You can always be out-defensed by the other players. That said, if you can't attack or even block the other players, and one guy is sitting there with some walls, I feel like maybe you should be allied with him instead of hitting him, generally-speaking.
If the goal of having good blocks is that it sends attacks elsewhere...
See, that's just it. I'm not sure that is the point of blocking. I mean, yes, redirecting attacks that might otherwise be directed at you is certainly advantageous, but at what cost? Because it seems to me you pay a heavy price to do so. The way I see it, the goal of having good blocks is not to leverage opponents into possibly damaging one another; it's to mitigate damage. If your opponents do happen to fight one another, great. That's wonderful, but that's just icing on the cake.
...then there's certainly a point of diminishing returns where your defensive power is too strong to be ignored and attacks can't reasonably go elsewhere. Even with something purely defensive like constant mists (especially with a way to consistently fuel it), if one player has no way to beat it, then they'd be an idiot to attack the other players. They need to either ally with your opponents to kill you first, or convince the other players to help dismantle your defenses.
I agree with the rest of what you've written here. Sometimes a player can't be defeated because their defenses are insurmountable, so that player's opponents band together temporarily to knock them down a peg. I think it's also worth mentioning that you can have the best defenses without simultaneously being the archenemy though.
I've had similar situations in, for example, hapatra brawl where I created a dozen deathtouchy snakes or so. I'd hoped that would push attacks elsewhere, but instead this display of power showed the other players that I needed to be dealt with, even if it meant significant losses against my snake horde, and the attacks intensified rather than diminished. Whereas if I'd only had a couple snakes I may have seemed like a less significant threat that could be ignored until later. I think the goal is for your opponents to think you're vulnerable enough that you won't be an insurmountable problem later, while being nasty enough that you're not worth taking on right now.
Oops, now I'm just talking about Phelddagrif
I find this really interesting. Did you end up winning that game? This may sound provocative (and that is not my intention), but rather than making too many, I suspect you may not have made enough snakes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you and I both understand that there's this valley one can enter where, by accumulating power, one becomes a target. What's interesting about this valley is that, at its nadir, you're actually more vulnerable than if you hadn't entered it at all since, despite your collection of power, you've now drawn the attention of each of your opponents, and the not-insignificant-but-not-significant-enough power you've obtained isn't enough to stop your collective enemies, so you usually end off worse for having traveled there.
What I believe you're concerned about is entering the valley. You don't ever want to reach the nadir. After all, it's possible to accomplish your goals without ever going there in the first place. You need only install minor deterrents, as you've already pointed out. I'm on the opposite side. I'm not concerned about entering the valley. I'm concerned with not crossing it. I understand that, once you reach the nadir, there's nowhere to go but up. If you've already drawn the ire of all your opponents, you can't draw out any more ire; the valley only ascends, so every further bit of power one accumulates comes without cost.
Some strategies (like combo decks that win out of nowhere) have the luxury of never having to appear threatening. Other strategies don't have this luxury; they broadcast exactly how well they are doing to the entire table. But sometimes it doesn't matter if you're broadcasting this because there's nothing your opponents can do about it. Maybe everyone at the table understands you're a problem, but no one can do anything about it, so they just resume playing, and everyone plays their cards to the best of their ability given the situation anyway. It doesn't mean the most powerful person will always be on the receiving end of every card. Sometimes you're in a powerful state, everyone knows it, and not much can be done about it, but the game isn't over either.
Interesting new card for blocking from allegiance is mesmerizing benthid. Creates multiple tokens that suck to attack fatties into, and it's a good reliable blocker for small stuff and/or an equipment magnet. Doesn't look edh-focused on the surface but I think it'll play better than expected.
I was actually thinking the same thing. Glad I wasn't the only one considering it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
sorry, I meant Meglonoth falls short as a great blocker according to some of your criteria (i.e. it doesn't have reach and is not cheap). My choice of words may have been a bit clunky.
That's okay. It's going to be hard to find cards that meet all of my criteria. After all, the more valuable a card is, the more expensive it is likely to be, so even a phenomenal blocker like Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts won't meet all of my criteria.
Unfortunately, it doesn't have any power, so you'll be blocking the biggest creature with power 7 or less (and no deathtouch or supertrample) over and over without some anthems (since of course it has shroud).
This. Wall of Denial and similar cards like Fog Bank make for poor blockers imo since there aren't any consequences to attacking into them.
yeah I accidentally hit post and then my gf enlisted me in packing and I hoped it would stand on its own.
Your opponent has a removal spell. You've got permanents. Using the spell costs a card, mana, and the opportunity to use it elsewhere. They'll use the removal on your permanent if those costs are less than the resulting effect. So if you want to make sure they aim elsewhere, you do your best to ensure that the value they get from removing your stuff is less than the value of the removal.
There are plenty of ways to do this without playing bad cards. One way a lot of people know intuitively is etb creatures. Token production. Repeatable token production. Recursion. Etc. I think one that newer players overlook is not having the scariest permanent on the board. Less what you play, and more when you play them.
The reason your opponent doesn't want to stp your rat is because their removal is more valuable than your rat. If your permanent is low enough threat, it becomes real hard to remove profitably. They'd need a pinger or something to reduce the cost enough to justify using their removal against your rat (whether a card or a token produced by something). Unless they're particularly interested in hurting you for some reason.
Thanks for the clarification. I see where you're coming from now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
The other variable I find helpful in a blocker is one that can also swing with impunity, being a threat both ways, in attack and defense - ergo, vigilant attackers that can hold their own in defense. The best example of this I can think of from the top of my head is Bruna, the Fading Light.
It's funny you mention Bruna because I was just thinking about her the same way. Not to mention Gisela, the Broken Blade is quite good at blocking in her own right, so the two pair well together.
Something I neglected to mention in my opening post is that a lot of the qualities that make for a good blocker also overlap with what makes for a good attacker, particularly if you're looking to knock out planeswalkers in a single hit or two. There's certainly value in having your blockers also be effective on offense. It's possible that there's so much overlap between those types of cards that perhaps most decks ought to ensure their cards can do both since they're likely sacrificing so little to do so anyway.
Imo a very important quality is being non-threatening. Atraxa sucks imo, because people will happily use a removal spell on her and then smash face. Whereas people feel pretty stupid using an stp on a 1/1 dt rat, so they'll probably look elsewhere.
See, I have mixed feelings about this. I come from the school of thought that's like "Well, why aren't all of your cards things your opponents want to remove?"
If an opponent can remove one of your cards but chooses not to, that implies one of two things. Either 1.) your opponent doesn't want to remove your card because it isn't valuable, or 2.) your opponent doesn't want to remove your card because they can't do so profitably. Ophiomancer is great for the second reason. It isn't that the card isn't valuable. Opponents should want to remove it if they find it consistently impairs them. It's just that Ophiomancer is tenacious since it's hard to remove profitably.
It's certainly a form of mitigation. I was hoping to limit this thread specifically to creatures (and perhaps cards that create them) that actually block though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
In multiplayer, blocking is way better than usual. Because creatures must tap to attack, they can only attack a single opponent each turn rotation. Meanwhile, an untapped creature can potentially block during each of your opponent's turns, and even when a creature doesn't, they're often still getting value as having the mere opportunity to block will sometimes make an opponent's attack against you unprofitable, thus causing no attacks against you (or better yet, attacks against a different opponent).
When you control lots of creatures, it's often easy to create this scenario. Sometimes, the deck you're playing isn't laden with creatures though, and raising a standing army can be difficult. That's why I've been on the lookout for exceptional blockers. Often, it only takes a single creature to deter an entire army.
I've been thinking about which qualities make for a good blocker, and here's what I've come up with:
Inexpensive — A good blocker ought to be cheap. Huge beasties like Sphinx of the Steel Wind might be good at holding down the fort, but they're also costly. Each turn without profitable blocks is one where opponents can make attacks of opportunity ("pot shots") against you, so the sooner a card can block, the better.
Tenacious — A good blocker ought to survive combat. A card like Typhoid Rats might sufficiently deter ground monsters, but it also can't block without being traded off, and once it's gone, there's nothing left to hold the armies back.
Blocks Tall — A good blocker ought to be able to stop a single imposing attacker. Walls like Fog Bank can often do this, but defenders tend to make terrible blockers since it seldom costs anything to attack into them. Having high base power or having a mechanic like deathtouch makes attacking unprofitable.
Blocks Wide — A good blocker ought to be able to stop multiple smaller attackers. Silent Arbiter is one fairly explicit example, but it's also possible to stop small armies with a mechanic like lifelink. If attacking into a card incurs too high a cost for too little gain, opponents will turn their armies somewhere else.
Flying/Reach — A good blocker ought to be able to stop fliers. While being able to stop evasive threats of all kinds would be a nice luxury, fliers are pervasive enough that they ought to be accounted for, especially considering that it isn't too difficult to block them either.
Putting these pieces together, I think the ideal blocker is something like Atraxa. At four, she's relatively inexpensive, so she can come down quick enough to stop early threats. She's relatively large bodied, so smaller creatures can't attack into her. Deathtouch ensures larger foes can't win a fight against her, and lifelink makes teams of smaller creatures unviable. Flying is obviously important, and vigilance is icing on the cake. About the only thing Atraxa doesn't have going for her is that she doesn't stick around after killing a larger attacker.
So, are there any cards that stand out as exceptional blockers to you? While not impossible, these qualities are often difficult to search for as they can take many different forms. Any help is appreciated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
See, that's just it. I'm not sure that is the point of blocking. I mean, yes, redirecting attacks that might otherwise be directed at you is certainly advantageous, but at what cost? Because it seems to me you pay a heavy price to do so. The way I see it, the goal of having good blocks is not to leverage opponents into possibly damaging one another; it's to mitigate damage. If your opponents do happen to fight one another, great. That's wonderful, but that's just icing on the cake.
I agree with the rest of what you've written here. Sometimes a player can't be defeated because their defenses are insurmountable, so that player's opponents band together temporarily to knock them down a peg. I think it's also worth mentioning that you can have the best defenses without simultaneously being the archenemy though.
I find this really interesting. Did you end up winning that game? This may sound provocative (and that is not my intention), but rather than making too many, I suspect you may not have made enough snakes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you and I both understand that there's this valley one can enter where, by accumulating power, one becomes a target. What's interesting about this valley is that, at its nadir, you're actually more vulnerable than if you hadn't entered it at all since, despite your collection of power, you've now drawn the attention of each of your opponents, and the not-insignificant-but-not-significant-enough power you've obtained isn't enough to stop your collective enemies, so you usually end off worse for having traveled there.
What I believe you're concerned about is entering the valley. You don't ever want to reach the nadir. After all, it's possible to accomplish your goals without ever going there in the first place. You need only install minor deterrents, as you've already pointed out. I'm on the opposite side. I'm not concerned about entering the valley. I'm concerned with not crossing it. I understand that, once you reach the nadir, there's nowhere to go but up. If you've already drawn the ire of all your opponents, you can't draw out any more ire; the valley only ascends, so every further bit of power one accumulates comes without cost.
Some strategies (like combo decks that win out of nowhere) have the luxury of never having to appear threatening. Other strategies don't have this luxury; they broadcast exactly how well they are doing to the entire table. But sometimes it doesn't matter if you're broadcasting this because there's nothing your opponents can do about it. Maybe everyone at the table understands you're a problem, but no one can do anything about it, so they just resume playing, and everyone plays their cards to the best of their ability given the situation anyway. It doesn't mean the most powerful person will always be on the receiving end of every card. Sometimes you're in a powerful state, everyone knows it, and not much can be done about it, but the game isn't over either.
Thanks for mentioning Rhonas. I used to play him to amazing effect, and I somehow forgot all about him.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I'm not entirely convinced you don't not want to be a threat at all times anyway.
I was actually thinking the same thing. Glad I wasn't the only one considering it.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
This. Wall of Denial and similar cards like Fog Bank make for poor blockers imo since there aren't any consequences to attacking into them.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Something I neglected to mention in my opening post is that a lot of the qualities that make for a good blocker also overlap with what makes for a good attacker, particularly if you're looking to knock out planeswalkers in a single hit or two. There's certainly value in having your blockers also be effective on offense. It's possible that there's so much overlap between those types of cards that perhaps most decks ought to ensure their cards can do both since they're likely sacrificing so little to do so anyway.
See, I have mixed feelings about this. I come from the school of thought that's like "Well, why aren't all of your cards things your opponents want to remove?"
If an opponent can remove one of your cards but chooses not to, that implies one of two things. Either 1.) your opponent doesn't want to remove your card because it isn't valuable, or 2.) your opponent doesn't want to remove your card because they can't do so profitably. Ophiomancer is great for the second reason. It isn't that the card isn't valuable. Opponents should want to remove it if they find it consistently impairs them. It's just that Ophiomancer is tenacious since it's hard to remove profitably.
It's certainly a form of mitigation. I was hoping to limit this thread specifically to creatures (and perhaps cards that create them) that actually block though.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
When you control lots of creatures, it's often easy to create this scenario. Sometimes, the deck you're playing isn't laden with creatures though, and raising a standing army can be difficult. That's why I've been on the lookout for exceptional blockers. Often, it only takes a single creature to deter an entire army.
I've been thinking about which qualities make for a good blocker, and here's what I've come up with:
Inexpensive — A good blocker ought to be cheap. Huge beasties like Sphinx of the Steel Wind might be good at holding down the fort, but they're also costly. Each turn without profitable blocks is one where opponents can make attacks of opportunity ("pot shots") against you, so the sooner a card can block, the better.
Tenacious — A good blocker ought to survive combat. A card like Typhoid Rats might sufficiently deter ground monsters, but it also can't block without being traded off, and once it's gone, there's nothing left to hold the armies back.
Blocks Tall — A good blocker ought to be able to stop a single imposing attacker. Walls like Fog Bank can often do this, but defenders tend to make terrible blockers since it seldom costs anything to attack into them. Having high base power or having a mechanic like deathtouch makes attacking unprofitable.
Blocks Wide — A good blocker ought to be able to stop multiple smaller attackers. Silent Arbiter is one fairly explicit example, but it's also possible to stop small armies with a mechanic like lifelink. If attacking into a card incurs too high a cost for too little gain, opponents will turn their armies somewhere else.
Flying/Reach — A good blocker ought to be able to stop fliers. While being able to stop evasive threats of all kinds would be a nice luxury, fliers are pervasive enough that they ought to be accounted for, especially considering that it isn't too difficult to block them either.
Putting these pieces together, I think the ideal blocker is something like Atraxa. At four, she's relatively inexpensive, so she can come down quick enough to stop early threats. She's relatively large bodied, so smaller creatures can't attack into her. Deathtouch ensures larger foes can't win a fight against her, and lifelink makes teams of smaller creatures unviable. Flying is obviously important, and vigilance is icing on the cake. About the only thing Atraxa doesn't have going for her is that she doesn't stick around after killing a larger attacker.
So, are there any cards that stand out as exceptional blockers to you? While not impossible, these qualities are often difficult to search for as they can take many different forms. Any help is appreciated.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!