In my (admittedly limited) experience, land destruction is the most "annoying" type of deck that nobody plays. I don't remember ever playing a single game in my life against a LD deck. It's hard to hate a deck type for the simple reason that everybody else tells me that I should hate it. Why should I hate something that nobody uses?
WotC did a lot to make LD decks as bad as possible, they simply dont print any good LD anymore.
The only "relevant" LD form is Blood moon , beside Tectonic Edge, Ghostquarter and the like, which specificly dont hate "normal" decks, just specific special lands (like tron, manlands, etc.) and more important, they allow a deck to play around the LD, to compensate.
The LD decks of old times were much different.
They played turn 1 mana creature and just destroyed all your lands from that turn on, so you never get above 1 (if on the draw) or 2 mana (if on the play).
The Mirrodin type of LD used Chrome Mox to accelerate into LD and pretty much destroyed at least your first 3 lands ; which means any hand you keep that has 2-3 lands is unplayable as these lands will be destroyed and if you then dont draw lands to replace them, you are just dead against some random dude (Slith Firewalker, or an Seething Song accelerated Arc Slogger) ; the deck even had a game against Affinity, due to viable cards against the deck and in the sideboard Furnace Dragon.
The UR Magnivore deck used bounce spells on your lands and land destruction, together with Annex to keep you mana screwd, and Magnivore killed you then quickly ; also an unbelieable annoying deck to play against, as all it does is to make sure you dont do anything in the game.
All the stax kind of decks in Vintage do pretty much the same, they just dont LD your lands right away (even if they have wasteland/Stripmine), but the Sphere kind of cards have pretty much the same result. Old stax decks actual performed with Smokestack / Tangle Wire / Winterorb / or locks out of Crucible of Worlds with Stripmine / Wasteland.
All of that is pretty annoying, as that kind of decks strifes for as less interaction with the opponent as possible, just make sure they cant do anything.
-----------------------------------
Today, we just dont get this kind of deck anymore, which is in one way good, and still eliminates the diversity of decks, but the modern day LD does one thing really good, it has conditions and allows the other player to actual work around it.
It really is probably for the best that LD decks aren't big and there are only a few viable types (I count UR Moon as LD of sorts)... it really makes the game into a form of solitaire at times.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Decks:
Modern
Modern Warp / UR Control / UR Storm / Naya Breachshift / ElectroBalance
Legacy
Solidarity / Lands / Sneak and Show / Grixis Delver / Reanimator / Belcher / Storm / Dredge
Play 28 lands and you are guaranteed to win the LD deck. When it comes turn 8 and they have no board you may not mind not having many lands.
I have mentioned it a few times here but playing Heathstone a lot lately I have come to realise how great it is for a TCG to have elements where you can interact with your opponents resources. Now that being said MTG had some instances where the spells that did this where a tad OP but the theory behind it is sound. Interaction is one of th things what makes a TCG good.
I am fine with LD, storm, control, counterspell, whatever, but not infinite combo. comboing 3 turns in a row is fine, but not something like Twin 'i combo, you can't kill a bolt-proof creature at instant speed past counterspells? sucks for you'
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
So how do you feel when you lose against an unoptimized deck?
Losing to an unoptimised deck doesn't affect me any differently from losing to an optimised deck but the information gained is a lot less useful. Like maybe I'm playing against budget Monsters, with Reaper of the Wilds instead of Polukranos. Maybe I lose to it because I made plays accounting for Polukranos but not Reaper. How does that help me? Not by much IMO. At a tournament most opponents will be running Polukranos over Reaper so it's not like I'm suddenly going to start playing around Reaper now.
Basically unoptimised decks run a lot of cards that are unlikely to be played against me in a serious competitive setting, so in many ways the experience counts for nothing whether I win or lose. In the example above maybe I beat him easily because his Reaper can't kill my Master of Waves. That's useless data. That's pretty much a wasted game.
Aside from the lack of useful information gained, I can't even really have fun. I am really only interested in defeating people running the best deck that can come up with, not the best deck they can afford. What satisfaction is there in beating a guy running Guildgates when he really wants Shocks? A dude running two Nissas when he would like to have four? As far as I'm concerned, absolutely none. One of the things I constantly got annoyed with when I played Legacy was when I would beat some dude running a tier 2 list like Dragon Stompy, ask him why he chose to play that deck, and getting an answer like "Well I would play Miracles if I could but I can't afford it." Not annoyed at the other guy. More annoyed at the circumstances that prevented that guy from facing me at his full strength.
Anything with a wildly inconsistent, hard to interact with, "god combo." Something like Kuldotha Red or Quest for the Holy Relic. The reason is that the game is usually decided by the shuffler, and not by the players.
Oh, I forgot about chaos EDH decks. If completely skill-less randomness is fun for you, why not just go roll some dice in the corner? There's far more than enough luck in MTG as is.
If a card is legal in the format, why shouldn't it be played? If you don't like it, how about you deal with it? It's called "metagame". You know that your opponent will have certain cards, so you put answers to it in yours. "Your deck just messes up the game, don't use those completely format-legal cards" is just stupid.
Um, congrats on obviously playing some chaotic red deck and getting irrationally offended. Your post could literally be a reply to every single post in this thread. That's the entire point of the thread. And no, thanks. I'm not going to build around beating terrible, terrible decks. I'm just going to not play with the guy playing it.
I haven't played in standard in a long time. But when I did, Caw-blade was the deck that literally everyone played in my local meta. It was the same deck with the same first few turns over and over again. That would prove to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back till I recently returned, only to play EDH.
Hexproof, oh god, hexproof. Deck doesn't play any cards that interact with you while simultaneously trying not to play any cards that you can interact with. It's just the worst.
Hexproof, oh god, hexproof. Deck doesn't play any cards that interact with you while simultaneously trying not to play any cards that you can interact with. It's just the worst.
If only counterspells, discard spells, sacrifice effects, wraths, mass bounce, enchantment removal or blocking were part of MTG.
Hexproof
Esper
Burn
Mill
Big creatures
Small creatures
Interaction
Non-interaction
Black, red, blue, white and possibly green decks
Colorless decks
Decks made up of 60 cards
Deck made up of more than 60 cards
Decks made up of less than 60 cards
I play a lot of Land Destruction. A lot. Let me tell you it is far from a broken strategy, and I don't feel bad in the least playing it. It punishes greed, and forces people to rethink the way they're playing the game. It's not unfair, it's just unexpected. You need to be shaken up from time to time to move forward in life.
Most annoying decks... I did quite a number on my friends when we had a tournament and I played Legacy Eggs. The deck takes like 15 minute turns at least, it's terrible. You don't know how much I regret doing that. I put people off Magic that day.
I think I also take the cake in casual by playing Grip of Chaos and Eye of the Storm. It's just something you don't do.
You missed my complaint over non-optimised decks. How anyone could ever enjoy playing against a dude running the two Xenagos he owns, instead of the four Xenagos he wants, is beyond me.
A lot of casual complaints can be summarized as:
"Paper is lame, everyone should just play Scissors and Rock decks. By the way have you seen my awesome Rock deck? I'll play you as long as you dont have one of those stupid Paper decks."
Some matchups are like a chess match, others are like throwing rocks at a siege tank. If you use overly specialized answers (like only being able to kill creatures) in your decks, be prepared for more like the latter.
Hexproof
Esper
Burn
Mill
Big creatures
Small creatures
Interaction
Non-interaction
Black, red, blue, white and possibly green decks
Colorless decks
Decks made up of 60 cards
Deck made up of more than 60 cards
Decks made up of less than 60 cards
Does that summary work for everyone?
It's possible some people hate decks, possibly with cards. You know what I'm talking about. "I hate decks that beat me. Decks that beat me are un-fun. I hate decks with cards!"
Because either A. He is a new player that hasn't invested that heavily in magic. Or B because he is playing on a budget?
The notifications say this was a reply to me, though I was not quoted. I will assume it is a response to my annoyance at non-optimised decks. The correct answer is: neither A nor B.
Basically I see playing against unoptimised decks as equivalent to sparring against a boxer with an injury. He's weaker than he should be, so the match is a complete waste of time. I learn nothing useful and feel no sense of satisfaction at the end of the game. Aside from the experience having no upside, I might even pick up a few bad habits that hurt me down the line. The only way to come out ahead when facing an unoptimised deck is to not play at all.
The only way to come out ahead when facing an unoptimised deck is to not play at all.
So I'm assuming you only play sanctioned Constructed then?
99+% of decklists in the EDH forum, for example, I would say are "not optimized" because they can't realistically beat Azami/Hermit Druid/Ad Naus, ever. Is it annoying to you that 99+% of EDH players prefer playing in groups where everyone's deck is "not optimized" because they don't want to play against Azami/Hermit Druid/Ad Naus all the time?
WotC did a lot to make LD decks as bad as possible, they simply dont print any good LD anymore.
The only "relevant" LD form is Blood moon , beside Tectonic Edge, Ghostquarter and the like, which specificly dont hate "normal" decks, just specific special lands (like tron, manlands, etc.) and more important, they allow a deck to play around the LD, to compensate.
The LD decks of old times were much different.
They played turn 1 mana creature and just destroyed all your lands from that turn on, so you never get above 1 (if on the draw) or 2 mana (if on the play).
The Mirrodin type of LD used Chrome Mox to accelerate into LD and pretty much destroyed at least your first 3 lands ; which means any hand you keep that has 2-3 lands is unplayable as these lands will be destroyed and if you then dont draw lands to replace them, you are just dead against some random dude (Slith Firewalker, or an Seething Song accelerated Arc Slogger) ; the deck even had a game against Affinity, due to viable cards against the deck and in the sideboard Furnace Dragon.
Another classic LD deck is R/G Beasts. It played 1 mana creatures like Birds of Paradise to accelerate into Stone Rain, Avalanche Rider, Molten Rain, Creeping Mold.
The UR Magnivore deck used bounce spells on your lands and land destruction, together with Annex to keep you mana screwd, and Magnivore killed you then quickly ; also an unbelieable annoying deck to play against, as all it does is to make sure you dont do anything in the game.
All the stax kind of decks in Vintage do pretty much the same, they just dont LD your lands right away (even if they have wasteland/Stripmine), but the Sphere kind of cards have pretty much the same result. Old stax decks actual performed with Smokestack / Tangle Wire / Winterorb / or locks out of Crucible of Worlds with Stripmine / Wasteland.
All of that is pretty annoying, as that kind of decks strifes for as less interaction with the opponent as possible, just make sure they cant do anything.
-----------------------------------
Today, we just dont get this kind of deck anymore, which is in one way good, and still eliminates the diversity of decks, but the modern day LD does one thing really good, it has conditions and allows the other player to actual work around it.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Modern Warp / UR Control / UR Storm / Naya Breachshift / ElectroBalance
Solidarity / Lands / Sneak and Show / Grixis Delver / Reanimator / Belcher / Storm / Dredge
I have mentioned it a few times here but playing Heathstone a lot lately I have come to realise how great it is for a TCG to have elements where you can interact with your opponents resources. Now that being said MTG had some instances where the spells that did this where a tad OP but the theory behind it is sound. Interaction is one of th things what makes a TCG good.
Losing to an unoptimised deck doesn't affect me any differently from losing to an optimised deck but the information gained is a lot less useful. Like maybe I'm playing against budget Monsters, with Reaper of the Wilds instead of Polukranos. Maybe I lose to it because I made plays accounting for Polukranos but not Reaper. How does that help me? Not by much IMO. At a tournament most opponents will be running Polukranos over Reaper so it's not like I'm suddenly going to start playing around Reaper now.
Basically unoptimised decks run a lot of cards that are unlikely to be played against me in a serious competitive setting, so in many ways the experience counts for nothing whether I win or lose. In the example above maybe I beat him easily because his Reaper can't kill my Master of Waves. That's useless data. That's pretty much a wasted game.
Aside from the lack of useful information gained, I can't even really have fun. I am really only interested in defeating people running the best deck that can come up with, not the best deck they can afford. What satisfaction is there in beating a guy running Guildgates when he really wants Shocks? A dude running two Nissas when he would like to have four? As far as I'm concerned, absolutely none. One of the things I constantly got annoyed with when I played Legacy was when I would beat some dude running a tier 2 list like Dragon Stompy, ask him why he chose to play that deck, and getting an answer like "Well I would play Miracles if I could but I can't afford it." Not annoyed at the other guy. More annoyed at the circumstances that prevented that guy from facing me at his full strength.
Um, congrats on obviously playing some chaotic red deck and getting irrationally offended. Your post could literally be a reply to every single post in this thread. That's the entire point of the thread. And no, thanks. I'm not going to build around beating terrible, terrible decks. I'm just going to not play with the guy playing it.
This basically sounds like you just hate playing Modern.
But if I had to nominate a type that most often tends to irritate me a bit while playing against it, that type would be ultra-fast combo.
Most infuriating = infinite combos - precisely what Warp just said
If only counterspells, discard spells, sacrifice effects, wraths, mass bounce, enchantment removal or blocking were part of MTG.
Hexproof
Esper
Burn
Mill
Big creatures
Small creatures
Interaction
Non-interaction
Black, red, blue, white and possibly green decks
Colorless decks
Decks made up of 60 cards
Deck made up of more than 60 cards
Decks made up of less than 60 cards
Does that summary work for everyone?
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Most annoying decks... I did quite a number on my friends when we had a tournament and I played Legacy Eggs. The deck takes like 15 minute turns at least, it's terrible. You don't know how much I regret doing that. I put people off Magic that day.
I think I also take the cake in casual by playing Grip of Chaos and Eye of the Storm. It's just something you don't do.
UGTurboFogGU
BRSacrificial AggroBR
16The Paper Pauper Battle Bag16
EDH
BRRakdos, Lord of PingersBR
GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
UB Ramses OverdarkUB
Sig by Ace5301 of Ace of Spades Studio
You missed my complaint over non-optimised decks. How anyone could ever enjoy playing against a dude running the two Xenagos he owns, instead of the four Xenagos he wants, is beyond me.
Hoping for a cure, or at least an outbreak.
Level 1 Judge (yay)
"Paper is lame, everyone should just play Scissors and Rock decks. By the way have you seen my awesome Rock deck? I'll play you as long as you dont have one of those stupid Paper decks."
Some matchups are like a chess match, others are like throwing rocks at a siege tank. If you use overly specialized answers (like only being able to kill creatures) in your decks, be prepared for more like the latter.
It's possible some people hate decks, possibly with cards. You know what I'm talking about. "I hate decks that beat me. Decks that beat me are un-fun. I hate decks with cards!"
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
The notifications say this was a reply to me, though I was not quoted. I will assume it is a response to my annoyance at non-optimised decks. The correct answer is: neither A nor B.
Basically I see playing against unoptimised decks as equivalent to sparring against a boxer with an injury. He's weaker than he should be, so the match is a complete waste of time. I learn nothing useful and feel no sense of satisfaction at the end of the game. Aside from the experience having no upside, I might even pick up a few bad habits that hurt me down the line. The only way to come out ahead when facing an unoptimised deck is to not play at all.
So I'm assuming you only play sanctioned Constructed then?
99+% of decklists in the EDH forum, for example, I would say are "not optimized" because they can't realistically beat Azami/Hermit Druid/Ad Naus, ever. Is it annoying to you that 99+% of EDH players prefer playing in groups where everyone's deck is "not optimized" because they don't want to play against Azami/Hermit Druid/Ad Naus all the time?
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!