WotC future vision of Aggro vs. Control

[Lemnear]

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/ld/developing-annihilation-2014-08-15

The article above flew under my radar and I expect that I was not the only one missing a few important parts about WotC future Vision of the Aggro vs. Control matchup and future printings. In short, they dislike the race of Aggro decks against the usual turn 4 Wrath of God/Supreme Verdict/etc. and therefore move unconditional Wraths to 5 mana or higher to force Control into running creatures to block attacks. Moving the cost of removal up and the cost of creatures down as a long-term trend will not only affect Standard but also Modern and Legacy with Terminus destined to stay the prime mass removal for years.

Will this trend threaten the existance of creature-light/less control strategies?

[Dice_Box]

It is an interesting read, giving a good look at the mindset of balance given toward that format that Wizards cares for the most. But I do not play that format, so I do not really know what kind of impact it will have there. On Legacy I feel like this will have very little direct impact at first, but later will bring in some interesting things. Decks that can get to 4 mana will run their traditional sweepers, (as will decks that can get to {w}) but the idea of new "Conditional" cards at a lower cost may find there way down the food chain to us. So I think this is good overall.

As for spot removal, if anyone thought anything like Swords was going to see print again you where delusional. We already have great removal in this format, I do not think this will effect a dam thing.

In short, I think that this offers some promise of newer cards that may do limited but useful things while stating that they are going to leave the older formats with the toys we already have. Since that means nothing really changes, I do not think there is a problem here.

[Zombie]

It is an interesting read, giving a good look at the mindset of balance given toward that format that Wizards cares for the most. But I do not play that format, so I do not really know what kind of impact it will have there. On Legacy I feel like this will have very little direct impact at first, but later will bring in some interesting things. Decks that can get to 4 mana will run there traditional sweepers, (as will decks that can get to {w}) but the idea of new "Conditional" cards at a lower cost may find there way down the food chain to us. So I think this is good overall.

As for spot removal, if anyone thought anything like Swords was going to see print again you where delusional. We already have great removal in this format, I do not think this will effect a dam thing.

In short, I think that this offers some promise of newer cards that may do limited but useful things while stating that they are going to leave the older formats with the toys we already have. Since that means nothing really changes, I do not think there is a problem here.

It has found us already: Golgari Charm/Zealous Persecution, Toxic Deluge, Marsh Casualties, Pyroclasm.
Back in the day, people also ran Firespout in UGr Goyf-Countertop if memory serves.

All markedly more interesting cards than Dumbminus IMO. I like the move on WotCs part insofar that they're moving towards less absolute interactions. The downside can already be seen in Standard, though - matchups that revolve around stuff that just can't be dealt with outside of a couple specific pieces of removal and consequently just take over games.

It's also really worrying how lightly they're treating self-blinking as a means of durability. That stuff is cancer, as AEtherling should've already shown.

[Lemnear]

It is an interesting read, giving a good look at the mindset of balance given toward that format that Wizards cares for the most. But I do not play that format, so I do not really know what kind of impact it will have there. On Legacy I feel like this will have very little direct impact at first, but later will bring in some interesting things. Decks that can get to 4 mana will run their traditional sweepers, (as will decks that can get to {w}) but the idea of new "Conditional" cards at a lower cost may find there way down the food chain to us. So I think this is good overall.

As for spot removal, if anyone thought anything like Swords was going to see print again you where delusional. We already have great removal in this format, I do not think this will effect a dam thing.

In short, I think that this offers some promise of newer cards that may do limited but useful things while stating that they are going to leave the older formats with the toys we already have. Since that means nothing really changes, I do not think there is a problem here.

Thanks for pointing out your thoughts. Maybe Toxic Deluge is the first in line of new, cheaper conditional mass removal spells to succeed Wrath of God (even if not for standard).

I just brought up the article as I thought people might skipped it because it was burried between all the Articles-turned-advertisement of WotC and for me it raised questions about the already disgusting powerlevel of creatures compared to spells and creature-free/light archetypes as someone who still can't get used to the picture of a game of MTG being a battle between Zoo Directors rather than Wizards :/

[Sylphnir]

That wording wouldn't necessarily contradict printing stuff like Terminus would it?
Technically Terminus IS a unconditional 4+ board wipe while also being a conditional sub4 board wipe at the same time.
The condition just happens to be very easy to meet in eternal.

[mishima_kazuya]

I like this shift in paradigm.
I'm sure lowering the power of creatures won't impact Eternal formats too much, but anything to prevent dumb stuff like Geist of Saint Traft or big unkillable, when you cast or enter the battlefield triggers, like Emrakul is a good thing.

[Dice_Box]

You can view it like that, but I would like to point out that TNN never had to go though standard and was not restricted by these rules.

[AggroControl]

Isn't Terminus already effectively the cheapest creature sweeper since Balance? In theory, on turn 2 you can remove as many Elves as your opponent managed to cheat on the table turn 1/2. It's unlikely you get that result, since it requires a blind draw of a 4-of on your 8th or 9th card but it is theoretically possible. Only Engineered Explosives as a token sweep is as fast as that in the current format.

[iamajellydonut]

In theory, on turn 2

Simian Spirit Guide -> Simian Spirit Guide -> Manamorphose

next fucking level.

[Lemnear]

Isn't Terminus already effectively the cheapest creature sweeper since Balance? In theory, on turn 2 you can remove as many Elves as your opponent managed to cheat on the table turn 1/2. It's unlikely you get that result, since it requires a blind draw of a 4-of on your 8th or 9th card but it is theoretically possible. Only Engineered Explosives as a token sweep is as fast as that in the current format.

Well, there is still SDT/Ponder/Brainstorm xP

[MGB]

I think this is good for the game in general. 4 mana Wraths make control just too easy to play for a skilled player and the archetype becomes a very predictable build. Obviously this won't impact Legacy nearly as much as Standard, but it should make decks more interesting at the very least in Type 2.

It might also lead to an increase in more playable control creatures in Legacy if Wizards prints stronger versions of these to give control decks tools to fight aggro in the light of the diminished power of Wrath effects. Think more creatures in the mold of Kitchen Finks or Trinket Mage.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I thik that in early days they made a mistake of making most of the creatures pretty expensive for what they do. Cmc3 2/2 vanilla, oh my... Even the better creatures were always subpar compared to sweepers (and spells in general, ok, maybe not Juzám vs. Iceberg, but w/e), and creatures needed the boost. But the last batch of op stuff is beyond stupid, imao, and even the more reasonable stuff makes the whole lot of early creatures outdated and condemned to junk cards box, see Erhnam Djinn, Maro, Wildfire Emissary... :frown:
I mean, I'm all for the cmc5 unconditional Wraths, even though I'd miss the nameske card - if only I'd play Standard - but then again where's the balance when/if the power level of creatures is already high?

A game where 4/4 flying Angel costs one mana less then board sweeper is... well, idk if "unbalanced", but it's a bit strange. But Idk if a 2/1 dudes with a relevant ability for one mana should be flushed away by turn5 board wipe.

[TsumiBand]

I'm glad they can admit in so many words that the dynamic between aggro and control did a little bit of rabbit holing. I remember starting the game a decade ago thinking that it was such bullshit that this White Sorcery could give me so much trouble and make everything I was doing invalid - this was during my "what do you mean Anurid Swarmsnapper isn't any good, I love Green-White" phase that every new player invariably went through in those days, but even as I pivoted to more efficient decks like UG Madness and Goblins and that, I still recognized the power of the :2::w::w: showstopper.

I don't think this explicitly harms the possibility of spell-heavy decks; they all but admitted that it's a stupid metagame when the better 'point removal' spell for Geist of Saint Traft is Snapcaster Mage. And they've modified their stance on what good removal is; it can be bad in certain matchups, which doesn't make it "bad removal" necessarily - Swords to Plowshares really is fucking unfair as hell and colors a lot of the expectations of Eternal players as to what decent removal ought to be. The 'indestructible/hexproof/tuck spell/etc" arms race shows what happens when the answer is strict escalation of power levels. While the author does say that they disapprove of the card-drawing, board-wiping decks that afford little-to-no battlefield interaction, he also points out that there should be more risk associated with that line of play. As if developing board position were important or something.

On the Khans thread someone pointed out that Scars of Mirrodin saw a height in Standard power, and this article references that fact by saying that dudes like Phyrexian Obliterator exist *because* removal was insanely good at the time. In a Standard where some of the game's most potent 1-mana removal spells are viable (Lightning Bolt and Path to Exile), what else can one do but print creatures that challenge those spells? Hence all those stupid-ass Titans. It follows that threats would escalate in the face of such potent removal, especially in a limited card pool such as Standard. It kind of makes me wish that they'd never killed Extended; I mean Old 1.x Extended, the seven-year variant. I wonder just how many durdles would have come out of recent blocks if they'd had to go, "Do we really want to deal with this spell for seven years?"

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I love Green-White" phase that every good player invariably went through...
ftfy :tongue:

Yeah, the targeted removal vs. creatures vs. board sweepers dynamic is pretty interesting aspect of a game, one that's easilyseen through the eyes of an Eternal-only dude. So maybe its not that bad to have cmc1 unconditional removal that gets rid of Titan, and simultaneously it's good to have cmc3 removal that temporarrily gets rid of the cmc3 2/2 vanilla, something something formats, drafts, etc.

I think I should play some Standard from tiem to tiem, and then of course drafts/sealed (rather sealed), to stay in touch with what's happening in this game. Also, it might be pretty thrilling. Shame the new frame, I still cannot get used to it even years after the change, and when playing limited, it bugs me to no end. The old frame... wasn't it some scroll from which you summoned your Stampeding Wildebeests and Anurid Swarmsnappers?

One must wonder how'd some of the bette oldschool decks (say Keeper) with access to Solomox, 4 Wraths and 4+4 best one-mana removal woul fare against modern decks with pretty underpriced threats and efficient curve.

Also: seconding the "how'd this in Extended" part.

[TsumiBand]

ftfy :tongue:

Oh don't get me wrong I'll play some barnyard beatdown, I just... when I first started I did it weird, I was a pack-opening fool that danced like a moron when he opened a Fledgling Dragon. It was like a small payout on a lotto ticket, and I went with that feeling for way too long, and of course in the early days one assumes that quantity > quality and you can't build a deck without 60 cards, so may as well buy as many packs as you caaaaaaaan

But yeah, I don't mean like a legit GW Beats deck, I'm talking about that "...nice 3/3 for :5::g:, new kid" stuff. In those days though, even "good GW" was pretty shameful next to Tog and Trenches and stuff. Creatures still died to FTK and you can only remove Anurid Brushhopper from the game so many times before you're straight out of cards (and it's never double-Roar of the Wurm like you thought it'd be for sure... ugh, those days were the worst)

[Dice_Box]

Hay, hay, my first box gave me a Thorn Elemental and I play the shit out of that card.


good player Oh, I see where I went wrong, never mind. Moving on now.

[HammerAndSickled]

I mean, we live in a world where some of the things aggro/creature decks are doing are pretty unfair in the grand scheme of things. In Modern/Legacy we have hatebears aplenty but even in this notoriously-underpowered standard there are above-the-curve beaters with relevant upsides and swarm decks doing stupid shit with Burning-Trees and nykthos. The sweepers exist as a check, they're not abstractly powerful themselves, they're context-dependent. Someone mentioned how Terminus was unfair, and said basically "it can kill however many elves your opponent managed to cheat out as early as turn 2!" The key word there is "cheated." If the creature decks didn't do ridiculous shit we wouldn't need sweepers as badly, most decks would run some assortment of spot removal and their own creatures.

In contrast, I don't agree with the reasoning behind "Phyrexian Obliterator is disgustingly pushed because Path existed" (disregarding that they didn't exist in the same format) because removal is always more limited than a creature. A creature always does something, whereas removal can be dead in some matchups or blanked through the game rules like Protection, Shroud, Indestructible. Removal needs to be stronger than creatures by definition, or else the superior strategy becomes "just play more and bigger guys than them, don't worry about removal." They should print anti-removal efforts (Rootborn Defenses/Wrap in Vigor/Rangers Guile) and fair-but-resilient creatures (Shroud, persist, Protection from a color, NOT Hexproof, Undying, Protection from All colors.) so that the arms race doesn't get too excessive. It's fine for answers to be better than threats: they always are and it'll always be fine, because you don't need a reason to play threats!

[Zombie]

I mean, we live in a world where some of the things aggro/creature decks are doing are pretty unfair in the grand scheme of things. In Modern/Legacy we have hatebears aplenty but even in this notoriously-underpowered standard there are above-the-curve beaters with relevant upsides and swarm decks doing stupid shit with Burning-Trees and nykthos. The sweepers exist as a check, they're not abstractly powerful themselves, they're context-dependent. Someone mentioned how Terminus was unfair, and said basically "it can kill however many elves your opponent managed to cheat out as early as turn 2!" The key word there is "cheated." If the creature decks didn't do ridiculous shit we wouldn't need sweepers as badly, most decks would run some assortment of spot removal and their own creatures.

The difference is that you can deal with that Elf horde with Pyroclasm, a card that's far less absolute at fucking over everything creature-related.

[rufus]

...It's fine for answers to be better than threats: they always are and it'll always be fine, because you don't need a reason to play threats!

Things need to be balanced. Answers that are too good - for example Mental Misstep - are problems too.

For that matter I'm not sure what it would mean for an answer to be better than a threat - they're apples and oranges.

[AggroControl]

I think this is good for the game in general. 4 mana Wraths make control just too easy to play for a skilled player and the archetype becomes a very predictable build. Obviously this won't impact Legacy nearly as much as Standard, but it should make decks more interesting at the very least in Type 2.

It might also lead to an increase in more playable control creatures in Legacy if Wizards prints stronger versions of these to give control decks tools to fight aggro in the light of the diminished power of Wrath effects. Think more creatures in the mold of Kitchen Finks or Trinket Mage.

How many lists actually play Wrath of God or Damnation at this point? I thought Terminus was added with the clear understanding that :wu: control had become too slow for the eternal metas? Not that WotC will ever admit that they watch the eternal formats, but they do. In 2011 Landstill was 2% of the meta. In 2012 UWx Miracles was 7%.

[AggroControl]

Someone mentioned how Terminus was unfair, and said basically "it can kill however many elves your opponent managed to cheat out as early as turn 2!" The key word there is "cheated." If the creature decks didn't do ridiculous shit we wouldn't need sweepers as badly, most decks would run some assortment of spot removal and their own creatures.

I said nothing about the fairness of the card, just pointed out that a sweeper for all creatures was now available as early as turn 2, which had never been the case in Legacy before Terminus was printed. I actually like the card. It opens up several other viable archetypes in Legacy besides :wu: control, although people haven't explored much past that point yet in the 2+ years Terminus has been available.

[HammerAndSickled]

Except if people start playing Pyroclasm/similar effects then Zoo or some other deck full of x/3s preys on that, so people start running Firespout/Anger, so people start running Goyf/Knight decks... Eventually you get back to just needing a sweeper that hits everything. It also helps that your sweeper has splash damage against combo like Reanimator, Sneak/Show, etc. it's good for the game to have universal answers available.

The issue with Misstep was not that it was "too powerful an answer," that's a willful misrepresentation of history. It's not like we can't play Legacy if our 1-mana spells get countered or else Chalice of the Void would be banned. The problem with MM was the sheer ubiquity of everyone adopting it, and the fact that it is the best answer to itself makes problematic inbreeding possible.

[Zombie]

Except if people start playing Pyroclasm/similar effects then Zoo or some other deck full of x/3s preys on that, so people start running Firespout/Anger, so people start running Goyf/Knight decks... Eventually you get back to just needing a sweeper that hits everything.

And then because that sweeper is slow, people can run Elves/Zoo again in an attempt to go under the Verdict/Damnation. Which is exactly the fucking point. So you can't just run Terminus and say fuck you to absolutely fucking everything. I mean, fuck, you can't even get value from graveyard interactions against that thing.

[AggroControl]

And then because that sweeper is slow, people can run Elves/Zoo again in an attempt to go under the Verdict/Damnation. Which is exactly the fucking point. So you can't just run Terminus and say fuck you to absolutely fucking everything. I mean, fuck, you can't even get value from graveyard interactions against that thing.

There are good answers to Terminus. The best one is just not to put too many creatures on the board at once. Meddling Mage and Vendilion Clique both mess with it. Then there are all the ways to shut down Sensei's Divining Top, which is the best way to use it effectively. Stifle makes it virtually unplayable the turn it is drawn.

Not to beat a dead horse here but without Brainstorm Terminus would be a more than fair card. If you shut down their top they'd have a very hard time finding a timely sweep. That's Magic at it's best, a well-played strategy with a little luck can shut down the things the opponents need to do to win the game.

[BBG|Scott-Spain]

I don't see much harm in what was said. The bigger issue is the ever-increasing effectiveness of creatures. Hopefully, the better they become, the more vulnerable they become to spot removal.

[danyul]

There are good answers to Terminus. The best one is just not to put too many creatures on the board at once. Meddling Mage and Vendilion Clique both mess with it. Then there are all the ways to shut down Sensei's Divining Top, which is the best way to use it effectively. Stifle makes it virtually unplayable the turn it is drawn.

Not to beat a dead horse here but without Brainstorm Terminus would be a more than fair card. If you shut down their top they'd have a very hard time finding a timely sweep. That's Magic at it's best, a well-played strategy with a little luck can shut down the things the opponents need to do to win the game.

All of those answers are Blue (yawwwnnnn). Aside from P.Needle which isn't directly answering the Terminus. I don't mind people who play Terminus. They usually know what they are doing is dirty and OP. But to defend it? Eww. (Clearly I'm slightly biased)

Also Brainstorm, being relatively OP, makes other cards better. We already know this. But that doesn't necessarily excuse the card that Brainstorm is enabling. And hoping you win because your opponent doesn't top deck his 4-of that will completely shut you down is definitely not Magic at its best. That's just random luck. I'd rather play the credit card game. At least then I have the chance of getting what Terminus players always get - a free lunch.

[Barook]

I said nothing about the fairness of the card, just pointed out that a sweeper for all creatures was now available as early as turn 2, which had never been the case in Legacy before Terminus was printed. I actually like the card. It opens up several other viable archetypes in Legacy besides :wu: control, although people haven't explored much past that point yet in the 2+ years Terminus has been available.
What exact archetypes does it enable aside from UW control? You need white for Terminus and blue to have consistent ways to set up Terminus (no, SDT alone is not enough to make it a good deck).

If anything, it suppresses archetypes since Super-Wrath-of-Gods for :w: are absolute horsehit. It's basically the same problem the article described for Standard, except on steroids. It just adds to the various other problems why Aggro in general is unviable in Legacy.


There are good answers to Terminus. The best one is just not to put too many creatures on the board at once. Meddling Mage and Vendilion Clique both mess with it. Then there are all the ways to shut down Sensei's Divining Top, which is the best way to use it effectively. Stifle makes it virtually unplayable the turn it is drawn.

Not to beat a dead horse here but without Brainstorm Terminus would be a more than fair card. If you shut down their top they'd have a very hard time finding a timely sweep. That's Magic at it's best, a well-played strategy with a little luck can shut down the things the opponents need to do to win the game.
Or you can just flat out counter it. The thing is that all those answers all require blue. And no, Revoker and Needle aren't exactly answers to it when they can still naturally draw it or set it up with Brainstorm.

Gaddock Teeg and Nevermore are non-blue answers to Terminus. And those are either pretty vulnerable or pretty narrow.

It's also interesting how there's absolutely no mentioning of combo in said article.

[TsumiBand]

Indeed, combo and Terminus managed to be absent from the discussion. I figured Terminus was a no-brainer given the context.

There are other ways of addressing Terminus, even if it is a little bit cheeky and limited. Teeg was mentioned; you can also pull the blink trick. Legion's Initiative is... questionably playable. Planar Guide would be hilarious against Miracles in general (counters Terminus, undoes their dumb Angel tokens) but at :3::w: to activate, probably just a pipe dream. Ghostway is Farva at best, but maybe in conjunction with cromulent ETB things it can do work. I dunno.

Really one of the defining mechanics here is alternate costs being paid. If only there were some card that kept people from casting spells that cost less than a certain amount, hmm.

[AggroControl]

What exact archetypes does it enable aside from UW control? You need white for Terminus and blue to have consistent ways to set up Terminus (no, SDT alone is not enough to make it a good deck).

Terminus would be great in Wx Prison/Stax builds that don't use creatures. Right now D&T is filling that niche in the meta but I've been expecting to see a good White control build emerge for awhile now. Green splash for Sylvan Library and any of Mirri's Guile, Crop Rotation or Burgeoning. No problem playing a Terminus off of that type of build.

If you started with Sensei's Divining Top and Sylvan Library and then customized from there you are probably on solid ground. Mirri's Guile is a double-edged sword because it provides great value before your draw phase but it does not provide card advantage. Burgeoning can provide hyper acceleration, effectively letting you dump your opening lands on your opponent's turn 1 but then it slows down a lot so it's really the equivalent of a 1cc permanent sorcery in a land heavy build. It can let you sandbag land drops to put the opponent off guard. He thinks you are tapped out but you have two lands in hand you have been holding and when he drops a fetch and fetches you will suddenly have two mana out of nowhere. Terminus makes all of that possible because you can use it as your early protection against creature aggro. Not even a Delver list will counter a Terminus once they realize you are on a Prison/Stax path because they'll be desperately holding onto their counters to prevent a locking piece from landing.

[LOLWut]

What exact archetypes does it enable aside from UW control? You need white for Terminus and blue to have consistent ways to set up Terminus (no, SDT alone is not enough to make it a good deck).

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/tp/298.jpg http://magiccards.info/scans/en/lg/195.jpg

http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=12868&iddeck=94356

[Not a statement on the + or - of Terminus. Just an interesting deck.]

[Ellomdian]

The article above flew under my radar and I expect that I was not the only one...

Yeah, I found the link in a response to Chas Andres' weekly on SCG, and I had much the same reaction. It's too bad that the overall quality of editorial content on the Mothership has crashed for the last year - it means stuff like this gets overlooked.

I think it's going to be interesting to see how this changes the face of Standard - the time frame the reference with no CMC 4 wrath was the one with 5-color Cruel Control, and the environment was as much defined by Cryptic command as other examples were their respective Wraths. Creating more conditional removal does not enhance your deck building options - it makes you much more draw-dependent (IMO.)

[sjmcc13]

To me, this is wizards deciding to slowly kill creature light decks, because they have decided to re-define "meaningful" interaction to just combat.

There is nothing wrong with creature centric control decks, and there is nothing wrong with creature light control decks (unless you are WotC), for the game to be truly healthy there we basically need to aggro control and combo all be viable, with low to heavy creature strategies viable for each of the archetypes (not the full range in each archtype, but a decent part of the spectrum, and the whole spectrum over all archtypes). They seem to be trying to slowly kill off low creature decks from the game.

If a creature deck can kill on turn 4 (and yes there are Std decks that can goldfish a T4 kill) then mass removal on turn 5 is to slow.
They need to focus on interaction other than creature beatdown.

Control decks have always had a tendency to be on the losing end of the life race and need powerful effects to give them a chance to stabalize the board enough to recover. this last year orf standard UW control would not have existed without Verdice as a sweeper AND S. Revilation to recover their life totals.

the problem is that as cards enter legacy from Std. those cards will increasingly be creatures since those are the only good cards they make now a days, which can slowly kill creature light stratagie sin Legacy as well.


All of those answers are Blue (yawwwnnnn). Aside from P.Needle which isn't directly answering the Terminus. I don't mind people who play Terminus. They usually know what they are doing is dirty and OP. But to defend it? Eww. (Clearly I'm slightly biased)

They are also not the best answers to Terminus.
the best answers to the existance of Terminus is the same as the best answer to WoG. Do Not Overcommit. Peopel were winngin against control decks with aggro ones for years because they knew how to do things like not overcommit and bait a wrath effect whiole holding back enough to drop enough threats to recover in a turn or 2.

If a fast Terminus ruins you game, then you probably are playing a fast rush deck where that type of answer is needed to combat you.

Also they just made a non-blue answer in Conspiracy, the goblin that if you vial in afterwards is basically 2 mana get a dork back (I half want to try him and Mana echos in a goblin deck for a laugh). Plus there is Gaddock Teeg who shuts down almost every threat in Miracles if you can land him, including Terminus.

[Barook]

Creating more conditional removal does not enhance your deck building options - it makes you much more draw-dependent (IMO.)
Actually, I think it does reward proper deckbuilding.

What it doesn't do is making Standard a less shitty format. Who cares about Wrath anyway when you can just play 12+ Planeswalkers in a deck and call it a day?

Edit:

There is nothing wrong with creature centric control decks, and there is nothing wrong with creature light control decks (unless you are WotC), for the game to be truly healthy there we basically need to aggro control and combo all be viable, with low to heavy creature strategies viable for each of the archetypes (not the full range in each archtype, but a decent part of the spectrum, and the whole spectrum over all archtypes). They seem to be trying to slowly kill off low creature decks from the game.
The interesting thing is that we already have a creature-heavy control deck in Legacy - Death & Taxes. Too bad it clashes badly with Wizards' current stance that mana denial is Devil Incarnate. I would enjoy a creature deck with lots of synergestic, tricky flash creatures.

[AggroControl]

http://magiccards.info/scans/en/tp/298.jpg http://magiccards.info/scans/en/lg/195.jpg

http://www.tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=12868&iddeck=94356

[Not a statement on the + or - of Terminus. Just an interesting deck.]

I hadn't even thought about Scroll Rack and Land Tax because tax was banned last time I played. That's a wonderful idea.

[Zombie]

Yeah, I found the link in a response to Chas Andres' weekly on SCG, and I had much the same reaction. It's too bad that the overall quality of editorial content on the Mothership has crashed for the last year - it means stuff like this gets overlooked.

I think it's going to be interesting to see how this changes the face of Standard - the time frame the reference with no CMC 4 wrath was the one with 5-color Cruel Control, and the environment was as much defined by Cryptic command as other examples were their respective Wraths. Creating more conditional removal does not enhance your deck building options - it makes you much more draw-dependent (IMO.)

IMO Mothership content quality crashed during Alara block already.

[AggroControl]

I didn't describe Burgeoning correctly. It is actually limited to when your opponent plays a land, which means 1 per turn in most cases. This still breaks the symmetry however which is something Control lists are always trying to do and functions as acceleration also, ditto.

[Barook]

I didn't describe Burgeoning correctly. It is actually limited to when your opponent plays a land, which means 1 per turn in most cases. This still breaks the symmetry however which is something Control lists are always trying to do and functions as acceleration also, ditto.
How is Burgeoning better than the less conditional Exploration? :really:

[Lord Seth]

It has found us already: Golgari Charm/Zealous Persecution, Toxic Deluge, Marsh Casualties, Pyroclasm.
Back in the day, people also ran Firespout in UGr Goyf-Countertop if memory serves.

All markedly more interesting cards than Dumbminus IMO. I like the move on WotCs part insofar that they're moving towards less absolute interactions. The downside can already be seen in Standard, though - matchups that revolve around stuff that just can't be dealt with outside of a couple specific pieces of removal and consequently just take over games.

It's also really worrying how lightly they're treating self-blinking as a means of durability. That stuff is cancer, as AEtherling should've already shown.Aetherling was fine. The card costs 6 mana, and then you have to keep another open to save it from a possible kill spell when you cast it (effectively making it cost 7 mana). It's not even that amazing of a threat; in practice, it's just a finisher, so its main purpose is to win you games you were going to win eventually anyway. There's a reason why people moved to Elspeth, Sun's Champion when she came out; she's a win condition that can turn around a game far more easily than Aetherling, all for less mana than Aetherling!

[AggroControl]

How is Burgeoning better than the less conditional Exploration? :really:

It allows you to sandbag lands for Land Tax, activation costs and things like Miracles.

It also allows you to play lands during your opponent's turn particularly early on. This gives you the ability to see your opponent's play before you decide which extra lands you want in play. What you give up by doing that is extra acceleration during your turn. What you gain is giving your opponent less information about the game state at the end of your turn.

Almost all lists are going to play a land on the first 3 turns and every other turn thereafter. That provides ample opportunity to exploit Burgeoning.

Want to protect your Rishadan Port from a Wasteland until the opponent has dropped his land for the turn? Maybe he doesn't even drop the Wasteland and you get to tap down two lands before your next turn. Want to waste the land he just dropped because he didn't see a Wasteland on the table?

Want to scry during his turn with a New Benalia? Want to look at 3 cards during his turn with Halimar Depths after you see what land he has played and how much mana he has to work with?

Want to remove his Life from the Loam after he has cast it and played what he recovered with a Bojuka Bog?

Want a built-in trigger to his dropping lands that you normally would not have access too? He drops a land and Burgeoning triggers and you can respond to that trigger with any other instant effect in your hand.

If the land he is dropping is Dark Depths and he has a Vampire Hexmage on the board and you have Sudden Death, Sudden Spoiling or Sudden Shock in your hand you will have priority on the Burgeoning trigger and you will be able to kill the Vampire Hexmage before he can activate it and make a Marit Lage.

This is because the act of dropping a land does not normally give anybody priority. The active player would normally receive priority at the next opportunity. However your Burgeoning, and the fact that it is yours is important, triggers creating a situation in which someone will get priority, that someone being you since you are the controller of the source of the trigger.

Now you can respond to that trigger by doing, well anything you can legally cast or activate at that point. Normally your opponent will get a chance to respond to anything you do but since you are casting a spell with Split Second he or she will be unable to put any effects on the stack until it resolves. At which point the Vampire Hexmage will be dead and no longer on the battlefield to trouble you.

If you did not have priority after Dark Depths was put into play, as is normally the case in the opposing player's turn, then he could activate the hexmage's ability to take the counters off of depths and even Split Second won't save you since the hexmage activation does not depend on it being on the battlefield when the effect on the stack resolves.

[Aggro_zombies]

Indeed, combo and Terminus managed to be absent from the discussion.
They didn't rate a mention because the article is about Standard. WotC has done its utmost to breed actual combo out of Standard since Time Spiral, partly because they rolled big ramp decks like the old Valakut deck into the definition of combo as well so as long as ramp is viable they consider combo a thing. Terminus wasn't mentioned partly because it was thoroughly overshadowed by Bonfire of the Damned and partly because there wasn't a W/x deck that wanted it but couldn't - for whatever reason - make do with either Bonfire or Supreme Verdict (EDIT: Also, when Terminus was printed, Day of Judgment was in Standard. It rotated when RtR came out and brought Verdict). There's also the fact that Standard was largely free of cantrips that would be good at setting up a Terminus for most of the time it was around, so it was basically a six-mana Wrath that could unreliably be cast for W - but unlike Bonfire, which was always at least a Fireball to the dome, casting Terminus for its miracle cost with only one or two guys on-board would have been a waste of the card. It therefore fits with their current design paradigm as long as you look at it in the context of Standard.

Legacy is a different beast because it's a format defined entirely by being awash in cheap variance-reducing spells, and in that case Terminus costs one but sometimes might cost six. Oh well.

[Ellomdian]

Actually, I think it does reward proper deckbuilding.

Where 'proper deckbuilding' is choosing which artificially inhibited removal spell happens to answer a given room on a given day. Control strategies for most of the last 6 months have revolved around having the right answer to very specific, very disparate cards almost immediately or just praying that the opponent runs out of gas before you can cast an arbitrarily large Rev.

The fact that they justify not having a 4-mana general purpose wrath using the time period when one of the most universal answer cards ever (cryptic) defined the format is absurd.

[ESG]

***Baseless defense of Terminus followed by strings of fringe cards.***

Dude, no one plays Sudden Spoiling tricks with Burgeoning in this format, and this Sylvan Stax idea of yours is hilarious. I look forward to reading the tournament report.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

The "do not overcommit into Terminus" advice is quite funny cosidering the Terminus.dec play that infamous CB/Top combination. Why you no overcommit in b4 lock?
Also, the Burgeoning Stax with Sudden Spoilings... :rolleyes:

[Julian23]

***Lots of way too cute (and weak) interactions followed by ignorance of the rules.

Listen cowboy, that's not how we ride here. Your post quality has been really lacking and is often full of things that are just plain wrong.

Split-Second and Burgeoning work opposite of how you try to elaborately describe it. After Burgeoning's trigger has been put on the stack, the Active Player receives priority. I don't know where you got this thing about "because you are controlling the trigger" stuff from, but keep it out of here.

Also, keep us posted on your New Benalia-Halimar Depths deck.

[danyul]

This thread is dead to me.

[Technics]

The real problem here is Wizards abandoment of Combo. When Wizards said "combo is bad" and removed it from the format, control decks were no longer stretching between having to answer creatures, and the combo's. What little combo's survive are all creature based, so having nothing but removal in control didn't stretch anything. Then, AMAZINGLY your control decks are too good, since they only have to answer one angle of attack.

The real way to fix the problem is to add "combos" back into the game. Things like KCI in Mirridon, or PandaBurst in Invasion. There has not been many solid Standard combo's that don't rely on creatures since almost 2005.

[iamajellydonut]

Unless there was something else that I don't remember, it's probably fair to call Time Spiral's Dragonstorm the end of Standard combo.

[Dark Ritual]

The real problem here is Wizards abandoment of Combo. When Wizards said "combo is bad" and removed it from the format, control decks were no longer stretching between having to answer creatures, and the combo's. What little combo's survive are all creature based, so having nothing but removal in control didn't stretch anything. Then, AMAZINGLY your control decks are too good, since they only have to answer one angle of attack.

The real way to fix the problem is to add "combos" back into the game. Things like KCI in Mirridon, or PandaBurst in Invasion. There has not been many solid Standard combo's that don't rely on creatures since almost 2005.

Very true. When dragonstorm rotated out of standard combo pretty much died at a competitive level there. The only time after that that combo did something was deceiver exarch + splinter twin and that pyromancer's ascension monstrosity. But combo that doesn't rely on creatures? That's way, way back. Dragonstorm kind of relied on creatures but at the same time it didn't especially considering ignite memories was ran alongside it to dome the opponent for massive chunks of life when they could reveal, 8, 9, and 3 drops or at least 2 drops with consistency/just like tendrils of agony/the best storm spell for actually winning the game.

Exploit burgeoning? The only format that you can exploit it in is EDH because it's a multiplayer format/you can actually drop more than 1 extra land per turn cycle since people in EDH virtually always play lands. In legacy? Exploration is vastly superior not close. You can come up with all the corner cases in the world but in general exploration is better. Hell exploration is even cheaper than burgeoning now price wise.

Just WotC trying to dumb down the game more. At the pace they're going I expect the game to not last another 5 years. While we aren't at portal levels of stupidity yet it wouldn't surprise me if we got there and portal was a colossal failure.

[Zombie]

Very true. When dragonstorm rotated out of standard combo pretty much died at a competitive level there. The only time after that that combo did something was deceiver exarch + splinter twin and that pyromancer's ascension monstrosity. But combo that doesn't rely on creatures? That's way, way back. Dragonstorm kind of relied on creatures but at the same time it didn't especially considering ignite memories was ran alongside it to dome the opponent for massive chunks of life when they could reveal, 8, 9, and 3 drops or at least 2 drops with consistency/just like tendrils of agony/the best storm spell for actually winning the game.

Just WotC trying to dumb down the game more. At the pace they're going I expect the game to not last another 5 years. While we aren't at portal levels of stupidity yet it wouldn't surprise me if we got there and portal was a colossal failure.

If you're counting Exarch-Twin, best count Lark-Blink too. Combo, recursion, wraths and counterspells. Nice oldschool magic in a new skin.

[GoblinSettler]

So, we are not going to see Damnation in Khans. Strong chances in the Black Commander Deck?

[btm10]

Just WotC trying to dumb down the game more. At the pace they're going I expect the game to not last another 5 years. While we aren't at portal levels of stupidity yet it wouldn't surprise me if we got there and portal was a colossal failure.

It's definitely them making the game worse, but I (unfortunately) think that they're steering the game in the direction they are because that's what keeps it profitable and popular. I haven't seen sales data or attendance data for things like FNMs or Standard PTQs/GPs, but I know that MaRo has said that Time Spiral was the low point in sales and attendance - causing the shift to the NWO card design philosophy - and that the game had been growing (ostensibly, based on sales and attendance) continuously since the NWO sets started being released. I think that comment was made a year or two ago, but this shift is consistent with everything we've come to expect. The one thing I like about WotC is that they're sensitive to shifts in customer opinion, and if this causes people to stop playing Standard, they'll bring real removal back.

The problem is the player base, not WotC. Timmy is buying the most product, so Timmy's needs are going to be served first. In my experience, U/W control (and variants) tends to be the chosen deck of either creature-hating curmudgeons like me or of Spikes, and Spikes are going to buy in no matter what.

[Aggro_zombies]

So, we are not going to see Damnation in Khans. Strong chances in the Black Commander Deck?
It seems like a better MMA2 reprint. I'd rather they make a black Day of Judgement in the Commander deck so I have two unconditional four-mana sweepers in black, but I'm betting that they'll either skip the four-mana sweeper entirely or reprint Mutilate.

[Dice_Box]

The options on Combo decks have more or less been killed in all formats past Legacy. With the ever increasing price of the Land bases in Legacy, I think soon we will have entire Magic generations that do not know or understand what something like Storm, Dredge or Elves do. What they are. That's sad, that complexity like that can just die and level behind a shell of what once was.

I have played Battlefield since the beginning, just because BF3 was popular, does not change that BF2142 was the best game they made. They changed the game so much, I don't buy it anymore. But they don't care about me because where the old players like me fall, ten kids that never saw or played 21 will take my place. Sad really, but it proves how insignificant older players are once you make it big.

[GoblinSettler]

It seems like a better MMA2 reprint. I'd rather they make a black Day of Judgement in the Commander deck so I have two unconditional four-mana sweepers in black, but I'm betting that they'll either skip the four-mana sweeper entirely or reprint Mutilate.

Dear Wizards, please call it Judgment Night.

[Dragonslayer_90]

The options on Combo decks have more or less been killed in all formats past Legacy. With the ever increasing price of the Land bases in Legacy, I think soon we will have entire Magic generations that do not know or understand what something like Storm, Dredge or Elves do. What they are. That's sad, that complexity like that can just die and level behind a shell of what once was.

I have played Battlefield since the beginning, just because BF3 was popular, does not change that BF2142 was the best game they made. They changed the game so much, I don't buy it anymore. But they don't care about me because where the old players like me fall, ten kids that never saw or played 21 will take my place. Sad really, but it proves how insignificant older players are once you make it big.

I think that generation of players that know nothing of combo decks like storm or dredge are already kind of here actually. I have one magic friend who only got into the game a couple of years ago and when he first got exposed to engine combo decks like storm he didn't consider it part of magic. It was basically culture shock for him, and I'm sure it's like that for many recent magic players who got their introduction with standard in recent years and are starting to branch out into modern and/or legacy. It's real sad, but what are we going to do when Wizards hates combo (or at least engine combo like storm and dredge) with a burning passion and continues to push creatures at bonkers level as they print a good to decent hate bear almost every single set?

[btm10]

The best option would be more (and more accessible) formats like 93/94. I'd play the shit out of an Alpha-Scourge or even Alpha-Zendikar or Shards block format with appropriate bannings.

I think the killing of combo is especially sad given that appropriately paced (for Standard) combo has existed in the past - Dragonstorm and ProsBloom being the best examples.

[Zombie]

I think that generation of players that know nothing of combo decks like storm or dredge are already kind of here actually. I have one magic friend who only got into the game a couple of years ago and when he first got exposed to engine combo decks like storm he didn't consider it part of magic. It was basically culture shock for him, and I'm sure it's like that for many recent magic players who got their introduction with standard in recent years and are starting to branch out into modern and/or legacy. It's real sad, but what are we going to do when Wizards hates combo (or at least engine combo like storm and dredge) with a burning passion and continues to push creatures at bonkers level as they print a good to decent hate bear almost every single set?

A lot of why engine combo is obnoxious is because of it's minimal presence on the board. I'm not talking red zone here by the way, but the actual zone "battlefield". A lot of what they do is just fundamentally hard to interact with with most colours which then results in people playing past each other. The end result is games that feel like cancer. Just play enough against Dredge with a suitably underequipped deck and you'll get the point.

I think interesting engine combo is doable on the battlefield. Elves, Eggs existing is clearly proof on at least some level. They're still kinda obnoxious and cheatyface to little me who started playing and thought he'd never want to play something dull like Dragonstorm that just wins the game, but at least you can do more about it with standard tools than specialized, relatively absolute hate cards.

That's another part of it - Storm vs. Delver is really fun because neither deck really tells the other they can't play. It's a lot about choosing the proper overarching game plan and just nice, tight play where the point is to make something harder for the other player, usually. In comparison Mom, Thalia, done is pretty dull.

Also, folks. Other games exist. If Magic is increasingly becoming "not for me", play the other stuff. There's good games all over the place, games to which your skillsets can transfer onto. I at least like the feeling of playing asymmetric card games, not Magic solely. It's a hard bullet to bite, but sometimes it's for the best.

I've started playing fighting games, for example. In that genre, Street Fighter 4 reigns supreme, and it's not even close. If something has a fighting game tournament or stream, you can bet it's SF4. In most communities, SF4 is the biggest game, if not the only game. I started with it, and grew to hate it and the direction it's going even though I loved the genre and kind of gameplay it fostered. Tried out other games and found out they were an absolute riot in comparison, even if the scenes were way smaller - "poverty" in the lingo of the fighting game community. I've found a ton of outlets for competition, self-expression and sheer joy in those smaller games because I was willing to abandon The Big Game that was turning into something that just felt wrong. Couldn't be happier. Please consider it, it just may end up being the right thing to do. There's not sense in self-torture, especially not if the torture is as expensive as Magic.

[Lemnear]

I think that generation of players that know nothing of combo decks like storm or dredge are already kind of here actually. I have one magic friend who only got into the game a couple of years ago and when he first got exposed to engine combo decks like storm he didn't consider it part of magic. It was basically culture shock for him, and I'm sure it's like that for many recent magic players who got their introduction with standard in recent years and are starting to branch out into modern and/or legacy.

as depressing as that is, I'd would like to hear more about that, as I never thought about how alien engine combo decks might appear for MTG players who started the Game in the last 5 or so years

[btm10]

as depressing as that is, I'd would like to hear more about that, as I never thought about how alien engine combo decks might appear for MTG players who started the Game in the last 5 or so years

I agree, basically from the same perspective.

[sjmcc13]

...but I know that MaRo has said that Time Spiral was the low point in sales and attendance - causing the shift to the NWO card design philosophy - and that the game had been growing (ostensibly, based on sales and attendance) continuously since the NWO sets started being released. ...

Maybe it was a low point, but I am pretty certain it would have been due to a combination of factors, and they are blaming/scapegoating the wrong ones.

It is clear they at least partly blame storm, but considering that it barely mde a dent in STD the frst time around (with Tendrils and Desire) the problem was really hellikite making dragonstorm for 4 lethal, and storm count of 2 close enough. and Gigadrowse making shutting down control decks stopping the combo, and stalling aggro decks trying to race it. seriously Drgonstorm was a jank rare made for the Timmies that they gave every it needed tool to be a strong combo deck. They even admitted back then that it had come up in testing abd tested fine, but they had not added Gigadrowse in testing, which makes me think it was an intentional deck that eded up stronger then they wanted due to 1 card.

You also have to consider the possibility of burnout as that was a high point for # of cards in Std, and right after Ravinca which would have affected sales.

I think they also attribute to much of the increase in sales to NWO as well, OK blindly marketing to the largest demographic at the expense of a smaller one (There is pretty much nothing left in Std for Johnny's (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b), and I doubt there is much in Modern either) will normally increase sales, but the effects of the NWO occur at the same time they released Duels of the Planeswalkers which I know got allot of people back into the game, and is some of the best advertising they have ever done.

[Rizso]

Conditional removal, counters and sweepers are the cards that do see play but barely any hard-version of them are played in legacy, outside of Swords to plowshares that is. Spellpierce, Daze and Spell Snare for counters, Abrupt Decay, Disfigure and Lightning Bolt for removal and sweepers like Zealous Persecution, Toxic Deluge and Terminus. While Counterspell, Wrath of God, Damnation and others barely see any play at all.

[Lemnear]

Conditional removal, counters and sweepers are the cards that do see play but barely any hard-version of them are played in legacy, outside of Swords to plowshares that is. Spellpierce, Daze and Spell Snare for counters, Abrupt Decay, Disfigure and Lightning Bolt for removal and sweepers like Zealous Persecution, Toxic Deluge and Terminus. While Counterspell, Wrath of God, Damnation and others barely see any play at all.

It would have been interresting if WotC would have developed the "conditional" aspect of design also for creatures instead of for instants/sorceries only. It's sad that creatures are only balanced via manacosts unlike instants & sorceries with a few exceptions like Serra Avenger

[Rizso]

It would have been interresting if WotC would have developed the "conditional" aspect of design also for creatures instead of for instants/sorceries only. It's sad that creatures are only balanced via manacosts unlike instants & sorceries with a few exceptions like Serra Avenger

Delver and tarmogoyf are kinda conditional as well :P But the conditions are super easy to achieve.

[dsck]

While Counterspell, Wrath of God, Damnation and others barely see any play at all.

Bullshit.

Counterspell sees fair amount of play (UWR Miracles). Supreme Verdict being straight up superior leaves little point in playing Wrath of God.

[Rizso]

Bullshit.

Counterspell sees fair amount of play (UWR Miracles). Supreme Verdict being straight up superior leaves little point in playing Wrath of God.


Still nothing compared to the conditional cards, 1 -2 in 1 archetyp isnt really played alot.

[Dice_Box]

Counterspell sees play in one deck and not as a playset, Verdict sees play in two decks and in both cases as a sideboard option.

Compare to:
Spell Piece and Spell Snare, Golgari Charm, Toxic Deluge and Abrupt Decay. No contest.

[Lemnear]

Delver and tarmogoyf are kinda conditional as well :P But the conditions are super easy to achieve.

Valid point of view, even if I had something different in mind than a simple change of P/T, like being only castable if you have 3 creatures in your graveyard, only castable if you played other spells before, etc.

We have a few cards like that in the cardpool like Illusory Angel or Talara's Battalion, but that's not enough.

[Rizso]

Valid point of view, even if I had something different in mind than a simple change of P/T, like being only castable if you have 3 creatures in your graveyard, only castable if you played other spells before, etc.

We have a few cards like that in the cardpool like Illusory Angel or Talara's Battalion, but that's not enough.

Problem with thoes cards they need to be alot stronger but also bit more expensive to be useful. So kind removes their purpose. Other problem with such creatures is that aether vial becomes to strong. Talara's Battlion isnt really impressive when tarmogoyf can be stronger without that weakness.

[Lemnear]

Problem with thoes cards they need to be alot stronger but also bit more expensive to be useful. So kind removes their purpose. Other problem with such creatures is that aether vial becomes to strong. Talara's Battlion isnt really impressive when tarmogoyf can be stronger without that weakness.

Well, isn't it just WotC failure that conditional creature cards like the Angel/Battalion/Avenger plain suck for their mana/power/restriction ratio compared to no-brainers like Goofy/Delver?

WotC could print a 5/5 for G which is balanced by a certain play-restriction which requires you to build around that card, like having to remove a creature from your graveyard as an additional cost, which would make people run Street Wraith or creating a 6/6 flying and lifelinking Demon for B which you can only play if you are below 5 life which would be a natural fit with Spoils of the Vault or Plunge into darkness. Such design could spawn new archetypes unlike Tarmogoyf and Delver which are naturally fed by the common Brainstorm/Ponder/Fechland-orgy of Legacy

I guess cards with a cast-restriction are Alien to WotC current design like Lands which don't produce mana :/

[Dice_Box]

The idea might make Vial stronger, but if your deck can not function as a single unit without Vial, your not going to have a good time.

I have Battalion in a friendly elves beat down deck I own. That effect, it's back breaking more than you would expect and that's in a deck that bleeds mana. I really don't want to see too many cards like it unless they really are pushing some kind of envelope.

[Lemnear]

The idea might make Vial stronger, but if your deck can not function as a single unit without Vial, your not going to have a good time.

I have Battalion in a friendly elves beat down deck I own. That effect, it's back breaking more than you would expect and that's in a deck that bleeds mana. I really don't want to see too many cards like it unless they really are pushing some kind of envelope.

I have no Problem with Vial being "the dark Ritual for creatures" and if you want to prevent Vial-shenanigans you can simply rephrase the play restriction to "sacrifice [cardname] unless you [met condition x]".

Battalion is a horrible card as it's far to expensive for it's body compared to Tarmogoyf. Make it a 7/7 trample instead and you get people thinking...

[btm10]

Conditional removal, counters and sweepers are the cards that do see play but barely any hard-version of them are played in legacy, outside of Swords to plowshares that is. Spellpierce, Daze and Spell Snare for counters, Abrupt Decay, Disfigure and Lightning Bolt for removal and sweepers like Zealous Persecution, Toxic Deluge and Terminus. While Counterspell, Wrath of God, Damnation and others barely see any play at all.

That's mostly because the conditional versions you listed are all cheaper than he unconditional versions and as a result play better than the unconditional versions with the various aggro-control shells that represent most Legacy decks. The one true control deck we have runs an unconditional sweeper and the unconditional counterspell and one of the conditional ones as well.

[Dragonslayer_90]

as depressing as that is, I'd would like to hear more about that, as I never thought about how alien engine combo decks might appear for MTG players who started the Game in the last 5 or so years

I think I have a totally different perspective compared to veteran type people like you and btm10 who have played eternal for a very long time. I've only been playing legacy for about two years now. It has been about three years since I've played magic competitively at any level really. The fact that I'm a youngin puts me in touch with much of the recent generation of magic players, though I think my taste in the kind of magic I like to play has more in common with legacy veterans than people who have gotten into the game only in the last five years. Personally, my reaction to the first time I was exposed to real combo decks like storm or dredge was different than most people in that I didn't feel like these decks should not exist even if they sometimes elicit feelings of displeasure when playing against them. The reason for this was because I believe the game should have different viable strategies, even if certain strategies are not pleasurable to others. But the fact of the matter is that many people, at least the recent generation of magic players, have this concept called "playing magic" that often does not include combo. The term "playing magic" often gets reduced down creature-centric interaction. Sometimes it gets pretty extreme. I've heard people bitch about recent standard control decks and their counterspells when they are only packing 5-6 counterspells. I'm pretty sure control decks had MUCH more than that in the days of old. In general though, I think the creature-centric design has gotten to a point where people have little to no historical memory of actual combo decks until they watch legacy for the first time.

[sjmcc13]

I've heard people bitch about recent standard control decks and their counterspells when they are only packing 5-6 counterspells. I have heard the same, a few months ago one of my local players (I live in a remote community with a small and inexperienced player base) took a trip and played in a Standard FNM and complained about running into Esper control every round (as unlikely is it is that it would be every pairing) and that his opponents just countered everything, when the basic list ran at most 6 counters main deck at the time.

Then again the ammount of times I have seen players confuse mana for basic lands is no where close to funny. and the rules pamphlet they use now a days is no where near satisfactory for explaining the game.

I'm pretty sure control decks had MUCH more than that in the days of old. I am pretty certain there were Combo decks woth more counters then that. One of the 1998 World Champ decks had like 21 counter spells main deck. Though I always fnd the old Worlds decks amusing because of all the people who complain about blue always being the best color of the game, in every format, but allot of those decks are very non-blue.

[ESG]

But the fact of the matter is that many people, at least the recent generation of magic players, have this concept called "playing magic" that often does not include combo. The term "playing magic" often gets reduced down creature-centric interaction. Sometimes it gets pretty extreme. I've heard people bitch about recent standard control decks and their counterspells when they are only packing 5-6 counterspells. I'm pretty sure control decks had MUCH more than that in the days of old.

Right you are. In the old days, control decks ran way more counterspells, and it wasn't this conditional, Flashfreeze-style stuff. Exhibit A:

Draw, Go

4 Counterspell
4 Dismiss
2 Dissipate
3 Forbid
3 Mana Leak
1 Memory Lapse
4 Force Spike
4 Impulse
4 Nevinyrral's Disk
4 Whispers of the Muse
1 Rainbow Efreet

18 Island
4 Quicksand
4 Stalking Stones

Sideboard
2 Capsize
1 Grindstone
4 Hydroblast
4 Sea Sprite
4 Wasteland

[Julian23]

Looking at stuff like Teferi Control and Sonic Boom during Lorwyn-centric Type2, we even had pretty cool controlish decks in the not too-distant past.

[iamajellydonut]

Looking at stuff like Teferi Control and Sonic Boom during Lorwyn-centric Type2, we even had pretty cool controlish decks in the not too-distant past.

To be fair, Teferi Control wasn't particularly innovative and Sonic Boom didn't last beyond its seven minutes in heaven. And if Sonic Boom counts, then technically Epic Experiment was the most recent combo.

[rufus]

...

WotC could print a 5/5 for G which is balanced by a certain play-restriction

...

There are quite a number of cards like that like Ghoultree, Serra Avenger, Death's Shadow. They've even produced a decent number of creatures that were at roughly the right level for legacy when printed like Tombstalker or Silvergill Adept.

It does feel like WotC has decided that things should be about turning lands sideways, and then turning creatures sideways, and now that land destruction is out of the picture, they're going after creature destruction.

[Lemnear]

There are quite a number of cards like that like Ghoultree, Serra Avenger, Death's Shadow. They've even produced a decent number of creatures that were at roughly the right level for legacy when printed like Tombstalker or Silvergill Adept.

It does feel like WotC has decided that things should be about turning lands sideways, and then turning creatures sideways, and now that land destruction is out of the picture, they're going after creature destruction.

I'm just disappointed that all WotC explored at rare occasions were cost-reduction and P/T increase. I feel that there is a lot of stuff possible

[iamajellydonut]

It does feel like WotC has decided that things should be about turning lands sideways, and then turning creatures sideways

Shh... do you hear that? That's the sound of innovation and player interaction.

[Lemnear]

Shh... do you hear that? That's the sound of innovation and player interaction.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=184745&type=card

[btm10]

I'd break out my Fluctuators, but that wouldn't be interactive.

[sjmcc13]

Shh... do you hear that? That's the sound of innovation and player interaction.

I have had more interactive games with low creature combo v.s. control matchups. then I have had in Std in the last 2 years.

Yes creatures running into each other is a form of interaction, but a creature standoff because neither side can afford to attack is horribly boring and non-interactive, the number of times this happens to me in limited is part of why I do not enjoy limited play (that and needing luck to get the right bombs, and draw them when you have 1 copy in the deck. I hate losing to a singleton bomb when I either did not get any answers in my pool, or have several and did not see 1 the entire game, and winning because I drew a card my opponent could not handle is not rewarding either).

[Tylert]

I have had more interactive games with low creature combo v.s. control matchups. then I have had in Std in the last 2 years.

Yes creatures running into each other is a form of interaction, but a creature standoff because neither side can afford to attack is horribly boring and non-interactive, the number of times this happens to me in limited is part of why I do not enjoy limited play (that and needing luck to get the right bombs, and draw them when you have 1 copy in the deck. I hate losing to a singleton bomb when I either did not get any answers in my pool, or have several and did not see 1 the entire game, and winning because I drew a card my opponent could not handle is not rewarding either).

Being able to mitigate the fact that your opponent has bombs by building a good deck is what it takes to be a good limited player... it's not possible for everyone :) (Note: I'm not a good limited player, just passable).

[sjmcc13]

Being able to mitigate the fact that your opponent has bombs by building a good deck is what it takes to be a good limited player... it's not possible for everyone :) Even if you build a good deck, you still need to draw those answers. Plus building as good a deck as you can only goes so far, and does not help you against someone as skilled as you who got better pulls due to opening better packs.

Limited is Skill and Luck. but the luck factor is too large for my taste.

[Teveshszat]

Hello,

I don´t think so. I know some Limited players who can tell you which cards all of the other players drafted
and than evaluate this and build their deck to out manover this. So from all formats Limited is the most
skill intensive because you must make the best out of very limited recources and quality. The luck
component seems to be higher but it is not an excuse if you lose.

Best Regards Teveshszat

[Zombie]

I have had more interactive games with low creature combo v.s. control matchups. then I have had in Std in the last 2 years.

Yes creatures running into each other is a form of interaction, but a creature standoff because neither side can afford to attack is horribly boring and non-interactive, the number of times this happens to me in limited is part of why I do not enjoy limited play (that and needing luck to get the right bombs, and draw them when you have 1 copy in the deck. I hate losing to a singleton bomb when I either did not get any answers in my pool, or have several and did not see 1 the entire game, and winning because I drew a card my opponent could not handle is not rewarding either).

This is one of the big flaws of a Magic played mostly on the board, IMO. The game only has a single battlefield or lane or whatever you want to call it. That one field of play getting cramped is why we need Wraths (an effect that'd be insanely silly in a game like Starcraft, Go, Age of Empires or, interestingly, Netrunner).

You simply can't be in the wrong place in the way you can in an RTS, nor can you overextend yourself in the same way. Overextension is just committing too much stuff to the field, instead of playing your stuff on the field wrong as you could in an RTS (take too many bases spreading your defenses thin, leave the opponent control of the map by turtling a lot and such). That everything is in one big, amorphous blob that is just kind of everywhere at once is a large design flaw considering where R&D is pushing the game.

[FieryBalrog]

I've been playing for 17 years and the idea that we should shed tears for the death of engine combo decks is hilarious. And dumb.

Good riddance.

[btm10]

I've been playing for 17 years and the idea that we should shed tears for the death of engine combo decks is hilarious. And dumb.

Good riddance.

Are you going to make an argument, or just troll?

[thecrav]

Looking at stuff like Teferi Control and Sonic Boom during Lorwyn-centric Type2, we even had pretty cool controlish decks in the not too-distant past.

Lorwyn-centric standard ended in 2010. Even if that's the not too-distant past in terms of history, 20% of the game's history has happened since then.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I'm just disappointed that all WotC explored at rare occasions were cost-reduction and P/T increase. I feel that there is a lot of stuff possible

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=226749&type=card http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=226755&type=card

______________________
On combo:

As a long-time casual and low-level player, I got a strange feeling towards combo. Mostly I'm not exactly annoyed by it, but I remeber pretty well how my old casual group acted when they were exposed to anything even a bit pestering, be it Winter Orb, discard, counters, sweepers, LD whatever. Casuals simply dislike everything which isn't "who will slam bigger creature with more tough name" and that!s about it.
Hey, I don't even think that I'll be able to "play normal Magic" after my decade of decandence in competitive MtG subculture. Not that I'm so bad person to ToA friends out of the game on Saturday night, but simply put, where everything but Terror and Craw Wurms is forbidden, one starts to wonder why on earth he ever came to this place. If I'd love to play with little fluffy bunnies, I wouldn't start this whole session of "mighty mage versus wise warlock" duel. You know, it's like moan nad bitch every time the opposing guy tries to checkmate you... so if you really want to pet the knights, oh well why not, just don't expect I'll come next time.

Imho there are far many levels on which the ppl play the game (it has something to do with "players' typology" and those legendary Melvins, Spikes and whomsoever else), and as long as the major buyers bracket are those who like 7/7 for seven, the game will look like that.

Btw, I'd love to play some good old fair MtG. Except that it doesn't even exist, only in the memories of people that don't remember much. It wasn't exactly fair when one commanded his lions, sprites and elves against the Necro-fed Firestorm deck.

[Nekrataal]

to force Control into running creatures to block attacks.

Oh that's great! So Control doesn't want to play sweepers anymore. Destroying one's own creatures sounds pretty daft. Uh well, I think it is a brilliant idea to create formats with yet more midrange decks that lack any rock-scissors-paper principle. Then WotC can call that "stale" again because they made it so. Lately "stale" seems to be the best that WotC is able to achieve with certain formats. Read about the staleness of Modern when they announced to cancel the 2015 Modern PTQs and now when the introduce the new rotation cycle for T2. So maybe "stale" is the new "good"?

WotC really has a knack for ironing out all the littel caveats which could make a format vivid and interesting (or others according to marketing find unfun like LD, Counters, Sweepers, Combo, <add your own hate here>). When all the unfun is gone let staleness rule. This is where the fun begins.

[lyracian]

Btw, I'd love to play some good old fair MtG. Except that it doesn't even exist, only in the memories of people that don't remember much. It wasn't exactly fair when one commanded his lions, sprites and elves against the Necro-fed Firestorm deck.
The complete lack of interaction against Pros-Bloom was one of the reasons I stopped playing. I cast creatures and attacked nad either dealt 20 damage before he got the engine on line or I died. There was nothing else happening in the game. However most of my MTG time was spent playing on the Kitchen table with friends often in multi-player games. Those were fun and are plenty of memories of fair magic.

[FieryBalrog]

Are you going to make an argument, or just troll?

I think it's fairly obvious myself.

Keep in mind I've always been a Johnny and, for my very first competitive decks, I played solitare decks like Turboland and extended UG enchantress combo. I still remember in high school in 2002, scraping together the cash to build UG Enchantress with Explorations and Argothians and Cloud of Faeries and thinking the deck was the coolest thing ever. Zvi's Oath Turboland blew my mind when I built it. When I first entered Legacy I built Dredge. Problem is, these decks are terrible for playing fun, interactive games and are all about masturbating to your own combo chains while you take long-ass turns and your opponent twiddles his thumbs. Even in EDH I couldn't resist putting together some solitaire combo decks, but I almost never end up playing them because I know I'll have a huge (and legitimate) target on my head, and the wins are often anticlimactic.

Playing in Legacy vs. stupid shit like Belcher is just never fun, and stuff like ANT is only tolerable if you're playing Ux tempo or CB. And that leads to a lot of terrible, uninteractive games. Nowadays I Johnny it up with wacky EDH decks and if I play any 1v1 format I pick less obnoxious decks. Remember before Storm, when combo decks actually had to... play permanents? (usually, anyway). That's a better way to do combo, except whiny combo players complain because- shock, horror - opponent can now interact with them instead of sitting there like a goldfish.

[Lemnear]

Playing in Legacy vs. stupid shit like Belcher is just never fun, and stuff like ANT is only tolerable if you're playing Ux tempo. And that leads to a lot of terrible, uninteractive games. Nowadays I Johnny it up with wacky EDH decks and if I play any 1v1 format I pick less obnoxious decks. Remember before Storm, when combo decks actually had to... play permanents? (usually, anyway). That's a better way to do combo, except whiny combo players complain because- shock, horror - opponent can now interact with them instead of sitting there like a goldfish.

You mean permaments like Memory Jar, Necropotence, Yawmoths Bargain and Oath? ;P

To be honest, the S&T archetypes are also permanent-based and just laugh at aggro-decks. The issues of aggro has nothing to do with permanents, but with having to run answers which add nothing to your gameplan and unlike Storm, most aggro-decks cannot embrace the cantrips to shuffle unneeded Protection/answers like Discard/bounce away.

[FieryBalrog]

You mean permaments like Memory Jar, Necropotence, Yawmoths Bargain and Oath? ;P

To be honest, the S&T archetypes are also permanent-based and just laugh at aggro-decks.
The S&T decks are based on S&T (duh) a spell, to cheat out a permanent that can't be interacted with (Griselbrand, Emrakul). But fair enough there are some super-broken permanents out there, keep those banned obviously :frown: though, I do miss ye olde days when Necro was used for "fairer" decks with Drain Life and Order of Ebon Hand.

I was hoping for more things like Painter's Servant combo or Leyline/Helm combo.

[iamajellydonut]

The S&T decks are based on S&T (duh) a spell, to put out a permanent that can't be interacted with (Griselbrand, Emrakul).

I was hoping for more things like Painter's Servant combo or Leyline/Helm combo.

I think the joke was that you can't, don't, or couldn't interact with any of the combo pieces in the "good ol' days" either. Let's face it, if your combo can be stopped hard by a well placed Lightning Bolt, it's a pretty fucking shitty combo made out of a house of cards and you shouldn't be running it.

Another part of the joke is that your claim of non-interaction in terms of what remains for combo today constitutes petulant whining. Even outside of blue, from Thalia to Thoughtseize to Surgical Extraction to Mindbreak Trap to whatever, there is plenty of interaction if you so choose to use it.

[Lemnear]

I think the joke was that you can't, don't, or couldn't interact with any of the combo pieces in the "good ol' days" either.

Exactly


The S&T decks are based on S&T (duh) a spell, to cheat out a permanent that can't be interacted with (Griselbrand, Emrakul). But fair enough there are some super-broken permanents out there, keep those banned obviously :frown: though, I do miss ye olde days when Necro was used for "fairer" decks with Drain Life and Order of Ebon Hand.

I was hoping for more things like Painter's Servant combo or Leyline/Helm combo.

Well, you can beat Griselbrand and Emrakul with stuff like Needle, Councils Judgement, Oblivion Ring, Liliana, Chainer's Edict or the like. Honestly, Griselbrand & S&T is the same level of combine-2-cards-to-win like Painter & Grinstone or Leyline & Helm which is a plain idiot-proof concept which you can even find in Modern, being pretty successful with Exarch & Splitter Twin. Admitting that you have the cream of the Crop of that stupid linearity in Legacy's SneakShow, it doesn't change the fact that most, if not all of those combo decks, are permanent based. I'm not sorry for any Zoo player not running MB Pridemages & REB's and SB Needles in this meta full of S&T, Counterbalance and Cantrips.

[FieryBalrog]

If playing sideboard silver bullets is supposed to make a matchup "interactive", then Dredge is an interactive deck.

Dredge is not an interactive deck.

Even mainboard stuff like Thalia does not make for an interactive matchup. I've played Maverick quite a bit back in the day and "do I have turn 2 Thalia && does he have turn 1/2 kill" doesn't make for much of a game. It auto-blanks 90% of your deck, BY DESIGN. Not to mention, a couple of slow mainboard semi-relevant answers doesn't even do much for the matchup, as evidenced by the reality of Goblins vs. Storm or Maverick vs. Storm or Zoo vs. Storm or pick one.


I think the joke was that you can't, don't, or couldn't interact with any of the combo pieces in the "good ol' days" either.
Well, I guess that's often (but not always) been true, but it doesn't make engine combo decks (which are even worse) any better. I may have overstated the idea of combo decks "playing fair" in ye olde days, because dumb Urza's combo decks weren't any better. I don't mind decks like Fruity Pebbles as much.

Storm is definitely the bottom of the barrel though. Storm even managed to ruin Pauper ffs.

[Lord Seth]

Well, I guess that's often (but not always) been true, but it doesn't make engine combo decks (which are even worse) any better. I may have overstated the idea of combo decks "playing fair" in ye olde days, because dumb Urza's combo decks weren't any better. I don't mind decks like Fruity Pebbles as much.See, I actually prefer engine combo decks. Those are decks that require a reasonable number of decisions trees and thus you have to really know how to play it in order to not simply lose to yourself. I find losing to that better than "hey, look! I have the right two cards together, so I instantly win the game."

[Zombie]

If playing sideboard silver bullets is supposed to make a matchup "interactive", then Dredge is an interactive deck.

Dredge is not an interactive deck.

Even mainboard stuff like Thalia does not make for an interactive matchup. I've played Maverick quite a bit back in the day and "do I have turn 2 Thalia && does he have turn 1/2 kill" doesn't make for much of a game. It auto-blanks 90% of your deck, BY DESIGN. Not to mention, a couple of slow mainboard semi-relevant answers doesn't even do much for the matchup, as evidenced by the reality of Goblins vs. Storm or Maverick vs. Storm or Zoo vs. Storm or pick one.


Well, I guess that's often (but not always) been true, but it doesn't make engine combo decks (which are even worse) any better. I may have overstated the idea of combo decks "playing fair" in ye olde days, because dumb Urza's combo decks weren't any better. I don't mind decks like Fruity Pebbles as much.

Storm is definitely the bottom of the barrel though. Storm even managed to ruin Pauper ffs.

Yeah, one reason I play Elves and love playing Storm vs. Delver is that you have an actual game in your hands. The problem there, though, isn't so much with engine combo deck as much as allowed axes of interaction and the absolute nature of many common hate cards. When two decks don't play along the same axes you just end up with a race or a coinflip, which gets old pretty fast. The decks have to have common axes where they contest each other for there to be a match that feels good. Many hate cards are also really problematic because they're narrow but crushingly strong to the point where you land them and the opponent just isn't allowed to play anymore. It's fine in a metagame sense where it's punishment for excessive greed (Moon, Chalice, Canonist, RIP and the like) but the resulting games are kind of ass.

Comes down to only certain colors being allowed to do much of anything in some zones, in the end. *cough* stack *cough* blue *cough*


See, I actually prefer engine combo decks. Those are decks that require a reasonable number of decisions trees and thus you have to really know how to play it in order to not simply lose to yourself. I find losing to that better than "hey, look! I have the right two cards together, so I instantly win the game."

Same. But IMO engine decks should still operate on the board or other colours need something like taxing counters to play actual games with them. It's not like that can't be done.

[Nekrataal]

Read the latest article of Carsten http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?28492-Article-Eternal-Europe-Why-Aggro-Died and you understand that the means WotC has chosen to re-establish Aggro will fail. Midrange Decks will take over and pure Aggro will simply stay dead.

[iamajellydonut]

Even mainboard stuff like Thalia does not make for an interactive matchup. I've played Maverick quite a bit back in the day and "do I have turn 2 Thalia && does he have turn 1/2 kill" doesn't make for much of a game. It auto-blanks 90% of your deck, BY DESIGN. Not to mention, a couple of slow mainboard semi-relevant answers doesn't even do much for the matchup, as evidenced by the reality of Goblins vs. Storm or Maverick vs. Storm or Zoo vs. Storm or pick one.

Ignoring that dork into Green Sun's Zenith for Gaddock Teeg or Scavenging Ooze is an option for this archaic deck that you're referencing for no apparent reason, that is the price you pay for your deck choice. Just because various combos have the ability to turn 1/2/3 kill you doesn't mean they are any more or less degenerate than some "fair" decks. Explain to me how I'm expected to deal with turn 1 Sensei's Divining Top. Explain to me how I'm expected to deal with die roll Delver of Secrets. Explain to me how I'm expected to deal with Mother of Runes -> Thalia -> More Good Stuff as any given deck. The truth of the matter is that I have to have a turn one Disfigure or whatever turn one form of hate is relevant, or be in a solidly and decidedly losing position on turn 1/2/3 depending on what they can follow it up with. We choose to devote our decks to dealing with creatures at the expense of opening ourselves to random sweeps by combo. Combo, all forms of combo, can be interacted with. It's a matter of choosing whether or not to, and you have clearly chosen not to.

[Lord Seth]

Read the latest article of Carsten http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?28492-Article-Eternal-Europe-Why-Aggro-Died and you understand that the means WotC has chosen to re-establish Aggro will fail. Midrange Decks will take over and pure Aggro will simply stay dead.Except that whole article Wizards wrote about Aggro and Control referred to Standard, where aggro is still a thing, and in fact a significant part of the meta. You can't say aggro will "stay dead" in a format where it's not dead to begin with.

[tescrin]

I'll say that I certainly hate losing to combo; but BOY is it rewarding when you start winning and I kinda like the skill test of playing it now. I'm still primarily a Junk player and

Freakin'

A

is it a good time to beat down S&T or Storm. It's like when you play Contra and you're terrible; falling off of cliffs, jumping into bullets, etc.. and then you realize how to not-be-bad and get used to it all. Some of it's dumb, like you memorize everything, realize spreadshot is SUPER OP, etc.. but eventually you beat the game without dying and it's rewarding.

Same with Combo; it sucks until it doesn't. It sucks until you've gone away from being a terrible-at-legacy mtg player and come back with a deck that can fight combo *and* grind out fair MUs. It is possible (enough) without blue to be quite enjoyable.


I realize this is far and away from the thread's start, but we already knew WotC make bad design decisions based on the overall nerfing of everything but midrange and fat creatures.

[rant]
They used to not try to spell out the entire game, decades ago, and instead built a playground for people to explore and create brutal shit. Now they try and arrange it like a children's plasticized playground with no corners, no edges, no chains outside of plastic, seatbelts on the swings.

We already knew that they were doing it; them writing an article just makes it official. I think, quite honestly, that Wizards wants standard to feel like casual:
"We've killed combo.
We've killed aggro by printing no burn spells after Ravnica since it started becoming a deck.
We've killed drawbacks, complex board states.
We've killed land destruction and prisons.
We've killed instant speed.
We're just gonna finally kill sweepers/control and that'll do it.

Everything is now a nice solid blend of 3-5 mana creatures and 3-5 mana answers with no texture to it at all.
Isn't that

fucking

fantastic?!"

Did you realize that in Urza's you could kill a guy T3 with freakin' AGGRO.
Did you realize that was a thing as recent as Zenidkar? Zendikar even had combo (Valakut) and so did Scars. (Splinter Twin)
Combo lets you shit your pants with worry and create intensity in an otherwise empty board state.

Makin' me grumbly.

[Lord Seth]

We already knew that they were doing it; them writing an article just makes it official. I think, quite honestly, that Wizards wants standard to feel like casual:
"We've killed combo.In Standard? True.


We've killed aggro by printing no burn spells after Ravnica since it started becoming a deck.False. Aggro is pretty good in Standard right now. Heck, outright Burn is actually a legitimate deck.

I've also got no idea where the claim they've printed no burn spells after Ravnica comes from. That's just flat-out untrue.


We've killed drawbacks,Patently false. The best deck in Standard (Black Devotion) plays multiple cards with drawbacks. Unless you don't think Desecration Demon, Underworld Connections, or Thoughtseize have drawbacks...


complex board states."Complex board states" is one of those things that's easy to throw around, but without actually quantifying it means nothing.


We've killed land destruction and prisons.True.


We've killed instant speed.I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. There are still plenty of good Instants.


We're just gonna finally kill sweepers/control and that'll do it.Well, if you want to ignore what they actually said in the article, sure.


Did you realize that was a thing as recent as Zenidkar? Zendikar even had combo (Valakut) and so did Scars. (Splinter Twin)Splinter Twin wasn't intentional. Valakut, at least in Standard, wasn't really a combo deck so much as a ramp deck that had some combo elements.

[btm10]

I think that one of his (sorry, assuming a gender here) points is that there should be more unintentional combo like Twin in Standard (along with a lot of other options) like there used to be. Wizards saying that "unconditional sweepers are off-limits from now on" is consistent with every other dexision they've made since at least NWO started in that it hurts non-midrange strategies. Even tbe standard burn deck runs a planeswalker and a grindy recursive 3 drop.

[Rizso]

Aggro in standard was still only 13% with burn it was 15% of the metagame at the last pro tour where Rabble Red got introduced. So its still not that common to face in tournaments.

[Lord Seth]

I think that one of his (sorry, assuming a gender here) points is that there should be more unintentional combo like Twin in Standard (along with a lot of other options) like there used to be.How in the world is Wizards of the Coast supposed to intentionally create unintentional combos? The reason combos have fallen out of Standard is because they've gotten better at catching them; they've pretty rarely intentionally tried to put a combo into Standard.


Wizards saying that "unconditional sweepers are off-limits from now on" is consistent with every other dexision they've made since at least NWO started in that it hurts non-midrange strategies.They never said that unconditional sweepers are off-limits from now on. They said unconditional sweepers at 4 mana will, at least for a while, not going to be used. Even if you interpret that as being the way it'll always be, "no more unconditional sweepers at 4" is different than "no more unconditional sweepers."


Even tbe standard burn deck runs a planeswalker and a grindy recursive 3 drop.Because the card selection in Standard isn't particularly big, so you have to make do with things like that. It isn't like Modern or Legacy where you can make every card in your deck cost 1 or 2 mana in a burn deck.

Even back in the day, Deadguy Red was running Hammer of Bogardan to to give it increased reach. Chandra's Phoenix fulfills the same role. As for Chandra herself, she's really a sideboard card most of the time.


Aggro in standard was still only 13% with burn it was 15% of the metagame at the last pro tour where Rabble Red got introduced. So its still not that common to face in tournaments.I'm hoping you're not mindlessly looking at the metagame breakdown Wizards provided and just counting the stuff listed under "aggro" because that actually doesn't include all the aggro decks, even if you add in decks from the separate burn category. For whatever reason they separated the devotion decks into their own archetypes, which gives misleading information. Black Devotion is one of the most midrange decks ever made, yet it isn't put into the midrange section. Likewise, Blue Devotion is an aggro deck, but it's not under aggro.

The decks they list as aggro plus Burn plus Blue Devotion equals 23.9% aggro, possibly more depending on how you count Green Devotion and RG Monsters.

[LOLWut]

How in the world is Wizards of the Coast supposed to intentionally create unintentional combos? The reason combos have fallen out of Standard is because they've gotten better at catching them; they've pretty rarely intentionally tried to put a combo into Standard.


They used to not try to spell out the entire game, decades ago, and instead built a playground for people to explore and create brutal shit. Now they try and arrange it like a children's plasticized playground with no corners, no edges, no chains outside of plastic, seatbelts on the swings.

[btm10]

Because the card selection in Standard isn't particularly big, so you have to make do with things like that. It isn't like Modern or Legacy where you can make every card in your deck cost 1 or 2 mana in a burn deck.

Even back in the day, Deadguy Red was running Hammer of Bogardan to to give it increased reach. Chandra's Phoenix fulfills the same role. As for Chandra herself, she's really a sideboard card most of the time.


Deadguy was always viewed as a Sligh variant, not a pure Burn deck. A lot of builds ran some number Lava Hounds as a closer alongside Hammer, and had a ton of other creatures too. So yeah, you can find lots of parallels between the past and present if you compare yesterday's oranges to today's apples.

[FieryBalrog]

Ignoring that dork into Green Sun's Zenith for Gaddock Teeg or Scavenging Ooze is an option for this archaic deck that you're referencing for no apparent reason, that is the price you pay for your deck choice.

No shit, that's the point? Engine combo decks are designed to blank out an entire swathe of archetypes and should be relegated to the fringe of the format. The fact that you can scrape together some half-assed interactions, using binary cards like Grafdigger's Cage et. al., with a deck that's intentionally designed to avoid interaction is not a point in its favor, particularly when the deck can easily kill you before you draw them or ignore them altogether. This guy put it better:


The problem there, though, isn't so much with engine combo deck as much as allowed axes of interaction and the absolute nature of many common hate cards. When two decks don't play along the same axes you just end up with a race or a coinflip, which gets old pretty fast. The decks have to have common axes where they contest each other for there to be a match that feels good. Many hate cards are also really problematic because they're narrow but crushingly strong to the point where you land them and the opponent just isn't allowed to play anymore. It's fine in a metagame sense where it's punishment for excessive greed (Moon, Chalice, Canonist, RIP and the like) but the resulting games are kind of ass.

^^^ Exactly.




Just because various combos have the ability to turn 1/2/3 kill you doesn't mean they are any more or less degenerate than some "fair" decks.

Sure, that might be true if you didn't know what the words "degenerate" and "fair" meant.

[iamajellydonut]

Sounds like someone's pretty salty about their inability to consistently beat an archetype.

[Higgs]

Sounds like someone's pretty salty about their inability to consistently beat an archetype.

Exactly my feelings reading the thread. I feel like I read the same arguments about conterspells and controls decks back in the day and how they were unfair bla bla. No wonder Wizards is screwing up the game to make people happy.

[tescrin]

1) False. Aggro is pretty good in Standard right now. Heck, outright Burn is actually a legitimate deck.
2) I've also got no idea where the claim they've printed no burn spells after Ravnica comes from. That's just flat-out untrue.
3) Patently false. The best deck in Standard (Black Devotion) plays multiple cards with drawbacks. Unless you don't think Desecration Demon, Underworld Connections, or Thoughtseize have drawbacks...
4) "Complex board states" is one of those things that's easy to throw around, but without actually quantifying it means nothing.
5) [land destruction]True.
6) I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. There are still plenty of good Instants.
7)[kill sweepers/control]Well, if you want to ignore what they [I]actually said in the article, sure.
8)Splinter Twin wasn't intentional. Valakut, at least in Standard, wasn't really a combo deck so much as a ramp deck that had some combo elements.

1,3,8 - I guess
2 - Sort of. It's pretty mediocre and then all of it's not-garbage cards will rotate. Neat.
4 - It's actually exactly the purpose of NWO since lorwyn; reduce on board tricks and feel-bads of not-reading-cards.
6 - Similar to 4. It's dead outside of instants; most of which are garbage. Instead it's about sorcery speed interaction because they believe it promotes more interesting decisions.
7 - The article says it itself. They want pure control gone and control to run midrange creatures to protect themselves for the extra couple turns they have to wait for a sweeper. They believe this is more interesting because they think the game is completely about creatures.

[Lord Seth]

1,3,8 - I guess
2 - Sort of. It's pretty mediocre and then all of it's not-garbage cards will rotate. Neat.But your claim was that they stopped printing burn spells. That's just not true. Sure, Searing Spear/Lightning Strike is not close to the power of Lightning Bolt, but it's still a quite playable burn spell in Standard.


7 - The article says it itself. They want pure control gone and control to run midrange creatures to protect themselves for the extra couple turns they have to wait for a sweeper. They believe this is more interesting because they think the game is completely about creatures.Uh, no. That's not what the article says at all. I can't find a single mention in that article of them wanting control decks to run midrange creatures, or anything at all about control decks running creatures. Am I missing something?

[Lemnear]

Uh, no. That's not what the article says at all. I can't find a single mention in that article of them wanting control decks to run midrange creatures, or anything at all about control decks running creatures. Am I missing something?

Lets copy & Pate the part from the article


One of the problems with having a constant and unconditional four-mana Wrath of God variant in Standard is that it can generate a lot of control-vs.-aggro matchups that boil down to that one play on the fourth turn. The aggressive deck needs enough juice that it can win on turn five if the opponent doesn't have the sweeper, but not so much that the sweeper doesn't matter. It means that it is usually best to take the hits from aggro until you can destroy all creatures on turn four, then either use spot removal to clean up the rest or play a second sweeper when the aggro deck tries to recover. Historically, it has been very hard for most creature-based strategies to survive two early-game sweepers, and much of those decks' matchups against control really just came down to "Do they have it or don't they?" which isn't a very satisfying way to win or lose a game.

That has been the way many people think of control-on-aggressive matchups, because it's the play pattern we have encouraged for years. But it's one we are willing to take some chances with, because we believe it will lead to a more fun game in the long run. In the future, it is possible that you will see more three- and four-mana board wipes that are conditional (like Anger of the Gods), and more five-mana mass-removal spells with upside. Without the "gold Standard" four-mana white sweeper, more of these cards become playable in Standard, and it should allow for the metagame to shift in terms of which sweepers and which threats players will choose to combat each other.

Especially the last sentence is imo pretty clear considering how the article is about aggro vs control. He is talking about the desired shift to threats in control as the usual "T4 Wrath! Now I'm in charge!" is out of the picture.

[TsumiBand]

Especially the last sentence is imo pretty clear considering how the article is about aggro vs control. He is talking about the desired shift to threats in control as the usual "T4 Wrath! Now I'm in charge!" is out of the picture.

I think this is a good thing, and I also don't derive anything from the context of the quote wherein it states that no more Turn 4 Easy Button necessarily means more creatures for control.

The turn 4 WoG is a lot like a lock for many decks, and playing around a lock is a pain in the dick (if it's even possible under certain circumstances). I don't necessarily agree with the idea that WoG is obsoleted by the game's desire to go longer, but I do respect the idea that aggro should be able to play its own game with a higher degree of impunity than it could, like, a decade ago.

I'm not the only one that was taught to believe that playing 3 creatures == overextending, right? That idea comes from the ease of finding and playing Wrath of God right on turn 4 with consistency. You had to have an amazingly quick and dirty swarm of dudes to make this work, and the only decks that could do it were either Goblins or, like, Fish decks that could Daze/Force/Spiketail Hatchling a sumbitch. The only thing that kind of interaction has going for it is historical relevance. Like if you want to see what an unplayable mess aggro was in Eternal, just look at any tourney report from the turn of the century with the old Phantom Tape Worm lists for Fish. People'd be like "I can't even believe this deck plays creatures AND Top 8's. It's gotta be the pilot trolling us."

[Lord Seth]

Lets copy & Pate the part from the article



Especially the last sentence is imo pretty clear considering how the article is about aggro vs control. He is talking about the desired shift to threats in control as the usual "T4 Wrath! Now I'm in charge!" is out of the picture.You're right, it is pretty clear. It's pretty clear that he's not talking about running creatures in control decks. The threats he's talking about are the threats in aggro decks.

I can't tell; are you arguing with me or agreeing with me? Because what you're saying seems to be arguing, but the text you quoted supports me completely.

[Lemnear]

You're right, it is pretty clear. It's pretty clear that he's not talking about running creatures in control decks. The threats he's talking about are the threats in aggro decks.

I can't tell; are you arguing with me or agreeing with me? Because what you're saying seems to be arguing, but the text you quoted supports me completely.

I guess there is much space for interpretation if he says that aggro can kill turn 5 and he don't want their assault killed by a sweeper turn 4 while the #1 spot removal hero's downfall costs 3 in a world of powercreep within the creature cardtype. They don't want the race to turn 4 anymore, fine. The Problem is that spot & conditional removal is so underpowered to fill the gap they are about to create. I'm hoping to be proven wrong soon and that the easy and obvious solution is not to play creature-trumps yourself. The fact that he was trying to directly link a resolved turn 4 sweeper to the automatic loss of the Aggro deck was plain hilarious.

[TsumiBand]

I guess there is much space for interpretation if he says that aggro can kill turn 5 and he don't want their assault killed by a sweeper turn 4 while the #1 spot removal hero's downfall costs 3 in a world of powercreep within the creature cardtype. They don't want the race to turn 4 anymore, fine. The Problem is that spot & conditional removal is so underpowered to fill the gap they are about to create. I'm hoping to be proven wrong soon and that the easy and obvious solution is not to play creature-trumps yourself. The fact that he was trying to directly link a resolved turn 4 sweeper to the automatic loss of the Aggro deck was plain hilarious.

Well consider the math that goes into dealing 20 by the time the control player lays that 4th land. If you're incredibly aggressive (talking Standard here; Legacy is full of stuff that lowers the fundamental turn significantly) you have to deal, on average, 5 per turn. This assumes you're on the play; on the draw, if we're strictly talking about getting the other player to 0 damages, that's 7 damage per turn (rounded up, because 6.6... is dumb).

I mean the turn 4 WoG is a much bigger stumbling block than it seems, because it pushes *both* players to play the long game, which control is suited for and aggro is typically not. The old adage about not over-extending into Wrath was always a double-edged sword; you're sacrificing board position for the ability to recover successfully from a wipe, but you're doing so to the detriment of your own plan, not to the advancement. I mean yes, we could talk about building against that expectation, but then we're talking about everyone building for the mid-to-long game because the short game is occupied entirely by decks the article doesn't even cover (combo, SnT/Reanimator-style decks, etc). That sucks. It sucks because without a legit, non-combo blitzkrieg strategy in the game there's nothing to keep everything from bowing to control's idea of tempo; every matchup is "the control deck either did, or didn't maintain tempo." Boooooo. That's astoundingly bland. (It's probably also a bit of hyperbole, but I'm trying to avoid the idea of changing all decklists to match a metagame because then the conversation just rabbit holes ad strawmanium, and that's useless.)

[Higgs]

Probably turn 4 wrath feels like a kick to their sand castle for enough players, hence the change in philosophy.

Frankly I think WoTC, as an extension of Hasbro, is and has been catering to children and treating this game as a child's game. There I said it. I know no long time magic player likes using or hearing child's game and MtG in the same sentence but I think this is the unfortunate truth although we don't confess it to ourselves. Everything from their recent printings, design decisions, rule changes, direction they take with art and flavor is geared towards the player base aged 10-16. Everytime I read something from Maro, or watch him in a panel, I see him addressing the whole player base as he is addressing kids. I don't see a point in complaining in anything Wizards does anymore because once you accept that Wizards and the game they are currently producing doesn't cater to you anymore you accept that there's no point in expecting anything different. As a grown up Magic player who understand and appreciates the game at a different level, everything you like and you expect from the game is probably against how WoTC views it. It doesn't mean that Magic is not for you anymore, it just means that you should find the niche in Magic that you are still able to enjoy, stick to that niche and salvage whatever you can from all the shit Wizards is producing.

/rant

[tescrin]

But your claim was that they stopped printing burn spells. That's just not true. Sure, Searing Spear/Lightning Strike is not close to the power of Lightning Bolt, but it's still a quite playable burn spell in Standard.

First, Spear is rotating. This is such a minor thing to quarrel about; but current Burn cards in standard rotating out:
Shock, Spear, Helix, Charm, Skullcrack

What is it being replaced with? If you think they're replacing those 4-damage burn spells with anything that can hit a player that even does *3* damage, I'll buy a hat and then I'll eat my hat. You *might* see a Char on one of the charms; forcing a 3-color deck that's still less powerful than the currently mediocre deck. They saw a semi-viable non-creature (~12 creatures still) deck and made sure it went away.

[TsumiBand]

Probably turn 4 wrath feels like a kick to their sand castle for enough players, hence the change in philosophy.

Frankly I think WoTC, as an extension of Hasbro, is and has been catering to children and treating this game as a child's game. There I said it. I know no long time magic player likes using or hearing child's game and MtG in the same sentence but I think this is the unfortunate truth although we don't confess it to ourselves. Everything from their recent printings, design decisions, rule changes, direction they take with art and flavor is geared towards the player base aged 10-16. Everytime I read something from Maro, or watch him in a panel, I see him addressing the whole player base as he is addressing kids. I don't see a point in complaining in anything Wizards does anymore because once you accept that Wizards and the game they are currently producing doesn't cater to you anymore you accept that there's no point in expecting anything different. As a grown up Magic player who understand and appreciates the game at a different level, everything you like and you expect from the game is probably against how WoTC views it. It doesn't mean that Magic is not for you anymore, it just means that you should find the niche in Magic that you are still able to enjoy, stick to that niche and salvage whatever you can from all the shit Wizards is producing.

/rant

Um, yeah. This times a fsckbillion.

It says right on the package, ages 13+. Yes adults play this game. Yes, I prefer playing the game with adults. No, this game is not necessarily created with adults in mind.

Eventually the pop music machine leaves you behind and you look back at the music from your favorite period of life and go, "Whatever this stuff is today, it's terrible. Nothing like when I was your age, whippersnapper." This speech belongs in a museum because it's timeless. That it is a hallmark of every generation is not an indicator that music is getting worse; rather, that it is simply something a generation says as it ages. To wit - Your old cards are Soundgarden, and you're pissed because new cards are Paramore, but here's the thing; the kids don't give a shit, and neither do theirs, and neither do theirs. That you see a linear progression towards a lower quality is only indicative of your bias of experience and fondness of an older paradigm.

[Richard Cheese]

Probably turn 4 wrath feels like a kick to their sand castle for enough players, hence the change in philosophy.

Frankly I think WoTC, as an extension of Hasbro, is and has been catering to children and treating this game as a child's game. There I said it. I know no long time magic player likes using or hearing child's game and MtG in the same sentence but I think this is the unfortunate truth although we don't confess it to ourselves. Everything from their recent printings, design decisions, rule changes, direction they take with art and flavor is geared towards the player base aged 10-16. Everytime I read something from Maro, or watch him in a panel, I see him addressing the whole player base as he is addressing kids. I don't see a point in complaining in anything Wizards does anymore because once you accept that Wizards and the game they are currently producing doesn't cater to you anymore you accept that there's no point in expecting anything different. As a grown up Magic player who understand and appreciates the game at a different level, everything you like and you expect from the game is probably against how WoTC views it. It doesn't mean that Magic is not for you anymore, it just means that you should find the niche in Magic that you are still able to enjoy, stick to that niche and salvage whatever you can from all the shit Wizards is producing.

/rant

News flash: Magic has always appealed to the 10-16 demographic. I first got into the game around Revised, when I was ~13. By high school I was going to tournaments pretty regularly, brewing shit, reading Inquest...and there were a lot of other people around my age into it at the time. It's a collectible game with dragons and wizards and goblins and shit...it's always going to appeal to that age group. It's more a matter of medium and subject matter than anything. Of course WotC knows this and is going to continue going after that group, it's just in their best financial interest.

[Lord Seth]

First, Spear is rotating. This is such a minor thing to quarrel about; but current Burn cards in standard rotating out:
Shock, Spear, Helix, Charm, Skullcrack

What is it being replaced with?Searing Spear isn't rotating, it's already rotated out. I wrote "Searing Spear/Lightning Strike" because they're the same card under different names. The point was that such a card was still around. You claimed they were getting rid of Burn cards, even though they just put one into Magic 2015. Okay, fine, it was also from Theros (still after RTR!), but you can't claim that they stopped printing Burn cards when there are Burn cards right there in the most recent set.

Or, for other post-Ravnica cards: Magma Jet (Theros), Searing Blood (Born of the Gods), and Stoke the Flames (another Magic 2015 card). Or how about the fact that the card that made Burn competitive in Legacy was from Journey into Nyx?

I don't really understand how you can claim they didn't print burn cards after Ravnica when there so clearly are burn spells printed afterwards. It makes about as much sense as claiming they stopped printing planeswalkers after Ravnica; it's so obviously untrue the assertion makes no sense.

[tescrin]

I mean, if you think reprinting Strike when they could've done Spear or Shock isn't telling and you think that Searing Blood counts as a legit burn spell; I can't really argue with you. Blood is a conditional bolt based on shocking something in a format full of giant beasties. I realize people weren't using 4 Spear, 4 Strike, 4 Skullcrack; but with all the stuff rotating I bet they
would by comparison to *nothing* or Searing Blood.

You can't count creature prints as evidence for your case when we're speaking about a deck that wouldn't use creatures if it didn't *have to.*

[Adryan]

I think Wrath of God will come back in a future Standard format. Now they just want to have a different Standard format. A format where Control needs to play Creatures, which is acutally a good thing because i think the current standard UWx Control is one of the most boring decks one can imagine. And i play Miracle, so that does say quite a lot.

The skill needed to pilot the current Standard UWx Control is very low. Control with Creatures (Caw- Blade, Faeries etc.) has a very high skill cap and is more fun to play for the majority of people. So i think it's a good thing to reintroduce creatures in U- based Controldecks, as long as they have cool triggers and feel like spells ^^

[wonderPreaux]

So i think it's a good thing to reintroduce creatures in U- based Controldecks, as long as they have cool triggers and feel like spells ^^

For the sake of eternal formats, I think it'd be real cool if blue actually didn't get ridiculously efficient creatures with absurd abilities. We probably don't need more Snapcaster Magi or Vendilion Cliques.

[rufus]

For the sake of eternal formats, I think it'd be real cool if blue actually didn't get ridiculously efficient creatures with absurd abilities. We probably don't need more Snapcaster Magi or Vendilion Cliques.

If they also parted out eternal-level stack control and card quality cards to other colors, it would probably be fine.

[Lord Seth]

I mean, if you think reprinting Strike when they could've done Spear or Shock isn't tellingTelling of what? It's a burn spell, which is what you were asking for. Even if you don't want to count the reprint, Lightning Strike was still in Theros, post-RTR.

When Shock wasn't in M13, was that "telling" of anything?


and you think that Searing Blood counts as a legit burn spell; I can't really argue with you. Blood is a conditional bolt based on shocking something in a format full of giant beasties. I realize people weren't using 4 Spear, 4 Strike, 4 Skullcrack; but with all the stuff rotating I bet they
would by comparison to *nothing* or Searing Blood.And you're still evading the point, that you claimed they stopped printing burn cards after Return to Ravnica, even though I just pointed to multiple burn spells they printed afterwards. Like I said, your claim was as nonsensical as claiming they stopped printing planeswalkers. It's objectively untrue.

[tescrin]

Telling of what? It's a burn spell, which is what you were asking for. Even if you don't want to count the reprint, Lightning Strike was still in Theros, post-RTR.

And you're still evading the point, that you claimed they stopped printing burn cards after Return to Ravnica, even though I just pointed to multiple burn spells they printed afterwards. It's objectively untrue.

You are being (purposefully) dense for the sake of trolling me into replying; and it's unfortunately working..

-Burn is losing 20 cards and gaining 4 (from M15.)
-They reprinted a spell that was already going to stay in standard rather than print one that is rotating (or one that does a similar job) which reduces the overall number of burn cards in standard.
-The garbage you cited aren't burn cards so your argument is incoherent.
-Saying "X is objectively untrue" doesn't actually make it objectively untrue.

Please take your fanboyism and stop jamming your "REPLY WITH QUOTE" dick into my forum ass. I'm saying they're killing the DECK burn, not the cards that happen to "cause burn."
Even if you disagree i'd appreciate if you stopped playing "Forum footsie" with me and let my damn post die. I posted my thoughts on a shitty format in a thread about how wizards is continuing to ruin an already shitty format. Shit.

[Lord Seth]

You are being (purposefully) dense for the sake of trolling me into replying; and it's unfortunately working..Let's look at exactly what you said, word for word:
"We've killed aggro by printing no burn spells after Ravnica since it started becoming a deck."

You claimed there were no burn spells printed after Ravnica. I showed that was wrong. Is there some reason you won't admit that this plainly wrong assertion of yours is... plainly wrong? That's why I keep hammering at it; it's so blatantly inaccurate.


-Burn is losing 20 cards and gaining 4 (from M15.)
-They reprinted a spell that was already going to stay in standard rather than print one that is rotating (or one that does a similar job) which reduces the overall number of burn cards in standard.This point of yours isn't really relevant to my criticism outside of reinforcing it (as you note there are new burn spells, thus disproving your original claim), but I do question how relevant a comparison a full block versus 1/3 of one set (how much of Khans has been spoiled) is.


-The garbage you cited aren't burn cards so your argument is incoherent.By what weird definition of burn are Lightning Strike, Magma Jet, and Stoke the Flames not burn?

They're cheap cards that deal direct damage to a creature or player. Unless you're operating under some completely different definition of burn than the rest of the world, that's the definition of a burn spell.


-Saying "X is objectively untrue" doesn't actually make it objectively untrue.You're right it doesn't. But in this case, it is objectively untrue. Heck, all I have to do is point to Lightning Strike... that one card's existence singlehandedly disproves your claim. So do Magma Jet and Stoke the Flames. You can finagle a bit on Searing Blood, but that does nothing in regards to the other ones I pointed to.


I'm saying they're killing the DECK burn, not the cards that happen to "cause burn."No, that is not what you said. Again, read your statement I quoted at the start. You didn't say they were killing the deck burn; you were claiming they were killing aggro by not printing burn spells, which is a totally different claim and a far more dubious one (some aggro decks, most notably Blue Devotion, don't even play burn). You also said they printed no burn spells after Ravnica, which again I pointed out was false.

Now, as to the claim of the deck burn likely dying out... yeah, probably. Just like how most of the decks currently in Standard are going to die out or at least dramatically change post rotation.

Maybe you just didn't phrase your original assertion well, and this is a big case of miscommunication in me going by what you said and you going by what you meant to say. But your statement, as it was written, made a quite different claim than you're making here, and that original claim is pretty obviously false.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Tescrin, would you be so kind as to agree you were wrong so that we may move away from your silly claim of "no burn spells printed since RTR"?
Also, if you meant that "the deck Burn is dead" or even "they didn't print many new burn spells in last year", you should have written it like that and either:
- inform us that you were metaphoric
- or rather not make ridiculous claims at all