The move isn't necessarily towards creatures--it's towards permanence. And that is the thing. A control deck can't win without having to play some powerful permanent which is the difference from before. This completely changes the nature of it. Permanents aren't necessarily less interactive. In fact they can be more interactive since they can be removed at different times. Yes Sorcery speed abilities and focus on the attack phase is more narrow than instants. But there are plenty of different types of abilities on permanents. Ironically aggro-control/hybrid control might be the the archetype that is least based on permanence right now and in so is the one where spells feel more powerful than anywhere else.
I dont think aggro was ever worse than control. Thats an odd statement considering Ive been playing since urzas saga.
Yes a very odd statement IMHO, although to be fair it does depends on your definition of what is "aggro" and what is "control", which can be different from person to person.
For about the past year in Standard, control has vanished from the scene and is nowhere to be found. However, historically, control has been a very strong archetype. Obviously there have been ups and downs for each archetype over time, but if I look at the period from Time Spiral to Innistrad (about 5 yrs), I have to say that control quite often ended up being the best deck in the meta.
Creatures are in fact the least interactive aspect of Magic. You attack, grats, I take damage. My turn, I attack, you take damage. Who gets to 0 first, might as well flip a coin over it. Control decks are forced to be able to interact (key word here) with a myriad of threats, including your opponent's hand, creatures, planeswalkers, graveyard, etc. If I honestly wanted a quick match up based around creatures, I would just play Dredge and kill you on turn 2.
You're looking at this from a very one-sided perspective. Creatures are inherently the most interactive part of Magic. (Interesting aside: creatures are the only card type in the game that allow for interaction with no extra rules text on the cards.) It actually takes effort to make creatures non- or less interactive by adding abilities like shroud, hexproof, and unblockability. Too much of that is probably a bad thing, yes. However, for the most part, creatures are very interactive by their nature. Don't want to take that attack damage? Hold a guy back to block.
In the case of control decks, the "interactive" element is often more of a one-sided reactive element. There's little back and forth, except perhaps against other control decks. Against other deck types, there is less possibility for true interaction, because spells inherently don't allow the same type or amount of interaction as creatures do. You could argue that Wizards should work to increase the amount of interaction possible between creatures and spells. Or you could argue that Wizards should work to increase the number of reactive spells in non-blue colors (and I have argued for that before). But you can't argue that creatures are less interactive than spells, because they aren't. The very opposite is true.
Magic should never be centered around creatures, but a balance of both creatures and spells. Colors are not created equal, which is why blue has an affinity for spells, and green has an affinity for creatures. When creatures are favored, blue invariably becomes the weaker color, because blue's creatures tend to be weaker than creatures in other colors.
In theory, blue is supposed to have weak creatures. But in practice, that is just not the case. Blue creatures are outstanding right now in both Standard and Legacy, with Delver leading the charge in both formats. Faeries (and to a lesser extent, Merfolk) showed how strong blue can be in a creature-centric tribal block. And if you're into limited right now, cards like Mist Raven show what blue creatures can do in that format. Blue has historically been the best color, and the shift to a creature-centric game hasn't changed that.
You are so condescending. People have different views. Maybe try accepting that. If magic is moving towards more creatures and quick fun matches then good. I hate facing control just because of the boredom factor.
Without being condescending, let me make sure I understand you correctly.
You want standard Magic to be where both players play creatures and spells that interact with those creatures, but nobody should play a creatureless control deck.
Okay, then I guess you would have to also not print any of these cards.
That's the shell of a BW Control deck that is just as nasty as any blue control deck that you can come up with in standard if not more so.
28 kill spells from the above + 8 combination Sorin's Vengeance, Entreat the Angels, and Consume Spirit will pretty much take care of any aggro deck you throw at it. It sure as hell will make one frustrating game for the aggro opponent as has been told me quite a few times when I played something similar to this (minus the M13 cards)
You wouldn't like playing against this would you? After all, it doesn't conform to YOUR definition of fun Magic. So I guess these cards have to be removed too. At least any card that does direct damage in a grand scale (like Fireball) would have to be removed as any of them can be used in a control shell.
To have the kind of Magic that YOU want, we'd have to lose at least 20% of the spells we currently have in this game.
And nothing would give me more pleasure than to play a totally non blue control deck against somebody who doesn't like blue based control and have them rage quit because every single one of their threats was dealt with without having to put ONE creature on the battlefield and without having to use ONE counterspell.
I'm sorry. I mean no disrespect, but you have a very narrow minded view of what this game should be. I hope and pray that every new Magic player being introduced to this game doesn't have the same attitude as you because if they do, this game is surely doomed to die a horrible death.
And if this post is deserving of another warning or infraction then so be it.
Oh... man.. Just cause answers exist does not make a creatureless control deck. They are very clever on card design on that side. You need CA to be a control deck that mostly 1 for 1's. The move to so many 2 for 1's in creatures, and advantage created by planeswalkers makes this prospect almost impossible. Flashback is actually a stronger CA mechanic for spells and even with that right now it isn't completely possible. Snapcaster is one of the best enablers. I'm not saying it's impossible but printing all the answers does not make a deck. As soon as that deck hits someone who doesn't just win off creatures it has huge issues.
They don't have to get rid of cards to stop creatureless control. They just have to give other forms of card advantage to proactive cards. That's why these decks don't exist anymore. Not having the answers would be a far more dangerous prospect. It doesn't stop people from playing a terrible all-removal.dec but it stops it from being actually good.
Magic isn't moving that much it made the big move years ago. I think they are pretty happy where it is. Nothing to me suggests that they are doing anything to further this thing. Hating control for being control is a statement that does reveal a lot of ignorance about the game, but that last tirade about getting rid of spells that interact with creatures I think in no way could the other poster be condoning and possibly in the process exposes equally misguided views.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Decks: GWUKnightfall Modern UWTempo Legacy UGRBurning Wish Cobra Vintage
Oh... man.. Just cause answers exist does not make a creatureless control deck. They are very clever on card design on that side. You need CA to be a control deck that mostly 1 for 1's. The move to so many 2 for 1's in creatures, and advantage created by planeswalkers makes this prospect almost impossible. Flashback is actually a stronger CA mechanic for spells and even with that right now it isn't completely possible. Snapcaster is one of the best enablers. I'm not saying it's impossible but printing all the answers does not make a deck. As soon as that deck hits someone who doesn't just win off creatures it has huge issues.
They don't have to get rid of cards to stop creatureless control. They just have to give other forms of card advantage to proactive cards. That's why these decks don't exist anymore. Not having the answers would be a far more dangerous prospect. It doesn't stop people from playing a terrible all-removal.dec but it stops it from being actually good.
Magic isn't moving that much it made the big move years ago. I think they are pretty happy where it is. Nothing to me suggests that they are doing anything to further this thing. Hating control for being control is a statement that does reveal a lot of ignorance about the game, but that last tirade about getting rid of spells that interact with creatures I think in no way could the other poster be condoning and possibly in the process exposes equally misguided views.
Steve, you seem to be taking someone's words and stretching them to an absurd degree. I won't presume to speak for Larry, but when I read his posts, I do NOT get the impression that he wants all removal or all spells gone from the game. It seems like you've got this slippery slope argument just built up in your head that new players want nothing but sets with 100% creatures and WotC is giving it to them.
There is a middle ground, you know. Some removal is fine. Some spells are fine. And when someone wants creatures to be more central in the game, that doesn't necessarily mean they want everything else to go away.
Ok.. sure I will expand that a bit farther. Sweeper.dec is still not necessarily a deck cause it only focuses on a single permanent type, and some of those 2 for 1's I was speaking about involve being resilient to sweepers. Even with access to a ton of sweepers right now how many actually see play in a given deck. So let's say it's a split of 1 for 1's and 2 for 1's against creatures. There are 2 for 1's for other types but typically their application is much narrower. Basically the existance of so many good 2 for 1 creatures, and planeswalkers is more of an issue for these decks than anything.
The key thing to get from what I was saying was having a deck of answers doesn't make a deck. So saying that certain cards would have to not exist for the deck to exist and naming pretty much every creature removal spell is such a small part of what makes a deck like that viable. Answers are what create the balance in the format and which is why control exists (which is why it is clear there is some possibly misguided anti-control sentiment in this thread). However, suggesting that answers enough (and suggesting they would have to not exist) in a world of the type of permanents we have now would be sufficient for a control deck of all spells to be viable seems fairly incomplete. It depends on much more than the answers themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Decks: GWUKnightfall Modern UWTempo Legacy UGRBurning Wish Cobra Vintage
I don't understand why some players are still complaining about control decks. The control decks that we used to have (draw-go) no longer exist. We are getting a lot of creatures that is above the curve while control cards like countermagic, removal and sweepers are being nerfed.
I'm sorry. I mean no disrespect, but you have a very narrow minded view of what this game should be.
That's really funny. Please, tell us again how the game should actually be played. The way it was 18 years ago when everything was perfect and no one net-decked.
Ok.. sure I will expand that a bit farther. Sweeper.dec is still not necessarily a deck cause it only focuses on a single permanent type, and some of those 2 for 1's I was speaking about involve being resilient to sweepers. Even with access to a ton of sweepers right now how many actually see play in a given deck. So let's say it's a split of 1 for 1's and 2 for 1's against creatures. There are 2 for 1's for other types but typically their application is much narrower. Basically the existance of so many good 2 for 1 creatures, and planeswalkers is more of an issue for these decks than anything.
The key thing to get from what I was saying was having a deck of answers doesn't make a deck. So saying that certain cards would have to not exist for the deck to exist and naming pretty much every creature removal spell is such a small part of what makes a deck like that viable. Answers are what create the balance in the format and which is why control exists (which is why it is clear there is some possibly misguided anti-control sentiment in this thread). However, suggesting that answers enough (and suggesting they would have to not exist) in a world of the type of permanents we have now would be sufficient for a control deck of all spells to be viable seems fairly incomplete. It depends on much more than the answers themselves.
Okay, I get you and I agree. But it's certainly still possible to put together a deck in today's standard environment that doesn't rely on creatures as a win condition and thus, would be against the member's "definition" of what Magic should be.
I was just trying to, in an extreme way, show that just because a deck isn't blue and doesn't contain counter magic doesn't mean it can't still control the board and be frustrating to play against.
Naturally you still need threats in addition to answers to threats but look at UR Storm in Modern. Granted, we don't have such an engine in standard and probably never will again, but we have engines that are close and can still be competitive.
My question to Larry was simple. Would he not still find playing against those decks equally as frustrating and unfun as playing against a counter magic deck?
I also do not understand the irrational hatred of control decks which is why I'm frustrated and disgusted with this whole conversation, thus possibly causing me to give "examples" that might have some "holes" in them in application, if not in theory.
The theory I still stand behind. You can nerf blue all you want (which is ultimately what these people want to do) but it's not going to kill control. Not completely anyway. Granted, it's in pretty bad shape right now and I don't see it ever getting healthy to the point where it becomes tier 1 ever again, but that doesn't mean people won't stop trying and actually come up with decent, if not great, facsimiles.
Here's the bottom line. If the players that are so against control of any kind manage to force WotC's hand to the point where control is not only no longer viable tier 1 but non existent, this game will, in the long run, suffer.
Because sooner or later, the same people who demanded all creatures all the time are going to get sick and tired of "turning dudes sideways" to win at Magic.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just a relic of days long gone.
Why would I get bored of magic eventually? Its rude to suggest this. I am likely to stay loving magic unless every game is vs some lamer who doesnt try to win the game but instead just concentrates on annoying me with his lame spells and counters and removals.
Doesn't try to win the game?
Hmmm. please tell me that the person who played The Deck didn't try to win the game.
I'm sorry Larry, but it's very hard to take anything you say seriously as you're really showing your lack of knowledge.
I'm curious how long have you been playing and how old are you? You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I am curious. It might help me understand where you're coming from.
Not relevant. You cant tell me I AM WRONG when all I am stating is my opinion. Unless you think I am wrong about finding playing against lame control decks boring? Or I am wrong about believing the battlefield should be the heart of the game of magic?
That's fine. You answered my question without answering it.
I think it would be best at this point to just drop this whole subject between the two of us.
I don't know how close you live to NJ, but I would really love the chance to play against you just once.
I think that would give me more pleasure right now than anything I could possibly think of in regard to this game.
To be honest I think the current format has two problem cards: Delver of Secrets and Cavern of Souls.
Cavern because it makes blue based control decks so much trickier to play vs wolf run, when they're one of the best answers to the delver deck, hence cutting down their place in the meta and helping the delver deck take centre place.
Delver because blue is not meant to have creatures like that and a ~30% 3/2 for one mana is rediculous.
Also for the record, I'm a control player. Control decks involve skill, and careful thinking, rather than: "I put cards down and turn them sideways" which seems to be being advocated by certain people at the moment. That's not much of a game... I'm not saying there shouldn't be aggro decks, but they should have issues to play around like the things that control can do in order to introduce more thinking and skill to the game...
(Side note, if you're playing aggro vs control and it's turn 10 or later you're probably meant to concede if you're not enjoying it, as they're going to win, the hard part of the game has been and gone)
Thanks, but no. I really need to see the look on your face after we're done.
lol
I have to agree with LBS that while you may personally think that Magic games are played, won, and lost on the battlefield, not everyone agrees with you. Some enjoy the mind games of combo, the back and forth of control, and even some enjoy land destruction and discard (myself not included on the last 2, but for years I accepted it as part of the game).
Also just like he said, if creature vs. creature battle becomes extreme to the point where it's all just about calculating combat damage, the same people will complain. We all complain. In some ways, I'm complaining right now.
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)
I miss combo. The only way I want to tap creatures is infinite amount of times, and the spells I'd like to cast should be countering counters, putting up the storm count or draining for lethal.
I have to agree with LBS that while you may personally think that Magic games are played, won, and lost on the battlefield, not everyone agrees with you. Some enjoy the mind games of combo, the back and forth of control, and even some enjoy land destruction and discard (myself not included on the last 2, but for years I accepted it as part of the game).
WoTC certainly agrees that Magic should be a creature based game. Want it to change? Try changing their mind.
I can't even get my Johnny fix in Standard
Also just like he said, if creature vs. creature battle becomes extreme to the point where it's all just about calculating combat damage, the same people will complain. We all complain. In some ways, I'm complaining right now.
Those people will cross the bridge when they get there. But right now? They got what they wanted and I don't see them complaining.
Wow I skipped from page 1 to page 4 and I see an immature argument about being lame stall control players vs a heart of the battlefield passionate player?
Really dudes?
Both of you are wrong. It's a card game with many of options of play. We got control, ramp, tempo, and aggro decks all placing fairly well at varying major tournament and locals. People need to grow the hell up.
Back on to the original topic...
I used to think just like OP, control can use target removal and sweepers against aggro then drop bombs like Titans or Elesh just win in the later turns. But that's when I was a bad player. And also a cheap/broke(monetary) player.
Aggro decks have creatures with undying, hexproof, and unblockable. Just look at Humans. They have such a huge variety of effects that give them an edge over control. Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, Grand Abolisher, Mirran Crusader. Quality creatures like that give an edge to aggro that makes it a viable deck against control.
The most fun I have playing is usually my aggro deck vs a control deck. In which I get a fast start they have answers and I get my few answers to their big threats. It really comes to the wire. But there are also the matches when I completely rush them down by turn 5 and they can't do anything but look sad that they drew into 6drops and not early removal or draw cards but no answers. Or the opposite when they sweep me, counter the right things, and hose me down with big creature.
At this point in time I really like the meta of Standard. If you are talking about Modern or legacy aggro decks are even more ridiculous with the whole Zoo deck archtype.
It's actually not that long ago that the Splinter Twin combo deck was viable, but that was more the exception than the rule. I agree with LBS that combo and control are almost non-existent. Semi-viable combo decks pop up now and then, but control is dead and buried.
Ironically, control would probably be much better if combo was more viable (rock-paper-scissors metagame). Combo decks are generally to easily hated out, though (post sideboarding).
Except if you're playing standard you really don't have many options.
Show me a viable combo deck.
Show me a tier 1 control deck.
There's been a sorin markov + sorin's vengeance combo-control deck that's been floating around on mtgo recently and has featured in a few SCG articles/videos.
It's not tier 1 and couldn't survive people metagaming against it (i.e. just boarding some negates) but against an unprepared field it seems to be doing very well.
Can't be bothered finding a list for you, if you care enough you can find it yourself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Add my MTGO accountOzryelto playtest competitive standard. Currently playing BUG Midrange.
Not relevant. You cant tell me I AM WRONG when all I am stating is my opinion. Unless you think I am wrong about finding playing against lame control decks boring? Or I am wrong about believing the battlefield should be the heart of the game of magic?
I think watching multiple creatures with "cannot be targeted by spells or abilities" with equipment that gives them protection from X color, further protected by creatures or spells that let you avoid removal/bounce is about as, or in fact more, boring to play against than control.
Against control decks, you can make decisions. Do you continue playing everything in your hand to force a response in the hopes that they run out of answers eventually? Do you wait for them to make a mistake? Or maybe you have a deck that's capable of beating control and you just win.
Against decks with geist, swords, restoration angel, what have you, you can't even interact with the creatures. There's no strategy or decision making involved in handling a geist with a sword attached to it with your opponent holding four mana open. There's only two ways that you can beat that geist. You either play a big flier and just watch them replace the sword to some other creature and swing, or you play a wrath effect and watch them cast restoration in response and save their geist or something.
Or they can just bounce their own damned creature, but at least that's more in-line with traditional strategy.
And, lastly, I do believe that you're wrong about the battlefield being the heart of the game. At least, it used to be wrong. Returning after six-seven years, I'm do believe that creatures are the main point of the game, yes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Isn't there a porch you should be on waving your broom at the neighbor kids?
Yep, and I'm just about to go out there and do some waving.
Anything to get away from the illogic of today's Magic players.
GWU Knightfall Modern
UW Tempo Legacy
UGR Burning Wish Cobra Vintage
Yes a very odd statement IMHO, although to be fair it does depends on your definition of what is "aggro" and what is "control", which can be different from person to person.
For about the past year in Standard, control has vanished from the scene and is nowhere to be found. However, historically, control has been a very strong archetype. Obviously there have been ups and downs for each archetype over time, but if I look at the period from Time Spiral to Innistrad (about 5 yrs), I have to say that control quite often ended up being the best deck in the meta.
You're looking at this from a very one-sided perspective. Creatures are inherently the most interactive part of Magic. (Interesting aside: creatures are the only card type in the game that allow for interaction with no extra rules text on the cards.) It actually takes effort to make creatures non- or less interactive by adding abilities like shroud, hexproof, and unblockability. Too much of that is probably a bad thing, yes. However, for the most part, creatures are very interactive by their nature. Don't want to take that attack damage? Hold a guy back to block.
In the case of control decks, the "interactive" element is often more of a one-sided reactive element. There's little back and forth, except perhaps against other control decks. Against other deck types, there is less possibility for true interaction, because spells inherently don't allow the same type or amount of interaction as creatures do. You could argue that Wizards should work to increase the amount of interaction possible between creatures and spells. Or you could argue that Wizards should work to increase the number of reactive spells in non-blue colors (and I have argued for that before). But you can't argue that creatures are less interactive than spells, because they aren't. The very opposite is true.
In theory, blue is supposed to have weak creatures. But in practice, that is just not the case. Blue creatures are outstanding right now in both Standard and Legacy, with Delver leading the charge in both formats. Faeries (and to a lesser extent, Merfolk) showed how strong blue can be in a creature-centric tribal block. And if you're into limited right now, cards like Mist Raven show what blue creatures can do in that format. Blue has historically been the best color, and the shift to a creature-centric game hasn't changed that.
Without being condescending, let me make sure I understand you correctly.
You want standard Magic to be where both players play creatures and spells that interact with those creatures, but nobody should play a creatureless control deck.
Okay, then I guess you would have to also not print any of these cards.
Doom Blade
Go for the Throat
Geth's Verdict
Black Sun's Zenith
Day of Judgment
Terminus
Murder (M13)
Mutilate (M13)
That's the shell of a BW Control deck that is just as nasty as any blue control deck that you can come up with in standard if not more so.
28 kill spells from the above + 8 combination Sorin's Vengeance, Entreat the Angels, and Consume Spirit will pretty much take care of any aggro deck you throw at it. It sure as hell will make one frustrating game for the aggro opponent as has been told me quite a few times when I played something similar to this (minus the M13 cards)
You wouldn't like playing against this would you? After all, it doesn't conform to YOUR definition of fun Magic. So I guess these cards have to be removed too. At least any card that does direct damage in a grand scale (like Fireball) would have to be removed as any of them can be used in a control shell.
To have the kind of Magic that YOU want, we'd have to lose at least 20% of the spells we currently have in this game.
And nothing would give me more pleasure than to play a totally non blue control deck against somebody who doesn't like blue based control and have them rage quit because every single one of their threats was dealt with without having to put ONE creature on the battlefield and without having to use ONE counterspell.
I'm sorry. I mean no disrespect, but you have a very narrow minded view of what this game should be. I hope and pray that every new Magic player being introduced to this game doesn't have the same attitude as you because if they do, this game is surely doomed to die a horrible death.
And if this post is deserving of another warning or infraction then so be it.
Because this is just plain wrong.
They don't have to get rid of cards to stop creatureless control. They just have to give other forms of card advantage to proactive cards. That's why these decks don't exist anymore. Not having the answers would be a far more dangerous prospect. It doesn't stop people from playing a terrible all-removal.dec but it stops it from being actually good.
Magic isn't moving that much it made the big move years ago. I think they are pretty happy where it is. Nothing to me suggests that they are doing anything to further this thing. Hating control for being control is a statement that does reveal a lot of ignorance about the game, but that last tirade about getting rid of spells that interact with creatures I think in no way could the other poster be condoning and possibly in the process exposes equally misguided views.
GWU Knightfall Modern
UW Tempo Legacy
UGR Burning Wish Cobra Vintage
How is...
Black Sun's Zenith
Day of Judgment
Terminus
Mutilate
1 for 1?
There is a middle ground, you know. Some removal is fine. Some spells are fine. And when someone wants creatures to be more central in the game, that doesn't necessarily mean they want everything else to go away.
Ok.. sure I will expand that a bit farther. Sweeper.dec is still not necessarily a deck cause it only focuses on a single permanent type, and some of those 2 for 1's I was speaking about involve being resilient to sweepers. Even with access to a ton of sweepers right now how many actually see play in a given deck. So let's say it's a split of 1 for 1's and 2 for 1's against creatures. There are 2 for 1's for other types but typically their application is much narrower. Basically the existance of so many good 2 for 1 creatures, and planeswalkers is more of an issue for these decks than anything.
The key thing to get from what I was saying was having a deck of answers doesn't make a deck. So saying that certain cards would have to not exist for the deck to exist and naming pretty much every creature removal spell is such a small part of what makes a deck like that viable. Answers are what create the balance in the format and which is why control exists (which is why it is clear there is some possibly misguided anti-control sentiment in this thread). However, suggesting that answers enough (and suggesting they would have to not exist) in a world of the type of permanents we have now would be sufficient for a control deck of all spells to be viable seems fairly incomplete. It depends on much more than the answers themselves.
GWU Knightfall Modern
UW Tempo Legacy
UGR Burning Wish Cobra Vintage
That's really funny. Please, tell us again how the game should actually be played. The way it was 18 years ago when everything was perfect and no one net-decked.
Okay, I get you and I agree. But it's certainly still possible to put together a deck in today's standard environment that doesn't rely on creatures as a win condition and thus, would be against the member's "definition" of what Magic should be.
I was just trying to, in an extreme way, show that just because a deck isn't blue and doesn't contain counter magic doesn't mean it can't still control the board and be frustrating to play against.
Naturally you still need threats in addition to answers to threats but look at UR Storm in Modern. Granted, we don't have such an engine in standard and probably never will again, but we have engines that are close and can still be competitive.
My question to Larry was simple. Would he not still find playing against those decks equally as frustrating and unfun as playing against a counter magic deck?
I also do not understand the irrational hatred of control decks which is why I'm frustrated and disgusted with this whole conversation, thus possibly causing me to give "examples" that might have some "holes" in them in application, if not in theory.
The theory I still stand behind. You can nerf blue all you want (which is ultimately what these people want to do) but it's not going to kill control. Not completely anyway. Granted, it's in pretty bad shape right now and I don't see it ever getting healthy to the point where it becomes tier 1 ever again, but that doesn't mean people won't stop trying and actually come up with decent, if not great, facsimiles.
Here's the bottom line. If the players that are so against control of any kind manage to force WotC's hand to the point where control is not only no longer viable tier 1 but non existent, this game will, in the long run, suffer.
Because sooner or later, the same people who demanded all creatures all the time are going to get sick and tired of "turning dudes sideways" to win at Magic.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just a relic of days long gone.
Doesn't try to win the game?
Hmmm. please tell me that the person who played The Deck didn't try to win the game.
I'm sorry Larry, but it's very hard to take anything you say seriously as you're really showing your lack of knowledge.
I'm curious how long have you been playing and how old are you? You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I am curious. It might help me understand where you're coming from.
That's fine. You answered my question without answering it.
I think it would be best at this point to just drop this whole subject between the two of us.
I don't know how close you live to NJ, but I would really love the chance to play against you just once.
I think that would give me more pleasure right now than anything I could possibly think of in regard to this game.
I'm done exchanging comments with you.
Enjoy your game.
Thanks, but no. I really need to see the look on your face after we're done.
Cavern because it makes blue based control decks so much trickier to play vs wolf run, when they're one of the best answers to the delver deck, hence cutting down their place in the meta and helping the delver deck take centre place.
Delver because blue is not meant to have creatures like that and a ~30% 3/2 for one mana is rediculous.
Also for the record, I'm a control player. Control decks involve skill, and careful thinking, rather than: "I put cards down and turn them sideways" which seems to be being advocated by certain people at the moment. That's not much of a game... I'm not saying there shouldn't be aggro decks, but they should have issues to play around like the things that control can do in order to introduce more thinking and skill to the game...
(Side note, if you're playing aggro vs control and it's turn 10 or later you're probably meant to concede if you're not enjoying it, as they're going to win, the hard part of the game has been and gone)
lol
I have to agree with LBS that while you may personally think that Magic games are played, won, and lost on the battlefield, not everyone agrees with you. Some enjoy the mind games of combo, the back and forth of control, and even some enjoy land destruction and discard (myself not included on the last 2, but for years I accepted it as part of the game).
Also just like he said, if creature vs. creature battle becomes extreme to the point where it's all just about calculating combat damage, the same people will complain. We all complain. In some ways, I'm complaining right now.
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)Wow....that is just....petty.
WoTC certainly agrees that Magic should be a creature based game. Want it to change? Try changing their mind.
I can't even get my Johnny fix in Standard
Those people will cross the bridge when they get there. But right now? They got what they wanted and I don't see them complaining.
- H. L. Mencken
French Duel Commander
WBR Kaalia of the Vast WBR
RUG Maelstrom Wanderer RUG
Really dudes?
Both of you are wrong. It's a card game with many of options of play. We got control, ramp, tempo, and aggro decks all placing fairly well at varying major tournament and locals. People need to grow the hell up.
Back on to the original topic...
I used to think just like OP, control can use target removal and sweepers against aggro then drop bombs like Titans or Elesh just win in the later turns. But that's when I was a bad player. And also a cheap/broke(monetary) player.
Aggro decks have creatures with undying, hexproof, and unblockable. Just look at Humans. They have such a huge variety of effects that give them an edge over control. Thalia, Guardian of Thraben, Grand Abolisher, Mirran Crusader. Quality creatures like that give an edge to aggro that makes it a viable deck against control.
The most fun I have playing is usually my aggro deck vs a control deck. In which I get a fast start they have answers and I get my few answers to their big threats. It really comes to the wire. But there are also the matches when I completely rush them down by turn 5 and they can't do anything but look sad that they drew into 6drops and not early removal or draw cards but no answers. Or the opposite when they sweep me, counter the right things, and hose me down with big creature.
At this point in time I really like the meta of Standard. If you are talking about Modern or legacy aggro decks are even more ridiculous with the whole Zoo deck archtype.
Except if you're playing standard you really don't have many options.
Show me a viable combo deck.
Show me a tier 1 control deck.
Some archetypes don't even exist anymore.
Essentially in standard we have aggro, tempo and ramp...all of which revolve around creature based strategies.
Don't get me wrong. I'm at least grateful that there are more than 2 viable DECKS in standard.
But true "options" of play?
No, we don't have anywhere near close to many of them.
Ironically, control would probably be much better if combo was more viable (rock-paper-scissors metagame). Combo decks are generally to easily hated out, though (post sideboarding).
There's been a sorin markov + sorin's vengeance combo-control deck that's been floating around on mtgo recently and has featured in a few SCG articles/videos.
It's not tier 1 and couldn't survive people metagaming against it (i.e. just boarding some negates) but against an unprepared field it seems to be doing very well.
Can't be bothered finding a list for you, if you care enough you can find it yourself.
I think watching multiple creatures with "cannot be targeted by spells or abilities" with equipment that gives them protection from X color, further protected by creatures or spells that let you avoid removal/bounce is about as, or in fact more, boring to play against than control.
Against control decks, you can make decisions. Do you continue playing everything in your hand to force a response in the hopes that they run out of answers eventually? Do you wait for them to make a mistake? Or maybe you have a deck that's capable of beating control and you just win.
Against decks with geist, swords, restoration angel, what have you, you can't even interact with the creatures. There's no strategy or decision making involved in handling a geist with a sword attached to it with your opponent holding four mana open. There's only two ways that you can beat that geist. You either play a big flier and just watch them replace the sword to some other creature and swing, or you play a wrath effect and watch them cast restoration in response and save their geist or something.
Or they can just bounce their own damned creature, but at least that's more in-line with traditional strategy.
And, lastly, I do believe that you're wrong about the battlefield being the heart of the game. At least, it used to be wrong. Returning after six-seven years, I'm do believe that creatures are the main point of the game, yes.