Originally Posted by
Mad Mat
People adopt two strategies: they pack answers to chalice, which are at the same time a bit more versatile than that. Cards like Abrade, Abrupt Decay or Kolaghan's Command. Or they pack cards which allow them to play around or through a chalice, like delve creatures, planeswalkers or young pyromancer.
Yes, these are all fine solutions, and I employ them where I can. They don't make Chalice any less binary or boring.
I agree partially. The big problem with chalice is its play/draw sensitivity. Any card abusing this dynamic reinforces the importance of the die roll, which is an unsatisfying aspect of the game. This is a big problem in legacy in general, with chalice partially to blame.
I don't want to attach this problem too much to chalice only though. Cards like deathrite shaman (rip), daze, thoughtseize, hymn to tourach, delver... all abuse(d) the play/draw mechanic signficantly to achieve their current power level.
I think the play/draw angle is an interesting discussion point. I think it has separate issues from Chalice, and a Chalice on one on the draw can still be pretty miserable, but it would be nice to see more reasons to be on the draw.
But I also think that this massive impact of chalice is due to decks too often banking on cantrip-reliant hands. In this sense, chalice is an effective hoser disrupting this very powerful deck-building mechanic, which allows players to cut back on lands and threat/answer density.
I know a lot of people disagree, but I think the cantrip dynamic is a strict improvement on not having generic consistency tools, because the only "games" that are worse than ones that involve chalice are the ones where you just don't draw lands/spells/whatever. Cantrips let people play the actual game, instead of the topdeck lottery.
At a fairly similar power level you have steel stompy and 4c loam. These decks pack chalice and have a lot of room for pilot skill to impact the match result. I would say this consideration of chalice being an easy card is more because of R&D screwing up the development of eldrazi tribal and the format's vulnerability to blood moon (pre drs ban).
I think those decks do have more play to them than Eldrazi does, but I also don't think it's fair to characterize them as Tier 1 decks. The "easy-mode" tomb-chalice-beater decks are the ones that occasionally make the DTB, so those seem more relevant to me.
The problem will be that, if they print something powerful and generic enough, it will be better in cantrip shells, because it is improved consistency on top of them. You'd need engines which work poorly with cantrips, yet still provide sufficient power. Survival is a good example, but with the power creep of the last years, it'd become too format-warping. Or engines at a similar power level as cantrips, but available to other strategies. Faithless looting is a good example of that.
I actually think that they could unban survival and nothing would really happen. People would definitely play it, but I don't think it would be better than existing combo decks or creature decks. If anyone has a list they think would break the format if survival were unbanned, I would love to see it.
I agree Faithless Looting is a sweet card, and a great example.
The metaphor is supposed to highlight that the main "problem" with chalice is that it addresses an inbred metagame, based on a mechanic in the game with very few tools interacting with it.
OK, sure; I still don't think it's especially instructive. Taking the idea of the low jab you're proposing, the issue is still that it's as if the guy who learned to do the low jab had to give up other fighting fundamentals (efficient, reasonable curve, for example) to learn it, and now it's the only thing he can do. Fortunately for him, a lot of boxers use the reasonable strategy, so he still gets some wins when he gets lucky and gets paired with them.
We were talking about how chalice is boring, not its turn 1 impact. I gave jace as another example of cards which are boring, because they warp match-ups around their resolution and timing. It's no more interesting or skill-intensive to face a resolved turn 1 chalice as rug delver than it is to face terminus/k-command/snap-plow into jace as a creature deck.
Yes, it is, because the timing of the other examples actually matters. With chalice, it is basically always correct to jam it on turn one. With terminus, how long do you wait? Do you use your life total as a resource? How many other threats do they have? Is it worth it as a one-for-one? what if they have a counterspell? Can you afford to try to float it (especially now with top gone?) ...Chalice? Have it? Slam it. Optimal play with terminus and other reactive cards is meaningfully different than chalice.
At both points, your only out typically becomes hoping your opponent messes up. Which I guess is more likely with jace, as it has more options, but that is some pretty poor consolation.
But there is some possibility of you playing around it. With Chalice, sure, they could miss a trigger, I guess? But that's more like angle shooting than making some sort of play to cause them to misplay with the Jace
In all my years of magic, I can remember maybe one instance of combat math having any impact with jace on the battlefield. Jace player needs to keep him alive, other player needs to get him dead. Combat is just about that, nothing more.
I've played plenty of games where it was not a given that Jace would live on any particular turn, and where I've made choices to sacrifice him to save some life/make a play. Certainly more games like that than games where literally anything interesting happened after one player played a chalice.
