Also, someone mentioned MaRo earlier, and I've said this before... Just because MaRo said so doesn't mean it's true, spells ARE NOT and WERE NOT more powerful than creatures, with relatively few exceptions spells DO NOT kill the opponent and win the game.
All banned in Legacy. All more powerful then any creature ever printed.
Hell, one only need to look at the banlist for legacy. Only four creatures are banned; one plays for ante (Tempest Efreet, two aren't actual creatures (Worldgorger Dragon and Hermit Druid might as well not have Power/Toughness), and the last (Goblin Recruiter) would be almost as broken as a sorcery that had the same effect.
It doesn't matter that you don't actually kill your opponent with them. You won the game before your opponent got to 0 HP through the utterly unfair advantages these cards can give you. Sure, decks like Oath of Druids played a few dudes because they needed a win condition, but Maher didn't win Pro Tour 1999 on the back of Morphling.
All banned in Legacy. All more powerful then any creature ever printed.
Hell, one only need to look at the banlist for legacy. Only four creatures are banned; one plays for ante (Tempest Efreet, two aren't actual creatures (Worldgorger Dragon and Hermit Druid might as well not have Power/Toughness), and the last (Goblin Recruiter) would be almost as broken as a sorcery that had the same effect.
It doesn't matter that you don't actually kill your opponent with them. You won the game before your opponent got to 0 HP through the utterly unfair advantages these cards can give you. Sure, decks like Oath of Druids played a few dudes because they needed a win condition, but Maher didn't win Pro Tour 1999 on the back of Morphling.
Bullcrap yourself, I'm not denying that there are powerful spells (although none of the spells you mentioned will win you the game and at least 1 of those could actually kill you, 2 if you count Mana Drain with mana burn rules) but I'm disputing that creatures needed any special attention to be worth playing. Creatures have always been a recurring source of damage and have always featured prominently in strategies throughout magic's history.
Of the card's you listed: 3 are associated with combo, 4 were just deemed too powerful and banned before the game ever really got started, and the remaining 2 - Balance was discovered to be too powerful sometime during Revised and was promptly restricted, AFAIK Mana Drain wasn't considered broken until mana burn was done away with but I could be wrong on that point.
Bullcrap yourself, I'm not denying that there are powerful spells (although none of the spells you mentioned will win you the game
Stopped reading. If you don't think a resolved Yawgmoth's Will or Mind's Desire wins you the game you're either delusional or indulging in overly literal legalizing in order to avoid being honest.
Lord. If you think resolving a Supreme Verdict, an Omniscience, or a Past In Flames doesn't "win you the game" frequently, even in sets that are all about "turning dudes sideways," then you're being willfully obstinate.
Perhaps you should have read further then, I specified that 3 of the listed cards were combo pieces.
Basically using the logic of you and A. Smith, the existence of a single powerful spell is enough to justify the statement "Spells are/were more powerful than creatures [creatures have just been recently brought up to the power level of spells]" which is something that is often parroted and simply isn't true.
Spells and creatures occupy different roles in the game and creatures have always been inherently more powerful due to their persistent nature and ability to win the game.
Perhaps you should have read further then, I specified that 3 of the listed cards were combo pieces.
What on earth does that have to do with anything? Spells as combo pieces are inherently stronger than creatures as combo pieces due to the fact that spells generally aren't removable.
Basically using the logic of you and A. Smith, the existence of a single powerful spell is enough to justify the statement "Spells are/were more powerful than creatures [creatures have just been recently brought up to the power level of spells]" which is something that is often parroted and simply isn't true.
It's, uh, absolutely true. It is plainly obvious from looking at historical Magic cards that spells were until very recently more powerful than creatures.
Spells and creatures occupy different roles in the game and creatures have always been inherently more powerful due to their persistent nature and ability to win the game.
I'll be sure to tell that to Stroke of Genius decks, High Tide decks, Storm decks, Burn decks, creatureless control decks (which have existed in recent Standard formats)...
it's true: we make creatures a lot better than we used to. But the reality (beyond the fact that you can prove mathematically that creatures were too weak for most of Magic's history, based on the number of turns it takes to resolve an average "goldfish" game state) is simply that spells are much more inherently powerful than creatures. Spells have haste, whereas creatures have "Suspend 1." Spells can only be interacted with for the moment they are on the stack, whereas creatures can be interacted with at sorcery speed. So you have to work a lot harder to make creatures relevant than you have to work to make spells relevant.
Notice the creatureless Storm deck. Notice the UW control deck playing only Vendilion Clique and Snapcaster Mage as its creatures. That deck doesn't win because it plays Coral Merfolk and Skywinder Drake, it wins because of Counterbalance/Sensei's Divining Top. Let's not talk about decks that win with "creatures" like Chronatog and Chronosavant by skipping all their turns once they've achieved a game state the opponent can't get out of.
Claiming that creatures are more powerful than spells because they "win the game" is ridiculous. Out-advantaging your opponent has always been key to Magic, and spells are historically much better at doing this than creatures are. The recent push for creatures to generate advantage via ETB or LTB abilities is, if anything, EVIDENCE of this--making creatures more powerful makes them more like spells.
Necropotence. Yawgmoth's Will. Time Walk. Ancestral Recall. The Moxen. Black Lotus. Balance. Mana Drain. Mind's Desire.
All banned in Legacy. All more powerful then any creature ever printed.
Hell, one only need to look at the banlist for legacy. Only four creatures are banned; one plays for ante (Tempest Efreet, two aren't actual creatures (Worldgorger Dragon and Hermit Druid might as well not have Power/Toughness), and the last (Goblin Recruiter) would be almost as broken as a sorcery that had the same effect.
It doesn't matter that you don't actually kill your opponent with them. You won the game before your opponent got to 0 HP through the utterly unfair advantages these cards can give you. Sure, decks like Oath of Druids played a few dudes because they needed a win condition, but Maher didn't win Pro Tour 1999 on the back of Morphling.
Bullcrap yourself, I'm not denying that there are powerful spells (although none of the spells you mentioned will win you the game and at least 1 of those could actually kill you, 2 if you count Mana Drain with mana burn rules) but I'm disputing that creatures needed any special attention to be worth playing. Creatures have always been a recurring source of damage and have always featured prominently in strategies throughout magic's history.
Of the card's you listed: 3 are associated with combo, 4 were just deemed too powerful and banned before the game ever really got started, and the remaining 2 - Balance was discovered to be too powerful sometime during Revised and was promptly restricted, AFAIK Mana Drain wasn't considered broken until mana burn was done away with but I could be wrong on that point.
Stopped reading. If you don't think a resolved Yawgmoth's Will or Mind's Desire wins you the game you're either delusional or indulging in overly literal legalizing in order to avoid being honest.
Lord. If you think resolving a Supreme Verdict, an Omniscience, or a Past In Flames doesn't "win you the game" frequently, even in sets that are all about "turning dudes sideways," then you're being willfully obstinate.
Standard: W/R Aggro
Perhaps you should have read further then, I specified that 3 of the listed cards were combo pieces.
Basically using the logic of you and A. Smith, the existence of a single powerful spell is enough to justify the statement "Spells are/were more powerful than creatures [creatures have just been recently brought up to the power level of spells]" which is something that is often parroted and simply isn't true.
Spells and creatures occupy different roles in the game and creatures have always been inherently more powerful due to their persistent nature and ability to win the game.
What on earth does that have to do with anything? Spells as combo pieces are inherently stronger than creatures as combo pieces due to the fact that spells generally aren't removable.
It's, uh, absolutely true. It is plainly obvious from looking at historical Magic cards that spells were until very recently more powerful than creatures.
I'll be sure to tell that to Stroke of Genius decks, High Tide decks, Storm decks, Burn decks, creatureless control decks (which have existed in recent Standard formats)...
But hey, I'm just a schmo, let's look to people who have been playing Magic for a long time and actually develop the game:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/191
Or we can look at a historical deck that was considered incredibly powerful and relied solely on spells (playing no creatures): http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Tolarian_Academy_deck
That deck won on turn 3. Consistently. (See here for an example.) Name a "creature" deck that does that.
Here we go! Here's the results from the Legacy GP in Ghent last year: https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gpgnt12/welcome#1
Notice the creatureless Storm deck. Notice the UW control deck playing only Vendilion Clique and Snapcaster Mage as its creatures. That deck doesn't win because it plays Coral Merfolk and Skywinder Drake, it wins because of Counterbalance/Sensei's Divining Top. Let's not talk about decks that win with "creatures" like Chronatog and Chronosavant by skipping all their turns once they've achieved a game state the opponent can't get out of.
Claiming that creatures are more powerful than spells because they "win the game" is ridiculous. Out-advantaging your opponent has always been key to Magic, and spells are historically much better at doing this than creatures are. The recent push for creatures to generate advantage via ETB or LTB abilities is, if anything, EVIDENCE of this--making creatures more powerful makes them more like spells.
Standard: W/R Aggro