones? That is the fun of MTG. I had the same experience playing against tier one decks at this weekend's PTQ, beating them with huge soltari priests they could not block in GW aggro. Many bad cards are made good by allowing low creature strategies- eg magus of the tabernacle.
(c)It was an excellent learning experience, and inspired others to make their own version. That does not happen with affinity etc- these are close to solved decks.
(d)The games went long. How much fun is there to be had when the match is over by t3 or 4? Prison decks always go long- and long drawn out matches are normally more fun than short ones with nutty hands. Plenty of time for both players to make decisions before any actual "locking" occurs.
If you want to play a game where a specific version of "fun" is promoted there is EDH and other casual formats.
I would rather the modern player base be smaller and have less people who sign up to Bocephus' point of view on prison decks. It really is not much fun having the "fun police" complaining that the opponent's strategy does not match their idea of fun. If we all banned one thing we disliked about magic there would be no MTG at all.
I kinda agree with you.
It's like playing Battlefield and complaining that you constantly get killed by tanks, jets, helicopters and snipers.
They are part of the game and you have to deal with it but complaining and crying is always easier than adapting.
But the people who show that behavior will never admit and see that they are the problem.
Words like "camper/sniper/heli/tank/jet/C4/(insert other weapon of choice) noob" all find widespread use in mainstream shooters for a reason.
Basically, I think Wizards needs to make creature-less decks fun to play against. Then they can print powerful spells that will make those decks viable. So how can they do that?
It's probably going to be very difficult. The reason many players hate playing against such decks is that the interaction (if it even happens at all) is very one-sided. Even if a creatureless deck is interactive, it's the opponent's board and spells that will be "interacted with", and not vice-versa. how do you want to change that?
edit: one way would be to make spells that make your opponent do something, like "an opponent seperates/choses/...".
I think giving interaction tools to more than just blue would go a long way to bring spells 'into the game' more. Whenever someone complains about storm or burn or whatever, usually someone says 'just counterspell it'. Well, only blue has decent counterspelling. Other colors need similar protection that can be main decked. Dawn Charm comes close, for example.
This is such a good post.
Other colors need ways to interact with the stack aside from Blue. WOTC's stance that blue is the only color allowed to interact with the stack is a big reason why blue is the strongest color in bigger formats. There are definitely ways to let other colors interact with the stack in ways that arent counterspells and stays true to their color pie pieces.
Its just silly to have a whole zone of the game where literally only one color can do anything about.
On a seperate note, Creatureless decks don't always equal prison. I don't know why Prison is the main topic of debate in this thread.
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.
Mine failed horribly last night at my local Modern Monday, but A) it was my first Modern game and B) I'm running Arcane spells, not anything super powerful.
You could very easily build such a deck to Turbo Fog the aggro decks, and play more Counterspells against the Combo Decks. The fact that I was able to beat a merfolk deck at least once running Arcane spells means that it has, at a minimum, a speckling of potential.
I mean, you guys have access to all the Staples, and Maze's End is a $2.50 card. Worst comes to worst, you're down $10.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
I have attempted to build a splice onto arcane so many time that I have lost count. I don't think it has a place in modern currently, sorry.
That's why I'm rebuilding it to be Not-Arcane
However, I don't have any of the huge staples of the format, either.
My current draft (That I'm about to post in the correct forum) only has Prime Time in it, and he can easily be swapped out for another card if required.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
Players dont find being locked out of the game 'fun'. They bought their cards to play also. Both sides of the table need to be having fun. Its when only one side is when probelms start.
This argument doesn't work and never has because then you're just shifting who isn't having fun to the other player. If I like Combo/Control/Prison decks and hate creature heavy decks why should I not get to have fun while you do? Neither of us like the other player's deck so there is no point in trying make it so we "both have fun" because it isn't going to happen.
Players dont find being locked out of the game 'fun'. They bought their cards to play also. Both sides of the table need to be having fun. Its when only one side is when probelms start.
This argument doesn't work and never has because then you're just shifting who isn't having fun to the other player. If I like Combo/Control/Prison decks and hate creature heavy decks why should I not get to have fun while you do? Neither of us like the other player's deck so there is no point in trying make it so we "both have fun" because it isn't going to happen.
The difference is, the creature player is allowing their opponent to actually play the game. The prison player is actually trying to stop the other person from playing. You are correct though, the prison player wont be happy as long as Wotc is gearing toward creature based play.
It would be interesting to see the attendance numbers following both thoughts (creature and prison) and see which brings more to the tables, but it cant be done.
So it seems the general consensus to making creature-less decks is either planewalkers or to turn the game into Legacy with more powerful counterspells and removal. The planeswalker thing will happen in time but Wizards is not going to threaten their profit margins by printing cards that newer players don't want to play against. Call them whiners, scrubs, or whatever, but newer players generally don't like playing against certain deck types, and many creature less decks fall into those categories.
Basically, I think Wizards needs to make creature-less decks fun to play against. Then they can print powerful spells that will make those decks viable. So how can they do that?
Eggs runs 0 creatures and 0 planeswalkers. It would probably still be competitive too if a better deck designer than me would come along and update it or if we got a good mana rock. Bringing Lotus Petal into Modern for example would be enough.
[quote from="TSRD »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/563966-what-does-wizards-need-to-do-to-make-creatureless?comment=91"][quote from="bocephus »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/563966-what-does-wizards-need-to-do-to-make-creatureless?comment=73"]
The difference is, the creature player is allowing their opponent to actually play the game. The prison player is actually trying to stop the other person from playing. You are correct though, the prison player wont be happy as long as Wotc is gearing toward creature based play.
It would be interesting to see the attendance numbers following both thoughts (creature and prison) and see which brings more to the tables, but it cant be done.
Creature players either kill with a combo or try and beat you to death by t4 unopposed. That is NOT letting opponents play the game. That is killing them before the game really starts. How can it be letting an opponent play if I only see 11 out of sixty cards before I am dead? At least prison strategies let the game go long, giving neither player as much chance to blame not seeing card x or y. In a prison game in legacy a midrange opponent will cast far more spells over the course of the game than they would vs a burn deck, where they are dead by t4 unless they have a batterskull type card down.
By the same argument all control and draw go decks do not let the opponent play. There is no difference between taking someones lands so they cast nothing and countering all their spells.
MTG is always about not letting your opponent play, one way or the other. Nobody wants lots of prison decks, but some good ones would be nice, even if they are niche.
Modern versions of Turbo fog, stax, lands, owling mine should be as viable as say soul sistas or living end, and would add diversity to the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
[quote from="TSRD »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/563966-what-does-wizards-need-to-do-to-make-creatureless?comment=91"][quote from="bocephus »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/563966-what-does-wizards-need-to-do-to-make-creatureless?comment=73"]
The difference is, the creature player is allowing their opponent to actually play the game. The prison player is actually trying to stop the other person from playing. You are correct though, the prison player wont be happy as long as Wotc is gearing toward creature based play.
It would be interesting to see the attendance numbers following both thoughts (creature and prison) and see which brings more to the tables, but it cant be done.
Creature players either kill with a combo or try and beat you to death by t4 unopposed. That is NOT letting opponents play the game. That is killing them before the game really starts. How can it be letting an opponent play if I only see 11 out of sixty cards before I am dead? At least prison strategies let the game go long, giving neither player as much chance to blame not seeing card x or y. In a prison game in legacy a midrange opponent will cast far more spells over the course of the game than they would vs a burn deck, where they are dead by t4 unless they have a batterskull type card down.
By the same argument all control and draw go decks do not let the opponent play. There is no difference between taking someones lands so they cast nothing and countering all their spells.
MTG is always about not letting your opponent play, one way or the other. Nobody wants lots of prison decks, but some good ones would be nice, even if they are niche.
Modern versions of Turbo fog, stax, lands, owling mine should be as viable as say soul sistas or living end, and would add diversity to the format.
</blockquote></blockquote>
In a turn 4 format 11 cards is all you should need to beat your opponent. Just saying. Again, a prison deck doesnt allow the opponent play the game. Creatures bashing heads does let both sides of the table drop creatures and actually play the game.
In all seriousness, its a difference in mentality toward the game. You want long games, I respect that. I dont. I want to finish a match in roughly 15 to 20 minutes so I can rest between rounds. Playing till the end of every round of a large event mentally wears on me. Like headaches and just dont want to keep playing. If you can handle it, more power to you, its not for me and I would stop playing competitively if I had to deal with it.
[quote from="TSRD »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/563966-what-does-wizards-need-to-do-to-make-creatureless?comment=91"][quote from="bocephus »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/563966-what-does-wizards-need-to-do-to-make-creatureless?comment=73"]
The difference is, the creature player is allowing their opponent to actually play the game. The prison player is actually trying to stop the other person from playing. You are correct though, the prison player wont be happy as long as Wotc is gearing toward creature based play.
It would be interesting to see the attendance numbers following both thoughts (creature and prison) and see which brings more to the tables, but it cant be done.
Creature players either kill with a combo or try and beat you to death by t4 unopposed. That is NOT letting opponents play the game. That is killing them before the game really starts. How can it be letting an opponent play if I only see 11 out of sixty cards before I am dead? At least prison strategies let the game go long, giving neither player as much chance to blame not seeing card x or y. In a prison game in legacy a midrange opponent will cast far more spells over the course of the game than they would vs a burn deck, where they are dead by t4 unless they have a batterskull type card down.
By the same argument all control and draw go decks do not let the opponent play. There is no difference between taking someones lands so they cast nothing and countering all their spells.
MTG is always about not letting your opponent play, one way or the other. Nobody wants lots of prison decks, but some good ones would be nice, even if they are niche.
Modern versions of Turbo fog, stax, lands, owling mine should be as viable as say soul sistas or living end, and would add diversity to the format.
</blockquote></blockquote>
In a turn 4 format 11 cards is all you should need to beat your opponent. Just saying. Again, a prison deck doesnt allow the opponent play the game. Creatures bashing heads does let both sides of the table drop creatures and actually play the game.
In all seriousness, its a difference in mentality toward the game. You want long games, I respect that. I dont. I want to finish a match in roughly 15 to 20 minutes so I can rest between rounds. Playing till the end of every round of a large event mentally wears on me. Like headaches and just dont want to keep playing. If you can handle it, more power to you, its not for me and I would stop playing competitively if I had to deal with it.
</blockquote></blockquote>
God forbid you have to think more to win
I get the point though. Fatigue is a big issue competitively. It's shown quite well with the popularity of combo. End it fast, limit play errors, move on. I don't particularly like this, but I can respect you wanting shorter games for that reason.
Creature players either kill with a combo or try and beat you to death by t4 unopposed. That is NOT letting opponents play the game. That is killing them before the game really starts. How can it be letting an opponent play if I only see 11 out of sixty cards before I am dead? At least prison strategies let the game go long, giving neither player as much chance to blame not seeing card x or y. In a prison game in legacy a midrange opponent will cast far more spells over the course of the game than they would vs a burn deck, where they are dead by t4 unless they have a batterskull type card down.
By the same argument all control and draw go decks do not let the opponent play. There is no difference between taking someones lands so they cast nothing and countering all their spells.
MTG is always about not letting your opponent play, one way or the other. Nobody wants lots of prison decks, but some good ones would be nice, even if they are niche.
Modern versions of Turbo fog, stax, lands, owling mine should be as viable as say soul sistas or living end, and would add diversity to the format.
</blockquote></blockquote>
In a turn 4 format 11 cards is all you should need to beat your opponent. Just saying. Again, a prison deck doesnt allow the opponent play the game. Creatures bashing heads does let both sides of the table drop creatures and actually play the game.
In all seriousness, its a difference in mentality toward the game. You want long games, I respect that. I dont. I want to finish a match in roughly 15 to 20 minutes so I can rest between rounds. Playing till the end of every round of a large event mentally wears on me. Like headaches and just dont want to keep playing. If you can handle it, more power to you, its not for me and I would stop playing competitively if I had to deal with it.
</blockquote></blockquote>
God forbid you have to think more to win
I get the point though. Fatigue is a big issue competitively. It's shown quite well with the popularity of combo. End it fast, limit play errors, move on. I don't particularly like this, but I can respect you wanting shorter games for that reason.
</blockquote></blockquote>
If you have ever played a large one day event (8+ rounds) or a 2 day event (multiple 8+rounds to make final tables) you would understand. It takes a certain kind of player to be able to play long rounds consistently and keep playing at a top level.
In a turn 4 format 11 cards is all you should need to beat your opponent. Just saying. Again, a prison deck doesnt allow the opponent play the game. Creatures bashing heads does let both sides of the table drop creatures and actually play the game.
In all seriousness, its a difference in mentality toward the game. You want long games, I respect that. I dont. I want to finish a match in roughly 15 to 20 minutes so I can rest between rounds. Playing till the end of every round of a large event mentally wears on me. Like headaches and just dont want to keep playing. If you can handle it, more power to you, its not for me and I would stop playing competitively if I had to deal with it.
</blockquote></blockquote>
God forbid you have to think more to win
I get the point though. Fatigue is a big issue competitively. It's shown quite well with the popularity of combo. End it fast, limit play errors, move on. I don't particularly like this, but I can respect you wanting shorter games for that reason.
</blockquote></blockquote>
If you have ever played a large one day event (8+ rounds) or a 2 day event (multiple 8+rounds to make final tables) you would understand. It takes a certain kind of player to be able to play long rounds consistently and keep playing at a top level.
</blockquote></blockquote>
Yup I've taken death and taxes to that. It's brutal, no margin of error. Keeping awake and focused and not on tilt is a big job.
I feel like people who want more no creature decks in Modern should just play Legacy. There are arguably 3 no creature decks in Modern right now. Storm, Ad Nauseum, and Scapeshift. Sure that's only a small portion of the field but that doesn't mean every other deck is an aggro deck. How many viable no creature decks do we really need anyways? I'm off the belief that such a niche idea shouldn't ever be more than a quarter of the field at any particular GP or PTQ. The metagame seems pretty healthy right now as is. Aside from Prison all the deck types are accounted for in Modern it just happens that most of those deck types use creatures. Blue control decks could theoretically have no creatures but Snapcaster and Clique are just too good.
There are only 3 reasons I can think of to not want to run creatures in your deck, unless you're that guy who just doesn't like summoning sentient things to do your fighting for you in which case your problem is strictly a flavor reason. You could want no creatures to blank your opponent's removal spells. How useful is that really though? Most maindeck removal has multiple uses already. Burn spells will get thrown at your face and stuff like Abrupt Decay will hit your other permanents and if you don't play other permanents they'll just pitch it to Lili. Path might not have any targets but maybe they'll just path their own stuff in response to your removal to grab a land. Ultimately blanking removal doesn't really do much but can provide small incremental advantage over the course of a game. If you've weighed all the pros and cons and decided that the advantage provided by snapcaster isn't worth giving them an abrupt decay target then go right ahead and run zero creatures. The second reason could be you're playing some sort of deck where creatures are explicitly bad. Some sort of prison control deck with stuff like humility in it. The tools for these decks don't currently exist in modern because they create a huge list of problems for the format. If these decks get too powerful than basically ALL creature based strategies are completely shut out. This is the primary reason why Prison decks are bad. Not because "the players are douches" or "they hate fun" but because prison strategies(and fast combo but we'll get to that later) are bad for diversity. The third reason you would want to play a no creatures deck is if you're trying to play a deck that's too fast for creatures, like storm. The problem with these decks is that they overcentralize the metagame and as a result make other decks unviable. If spell based combo decks get to be too fast and too consistent then basically every one is forced to run blue in order to interact with them. We can see this very thing happening in Legacy where the vast majority of decks have blue in them just to support force of will as a necessity. Being forced to run a particular color just to play in the format increases the barrier of entry and decreases deck diversity, both of with are unhealthy for the metagame. So of the 3 reasons why you would want to play a no creatures deck 2 of them are just straight up bad for the health of the modern format.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
Modern: UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy: UWBMiracles
Edh: UUUThassa Control WWWHokori Stax GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy BBBGriselbrand French List RBGShattergang(Super Villians) RWGHazezon Flicker UBRMarchesa Aggro URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
I feel like people who want more no creature decks in Modern should just play Legacy. There are arguably 3 no creature decks in Modern right now. Storm, Ad Nauseum, and Scapeshift.
None of those are "no creature" decks. Storm plays Goblin Electromancer. Ad Nauseam plays Simian Spirit Guide. Scapeshift plays Sakura-Tribe Elder. And I've seen all of them use these cards as creatures, e.g. attacking or blocking with them.
Gives control one of the strongest control cards ever printed, while keeping modern from being over run by countertop decks. Counterbalance has no place without top, but top can be perfectly fine as a control tool by itself.
Modern: UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy: UWBMiracles
Edh: UUUThassa Control WWWHokori Stax GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy BBBGriselbrand French List RBGShattergang(Super Villians) RWGHazezon Flicker UBRMarchesa Aggro URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
I feel like people who want more no creature decks in Modern should just play Legacy. There are arguably 3 no creature decks in Modern right now. Storm, Ad Nauseum, and Scapeshift.
None of those are "no creature" decks. Storm plays Goblin Electromancer. Ad Nauseam plays Simian Spirit Guide. Scapeshift plays Sakura-Tribe Elder. And I've seen all of them use these cards as creatures, e.g. attacking or blocking with them.
I've never seen spirit guide cast and not all storm decks run electromancer, most do but not all. As for Sakura tribe it's in there as a ramp spell that can sometimes stall a blocker if you want to play scapeshift and absolutely refuse to run creatures than you can just run Rampant Growth instead. Yes these are all technically creatures but none of them really interfere with your game plan just for being creatures. So unless your desire for a "no creatures" deck is just because you have an irrational hatred of creatures you are not negatively affected by having any of these in your deck. An argument can be made for Electromancer since as a creature it is more vulnerable to removal, an artifact or enchantment that did the same thing would be better for the deck of course but until said card is printed storm players are stuck with Electromancer.
I just feel like most people who want to run a "no creatures" deck just flat out hate creatures.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
I think when people play 'creatureless' decks what they are looking for is the 'spell thrower' experience: the ability to toss out lots of instants and sorceries. So to do that, any creatureless deck needs some sort of card advantage. This can be done a couple of ways:
-more cantrips (as has been mentioned multiple times)
-more flashback cards
-make splice into arcane into something that doesn't suck
-cycling
Buyback and retrace are also options, but giving players cards they can use too many times can become really annoying if it's a control card. Wizards is better off putting such effects on an artifact or enchantment so that opponents not playing hand disruption have a chance against them (I'm looking at you Capsize
Creatureless decks will also need a way to survive against creature decks. Modern already has a lot of removal, fog effects, and board wipes, but I think creatureless decks will probably also need more to survive. Some playable lifegain that isn't attached to a creature would be a good start.
Another thing we need to see more of are 'until end of turn' sorceries. Currently, most instants and sorceries do one thing and then they're done, which limits design space.
Finally, I think creatureless decks need some win conditions. Burn and Storm both have 'do 20' covered. Mill is pretty neat idea, but limited to 2 colors. Most of the other weird win conditions require special cards, so you end up playing a 'dig for that card' deck which a lot of people find annoying to play against.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Things WotC cares about:
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
I feel like people who want more no creature decks in Modern should just play Legacy. There are arguably 3 no creature decks in Modern right now. Storm, Ad Nauseum, and Scapeshift. Sure that's only a small portion of the field but that doesn't mean every other deck is an aggro deck.
I agree about legacy- it is the place for lots of no critter decks.
But your last point is really peculiar. NO decks are aggro, bar affinity and burn. You either play them, or straight combo- the ones mentioned above plus intant reanimator, amulet/hive minds, or you play-
midrange critter beatdown/control (zoo, tokens, most merfolk, fae, delver, all the d n t, hatebears, martyr, tron strategies)
midrange critter -control/beatdown (UW, jund, junk, and USA, superfriends),
midrange combo/beatdown (living end, twin variants, boggles) or
a combination of all three (pod).
8 rack- genuinely near critterless control, also exists in isolation- and it is these I want one or two more of.
It is not un-diverse, but not as diverse as it appears looking at the decks on mtgs or mtg goldfish.
It could do with one or two more 8 rack style lock decks, and one or two more genuinely aggro decks.
The former is hard, the latter is a genuine concern for wizards- the ban list indicates they want more aggro. But in an environ with lightning helix, decay, path, pulse, slaughter pact, bolt and great critter life gain that is a tall order.
In fact, I believe attacking with Simian Spirit Guide is how you win the mirror...
Pretty much this. If wizards simply gave interactive tools to all colors, it would go a long way to making 'unfair' decks fair to a lot of people. A simple 'you have hexproof until end of turn' instant that can be main decked would go a long way.
As for prison decks, I personally think they will never make a comeback. I play mono-white control with Ghostly Prisons, and one thing I found is that my deck worked a lot better if I aggro'd it up. I would spend so much time trying to permanently lock down my opponent, when really I just needed to lock them down long enough to get out a baneslayer angel and swing a few times. Trying to lock opponents out of the game is not nearly as effective as slowing them down long enough to kill them. It's why we see so much more tempo than hard control - using extra resources to attack now instead of hoping to totally control the battlefield (and giving your opponent the chance to top-deck something in the meantime) before moving.
Also, I want cycling back.
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
I have played a modern FNM with a fun RW lockdown stax style list. If someone was locked out (eg down to zero permanents with a world queller and kher keep on the table), they just scooped- the cards in question could have been a splinter twin on an exarch. It was fun for four reasons.
(a) The matches were novel to the players there, they enjoyed a different type of match. Variety is the spice of life. They thought the matches fun and thought the deck innovative. They also had a decent chance of winning, as these strategies are rarely tier one, and this particular one in not even the best RW lockdown deck.
(b) The deck was made with otherwise unplayable dirt cheap cards, and who does not like to see a bunch of expensive cards lose to cheap ones? That is the fun of MTG. I had the same experience playing against tier one decks at this weekend's PTQ, beating them with huge soltari priests they could not block in GW aggro. Many bad cards are made good by allowing low creature strategies- eg magus of the tabernacle.
(c)It was an excellent learning experience, and inspired others to make their own version. That does not happen with affinity etc- these are close to solved decks.
(d)The games went long. How much fun is there to be had when the match is over by t3 or 4? Prison decks always go long- and long drawn out matches are normally more fun than short ones with nutty hands. Plenty of time for both players to make decisions before any actual "locking" occurs.
If you want to play a game where a specific version of "fun" is promoted there is EDH and other casual formats.
I would rather the modern player base be smaller and have less people who sign up to Bocephus' point of view on prison decks. It really is not much fun having the "fun police" complaining that the opponent's strategy does not match their idea of fun. If we all banned one thing we disliked about magic there would be no MTG at all.
I kinda agree with you.
It's like playing Battlefield and complaining that you constantly get killed by tanks, jets, helicopters and snipers.
They are part of the game and you have to deal with it but complaining and crying is always easier than adapting.
But the people who show that behavior will never admit and see that they are the problem.
Words like "camper/sniper/heli/tank/jet/C4/(insert other weapon of choice) noob" all find widespread use in mainstream shooters for a reason.
This is such a good post.
Other colors need ways to interact with the stack aside from Blue. WOTC's stance that blue is the only color allowed to interact with the stack is a big reason why blue is the strongest color in bigger formats. There are definitely ways to let other colors interact with the stack in ways that arent counterspells and stays true to their color pie pieces.
Its just silly to have a whole zone of the game where literally only one color can do anything about.
On a seperate note, Creatureless decks don't always equal prison. I don't know why Prison is the main topic of debate in this thread.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Mine failed horribly last night at my local Modern Monday, but A) it was my first Modern game and B) I'm running Arcane spells, not anything super powerful.
You could very easily build such a deck to Turbo Fog the aggro decks, and play more Counterspells against the Combo Decks. The fact that I was able to beat a merfolk deck at least once running Arcane spells means that it has, at a minimum, a speckling of potential.
I mean, you guys have access to all the Staples, and Maze's End is a $2.50 card. Worst comes to worst, you're down $10.
That's why I'm rebuilding it to be Not-Arcane
However, I don't have any of the huge staples of the format, either.
My current draft (That I'm about to post in the correct forum) only has Prime Time in it, and he can easily be swapped out for another card if required.
This argument doesn't work and never has because then you're just shifting who isn't having fun to the other player. If I like Combo/Control/Prison decks and hate creature heavy decks why should I not get to have fun while you do? Neither of us like the other player's deck so there is no point in trying make it so we "both have fun" because it isn't going to happen.
The difference is, the creature player is allowing their opponent to actually play the game. The prison player is actually trying to stop the other person from playing. You are correct though, the prison player wont be happy as long as Wotc is gearing toward creature based play.
It would be interesting to see the attendance numbers following both thoughts (creature and prison) and see which brings more to the tables, but it cant be done.
Eggs runs 0 creatures and 0 planeswalkers. It would probably still be competitive too if a better deck designer than me would come along and update it or if we got a good mana rock. Bringing Lotus Petal into Modern for example would be enough.
Creature players either kill with a combo or try and beat you to death by t4 unopposed. That is NOT letting opponents play the game. That is killing them before the game really starts. How can it be letting an opponent play if I only see 11 out of sixty cards before I am dead? At least prison strategies let the game go long, giving neither player as much chance to blame not seeing card x or y. In a prison game in legacy a midrange opponent will cast far more spells over the course of the game than they would vs a burn deck, where they are dead by t4 unless they have a batterskull type card down.
By the same argument all control and draw go decks do not let the opponent play. There is no difference between taking someones lands so they cast nothing and countering all their spells.
MTG is always about not letting your opponent play, one way or the other. Nobody wants lots of prison decks, but some good ones would be nice, even if they are niche.
Modern versions of Turbo fog, stax, lands, owling mine should be as viable as say soul sistas or living end, and would add diversity to the format.
In a turn 4 format 11 cards is all you should need to beat your opponent. Just saying. Again, a prison deck doesnt allow the opponent play the game. Creatures bashing heads does let both sides of the table drop creatures and actually play the game.
In all seriousness, its a difference in mentality toward the game. You want long games, I respect that. I dont. I want to finish a match in roughly 15 to 20 minutes so I can rest between rounds. Playing till the end of every round of a large event mentally wears on me. Like headaches and just dont want to keep playing. If you can handle it, more power to you, its not for me and I would stop playing competitively if I had to deal with it.
God forbid you have to think more to win
I get the point though. Fatigue is a big issue competitively. It's shown quite well with the popularity of combo. End it fast, limit play errors, move on. I don't particularly like this, but I can respect you wanting shorter games for that reason.
If you have ever played a large one day event (8+ rounds) or a 2 day event (multiple 8+rounds to make final tables) you would understand. It takes a certain kind of player to be able to play long rounds consistently and keep playing at a top level.
Yup I've taken death and taxes to that. It's brutal, no margin of error. Keeping awake and focused and not on tilt is a big job.
There are only 3 reasons I can think of to not want to run creatures in your deck, unless you're that guy who just doesn't like summoning sentient things to do your fighting for you in which case your problem is strictly a flavor reason. You could want no creatures to blank your opponent's removal spells. How useful is that really though? Most maindeck removal has multiple uses already. Burn spells will get thrown at your face and stuff like Abrupt Decay will hit your other permanents and if you don't play other permanents they'll just pitch it to Lili. Path might not have any targets but maybe they'll just path their own stuff in response to your removal to grab a land. Ultimately blanking removal doesn't really do much but can provide small incremental advantage over the course of a game. If you've weighed all the pros and cons and decided that the advantage provided by snapcaster isn't worth giving them an abrupt decay target then go right ahead and run zero creatures. The second reason could be you're playing some sort of deck where creatures are explicitly bad. Some sort of prison control deck with stuff like humility in it. The tools for these decks don't currently exist in modern because they create a huge list of problems for the format. If these decks get too powerful than basically ALL creature based strategies are completely shut out. This is the primary reason why Prison decks are bad. Not because "the players are douches" or "they hate fun" but because prison strategies(and fast combo but we'll get to that later) are bad for diversity. The third reason you would want to play a no creatures deck is if you're trying to play a deck that's too fast for creatures, like storm. The problem with these decks is that they overcentralize the metagame and as a result make other decks unviable. If spell based combo decks get to be too fast and too consistent then basically every one is forced to run blue in order to interact with them. We can see this very thing happening in Legacy where the vast majority of decks have blue in them just to support force of will as a necessity. Being forced to run a particular color just to play in the format increases the barrier of entry and decreases deck diversity, both of with are unhealthy for the metagame. So of the 3 reasons why you would want to play a no creatures deck 2 of them are just straight up bad for the health of the modern format.
Unban Sensei's Divining Top
Ban Counterbalance
The problem is, top messes so much with tournaments due to people topping for so long, that they run to time.
Draft it Here!
UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy:
UWBMiracles
Edh:
UUUThassa Control
WWWHokori Stax
GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy
BBBGriselbrand French List
RBGShattergang(Super Villians)
RWGHazezon Flicker
UBRMarchesa Aggro
URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
How would this accomplish that?
Draft it Here!
UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy:
UWBMiracles
Edh:
UUUThassa Control
WWWHokori Stax
GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy
BBBGriselbrand French List
RBGShattergang(Super Villians)
RWGHazezon Flicker
UBRMarchesa Aggro
URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
I've never seen spirit guide cast and not all storm decks run electromancer, most do but not all. As for Sakura tribe it's in there as a ramp spell that can sometimes stall a blocker if you want to play scapeshift and absolutely refuse to run creatures than you can just run Rampant Growth instead. Yes these are all technically creatures but none of them really interfere with your game plan just for being creatures. So unless your desire for a "no creatures" deck is just because you have an irrational hatred of creatures you are not negatively affected by having any of these in your deck. An argument can be made for Electromancer since as a creature it is more vulnerable to removal, an artifact or enchantment that did the same thing would be better for the deck of course but until said card is printed storm players are stuck with Electromancer.
I just feel like most people who want to run a "no creatures" deck just flat out hate creatures.
-more cantrips (as has been mentioned multiple times)
-more flashback cards
-make splice into arcane into something that doesn't suck
-cycling
Buyback and retrace are also options, but giving players cards they can use too many times can become really annoying if it's a control card. Wizards is better off putting such effects on an artifact or enchantment so that opponents not playing hand disruption have a chance against them (I'm looking at you Capsize
Creatureless decks will also need a way to survive against creature decks. Modern already has a lot of removal, fog effects, and board wipes, but I think creatureless decks will probably also need more to survive. Some playable lifegain that isn't attached to a creature would be a good start.
Another thing we need to see more of are 'until end of turn' sorceries. Currently, most instants and sorceries do one thing and then they're done, which limits design space.
Finally, I think creatureless decks need some win conditions. Burn and Storm both have 'do 20' covered. Mill is pretty neat idea, but limited to 2 colors. Most of the other weird win conditions require special cards, so you end up playing a 'dig for that card' deck which a lot of people find annoying to play against.
-making certain Standard cards can be played in Modern, therefore increasing their value and increasing WotC's profit margin
Things WotC does not care about:
-keeping the ban list as short as possible
-taking chances with an entire format for the benefit of a single card
-catering to play styles that newer players generally don't like and will lose them more players than it will gain
-keeping the meta balanced between archetypes/colors/whatever
-keeping cards on the secondary market cheap (available yes, but not cheap)
-keeping the meta diverse (as long as a single deck doesn't threaten the popularity of the format)
I agree about legacy- it is the place for lots of no critter decks.
But your last point is really peculiar. NO decks are aggro, bar affinity and burn. You either play them, or straight combo- the ones mentioned above plus intant reanimator, amulet/hive minds, or you play-
midrange critter beatdown/control (zoo, tokens, most merfolk, fae, delver, all the d n t, hatebears, martyr, tron strategies)
midrange critter -control/beatdown (UW, jund, junk, and USA, superfriends),
midrange combo/beatdown (living end, twin variants, boggles) or
a combination of all three (pod).
8 rack- genuinely near critterless control, also exists in isolation- and it is these I want one or two more of.
It is not un-diverse, but not as diverse as it appears looking at the decks on mtgs or mtg goldfish.
It could do with one or two more 8 rack style lock decks, and one or two more genuinely aggro decks.
The former is hard, the latter is a genuine concern for wizards- the ban list indicates they want more aggro. But in an environ with lightning helix, decay, path, pulse, slaughter pact, bolt and great critter life gain that is a tall order.