Just a stray thought I had. Been playing magic a little over six years now. I love the game, but have found that Magic has changed my perception of certain colors in somewhat profound ways. Just to give you and idea of what I'm talking about, my favorite colors all my life have been: Any variation of gray or blue (top 2), black (this is so close to being number 2 or 3), red, pink, and green. However, since playing Magic, my idea of these colors has changed. Specifically, the colors of red and blue.
For starters, I think mechanically, blue is a really dumb color, as far as how it works in Magic. It's so simplistic in design, and even a moron can "bounce this" and "counter that." It's unconditional in most of it's design, be it draw a card (no downside), counter this (no downside), bounce that (no downside), take and extra turn (no downside) and oftentimes even adds abilities that make these types of cards even better. There's a reason why blue has traditionally been and still to this day (thanks Jace) has been the strongest color in Magic. Now I'm not one of those players who hates playing against blue. I love a challenge, and actively seek to defeat any deck that plays blue. But because of how blue plays, I don't feel like there's any thought as to how you should play it. Now, IRL, blue means many things to me. It is the color of introspection, perception, serenity, soothing, contemplation, existentialism, etc. The list goes on, but it is the idea of giving thought to deeply meaningful, and sometimes profound ideas and opinions. But that doesn't come across to me (somewhat) when I play the game. Because of this, the color blue has lost it's appeal to my IRL.
Red on the other hand, is my jam. Many an article, and professional players throughout the years have referred to red as the "Thinking Man's Color," and I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. Red can do some of the things blue can do, but usually there is a drawback to these abilities and mechanics. This adds an extra layer layer of contemplation, sophistication, and difficulty that I think Blue sorely lacks. It's a challenge building decks with red, and each move you make can either work to your advantage or bury you. IRL, red represents a great many things to me: Life, love, passion, anger, impulsiveness, heroism, etc. All traits that Magic has employed well in the design of the color and then some.
Black is also one of my favorite colors to play in Magic. Metaphysically, black represents the absorption of all colors. It is impossible to perceive pure black (darkness) unless in a vacuum. Magic has done a great job of reflecting this idea (for the most part) but I feel like it's lacking in some areas. What I mean is, black (theoretically) should be able to do all the things the other colors in Magic can do, but with a condition or a drawback. Black SHOULD be able to deal with artifacts and enchantments, but it has traditionally been this colors most glaring weakness. Why? Black is also the most misunderstood color in Magic, and even I struggle sometimes with the exact identity of the color. But it reflects this idea IRL, be it racism, totalitarianism, or an other cruel, unjust, oppressive, and/or evil person or organization that exists. But heroes wear black too, and there are good people out in the world (police officers, soldiers, military personnel) that genuinely want to help people for the betterment of mankind.
First, how much I like colours in real life have no bearing about how i feel about them in game. A colour in magic is more of a concept. I would never confused a colour i like to wear and a colour in magic.
Second, Thats a pretty biased point on colours particularly, I am not saying blue is the hardest colour (because there is no such thing), but to suggest all those things have no down side is simply incorrect. bounce is card disadvantage. Counter does nothing against a 4/4 beating your face. Drawing cards is great but many a blue mage has died to burnspells to the face with a fistful of cards, its all about how you play things.
First, how much I like colours in real life have no bearing about how i feel about them in game. A colour in magic is more of a concept. I would never confused a colour i like to wear and a colour in magic.
Second, Thats a pretty biased point on colours particularly, I am not saying blue is the hardest colour (because there is no such thing), but to suggest all those things have no down side is simply incorrect. bounce is card disadvantage. Counter does nothing against a 4/4 beating your face. Drawing cards is great but many a blue mage has died to burnspells to the face with a fistful of cards, its all about how you play things.
Well, I get that colors in Magic are concepts, but those colors weren't chosen at random. Wizards chose those colors specifically because of how the majority of people feel about those colors in real life. I can site numerous sources if you don't believe this. I'm not saying I now hate the color of blue in real life, but I don't respect anyone who plays it in Magic. It lacks... Substance. And yes,this is my opinion, which is why I posted in in the first place.
I agree wholeheartedly with you second paragraph, and I think you for your opinion!
while i myself think that Blue is overrated, if Legacy folks see this article they're going to say nasty thing to you
most players are of the opinion that Blue stands for complexity and red is all about turning creatures sideways and throwing burn to the face (not my own opinion)
The good thing is, I don't play Legacy, so I ain't scared! But even the staunchest of blue players has to admit how broken Time Walk and Ancestral Recall are!
Blue is supposed to stand for complexity, but it doesn't PLAY out that way. At least not to me. Deciding whether to counter something or not isn't that complex. And yes, red IS best known for it's small creatures being turned sideways and taking burn to the face. However, there's more to it than that (thank you for knowing this!) Reds abilities are subtle and restrictive and this is what blue lacks that makes it less appealing.
Hmm, this feels like a bit of a weird topic to me. Personally, my favorite color in real life and favorite color in magic have no real relation to each other. After my favorite color (violet), my second and third favorites are blue and then probably red. In magic, I tend to veer towards white, then green, then blue (but really don't mind red and black too much). And no, what the colors represent in magic has no bearing on how I feel about the colors in real life (i.e. I could argue that the way red is portrayed in Magic is oversimplified and basic, but I can still really appreciate the beauty of a rose's color). Also, let me try to think about what I feel colors tend to mean in the culture I grew up in and see how much in common I felt they are compared in magic.
Red: anger, passion, blood, fire, love (this checks out pretty accurately)
Green: luck, feeling sick, vegetables, nature, beginner
Blue: calmness, tranquility, water, sky, depths of emotion, sadness (some very different from Magic)
White: purity, light (pretty accurate)
Black: shadow, the unknown, evil (pretty accurate)
I think the biggest difference is that within my own upbringing, I've never thought of blue representing intelligence and cunning outside of Magic. This is why this question doesn't really make much sense to me.
while i myself think that Blue is overrated, if Legacy folks see this article they're going to say nasty thing to you
most players are of the opinion that Blue stands for complexity and red is all about turning creatures sideways and throwing burn to the face (not my own opinion)
The good thing is, I don't play Legacy, so I ain't scared! But even the staunchest of blue players has to admit how broken Time Walk and Ancestral Recall are!
Blue is supposed to stand for complexity, but it doesn't PLAY out that way. At least not to me. Deciding whether to counter something or not isn't that complex. And yes, red IS best known for it's small creatures being turned sideways and taking burn to the face. However, there's more to it than that (thank you for knowing this!) Reds abilities are subtle and restrictive and this is what blue lacks that makes it less appealing.
Actually countering CAN be that complex. You have to do threat assesment, "should I counter this spell, or the more dangerous one that is coming?" Blue lacks direct creature removal, you have to be creative and work via indirect methods.
while i myself think that Blue is overrated, if Legacy folks see this article they're going to say nasty thing to you
most players are of the opinion that Blue stands for complexity and red is all about turning creatures sideways and throwing burn to the face (not my own opinion)
The good thing is, I don't play Legacy, so I ain't scared! But even the staunchest of blue players has to admit how broken Time Walk and Ancestral Recall are!
Blue is supposed to stand for complexity, but it doesn't PLAY out that way. At least not to me. Deciding whether to counter something or not isn't that complex. And yes, red IS best known for it's small creatures being turned sideways and taking burn to the face. However, there's more to it than that (thank you for knowing this!) Reds abilities are subtle and restrictive and this is what blue lacks that makes it less appealing.
Actually countering CAN be that complex. You have to do threat assesment, "should I counter this spell, or the more dangerous one that is coming?" Blue lacks direct creature removal, you have to be creative and work via indirect methods.
Blue has direct creature removal and theft. Theft is Control Magic and the like, of course. But blue also has gotten Pongify, Rapid Hybridization, Curse of the Swine, and Reality Shift. And the counter this, counter that game is quite easy to play and win with. I've thrown decks together in less thn 10 min with a bunch of counterspells and had a 50% win rate, something I'd never be able to do using the other colors.
My two favorite colors in real life are blue and black, and my favorite combination of colors to play in Magic is blue and black. I made quite a few casual blue and black decks over the years, but since I started playing Modern last year I've been liking blue and red since blue and black isn't really playable. I'm actually thinking about building Ad Nauseam since it is a playable deck with blue and black.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RGTron UGInfect URStorm WUBRAd Nauseam BRGrishoalbrand URGScapeshift WBGAbzan Company WUBRGAmulet Titan BRGLiving End WGBogles
I think the op is missing the big picture. Thanks to MaRo and company ALL the colors have little to no complexity to them anymore. This stems from the ideology within r&d that green has always been the least complex color out of the 5 and new players tend to love green for that very reason. So, they made an internal decision to bring the complexity level of the other 4 down to green's level to make the game more accessible across the board for new players. This has worked extremely well for their bottom line, but has unfortunately made the game, standard in particular, much less interesting. There are outliers of course; every few years we get a 4 color rally type deck that is both excellent and difficult to pilot, but more often than not, standard is about repeatedly slamming your face against the table while you turn dudes sideways.
As an aside, you say bouncing and countering has no strategy and no downside, but that ignores the fact that bouncing is always nonland as well as card disadvantage and you never get an unconditional counter for less than 3 mana, 2 of which usually have to be blue. This is a huge drawback when considering counters for your deck because they are all but useless against any super aggressive deck. They also have the inherent problem of being terrible top decks late in the game when your opponent has already belched their hand onto the battlefield. And I also disagree that red is in anyway more complex than blue. I won't say that choosing what needs to be countered isn't easy when you're a seasoned control mage, but playing a ton of 1 and 2 drops while choosing whether to burn your opponent's face or their creature is equally easy.
I would say that blue's bouncing is one of the most interesting kinds of removal in the game. Certainly more interesting than your very simple Path to Exile or Doomblade. With bounce, that creature isn't gone forever like it would be if it were destroyed(in a deck with no recursion, which is most decks) or exiled. That means you're still going to have to worry about it later, especially if it happened to have a etb trigger. Plus, it adds to the intrigue of bounce that most bounce spells let you bounce your own permanents as well for various purposes.
I agree that cards like Counterspell are truly.not very interactive, fun, and don't create many interesting choices. However, counters that are more like Mana Leak are interesting. These cards actually force both players to make multiple.important choices and ask both players to make different gameplay decisions to get the outcome they want. If you have Mana Leak you're going to have to goad your opponent into tapping just enough of their mana sources so you can cast it in a surefire way. Or, you can cast it when your opponent does have enough mana to stop your counter, making them ask "Do I want to spend the 3 more mana to cast this one spell and potentially disrupt the rest of my turn/tap out or can I let this go?". This is as opposed to Counterspell which simply reads "Brick wall any non-land your opponent tries to play unless they're also playing blue and counters" which, IMO, is not good design.
I'm not going to comment on your assessment of red because I'm very biased as blue and red are my favorites
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
I think the op is missing the big picture. Thanks to MaRo and company ALL the colors have little to no complexity to them anymore. This stems from the ideology within r&d that green has always been the least complex color out of the 5 and new players tend to love green for that very reason. So, they made an internal decision to bring the complexity level of the other 4 down to green's level to make the game more accessible across the board for new players. This has worked extremely well for their bottom line, but has unfortunately made the game, standard in particular, much less interesting. There are outliers of course; every few years we get a 4 color rally type deck that is both excellent and difficult to pilot, but more often than not, standard is about repeatedly slamming your face against the table while you turn dudes sideways.
Ah yes, the obligatory "Maro is evil and dumbing down the game" and "the combat phase has no complexity whatsoever" posts. Nicely rolled into one this time. Very efficient.
What you're saying is interesting to me because as stated by others, most people think red is the least complex color and blue is the most complex. While I don't think blue is the most complex, I think there is complexity to all the colors, just in different ways.
I'm the opposite of you. I'm blue-green in real life. Every color test of any kind has shown me to be blue-green. Most people are a mix of colors, with only a little bias toward one or the other. Not me. I AM Blue-Green through and through with no leak into other colors whatsoever. According to what I've read, blue-green is the least common personality pair in real life. If I had to pick a hero for me in pop culture, it would be Radagast the Brown.
Blue is also my favorite color to play in Magic. I will pair it with almost any other: blue-green, blue-white, blue-black.
But I am NOT red. I don't like red in Magic. I don't like playing with it or against it. It is the most unfun color to me. I don't like red in real life either, it is illogical and counter-productive.
Different people are different. The fact that blue resonates so poorly with you almost makes me think that Magic was hugely successful at what it set out to do. You wouldn't have such a visceral reaction otherwise.
I will agree that color connotation in IRL can come down to strictly a cultural aspect so I won't comment on what's already been nicely put.
Now, my favorite color IRL is red which is nearly tied with purple. I happen to really like the look of red. It's an eye catching color and I always subconsciously feel more confident when I'm wearing red.
However, I don't like playing red that much in magic. I can appreciate a nicely played red deck and how burn effects, goblins, dragons and the like tie in thematically with the color, but it's just not my preferred play style. The two colors I happen to really love playing are blue and green as I feel they both encompass the two most quintessential aspects of the game. I like green from both a thematic and a gameplay standpoint. I happen to really like elves and nature but really green has a lot of what I can't get enough of: quality creature beatdown. The beginner never grew out of the simple satisfaction of laying down a bigger beater than the guy sitting across from you.
Blue on the other hand, is the complete opposite. Where green is all about simplistic conventional beatdown, blue was the color of gamebreaking mechanics. Take an extra turn here, cast cards from your opponents deck, mill this, draw that, negate this. Save for straightforward cards like counterspell, part of the mystique of blue is that it takes everything about the conventions of magic and turns it on its head. However, unless you were playing taking turns or merfolk, these game breaking mechanics almost never win on their own. What I feel makes blue so good, moreso in legacy, is that you can splash blue with any color with great results. Red, black, green, and white all have their own philosophies for how to take down an opponent, but with blue in the mix, you have the benefit of game breaking shenanigans while simultaneously advancing your color's strategy. Blue is the perfect wingman.
Ah yes, the obligatory "Maro is evil and dumbing down the game" and "the combat phase has no complexity whatsoever" posts. Nicely rolled into one this time. Very efficient.
It strikes me as funny that you pounce on this guy for calling aggro decks simple, but you take no issue at all with the OP's claim that even a moron could play counter-spells and bounce (which is equally absurd).
Then you try to reduce Jknott's position to calling MaRo "evil" - a cheap attempt to discredit him by making his argument appear to be emotional and not rational. Very poor show.
Combat has always been complex. But it's no more complex now than it was 15 or 20 years ago. On the other hand, other complex aspects of the game have been severely undermined if you are not playing eternal. Baiting counter-spells, not over-extending, and playing around LD and combo decks add all kinds of other complexities which are all but absent from the game post NWO.
What Jknott's is saying is that U abilities might seem dumb and obvious in an era where most decks are "fair" and focus on creature combat, these same abilities make for more complicated strategies when the game supports hard control decks which are good.
You can argue against this, but the moral leanings of Mark Rosewater are wholy irrelevant and do not being in this discussion.
Ah yes, the obligatory "Maro is evil and dumbing down the game" and "the combat phase has no complexity whatsoever" posts. Nicely rolled into one this time. Very efficient.
It strikes me as funny that you pounce on this guy for calling aggro decks simple, but you take no issue at all with the OP's claim that even a moron could play counter-spells and bounce (which is equally absurd).
It is, which is why I didn't respond to the second half of that guy's post. Also several others had pointed it out, so it seemed redundant to do so myself.
Combat has always been complex. But it's no more complex now than it was 15 or 20 years ago. On the other hand, other complex aspects of the game have been severely undermined if you are not playing eternal. Baiting counter-spells, not over-extending, and playing around LD and combo decks add all kinds of other complexities which are all but absent from the game post NWO.
People still play counterspells in standard, and so baiting them is relevant. A similar thing is true for removal. Sweepers are still played in standard, meaning overextending is still bad. Even combo decks are still in standard (Rally the Ancestors now, Jeskai Ascendancy last standard). So I'm not sure where this is coming from. Is it because decks in standard also contain creatures? There do seem to be people around here that think "This deck wins with a creature? It must be an aggro deck."
I am intrigued by these complexities of playing around land destruction, though. I'm not exactly sure what they are, but do go on. Also explain how they benefit the game more than they detriment it by making mana screw an even bigger problem.
And while we're at it, do explain what this has to do with having simpler commons.
People still play counterspells in standard, and so baiting them is relevant. A similar thing is true for removal. Sweepers are still played in standard, meaning overextending is still bad. Even combo decks are still in standard (Rally the Ancestors now, Jeskai Ascendancy last standard). So I'm not sure where this is coming from.
It's more that sweepers and counter-spells where printed in higher numbers, so playing well against them was more significant.
But more importantly counters and sweepers were more efficient; while creatures were less bang-for-buck than today and had less built in protection. The potential for the control player to get the better of you in a big way was much higher, and trying to hedge against that was much trickier.
I am intrigued by these complexities of playing around land destruction, though. I'm not exactly sure what they are, but do go on. Also explain how they benefit the game more than they detriment it by making mana screw an even bigger problem.
I can't tell if you are actually intrigued or sarcastically doubtful?
In 2005 this article was an eye opener for me as to how complex this game can be. The real interesting thing is that some of the plays Mowsowitz describes as correct are in fact counter-intuitive. To me this is a strong indicator of a good strategy game! When intuitive plays are incorrect, we have to learn not to make them! That's how we grow as players.
If you are genuinely interested in how the existence of LD can add complexity to gameplay, you will genuinely enjoy this article. http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mind-over-urzatron-2005-07-20
(The article focuses on trying to assemble Urzatron under threat of LD, but trying to establish sources for multiple colous is similar).
On the other hand if you really hate mana-screw, maybe no amount of extra intrigue would entice you to welcome efficient LD? I don't know what to tell you becuase I personally don't think mana-screw is even a "problem".
The potential for mana screw presents deck builders with a dilemma. I've often skimped on mana to squeeze more value into my deck. This is a risk-reward assessment I would not have the pleasure of contemplating without mana screw and mana flood.
Much of the difference between contemporary design vs older design comes down to strategicvelements which on the one hand provide interestng and unique complexities but on the other hand result in the occasional blow-out game or match. Who's to say what's "better"? Some people think the extra complexities are worth the occasional lack-luster games. Other people are less tolerant of underwhelming matches.
And while we're at it, do explain what this has to do with having simpler commons.
You misunderstand. I was using "post NWO" as a reference to a point in time - post NWO means litterally that - every block releases after Time Spiral.
You'll find it common that people mark the beginning of NWO as a turning point in the game where design philosophy changed in many ways besides NWO itself. You'll notice from Lorwyn on draw/go, LD, and combo have never been tier one strategies in Standard. This is not NWO directly, but it's a symptom of a common cause.
I'm sure you understand why NWO was implemented. Time Spiral block alienated new players with too much complexity, and they wished to fix this going forward. But they also decided new players did not like the wide openness of that meta (MaRo stated the design was not sufficiently linear), and it was also deemed offensive that Dragon Storm was a tier one deck (Seething Song - an intended long term staple - was cut from 9th edition).
Over the next few years WotC became even more stingy with quality LD, couuter-spells, "prison" pieces, Rituals, and creatute-hosers. More sublty, creatures have become tougher for their costs, so direct damage has become worse.
All of this is for the same goals which motivated the near elimination of complex cards in limited (NWO). To reduce the learning curve for new players by reigning in things which are frustrating, counter-intuitive, and require knowledge and experience to aviod being demoralizingly crushed.
The result is that elements of the game which provides unique complexities and dilemmas have disappeared from non-eternal. Other complicated elements have remained intact and certain skill sets are more sigh ficantvthatbtheybused to be while others have become more obsolete.
TLDR - when people refer to "post NWO" or the "NWO era" they are talking about an (ongoing) era in MTG design as a whole - not just the one explicit change of simplifying 14/15 cards in every pack. There is no name for this shift in design, but NWO was its poster child - symbolic of modern design.
People still play counterspells in standard, and so baiting them is relevant. A similar thing is true for removal. Sweepers are still played in standard, meaning overextending is still bad. Even combo decks are still in standard (Rally the Ancestors now, Jeskai Ascendancy last standard). So I'm not sure where this is coming from.
It's more that sweepers and counter-spells where printed in higher numbers, so playing well against them was more significant.
But more importantly counters and sweepers were more efficient; while creatures were less bang-for-buck than today and had less built in protection. The potential for the control player to get the better of you in a big way was much higher, and trying to hedge against that was much trickier.
I'm not convinced of this, as it doesn't seem to be about complexity at all. You admit that those factors are still important things to consider in Standard. Why is it better than control decks be able to more easily get crushing advantages? If anything, it's better if they have to do more work to build up the resource advantage that defines control decks, because it means there are more decision points.
I am intrigued by these complexities of playing around land destruction, though. I'm not exactly sure what they are, but do go on. Also explain how they benefit the game more than they detriment it by making mana screw an even bigger problem.
I can't tell if you are actually intrigued or sarcastically doubtful?
In 2005 this article was an eye opener for me as to how complex this game can be. The real interesting thing is that some of the plays Mowsowitz describes as correct are in fact counter-intuitive. To me this is a strong indicator of a good strategy game! When intuitive plays are incorrect, we have to learn not to make them! That's how we grow as players.
If you are genuinely interested in how the existence of LD can add complexity to gameplay, you will genuinely enjoy this article. http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mind-over-urzatron-2005-07-20
(The article focuses on trying to assemble Urzatron under threat of LD, but trying to establish sources for multiple colous is similar).
On the other hand if you really hate mana-screw, maybe no amount of extra intrigue would entice you to welcome efficient LD? I don't know what to tell you becuase I personally don't think mana-screw is even a "problem".
The potential for mana screw presents deck builders with a dilemma. I've often skimped on mana to squeeze more value into my deck. This is a risk-reward assessment I would not have the pleasure of contemplating without mana screw and mana flood.
Much of the difference between contemporary design vs older design comes down to strategic elements which on the one hand provide interesting and unique complexities but on the other hand result in the occasional blow-out game or match. Who's to say what's "better"? Some people think the extra complexities are worth the occasional lack-luster games. Other people are less tolerant of underwhelming matches.
There was a touch of sarcasm, but I really was wondering exactly which part of land destruction could be played around. I've seen people talk about playing around Armageddon by holding lands, but in most realistic scenarios Armageddon is "counter this or lose" whether or not you held lands. Playing around your opponent color screwing you is definitely a thing, so fair enough there. That said, mana screw where a player automatically loses because sometimes there just aren't lands at the top of your deck absolutely is a problem, and land destruction exacerbates this. Fixing this problem without breaking some other desirable aspect of the game does not seem to be possible, but making these scenarios more frequent is not something we should be trying to do.
Continuing in that vein, I'd like to point out that complexity isn't a terminal goal. The purpose of complexity is to allow for more strategic decisions, which determine the real depth of a game. A blowout game where one side gets very little meaningful interaction didn't have very many strategic decisions. If your added complexity is resulting in more of this type of game, it may actually be harming the depth of the game, not helping it. And to be quite honest, I'm not sure how unique playing around land destruction is. Whether it's land destruction, naturalizes, doom blades, or counterspells, playing around one kind of removal isn't all that different from playing around other kinds of removal. The difference here is that the other examples much more rarely result in non-games.
TLDR - when people refer to "post NWO" or the "NWO era" they are talking about an (ongoing) era in MTG design as a whole - not just the one explicit change of simplifying 14/15 cards in every pack. There is no name for this shift in design, but NWO was its poster child - symbolic of modern design.
Then just call it modern design, rather than use a poorly descriptive name. For the record, your timeline is off. NWO started with M10 and Zendikar, not Lorwyn. In fact, Lorwyn was a contributor to its creation as much as Time Spiral was.
I disagree with your assessment , Creatures started getting better at Invasion and only got stronger from their on. If you don't think blue is complex I welcome to you make a Vintage deck with a 50% win rate thats competive.... Things were very different back in the day. Draw for example is rarely "just X cards" more often its like Factor or fiction or Brainstorm or serine visions. Draw with a choice, interaction. Bounce as has been mentioned is almost always card disadvantage, the creature can come back, and you can target your own stuff for additional utility. Counter spells try . mana leak (gives the opponent choices) , arcane denile( gives your opponent cards) or force of will (costs you life and card disadavantage ) , these all require choice and strategy to use. If you want to see blues true complexity its not Legacy you should look to its vintage.
Continuing in that vein, I'd like to point out that complexity isn't a terminal goal. The purpose of complexity is to allow for more strategic decisions, which determine the real depth of a game.
Complexity should add strategic decisions which are more difficult to make well. A game can involve many decisions, but if most of them are fairly simple the game does not feel complex.
Certainly complexity is not a goal in and of itself! The goal is for a game to be enjoyable. People who enjoy complicated games usually want to analyse multiple strategic variables when playing. The more strategic variables one must consider in order to play well, the more deep and complex the game is.
And to be quite honest, I'm not sure how unique playing around land destruction is. Whether it's land destruction, naturalizes, doom blades, or counterspells, playing around one kind of removal isn't all that different from playing around other kinds of removal.
If I have two creatures in play and you want to use a Doom Blade. You must make a threat assessment to decide which creature should die. Sometimes it's quite obvious, but other times you have to think about it.
If instead I have two lands and you have a Stone Rain, you have a different sort of choice. Again sometimes it's obvious, but when it isn't your thought process is very different than when you are targeting a creature - you need to consider different strategic variables. Take relevant LD out of the game, and these lines of analysis disappear with it. The game as a whole loses an element of complexity.
A blowout game where one side gets very little meaningful interaction didn't have very many strategic decisions. If your added complexity is resulting in more of this type of game, it may actually be harming the depth of the game, not helping it.
This is certainly a fair point. Suppose we both play four rounds. You play against four midrange decks, while I play against a combo deck, a prison deck, a draw/go deck, and a midrange deck. No suppose I play one game which is a blow-outs but all your games are tightly contested.
You can argue that your games where individually equally complex as mine - but since you played four complicated games and I only played three, your experience was deeper and more compicated.
I would argue that you were perhaps faced with more decisions than I was. But that over my three games I had to consider more strategic variables than you did over four games because the lines of thought I go through from one match to the next are more radically different.
Really, when I look back at my expirencez in MTG tournaments, the "non-games" I've had barely register. They tend to over quickly, so I chalk them up to variance (or blunders) and I move on. What does stick out in my memory is the variety of the matches I've played and all the different situations I've had to try to play my way through. To me that's what makes the game rich and deep.
Think of it this way:
If you enter a triathlon and I enter a decathlon, I will need a wider range of athletic skills than you even if one or two of my ten contests is cancelled.
This analogy is by no means perfect. The point is that having non-games on occasion does not take away from the depth and richness of the other games we do play.
That said, mana screw where a player automatically loses because sometimes there just aren't lands at the top of your deck absolutely is a problem...
That's a bold assertion! Some of us are happy enough to chalk it up to variance and move on to the next game.
I realise many people are highly turned off by mana-screw, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it!
- In ten player Texas Hold 'em you can go hours without seeing playable starters - especially in a aggressive preflops (low implied odds) and loose callers (no point in bluffing). Some people don't like that.
- In Settlers of Catan you can be cut out of the race early and play the whole game with no real chance (and have many turns where you literally can only pass). Some people don't like that.
- In Diplomacy you will lied to and stabbed in the back! Some people don't like that.
Do these games have problems? I'd say no! A game doesn't have to satasfying everybody who plays it to be a good and fun game. Settlers, Hold 'em, and Diplomacy have appeal to wide groups of gamers. So does MTG with LD! Heck the game became a huge success in the days of Syrip Mine, Nether Void, Tabernacle, and crippling muligan restrictions. Don't tell me Molten Rain was absolutely problem! Just tell me some people do not like it.
I'm not convinced of this, as it doesn't seem to be about complexity at all. You admit that those factors are still important things to consider in Standard.
There are counter-spells in Standard. But when your opponent is running 4-8 counter-spells (arbitrary numbers) playing around them is not necessarily even a good idea. Stifling your development to avoid one slightly favourable 1-for-1 that your opponent might not even have a card for is questionable at best. When your opponent is on the 18-22 counter-spell plan, the entire game can come down to which threats are countered and which threats get through. A real cat & mouse game ensues, which is unlike games against different styles of deck.
The old draw/go decks also didn't have very much removal outside the stack. Playing around counter-spells is paramount when countering is the opponents primary way to deal with threats. If a deck is running as much spot removal as counter-magic (and runs more creatures too for blocking/trading), getting past the counters is rarely if ever worth going out of your way to do.
Do you really believe that your midrange or aggro deck should play against draw/go exactly the same as they play against a creature heavy midrange-control deck?
I really was wondering exactly which part of land destruction could be played around
You see people holding up fetch Lands in Legacy when playing vs mana denial. This trades early plays in order to "ramp" into your 3 or 4 cc spell.
On a more general level, something like Lands in Legacy is a unique deck. Playing against it is different than playing against any other deck. Your mulligans, deck manipulation, tutoring, etc are all different in this MU in order to "play around" what Lands will try to do to you. Same can be said of Pox. Even beyond LD - decks with radically different approaches to the game must be played against differently.
Why is it better than control decks be able to more easily get crushing advantages? If anything, it's better if they have to do more work to build up the resource advantage that defines control deck...
You sound like you think the control decks of old were automatically favoured vs aggro decks - not so at all.
The Control deck needs card advantage to win (and to stall the game until that CA can be translated into a favourable board state). Should the control player be doing all the work to realise this goal, or should the aggro player have to do just as much "work" to fight against this CA? If the control player screws up, they will easily be over run by the aggro deck. Isn't it good that aggro deck can also be rolled over if they don't play astutely?
playing around one kind of removal isn't all that different from playing around other kinds of removal. The difference here is that the other examples much more rarely result in non-games.
I don't know about this. I play Lands - Legacy's best mana denial deck - for years now. Non-games are by far the exception (I'd guess about 5%). My deck is full of removal options because LD is never enough - and most of my games are tight struggles.
People can lose if they don't have enough Lands, but people also can lose because they don't draw enough threats or not enough answers. The difference is that in the latter case they still feel like their actions are relevant, even if they are not.
Then just call it modern design, rather than use a poorly descriptive name. For the record, your timeline is off. NWO started with M10 and Zendikar, not Lorwyn. In fact, Lorwyn was a contributor to its creation as much as Time Spiral was.
"Modern design" might imply 8th edition forward, as in the Modern format. Or it might imply design that is less than eight years old! Pre NWO vs Post NWO is a relevant distinction and will cause less confusion (but a lot more nit-picking).
Your right about the timeline. But to be fair Lorwyn introduced design changes in a similar vein to NWO (a reduction of complexity on card texts), but failed. NWO is the ramped up or refined version of a design change philosophy which began with Lorwyn.
Either way, when I say "post NWO" I think most people get the idea that I am referring to (ongoing) design changes that kicked in shortly after TS block. Deal with it.
Edit:
I'm trying to get away from arguments about what is "better". I can not think I can ever convince you that environments such as Legacy or Rav/TS Standard are better than Modern or post Lorwyn Standard (see what I called it)? And you'll never convince me of the reverse.
All I'm arguing is that there are interesting strategic considerations that come about in formats that include "unfair" decks and strategies, and that these strategic elements disappear (or become extremely diluted) in the environments WotC have been pushing for ever since late 2007.
By contrast, these fair-deck-heavy environments do not yeild any strategic complexity that wasn't already part of the game. Rather they've taken certain strategic elements - apparently those which are most enjoyed by the largest group of players - and made those considerations more consistently relevant.
Not ruined for me at all. My favorite color in both in magic and real life is Green G. Although we live in the city now, my father's family in the province are mostly farmers, and my mom likes to grow flowering plants - sort of the nature thing just rubbed off to me in a nice way. Green stands for nature, forests, plants, and animals. which is why I have a green stompy deck for modern - my favorite deck even if it's not tier 1. :>
For starters, I think mechanically, blue is a really dumb color, as far as how it works in Magic. It's so simplistic in design, and even a moron can "bounce this" and "counter that." It's unconditional in most of it's design, be it draw a card (no downside), counter this (no downside), bounce that (no downside), take and extra turn (no downside) and oftentimes even adds abilities that make these types of cards even better. There's a reason why blue has traditionally been and still to this day (thanks Jace) has been the strongest color in Magic. Now I'm not one of those players who hates playing against blue. I love a challenge, and actively seek to defeat any deck that plays blue. But because of how blue plays, I don't feel like there's any thought as to how you should play it. Now, IRL, blue means many things to me. It is the color of introspection, perception, serenity, soothing, contemplation, existentialism, etc. The list goes on, but it is the idea of giving thought to deeply meaningful, and sometimes profound ideas and opinions. But that doesn't come across to me (somewhat) when I play the game. Because of this, the color blue has lost it's appeal to my IRL.
Red on the other hand, is my jam. Many an article, and professional players throughout the years have referred to red as the "Thinking Man's Color," and I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. Red can do some of the things blue can do, but usually there is a drawback to these abilities and mechanics. This adds an extra layer layer of contemplation, sophistication, and difficulty that I think Blue sorely lacks. It's a challenge building decks with red, and each move you make can either work to your advantage or bury you. IRL, red represents a great many things to me: Life, love, passion, anger, impulsiveness, heroism, etc. All traits that Magic has employed well in the design of the color and then some.
Black is also one of my favorite colors to play in Magic. Metaphysically, black represents the absorption of all colors. It is impossible to perceive pure black (darkness) unless in a vacuum. Magic has done a great job of reflecting this idea (for the most part) but I feel like it's lacking in some areas. What I mean is, black (theoretically) should be able to do all the things the other colors in Magic can do, but with a condition or a drawback. Black SHOULD be able to deal with artifacts and enchantments, but it has traditionally been this colors most glaring weakness. Why? Black is also the most misunderstood color in Magic, and even I struggle sometimes with the exact identity of the color. But it reflects this idea IRL, be it racism, totalitarianism, or an other cruel, unjust, oppressive, and/or evil person or organization that exists. But heroes wear black too, and there are good people out in the world (police officers, soldiers, military personnel) that genuinely want to help people for the betterment of mankind.
How do you you guys feel about the colors?
Second, Thats a pretty biased point on colours particularly, I am not saying blue is the hardest colour (because there is no such thing), but to suggest all those things have no down side is simply incorrect. bounce is card disadvantage. Counter does nothing against a 4/4 beating your face. Drawing cards is great but many a blue mage has died to burnspells to the face with a fistful of cards, its all about how you play things.
Well, I get that colors in Magic are concepts, but those colors weren't chosen at random. Wizards chose those colors specifically because of how the majority of people feel about those colors in real life. I can site numerous sources if you don't believe this. I'm not saying I now hate the color of blue in real life, but I don't respect anyone who plays it in Magic. It lacks... Substance. And yes,this is my opinion, which is why I posted in in the first place.
I agree wholeheartedly with you second paragraph, and I think you for your opinion!
The good thing is, I don't play Legacy, so I ain't scared! But even the staunchest of blue players has to admit how broken Time Walk and Ancestral Recall are!
Blue is supposed to stand for complexity, but it doesn't PLAY out that way. At least not to me. Deciding whether to counter something or not isn't that complex. And yes, red IS best known for it's small creatures being turned sideways and taking burn to the face. However, there's more to it than that (thank you for knowing this!) Reds abilities are subtle and restrictive and this is what blue lacks that makes it less appealing.
Red: anger, passion, blood, fire, love (this checks out pretty accurately)
Green: luck, feeling sick, vegetables, nature, beginner
Blue: calmness, tranquility, water, sky, depths of emotion, sadness (some very different from Magic)
White: purity, light (pretty accurate)
Black: shadow, the unknown, evil (pretty accurate)
I think the biggest difference is that within my own upbringing, I've never thought of blue representing intelligence and cunning outside of Magic. This is why this question doesn't really make much sense to me.
Actually countering CAN be that complex. You have to do threat assesment, "should I counter this spell, or the more dangerous one that is coming?" Blue lacks direct creature removal, you have to be creative and work via indirect methods.
Blue has direct creature removal and theft. Theft is Control Magic and the like, of course. But blue also has gotten Pongify, Rapid Hybridization, Curse of the Swine, and Reality Shift. And the counter this, counter that game is quite easy to play and win with. I've thrown decks together in less thn 10 min with a bunch of counterspells and had a 50% win rate, something I'd never be able to do using the other colors.
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
As an aside, you say bouncing and countering has no strategy and no downside, but that ignores the fact that bouncing is always nonland as well as card disadvantage and you never get an unconditional counter for less than 3 mana, 2 of which usually have to be blue. This is a huge drawback when considering counters for your deck because they are all but useless against any super aggressive deck. They also have the inherent problem of being terrible top decks late in the game when your opponent has already belched their hand onto the battlefield. And I also disagree that red is in anyway more complex than blue. I won't say that choosing what needs to be countered isn't easy when you're a seasoned control mage, but playing a ton of 1 and 2 drops while choosing whether to burn your opponent's face or their creature is equally easy.
I agree that cards like Counterspell are truly.not very interactive, fun, and don't create many interesting choices. However, counters that are more like Mana Leak are interesting. These cards actually force both players to make multiple.important choices and ask both players to make different gameplay decisions to get the outcome they want. If you have Mana Leak you're going to have to goad your opponent into tapping just enough of their mana sources so you can cast it in a surefire way. Or, you can cast it when your opponent does have enough mana to stop your counter, making them ask "Do I want to spend the 3 more mana to cast this one spell and potentially disrupt the rest of my turn/tap out or can I let this go?". This is as opposed to Counterspell which simply reads "Brick wall any non-land your opponent tries to play unless they're also playing blue and counters" which, IMO, is not good design.
I'm not going to comment on your assessment of red because I'm very biased as blue and red are my favorites
-Chandra Nalaar
Ah yes, the obligatory "Maro is evil and dumbing down the game" and "the combat phase has no complexity whatsoever" posts. Nicely rolled into one this time. Very efficient.
I'm the opposite of you. I'm blue-green in real life. Every color test of any kind has shown me to be blue-green. Most people are a mix of colors, with only a little bias toward one or the other. Not me. I AM Blue-Green through and through with no leak into other colors whatsoever. According to what I've read, blue-green is the least common personality pair in real life. If I had to pick a hero for me in pop culture, it would be Radagast the Brown.
Blue is also my favorite color to play in Magic. I will pair it with almost any other: blue-green, blue-white, blue-black.
But I am NOT red. I don't like red in Magic. I don't like playing with it or against it. It is the most unfun color to me. I don't like red in real life either, it is illogical and counter-productive.
Different people are different. The fact that blue resonates so poorly with you almost makes me think that Magic was hugely successful at what it set out to do. You wouldn't have such a visceral reaction otherwise.
Now, my favorite color IRL is red which is nearly tied with purple. I happen to really like the look of red. It's an eye catching color and I always subconsciously feel more confident when I'm wearing red.
However, I don't like playing red that much in magic. I can appreciate a nicely played red deck and how burn effects, goblins, dragons and the like tie in thematically with the color, but it's just not my preferred play style. The two colors I happen to really love playing are blue and green as I feel they both encompass the two most quintessential aspects of the game. I like green from both a thematic and a gameplay standpoint. I happen to really like elves and nature but really green has a lot of what I can't get enough of: quality creature beatdown. The beginner never grew out of the simple satisfaction of laying down a bigger beater than the guy sitting across from you.
Blue on the other hand, is the complete opposite. Where green is all about simplistic conventional beatdown, blue was the color of gamebreaking mechanics. Take an extra turn here, cast cards from your opponents deck, mill this, draw that, negate this. Save for straightforward cards like counterspell, part of the mystique of blue is that it takes everything about the conventions of magic and turns it on its head. However, unless you were playing taking turns or merfolk, these game breaking mechanics almost never win on their own. What I feel makes blue so good, moreso in legacy, is that you can splash blue with any color with great results. Red, black, green, and white all have their own philosophies for how to take down an opponent, but with blue in the mix, you have the benefit of game breaking shenanigans while simultaneously advancing your color's strategy. Blue is the perfect wingman.
Then you try to reduce Jknott's position to calling MaRo "evil" - a cheap attempt to discredit him by making his argument appear to be emotional and not rational. Very poor show.
Combat has always been complex. But it's no more complex now than it was 15 or 20 years ago. On the other hand, other complex aspects of the game have been severely undermined if you are not playing eternal. Baiting counter-spells, not over-extending, and playing around LD and combo decks add all kinds of other complexities which are all but absent from the game post NWO.
What Jknott's is saying is that U abilities might seem dumb and obvious in an era where most decks are "fair" and focus on creature combat, these same abilities make for more complicated strategies when the game supports hard control decks which are good.
You can argue against this, but the moral leanings of Mark Rosewater are wholy irrelevant and do not being in this discussion.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
It is, which is why I didn't respond to the second half of that guy's post. Also several others had pointed it out, so it seemed redundant to do so myself.
People still play counterspells in standard, and so baiting them is relevant. A similar thing is true for removal. Sweepers are still played in standard, meaning overextending is still bad. Even combo decks are still in standard (Rally the Ancestors now, Jeskai Ascendancy last standard). So I'm not sure where this is coming from. Is it because decks in standard also contain creatures? There do seem to be people around here that think "This deck wins with a creature? It must be an aggro deck."
I am intrigued by these complexities of playing around land destruction, though. I'm not exactly sure what they are, but do go on. Also explain how they benefit the game more than they detriment it by making mana screw an even bigger problem.
And while we're at it, do explain what this has to do with having simpler commons.
It's more that sweepers and counter-spells where printed in higher numbers, so playing well against them was more significant.
But more importantly counters and sweepers were more efficient; while creatures were less bang-for-buck than today and had less built in protection. The potential for the control player to get the better of you in a big way was much higher, and trying to hedge against that was much trickier.
I can't tell if you are actually intrigued or sarcastically doubtful?
In 2005 this article was an eye opener for me as to how complex this game can be. The real interesting thing is that some of the plays Mowsowitz describes as correct are in fact counter-intuitive. To me this is a strong indicator of a good strategy game! When intuitive plays are incorrect, we have to learn not to make them! That's how we grow as players.
If you are genuinely interested in how the existence of LD can add complexity to gameplay, you will genuinely enjoy this article.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mind-over-urzatron-2005-07-20
(The article focuses on trying to assemble Urzatron under threat of LD, but trying to establish sources for multiple colous is similar).
On the other hand if you really hate mana-screw, maybe no amount of extra intrigue would entice you to welcome efficient LD? I don't know what to tell you becuase I personally don't think mana-screw is even a "problem".
The potential for mana screw presents deck builders with a dilemma. I've often skimped on mana to squeeze more value into my deck. This is a risk-reward assessment I would not have the pleasure of contemplating without mana screw and mana flood.
Much of the difference between contemporary design vs older design comes down to strategicvelements which on the one hand provide interestng and unique complexities but on the other hand result in the occasional blow-out game or match. Who's to say what's "better"? Some people think the extra complexities are worth the occasional lack-luster games. Other people are less tolerant of underwhelming matches.
You misunderstand. I was using "post NWO" as a reference to a point in time - post NWO means litterally that - every block releases after Time Spiral.
You'll find it common that people mark the beginning of NWO as a turning point in the game where design philosophy changed in many ways besides NWO itself. You'll notice from Lorwyn on draw/go, LD, and combo have never been tier one strategies in Standard. This is not NWO directly, but it's a symptom of a common cause.
I'm sure you understand why NWO was implemented. Time Spiral block alienated new players with too much complexity, and they wished to fix this going forward. But they also decided new players did not like the wide openness of that meta (MaRo stated the design was not sufficiently linear), and it was also deemed offensive that Dragon Storm was a tier one deck (Seething Song - an intended long term staple - was cut from 9th edition).
Over the next few years WotC became even more stingy with quality LD, couuter-spells, "prison" pieces, Rituals, and creatute-hosers. More sublty, creatures have become tougher for their costs, so direct damage has become worse.
All of this is for the same goals which motivated the near elimination of complex cards in limited (NWO). To reduce the learning curve for new players by reigning in things which are frustrating, counter-intuitive, and require knowledge and experience to aviod being demoralizingly crushed.
The result is that elements of the game which provides unique complexities and dilemmas have disappeared from non-eternal. Other complicated elements have remained intact and certain skill sets are more sigh ficantvthatbtheybused to be while others have become more obsolete.
TLDR - when people refer to "post NWO" or the "NWO era" they are talking about an (ongoing) era in MTG design as a whole - not just the one explicit change of simplifying 14/15 cards in every pack. There is no name for this shift in design, but NWO was its poster child - symbolic of modern design.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
I'm not convinced of this, as it doesn't seem to be about complexity at all. You admit that those factors are still important things to consider in Standard. Why is it better than control decks be able to more easily get crushing advantages? If anything, it's better if they have to do more work to build up the resource advantage that defines control decks, because it means there are more decision points.
There was a touch of sarcasm, but I really was wondering exactly which part of land destruction could be played around. I've seen people talk about playing around Armageddon by holding lands, but in most realistic scenarios Armageddon is "counter this or lose" whether or not you held lands. Playing around your opponent color screwing you is definitely a thing, so fair enough there. That said, mana screw where a player automatically loses because sometimes there just aren't lands at the top of your deck absolutely is a problem, and land destruction exacerbates this. Fixing this problem without breaking some other desirable aspect of the game does not seem to be possible, but making these scenarios more frequent is not something we should be trying to do.
Continuing in that vein, I'd like to point out that complexity isn't a terminal goal. The purpose of complexity is to allow for more strategic decisions, which determine the real depth of a game. A blowout game where one side gets very little meaningful interaction didn't have very many strategic decisions. If your added complexity is resulting in more of this type of game, it may actually be harming the depth of the game, not helping it. And to be quite honest, I'm not sure how unique playing around land destruction is. Whether it's land destruction, naturalizes, doom blades, or counterspells, playing around one kind of removal isn't all that different from playing around other kinds of removal. The difference here is that the other examples much more rarely result in non-games.
Then just call it modern design, rather than use a poorly descriptive name. For the record, your timeline is off. NWO started with M10 and Zendikar, not Lorwyn. In fact, Lorwyn was a contributor to its creation as much as Time Spiral was.
Complexity should add strategic decisions which are more difficult to make well. A game can involve many decisions, but if most of them are fairly simple the game does not feel complex.
Certainly complexity is not a goal in and of itself! The goal is for a game to be enjoyable. People who enjoy complicated games usually want to analyse multiple strategic variables when playing. The more strategic variables one must consider in order to play well, the more deep and complex the game is.
If I have two creatures in play and you want to use a Doom Blade. You must make a threat assessment to decide which creature should die. Sometimes it's quite obvious, but other times you have to think about it.
If instead I have two lands and you have a Stone Rain, you have a different sort of choice. Again sometimes it's obvious, but when it isn't your thought process is very different than when you are targeting a creature - you need to consider different strategic variables. Take relevant LD out of the game, and these lines of analysis disappear with it. The game as a whole loses an element of complexity.
This is certainly a fair point. Suppose we both play four rounds. You play against four midrange decks, while I play against a combo deck, a prison deck, a draw/go deck, and a midrange deck. No suppose I play one game which is a blow-outs but all your games are tightly contested.
You can argue that your games where individually equally complex as mine - but since you played four complicated games and I only played three, your experience was deeper and more compicated.
I would argue that you were perhaps faced with more decisions than I was. But that over my three games I had to consider more strategic variables than you did over four games because the lines of thought I go through from one match to the next are more radically different.
Really, when I look back at my expirencez in MTG tournaments, the "non-games" I've had barely register. They tend to over quickly, so I chalk them up to variance (or blunders) and I move on. What does stick out in my memory is the variety of the matches I've played and all the different situations I've had to try to play my way through. To me that's what makes the game rich and deep.
Think of it this way:
If you enter a triathlon and I enter a decathlon, I will need a wider range of athletic skills than you even if one or two of my ten contests is cancelled.
This analogy is by no means perfect. The point is that having non-games on occasion does not take away from the depth and richness of the other games we do play.
That's a bold assertion! Some of us are happy enough to chalk it up to variance and move on to the next game.
I realise many people are highly turned off by mana-screw, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it!
- In ten player Texas Hold 'em you can go hours without seeing playable starters - especially in a aggressive preflops (low implied odds) and loose callers (no point in bluffing). Some people don't like that.
- In Settlers of Catan you can be cut out of the race early and play the whole game with no real chance (and have many turns where you literally can only pass). Some people don't like that.
- In Diplomacy you will lied to and stabbed in the back! Some people don't like that.
Do these games have problems? I'd say no! A game doesn't have to satasfying everybody who plays it to be a good and fun game. Settlers, Hold 'em, and Diplomacy have appeal to wide groups of gamers. So does MTG with LD! Heck the game became a huge success in the days of Syrip Mine, Nether Void, Tabernacle, and crippling muligan restrictions. Don't tell me Molten Rain was absolutely problem! Just tell me some people do not like it.
There are counter-spells in Standard. But when your opponent is running 4-8 counter-spells (arbitrary numbers) playing around them is not necessarily even a good idea. Stifling your development to avoid one slightly favourable 1-for-1 that your opponent might not even have a card for is questionable at best. When your opponent is on the 18-22 counter-spell plan, the entire game can come down to which threats are countered and which threats get through. A real cat & mouse game ensues, which is unlike games against different styles of deck.
The old draw/go decks also didn't have very much removal outside the stack. Playing around counter-spells is paramount when countering is the opponents primary way to deal with threats. If a deck is running as much spot removal as counter-magic (and runs more creatures too for blocking/trading), getting past the counters is rarely if ever worth going out of your way to do.
Do you really believe that your midrange or aggro deck should play against draw/go exactly the same as they play against a creature heavy midrange-control deck?
You see people holding up fetch Lands in Legacy when playing vs mana denial. This trades early plays in order to "ramp" into your 3 or 4 cc spell.
On a more general level, something like Lands in Legacy is a unique deck. Playing against it is different than playing against any other deck. Your mulligans, deck manipulation, tutoring, etc are all different in this MU in order to "play around" what Lands will try to do to you. Same can be said of Pox. Even beyond LD - decks with radically different approaches to the game must be played against differently.
You sound like you think the control decks of old were automatically favoured vs aggro decks - not so at all.
The Control deck needs card advantage to win (and to stall the game until that CA can be translated into a favourable board state). Should the control player be doing all the work to realise this goal, or should the aggro player have to do just as much "work" to fight against this CA? If the control player screws up, they will easily be over run by the aggro deck. Isn't it good that aggro deck can also be rolled over if they don't play astutely?
I don't know about this. I play Lands - Legacy's best mana denial deck - for years now. Non-games are by far the exception (I'd guess about 5%). My deck is full of removal options because LD is never enough - and most of my games are tight struggles.
People can lose if they don't have enough Lands, but people also can lose because they don't draw enough threats or not enough answers. The difference is that in the latter case they still feel like their actions are relevant, even if they are not.
"Modern design" might imply 8th edition forward, as in the Modern format. Or it might imply design that is less than eight years old! Pre NWO vs Post NWO is a relevant distinction and will cause less confusion (but a lot more nit-picking).
Your right about the timeline. But to be fair Lorwyn introduced design changes in a similar vein to NWO (a reduction of complexity on card texts), but failed. NWO is the ramped up or refined version of a design change philosophy which began with Lorwyn.
Either way, when I say "post NWO" I think most people get the idea that I am referring to (ongoing) design changes that kicked in shortly after TS block. Deal with it.
Edit:
I'm trying to get away from arguments about what is "better". I can not think I can ever convince you that environments such as Legacy or Rav/TS Standard are better than Modern or post Lorwyn Standard (see what I called it)? And you'll never convince me of the reverse.
All I'm arguing is that there are interesting strategic considerations that come about in formats that include "unfair" decks and strategies, and that these strategic elements disappear (or become extremely diluted) in the environments WotC have been pushing for ever since late 2007.
By contrast, these fair-deck-heavy environments do not yeild any strategic complexity that wasn't already part of the game. Rather they've taken certain strategic elements - apparently those which are most enjoyed by the largest group of players - and made those considerations more consistently relevant.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread