Hey, folks. I have been thinking alot about Guttersnipe as a general since it got spoiled. What really sold me on this general is its build-around potential and the fact that its ability hits all opponents. The deck is essentially trying to storm/combo out all of your opponents in 1 turn using Guttersnipe as your primary kill card.
My playgroup allows ten uncommons in addition to the general.
Victim of Night is the pick here. It's solid removal and there are no other black cards in the pack. Your 3/2 Werewolf will rarely win you the game, and on turn four-ish it's pretty miserable. The spirits are good, but it's not like they are bombs.
Part of WotC's defense of DFC is that there was no alternative. While I agree with their decision, cards like these don't make a very good case for them.
There was no alternative in making flavorful werewolves. Once double-faced cards were in the set they thought up other ways to use them. I don't' see the issue here.
Why no Deceiver Exarch? It helps you get to Phantasm faster and is a good 3-drop. You could also use Fiend Hunter as it seems slightly better than O-ring.
Oracle of Mul Daya seems way better on turn 3 than Solemn. Believing that this card will see a lot of play in standard is pretty wishful thinking. I love this card, but I don't see it making a big impact in constructed. Four mana is a lot, and if you plan on accelerating into it, you really don't need it in the first place. I could see trying it in mono red Destructive Force, but outside of that, it just doesn't do enough.
Dragonshields are my favorite by far. They are very durable and I love the way they shuffle and feel. They do tend to be extremely slippery for the first match or two. The KMC Super series sleeves are nice, too, but Dragonshields are the best.
Infi turns is different from infi dmg or infi mill or infi attackers. The game ends right there, everyone can shuffle up and start another game. On the other hand, with infi-turns, you need to wait for the player to find his win-con. It's l;ike the Iona + PS lock, after you get it, everyone at the table has to watch you play solitaire.
...or you could all just concede. Most of the EDH games I play end in group concessions, once it reaches a point where the game is no longer fun for most of the players, and If someone is taking infinite turns why wouldn't you?
Blazing Torches sacrifice is in it's activation cost, if your opponents creature dies to the shock from the sacced Torch, Glissa will return it to your hand.
He was just pointing out that the damage would not be "deathtouched."
As cool as this card is, I don't really think it's going to see much play in constructed. I am very excited to try it in EDH, though.
I disagree - I find that there's a lot more strategy involved in aggro decks. I read all the time on these boards that aggro is brainless, and control/combo, etc. require real thought. But that, to me, is a load of baloney, and seems to the "hive mind" at work. I admit that I'm not as experienced as some of the other players here, but I've played with and against all three archetypes. I think I have a pretty reasonable understanding how the three work.
Okay, first you dismiss the beliefs of most competitive players by citing the hive mind as the culprit, which leads me to believe that you don't really understand what the hive mind is. For one, the hive mind is usually a good thing, as it is made up of a compilation of opinions that have become close fact to the general magic community. (Bloodbraid Elf=Good/Herbal Poultice=BAD) For two, the hive mind is usually correct. This hive mind opinion was developed through countless hours of first-hand experience playing with these archetypes, but you believe that your experience and understanding is superior?
That being said, I don't think that combo decks don't require a lot of thought to play (construction is another matter). All the thinking and the math is done before you start playing the game. It's just your job to lay down the cards in the proper order to ensure that you go off.
Playing a combo deck reminds me of playing a game of solitaire. Ideally, a combo deck has no interaction with the other player, and is able to go off quickly. The only meaningful interaction the other player can hope to have with a deck like a Tendrils Storm combo is either with disruption spells (counters, LD, discard - if you manage to sneak one in before they go off).
Where's the thought in that? Is it calculating mana pools? Is it keeping track of all the resources (graveyard, lands, etc.) your deck utilizes? That's all simple math. Once you know how the deck works, it's just a matter of drawing into the right cards, and making sure they resolve. It's like a little puzzle that you have to solve.
This is an overly simplified explanation with a lot of holes. Playing your cards in the correct order gets exceedingly complicated when you have to take into account all of the odds of hitting what you need, and what your opponent has to stop you. It is harder to play around hate cards with a combo deck than it is to play around sweepers or removal with aggro. You make all of these statements like they are meaningless. Drawing the right cards and making sure they resolve is difficult, which you seem to just disregard completely. How is this math any simpler than creature combat?
Control isn't much better. It's basically like being a Republic Senator - just say no to everything. If something does manage to hit the board, it either needs to be bounced or removed. Once you have control over the game, you lay down your finisher, and you win. Sometimes you're unable to stabilize, and you lose. Nothing incredibly complex about that.
Sure, you have to be smart about which spells you allow the opponent to resolve, and you have to make sure to keep mana up for counters, and cast your instant speed draw spells at the right time, and save your Preordains for digging up the right answer. But, once you have the basics, control is not tough to play.
You talk about control decks like they have all of the time and cards that they want, and I will admit that when you are holding three counterspells and three removal spells with a finisher on the board, it is unbelievably easy to win. However, in the real world you won't have all of the answers. You often have a thin line of protection and you must figure out how to implement it. You have to create blowouts and bluff and gain incremental advantage until you are in control.
What makes Control and Combo difficult are these decisions that must be made every turn and how many there are to consider. You must go deep into the future when deciding your line of play to find the optimal one. When I play aggro I really fell like, "Well, I've got these cards in my hand and i probably want to play as many of them as I can until my opponent is dead." If I could do this with no fear, not only would aggro be more mindless than it is, but how could anything else compete?
Aggro decks can be dumb and simple, but when's the last time you saw an aggro deck with only vanilla creatures and lands? Playing aggro is not as simple as laying down 2-3 creatures and swinging for the dome.
Aggro, in most situations, is actually one of the tougher archetypes to play, because you have to have the most complex interaction with the two most potentially complicated parts of the game - your opponent, and the battlefield.
In every archetype you have to consider your opponent, and the battlefield itself is pretty simple. There are no surprises and everything is layed out for you. It's perfect information.
It's not as simple as playing with three creatures, and swinging. You have to anticipate what your opponent could have in their hand. What kind of answers/threats could they have? What kind of answers/threats do you have for what they play?
All archetypes must consider this. You are explaining how you interact with your opponent in magic, not in aggro. The thing that makes this easier for aggro decks than control or combo is that aggro is aggressive. You have the initiative and your deck is designed to beat them as fast as possible regardless of what they might have. Most of your thought process is going towards how you will kill the opponent, whereas with control you must first figure out how to not lose to them, etc.
You can't just dump everything on the board. You have to pick and choose the order you play your threats. You have to bait their removal. You have to save your own removal for the right threat. You have to make correct decisions on when to attack, who to attack with, and who to leave behind. Entire games can hinge on 1-2 points of damage you could have gotten in, but didn't.
Combat is one aspect that aggro has to deal with more than the other archetypes. Combat can be difficult at times but rarely in constructed is this true. This facet of the game is, for some, harder to master than any combo deck, but it is my belief that combat is simple once you have enough experience with it.
The most difficult, brain intensive aspect of Magic is interacting with the opponent. Every deck, to some degree, has to interact with the opponent. But aggro decks, by definiation, have to interact with opponents more than others.
This is just false. Attacking is not interacting with your opponent most of the time, and control decks interact far more with their opponents than aggro decks do. Aggro just wants to win fast. Control must slow its opponent down(with interactions most likely) and then keep them down while it wins.
I think a lot of the hatred towards aggro decks is based on hatred towards specific archetypes. Jund, I think, was the most recent whipping boy for this. Honestly, I never really saw the big deal about Jund, but I think I missed it's heyday (I've only gotten back into the game in the recent year). And maybe the accusations that Jund is a brainless deck are true. However, one hated deck is not enough to write off aggro entirely.
Jund isn't really an aggro deck. It was hated because of its powerful consistent threats and its ability to attack effectively on multiple fronts. It was also dreadfully easy to play and win with. Affinity is a better example of a hated aggro deck, but it certainly wasn't mindless and it was pretty unbeatable due to its resistance to so much artifact hate.
In fact, I think, secretly, most people actually enjoy playing with creatures, no matter how much they scream and shout about creature decks being boring. After all, why is limited so popular? Why do people enjoy playing limited so much? There's much less combo and control in limited. Sure, there's decks that are more/less controlling, but in the end, it's mostly creatures pounding face. And no one can say that limited games are brainless.
I'm going to go ahead and say that a lot of limited games are pretty simple to play, especially in formats like M11 and Zendikar. Limited is fun for a lot of people because you get to draft and/or build your deck. Also in limited the combat is more complex because everyone has mostly creature. Creature damage is usually the only valid path to victory.
That being said, I understand that there are different people, different play styles, and that's just fine - you gotta find what works for you, and go with it. I'm not saying combo or control or ramp or whatever are completely invalid strategies, because they obviously are. But just because you don't like it doesn't make aggro a completely invalid, brainless strategy.
I am not trying to tell you that aggro is a bad strategy or that it is mindless, and I play aggro decks a fair amount of the time because I like variety. All I am saying is that combo and control strategies are traditionally far harder to win with and play perfectly.
Also, as a quick aside, playing around DoJ with an aggro deck is a loose/loose situation. If you hold back creatures, your deck is performing sub-optimally, and you give the other player an opportunity to stabilize and win. If you lay down more than 2-3 creatures, you over extend, and get blown out by DoJ. Sure there are ways to play around it (Monument, Azuri, etc.), but one cheap spell should not have that kind of power in modern day Magic.
Playing out a couple creatures is not playing your deck sub-optimally, it's what your deck should be designed to do. Don't blame the cards for not working around how you think your deck should play. Blame yourself for making a deck that can't deal with mass removal. Sometimes it is fine to play a deck that loses to Wrath, but if you are complaining about it, I don't think its in your meta.
Overall, your reasoning in this post is pretty backwards. You simplify combo and control and describe how they are easy to play once you have already "won," and then you explain how aggro is difficult using attributes applicable to almost all archetypes. Your call for a reduction of mass removal is incredible. You want to take an aspect away from the game that gives people more options in how to win just so you can feel that your deck is operating "optimally." The variety is what makes Magic so awesome! It's not even like mass removal is that oppressive right now. Almost every deck plays a lot of creatures and there are a lot of viable aggro decks. I don't even know why you are upset.
My playgroup allows ten uncommons in addition to the general.
1 Guttersnipe
Lands
2-36 Mountain
37 Forgotten Cave
38 Smoldering Crater
Creatures
39 Skirk Prospector
40 Mogg War Marshal
41 Goblin Chirurgeon
42 Goblin Matron
43 Rummaging Goblin
44 Mad Prophet
45 Kiln Fiend
46 Thermopod
47 Anarchist
48 Grinning Ingus
49 Simian Spirit Guide
50 Emrakul's Hatcher
51 Soulbright Flamekin
52 Fire Servant (U)
53 Beetleback Chief (U)
54 Goblin Bushwhacker
Rituals
55 Pyretic Ritual
56 Desperate Ritual
57 Seething Song
58 Inner Fire
59 Brightstone Ritual
60 Mana Seism (U)
61 Rite of Flame
62 Infernal Plunge
63 Battle Hymn
64 Lotus Petal
65 Mana Geyser
66 Faithless Looting
67 Burning Inquiry
68 Crimson Wisps
69 Dangerous Wager
70 Needle Drop
71 Chromatic Star
72 Chromatic Sphere
73 Wild Guess
74 Credit Voucher (U)
75 Sensei's Diving Top (U)
76 Skullclamp (U)
77 Illuminated Folio (U)
Storm Cards
78 Grapeshot
79 Ignite Memories (U)
80 Empty the Warrens
Token Producers
81 Dragon Fodder
82 Krenko's Command
83 Goblin Offensive (U)
84 Kuldotha Rebirth
Burn
85 Chain Lightning
86 Flame Rift
87 Flame Slash
88 Sizzle
89 Rift Bolt
90 Fireblast
91 Rolling Thunder
92 Lava Dart
93 Goblin War Strike
94 Shard Volley
95 Lightning Bolt
96 Recoup (U)
97 Smash to Smithereens
98 Pyroblast
99 Darksteel Pendant
100 Shattering Pulse
There was no alternative in making flavorful werewolves. Once double-faced cards were in the set they thought up other ways to use them. I don't' see the issue here.
As cool as this card is, I don't really think it's going to see much play in constructed. I am very excited to try it in EDH, though.
This is an overly simplified explanation with a lot of holes. Playing your cards in the correct order gets exceedingly complicated when you have to take into account all of the odds of hitting what you need, and what your opponent has to stop you. It is harder to play around hate cards with a combo deck than it is to play around sweepers or removal with aggro. You make all of these statements like they are meaningless. Drawing the right cards and making sure they resolve is difficult, which you seem to just disregard completely. How is this math any simpler than creature combat?
You talk about control decks like they have all of the time and cards that they want, and I will admit that when you are holding three counterspells and three removal spells with a finisher on the board, it is unbelievably easy to win. However, in the real world you won't have all of the answers. You often have a thin line of protection and you must figure out how to implement it. You have to create blowouts and bluff and gain incremental advantage until you are in control.
What makes Control and Combo difficult are these decisions that must be made every turn and how many there are to consider. You must go deep into the future when deciding your line of play to find the optimal one. When I play aggro I really fell like, "Well, I've got these cards in my hand and i probably want to play as many of them as I can until my opponent is dead." If I could do this with no fear, not only would aggro be more mindless than it is, but how could anything else compete?
In every archetype you have to consider your opponent, and the battlefield itself is pretty simple. There are no surprises and everything is layed out for you. It's perfect information.
All archetypes must consider this. You are explaining how you interact with your opponent in magic, not in aggro. The thing that makes this easier for aggro decks than control or combo is that aggro is aggressive. You have the initiative and your deck is designed to beat them as fast as possible regardless of what they might have. Most of your thought process is going towards how you will kill the opponent, whereas with control you must first figure out how to not lose to them, etc. Combat is one aspect that aggro has to deal with more than the other archetypes. Combat can be difficult at times but rarely in constructed is this true. This facet of the game is, for some, harder to master than any combo deck, but it is my belief that combat is simple once you have enough experience with it.
This is just false. Attacking is not interacting with your opponent most of the time, and control decks interact far more with their opponents than aggro decks do. Aggro just wants to win fast. Control must slow its opponent down(with interactions most likely) and then keep them down while it wins.
Jund isn't really an aggro deck. It was hated because of its powerful consistent threats and its ability to attack effectively on multiple fronts. It was also dreadfully easy to play and win with. Affinity is a better example of a hated aggro deck, but it certainly wasn't mindless and it was pretty unbeatable due to its resistance to so much artifact hate.
I'm going to go ahead and say that a lot of limited games are pretty simple to play, especially in formats like M11 and Zendikar. Limited is fun for a lot of people because you get to draft and/or build your deck. Also in limited the combat is more complex because everyone has mostly creature. Creature damage is usually the only valid path to victory.
I am not trying to tell you that aggro is a bad strategy or that it is mindless, and I play aggro decks a fair amount of the time because I like variety. All I am saying is that combo and control strategies are traditionally far harder to win with and play perfectly.
Playing out a couple creatures is not playing your deck sub-optimally, it's what your deck should be designed to do. Don't blame the cards for not working around how you think your deck should play. Blame yourself for making a deck that can't deal with mass removal. Sometimes it is fine to play a deck that loses to Wrath, but if you are complaining about it, I don't think its in your meta.
Overall, your reasoning in this post is pretty backwards. You simplify combo and control and describe how they are easy to play once you have already "won," and then you explain how aggro is difficult using attributes applicable to almost all archetypes. Your call for a reduction of mass removal is incredible. You want to take an aspect away from the game that gives people more options in how to win just so you can feel that your deck is operating "optimally." The variety is what makes Magic so awesome! It's not even like mass removal is that oppressive right now. Almost every deck plays a lot of creatures and there are a lot of viable aggro decks. I don't even know why you are upset.