Talk to a prison player and ask them what they want to do with said deck, 9 out of 10 are going to say annoy and piss off their opponent. There is a group of players that doesnt believe players on both sides of the table should be enjoying themselves. Most of those are the creatureless/prison type players.
As a mono-white control player who packs 4 ghostly prisons in my deck, I can tell you that I really want to avoid annoying other people. I play prison cards to slow down decks long enough to drop some fatties. For me, control is about delaying my opponent while I build up a superior resource base, and then attacking with overwhelming force, while answering any strategies they may employ. I defend, accumulate advantage, and then counter-attack.
If there are players who specifically enjoy causing others pain, then they are bad people who need psychiatric help and should not be catered to in the design of the game. It would be like designing a web forum in order to make it easy to troll.
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)
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.
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 don't think WotC can create an environment that truly supports fair creature-less decks in Modern without unfairly banning certain cards.
I think a brand new format would be needed with some new cards and very specific lists of cards from old sets in order to create a Modern-like format that allows fair but effective creature-less strategies alongside creature-based ones.
For the record, legacy storm decks do play xantid swarm and dark confidant fairly often in the board. But lets be honest, they're not there for the "plan B for the beatdown". In high tide, Cloud of faeries is sometimes used, but not very often.
The difference is those decks don't use creatures as a back up win con. In modern, combo decks aren't really combo, they're just midrange-y decks with a combo back up plan. In legacy, it doesn't matter what the combo is, if its combo, its combo. There's no "oh, well, maybe I'll splash green for goyf in case I need to be the beat down."
Of course, we do have storm and Ad Nauseam et al., but the most viable combo decks are really midrange.
Creatureless decks need to be able to survive being attacked by creatures as they have no blockers. Thus they have to be capable of winning quickly such as with Burn and Storm or being able to prevent your opponent from attacking such as 8Rack which utilizes Ensnaring Bridge. UB Mill which is another mostly creatureless deck tends to not be able to win as fast or reliably as Storm or Burn.
As of right now, there aren't really any hard control decks in Modern as they aren't able to survive the relentless onslaught of creature decks, thus they have to resort to playing value creatures such as Snapcaster or Resto Angel.
Scapeshift is the closest Modern has to a hard control deck. The only creatures they play serve as Warning/Rampant Growthhybrid or as a game ending bomb. They are really the only deck that plays a hard control plan: stall your opponent and then cast game ending bomb.
as a player of both uwr (was) ad scape (now), isn't uwr is the closest modern has to a hard control deck?
You played JESUS?!?! I heard none of his guys stay in the graveyard, and once you think you have him beat he ALWAYS comes back to win within three turns. I like...WORSHIP him.
as a player of both uwr (was) ad scape (now), isn't uwr is the closest modern has to a hard control deck?
It's actually pretty close. Scapeshift as you know is basically Control until it can play it's "I win" card. The deck also has Ramp. UWR, depending on the version, is Control and burn. They can actually burn you out and often just one attack with Celestial Colonnade and a fetchland from the opponent puts them in 5 "Bolt" range (this includes Lighning Helix, Lightning Bolt, and SCM).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Affinity gets good -> we lose all these mid-range decks.
Affinity gets even more fragile -> control gets better.
I think we have lost a key concept with the current design philosophy; That one player is the beatdown, and the other the control. If you remove this tenet, the game reduces to "play the most powerful cards you can", rather than "play the most efficient cards you can".
For example: We have seen endless reprints of Savannah Lions, but they have zero impact. Kitchen finks, on the other and, is almost ubiquitous.
TLDR: Optimize fast aggro, Control will adapt, Mid-range will be reduced.
Just throw the whole turn 4 rule out the window. Sorry, there are not the policing cards to stop turn 2 and 3 aggro or combo. That would be a complete mess.
[quote from="moz.the.blessed »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/563966-what-does-wizards-need-to-do-to-make-creatureless?comment=57"]
as a player of both uwr (was) ad scape (now), isn't uwr is the closest modern has to a hard control deck?
It's actually pretty close. Scapeshift as you know is basically Control until it can play it's "I win" card. The deck also has Ramp. UWR, depending on the version, is Control and burn. They can actually burn you out and often just one attack with Celestial Colonnade and a fetchland from the opponent puts them in 5 "Bolt" range (this includes Lighning Helix, Lightning Bolt, and SCM). [/quote
Blue Moon is closer. It is less Counter-Burn and more Prison.
Wizards can't really do anything to make creatureless decks viable, as said decks are forgoing an entire spell type. Any good spells such a deck could use, a deck with creatures could also use. You're just hindering yourself by not running creatures.
Wizards can't really do anything to make creatureless decks viable, as said decks are forgoing an entire spell type. Any good spells such a deck could use, a deck with creatures could also use. You're just hindering yourself by not running creatures.
A few people have basically said the same thing: there must be an active reason not to slap in Tarmygoyf or Snapcaster for creatureless decks to appear. Even mill plays Hedron Crab. I think this is why midrange is so big: take the best aggro cards and the best control cards and slap them together.
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)
To sum up the thread a bit:
Completely creatureless strategies are iffy to make but creatures like Snapcaster Mage and Vendilion Clique are played as spells most of the time anyway so it doesn't matter that much since your deck is for all intents and purposes still creatureless.
If Im playing UWR Control and you Abrupt Decay my Snapcaster Mage you didn't actually gain anything since I never played him for the body anyway.
Also Planeswalkers have and will take an important role in keeping your deck creatureless. UW/x Control in Standard only has planeswalkers and a single creature in their deck which is Ætherling who is invincible and unstoppable.
Blue Moon is closer. It is less Counter-Burn and more Prison.
I forgot about Blue Moon. I even played it for a week (TNM and FNM). It has less burn than UWR and it's burn is essentially to control the board. You end up winning with a Master of Waves or Batterskull.
This is probably the closest to Control. UW Control and Grixis (Cruel) Control get honorable mentions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
So there's 2 viable creatureless decks, how many are we looking for? I feel like having more control is more desirable than just a creatureless deck. Lord knows the format has enough combo.
Basically, I think Wizards needs to make creature-less decks fun to play against.
That kind of defeats the whole purpose behind the deck. Most who want to play the prison, creatureless decks, want to annoy and piss off who they are playing.
No, they want to control the game, often without resorting to counterspells, and then win, like most people playing. They play a strategy that makes the game go long and punishes unfair decks in particular. Which is better than just controlling the unfair decks with nothing more than a banhammer.
If people are annoyed by people playing critterless prison decks, perhaps they can politely sod off and play snap/draughts/chess or whatever, we would be much better off without them. I get annoyed by everyone playing tier one decks at PTQs for example. There were probably about five brews in two hundred at the last PTQ I went to. But I accept deck choice is part of the game. Remember if you are locked out of the game you can always scoop. Only those who don't tend to be the ones who are most vociferous. If you are not locked out completely then you are playing interactive two way magic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
Oh and some reprints that could really bring back critterless decks
.....
smokestack
pox
energy field
pendrell mists
humility (this is the major one)
static orb
winter orb
tanglewire
The last two could really help aggro too.
Humility is the main one, followed by smokestack and neither would really break standard, unlike the orbs. The humility effect would wreck many of the midrange combo decks and would promote token strategies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
No, they want to control the game, often without resorting to counterspells, and then win, like most people playing. They play a strategy that makes the game go long and punishes unfair decks in particular. Which is better than just controlling the unfair decks with nothing more than a banhammer.
If people are annoyed by people playing critterless prison decks, perhaps they can politely sod off and play snap/draughts/chess or whatever, we would be much better off without them. I get annoyed by everyone playing tier one decks at PTQs for example. There were probably about five brews in two hundred at the last PTQ I went to. But I accept deck choice is part of the game. Remember if you are locked out of the game you can always scoop. Only those who don't tend to be the ones who are most vociferous. If you are not locked out completely then you are playing interactive two way magic.
I should point out that you were responding to what Bocephus was saying about pissing people off.
And the lack of originality in decks pisses me off too.
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)
Wizards can't really do anything to make creatureless decks viable, as said decks are forgoing an entire spell type. Any good spells such a deck could use, a deck with creatures could also use. You're just hindering yourself by not running creatures.
I couldn't disagree with this more. I think you're a little off the ball on the different archetypes.
Yes, technically a deck with creatures could use any spell, and vice-versa. That doesn't mean it is good to do so. A deck like Storm does not want to run creatures (except Electromancer) because they don't do anything. If I'm playing a deck that literally wants to draw my whole deck somewhere between turns 2-4, what good does any creature do? Most creatures are used for the purpose of attacking, which I absolutely don't need. Electromancer is special because of the utility. Even creatures like Snapcaster aren't good in the deck, it's expensive. I'd actually be hindering myself by running creatures, the opposite of what you've said.
On the same hand, playing a deck with creatures doesn't want every spell. What does Grapeshot or Rituals do for a creature-deck? Probably nothing. It's going to make my creature deck much worse.
Ultimately the power of a spell is subjective. Snapcaster might universally be a better creature, as it's used in multiple formats and multiple decks and archetypes. That doesn't make a card like Electromancer bad. The card might not apply that often but when it does it's really powerful. Subjectively in UR Storm in Modern, the power of Electromancer might be more than that of Snapcaster in the decks we play it in. So to call something a "good spell" and say any creature deck can use it is really a misnomer.
Suddenly I might enjoy Modern more than just sometimes playing the Ad Nauseam combo. I love Smokestack so much. It's one of my favorite magic cards ever. I love the prison archetype and anything that makes it viable anywhere makes me happy.
Basically, I think Wizards needs to make creature-less decks fun to play against.
Quote from bocephus »
That kind of defeats the whole purpose behind the deck. Most who want to play the prison, creatureless decks, want to annoy and piss off who they are playing.
No, they want to control the game, often without resorting to counterspells, and then win, like most people playing. They play a strategy that makes the game go long and punishes unfair decks in particular. Which is better than just controlling the unfair decks with nothing more than a banhammer.
If people are annoyed by people playing critterless prison decks, perhaps they can politely sod off and play snap/draughts/chess or whatever, we would be much better off without them. I get annoyed by everyone playing tier one decks at PTQs for example. There were probably about five brews in two hundred at the last PTQ I went to. But I accept deck choice is part of the game. Remember if you are locked out of the game you can always scoop. Only those who don't tend to be the ones who are most vociferous. If you are not locked out completely then you are playing interactive two way magic.
This is the exact attitude I was speaking of.
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.
Basically, I think Wizards needs to make creature-less decks fun to play against.
Quote from bocephus »
That kind of defeats the whole purpose behind the deck. Most who want to play the prison, creatureless decks, want to annoy and piss off who they are playing.
No, they want to control the game, often without resorting to counterspells, and then win, like most people playing. They play a strategy that makes the game go long and punishes unfair decks in particular. Which is better than just controlling the unfair decks with nothing more than a banhammer.
If people are annoyed by people playing critterless prison decks, perhaps they can politely sod off and play snap/draughts/chess or whatever, we would be much better off without them. I get annoyed by everyone playing tier one decks at PTQs for example. There were probably about five brews in two hundred at the last PTQ I went to. But I accept deck choice is part of the game. Remember if you are locked out of the game you can always scoop. Only those who don't tend to be the ones who are most vociferous. If you are not locked out completely then you are playing interactive two way magic.
This is the exact attitude I was speaking of.
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.
Losing is generally not fun for most people. Doesn't matter if you get locked out of the game or are dead on Turn 4 to combo/aggro. The end result is the same.
Basically, I think Wizards needs to make creature-less decks fun to play against.
Quote from bocephus »
That kind of defeats the whole purpose behind the deck. Most who want to play the prison, creatureless decks, want to annoy and piss off who they are playing.
No, they want to control the game, often without resorting to counterspells, and then win, like most people playing. They play a strategy that makes the game go long and punishes unfair decks in particular. Which is better than just controlling the unfair decks with nothing more than a banhammer.
If people are annoyed by people playing critterless prison decks, perhaps they can politely sod off and play snap/draughts/chess or whatever, we would be much better off without them. I get annoyed by everyone playing tier one decks at PTQs for example. There were probably about five brews in two hundred at the last PTQ I went to. But I accept deck choice is part of the game. Remember if you are locked out of the game you can always scoop. Only those who don't tend to be the ones who are most vociferous. If you are not locked out completely then you are playing interactive two way magic.
This is the exact attitude I was speaking of.
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.
Losing is generally not fun for most people. Doesn't matter if you get locked out of the game or are dead on Turn 4 to combo/aggro. The end result is the same.
I disagree. But I doubt anything I can say will change your mind.
Losing is not always 'unfun'. In most cases it can be a learning moment. But if you are not allowed to play the game, you learn nothing. Throw in the attitude we see above and its like spitting on you for playing said deck. If losing was not fun we would not see the growing numbers in competitive Magic. Its only losing in certain ways that dont allow the opponent to 'play' the game is what causes problems.
Basically, I think Wizards needs to make creature-less decks fun to play against.
No, they want to control the game, often without resorting to counterspells, and then win, like most people playing. They play a strategy that makes the game go long and punishes unfair decks in particular. Which is better than just controlling the unfair decks with nothing more than a banhammer.
If people are annoyed by people playing critterless prison decks, perhaps they can politely sod off and play snap/draughts/chess or whatever, we would be much better off without them. I get annoyed by everyone playing tier one decks at PTQs for example. There were probably about five brews in two hundred at the last PTQ I went to. But I accept deck choice is part of the game. Remember if you are locked out of the game you can always scoop. Only those who don't tend to be the ones who are most vociferous. If you are not locked out completely then you are playing interactive two way magic.
This is the exact attitude I was speaking of.
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.
Losing is generally not fun for most people. Doesn't matter if you get locked out of the game or are dead on Turn 4 to combo/aggro. The end result is the same.
I disagree. But I doubt anything I can say will change your mind.
Losing is not always 'unfun'. In most cases it can be a learning moment. But if you are not allowed to play the game, you learn nothing. Throw in the attitude we see above and its like spitting on you for playing said deck. If losing was not fun we would not see the growing numbers in competitive Magic. Its only losing in certain ways that dont allow the opponent to 'play' the game is what causes problems.
Losing is generally accepted as less fun, but that does not imply not fun. People who are competitive at anything need to be able to have fun whether they're winning or losing, simply by the merit of enjoying the game itself. Some pros might not be mad at losing a game if it's truly one of the best games. As salty as Chapin probably was for losing to Nassif in the epic Storm mirror, they probably both look back at it as one of the most fun games they've ever had. You have to be able to just simply have fun regardless of the outcome, though obviously more and less as you win or lose.
Yes, I do agree that decks that disallow you to play your cards tend to be less fun for those who want to play their cards. I say this from empirical evidence, as I know people who hate playing against combo or control on the grounds that they really don't enjoy just losing instantly or not doing anything. People don't like me playing Niv-Mizzet in EDH for that reason. The thing is, it's part of the game, and some people enjoy it. Namely I enjoy just durdling until I say "hey look, I just won". These people wouldn't mind losing if it was slowly over the course of a long game.
The issue is that you can't tell people what is and isn't fun, because fun is a subjective turn. There are people that enjoy playing Storm significantly more than other archetypes. There's a regular at my LGS' Modern Tournaments that plays Eggs. He knows it's not the best but it's what he enjoys. He's fine losing because he's playing for fun. To simply remove the deck means you're telling him how to have fun. It's also why I really hate Magic shifting away from combo, and can't play Standard anymore. I feel like Wizards is trying to tell me how to play Magic, and I'd really like to decide that for myself. In the interest of maximizing fun for all players, you concede that you need to allow all archetypes to exist.
Can we not start into the whole "I want to have fun" versus "Stop whining, Scrub" debate, please? Let's just accept that wizards seems to be catering to a different mindset than they did before, and not pass judgment. I was hoping the thread would bring out some creative suggestions in people.
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)
Im playing Heartbeat/Green Sun combo in modern and its basically a creatureless deck aside from 4 Sakura Tribe Elder which I use mostly for ramp and it can blank an attacker.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active Modern Decks
U Tron GW Bogles RG Loam UR Blue Breach RBU Grixis Goryo BRU Grixis Delver GBR Jund GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a mono-white control player who packs 4 ghostly prisons in my deck, I can tell you that I really want to avoid annoying other people. I play prison cards to slow down decks long enough to drop some fatties. For me, control is about delaying my opponent while I build up a superior resource base, and then attacking with overwhelming force, while answering any strategies they may employ. I defend, accumulate advantage, and then counter-attack.
If there are players who specifically enjoy causing others pain, then they are bad people who need psychiatric help and should not be catered to in the design of the game. It would be like designing a web forum in order to make it easy to troll.
-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 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.
-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 think a brand new format would be needed with some new cards and very specific lists of cards from old sets in order to create a Modern-like format that allows fair but effective creature-less strategies alongside creature-based ones.
The difference is those decks don't use creatures as a back up win con. In modern, combo decks aren't really combo, they're just midrange-y decks with a combo back up plan. In legacy, it doesn't matter what the combo is, if its combo, its combo. There's no "oh, well, maybe I'll splash green for goyf in case I need to be the beat down."
Of course, we do have storm and Ad Nauseam et al., but the most viable combo decks are really midrange.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
as a player of both uwr (was) ad scape (now), isn't uwr is the closest modern has to a hard control deck?
My 180 Modern Bordered Only Cube
It's actually pretty close. Scapeshift as you know is basically Control until it can play it's "I win" card. The deck also has Ramp. UWR, depending on the version, is Control and burn. They can actually burn you out and often just one attack with Celestial Colonnade and a fetchland from the opponent puts them in 5 "Bolt" range (this includes Lighning Helix, Lightning Bolt, and SCM).
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Just throw the whole turn 4 rule out the window. Sorry, there are not the policing cards to stop turn 2 and 3 aggro or combo. That would be a complete mess.
It's actually pretty close. Scapeshift as you know is basically Control until it can play it's "I win" card. The deck also has Ramp. UWR, depending on the version, is Control and burn. They can actually burn you out and often just one attack with Celestial Colonnade and a fetchland from the opponent puts them in 5 "Bolt" range (this includes Lighning Helix, Lightning Bolt, and SCM). [/quote
Blue Moon is closer. It is less Counter-Burn and more Prison.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Give Zaliki a CardI must have all the cats!
A few people have basically said the same thing: there must be an active reason not to slap in Tarmygoyf or Snapcaster for creatureless decks to appear. Even mill plays Hedron Crab. I think this is why midrange is so big: take the best aggro cards and the best control cards and slap them together.
-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)
Completely creatureless strategies are iffy to make but creatures like Snapcaster Mage and Vendilion Clique are played as spells most of the time anyway so it doesn't matter that much since your deck is for all intents and purposes still creatureless.
If Im playing UWR Control and you Abrupt Decay my Snapcaster Mage you didn't actually gain anything since I never played him for the body anyway.
Also Planeswalkers have and will take an important role in keeping your deck creatureless. UW/x Control in Standard only has planeswalkers and a single creature in their deck which is Ætherling who is invincible and unstoppable.
I forgot about Blue Moon. I even played it for a week (TNM and FNM). It has less burn than UWR and it's burn is essentially to control the board. You end up winning with a Master of Waves or Batterskull.
This is probably the closest to Control. UW Control and Grixis (Cruel) Control get honorable mentions.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Ux Whirza
Rb Goblins
Legacy
U Urza Stompy
Duel Commander
Sai, Master Thopterist
No, they want to control the game, often without resorting to counterspells, and then win, like most people playing. They play a strategy that makes the game go long and punishes unfair decks in particular. Which is better than just controlling the unfair decks with nothing more than a banhammer.
If people are annoyed by people playing critterless prison decks, perhaps they can politely sod off and play snap/draughts/chess or whatever, we would be much better off without them. I get annoyed by everyone playing tier one decks at PTQs for example. There were probably about five brews in two hundred at the last PTQ I went to. But I accept deck choice is part of the game. Remember if you are locked out of the game you can always scoop. Only those who don't tend to be the ones who are most vociferous. If you are not locked out completely then you are playing interactive two way magic.
.....
smokestack
pox
energy field
pendrell mists
humility (this is the major one)
static orb
winter orb
tanglewire
The last two could really help aggro too.
Humility is the main one, followed by smokestack and neither would really break standard, unlike the orbs. The humility effect would wreck many of the midrange combo decks and would promote token strategies.
I should point out that you were responding to what Bocephus was saying about pissing people off.
And the lack of originality in decks pisses me off too.
-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 couldn't disagree with this more. I think you're a little off the ball on the different archetypes.
Yes, technically a deck with creatures could use any spell, and vice-versa. That doesn't mean it is good to do so. A deck like Storm does not want to run creatures (except Electromancer) because they don't do anything. If I'm playing a deck that literally wants to draw my whole deck somewhere between turns 2-4, what good does any creature do? Most creatures are used for the purpose of attacking, which I absolutely don't need. Electromancer is special because of the utility. Even creatures like Snapcaster aren't good in the deck, it's expensive. I'd actually be hindering myself by running creatures, the opposite of what you've said.
On the same hand, playing a deck with creatures doesn't want every spell. What does Grapeshot or Rituals do for a creature-deck? Probably nothing. It's going to make my creature deck much worse.
Ultimately the power of a spell is subjective. Snapcaster might universally be a better creature, as it's used in multiple formats and multiple decks and archetypes. That doesn't make a card like Electromancer bad. The card might not apply that often but when it does it's really powerful. Subjectively in UR Storm in Modern, the power of Electromancer might be more than that of Snapcaster in the decks we play it in. So to call something a "good spell" and say any creature deck can use it is really a misnomer.
Grixis Death's Shadow, Jund, UW Tron, Jeskai Control, Storm, Counters Company, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Living End, Infect, Merfolk, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Amulet, Bogles, Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, Lantern, Mardu Pyromancer
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
This is the exact attitude I was speaking of.
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.
Losing is generally not fun for most people. Doesn't matter if you get locked out of the game or are dead on Turn 4 to combo/aggro. The end result is the same.
I disagree. But I doubt anything I can say will change your mind.
Losing is not always 'unfun'. In most cases it can be a learning moment. But if you are not allowed to play the game, you learn nothing. Throw in the attitude we see above and its like spitting on you for playing said deck. If losing was not fun we would not see the growing numbers in competitive Magic. Its only losing in certain ways that dont allow the opponent to 'play' the game is what causes problems.
Losing is generally accepted as less fun, but that does not imply not fun. People who are competitive at anything need to be able to have fun whether they're winning or losing, simply by the merit of enjoying the game itself. Some pros might not be mad at losing a game if it's truly one of the best games. As salty as Chapin probably was for losing to Nassif in the epic Storm mirror, they probably both look back at it as one of the most fun games they've ever had. You have to be able to just simply have fun regardless of the outcome, though obviously more and less as you win or lose.
Yes, I do agree that decks that disallow you to play your cards tend to be less fun for those who want to play their cards. I say this from empirical evidence, as I know people who hate playing against combo or control on the grounds that they really don't enjoy just losing instantly or not doing anything. People don't like me playing Niv-Mizzet in EDH for that reason. The thing is, it's part of the game, and some people enjoy it. Namely I enjoy just durdling until I say "hey look, I just won". These people wouldn't mind losing if it was slowly over the course of a long game.
The issue is that you can't tell people what is and isn't fun, because fun is a subjective turn. There are people that enjoy playing Storm significantly more than other archetypes. There's a regular at my LGS' Modern Tournaments that plays Eggs. He knows it's not the best but it's what he enjoys. He's fine losing because he's playing for fun. To simply remove the deck means you're telling him how to have fun. It's also why I really hate Magic shifting away from combo, and can't play Standard anymore. I feel like Wizards is trying to tell me how to play Magic, and I'd really like to decide that for myself. In the interest of maximizing fun for all players, you concede that you need to allow all archetypes to exist.
Grixis Death's Shadow, Jund, UW Tron, Jeskai Control, Storm, Counters Company, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Living End, Infect, Merfolk, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Amulet, Bogles, Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, Lantern, Mardu Pyromancer
-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)
U Tron
GW Bogles
RG Loam
UR Blue Breach
RBU Grixis Goryo
BRU Grixis Delver
GBR Jund
GBW Junk
Active Legacy Decks
BR Reanimator