[SCD] Maze of Ith

[Valtrix]

Maze of Ith
Land

Tap: Untap target attacking creature. Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by that creature this turn.

So, I always wondered why Maze of Ith wasn't used more. By that, I mean at all. It feels like it could be a good way to deal with creatures, with its only "cost" being a land drop (which is null, if you didn't have another land to play this turn anyway). It doesn't actually tap for mana, then again "removal" cards normally don't anyway.

Is the fact that it doesn't actually get rid of the creature too much of a drawback? Or is it the fact that we already have efficient cards like swords, which make sure the creature stays away, and thus lets your guy swing in? Or the fact that it can be dealt with by a single wasteland?

I can't say that I've really thought that this card would find a home in many decks, but at the same time I've always liked this card and wanted maze to be played more, but can't quite pinpoint why it can't...

Thoughts?

[rleader]

Wasteland and Mishra's Factory (and maybe even Tabernacle) compete for land slots in the same decks that would probably best be served by its inclusion. So there's no room for it, even though it can tap for mana these days with Urborg, Tomb in play.

[4eak]

Maze is an interesting card, but it has a cost which I can't pay -- my land drop for the turn. Maze is a decrease in tempo when compared to well-made manabases which could just as easily have supported StP.

The facts that it isn't permanent removal (like Quicksand) and is subject to non-basic hate are serious barriers. The fact that it can be run in any deck to stop any swinging targetable creature is powerful though.

The land-drop cost and the vulnerability to a common disruption strategy makes it unplayable. If the card could also tap for colorless mana, then it would be much more popular.




peace,
4eak

[Otter]

I feel like if you actually need it to hold off their guy at a crucial moment, they're just going to blow you out with a Wasteland. And lots of decks play Wasteland.

[rufus]

It's a card that prevents losses, instead of one that leads to wins. At best, it creates a stalemate.

[Valtrix]

It's a card that prevents losses, instead of one that leads to wins. At best, it creates a stalemate.

That's enough for me.

[mercenarybdu]

Nonbasic land hate hoses the hell out of it. Unless you have unlocked another section of the format I am not aware about.

[Tacosnape]

I ran Maze a long time ago (Like, 9 years ago) in Control decks to force Aggro to extend into X-for-1 Wraths and boardsweepers.

The problem with this now is that not only are there too many Wastelands, there's too many decks that don't lose to this strategy.

[4eak]

Originally Posted by rufus http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=358230#post358230)
It's a card that prevents losses, instead of one that leads to wins. At best, it creates a stalemate.That's enough for me.That isn't good enough for me.

Most forms of control don't win you the game either. They literally just prevent you from losing. Rufus' argument can be applied to most control cards. Part of every good legacy deck is about preventing losses by answering the metagame and creating stalemates when you opponent has the advantage.

The real issue is this: some cards are simply better than others at moving a player from a losing position to an even one. For example, Wrath of God is just flat better at creating a stalemate and preventing losses than Maze, but that doesn't mean Wrath really played an offensive role.

There are some control cards which can play both defensively and offensively (to some extent). For example, StP is very often used defensively (in the same "prevent you from losing" way), but it has the ability to be used offensively to force through damage on the board for a few turns. Maze lacks that offensive capacity. That doesn't mean pure defense cards aren't playable though, it just means Maze isn't good enough at its defensive role to merit play.




peace,
4eak

[Skeggi]

Maze of Ith falls under creature removal. Except that you can switch the creature if there's a bigger one, but you can't remove the defense. People usually prefer Swords to Plowshares.

[Nihil Credo]

43Lands aside, abusing Maze of Ith requires access to *mass* board control - if you're going to let the locked creature stick around, that means your Maze was just a bad removal spell.

In most such situations, I find that Kor Haven's three-mana activation cost is less painful than Maze of Ith's permanent one-mana loss. Wrath of God is expensive, and so are the other cards that a Wrath deck usually plays.

[DrJones]

This is a card that people don't run more because they don't think it will be that a-maze-ing and they are wrong. Decks like burn should run 4x by default (not that burn is good, but it would be much better with it).

[Skeggi]

Why?

[Willoe]

This is a card that people don't run more because they don't think it will be that a-maze-ing and they are wrong. Decks like burn should run 4x by default (not that burn is good, but it would be much better with it).

Why wouldn't you just play 4 burn spells instead? If the burn spells can hit the opponent AND burn the shit out of their creature instead of imprisoning it, I think that it's a pretty huge advantage. Plus, why waste 4 land slots on the Maze? Or hell, even 4 burn slots? And one last thing: it doesn't help against Chalice or Counterbalance, why should Burn even think about running it?

[ykpon]

This is a card that people don't run more because they don't think it will be that a-maze-ing and they are wrong. Decks like burn should run 4x by default (not that burn is good, but it would be much better with it).
you could be right if this format hadn't such number of Wastelands.

btw, i've tried Mazes in my black stax build and liked it. but i also ran 3 Urborgs there.

[DrJones]

Why wouldn't you just play 4 burn spells instead? If the burn spells can hit the opponent AND burn the shit out of their creature instead of imprisoning it, I think that it's a pretty huge advantage. Plus, why waste 4 land slots on the Maze? Or hell, even 4 burn slots? And one last thing: it doesn't help against Chalice or Counterbalance, why should Burn even think about running it?Because Maze buys you more than one turn, so you end drawing more burn cards than the one you replace. Simple as that.

you could be right if this format hadn't such number of Wastelands.I won't suggest Tarmogoyf then, because the format is filled with removal. :tongue:

[scrumdogg]

Nonbasic land hate hoses the hell out of it. Unless you have unlocked another section of the format I am not aware about.

That wouldn't be hard... On topic, however, the card either needs to see play in a Wasteland-light environment (which I'm sure some local metas are) or needs be backed by recursive resources (Crucible, Loam, Witness, whatever). Maze also benefits from other cards, becoming much stronger with Urborg and with Tabernacle. The fact that Urborg allows both Maze & Tabernacle to tap for mana if necessary and pretty much implies Damnation is a wonderful piece of synergy. My son & I have run decks using just that principle to decent levels of success for years. Decks like this are, as noted however, dead ass slow. And like every deck, it will have vulnerabilities. Dragon Stompy, any deck running Back to Basics, Burn, and Dredge are all bad things for a deck like this (and tend to evolve as foils if they weren't initially present). That being said, if your local meta is overrun by stupid aggro, slapping them silly for a month or so until they get the memo to adapt can be both fun & profitable.

[Malchar]

Because Maze buys you more than one turn, so you end drawing more burn cards than the one you replace. Simple as that.
I won't suggest Tarmogoyf then, because the format is filled with removal. :tongue:

He's right that you can end up drawing more burn by increasing your survivability. The problem is that burn decks don't have that problem. The real problem with burn decks is that they have difficulty dealing with Counterbalance, Trinisphere, and combo decks that win faster than burn can win. If a burn deck is going to diversify itself, it needs to cover its worst match-ups rather than doubling up against match-ups where it's already favored.


That isn't good enough for me.

Most forms of control don't win you the game either. They literally just prevent you from losing. Rufus' argument can be applied to most control cards. Part of every good legacy deck is about preventing losses by answering the metagame and creating stalemates when you opponent has the advantage.

The real issue is this: some cards are simply better than others at moving a player from a losing position to an even one. For example, Wrath of God is just flat better at creating a stalemate and preventing losses than Maze, but that doesn't mean Wrath really played an offensive role.

There are some control cards which can play both defensively and offensively (to some extent). For example, StP is very often used defensively (in the same "prevent you from losing" way), but it has the ability to be used offensively to force through damage on the board for a few turns. Maze lacks that offensive capacity. That doesn't mean pure defense cards aren't playable though, it just means Maze isn't good enough at its defensive role to merit play.

Theoretically, playing pure defense while building up a control lock-down should work. Maze of Ith might look like a great card. It's uncounterable, and it always turns off their biggest creature.

The real problem is that it doesn't provide mana. Usually, control decks seem to play efficient kill-cards like Wrath of God while building up their mana each turn. Playing a Maze sets you a turn back on the land count, which basically sets you an entire turn behind in terms of setting up your control mechanisms.

Also, Legacy has few decks that rely on big creatures. Many decks win through storm, mill, or weenie horde. In general, there is a trend away from control decks entirely. Decks using Tarmogoyf are a great example. It's essentially the king of blockers since it blocks the biggest common threat (which also happens to be Tarmogoyf), and it can race other large threats like Tombstalker. As an attacker, It also puts pressure on decks that don't use creatures. People decided that it's better to have a variety of strong offense and defense cards to be able to combat a variety of opponent strategies.

[ykpon]

I won't suggest Tarmogoyf then, because the format is filled with removal. :tongue:
and you will be rigth. who on earth plays tarmo as the only creature in their burn?


Maze also benefits from other cards, becoming much stronger with Urborg and with Tabernacle
Rifstone Portal too if you run something like Eternal Garden using Mox Diamonds, Crop Rotations and dredge.

[majikal]

It may not be that great in Legacy, but it is amazing in EDH! And that's good enough for me. :)

[Michael Keller]

Maze of Ith is too unilateral in a deck not specifically designed to handle it. There are far more effective ways to deal with creatures using spot removal. Maze of Ith works as only a temporary solution and does not actually terminate the threat.

[MTG-Fan]

Also, Legacy has few decks that rely on big creatures. Many decks win through storm, mill, or weenie horde. In general, there is a trend away from control decks entirely.

Really? I seem to find myself playing against a lot of decks that have 2-3 big guys out in play at a time: the Tombstalker decks, the Stompy decks, the Countertop decks, Dreadnought, Landstill, etc.

[hi-val]

I found that in certain niches, Maze is excellent. Specifically, if you are playing a deck where you have mass removal like Deed or Damnation, then Maze makes people overextend like whoa into your sweepers. It's reminiscient of Icy Manipulator in UW Control of Alliances days, where they'd run out two guys to get through your Icy and you'd Wrath and then tap down the next guy they played as well.

[Anusien]

Earlier Tarmogoyf-Counterbalance decks that only had Tarmogoyf for a threat were incredibly vulnerable to it. Those decks now tend to run flyers too.

[takfort]

I have played a B/G The Rock deck, where Maze of Ith was excellent. The reasons were these. 1: I played 4 pernicious deed 2: I played 3 eternal witness(including stronghold) 3: last but not least, I played 4 sakura tribe elder, so that the landdrop miss wasn't a big of an issue, as in other decks.

I did like you said, sweeped the entire board and had a Maze in play. Only played one though, but I was mostly very happy with it.