I'm asking because I recently witnessed a deck lose at FNM due to a limited number of win-cons. He was only playing with 2 Sphinx of Jwar Isle (he also had 2 BSA but they didn't make much of an impact) because he didn't expect it to really be removed in a Control deck. Well, they ended up in his graveyard and had no other way of winning the game. The rest of his deck relied on limiting his opponent's resources with a bunch of counters and defending with walls.
That being said, do you think it's better to play with 3-of or 4-of win-cons, even if they do cost 5+ to play?
You almost have to at this point, with such a saturated base of Removal in Standard.
Though if he's playing U/W control, it's really not hard to keep your heavy hitters alive, unless you're playing vs a heavy sacrifice mono black deck. I've an awful mono white deck I've been playing with for a while now. With such a large amount of removal, I've found the joy of simple cards that prevent. Brave the Elements, Emerge Unscathed, Narrow Escape, etc.
Depends on what you're doing. Either run counter-removal, or have more win-cons than a pair of BSA's and SoJI's.
Personally, I'm currently really enjoying the counter-removal, so the 3 of's works fine for me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jace 2.0. The face of Standard. Jace 2.0, everywhere. Elfdrazi? Put in Jace 2.0. RDW? Only if Jace 2.0 is in it. MBC? Look! There's J20 in the fold! Majority of Decklists I come across on this board have Jace 2.0 in it. Alright. We get it. He's the messiah. Enough already. This coming from someone with a Playset of him.
You almost have to at this point, with such a saturated base of Removal in Standard.
Though if he's playing U/W control, it's really not hard to keep your heavy hitters alive, unless you're playing vs a heavy sacrifice mono black deck. I've an awful mono white deck I've been playing with for a while now. With such a large amount of removal, I've found the joy of simple cards that prevent. Brave the Elements, Emerge Unscathed, Narrow Escape, etc.
Depends on what you're doing. Either run counter-removal, or have more win-cons than a pair of BSA's and SoJI's.
Personally, I'm currently really enjoying the counter-removal, so the 3 of's works fine for me.
Narrow Escape is really good vs sweepers and sacrifice. I love BtE and EU but they are optimal at 4-of, I believe.
I think its generally a good idea to have a sort of back-up in your deck in case anything should happen like it did for your friend. For example, in my Vampire deck I'd consider Vampire Nocturnus as my finisher, but should that get toasted by a Lightning Bolt, I also have Malakir Bloodwitch to finish the job. And in my Naya Bushwhacker deck I have several items that could be considered finishers: Goblin Bushwhacker, Naya Charm, Garruk's ultimate, and even a pair of Thornlings.
Not only is it pretty reliable, but its also a lot of fun to mix things up every now and then. Though I play a lot of causal games, so I'm not sure how practical it is in a really competitive environment, since you're essentially splitting up your resources, but in a U/W deck running Everflowing Chalice and lots of card draw, then I don't see the harm in running a single Martial Coup to back up your Baneslayers.
There's a very satisfying feeling of essentially countering Maelstrom Pulse, Bolts, Smothers, Path's, O-rings, etc, with Cards that are 1/10th the cost, multiple times.
Win-cons need protection. Even power cards like BSA and SoJI.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jace 2.0. The face of Standard. Jace 2.0, everywhere. Elfdrazi? Put in Jace 2.0. RDW? Only if Jace 2.0 is in it. MBC? Look! There's J20 in the fold! Majority of Decklists I come across on this board have Jace 2.0 in it. Alright. We get it. He's the messiah. Enough already. This coming from someone with a Playset of him.
That's 13 - 19 cards that can win the game on their own. That's more than enough.
So he was running a bad deck and lost because of it?
I understand what you're saying, but let's not use the UW example. In general, is it better to play that many of a win-con in a format with a lot of removals. That's all I'm asking.
I understand what you're saying, but let's not use the UW example. In general, is it better to play that many of a win-con in a format with a lot of removals. That's all I'm asking.
It's a nonsensical question. Noble Hierarch is a win condition. Raging Goblin is a win condition. Sea Gate Oracle is a win condition. When you say "win-condition" you're mentally limiting the ways you can win with your deck by restricting yourself to big cards.
Your deck should be able to win. If it can't do that, you're doing something wrong. Playing bad cards like Narrow Escape isn't the answer. Playing more threats is.
What did you mean by this? Do you mean like we need a new term for our finishers?
Basically. I hate the term win-condition. Unless you're talking about a combo deck that uses one spell to kill (Tendrils of Agony, Brain Freeze, etc...) the term win condition is bad. "Threat" is much better, but even that is ambiguous. At 1 life, a Llanowar Elf is a threat. At 20 life... it's not much of a threat.
I understand what you're saying, but let's not use the UW example. In general, is it better to play that many of a win-con in a format with a lot of removals. That's all I'm asking.
This depends on the card. Does it have a high mana cost? Does it have an immediate effect on the game? Does it have a drawback? What permanent type is it? Does it have shroud or any protections? ...
I could think of a hundred questions that will effect how many of a card you should play.
Your original question can't be answered in a void. It has to be answered for each individual card with a decent understanding of the deck it's going to be played in.
Edit: I agree with Corpt, you can't view the individual cards as win conditions. I can't count the number of games I probably would have lost if Hierarch didn't have exalted to allow me to swing for exactly enough. Sure, the Baneslayers and Vengevines are dealing the final blows, but the rest of the deck is setting the stage and is just as important.
While I agree that every card in your deck should help you win, I think the concept of a "win-condition" is the idea of having something in your deck that's responsible for the majority of your wins. I mean sure, if your opponent is a 1 life, then Llanowar Elves suddenly becomes a big threat, but how often does that occur? Without considering death-spells (on the grounds that a death-spell can kill anything at the discretion of the opponent) how more often do you win with a Baneslayer Angel or a Broodmate Dragon than you do with a 1/1 Saproling token or even a 3/3 Wild Nacatl?
I think the term "win-condition" is a very appropriate term, because some card are just inherently more powerful than others and as such, they're usually more responsible for the majority of your wins. Thats not to say that a Raging Goblin can't win a game for you, but its MUCH EASIER to win with a pair of 4/4 flying dragons.
And as far as the original question goes, it really just depends. If your win-condition is Baneslayer Angel, which is much easier to remove than a Sphinx of Jwar Isle, then I probably think that its a good idea to not rely too heavily on that card and just run 2 (or 3 if you can ramp them out really fast). As for the Sphinx, I would probably run 3 just because shroud makes them a pain to get rid of, but because of board-wipes, I'd back it up with some cheap and efficient beats, like the 1/1's spawned by Martial Coup or maybe even Deft Duelist.
Basically. I hate the term win-condition. Unless you're talking about a combo deck that uses one spell to kill (Tendrils of Agony, Brain Freeze, etc...) the term win condition is bad. "Threat" is much better, but even that is ambiguous. At 1 life, a Llanowar Elf is a threat. At 20 life... it's not much of a threat.
Some people use the term "finisher", which might fit better.
In my mono-white control deck, I have lots of cheap creatures that further the point of the deck and help me win, but only 2-4 cards that are finishers.
Some VERY heavy control decks might actually run with only a handful of cards that can do damage or win somehow, but that isn't a good idea. Diversify some more.
Besides, that's why I like Emeria, my "wincons" just keep coming back!
But in a relatively control-heavy meta (25%+ of the decks at a big event are U/W/(x)), it's probably a good idea to have a lot of potential ways to kill the other guy.
I think the term "win-condition" is a very appropriate term, because some card are just inherently more powerful than others and as such, they're usually more responsible for the majority of your wins. Thats not to say that a Raging Goblin can't win a game for you, but its MUCH EASIER to win with a pair of 4/4 flying dragons.
The problem is that a lot of people tend to overvalue their finishers and just view their earlier drops as something to do while you wait to hit your 5th land drop (this is much more obvious in homebrews but can still be seen in different versions of the top decks).
Actually, a lot of deck run cards that are there to not let the opponent win. Maelstrom Pulse won't win you the game, and neither does Negate....
I do agree that win condition is too often used for regular beaters. A Serra Angel in a Stasis deck is a win condition (because it wins the game after you achieve the lock). In the Polymorph deck, the win condition is whatever it morphs into today. In no-BBE Spread'Em, the win condition is generally Jwar Isle Sphinx (you lock with Seas, then finish quickly with this).
These cards are usually the basket in which all these decks put their eggs. They generally lose if it gets removed.
But a Broodmate Dragon in Jund is just an expensive beater. The game for Jund doesn't depend on casting that Broodmate Dragon. The same generally goes for Baneslayer Angel (unless you build the deck around playing and protecting BSA).
Actually, a lot of deck run cards that are there to not let the opponent win. Maelstrom Pulse won't win you the game, and neither does Negate....
While Maelstrom Pulse and Negate can certainly be used to stop your opponent from killing you, they are also there to ensure your opponent cannot come back when you are putting the pressure on.
Pulse your blocker.
What, you're going to Martial Coup my team? No, I think you die now.
It's a nonsensical question. Noble Hierarch is a win condition. Raging Goblin is a win condition. Sea Gate Oracle is a win condition. When you say "win-condition" you're mentally limiting the ways you can win with your deck by restricting yourself to big cards.
Your deck should be able to win. If it can't do that, you're doing something wrong. Playing bad cards like Narrow Escape isn't the answer. Playing more threats is.
Basically. I hate the term win-condition. Unless you're talking about a combo deck that uses one spell to kill (Tendrils of Agony, Brain Freeze, etc...) the term win condition is bad. "Threat" is much better, but even that is ambiguous. At 1 life, a Llanowar Elf is a threat. At 20 life... it's not much of a threat.
To be fair though, removal, counters, and draw spells aren't really win conditions. If you're just talking about creature decks, than of course you're right, but a blue-based control deck like, say, Grixis (not necessarily recently, but pre-WWK Grixis), often won't be packing a large # of cards that can win you the game. They prevent your opponent from winning, but they themselves are insufficient to win yourself.
First, I agree with CorpT on the hate of 'wincon'. I'll ignore it for my response.
This question is variable depending on what deck you are playing. If you are playing a ramp deck that wants to power out such creatures, you will play more. In an aggro deck, you will play less(but should always have a late game plan). Control decks can generally run less, as card draw and ways to protect your bigger creatures traditionally exist in these decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
THE THOUGHTHAMMER HAS SPOKEN!
Current Standard:
Boros
Current Legacy:
Merfolk
UW Stoneforge
MonoUDelver(in progress)
I feel like the "all your cards help you win" argument is purely semantic. When someone says "win condition", you know what they mean.
Yes, a Sea Gate Oracle or a Wall of Omens or a Negate helps you win the game. But you still need some number of cards like Baneslayer Angel, Sphinx of Jwar Isle, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, and Celestial Colonnade in order to reliably bring games to a close once your control deck has control of the field.
Yes, your turn 1 Hierarch, turn 2 Lotus Cobra helps you win the game. But it's still fair to talk about how many Baneslayer Angels or Sovereigns of Lost Alara you want to have in your deck to close out the game in short order.
There are of course decks without cards like that - many pure aggro decks play with no cards we'd identify as specific win conditions (e.g. RDW). Win conditions are not a necessary component of any good deck. But you know what someone means when they ask whether they should be running 3 or 4 copies of a win condition, even if they don't specify that they're talking about 5CC+ cards.
To be fair though, removal, counters, and draw spells aren't really win conditions. If you're just talking about creature decks, than of course you're right, but a blue-based control deck like, say, Grixis (not necessarily recently, but pre-WWK Grixis), often won't be packing a large # of cards that can win you the game. They prevent your opponent from winning, but they themselves are insufficient to win yourself.
Sure. I guess my point wasn't that you can't run counters/removal, etc... but that even cards that don't seem like they can win, can. I have beat down for several turns with a double exalted Noble Hierarch to effectively win the game (swung with double exalted Colonnade for the actual kill, but it was the steady pressure from the beginning that really got there).
Try the NLB deck for awhile and it's obvious that cards that shouldn't win the game can. That's why I don't like the term "win condition". It implies that only certain cards in your deck are going to win you the game. "Finisher" is better, but still not ideal. I prefer "threat" because that seems closer to what is really going on.
Look at this quote from Sam Black on SCG today:
In Sendai, I was in extra turns playing Next Level Bant against Super Friends, and I was a long way from killing my opponent. I had to shift gears and move all in on getting as much damage through as possible - I had to prioritize animating my man lands over things like kicking my Sphinx of Lost Truths. I barely won that game on my last turn, and it was apparent to me both that I would not have played the game that way if I didn't know that I needed to win then, and that that might have been the best way to play it anyway. I don't attack enough.
It's easy to look at your deck and say Sphinx of Lost Truth is my finisher, therefore, I should play it when I want to finish the game. But that wasn't the right play for Sam. He was smart enough to switch gears and find any means of killing his opponent.
Finisher is a good term, unless, as you said, you are playing a deck like Valakut or some other combo-type thing, when you just either win outright or you don't.
In answer to the thread, I think it depends on whether you are running aggro or midrange or control. I have an Eldrazi Monument G/u deck that runs 2 Monuments and 2 Garruks (4 "wincons"), and a UWg control deck that runs 3 Sphinxes, 2 Ionas, and 2 Martial Coups. I think control decks tend to have finishers that are harder to deal with but win games alone, whereas a lot of aggro and midrange decks don't really need a "finisher" type card. 3 Leatherback Baloths or Putrid Leeches can just beat down for the win in those types of decks. I think 2-3 Broodmates, for instance, is a fine number in Jund since you don't necessarily need 1 card to just drop and win--in aggro and midrange, basically everything you play should just beat away for the victory without the necessity of a finisher. Control is a bit different, since if you are going to spend all that time, you might want to have something to just come out and win games, so I would probably run more finisher type cards in that sort of deck simply by virtue of the fact that midrange and faster doesn't necessarily need a finisher.
terminology matters, i agree with CorpT on this. we should use words that communicate our meaning effectively.
A "Win Condition" ought to mean specifically the 1 card that completes a game ending combo. Drain Life was the "Win Condition" in the Pros+Bloom combo deck. You couldn't resolve the game into a victory without it, even though you could combo off without it.
A "finisher" is the sort of late game big threat deployed by ramp or control decks. Sphinx of Jwar Isle is a finisher. So is Iona, Shield of Emeria. This varies from format to format sometimes the finisher doesn't cost alot and isn't big (Rainbow Efreet in old-school draw-go, for example) but its always clear what its in the deck for. Just to get the game over with at some point.
A "threat" is any card that under some circumstance can get you closer to victory. Any creature with power >0 can at some point be called a threat. Any spell or permanent that can deal damage, deplete the opponent's library, or whatever can be called some kind of threat. And under some circumstances removal or draw or mana accel can be considered a threat because of the change to game state it causes (taking your opponent from a safe game state to an unsafe game state).
An "answer" is a card that is basically defensive and disruptive in nature. It hampers your opponent's execution of his game plan without directly forwarding your own game plan. Duress, Mana Leak, and Wrath of God are generally answer cards. there are some exceptions, but by far the most common situation is that these cards just screw up what your opponent was trying to do.
Seriously though, if your deck isn't finishing the game then you might want to look into how you built it. Removal is not actually "heavy" right now, it's just an always existing facet of the game. If you're playing control and you feel like you can't win fast enough when a window of opportunity presents itself, then you might need to beef up on other threats like manlands. From the sideboard, you can also play cards like Mind Control, Vapor Snare, etc. If you're playing aggro and you can't finish off your opponent fast enough, then what you might be lacking in is reach or evasion. There are so many ways of studying the attack phase that it's not just always about threat density.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That being said, do you think it's better to play with 3-of or 4-of win-cons, even if they do cost 5+ to play?
Though if he's playing U/W control, it's really not hard to keep your heavy hitters alive, unless you're playing vs a heavy sacrifice mono black deck. I've an awful mono white deck I've been playing with for a while now. With such a large amount of removal, I've found the joy of simple cards that prevent. Brave the Elements, Emerge Unscathed, Narrow Escape, etc.
Depends on what you're doing. Either run counter-removal, or have more win-cons than a pair of BSA's and SoJI's.
Personally, I'm currently really enjoying the counter-removal, so the 3 of's works fine for me.
Narrow Escape is really good vs sweepers and sacrifice. I love BtE and EU but they are optimal at 4-of, I believe.
Not only is it pretty reliable, but its also a lot of fun to mix things up every now and then. Though I play a lot of causal games, so I'm not sure how practical it is in a really competitive environment, since you're essentially splitting up your resources, but in a U/W deck running Everflowing Chalice and lots of card draw, then I don't see the harm in running a single Martial Coup to back up your Baneslayers.
If he was only running four things that could kill his opponent, he deserved to lose.
BBB Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief BBB
GBW Ghave, Guru of Spores WBG
BUG Damia, Sage of Stone GUB
WBR Kaalia of the Vast RBW
UBU Sexy Wrexy BUB
RUG Riku of Two Reflections GUR
GGG Sasaya, Orochi Ascendant GGG
Win-cons need protection. Even power cards like BSA and SoJI.
He was running Jace and Gideon (no Elspeth) and only 2 Colonnades that were destroyed with Tectonic Edge.
2-3 Elspeth
3-4 Jace
1-2 Gideon
2-3 Sphinx of Jwar Isle
1-3 Martial Coup
4 Celestial Colonnade
That's 13 - 19 cards that can win the game on their own. That's more than enough.
So he was running a bad deck and lost because of it?
I understand what you're saying, but let's not use the UW example. In general, is it better to play that many of a win-con in a format with a lot of removals. That's all I'm asking.
What did you mean by this? Do you mean like we need a new term for our finishers?
Standard
WUW/U HumansUW
Modern
WBW/B TokensBW
It's a nonsensical question. Noble Hierarch is a win condition. Raging Goblin is a win condition. Sea Gate Oracle is a win condition. When you say "win-condition" you're mentally limiting the ways you can win with your deck by restricting yourself to big cards.
Your deck should be able to win. If it can't do that, you're doing something wrong. Playing bad cards like Narrow Escape isn't the answer. Playing more threats is.
Basically. I hate the term win-condition. Unless you're talking about a combo deck that uses one spell to kill (Tendrils of Agony, Brain Freeze, etc...) the term win condition is bad. "Threat" is much better, but even that is ambiguous. At 1 life, a Llanowar Elf is a threat. At 20 life... it's not much of a threat.
This depends on the card. Does it have a high mana cost? Does it have an immediate effect on the game? Does it have a drawback? What permanent type is it? Does it have shroud or any protections? ...
I could think of a hundred questions that will effect how many of a card you should play.
Your original question can't be answered in a void. It has to be answered for each individual card with a decent understanding of the deck it's going to be played in.
Edit: I agree with Corpt, you can't view the individual cards as win conditions. I can't count the number of games I probably would have lost if Hierarch didn't have exalted to allow me to swing for exactly enough. Sure, the Baneslayers and Vengevines are dealing the final blows, but the rest of the deck is setting the stage and is just as important.
I think the term "win-condition" is a very appropriate term, because some card are just inherently more powerful than others and as such, they're usually more responsible for the majority of your wins. Thats not to say that a Raging Goblin can't win a game for you, but its MUCH EASIER to win with a pair of 4/4 flying dragons.
And as far as the original question goes, it really just depends. If your win-condition is Baneslayer Angel, which is much easier to remove than a Sphinx of Jwar Isle, then I probably think that its a good idea to not rely too heavily on that card and just run 2 (or 3 if you can ramp them out really fast). As for the Sphinx, I would probably run 3 just because shroud makes them a pain to get rid of, but because of board-wipes, I'd back it up with some cheap and efficient beats, like the 1/1's spawned by Martial Coup or maybe even Deft Duelist.
Ahh ok. Any other suggestions beyond threat?
Standard
WUW/U HumansUW
Modern
WBW/B TokensBW
In my mono-white control deck, I have lots of cheap creatures that further the point of the deck and help me win, but only 2-4 cards that are finishers.
Some VERY heavy control decks might actually run with only a handful of cards that can do damage or win somehow, but that isn't a good idea. Diversify some more.
Besides, that's why I like Emeria, my "wincons" just keep coming back!
But in a relatively control-heavy meta (25%+ of the decks at a big event are U/W/(x)), it's probably a good idea to have a lot of potential ways to kill the other guy.
The problem is that a lot of people tend to overvalue their finishers and just view their earlier drops as something to do while you wait to hit your 5th land drop (this is much more obvious in homebrews but can still be seen in different versions of the top decks).
Actually, I like finishers as you said in your first post.
Actually, a lot of deck run cards that are there to not let the opponent win. Maelstrom Pulse won't win you the game, and neither does Negate....
I do agree that win condition is too often used for regular beaters. A Serra Angel in a Stasis deck is a win condition (because it wins the game after you achieve the lock). In the Polymorph deck, the win condition is whatever it morphs into today. In no-BBE Spread'Em, the win condition is generally Jwar Isle Sphinx (you lock with Seas, then finish quickly with this).
These cards are usually the basket in which all these decks put their eggs. They generally lose if it gets removed.
But a Broodmate Dragon in Jund is just an expensive beater. The game for Jund doesn't depend on casting that Broodmate Dragon. The same generally goes for Baneslayer Angel (unless you build the deck around playing and protecting BSA).
While Maelstrom Pulse and Negate can certainly be used to stop your opponent from killing you, they are also there to ensure your opponent cannot come back when you are putting the pressure on.
Pulse your blocker.
What, you're going to Martial Coup my team? No, I think you die now.
BBB Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief BBB
GBW Ghave, Guru of Spores WBG
BUG Damia, Sage of Stone GUB
WBR Kaalia of the Vast RBW
UBU Sexy Wrexy BUB
RUG Riku of Two Reflections GUR
GGG Sasaya, Orochi Ascendant GGG
To be fair though, removal, counters, and draw spells aren't really win conditions. If you're just talking about creature decks, than of course you're right, but a blue-based control deck like, say, Grixis (not necessarily recently, but pre-WWK Grixis), often won't be packing a large # of cards that can win you the game. They prevent your opponent from winning, but they themselves are insufficient to win yourself.
This question is variable depending on what deck you are playing. If you are playing a ramp deck that wants to power out such creatures, you will play more. In an aggro deck, you will play less(but should always have a late game plan). Control decks can generally run less, as card draw and ways to protect your bigger creatures traditionally exist in these decks.
Current Standard:
Boros
Current Legacy:
Merfolk
UW Stoneforge
MonoUDelver(in progress)
Yes, a Sea Gate Oracle or a Wall of Omens or a Negate helps you win the game. But you still need some number of cards like Baneslayer Angel, Sphinx of Jwar Isle, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, and Celestial Colonnade in order to reliably bring games to a close once your control deck has control of the field.
Yes, your turn 1 Hierarch, turn 2 Lotus Cobra helps you win the game. But it's still fair to talk about how many Baneslayer Angels or Sovereigns of Lost Alara you want to have in your deck to close out the game in short order.
There are of course decks without cards like that - many pure aggro decks play with no cards we'd identify as specific win conditions (e.g. RDW). Win conditions are not a necessary component of any good deck. But you know what someone means when they ask whether they should be running 3 or 4 copies of a win condition, even if they don't specify that they're talking about 5CC+ cards.
Sure. I guess my point wasn't that you can't run counters/removal, etc... but that even cards that don't seem like they can win, can. I have beat down for several turns with a double exalted Noble Hierarch to effectively win the game (swung with double exalted Colonnade for the actual kill, but it was the steady pressure from the beginning that really got there).
Try the NLB deck for awhile and it's obvious that cards that shouldn't win the game can. That's why I don't like the term "win condition". It implies that only certain cards in your deck are going to win you the game. "Finisher" is better, but still not ideal. I prefer "threat" because that seems closer to what is really going on.
Look at this quote from Sam Black on SCG today:
It's easy to look at your deck and say Sphinx of Lost Truth is my finisher, therefore, I should play it when I want to finish the game. But that wasn't the right play for Sam. He was smart enough to switch gears and find any means of killing his opponent.
In answer to the thread, I think it depends on whether you are running aggro or midrange or control. I have an Eldrazi Monument G/u deck that runs 2 Monuments and 2 Garruks (4 "wincons"), and a UWg control deck that runs 3 Sphinxes, 2 Ionas, and 2 Martial Coups. I think control decks tend to have finishers that are harder to deal with but win games alone, whereas a lot of aggro and midrange decks don't really need a "finisher" type card. 3 Leatherback Baloths or Putrid Leeches can just beat down for the win in those types of decks. I think 2-3 Broodmates, for instance, is a fine number in Jund since you don't necessarily need 1 card to just drop and win--in aggro and midrange, basically everything you play should just beat away for the victory without the necessity of a finisher. Control is a bit different, since if you are going to spend all that time, you might want to have something to just come out and win games, so I would probably run more finisher type cards in that sort of deck simply by virtue of the fact that midrange and faster doesn't necessarily need a finisher.
Signature by KrackShott at Kracked Graphics!
Current Deck(s):
GUElvesUG
GWBThe Birthing RockBWG
A "Win Condition" ought to mean specifically the 1 card that completes a game ending combo. Drain Life was the "Win Condition" in the Pros+Bloom combo deck. You couldn't resolve the game into a victory without it, even though you could combo off without it.
A "finisher" is the sort of late game big threat deployed by ramp or control decks. Sphinx of Jwar Isle is a finisher. So is Iona, Shield of Emeria. This varies from format to format sometimes the finisher doesn't cost alot and isn't big (Rainbow Efreet in old-school draw-go, for example) but its always clear what its in the deck for. Just to get the game over with at some point.
A "threat" is any card that under some circumstance can get you closer to victory. Any creature with power >0 can at some point be called a threat. Any spell or permanent that can deal damage, deplete the opponent's library, or whatever can be called some kind of threat. And under some circumstances removal or draw or mana accel can be considered a threat because of the change to game state it causes (taking your opponent from a safe game state to an unsafe game state).
An "answer" is a card that is basically defensive and disruptive in nature. It hampers your opponent's execution of his game plan without directly forwarding your own game plan. Duress, Mana Leak, and Wrath of God are generally answer cards. there are some exceptions, but by far the most common situation is that these cards just screw up what your opponent was trying to do.
Seriously though, if your deck isn't finishing the game then you might want to look into how you built it. Removal is not actually "heavy" right now, it's just an always existing facet of the game. If you're playing control and you feel like you can't win fast enough when a window of opportunity presents itself, then you might need to beef up on other threats like manlands. From the sideboard, you can also play cards like Mind Control, Vapor Snare, etc. If you're playing aggro and you can't finish off your opponent fast enough, then what you might be lacking in is reach or evasion. There are so many ways of studying the attack phase that it's not just always about threat density.