I think hug, stax and chaos are each disliked for the same reason - it takes away player agency. You decided each card you have in your deck, resources, threats and all. Now those decisions are secondary to what somebody else’s deck is doing.
With hug, you are now overdrawing and over-ramping, resources going to waste. You might have put in more 6-drops if you’d known that Collective Voyage was being played early, but now your Thrun, the Last Troll is going toe to toe with Seige Behemoth on time.
Stax is the opposite. You have resources going to waste because you’re not able to make the budget that your deck usually gives you. So now your Thrun is stuck in hand staring down Thalia’s with Swords and what not.
Chaos is about the worst for player agency though. Resources notwithstanding, you cast a card and it’s literally something different than what you chose to be in your deck.
I think what redeems each of these though is replay value. With some other hated archetypes, you might as well not even sleeve up because it’s just going to be the exact same result. With these, you get more, less or unpredictable outcomes, but they are different. The difference of opinion I think comes from certain playgroups having way more time than others. I think most groups play weekly or even bi-weekly, so a lot of tweaking and rethinking goes in between sessions. It’s frustrating to bring those to the table, then you don’t get to see if it works. But for groups that play more often or make deck changes way less, I think they can be good to keep outcomes fresh.
Combo is hated for the opposite reason, that it’s just the same every game. If you don’t have the resources to defend against it (most don’t), you are watching the same scenario play out. I will say though that everything that gets labeled “combo” isn’t actually combo. A lot of players tend to term any kind of win-condition outside of combat as “combo”, to include things that are very finite and situational such as Gray Merchant of Asphodel and Blade of Selves, non-infinite Comet Storm, so on. People highly expect Island Sanctuary, assorted pillow-forts and Wraths to keep them in the game, then get salty when players respond to that.
Not sure about the agency thing... generally speaking you should built your deck in such a way that is it able to handle a diverse number of threats. From what i've gathered from the forums in these discussions so far is that people don't like stax or combo because it removes their ability to impact the game. Stax prevents you from playing anything thus you are not influencing the game, and combo just wins all at once making everything everyone else did retroactively irrelevant. Most people want their games to be interactive, with the pendulum swinging in someone's favor multiple times before someone manages to win.
As far as hug goes, it gives everybody more resources so it kind of negates the "errors" somewhat for people who built their decks less efficient than someone who spiked out their deck, yet I don't see why that detracts from the fun of the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Why I hate group hug-> Not saying every group help is packing the collective garbage, games are not 'played' out but left to whoever untaps with the free resources first. Now like stax and other styles you take this to extreme and it ruins the game. A Temple Bell here or there js fine. A deck packed with nothing but "Temple Bell" effects is aggravating.
Just like a game of nothing but Stasis or Thieves Auction effects would be aggravating.
Not sure about the agency thing... generally speaking you should built your deck in such a way that is it able to handle a diverse number of threats. From what i've gathered from the forums in these discussions so far is that people don't like stax or combo because it removes their ability to impact the game. Stax prevents you from playing anything thus you are not influencing the game, and combo just wins all at once making everything everyone else did retroactively irrelevant. Most people want their games to be interactive, with the pendulum swinging in someone's favor multiple times before someone manages to win.
As far as hug goes, it gives everybody more resources so it kind of negates the "errors" somewhat for people who built their decks less efficient than someone who spiked out their deck, yet I don't see why that detracts from the fun of the game.
I would argue that those archetypes are as interactive as any other the problem is you are blanking out certain cards or methods as being interactive. How quickly the game comes to a close doesn't determine how interactive the game can be up to that point it is solely determined by the make ups and the decks in the game being on the same playing level.
For me, definitely Combo....a lot of the fun in Commander is the interaction with your own deck (obviously), but more importantly with the whole table. Combo says "Yeah, you guys do your thing, Imma just sit here and search my library for these three specific cards, check in with me later, kay?" Stax is also a pain, but at least it's kind of interactive. Group Hug isn't the most fun to play against, but that's the definition of interactive, so it's cool in my book!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by myself! If you'd like a banner done, pm me! Avvie by DNC from Hero of the Planes Studio
Ramp is the only archetype with an undeserved sense of entitlement behind it, where the fun of a commander group is measured by how unopposed the ramp players are. That aside, I'm happy to take on all archetypes. I just don't buy into any out-of-rules expectations going into a match. I met one player who thought everyone was entitled to five unopposed turns before really playing. It's never the stax guy.
Oh, that's because MaRo saying "We nerfed land destruction because it's unfun." 9001 times. It's funny, I've had nobs who can't even understand why any land, yes, even something like The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale or Gaea's Cradle, needs to be blown up.
Now, of course, with some equipment, you can turn your Viridian Joiner into any number of big mana lands, but players don't play mana dorks because they think they're being competitive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Ramp is the only archetype with an undeserved sense of entitlement behind it, where the fun of a commander group is measured by how unopposed the ramp players are. That aside, I'm happy to take on all archetypes. I just don't buy into any out-of-rules expectations going into a match. I met one player who thought everyone was entitled to five unopposed turns before really playing. It's never the stax guy.
Oh, that's because MaRo saying "We nerfed land destruction because it's unfun." 9001 times. It's funny, I've had nobs who can't even understand why any land, yes, even something like The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale or Gaea's Cradle, needs to be blown up.
Now, of course, with some equipment, you can turn your Viridian Joiner into any number of big mana lands, but players don't play mana dorks because they think they're being competitive.
Funny you mention Gaea's Cradle. I had mine blown up just this weekend. Still won the game. That's because I expect to lose it, planned my deck to function without it, and it's just gravy if I don't. I also stock a plan b with Xenagos, the Reveler and have ways of getting it back. For the record, cards like Cradle SHOULD be blown up with extreme prejudice, or more often than not that person wins. Same with Tabernacle...we have one of those in my group, too. Even so, I would say that it's still a far cry from destroying lands all the time, unless that MLD is directly tied to a wincon.
There are just too many budget ways to stock answers now that one shouldn't have to rely on MLD to defeat casual decks that run a few hyper-powerful cards. But competitve play? Nuke away...and God bless you.
I like combo, I like stax, I like control. I feel like they're all healthy additions to any EDH meta that's beginning to stagnate.
I'm getting a bit sick of ramp and reanimator decks, so that's my vote. They're actually not very different decks, at their core they want to do the same thing: bomb spam. The only difference is how they get them into play (hand vs graveyard).
These types of decks are like the "default" setting of EDH. People want to play their ramp/mill/both, create a huge board state of permanents, and swing in with an alpha strike. Its the ultimate Timmy play style, and anyone who plays contrary to this cut and dry formula creates a stir.
Control, combo, stax, and mld are strategies for countering these bomb spam decks. Naturally anyone who severely disrupts the natural flow of "ramp-bomb-win" is an iconoclast. But when you cut "anti-social" archetypes out, you're left with no counters to a meta except the occasional reset button (Wrath of God). The only option is to build a faster bomb spam deck, or break the meta and play hard control/combo/stax.
Also how do experienced players find themselves so blind sided by combos? The game is played in all zones, not just the battlefield. You have the entire game to focus down the combo player while they durdle around looking for their pieces. Not only that but you have 1-3 allies in your fight against the combo player (after all, if one of you loses you all lose). There are two instances in which combo is unfair:
1) You're not aware that you're playing vs a combo deck. But after that you know its a combo deck so...
2) You're playing vs a much more competitive deck (i.e. Force of Will vs Dissolve) that can combo out in the early turns. But if you're playing vs someone whose collection is so vastly superior to yours, you'll probably lose against any of their decks unless they're sandbagging.
Group hug is whatever, I'm inexperienced vs it since nobody in my meta plays it.
You know, I've never understood why ramp is considered an archetype. Isn't it just a means to an end? A lot of people ramp to get big timmy cards out, but so do TnT/M&T combo players. I ramp to stay on curve with competitors and get to my higher curve cards, or to get to a critical mass of tokens in my one combo deck. But those decks don't win with ramp. It just allows a more efficient path to that deck's win condition.
I honestly like a healthy balanced meta with all kinds of decks and strategies. Stax, group hug, and chaos requires you to think outside of the norm for your deck and adapt, and that is good. Control is my favorite kind of deck to play, and I love playing against it. Trying to read a control player and answer their answers is a blast in my opinion. Agro keeps thing honest and punish slow stops and over costed nonsense. And ramp/reanimator is the norm in commander. What's to hate? And while overpowered combo decks for their meta aren't fun, but combo forces you to pack answers and that is good.
The real problem isn't with a particular deck strategy it is with an unbalanced power level. I play at more than one LGS, and I play at home with friends and the power level is way different with these different metas. If I take my more competitive decks to my home play group of mostly poor and new players, it doesn't matter which style I play no one will have fun as the winner is determined at the start. If I play the precons I play at home, at the most competitive LGS I play at, I won't have fun as I would be dead to start. Power level is more important that deck strategy in regards to the fun in the game in my not so humble opinion.
I voted for the record fo combo. It is the least interactive and interaction is what I love about Magic. Plus some combos are so slow and durdle quite a while before they win. I think combo is needed in the meta but in my opinion it is the least fun to play against and with. For the record I do play a few different combo decks myself.
I will never understand all the whining about deck types. In an ideal world there would be decks of all types in a meta forcing adaption and thought. If any one type of deck becomes to common play becomes boring. Bring on stax, MLD, chaos, group hug, control, aggro, combo, ramp, reanimation, tempo, pillow fort, synergy decks, good stuff, and any off the way deck some mad deck builder can build. AS long as the power levels are somewhat balanced things should be fun.
I honestly like a healthy balanced meta with all kinds of decks and strategies. Stax, group hug, and chaos requires you to think outside of the norm for your deck and adapt, and that is good. Control is my favorite kind of deck to play, and I love playing against it. Trying to read a control player and answer their answers is a blast in my opinion. Agro keeps thing honest and punish slow stops and over costed nonsense. And ramp/reanimator is the norm in commander. What's to hate? And while overpowered combo decks for their meta aren't fun, but combo forces you to pack answers and that is good.
The real problem isn't with a particular deck strategy it is with an unbalanced power level. I play at more than one LGS, and I play at home with friends and the power level is way different with these different metas. If I take my more competitive decks to my home play group of mostly poor and new players, it doesn't matter which style I play no one will have fun as the winner is determined at the start. If I play the precons I play at home, at the most competitive LGS I play at, I won't have fun as I would be dead to start. Power level is more important that deck strategy in regards to the fun in the game in my not so humble opinion.
I voted for the record fo combo. It is the least interactive and interaction is what I love about Magic. Plus some combos are so slow and durdle quite a while before they win. I think combo is needed in the meta but in my opinion it is the least fun to play against and with. For the record I do play a few different combo decks myself.
I will never understand all the whining about deck types. In an ideal world there would be decks of all types in a meta forcing adaption and thought. If any one type of deck becomes to common play becomes boring. Bring on stax, MLD, chaos, group hug, control, aggro, combo, ramp, reanimation, tempo, pillow fort, synergy decks, good stuff, and any off the way deck some mad deck builder can build. AS long as the power levels are somewhat balanced things should be fun.
I can MOSTLY agree with this. The one except I have is group hug. Group Hug has no intention of winning, or if they do, it is usually so astronomically unlikely that they effectively never win. The only thing they do is disrupt the game, regardless of how well made, or how poorly, your deck actually is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I honestly like a healthy balanced meta with all kinds of decks and strategies. Stax, group hug, and chaos requires you to think outside of the norm for your deck and adapt, and that is good. Control is my favorite kind of deck to play, and I love playing against it. Trying to read a control player and answer their answers is a blast in my opinion. Agro keeps thing honest and punish slow stops and over costed nonsense. And ramp/reanimator is the norm in commander. What's to hate? And while overpowered combo decks for their meta aren't fun, but combo forces you to pack answers and that is good.
The real problem isn't with a particular deck strategy it is with an unbalanced power level. I play at more than one LGS, and I play at home with friends and the power level is way different with these different metas. If I take my more competitive decks to my home play group of mostly poor and new players, it doesn't matter which style I play no one will have fun as the winner is determined at the start. If I play the precons I play at home, at the most competitive LGS I play at, I won't have fun as I would be dead to start. Power level is more important that deck strategy in regards to the fun in the game in my not so humble opinion.
I voted for the record fo combo. It is the least interactive and interaction is what I love about Magic. Plus some combos are so slow and durdle quite a while before they win. I think combo is needed in the meta but in my opinion it is the least fun to play against and with. For the record I do play a few different combo decks myself.
I will never understand all the whining about deck types. In an ideal world there would be decks of all types in a meta forcing adaption and thought. If any one type of deck becomes to common play becomes boring. Bring on stax, MLD, chaos, group hug, control, aggro, combo, ramp, reanimation, tempo, pillow fort, synergy decks, good stuff, and any off the way deck some mad deck builder can build. AS long as the power levels are somewhat balanced things should be fun.
See, I could agree with this except that my problems with group hug stems from the fact that I play with guys/gals with well tuned decks. Hence, they're all perfectly capable off getting their strategies off without help despite the things that get thrown around in game. So when you introduce a group hug deck into that...things tend to get unbalanced fast.
I question what people determine as tied to a wincon
Often if you have a card like Armageddon in your hand and you have the best board it is strategically sound play to use it then.
Oops, just noticed you replied to me. I think that a valid wincon for LD is up for interpretation by everyone, but I would have to agree on your specific example. That would be a valid use. Most of the time, I don't see people using land destruction that strategically. But either way, one can argue (as I honestly do) that MLD is so asymmetrically overpowered to other locks, it might as well be a scoop condition and move to the next game. The only way to stop it is to run lots of counters or build a deck to specifically recover from it. People don't like to be forced to make such narrow plans just to play a game. So why use it? You can, but doesn't mean you should? It's not a like a pillow fort that can be shredded, or a combo that can be stopped with spot removal. There is literally no recovery from it in any time that is worth trying to. That's how I see it anyway.
I mean, I'm not going to cry about it or rant and rave in the game, but I'm not going to sit there while the whole table gets ground into the dirt and pretend I'm OK with it. Even worse, if someone plays that, and doesn't win smartly (as in durdling) and drags the game out, they'd better be packing heat next game because I'm going to come after them. Now, if they do win smartly after casting that, I'll accept it as a valid dick move (but still a dick move) and just move on. I can add that to my deck, I don't, but I accept others can if that gets them their kicks and giggles.
I question what people determine as tied to a wincon
Often if you have a card like Armageddon in your hand and you have the best board it is strategically sound play to use it then.
Oops, just noticed you replied to me. I think that a valid wincon for LD is up for interpretation by everyone, but I would have to agree on your specific example. That would be a valid use. Most of the time, I don't see people using land destruction that strategically. But either way, one can argue (as I honestly do) that MLD is so asymmetrically overpowered to other locks, it might as well be a scoop condition and move to the next game. The only way to stop it is to run lots of counters or build a deck to specifically recover from it. People don't like to be forced to make such narrow plans just to play a game. So why use it? You can, but doesn't mean you should? It's not a like a pillow fort that can be shredded, or a combo that can be stopped with spot removal. There is literally no recovery from it in any time that is worth trying to. That's how I see it anyway.
I mean, I'm not going to cry about it or rant and rave in the game, but I'm not going to sit there while the whole table gets ground into the dirt and pretend I'm OK with it. Even worse, if someone plays that, and doesn't win smartly (as in durdling) and drags the game out, they'd better be packing heat next game because I'm going to come after them. Now, if they do win smartly after casting that, I'll accept it as a valid dick move (but still a dick move) and just move on. I can add that to my deck, I don't, but I accept others can if that gets them their kicks and giggles.
Have you ever tried holding on to a land or three in your hand? That with a low curve and a few mana rocks and your off to the races after MLD. It is called strategic preparedness and it is no different then holding up instant removal for a combo. I get the first time being caught unawares isn't pretty, but after the first time if it screws you game plan it's your bad play and it is on you. I have won many of games after my opponent wiped the lands from the field, with exactly this strategy. Try it next time you faced a LD deck.
Of course I played in metas that LD decks was common. People newer to the game just don't know how to deal with LD since they nerfed the strategy in standard play years ago.
I question what people determine as tied to a wincon
Often if you have a card like Armageddon in your hand and you have the best board it is strategically sound play to use it then.
Oops, just noticed you replied to me. I think that a valid wincon for LD is up for interpretation by everyone, but I would have to agree on your specific example. That would be a valid use. Most of the time, I don't see people using land destruction that strategically. But either way, one can argue (as I honestly do) that MLD is so asymmetrically overpowered to other locks, it might as well be a scoop condition and move to the next game. The only way to stop it is to run lots of counters or build a deck to specifically recover from it. People don't like to be forced to make such narrow plans just to play a game. So why use it? You can, but doesn't mean you should? It's not a like a pillow fort that can be shredded, or a combo that can be stopped with spot removal. There is literally no recovery from it in any time that is worth trying to. That's how I see it anyway.
I mean, I'm not going to cry about it or rant and rave in the game, but I'm not going to sit there while the whole table gets ground into the dirt and pretend I'm OK with it. Even worse, if someone plays that, and doesn't win smartly (as in durdling) and drags the game out, they'd better be packing heat next game because I'm going to come after them. Now, if they do win smartly after casting that, I'll accept it as a valid dick move (but still a dick move) and just move on. I can add that to my deck, I don't, but I accept others can if that gets them their kicks and giggles.
Have you ever tried holding on to a land or three in your hand? That with a low curve and a few mana rocks and your off to the races after MLD. It is called strategic preparedness and it is no different then holding up instant removal for a combo. I get the first time being caught unawares isn't pretty, but after the first time if it screws you game plan it's your bad play and it is on you. I have won many of games after my opponent wiped the lands from the field, with exactly this strategy. Try it next time you faced a LD deck.
Of course I played in metas that LD decks was common. People newer to the game just don't know how to deal with LD since they nerfed the strategy in standard play years ago.
B.S. I throw that flag because playing "strategically" in that regard means you are choking off your mana supplies and gimping your game. Most people with MLD use multiple sources in a deck (why just use one?) and are usually the only ones with strategies that are designed to operate with the temporary resource loss (temporary loss). I'm not some noob to the game, and my group played that junk out to its logical conclusion back in 3rd Edition days. The new cards since then are not what you'd play unless specifically building around recovering from MLD. Yeah, you can slowly recover tempo, but not from multiples. So unless your curve is stupidly low, recovery is not in your immediate future, and Incan think of little other than disparate power levels in a group where MLD is worthy in casual. It's valid, it's just a dick move.
You need to apply your conditions to both players.
If your opponent is somehow going to draw both MLD effects then you can't discount the idea that you have extra land cards in your hand especially when you have much more land in your deck than someone else will have ways to destroy them.
Unless of course it is something like Tajic or Zurgo with a certain Sword equipped but that is a whole different thing.
You need to apply your conditions to both players.
If your opponent is somehow going to draw both MLD effects then you can't discount the idea that you have extra land cards in your hand especially when you have much more land in your deck than someone else will have ways to destroy them.
Unless of course it is something like Tajic or Zurgo with a certain Sword equipped but that is a whole different thing.
I get that, but the whole point to that hinges on actually drawing enough mana to recover at all. In a 40 land deck, that requires roughly 10 rounds to get 4 lands barring low ramp helping. In a deck with MLD, it's probably MLD for a reason that they can recover tempo faster and set off the next MLD that they probably tutor for before the table recovers and thus locks the game. Whereas combo is often oops I win, MLD often drags the game out for upwards of an extra hour at best. Instant loss or painfully slow crap death? What's your preference? I don't mind combo as much for that reason. Now, if I know they will be playing MLD because I know the deck, and I play anyway, I will horde lands and go straight for them, and politic the table like crazy to target the person. It's a nuke of the highest order to play complete resource annihilation in a casual environment, which is very much different than simple disruption. Hence why I call it a dick move. You can do it, but I will never support it.
Ramp is the only archetype with an undeserved sense of entitlement behind it, where the fun of a commander group is measured by how unopposed the ramp players are. That aside, I'm happy to take on all archetypes. I just don't buy into any out-of-rules expectations going into a match. I met one player who thought everyone was entitled to five unopposed turns before really playing. It's never the stax guy.
Oh, that's because MaRo saying "We nerfed land destruction because it's unfun." 9001 times. It's funny, I've had nobs who can't even understand why any land, yes, even something like The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale or Gaea's Cradle, needs to be blown up.
Now, of course, with some equipment, you can turn your Viridian Joiner into any number of big mana lands, but players don't play mana dorks because they think they're being competitive.
Funny you mention Gaea's Cradle. I had mine blown up just this weekend. Still won the game. That's because I expect to lose it, planned my deck to function without it, and it's just gravy if I don't. I also stock a plan b with Xenagos, the Reveler and have ways of getting it back. For the record, cards like Cradle SHOULD be blown up with extreme prejudice, or more often than not that person wins. Same with Tabernacle...we have one of those in my group, too. Even so, I would say that it's still a far cry from destroying lands all the time, unless that MLD is directly tied to a wincon.
There are just too many budget ways to stock answers now that one shouldn't have to rely on MLD to defeat casual decks that run a few hyper-powerful cards. But competitve play? Nuke away...and God bless you.
And that's because good players plan for their cards to be removed. This is a format where things don't last long. Why should lands have unique immortality? (And it's not like my Naya ramp deck can't just run Crucible of Worlds and Sun Titan to get all my lands back fast. Actually, come to think of it, it's probably some form of malpractice to not include Armageddon and similar in every competitive deck that doesn't include Sun Titan.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Yup, I agree in competitive where turn 3-5 wins are the order of the day. MLD is very effective at nerfing almost everything else. The issue I bring up is MLD in casual. Big difference, unless one's definition of casual is playing with 100 Vintage cards instead of 60.
There are no bad archetypes, just bad players. I'm in the minority here, but aggro (in which I include Voltron), tends to cause the most bad games for me, because its extremely easy to misplay in a multiplayer setting and yet attractive to newer players who lack the skills to run it correctly. Basically, I've seen too many games where an aggro/voltron player misplays all game without realizing it and basically takes one guy out and then is shocked when they run out of steam and get rolled by the rest of the table. Play a smart aggro/voltron game, that's one thing, even if you end up losing steam at least you executed right and its just how the game plays out, but overextending to just annihilate one guy and then getting ****ed by wrath and having no chance to win is another matter, and especially when your throwing everything at the wrong guy, like taking out the mid rangey good stuff deck because they are making plays while the combo deck is searching up a win con, or forcing the control deck to spend answers to stay alive that would have prevented another player from going off. Since its a seemingly straightforward archetype (either "play dudes, beat face" or "strap up your dude, beat face") many lower skill players are attracted to it without realizing the nuance that goes into playing aggro in multiplayer, how important proper threat assessment is, how important POLITICS is, when to finish a player off and when to let them live, when to go all in on one player and when to spread out the damage and when to sit back, slow roll your threats, and chip away, how its harder to play effectively than just about any other archetype because of how far behind you are usually starting. Too many players focus on getting that first or even second kill more than how to get the last one, which leads to it playing out like a match against fast combo for the first victim, except the game isn't over and the guy who went off probably won't win (again, sometimes that's ok, like if the aggro player properly assessed the threat and took out a guy about to combo, or is trying to press an advantage that can actually win rather than just get a kill).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With hug, you are now overdrawing and over-ramping, resources going to waste. You might have put in more 6-drops if you’d known that Collective Voyage was being played early, but now your Thrun, the Last Troll is going toe to toe with Seige Behemoth on time.
Stax is the opposite. You have resources going to waste because you’re not able to make the budget that your deck usually gives you. So now your Thrun is stuck in hand staring down Thalia’s with Swords and what not.
Chaos is about the worst for player agency though. Resources notwithstanding, you cast a card and it’s literally something different than what you chose to be in your deck.
I think what redeems each of these though is replay value. With some other hated archetypes, you might as well not even sleeve up because it’s just going to be the exact same result. With these, you get more, less or unpredictable outcomes, but they are different. The difference of opinion I think comes from certain playgroups having way more time than others. I think most groups play weekly or even bi-weekly, so a lot of tweaking and rethinking goes in between sessions. It’s frustrating to bring those to the table, then you don’t get to see if it works. But for groups that play more often or make deck changes way less, I think they can be good to keep outcomes fresh.
Combo is hated for the opposite reason, that it’s just the same every game. If you don’t have the resources to defend against it (most don’t), you are watching the same scenario play out. I will say though that everything that gets labeled “combo” isn’t actually combo. A lot of players tend to term any kind of win-condition outside of combat as “combo”, to include things that are very finite and situational such as Gray Merchant of Asphodel and Blade of Selves, non-infinite Comet Storm, so on. People highly expect Island Sanctuary, assorted pillow-forts and Wraths to keep them in the game, then get salty when players respond to that.
As far as hug goes, it gives everybody more resources so it kind of negates the "errors" somewhat for people who built their decks less efficient than someone who spiked out their deck, yet I don't see why that detracts from the fun of the game.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Just like a game of nothing but Stasis or Thieves Auction effects would be aggravating.
I would argue that those archetypes are as interactive as any other the problem is you are blanking out certain cards or methods as being interactive. How quickly the game comes to a close doesn't determine how interactive the game can be up to that point it is solely determined by the make ups and the decks in the game being on the same playing level.
Sig by myself! If you'd like a banner done, pm me! Avvie by DNC from Hero of the Planes Studio
Oh, that's because MaRo saying "We nerfed land destruction because it's unfun." 9001 times. It's funny, I've had nobs who can't even understand why any land, yes, even something like The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale or Gaea's Cradle, needs to be blown up.
Now, of course, with some equipment, you can turn your Viridian Joiner into any number of big mana lands, but players don't play mana dorks because they think they're being competitive.
On phasing:
There are just too many budget ways to stock answers now that one shouldn't have to rely on MLD to defeat casual decks that run a few hyper-powerful cards. But competitve play? Nuke away...and God bless you.
Often if you have a card like Armageddon in your hand and you have the best board it is strategically sound play to use it then.
I'm getting a bit sick of ramp and reanimator decks, so that's my vote. They're actually not very different decks, at their core they want to do the same thing: bomb spam. The only difference is how they get them into play (hand vs graveyard).
These types of decks are like the "default" setting of EDH. People want to play their ramp/mill/both, create a huge board state of permanents, and swing in with an alpha strike. Its the ultimate Timmy play style, and anyone who plays contrary to this cut and dry formula creates a stir.
Control, combo, stax, and mld are strategies for countering these bomb spam decks. Naturally anyone who severely disrupts the natural flow of "ramp-bomb-win" is an iconoclast. But when you cut "anti-social" archetypes out, you're left with no counters to a meta except the occasional reset button (Wrath of God). The only option is to build a faster bomb spam deck, or break the meta and play hard control/combo/stax.
Also how do experienced players find themselves so blind sided by combos? The game is played in all zones, not just the battlefield. You have the entire game to focus down the combo player while they durdle around looking for their pieces. Not only that but you have 1-3 allies in your fight against the combo player (after all, if one of you loses you all lose). There are two instances in which combo is unfair:
1) You're not aware that you're playing vs a combo deck. But after that you know its a combo deck so...
2) You're playing vs a much more competitive deck (i.e. Force of Will vs Dissolve) that can combo out in the early turns. But if you're playing vs someone whose collection is so vastly superior to yours, you'll probably lose against any of their decks unless they're sandbagging.
Group hug is whatever, I'm inexperienced vs it since nobody in my meta plays it.
The real problem isn't with a particular deck strategy it is with an unbalanced power level. I play at more than one LGS, and I play at home with friends and the power level is way different with these different metas. If I take my more competitive decks to my home play group of mostly poor and new players, it doesn't matter which style I play no one will have fun as the winner is determined at the start. If I play the precons I play at home, at the most competitive LGS I play at, I won't have fun as I would be dead to start. Power level is more important that deck strategy in regards to the fun in the game in my not so humble opinion.
I voted for the record fo combo. It is the least interactive and interaction is what I love about Magic. Plus some combos are so slow and durdle quite a while before they win. I think combo is needed in the meta but in my opinion it is the least fun to play against and with. For the record I do play a few different combo decks myself.
I will never understand all the whining about deck types. In an ideal world there would be decks of all types in a meta forcing adaption and thought. If any one type of deck becomes to common play becomes boring. Bring on stax, MLD, chaos, group hug, control, aggro, combo, ramp, reanimation, tempo, pillow fort, synergy decks, good stuff, and any off the way deck some mad deck builder can build. AS long as the power levels are somewhat balanced things should be fun.
I can MOSTLY agree with this. The one except I have is group hug. Group Hug has no intention of winning, or if they do, it is usually so astronomically unlikely that they effectively never win. The only thing they do is disrupt the game, regardless of how well made, or how poorly, your deck actually is.
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
See, I could agree with this except that my problems with group hug stems from the fact that I play with guys/gals with well tuned decks. Hence, they're all perfectly capable off getting their strategies off without help despite the things that get thrown around in game. So when you introduce a group hug deck into that...things tend to get unbalanced fast.
So, yeah, I'll admit I'm biased.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
I mean, I'm not going to cry about it or rant and rave in the game, but I'm not going to sit there while the whole table gets ground into the dirt and pretend I'm OK with it. Even worse, if someone plays that, and doesn't win smartly (as in durdling) and drags the game out, they'd better be packing heat next game because I'm going to come after them. Now, if they do win smartly after casting that, I'll accept it as a valid dick move (but still a dick move) and just move on. I can add that to my deck, I don't, but I accept others can if that gets them their kicks and giggles.
Of course I played in metas that LD decks was common. People newer to the game just don't know how to deal with LD since they nerfed the strategy in standard play years ago.
B.S. I throw that flag because playing "strategically" in that regard means you are choking off your mana supplies and gimping your game. Most people with MLD use multiple sources in a deck (why just use one?) and are usually the only ones with strategies that are designed to operate with the temporary resource loss (temporary loss). I'm not some noob to the game, and my group played that junk out to its logical conclusion back in 3rd Edition days. The new cards since then are not what you'd play unless specifically building around recovering from MLD. Yeah, you can slowly recover tempo, but not from multiples. So unless your curve is stupidly low, recovery is not in your immediate future, and Incan think of little other than disparate power levels in a group where MLD is worthy in casual. It's valid, it's just a dick move.
If your opponent is somehow going to draw both MLD effects then you can't discount the idea that you have extra land cards in your hand especially when you have much more land in your deck than someone else will have ways to destroy them.
Unless of course it is something like Tajic or Zurgo with a certain Sword equipped but that is a whole different thing.
And that's because good players plan for their cards to be removed. This is a format where things don't last long. Why should lands have unique immortality? (And it's not like my Naya ramp deck can't just run Crucible of Worlds and Sun Titan to get all my lands back fast. Actually, come to think of it, it's probably some form of malpractice to not include Armageddon and similar in every competitive deck that doesn't include Sun Titan.)
On phasing:
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!