Yet Another Exploration of Whining and the Blue Phenomenon

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

First of all, "whining" is a terrible term to use (as is "bitching, and so on). No one who disagrees with you is going to suddenly agree with you because you tried to invalidate their concerns. You'll get the people that agree with you already and think that others must be simply underinformed/stupid/malicious, but others will be off-put by your attitude and then you're morally no different from Mark Levin, really.

It assumes a priori that your opponent's argument is invalid, and since proving a point like this is the entire point of reasoned, civil debate, its use renders your own arguments dismissable and is to be avoided.

It has been suggested that people always complain about Standard (http://yfrog.com/h03zkawj), which is true.

This is because dissatisfaction with the status quo is an inherent aspect of human nature. While Legacy is a fun format, it would be strange to think that it was fully optimized for enjoyability (a vague factor which includes far more than mere skill level or reducing variance as others have suggested; if variance weren't itself a huge part of what makes a game fun, we wouldn't be drawing random cards, we'd be playing Chess).

It's natural, necessary even, that people have different visions of what the game and thus also Legacy should look like. I can think of a dozen cards off the top of my head I wish did not exist and roughly five hundred I wish did. I wish Wizards would push LD and put decent, cheap card draw in other colors, at least green and black. I mean this is natural enough in a good format like Legacy, let alone Standard where the format very often does suck.

Bannings draw some special ire, however, which is understandable but not desirable. People resent the idea of having their investments devalued by a banning. The reality is, however, that this is a collectible card game, and fluctuating card prices are part and parcel of that. It doesn't always go one way, and if real estate isn't a reliable investment there's no particular reason why your Japanese foil Brainstorms should be. If you're in this game a while- and if you're playing Legacy you probably have been- it's inevitable that cards you own that were worth much are suddenly going to be worth little. While it may strike people harder that a card is outright banned, this effect can also come from power creep, rules changes and reprintings, and the difference isn't much. If I call for Werebear to be banned or for Tarmogoyf to be printed, the effect is pretty much the same as far as Werebear is concerned.

Fundamentally, it is civil to make a case for any change to the format, as long as one behaves civilly and makes an effort to create a persuasive argument, and fundamentally uncivil to complain that someone voices an opinion contrary to the status quo. This is true even when the argument is for something that anyone familiar with the power balance of the format should view as a truly terrible idea, like banning Force of Will.

tl;dr: What you call whining is generally people voicing opinions of those you disagree with- who may be completely wrong headed, but still have a right to make their case- and you should just get over it. This is a forum for discussion, and any argument should stand or fall on its own merits, not based on some hivemind hatred of challenges to the status quo.

Also I lied about the article, all you get is this post.

[DragoFireheart]

Bannings draw some special ire, however, which is understandable but not desirable. People resent the idea of having their investments devalued by a banning. The reality is, however, that this is a collectible card game, and fluctuating card prices are part and parcel of that. It doesn't always go one way, and if real estate isn't a reliable investment there's no particular reason why your Japanese foil Brainstorms should be. If you're in this game a while- and if you're playing Legacy you probably have been- it's inevitable that cards you own that were worth much are suddenly going to be worth little. While it may strike people harder that a card is outright banned, this effect can also come from power creep, rules changes and reprintings, and the difference isn't much. If I call for Werebear to be banned or for Tarmogoyf to be printed, the effect is pretty much the same as far as Werebear is concerned.


This is a point I disagree about. With Vintage as a benchmark, there are certain cards that will NEVER be printed due to imitating the power of certain cards that are restricted in the Vintage format. With this in mind, there is a "cap" on the power creep of cards (for Legacy at least).

Take Lightning Bolt for example. Would it be possible for WotC to print a nearly identical version of it with the difference being it deals one more point of damage? Yes? Is it a direction they want or should take?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Yet Lightning Bolt has gotten worse precisely because of power creep; because it's much less often reliable removal than it once was.

[DragoFireheart]

Yet Lightning Bolt has gotten worse precisely because of power creep; because it's much less often reliable removal than it once was.

Some cards do get worse from the power creep, but Lightning Bolt hasn't seen any less play. As a creature kill spell yes, it's weaker, but as a small creature killer and a reach spell? Nearly as potent as the day Alpha was printed. Increasing its damage would balance it in one way but imbalance it in another.

Some cards also get better from the Power Creep (Survival of the Fittest), though you already said that I think.


Edit: On a side note, accusing someone of whining as a form of argument to invalidate that persons position is a poor form of arguing. Resorting to calling others "whiners" when they may very well have a legitimate point should invalidate yourself for even using such a form of argument.

[Koby]

I laughed at the picture. I'm a visual person firstly.

I'll read the rest later and elaborate on this post.

[Scordata]

I can't even tell if this thread is a troll.
Are you whining about whining?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I can't even tell if this thread is a troll.

Dear Scordata,

It's not.

Glad to be of assistance.

Regards,

- Jack M.F. Elgin

[Kich867]

Are you whining about whining?

Contrary to the belief of the internet, bringing up your point of view isn't whining. I know you think it's really witty to use that phrase, but after 12 years, people need to stop it. I genuinely don't understand the logic of someone who uses that little catch phrase, is it just that you truly don't believe a group of people can discuss something so much so that virtually all forms of communication between one person disagreeing with another boils down to whining?

The post itself has to do with people dismissing other people's points of view through the use of the term whining. Is it at all possible for you to see how that and whining itself differ?

[Fsk]

This is true even when the argument is for something that anyone familiar with the power balance of the format should view as a truly terrible idea, like banning Force of Will.


The sad thing about this is that banning Force of Will is not such a terrible idea when you actually try to think about it.

But whenever you try to have any debate about it there is always a guy who think he looks cool and brillant by saying something in the line of "Omg ban force of will, you should ban yourself noob you know nothing about legacy fow save legacy from roflmao combo". And then a few people who are even more stupid come and applaud the retard argument...

I may be wrong on that subject but then i would like to know why. Yet people just refuse the debate on the basics of supposed common sense :/

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Because banning Force of Will would enable a lot of fast combo decks to take over, and that would make the format uninteresting and unfun.

I mean I know you just said that but that's the actual reality. If Force didn't exist Belcher would probably be a Tier 1 deck.


You annoy me for years. Welcome to my ignore list.

I mean I've never paid attention to you before, so I'm really not sure what the point of telling me you're ignoring me is except as a desperate and unintentionally ironic cry for attention.

[Fsk]

Because banning Force of Will would enable a lot of fast combo decks to take over, and that would make the format uninteresting and unfun.

I mean I know you just said that but that's the actual reality. If Force didn't exist Belcher would probably be a Tier 1 deck.


I can understand that but i'm not sure that would be the reality.

A lot of the best combos deck in the format actually play Force and that is one of the reason they are strong. Fow can act as a way to protect their combo against hate or as a way to slow opponent down in order to find its combo piece. Talking about blue combo decks like hive mind, reanimator, painter, show and tell. But those deck are rather "slow" and i get they are not the main problem.

So fast combo decks :

- Dredge doesnt care about force, lets move on.
- Storm is certainly the most problematic. But there is really a lot of hate you can use against it, especially now the MM is in the format. Force is good because it slows it down. But most of the time MM can actually do the same job, for every color. Then you can throw a lot of hate to beat it. Discard, hatebears, leyline, counters, chalice, ... you choice.
- Belcher, SI and other all in decks : those really aren't so good. They are inconsistant and very succeptible to disruption. If you can live past turn 1, any piece of disruption will do the job. Again, i think MM can help any deck to prevent the turn 1 win.

MM helps any color to deal with pesky turn 1 wins to the point Force is not really needed anymore. I mean a hand with MM, mana tithe and gaddock teeg would beat any combo deck.

With Force being such a versatile answer people dont think too much about it but really there is a lot of tools to keep combo in check. If fast combo really end up being too powerful i think the problem would rather be the presence of LED than the lack of Force. All the really broken combo enablers are banned in legacy.

[menace13]

- Belcher, SI and other all in decks : those really aren't so good. They are inconsistant and very succeptible to disruption. If you can live past turn 1, any piece of disruption will do the job. Again, i think MM can help any deck to prevent the turn 1 win.

MM helps any color to deal with pesky turn 1 wins to the point Force is not really needed anymore. I mean a hand with MM, mana tithe and gaddock teeg would beat any combo deck.

Belcher Can Just go Mox+ any color card, Petal, Manamorphose, LED, and any Spirit Guide to kill you with Belcher, or Empty Warrens. It makes a lot more lines of play than a Pierce, Daze or Misstep can stop.

Also, your hand does nothing to SnT and 4 mana.

[Fsk]

Yes belcher can combo turn 1 through MM but hitting tinder wall, ritual or rite of flamme will likely slow them down. While it is a bit harder they can also beat a Force of will hand with Empty Warrens. That doesnt make it a tier1 deck.

Yea it was just a sample hand. Still it is great against a lot of combos. Not many things beat SnT with 3 manas and a fow. I mean there are always hands that will beat you, doesnt mean you can't win the match.

[menace13]

Yes belcher can combo turn 1 through MM but hitting tinder wall, ritual or rite of flamme will likely slow them down. While it is a bit harder they can also beat a Force of will hand with Empty Warrens. That doesnt make it a tier1 deck.

Yea it was just a sample hand. Still it is great against a lot of combos. Not many things beat SnT with 3 manas and a fow. I mean there are always hands that will beat you, doesnt mean you can't win the match.

Did not say SnT with FoW, also did not say Empty vs FoW either, But in both cases you can At least attempt to FoW the LED or SnT.

[Oibade]

What I really don't understand is people who express contempt of the "whiners". The choice itself of the term "to whine" is full of it.

Real superiority is expressed by accepting a phenomenon and ignoring it. Expressing contempt is probably meaning they unconsciously fear that "whiners" may be right.

[Fsk]

Did not say SnT with FoW, also did not say Empty vs FoW either, But in both cases you can At least attempt to FoW the LED or SnT.

Against SnT having fow banned or not isnt relevant. 3 cases:
- You have fow. More chance to stop it.
- He has fow. Harder to stop. More chance to die.
- You both have fow. Blank.

Against belcher yes fow is a great card. It is a lot better than MM. But the same way belcher can win through MM it can win through fow. MM can still help to beat it by giving something to disrupt/slow it on the draw. Belcher would be better, but tier 1 i'm not sure. If they dont combo out on the play through MM you can throw a lot of hate at it. And hate is devastating for belcher.

[menace13]

Against SnT having fow banned or not isnt relevant. 3 cases:
- You have fow. More chance to stop it.
- He has fow. Harder to stop. More chance to die.
- You both have fow. Blank.

Against belcher yes fow is a great card. It is a lot better than MM. But the same way belcher can win through MM it can win through fow. MM can still help to beat it by giving something to disrupt/slow it on the draw. Belcher would be better, but tier 1 i'm not sure. If they dont combo out on the play through MM you can throw a lot of hate at it. And hate is devastating for belcher.
In the case of SnT, not having a FoW as backup or digging for one can lead to a game loss and add to that the SnT deck has to have 4 cards to your 2 in both cases 2 and 3.

[Gheizen64]

Against SnT having fow banned or not isnt relevant. 3 cases:
- You have fow. More chance to stop it.
- He has fow. Harder to stop. More chance to die.
- You both have fow. Blank.

Against belcher yes fow is a great card. It is a lot better than MM. But the same way belcher can win through MM it can win through fow. MM can still help to beat it by giving something to disrupt/slow it on the draw. Belcher would be better, but tier 1 i'm not sure. If they dont combo out on the play through MM you can throw a lot of hate at it. And hate is devastating for belcher.

Case 1 is FoW+ blue card
Case 2 is FoW + blue card + Emrakul + SnT
Case 3 is case 1 vs case 2

You tell me which one is more common? Not to say a T1 discard is strong against Case 2 but not as much against case 1.

The real point you should do here is: not every deck run FoW, but every SnT do, so case 1 isn't as common as it appear to be.
However, FoW isn't the only answer to SnT. Discard is efficient against it, as are a lot of other cards like Oblivion ring and Metamorph. This is especially relevant when you consider that you can lay a card like Stalker with SnT and then oblivion ring or edict their Emrakul on their turn, meaning they are EXTREMELY behind. SnT is far more interactive than any storm will ever be. Worst case scenario, everyone start playing metamorph (and fatties) in their sideboards.

[Fsk]

Well SnT having his combo in hand has nothing to do with him or you having fow. Even if you dont have fow he stills need 2 cards. If we consider you have as much chance to draw your fow, in 50% of the case it give you more chances to fight and in 50% it make it harder to disrupt.

Edit :
Case 1 is FoW+ blue card
Case 2 is FoW + blue card + Emrakul + SnT
Case 3 is case 1 vs case 2

You tell me which one is more common? Not to say a T1 discard is strong against Case 2 but not as much against case 1.


Of course case 1 is more common. Case 2 is a win situation. But that has nothing to do with fow. Its like saying :
Case 1 any 3 cards
Case 2 any 3 cards + Emrakul + SnT
Which one is the more common?

What i'm saying is that if you remove the 4fow from both deck the matchup percentage will more or less remain the same.

[Fsk]

However, FoW isn't the only answer to SnT. Discard is efficient against it, as are a lot of other cards like Oblivion ring and Metamorph. This is especially relevant when you consider that you can lay a card like Stalker with SnT and then oblivion ring or edict their Emrakul on their turn, meaning they are EXTREMELY behind. SnT is far more interactive than any storm will ever be. Worst case scenario, everyone start playing metamorph (and fatties) in their sideboards.

This is actually my point. Against combo fow is great because it can disrupt fast combo on the draw. Which is a role MM can take to some extend. After that other cards can do the job.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

Well SnT having his combo in hand has nothing to do with him or you having fow. Even if you dont have fow he stills need 2 cards. If we consider you have as much chance to draw your fow, in 50% of the case it give you more chances to fight and in 50% it make it harder to disrupt.

Edit :

Of course case 1 is more common. Case 2 is a win situation. But that has nothing to do with fow. Its like saying :
Case 1 any 3 cards
Case 2 any 3 cards + Emrakul + SnT
Which one is the more common?

What i'm saying is that if you remove the 4fow from both deck the matchup percentage will more or less remain the same.

No it doesn't. What you overlook is the fact that it is much more likely to have FoW + blue card in a seven card hand (so it would be "any five cards" vs any three cards plus Emrakul + SnT to use your example) than a five card hand (which is what the S&T deck has once you factor in they need their combo-pieces in hand).
To illustrate some more: you have a roughly 40% chance to have FoW in your opening seven. Same for Show and Tell. The chance to have both Show and Tell and FoW in your opening hand is roughly 16%. See the difference?

That being said, discussion about Show and Tell is somewhat beside the point. It really isn't the problem if you take FoW out of the equation. The problem is that suddenly truly fast combo-decks like Storm and Belcher can cut almost all of their disruption because the remaining cheap countersuite can simply be played through by having additional mana-acceleration instead of actual disruption.
More importantly, pilots wouldn't slow down intentionally in-game any more to find disruption as they know exactly which spells in their chain are vulnerable and can therefore play said chain in a way that makes none of the possible interactions backbreaking.


MM helps any color to deal with pesky turn 1 wins to the point Force is not really needed anymore. I mean a hand with MM, mana tithe and gaddock teeg would beat any combo deck.

Both on the play and on the draw this hand is vulnerable to be just comboed through. Among other things it loses to Land, Petal, LED, LED, Infernal (AdN) and any variation thereof and any Belcher-hand not involving a 1-cost ritual (only eight in the deck if they have Tinder Wall), not to mention that Belcher can often combo even if one of its +1 mana effects is stopped. There is a multitude of fast mana chains that can't be efficiently disrupted through the use of anything but Force of Will, especially on the play.
That doesn't take the fact into consideration that the combo-decks will change if they don't have to deal with FoW. Fast combo suddenly can be much less concerned with opposing countermagic and has room for maindeck bounce and is therefore much more likely to get rid of the Teeg once that's necessary. Remember that current combo-decks are generally built with the idea of resilience to countermagic in mind because that's their main problem. In an environment without Force of Will, combo can discard these fair trappings and become a pure goldfish machine, probably speeding it up by about a turn (other than Belcher, that is already built for goldfishing). Essentially you end up with a metagame in which multiple turn 1-2 kill decks are viable and likely some of the strongest contenders.
In addition, with combo getting better, it will see much more play than it currently does, which means the format becomes faster and much more hostile to strategies that don't just plan to lock the opponent out.

I hope that explains why banning FoW is a really bad idea if you want a format in which something other than fast combo is a premiere strategy.

@IBA: funny how this has turned into a discussion why FoW can or cannot be banned.
As to your post, I personally always took "whine" to mean "complaining that is not supported by rational argument" along the lines of "X is too good, ban it." "X is too good because Y, Z and Q are true, and W is also the case" isn't whining in my opinion. I hope that explains why I feel complaints about whining and calling whining just that are totally defensible activities.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Agreed with Mon here. I've piloted Belcher, and in the hands of somebody who knows how to mulligan properly, the deck just doesn't lose to decks without FOW (assuming lack of broken Thoughtseize + Hymn plays when Belcher is on the draw). That deck would immediately be Tier 1 if FOW were banned, because it can simply race all the permanent-based hate. Not to mention monstrosities like Pact SI, which although they are inconsistent, are extremely frightening in a non-FOW format (the main reason I no longer play those glass cannons is there are too many blue decks in my meta, not because they are objectively bad decks).

[Intet's Attendant]

We did just get a new counterspell, Flustestorm, so with that, Mental Misstep, and Mindbreak Trap, I'm just not sure Force of Will is needed anymore to keep combo in check. Don't forget we also have access to Trinisphere and Chalice of the Void in staxx and stompy based decks.

[Fsk]

To illustrate some more: you have a roughly 40% chance to have FoW in your opening seven. Same for Show and Tell. The chance to have both Show and Tell and FoW in your opening hand is roughly 16%. See the difference?


This is an unfair comparison. You have 40% chance to open with FOW and have a shot at stoping SnT. The SnT player has the same 40% chance to have FOW himself and to use it to counter whatever disruption you want to throw at it.

Having combo in hand has nothing to do with it. Its like i'm saying :
1 SnT player has SnT + FOW
2 You have FOW + tarmo for clock + spell pierce for backup
case 1 is more likely than case 2, thus fow advantage the SnT player more than you.

But anyways, this :



That being said, discussion about Show and Tell is somewhat beside the point

[Fsk]

@belcher and fast combo:

What you are saying is not wrong. Fow is still the best answer to belcher and other turn 1 decks but i think you totally underestimate the other tools at our disposal. Yes belcher CAN win on turn 1 facing a MM but they can as well just lose to it. Actually i think having more diverse hate will make it harder for combo to fight through.

2 years ago i wouldnt have made this argument. But now you can play 12 "colorless" cards which can interact with those deck on the draw : Mental Mistep, Leyline of Sanctity and Mindbreak Trap. If you live past turn 1 a lot of cards can do the job : chalice, seize/duress/iok, spell snare/pierce, ...

Really we got the tools we need to fight all in combo. But those cards arent looked at since the most versatile card in the format (fow) can do the job for you.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This is an unfair comparison. You have 40% chance to open with FOW and have a shot at stoping SnT. The SnT player has the same 40% chance to have FOW himself and to use it to counter whatever disruption you want to throw at it.

The SnT player has less leeway to keep a hand just because it has Force in it, and is less likely to be able to hold onto a Force throughout the course of a game.


Having combo in hand has nothing to do with it. Its like i'm saying :
1 SnT player has SnT + FOW
2 You have FOW + tarmo for clock + spell pierce for backup
case 1 is more likely than case 2, thus fow advantage the SnT player more than you.

But anyways, this :

The SnT player needs a much more specific set of cards to advance his or her gameplan. Really not sure where you're getting this.

[Fsk]

There are a lot of different things to take into consideration when deciding how valuable is a FOW for a deck. Fow isnt less valuable for the SnT player than for is opponent. If he have SnT + fow he basically win on the spot. If you force the SnT you just avoid losing. Those are not equal situation. And SnT player having force without SnT in hand can also lead to a win.

I mean it isn't as simple as : SnT player need 4 cards, you only need 2 thus fow is less valuable for SnT player. Removing fow from both deck would only change matchup percentage by a very little margin.

[menace13]

Having combo in hand has nothing to do with it. Its like i'm saying :
1 SnT player has SnT + FOW
2 You have FOW + tarmo for clock + spell pierce for backup
case 1 is more likely than case 2, thus fow advantage the SnT player more than you.


The cards in case#2 can just as easily be Clique/Merfolk 1 of 20+/Mystic/KotR etc.
All Much easier to assemble than having exactly SnT 1 of 4 and Fattie 1 of 3 or 1 of 8 and FoW+Blue.

IBA is correct, it is harder for SnT to produce that hand everytime compared to the aggro-control lists.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

There are a lot of different things to take into consideration when deciding how valuable is a FOW for a deck. Fow isnt less valuable for the SnT player than for is opponent. If he have SnT + fow he basically win on the spot. If you force the SnT you just avoid losing. Those are not equal situation. And SnT player having force without SnT in hand can also lead to a win.

I mean it isn't as simple as : SnT player need 4 cards, you only need 2 thus fow is less valuable for SnT player. Removing fow from both deck would only change matchup percentage by a very little margin.

Having Force and SnT doesn't let you win on the spot. You need SnT and Force and something to SnT into play and another blue card besides. If you're dropping in Hive Mind you need Pacts. If you're not, you have a lot of answers to Emrakul to worry about, and you have to get this package all together before they kill you. SnT simply doesn't have the redundancy of pieces that an aggro-control deck does.

[Fsk]

Notice the "Its like i'm saying" before the argument. This was precisely meant to show you can easily draw falses conclusion when picking unfair comparison. Obviously SnT try to assemble more precises cards but these win the game on the spot.

On this topic, SnT just won last scg open forcing his combo through 2 fow of will game 3 :)

@IBA : it doesnt always win on the spot but chance are a resolved SnT seals the deal. I mean the deck is build to win with SnT, it doesnt have such a hard time assembling the combo.

[DragoFireheart]

Having Force and SnT doesn't let you win on the spot. You need SnT and Force and something to SnT into play and another blue card besides. If you're dropping in Hive Mind you need Pacts. If you're not, you have a lot of answers to Emrakul to worry about, and you have to get this package all together before they kill you. SnT simply doesn't have the redundancy of pieces that an aggro-control deck does.

Never mind the fact that someone can just O-ring if you drop the tentacle monster. O-Ring is also a fairly decent enough card that it see's enough play to somewhat keep Show and Tell in check.

[JCLe]

Notice the "Its like i'm saying" before the argument. This was precisely meant to show you can easily draw falses conclusion when picking unfair comparison. Obviously SnT try to assemble more precises cards but these win the game on the spot.

On this topic, SnT just won last scg open forcing his combo through 2 fow of will game 3 :)

@IBA : it doesnt always win on the spot but chance are a resolved SnT seals the deal. I mean the deck is build to win with SnT, it doesnt have such a hard time assembling the combo.

Honestly? Don't you realize that your show and tell + fow argument is irrelevant? Guess what, the Show and Tell deck runs Misdirection instead of FoW after it's banned, and benefits from the ban because people can't use mis-d against them.

[DrJones]

Honestly? Don't you realize that your show and tell + fow argument is irrelevant? Guess what, the Show and Tell deck runs Misdirection instead of FoW after it's banned, and benefits from the ban because people can't use mis-d against them.It's not irrelevant. It's just that you don't like his conclusion. Also, Force of Will is actually better in a combo deck than in a tempo deck. Much like Force of Will is better in a tempo deck than in a control deck.

Here's some proof: list of combo decks that got cards banned as soon as a version with Force of Will appeared: oath of druids, survival, reanimator, flash, tinker, trix, Earthcraft, gush-based combo, hermit druid decks, long.dec, tolarian/windfall/memory jar, prosperity bloom (in standard), mind's desire decks.

To be fair, here are the rest of combo decks that got cards banned: Food Chain Goblins, Dragon.

Now there's a small FAQ answering some common questions.

Q: Why are combo+FoW better than the control/tempo decks playing it as a defense mechanism?
A: Because they have a lot more free slots for protection and discard than these other decks; because Force of Will is much stronger against decks that rely on key spells, and combo decks make all cards except a selected few in an opponent's deck "blank". Never wondered why the combo hate cards that people play are uncounterable? That's because combo decks play discard, FoW and Daze. Because FoW and daze are free, it allows the combo decks to go off faster as they don't need to have mana open for protection.

Q: Why are there combo decks that play Force of Will that get unbanned/don't get banned?
A: Because other Force of Will decks had a better win ratio, and with this I mean other combo decks.

Q: How about the other combo decks that don't use Force of Will?
A: R&D has acknowledged in articles they allowed them in the format to be the opposite force against Force of Will decks. These decks have in common that they are blazingly fast to exploit Blue's only weakness (turn 1 on the play), or aren't spell based (Dredge). Note how much blue players mention and whine about LED. That's because those decks are actually good against them, or were before the printing of Mental Misstep.

[nayon]

Now there's a small FAQ answering some common questions.

Q: Why are combo+FoW better than the control/tempo decks playing it as a defense mechanism?
A: Because they have a lot more free slots for protection and discard than these other decks; because Force of Will is much stronger against decks that rely on key spells, and combo decks make all cards except a selected few in an opponent's deck "blank". Never wondered why the combo hate cards that people play are uncounterable? That's because combo decks play discard, FoW and Daze. Because FoW and daze are free, it allows the combo decks to go off faster as they don't need to have mana open for protection.

Q: Why are there combo decks that play Force of Will that get unbanned/don't get banned?
A: Because other Force of Will decks had a better win ratio, and with this I mean other combo decks.

Q: How about the other combo decks that don't use Force of Will?
A: R&D has acknowledged in articles they allowed them in the format to be the opposite force against Force of Will decks. These decks have in common that they are blazingly fast to exploit Blue's only weakness (turn 1 on the play), or aren't spell based (Dredge). Note how much blue players mention and whine about LED. That's because those decks are actually good against them, or were before the printing of Mental Misstep.

First of all, making your own FAQ makes you look like you're trying too hard to look smart. Writing an actual paragraph actually takes more effort, so I can understand why you would take the easy way out.

To address your first answer, it's not actually that great in combo decks because 1: deck space is at a premium, making slots for FoW actually hurts. 2: having cards that you are willing to exile to pay for a force is a luxury. 3: you have 2 cards in your hand that don't work towards your combo, i.e. dead cards. Whereas tempo decks can put some pressure on the combo deck to put it into a bad spot, where they will have to go off, and one Force can ruin their day.

To address your second answer, it's because WOTC understands that banning every single strategy that achieves some success is a bad idea; unlike you.

To address your third answer, these decks have in common that they're bad decks. Except for Dredge or Elves, most of the non-FoW combo decks are all-in strategies that are inconsistent.



Here's some proof: list of combo decks that got cards banned as soon as a version with Force of Will appeared: oath of druids, survival, reanimator, flash, tinker, trix, Earthcraft, gush-based combo, hermit druid decks, long.dec, tolarian/windfall/memory jar, prosperity bloom (in standard), mind's desire decks.

To be fair, here are the rest of combo decks that got cards banned: Food Chain Goblins, Dragon.


And here we can see that you are in fact trolling instead of making valid points. Survival had FoW all along, it got banned because of the Vengevine interaction that pushed it over the top. Oath got banned because of Forbidden Orchard pushing it over the top. Reanimator was too strong with Mystical Tutor, not FoW. Flash was ridiculously degenerate and everyone knew it, FoW has nothing to do with it. Similarly with some of the other decks you mentioned.

Please do gibe me an actual argument as to why FoW needs to be banned, instead of making half-statements that only appear to be true. If you're playing a bad glass cannon deck, you just lose to FoW, but that's your fault for playing a bad deck. If your argument is that combo decks can also play FoW to protect their plan, then that's a better argument. However, you can still lose to 2 counterspells, to discard + counterspells, double discard, and several other things. Right now the only deck that is actually non-interactive that also plays FoW is Hive Mind, but the problem there is Hive Mind, not FoW. Any other combo deck you can easily interact with.

[Gheizen64]

First of all, making your own FAQ makes you look like you're trying too hard to look smart. Writing an actual paragraph actually takes more effort, so I can understand why you would take the easy way out.

To address your first answer, it's not actually that great in combo decks because 1: deck space is at a premium, making slots for FoW actually hurts. 2: having cards that you are willing to exile to pay for a force is a luxury. 3: you have 2 cards in your hand that don't work towards your combo, i.e. dead cards. Whereas tempo decks can put some pressure on the combo deck to put it into a bad spot, where they will have to go off, and one Force can ruin their day.

To address your second answer, it's because WOTC understands that banning every single strategy that achieves some success is a bad idea; unlike you.

To address your third answer, these decks have in common that they're bad decks. Except for Dredge or Elves, most of the non-FoW combo decks are all-in strategies that are inconsistent.



And here we can see that you are in fact trolling instead of making valid points. Survival had FoW all along, it got banned because of the Vengevine interaction that pushed it over the top. Oath got banned because of Forbidden Orchard pushing it over the top. Reanimator was too strong with Mystical Tutor, not FoW. Flash was ridiculously degenerate and everyone knew it, FoW has nothing to do with it. Similarly with some of the other decks you mentioned.

Please do gibe me an actual argument as to why FoW needs to be banned, instead of making half-statements that only appear to be true. If you're playing a bad glass cannon deck, you just lose to FoW, but that's your fault for playing a bad deck. If your argument is that combo decks can also play FoW to protect their plan, then that's a better argument. However, you can still lose to 2 counterspells, to discard + counterspells, double discard, and several other things. Right now the only deck that is actually non-interactive that also plays FoW is Hive Mind, but the problem there is Hive Mind, not FoW. Any other combo deck you can easily interact with.

Don't quote Jones, he's a long time troll that talk about a format he doesn't play outside of casual Falsecure.dec and pile.dec

[Lemnear]

It's not irrelevant. It's just that you don't like his conclusion. Also, Force of Will is actually better in a combo deck than in a tempo deck. Much like Force of Will is better in a tempo deck than in a control deck.

Here's some proof: list of combo decks that got cards banned as soon as a version with Force of Will appeared: oath of druids, survival, reanimator, flash, tinker, trix, Earthcraft, gush-based combo, hermit druid decks, long.dec, tolarian/windfall/memory jar, prosperity bloom (in standard), mind's desire Decks

This post is dumb as hell and you have no idea what your talking about.

Oath of druids was banned Long before forbidden orchard because it punishes running creatures at a time there Mill and creatures where the Top 2 kill-options in magic. Reanimator wasn't banned but mystical of providing insane consistancy for combo. Flash was banned because of being total degenerate; Tinker of being Broken; gush for creating mana while drawing cards; None of those is linked to FoW! Earthcraft for it's Combo with squirrel nest Not for the Blue-splash 4 opposition.

And the cherry-topping of your trolling and retardness is mentioning Long.dec (aka Burning Desire). This deck NEVER ran FoW!! You could have named AnT or Elves as well as this one. You are either really bad in research or don't bother doing because any research would blow your hilarious thesis

[DrJones]

This post is dumb as hell and you have no idea what your talking about.

Oath of druids was banned Long before forbidden orchard because it punishes running creatures at a time there Mill and creatures where the Top 2 kill-options in magic. Reanimator wasn't banned but mystical of providing insane consistancy for combo. Flash was banned because of being total degenerate; Tinker of being Broken; gush for creating mana while drawing cards; None of those is linked to FoW! Earthcraft for it's Combo with squirrel nest Not for the Blue-splash 4 opposition.

And the cherry-topping of your trolling and retardness is mentioning Long.dec (aka Burning Desire). This deck NEVER ran FoW!! You could have named AnT or Elves as well as this one. You are either really bad in research or don't bother doing because any research would blow your hilarious thesisI put long.dec in there just to test if someone actually read what I wrote, heh. Props for that.

About the rest, I disagree that every banning was due to different causes and I believe the reason is that they all played the same strategy with slightly different kill conditions.

[Sims]

Seriously? And people wonder why this site isn't always taken seriously and has periods where it's users are percieved as just crybabies who are upset their pet deck doesn't win and cry for bannings after every major event. There are some worthwhile ideas in this thread but, as with the rest of the site, the Signal:Noise is unbearable.

No wonder most of the competitive players who do come here tend to only post in mishmash.

[nayon]

I put long.dec in there just to test if someone actually read what I wrote, heh. Props for that.

About the rest, I disagree that every banning was due to different causes and I believe the reason is that they all played the same strategy with slightly different kill conditions.

The classic "I was testing you". Really? Either that, or "I make bad points knowingly because I'm a troll".

Anyway, you can argue that all decks are the same strategy with different kill conditions, the strategy being: "Win the game". More non-arguments from you.

[Forbiddian]

I put long.dec in there just to test if someone actually read what I wrote, heh. Props for that.

About the rest, I disagree that every banning was due to different causes and I believe the reason is that they all played the same strategy with slightly different kill conditions.


LOL!!!!! Let me get on the bandwagon really quick: You're dumb and a liar.

Anyway, to address your bad theory: Force of Will is worse in combo. Combo requires several cards in hand to go off (to generate the mana required and then to win), whereas a control deck or aggro deck can win with a single card easily. "Trading down" greatly favors the control player, especially in situations where combo parts must be tutored-for.

You think that Force of Will is still good in combo because Wizards banhammers combo with Force of Will. The problem with your sample is that Wizards only ever banhammers Combo.

Banned cards that are banned and (almost) exclusively good in Control:
Balance
Land Tax
Library of Alexandria
Mana Drain
Mishra's Workshop*

Cards that are banned and (almost) exclusively good in Combo:
Bazaar of Baghdad
Channel
Earthcraft
Fastbond*
Flash
Frantic Search
Goblin Recruiter
Hermit Druid
Imperial Seal
Memory Jar
Mind's Desire
Mystical Tutor
Oath of Druids
Skullclamp
Survival of the Fittest
Time Vault*
Tinker
Tolarian Academy*
Windfall
Worldgorger Dragon
Yawgmoth's Bargain

*: Would see play in the other archetype. Time Vault, for instance, would be played with Tezzeret.


Even when 70% of the format was playing Countertop control, Wizards is cool, and says "the metagame will adjust."

If even 20% of the format has Tendrils of Agony in their 75, Wizards shits bricks.

[DrJones]

That a non-argument, but that's not my argument. It's only you making up nonsense to attack that nonsense.

My argument is obvious.
1. All of these decks pack Force of Will. If you don't understand what's doing Force of Will in all those decks, then stop reading because there's no sense in discussing this with you.
2. Most of these decks had previous versions that didn't play Force of Will, but if you ever bothered reading Pro Player articles, they always regard the version with Force of Will as the "superior" version, and in fact, bannings always come shortly after a version with Force of Will starts winning tourneys, even if the nonblue version has been available for months. Do you understand why?
3. When the DCI bans a card, the most common reasons are "it wins too fast" and "excessive resilience". Note that there are several decks in legacy that wins very fast, but they don't have "excessive resilience". Can you spot what effects the banned decks had in common that the others didn't have?

[nayon]

That a non-argument, but that's not my argument. It's only you making up nonsense to attack that nonsense.

My argument is obvious.
1. All of these decks pack Force of Will. If you don't understand what's doing Force of Will in all those decks, then stop reading because there's no sense in discussing this with you.
2. Most of these decks had previous versions that didn't play Force of Will, but if you ever bothered reading Pro Player articles, they always regard the version with Force of Will as the "superior" version, and in fact, bannings always come shortly after a version with Force of Will starts winning tourneys, even if the nonblue version has been available for months. Do you understand why?
3. When the DCI bans a card, the most common reasons are "it wins too fast" and "excessive resilience". Note that there are several decks in legacy that wins very fast, but they don't have "excessive resilience". Can you spot what effects the banned decks had in common that the others didn't have?

1. So do other decks. As it has been pointed out in other threads, running FoW in combo decks is actually harder than running it in regular decks. Do you understand that?
2. Yes, playing counterspells makes you not auto-lose. That is generally a good thing.
3. Force of Will is not "excessive resilience". It is one spell. You two-for-one yourself. If you have it in your hand. Many of the other cards are way better than FoW.

[Fsk]

Honestly? Don't you realize that your show and tell + fow argument is irrelevant? Guess what, the Show and Tell deck runs Misdirection instead of FoW after it's banned, and benefits from the ban because people can't use mis-d against them.

Hm because you dont agree/understand i'm dishonest now ? Interesting way of thinking.
Misdirection is a lot worse than Force of Will, there is no way combo player would just make the switch. If it was any good they would just play both already.

But whatever, you got me. As sgc denver open just showed us yesterday, FOW is a bad card in combo. They can only use it to force a SnT when they have the perfect 7 cards combo hand. And it is amazing in aggro since they only need 3 cards to win : 1 fow, 1 blue card and 1 Flying Men.

[SpikeyMikey]

Any FoW discussion will bring Jones out from woodwork to spout half truths about how FoW is really a combo card. Unfortunately, common sense is merely common, not universal.

For the record, the best version of Vengevival was not the UG Caleb special, it was the GW Venge/Iona/beatdown version.

Mind's Desire was restricted in T1 (and thus banned in 1.5) before it was even legal. So there were no listings with Force of Will because there were no listings.

Honestly, I think Jones is just a very dedicated troll and FSK is either a buddy of his or a second account. No reasonable person thinks FoW could safely be banned.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Like, while we ultimately all accepted it as necessary, pretty much everyone in NoVA was quite reluctant to put Force of Will in Solidarity when NY people suggested it. It wasn't clear that the protection of the combo helped as much as sacrificing the card slots and then having to pitch a card tripped you up, and that deck was mono-blue. What made Hulk-Flash busted was the fact that it could easily jam in all of these disruption spells while still having a quick kill and plenty of searching, but most combo decks are not so compact. Force of Will being banned wouldn't hurt combo because few other cards have the flexibility to show up turn 1-2 to stop a Belcher or lethal Tendrils or SnT, and all these decks would abandon resilience for speed in the absence of Force.

[lorddotm]

Ban Mental Misstep.

[menace13]

Any FoW discussion will bring Jones out from woodwork to spout half truths about how FoW is really a combo card. Unfortunately, common sense is merely common, not universal.

For the record, the best version of Vengevival was not the UG Caleb special, it was the GW Venge/Iona/beatdown version.

Mind's Desire was restricted in T1 (and thus banned in 1.5) before it was even legal. So there were no listings with Force of Will because there were no listings.

Honestly, I think Jones is just a very dedicated troll and FSK is either a buddy of his or a second account. No reasonable person thinks FoW could safely be banned.

I thought the same exact thing. One day I too will make multiple accounts to troll people in response to my own posts.

[dontbiteitholmes]

My argument is obvious.
1. Force of Will has beat every terrible deck I have played multiple times over.
2. I do not like playing Force of Will, at the same time I refuse to play cards and strategies that account for Force of Will being a presence and continue to play decks that are extremely vulnerable to counterspells (see my post history to clear up any confusion).
3. I will continue to complain about FoW until it is banned. Since this will never happen I will instead convince myself that the card is broken. This makes it easy to blame losing to FoW as being beaten by a broken card instead of coming to terms with the fact that I am making decisions that are causing me to lose those matches.


Fixed that for you.

Seriously. If you don't like Force of Will, go play Modern... Force of Will defines Legacy, everyone agrees with this except you.

[Nihil Credo]

http://i.imgur.com/zbbBM.gif