I'll give a less assholish answer. I was in the mood to **** with what I thought was a melodramatic complaint, but there are some legit game design questions raised.
I think midrange should be an archetype that Wizards encourages, yes. I think it is the healthiest archetype for the game. All archetypes require a lot of skill to play masterfully, as much as people talk ***** about how dumb Siege Rhino is or how brainless Boss Sligh is or how Esper just counterspells everything or how Temur Ascendancy combo just needs to get lucky and find the right pieces. I think midrange is healthiest for the game because it promotes a combination of proactive gameplay and interactive gameplay that none of the other decks meaningfully can deliver.
Interactivity is pretty easy to justify. A competitive game should involve multiple contestants. This means that ideally, no one should walk away from a game thinking that they didn't actually get to play Magic. This means that enough interactivity should be encouraged such that aggro decks aren't a dominant strategy, because aggro decks tend to interact with their opponent as little as possible. Aggro should be present as a check on control, but it shouldn't dominate a format, because then interactive gameplay suffers. On the other hand, rewarding too much interactivity actually bends back around the continuum, because one player is disrupting the other one so hard that they're not getting to play Magic much at all. See every new player's complaint about control, ever. This is why control also shouldn't be a dominant strategy, because again, interactive gameplay suffers. Midrange necessarily tries to strike a balance of interactivity between the two extremes: it is interactive, but it tends to be more permissive of the opponent's strategy than control is.
Proactivity is slightly more difficult, and may well come down to personal preference. I think the game is more dynamic, exciting, and enjoyable for more people if it is fundamentally proactive instead of reactive. Proactivity here means attempting to develop your board state as a primary strategy, as opposed to reactivity meaning attempting to disrupt the opponent's development as the primary strategy. Exciting and enjoyable are obviously questionable and come down to personal preference, although I'd argue that these preferences are probably represented by most Magic players. Dynamic, however, seems more easily argued objectively. Simply put, dynamic games require a dynamic board state. If the board is kept relatively clear then there's not nearly as much in the way of complex decision-making going on. The more moving pieces there are, the harder it becomes to determine the correct decision, and the greater reward for having the skill to do so. This is where control decks in particular falter; while there's certainly some level of dynamic gameplay involved with the decision on how to sequence answers, etc., it's nowhere near the same level as having the same question (sequencing answers) while also diagnosing a constantly-changing board state. Aggro decks satisfy this criterion without much debate, and midrange decks do the same.
The takeaway from all of this is that a healthy format should see viable, maybe even dominant, midrange decks. Action should be taken to ensure that they aren't oppressive, of course, because there's a third important variable at play (having a dynamic format where several options are viable). Midrange should also generally have an unfavorable matchup against control and a favorable matchup against aggro, unless the specifics of the format are such that control is able to dominate aggro. (This typically just doesn't happen; aggro tends to dominate control, and so control depends on midrange being viable for itself to be viable.)
So no, I don't fundamentally have a problem with the direction Wizards has gone in emphasizing midrange, because it attacks the format along two very healthy axes, and is the only style of deck that can, or barring that, which does so best.
I do have a problem with the current Standard, though, and it's that Deathmist Raptor is virtually unbeatable for control. Forcing control players to have stuff like Infinite Obliteration and to run a bunch of Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver or God forbid Perilous Vault to handle one card so they don't lose the matchup where they're supposed to be favored is a huge problem. I couldn't sleeve up a control deck at a major tournament and say in good faith that I'm playing to win at this point; not only because of my inexperience with the archetype, but also because as soon as one Raptor hits the graveyard, every facedown creature has to be counterspelled or else I just drown in card disadvantage.
I might be overstating the Raptor's impact, but in testing with it (I don't own the cards yet; I'm slowly and begrudgingly acquiring them out of a realization that I have no reason not to be playing it), control is really easy to handle. That's not how it should be.
I'll just chime in here since I'm a big control player. I enjoy the challenge that Abzan presents. It's a very fair and resilient strategy that takes careful sequencing and good decision making to beat. The match up is by no means heavily skewed towards one side or the other; that has been my experience at least.
The problem most people have with this matchup isn't that it is skewed towards Abzan, it is that traditionally, midrange<control<aggro<midrange in a rock/paper/scissors, with each deck then adapting to make its weaknesses closer to 50%. In most standards, midrange tries to beat control by speeding up its clock and playing board - wipe resistant creatures and planeswalkers to enable it to win before it inevitably loses the very late game. Control players are okay with losing to a midrange deck that comes out strong, gets some damage in, then plays resilient 4-6 drops like ETB/death trigger creatures and planeswalkers win, as that is how midrange decks usually try to beat them. What upsets control players about current Abzan is that the control deck DOESN'T HAVE the inevitability. Even once the control player survives into the late game where he is used to having the advantage, he still has to worry about every morph, either using a counter on a morphed Raptor (which then goes to grave to come back later) or risking leaving alive a Den Protector, which can return multiple raptors from the yard and put a Rhino (or any other strong card) back into the Abzan player's hand. Control players REALLY hate being out grinded by a non-control deck. It isn't that it's an unwinnable matchup, it's that it is a matchup where control players can't stand the way they lose it.
Personally, I think the den/raptor combo is a little too strong (though aren't the only reason for control's problems), and hope that control gets a good 4cmc white or blue walker in BFZ. Not having a wrath - proof permanent to help them stabilize is a big part of control's problem. SDD isn't high-impact enough against abzan, and the other dragons die to removal if you are playing a low threat density. Stuff like Ugin and Elspeth are some of control's best tools against abzan, but costing much more than Downfall and being too expensive to play more than a few copies are serious weaknesses. One staple of most successful control decks from previous standards was a strong 4-5 mana walker who could help stabilize and provide card advantage in the midgame. Control has most of the tools it needs, hence the fact that it dominated early DTK standard, it just needs a way to gain card advantage that also impacts the board, rather than having just removal and draw spells.
I made this thread before Origins hit the meta, things are changing. That doesn't mean Abzan is bad it's still really strong, but decks got upgrades now, thankfully there are new ways to fight this archetype. Before Origins, the options were limited, and most deck choices are now based on choices to combat the meta. It's good that things shift, and as I now see it's inevitable. My position has changed but not because I hate on Abzan, but because other decks got much needed tools to fight back.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard Arena: Eh? Gruul or Die
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now: G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record) C Eldrazi Tron (9-5) UG Infect RW Burn
I turn up with a new list every week. The only thing that stays the same every time is 4x Siege Rhino which is just testament to how powerful the card is.
Absolutely wrecked my local meta this weekend playing control style and it was Esper Dragons which ended me in the semi finals of gameday. Just not fast enough to get the pressure on and lost to Ugin, the Spirit Dragon.
Well, sucks as it is, Abzan is the best deck in the format and I think it was the best deck even during the Pro Tour. RDW was a meta call and good one that caught players by surprised and unprepared. Very few decks can actually give Abzan a problem and I think most players will either just play Abzan from here on out. There's no reason to run any other deck that isn't Abzan at the moment except G/R devotion to counter it? RDW was my deck of choice for Origins and it's served me well, but Abzan players have little to complain about since it literally crushes the entire standard field with ease. I love how wizards put out an extra article after the top 8 decks were posted. It's as is they were trying to sell us this. "Oh wait, there were other decks too!! Like, We know they're not top tier, but we swear they were here!" LoLz.
Abzan vs Control is a joke, or any U/ Based control version is stupid easy for them. Rifle away Den Protector and Thoughtseize loop, followed up by Rhino's and their own Card draw and graveyard recursion. With little to no graveyard hate, stopping that kind of recursion is near impossible. As one guy told me last night at my win a box, "If you can't beat em join them. There's a reason we play this deck, and it's just crushing". My RDW has served me well, and while I love U/B Control, I too would like to win with ease. As it seems Abzan is never ever short on answers for the board, but I hate green so maybe not. At least until rotation Rhino will dominate, whoops wizards, Rhino was a mistake right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard Arena: Eh? Gruul or Die
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now: G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record) C Eldrazi Tron (9-5) UG Infect RW Burn
Unless you're going to GPs and PPTQs on a regular basis, I don't know why you would want to forsake an archetype you enjoy playing for Abzan (especially if your local meta is saturated with it). Everybody would rather win than lose and Abzan surely makes the task easier, but then you're running into the mirror more often than not and the game gets less interesting from there. It just sounds like you're overly frustrated with the match up. Try embracing it instead and view it as a good challenge to improve upon your decision making when you're playing control.
The guy at your LGS makes a fair point but in the end I guess it depends what you want out of the game. If winning is top priority then Abzan will serve you well indeed. Personally, I'd rather take more losses with a list that I enjoy playing because it makes the game more interesting. Moreover, a guy who ended up winning game day at my LGS with Jeskai Tempo made a great point: "People tend to overlook the practice that it takes to play a list optimally... every few weeks I'll see the same people with new decks hoping they'll do better because it's the list that recently won a big event". He's been on Jeskai since Khans and plays it extremely well.
In any event, I know this is the competitive forum so winning is at the forefront, but I just thought I'd share my .02.
Cheers
Unless you're going to GPs and PPTQs on a regular basis, I don't know why you would want to forsake an archetype you enjoy playing for Abzan (especially if your local meta is saturated with it). Everybody would rather win than lose and Abzan surely makes the task easier, but then you're running into the mirror more often than not and the game gets less interesting from there. It just sounds like you're overly frustrated with the match up. Try embracing it instead and view it as a good challenge to improve upon your decision making when you're playing control.
The guy at your LGS makes a fair point but in the end I guess it depends what you want out of the game. If winning is top priority then Abzan will serve you well indeed. Personally, I'd rather take more losses with a list that I enjoy playing because it makes the game more interesting. Moreover, a guy who ended up winning game day at my LGS with Jeskai Tempo made a great point: "People tend to overlook the practice that it takes to play a list optimally... every few weeks I'll see the same people with new decks hoping they'll do better because it's the list that recently won a big event". He's been on Jeskai since Khans and plays it extremely well.
In any event, I know this is the competitive forum so winning is at the forefront, but I just thought I'd share my .02.
Cheers
Unless you're playing Abzan, this has been a punishing standard for trying to master a single deck. I do agree that you need not play the best deck. I've never cast a Rhino this season and have no intentions of starting. It's just not the kind of deck I enjoy playing. I'll continue trying to win with blue cards, whether it be Jeskai or a control variant.
Unless you're going to GPs and PPTQs on a regular basis, I don't know why you would want to forsake an archetype you enjoy playing for Abzan (especially if your local meta is saturated with it). Everybody would rather win than lose and Abzan surely makes the task easier, but then you're running into the mirror more often than not and the game gets less interesting from there. It just sounds like you're overly frustrated with the match up. Try embracing it instead and view it as a good challenge to improve upon your decision making when you're playing control.
The guy at your LGS makes a fair point but in the end I guess it depends what you want out of the game. If winning is top priority then Abzan will serve you well indeed. Personally, I'd rather take more losses with a list that I enjoy playing because it makes the game more interesting. Moreover, a guy who ended up winning game day at my LGS with Jeskai Tempo made a great point: "People tend to overlook the practice that it takes to play a list optimally... every few weeks I'll see the same people with new decks hoping they'll do better because it's the list that recently won a big event". He's been on Jeskai since Khans and plays it extremely well.
In any event, I know this is the competitive forum so winning is at the forefront, but I just thought I'd share my .02.
Cheers
Unless you're playing Abzan, this has been a punishing standard for trying to master a single deck. I do agree that you need not play the best deck. I've never cast a Rhino this season and have no intentions of starting. It's just not the kind of deck I enjoy playing. I'll continue trying to win with blue cards, whether it be Jeskai or a control variant.
Yup, a player will surely reap greater benefits by mastering an Abzan variant rather than any other archetype but as you said, who wants to forego the sweet U?
In any event, I still think control vs. Abzan variants are pretty close match ups if both sides draw well.
Junk is good, but it still gets the snot beat out of it by G/b Devotion. Then there's elf ball. Depending on the elf build, it can have an even to excellent chance at winning.
Honestly, I've just stepped into standard and given the origins clash pack is basically Abzan, I think it's sort of the "Ryu" color combination of the current standard meta. It's easy to make and hard to get wrong, and Abzan offers clear upgrade paths for those stepping into the standard fold.
Keep in mind, while the "core" is still staying around another standard season, the deck has lost Keeper and Fleecemane lions, so removal is going to have an easier time with Abzan once rotation hits. Part of the reason there's a hardened scales thread right now is because there are people trying to find suitable replacements for the missing cards, as well as brewing with different color combinations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think midrange should be an archetype that Wizards encourages, yes. I think it is the healthiest archetype for the game. All archetypes require a lot of skill to play masterfully, as much as people talk ***** about how dumb Siege Rhino is or how brainless Boss Sligh is or how Esper just counterspells everything or how Temur Ascendancy combo just needs to get lucky and find the right pieces. I think midrange is healthiest for the game because it promotes a combination of proactive gameplay and interactive gameplay that none of the other decks meaningfully can deliver.
Interactivity is pretty easy to justify. A competitive game should involve multiple contestants. This means that ideally, no one should walk away from a game thinking that they didn't actually get to play Magic. This means that enough interactivity should be encouraged such that aggro decks aren't a dominant strategy, because aggro decks tend to interact with their opponent as little as possible. Aggro should be present as a check on control, but it shouldn't dominate a format, because then interactive gameplay suffers. On the other hand, rewarding too much interactivity actually bends back around the continuum, because one player is disrupting the other one so hard that they're not getting to play Magic much at all. See every new player's complaint about control, ever. This is why control also shouldn't be a dominant strategy, because again, interactive gameplay suffers. Midrange necessarily tries to strike a balance of interactivity between the two extremes: it is interactive, but it tends to be more permissive of the opponent's strategy than control is.
Proactivity is slightly more difficult, and may well come down to personal preference. I think the game is more dynamic, exciting, and enjoyable for more people if it is fundamentally proactive instead of reactive. Proactivity here means attempting to develop your board state as a primary strategy, as opposed to reactivity meaning attempting to disrupt the opponent's development as the primary strategy. Exciting and enjoyable are obviously questionable and come down to personal preference, although I'd argue that these preferences are probably represented by most Magic players. Dynamic, however, seems more easily argued objectively. Simply put, dynamic games require a dynamic board state. If the board is kept relatively clear then there's not nearly as much in the way of complex decision-making going on. The more moving pieces there are, the harder it becomes to determine the correct decision, and the greater reward for having the skill to do so. This is where control decks in particular falter; while there's certainly some level of dynamic gameplay involved with the decision on how to sequence answers, etc., it's nowhere near the same level as having the same question (sequencing answers) while also diagnosing a constantly-changing board state. Aggro decks satisfy this criterion without much debate, and midrange decks do the same.
The takeaway from all of this is that a healthy format should see viable, maybe even dominant, midrange decks. Action should be taken to ensure that they aren't oppressive, of course, because there's a third important variable at play (having a dynamic format where several options are viable). Midrange should also generally have an unfavorable matchup against control and a favorable matchup against aggro, unless the specifics of the format are such that control is able to dominate aggro. (This typically just doesn't happen; aggro tends to dominate control, and so control depends on midrange being viable for itself to be viable.)
So no, I don't fundamentally have a problem with the direction Wizards has gone in emphasizing midrange, because it attacks the format along two very healthy axes, and is the only style of deck that can, or barring that, which does so best.
I do have a problem with the current Standard, though, and it's that Deathmist Raptor is virtually unbeatable for control. Forcing control players to have stuff like Infinite Obliteration and to run a bunch of Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver or God forbid Perilous Vault to handle one card so they don't lose the matchup where they're supposed to be favored is a huge problem. I couldn't sleeve up a control deck at a major tournament and say in good faith that I'm playing to win at this point; not only because of my inexperience with the archetype, but also because as soon as one Raptor hits the graveyard, every facedown creature has to be counterspelled or else I just drown in card disadvantage.
I might be overstating the Raptor's impact, but in testing with it (I don't own the cards yet; I'm slowly and begrudgingly acquiring them out of a realization that I have no reason not to be playing it), control is really easy to handle. That's not how it should be.
GW ~ Angels ~ WG
Modern:
RBW ~ Shadowmancer ~ WBR
Legacy:
BUG ~ Shadow Delver ~ GUB
Personally, I think the den/raptor combo is a little too strong (though aren't the only reason for control's problems), and hope that control gets a good 4cmc white or blue walker in BFZ. Not having a wrath - proof permanent to help them stabilize is a big part of control's problem. SDD isn't high-impact enough against abzan, and the other dragons die to removal if you are playing a low threat density. Stuff like Ugin and Elspeth are some of control's best tools against abzan, but costing much more than Downfall and being too expensive to play more than a few copies are serious weaknesses. One staple of most successful control decks from previous standards was a strong 4-5 mana walker who could help stabilize and provide card advantage in the midgame. Control has most of the tools it needs, hence the fact that it dominated early DTK standard, it just needs a way to gain card advantage that also impacts the board, rather than having just removal and draw spells.
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now:
G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record)
C Eldrazi Tron (9-5)
UG Infect
RW Burn
I turn up with a new list every week. The only thing that stays the same every time is 4x Siege Rhino which is just testament to how powerful the card is.
Absolutely wrecked my local meta this weekend playing control style and it was Esper Dragons which ended me in the semi finals of gameday. Just not fast enough to get the pressure on and lost to Ugin, the Spirit Dragon.
Abzan vs Control is a joke, or any U/ Based control version is stupid easy for them. Rifle away Den Protector and Thoughtseize loop, followed up by Rhino's and their own Card draw and graveyard recursion. With little to no graveyard hate, stopping that kind of recursion is near impossible. As one guy told me last night at my win a box, "If you can't beat em join them. There's a reason we play this deck, and it's just crushing". My RDW has served me well, and while I love U/B Control, I too would like to win with ease. As it seems Abzan is never ever short on answers for the board, but I hate green so maybe not. At least until rotation Rhino will dominate, whoops wizards, Rhino was a mistake right?
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now:
G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record)
C Eldrazi Tron (9-5)
UG Infect
RW Burn
The guy at your LGS makes a fair point but in the end I guess it depends what you want out of the game. If winning is top priority then Abzan will serve you well indeed. Personally, I'd rather take more losses with a list that I enjoy playing because it makes the game more interesting. Moreover, a guy who ended up winning game day at my LGS with Jeskai Tempo made a great point: "People tend to overlook the practice that it takes to play a list optimally... every few weeks I'll see the same people with new decks hoping they'll do better because it's the list that recently won a big event". He's been on Jeskai since Khans and plays it extremely well.
In any event, I know this is the competitive forum so winning is at the forefront, but I just thought I'd share my .02.
Cheers
Unless you're playing Abzan, this has been a punishing standard for trying to master a single deck. I do agree that you need not play the best deck. I've never cast a Rhino this season and have no intentions of starting. It's just not the kind of deck I enjoy playing. I'll continue trying to win with blue cards, whether it be Jeskai or a control variant.
UR Blue-Red Control
Modern:
UBR Grixis Control
UWR Jeskai Control
Yup, a player will surely reap greater benefits by mastering an Abzan variant rather than any other archetype but as you said, who wants to forego the sweet U?
In any event, I still think control vs. Abzan variants are pretty close match ups if both sides draw well.
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now:
G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record)
C Eldrazi Tron (9-5)
UG Infect
RW Burn
Keep in mind, while the "core" is still staying around another standard season, the deck has lost Keeper and Fleecemane lions, so removal is going to have an easier time with Abzan once rotation hits. Part of the reason there's a hardened scales thread right now is because there are people trying to find suitable replacements for the missing cards, as well as brewing with different color combinations.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!