Recently I've been thinking about mono-color decks. It seems the current design of the game is generally geared towards multicolor. The modern colorpie is based on giving each color limitations such that competitive, functional decks must mix and match different colors in order to cover weakness.
This is great and all. What bothers me is that red is the single color with a self-sufficient and cohesive gameplan. Whenever a different mono-color deck appears in Standard, it's because of overpowered individual cards that have too good synergy (like mono blue and mono black devotion decks in Theros meta). However mono-red is almost always playable.
What I'm interested in is, what twinks could be made to the color pie in order to promote mono-color decks in the other 4 colors so that the pie won't break ? Is there a need to twink the color pie or it's just a matter of making good enough cards in each color so that the mono-color deck could exist ?
What I wanted to know is your thoughts about this. If you think some improvement could be made such that other monocolors are more prominent and cohesive, you are welcome to post a custom card design that highlights that.
I would argue that - if you had to pick just one - blue's the only complete color and always has been because counterspells are the only things that can answer anything. But that seems to be a different definition of "complete" than you're working from.
What's red's constant gameplan? Balls-out aggro, right? Red's the most aggro color, it has Goblins, small hasty creatures, and a bunch of burn, it's got a fast game plan... but how is that less complete than white's constant focus on somewhat similar weenie decks? How is that different from green always being able to do a ramp deck?
What you are asking for is to intentionally undermine each colors weakness. Red is always competative simply because its game plan is easy enough to pull off that the necessary critical mass to be competative is low. If the starting life total rose to 25 most red decks in history would not have been competative. You can't make every color equally viable without undermining the core of the game, and there is little value in allowing each color to be equally strong in any format.
It's not that red is complete, it's just that it's fast enough that you might not have time to notice all of its flaws.
There's the right way and the wrong way.
Red is the wrong way, but faster.
It seems that you are largely considering red in the context of Standard and maybe Modern. If you look at older formats, red is probably the least-used. If you look at Commander then red is the second worst monocolor after white (and even then it's very close).
Green and blue seem like the most complete colors to me, in that there's nothing they really can't do. Green has some problem removing creatures, it's true, but substantially fewer now that it has the "fight" keyword (and can completely go to town on anything with flying). It also has trouble drawing cards without an established board state. Blue can do anything and everything if you include older cards, though in Modern my understanding is that it's just a bit too slow.
I would argue that - if you had to pick just one - blue's the only complete color and always has been because counterspells are the only things that can answer anything. But that seems to be a different definition of "complete" than you're working from.
What's red's constant gameplan? Balls-out aggro, right? Red's the most aggro color, it has Goblins, small hasty creatures, and a bunch of burn, it's got a fast game plan... but how is that less complete than white's constant focus on somewhat similar weenie decks? How is that different from green always being able to do a ramp deck?
By "complete" I mean it's the only color that has enough perks to almost always have at least one competitive or semi-competitive deck in Standard. Red game plan is complete because playing aggressive creatures + burn (which is both reach and removal) is a good game plan that has been successful over the years. I don't agree this can be reduced to "balls-out-aggro" as midrange mono-red decks have emerged now and then (Big Red Koth in Mirrodin Besieged, Sledgehammer in RTR).
This is different from mono white because white winnies sucks. The last time I remember that deck was even semi-competitive was during Mirrodin Besieged and it happened because of 0 cost creatures + Tempered Steel, very unusual cards. I mean, look at mono white now. They clearly wanted to push the archetype with Benalish Marshal, History of Benalia, plenty of good 2/1 W drops but it went nowhere. This makes me wonder if there's something fundamentally missing on white.
What you are asking for is to intentionally undermine each colors weakness. Red is always competative simply because its game plan is easy enough to pull off that the necessary critical mass to be competative is low. If the starting life total rose to 25 most red decks in history would not have been competative. You can't make every color equally viable without undermining the core of the game, and there is little value in allowing each color to be equally strong in any format.
I explicitly said I was not arguing for that. My point is, the color pie is always changing and evolving. Every new set, there's at least some sort of innovation in what sort of effects each color gets. These innovations do not necessarily undermine a color weakness or undermine the core of the game.
What I'm arguing for the direction of these innovations - to bring more cohesion within the other 4 colors. If you truly believe more balance across all the colors is not a good design goal, then we have to agree to disagree. The fundamentals of the game is that each color is different and unique - trying to make then more balanced does not undermine this tenant in any way.
It's not that red is complete, it's just that it's fast enough that you might not have time to notice all of its flaws.
There's the right way and the wrong way.
Red is the wrong way, but faster.
It seems that you are largely considering red in the context of Standard and maybe Modern. If you look at older formats, red is probably the least-used. If you look at Commander then red is the second worst monocolor after white (and even then it's very close).
Green and blue seem like the most complete colors to me, in that there's nothing they really can't do. Green has some problem removing creatures, it's true, but substantially fewer now that it has the "fight" keyword (and can completely go to town on anything with flying). It also has trouble drawing cards without an established board state. Blue can do anything and everything if you include older cards, though in Modern my understanding is that it's just a bit too slow.
Complete does not mean the color is flawless or have a perfect game plan. It means, among the effect it gets routinely, it can come up with at least one game plan that actually works. As you and @void_nothing argued, blue is likely the most versatile color but ever since counter magic was severely nerfed blue do not have any cohesive gameplan, it has a bunch of disconnected tools.
And yes, I'm referring 100% to Standard. I should have mentioned but I thought it was implied when I wanted to discuss the modern color pie - which is a Standard and Limited only concept. It's not like they ban cards in modern and legacy because they break the current color pie . . .
And yeah, I'm not really arguing about specific color's weakness but actually if it's strengths together can by themselves compose a game plan. It might seem the two things are one and same (and they are related to some degree), but look at how Red is the only color which has what I'm saying and it does so independent of the fact it can't kill enchantments and gain life.
I don't play a lot of standard, but to my understanding monogreen tends to be a contender in most standard metas.
Red usually does very well, as you say, but it's not at all unusual to see a meta where an incidental lifegain card that's good for other reasons (Timely Reinforcements, Seeker of the Way, Blessed Alliance) just kills red's momentum and makes the matchup very bad.
I don't think any monocolor deck is bulletproof for the most part, unlike certain multicolor decks often end up being. Ramanup Red was pretty much the only recent exception, but it was just that - an exception.
I think monowhite humans/tokens was a thing in Shadows Over Innistrad?
I don't play a lot of standard, but to my understanding monogreen tends to be a contender in most standard metas.
Last time I remember mono green being tier 1 was RoE meta. That happened because of unusually strong cards (Primeval Titan), Eldrazi being naturally good ramp target and All is Dust. I think mono green was semi-competitive sometime in Kaladesh and right now, but not in many of the other metas in between these three.
But I agree, green is probably the second color closest to be "complete". Ramp into awesome stuff is a good game plan. The issue I see is that there isn't always good things to ramp into. There's also the issue that many ramp decks are too fragile against sweepers because non-creature ramp has also been nerfed a lot (for a good reason as it's too non-interactive).
---------------------------------------------
I think those are, historically, archetypal mono color decks, for each color.
White Winnie
Draw Go Control
Mono Black Control
Aggro
Ramp
Each of those decks where almost always playable in a distant past (except maybe for green). With time certain effects were being nerfed and cutted from the game for being unfun. White Winnie worked when it had Armageddon. Mono Blue when counter spells were way stronger and printed in enough mass. Mono Black when massive hand discard was still acceptable. Mono Green when non-creature ramp was a thing. Red was the only color that survived the downgrade from bolt to shock, partially because creatures have been buffed.
So what I wish was some way to fill the void left in those colors, either by pushing completely new archetypes (like Tempo in blue) or completely coming up with new stuff. Personally I think white is the color that needs more help in this regard as the game plan WotC tries to push for it (go wide tokens + anthems) is too fragile and have little to no synergy with all the other things white do as support for other colors (sweepers, some removal).
I think that I have localized the source of the apparent color disparity, though it might not get you to your desired balance point. After looking through the abilities that red can access and comparing them to other colors, one thing stands out above all others...
...The ability to aim burn spells at players.
I am serious.
1. Lightning bolt and shock have a proactive capability that no form of threat management in any other color can manage. The structure of the game doesn't let us broadly add this capability without adding text much longer than "or player".
2. Beyond adding proactivity to kill spells, burning players is literally the most proactive thing you could do in this game as it synergizea perfectly with the general win condition used by every color.
3. Generally speaking, red is the king of top decking a win... which often isn't even an option for other colors. Apart from killing or bouncing a possible blocker, it is very rare that drawing a card will guarantee you a win on the turn you draw it. You can stabilize with a kill spell or boardwipe, improve your position with a big spell or fattie, or block disruption with a well-timed counter or discard spell... but not win.
If you remove direct burn from red, only allowing it to serve as a removal/sweeper effect, I think that colors would be balanced... though we would end up with NO "complete colors"
Obvious Counterpoints:
1. Creature Buffa: someone may point out that giant growth can also act as a proactive and reactive card, coming out as a combat trick or foil for removal or dealing extra damage. Likewise, auras, equipment, anthems, and +1/+1 counters can technically speed up the game like a burn spell. Unfortunately, these tricks are all strictly creature based, meaning that every other color can take out the target (often resulting in a 2-for-1)... whereas only blue has any ability to interact directly with burn spells (life gain in black/green/white is rarely ever good enough in standard to act as a proper foil)
2. Haste: much like direct burn, haste creatures allow for victory out of nowhere if your opponent is weakened enough. I could imagine people thinking that this is the primary factor after the prevalence of ahn-crop crasher... and earthshaker khenra... and glorybringer... and hazoret... and bomat courier. With that said, however, it seems a bit rare to have this critical mass of high-grade haste creatures. Further, decent instant speed answers aren't exactly rare for any color but green.
3. Black direct damage: if direct damage is a problem for red, what about black? Honestly, black rarely ever gets high-profile "burn". Gray merchant, bump in the night, and torment of hailfire stand out because they really aren't that commonplace. without a critical mass, we don't see much in standard play.
^ Personally I agree that the proactiveness helps decks that plays with less colors. Reactive decks needs to answer a wide range of threats and to do that it needs access to multiple colors. Strong counters gave blue the ability to do that in the past.
I think part o the solution is trying to come up with less degenerate mono-color archetypes and create cards around then. I think mono green ramp is fine, all it needs is effects like Caller of the Claw to be more present.
What is needed is coming up with a group of effects that already exists within the colors but are sporadic. Make this effect more prevalent such that a critical mass of then are reached, with the objective of making certain mono color decks more viable in standard. One point is that this effect should not warp limited.
For example I think "aristocrats" style deck could be a good candidate for black. The deck is proactive but can be interacted with. It also can be build as a fast deck or a slow controlling one. The problem is that aristocrats is requires a bunch of things that you may not want to show up in every set, for the sake of limited. One has be careful not to give very specific packages the "evergreen" status... like Prowess in blue which forced too much support for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard - Serious BGU Control R Aggro
Standard - For Fun BG Auras
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is great and all. What bothers me is that red is the single color with a self-sufficient and cohesive gameplan. Whenever a different mono-color deck appears in Standard, it's because of overpowered individual cards that have too good synergy (like mono blue and mono black devotion decks in Theros meta). However mono-red is almost always playable.
What I'm interested in is, what twinks could be made to the color pie in order to promote mono-color decks in the other 4 colors so that the pie won't break ? Is there a need to twink the color pie or it's just a matter of making good enough cards in each color so that the mono-color deck could exist ?
What I wanted to know is your thoughts about this. If you think some improvement could be made such that other monocolors are more prominent and cohesive, you are welcome to post a custom card design that highlights that.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
What's red's constant gameplan? Balls-out aggro, right? Red's the most aggro color, it has Goblins, small hasty creatures, and a bunch of burn, it's got a fast game plan... but how is that less complete than white's constant focus on somewhat similar weenie decks? How is that different from green always being able to do a ramp deck?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
There's the right way and the wrong way.
Red is the wrong way, but faster.
It seems that you are largely considering red in the context of Standard and maybe Modern. If you look at older formats, red is probably the least-used. If you look at Commander then red is the second worst monocolor after white (and even then it's very close).
Green and blue seem like the most complete colors to me, in that there's nothing they really can't do. Green has some problem removing creatures, it's true, but substantially fewer now that it has the "fight" keyword (and can completely go to town on anything with flying). It also has trouble drawing cards without an established board state. Blue can do anything and everything if you include older cards, though in Modern my understanding is that it's just a bit too slow.
- Rabid Wombat
By "complete" I mean it's the only color that has enough perks to almost always have at least one competitive or semi-competitive deck in Standard. Red game plan is complete because playing aggressive creatures + burn (which is both reach and removal) is a good game plan that has been successful over the years. I don't agree this can be reduced to "balls-out-aggro" as midrange mono-red decks have emerged now and then (Big Red Koth in Mirrodin Besieged, Sledgehammer in RTR).
This is different from mono white because white winnies sucks. The last time I remember that deck was even semi-competitive was during Mirrodin Besieged and it happened because of 0 cost creatures + Tempered Steel, very unusual cards. I mean, look at mono white now. They clearly wanted to push the archetype with Benalish Marshal, History of Benalia, plenty of good 2/1 W drops but it went nowhere. This makes me wonder if there's something fundamentally missing on white.
I explicitly said I was not arguing for that. My point is, the color pie is always changing and evolving. Every new set, there's at least some sort of innovation in what sort of effects each color gets. These innovations do not necessarily undermine a color weakness or undermine the core of the game.
What I'm arguing for the direction of these innovations - to bring more cohesion within the other 4 colors. If you truly believe more balance across all the colors is not a good design goal, then we have to agree to disagree. The fundamentals of the game is that each color is different and unique - trying to make then more balanced does not undermine this tenant in any way.
Complete does not mean the color is flawless or have a perfect game plan. It means, among the effect it gets routinely, it can come up with at least one game plan that actually works. As you and @void_nothing argued, blue is likely the most versatile color but ever since counter magic was severely nerfed blue do not have any cohesive gameplan, it has a bunch of disconnected tools.
And yes, I'm referring 100% to Standard. I should have mentioned but I thought it was implied when I wanted to discuss the modern color pie - which is a Standard and Limited only concept. It's not like they ban cards in modern and legacy because they break the current color pie . . .
And yeah, I'm not really arguing about specific color's weakness but actually if it's strengths together can by themselves compose a game plan. It might seem the two things are one and same (and they are related to some degree), but look at how Red is the only color which has what I'm saying and it does so independent of the fact it can't kill enchantments and gain life.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Red usually does very well, as you say, but it's not at all unusual to see a meta where an incidental lifegain card that's good for other reasons (Timely Reinforcements, Seeker of the Way, Blessed Alliance) just kills red's momentum and makes the matchup very bad.
I don't think any monocolor deck is bulletproof for the most part, unlike certain multicolor decks often end up being. Ramanup Red was pretty much the only recent exception, but it was just that - an exception.
I think monowhite humans/tokens was a thing in Shadows Over Innistrad?
- Rabid Wombat
Last time I remember mono green being tier 1 was RoE meta. That happened because of unusually strong cards (Primeval Titan), Eldrazi being naturally good ramp target and All is Dust. I think mono green was semi-competitive sometime in Kaladesh and right now, but not in many of the other metas in between these three.
But I agree, green is probably the second color closest to be "complete". Ramp into awesome stuff is a good game plan. The issue I see is that there isn't always good things to ramp into. There's also the issue that many ramp decks are too fragile against sweepers because non-creature ramp has also been nerfed a lot (for a good reason as it's too non-interactive).
---------------------------------------------
I think those are, historically, archetypal mono color decks, for each color.
Each of those decks where almost always playable in a distant past (except maybe for green). With time certain effects were being nerfed and cutted from the game for being unfun. White Winnie worked when it had Armageddon. Mono Blue when counter spells were way stronger and printed in enough mass. Mono Black when massive hand discard was still acceptable. Mono Green when non-creature ramp was a thing. Red was the only color that survived the downgrade from bolt to shock, partially because creatures have been buffed.
So what I wish was some way to fill the void left in those colors, either by pushing completely new archetypes (like Tempo in blue) or completely coming up with new stuff. Personally I think white is the color that needs more help in this regard as the game plan WotC tries to push for it (go wide tokens + anthems) is too fragile and have little to no synergy with all the other things white do as support for other colors (sweepers, some removal).
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
...The ability to aim burn spells at players.
I am serious.
1. Lightning bolt and shock have a proactive capability that no form of threat management in any other color can manage. The structure of the game doesn't let us broadly add this capability without adding text much longer than "or player".
2. Beyond adding proactivity to kill spells, burning players is literally the most proactive thing you could do in this game as it synergizea perfectly with the general win condition used by every color.
3. Generally speaking, red is the king of top decking a win... which often isn't even an option for other colors. Apart from killing or bouncing a possible blocker, it is very rare that drawing a card will guarantee you a win on the turn you draw it. You can stabilize with a kill spell or boardwipe, improve your position with a big spell or fattie, or block disruption with a well-timed counter or discard spell... but not win.
If you remove direct burn from red, only allowing it to serve as a removal/sweeper effect, I think that colors would be balanced... though we would end up with NO "complete colors"
Obvious Counterpoints:
1. Creature Buffa: someone may point out that giant growth can also act as a proactive and reactive card, coming out as a combat trick or foil for removal or dealing extra damage. Likewise, auras, equipment, anthems, and +1/+1 counters can technically speed up the game like a burn spell. Unfortunately, these tricks are all strictly creature based, meaning that every other color can take out the target (often resulting in a 2-for-1)... whereas only blue has any ability to interact directly with burn spells (life gain in black/green/white is rarely ever good enough in standard to act as a proper foil)
2. Haste: much like direct burn, haste creatures allow for victory out of nowhere if your opponent is weakened enough. I could imagine people thinking that this is the primary factor after the prevalence of ahn-crop crasher... and earthshaker khenra... and glorybringer... and hazoret... and bomat courier. With that said, however, it seems a bit rare to have this critical mass of high-grade haste creatures. Further, decent instant speed answers aren't exactly rare for any color but green.
3. Black direct damage: if direct damage is a problem for red, what about black? Honestly, black rarely ever gets high-profile "burn". Gray merchant, bump in the night, and torment of hailfire stand out because they really aren't that commonplace. without a critical mass, we don't see much in standard play.
I think part o the solution is trying to come up with less degenerate mono-color archetypes and create cards around then. I think mono green ramp is fine, all it needs is effects like Caller of the Claw to be more present.
What is needed is coming up with a group of effects that already exists within the colors but are sporadic. Make this effect more prevalent such that a critical mass of then are reached, with the objective of making certain mono color decks more viable in standard. One point is that this effect should not warp limited.
For example I think "aristocrats" style deck could be a good candidate for black. The deck is proactive but can be interacted with. It also can be build as a fast deck or a slow controlling one. The problem is that aristocrats is requires a bunch of things that you may not want to show up in every set, for the sake of limited. One has be careful not to give very specific packages the "evergreen" status... like Prowess in blue which forced too much support for it.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras