I don't think it's correct to classify decks as fair or unfair. Rather, it's better to put a deck on a scale of fair to unfair. Modern Jund would be all the way on the fair side, and High Tide would be on the unfair side. But a lot of decks are somewhere in between. Things like Modern Birthing Pod, Legacy Elves, or Standard Blue Devotion have some unfair elements, but many fair ones as well. Typically, the more synergistic a deck is, the more unfair it is.
Which isn't what unfair in MTG means. You could make exactly the same argument as someone playing mono-burn. Your removal and creatures are equally worthless there, the players are simply attacking a different resource. He's not abusing any combos or mechanics or getting more value out of his cards than should normally be possible. He's just racing your library versus his life total.
lol, it is exactly what "unfair" means in this context.
It doesn't mean "too good" it means playing/attacking on an unusual axis.
Anything where I sit there and watch you combo out for 20 minutes is what I consider to be a waste of time. Seriously, it's the one kind of deck I have always hated. I do love it when an inexperienced combo player net decks, provides to sit there for 10 minutes waffling around trying to figure out how to combo out, and then call the person on the failure to combo and then proceed to win. If you're going to netdeck the night before, then please have the courtesy to practice that you actually know how to play it. That's where I find the system to be unfair, is staring at someone for 20-40 minutes. I've actually built decks with "kill switches" and play Japan with nuclear weapons. "Yea I got that combo, but I'm not going to assemble it unless if you're annoying."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
lol, it is exactly what "unfair" means in this context.
It doesn't mean "too good" it means playing/attacking on an unusual axis.
No, no it doesn't. It means getting "unfair" value out of your cards. It means turning a 2 mana spell into 20 damage. It means turning a 4 mana enchantment and a 3 mana creature into infinite damage. It means using a six mana enchantment and a zero mana instant to automatically win the game.
It doesn't even remotely apply to firing off four consecutive Lava Axes across four turns.
You can certainly mill someone or burn someone out in unfair ways (again, Grapeshot or certain full deck mill combos), but milling and burning aren't at all unfair on their own.
No, no it doesn't. It means getting "unfair" value out of your cards. It means turning a 2 mana spell into 20 damage. It means turning a 4 mana enchantment and a 3 mana creature into infinite damage. It means using a six mana enchantment and a zero mana instant to automatically win the game.
It doesn't even remotely apply to firing off four consecutive Lava Axes across four turns.
You can certainly mill someone or burn someone out in unfair ways (again, Grapeshot or certain full deck mill combos), but milling and burning aren't at all unfair on their own.
Well, there's clearly some dispute here. Some people seem to be saying that whether it's fair or unfair depends on whether it attempts to win through the "normal" axis of creatures and attacking and interacting with opposing creatures, or not. Others seem to be saying that it has to do with whether you're combining cards togethers in ways that produce exponentially synergistic effects, or something like that. Usually those go together, but not always.
It's not like these terms are officially designated by some governing body so that we can look up the CORRECT answer in any sense.
It's not like these terms are officially designated by some governing body so that we can look up the CORRECT answer in any sense.
True, and there is already enough disagreement on very specific terms such as "control", "tempo", "combo", and "card advantage"; which is why I think that using words that already have a meaning with regards to games in general as specific magic jargon that changes that meaning is poor communication.
True, and there is already enough disagreement on very specific terms such as "control", "tempo", "combo", and "card advantage"; which is why I think that using words that already have a meaning with regards to games in general as specific magic jargon that changes that meaning is poor communication.
I think getting into an argument about whether a single specific deck is fair or unfair is beyond pointless. But I think the general concept, allowing you to make statements like "I went down to only 2 Path to Exiles main because I expected a lot of unfair decks", is a reasonable one.
I think getting into an argument about whether a single specific deck is fair or unfair is beyond pointless. But I think the general concept, allowing you to make statements like "I went down to only 2 Path to Exiles main because I expected a lot of unfair decks", is a reasonable one.
Really? Because even after reading this thread I am not sure what you meant and why?
Fair and unfair is the silliest way to classify decks, and I roll my eyes every time someone does. When I first got into this game, no one ever used it because unless you were cheating there's no real reason to use it. Even combo decks "play fair" when you consider how many cards the expend to get their "unfair" boardstate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Well, there's clearly some dispute here. Some people seem to be saying that whether it's fair or unfair depends on whether it attempts to win through the "normal" axis of creatures and attacking and interacting with opposing creatures, or not. Others seem to be saying that it has to do with whether you're combining cards togethers in ways that produce exponentially synergistic effects, or something like that. Usually those go together, but not always.
It's not like these terms are officially designated by some governing body so that we can look up the CORRECT answer in any sense.
They have no meaning if you don't agree on a meaning. That's why terms have definitions. One of the definitions you gave makes sense in a way, the other doesn't. By what even loose definition of the word "unfair" does attacking someone's library or life total with spells instead of just tapping creatures fall under? Absolutely none. Getting a 15 drop out on turn 2 can easily fall under loose definitions of the word "unfair." 15 drops are supposed to be played on turn 15 or accelerated out by multiple other cards over a few turns. I've never heard anyone, besides a couple of ridiculous posts in this thread, call winning with burn to the face "unfair" (unless it's coming from a Grapeshot or a channeled Fireball). A few people disagreeing with a definition doesn't mean the definition is wrong or that their own definition is right.
Fair and unfair is the silliest way to classify decks, and I roll my eyes every time someone does. When I first got into this game, no one ever used it because unless you were cheating there's no real reason to use it. Even combo decks "play fair" when you consider how many cards the expend to get their "unfair" boardstate.
Two cards to get a tough to remove 15/15 on turn 3 seems like a "fair" investment to you? It's simply a classification of decks. It's not a slight on the player, it's not a complaint, it's not an accusation.
Two cards to get a tough to remove 15/15 on turn 3 seems like a "fair" investment to you? It's simply a classification of decks. It's not a slight on the player, it's not a complaint, it's not an accusation.
But it's not just two cards is it?
Their entire deck was built around that. They're basically investing all sixty to get that 15/15 into play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
No, no it doesn't. It means getting "unfair" value out of your cards. It means turning a 2 mana spell into 20 damage. It means turning a 4 mana enchantment and a 3 mana creature into infinite damage. It means using a six mana enchantment and a zero mana instant to automatically win the game.
It doesn't even remotely apply to firing off four consecutive Lava Axes across four turns.
You can certainly mill someone or burn someone out in unfair ways (again, Grapeshot or certain full deck mill combos), but milling and burning aren't at all unfair on their own.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
I didn't want to play that deck, I loved my UB control deck, it was the perfect draw-go deck, IMO. But I couldn't best cawgo. So I had to switch.
Cawgo was absolutely unbeatable by anything but cawgo and super super fast decks like WW/GW quest decks, and even then those matchups were at best a coinflip.
Cawgo is the absolute standard for what an 'unfair' deck is. Same for the old ravaged affinity, you ether played affinity or you played tooth and nail because it had a 50% against affinity.
A fair deck is something more like delver, but even then most people thought delver was unfair. It eaked out small advantages and if it lost tempo it lost the game.
A fair deck is a deck without any creatures you can't deal with, that doesn't do anything ridiculous too fast, that isn't able to just demolish you without you seeing it coming.
Really, it's hard to define any deck specifically as fair. It doesn't have anything to do with money, it would be more about win percentage and interactions.
Most people would never consider a control deck as fair, though I don't think that's true. I think there's probably some that are and some that aren't.
(Gods I am way too young for this rant...)
I entered into the game moments before Ravager Affinity was a thing. The uber-potency of Skullclamp was released at the same time, and I think we can all agree that THAT card is unfair. Cranial Plating, in an artifact block, came out one set later, and considering how absurdly potent Raffinity is with even minor boosts (e.g. Springleaf Drum), you've never encountered it if you think it isn't unfair. Isochron Scepter was released at the same time, which led to the true lack of fairness that was Scepter/Chant in Extended, which allowed even LESS to happen than counterspell-heavy decks, as you couldn't even cast a spell in the first place.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
Your average Legacy Affinity deck isn't unfair. It's just fast. You can be both fair and fast.
"Turn 2, artifact land, Cranial Plating, equip, go to my attack step, Ravager comes in for 15?"
"Ancient Grudge."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can find me on MTGO. My username is gereffi.
lol, it is exactly what "unfair" means in this context.
It doesn't mean "too good" it means playing/attacking on an unusual axis.
Mill is not overpowered. Good thing unfair doesn't mean overpowered or that would be a contradiction.
Why is this so hard for magic players to grasp? Is it an internet thing?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
No, no it doesn't. It means getting "unfair" value out of your cards. It means turning a 2 mana spell into 20 damage. It means turning a 4 mana enchantment and a 3 mana creature into infinite damage. It means using a six mana enchantment and a zero mana instant to automatically win the game.
It doesn't even remotely apply to firing off four consecutive Lava Axes across four turns.
You can certainly mill someone or burn someone out in unfair ways (again, Grapeshot or certain full deck mill combos), but milling and burning aren't at all unfair on their own.
Well, there's clearly some dispute here. Some people seem to be saying that whether it's fair or unfair depends on whether it attempts to win through the "normal" axis of creatures and attacking and interacting with opposing creatures, or not. Others seem to be saying that it has to do with whether you're combining cards togethers in ways that produce exponentially synergistic effects, or something like that. Usually those go together, but not always.
It's not like these terms are officially designated by some governing body so that we can look up the CORRECT answer in any sense.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I think getting into an argument about whether a single specific deck is fair or unfair is beyond pointless. But I think the general concept, allowing you to make statements like "I went down to only 2 Path to Exiles main because I expected a lot of unfair decks", is a reasonable one.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
They have no meaning if you don't agree on a meaning. That's why terms have definitions. One of the definitions you gave makes sense in a way, the other doesn't. By what even loose definition of the word "unfair" does attacking someone's library or life total with spells instead of just tapping creatures fall under? Absolutely none. Getting a 15 drop out on turn 2 can easily fall under loose definitions of the word "unfair." 15 drops are supposed to be played on turn 15 or accelerated out by multiple other cards over a few turns. I've never heard anyone, besides a couple of ridiculous posts in this thread, call winning with burn to the face "unfair" (unless it's coming from a Grapeshot or a channeled Fireball). A few people disagreeing with a definition doesn't mean the definition is wrong or that their own definition is right.
Two cards to get a tough to remove 15/15 on turn 3 seems like a "fair" investment to you? It's simply a classification of decks. It's not a slight on the player, it's not a complaint, it's not an accusation.
But it's not just two cards is it?
Their entire deck was built around that. They're basically investing all sixty to get that 15/15 into play.
So combo is unfair? Counterpells exist man.
(Gods I am way too young for this rant...)
I entered into the game moments before Ravager Affinity was a thing. The uber-potency of Skullclamp was released at the same time, and I think we can all agree that THAT card is unfair. Cranial Plating, in an artifact block, came out one set later, and considering how absurdly potent Raffinity is with even minor boosts (e.g. Springleaf Drum), you've never encountered it if you think it isn't unfair. Isochron Scepter was released at the same time, which led to the true lack of fairness that was Scepter/Chant in Extended, which allowed even LESS to happen than counterspell-heavy decks, as you couldn't even cast a spell in the first place.
You kids today are SHELTERED.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
"Turn 2, artifact land, Cranial Plating, equip, go to my attack step, Ravager comes in for 15?"
"Ancient Grudge."
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit