[Article] Deathrite Is Next

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maharis

Miracles didn't stop any combo decks from succeeding with the right adaptations. The No. 2 deck the day SDT was banned was Sneak & Show. Reanimator was winning on turn 0.5. Storm was OK. The idea that only Miracles was stopping degenerate combos is incorrect. The only reason it could was because it was so good against fair decks that it could overload for combo in games 2 & 3 and make CB/Top more relevant by getting to a later point in the game.

Combo decks do not want to face a clock + interaction, which is more likely now that there will be more fair decks that aren't trying to win or lock you out before turn 3. They'll likely adapt to the new meta, but the games should be good and interactive.

---

^^^ These statements here ^^^

I've always been told that Miracles keeps combo in check, but the more I think about it, the less true it seems. Miracles kept fair decks in check, and prevented more of the fair decks from being "viable".

I think the lack of Miracles if anything will allow more decks to be more diverse and side boards to be more flexible for everyone to be more well rounded. Everyone had dedicated "I hate Miracles" cards, but most decks don't need a "I hate DRS" cards. You had to care about your Miracles match up, you don't really care about your DRS match up (except graveyard combo decks? and goblins...?).

I want to see what happens, I'm excited for the shifts right now.

Pretty much all good-stuff fair midrange and tempo decks are running :b::u::g: colours (meta shift pending). Of course this is as much cantrips pushing :u: as it is DRS/AD pushing :b:/:g:.
That's just fair good-stuff piles though. Beyond these, no deck really wants DRS unless they happen to care about its type line for some reason.

Recently D&T, Infect, Eldrazi, Lands, Sneak Show, Storm, and Reanimator have been solid options. I know we are in a shake-up (I think Burn is looking good), but I can't imagine we are heading for a meta dominated by fair BUG decks Could be wrong I guess.

I think too many people are discounting the impact of the second rationale for Top's banning, and Bob seems to here as well.

Deathrite is about as powerful as Bob says, and I expect he'll be more ubiquitous with Miracles gone, but mainly because, outside of Miracles, he was already ubiquitous among fair decks. So does the Miracles exit really change that? Does Deathrite become more powerful in absolute terms among the non-Miracles decks?

I'm skeptical of that. BUG, in one form or another, was already tier 1. It will be seen more because Miracles will be seen less.

The decks that will be really seen more, compared to the previous meta but minus Miracles, are the decks that Miracles really preyed on. Of these, Elves seems like the most likely in terms of boosting Deathrite. But Elves is not dependant on Deathrite for its strategy, it's just a better choice in general than the other mana dorks it used to run. That is, banning Deathrite will not have a large impact on Elves, the most likely Deathrite deck to benefit from Miracles' passing.

I believe Wizards that Top was banned for both of the reasons they gave. Deathrite doesn't lead to draws like Top did. There's no Deathrite bracket at tournaments. Yes, it was the Miracles deck, not Top alone, that brought about this situation, but that's because Counterbalance magnified the time impact of Top, and the deck's overall success made it a popular choice of deck among people at all skill levels. This is why I disagree with people who said Terminus should have gotten the hammer instead. The point was not that Miracles was too strong, it was that Miracles' strength hilighted the fact that Top is not a card that's conducive to good tournaments.

When played with skill and speed, Miracles does not lead to draws, but many players did not play with such speed. Top players may not recognize that fact because they tend to stay out of the draw bracket, but Wizards cannot just craft their tournaments for top players. It's simply unfair to players paired up against an inexperienced or unskillful Miracles pilot that they get stuck with a draw more often than not because so much time is eaten up with Topping and fetching.

This situation just doesn't exist with Deathrite, and furthermore, the variety of decks that Deathrite is represented in suggest to me that he's not as much of a problem- certainly no more than is Brainstorm, and Wizards has not shown any signs of ever banning that. (Perhaps Brainstorm receives special protection as the lynchpin of the format, though.)

I'm not sure whether I've put it this way—or whether anyone cares—but I feel like there's a substantial and substantive difference between cards that show up in top brackets because they enable a variety of decks and cards that show up in top brackets because they force opponents into weird deckbuilding corners to combat them.

Counterbalance, for instance, is of the latter variety, while Brainstorm and Deathrite Shaman are of the former. (For the record, I also think Sensei's Divining Top is of the former category.)

Cards in the first group are, I think, generally good for the game and shouldn't be targeted. Cards of the second group are the ones that cause much greater aggravation and do the "warping" most of the time.

Obviously none of this is set in stone (and certainly cards can fill both roles), but I feel like one reason people often talk past each other is that both groups can cause homogenization in the card choices of the best decks. The latter group, though, tends to comprise the cards that are lynchpins of oppressive decks, which has a much wider impact than simply the frequency of card X or Y in top-8 maindecks; the homogenization extends to deck archetypes and even specific decklists. Maybe that's not a bad thing, because it's certainly a valid approach to the format to find an angle that nobody expects (or is prepared to answer) and to exploit it, but I feel like cards that do that are also ones that run the greatest risk of knocking over the format.

Maybe I'm drawing a distinction where there isn't really a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce

I'm not sure whether I've put it this way—or whether anyone cares—but I feel like there's a substantial and substantive difference between cards that show up in top brackets because they enable a variety of decks and cards that show up in top brackets because they force opponents into weird deckbuilding corners to combat them.

---

I feel like the flip side is often true. The cards that enable bullshit are often far more powerful than the ones enabled. That leaves a choice, kill the virus or treat the symptoms. Wizards, like them or hate them, have been consistent in their approach to how they react and I don't disagree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

It's ok if some of you think pure numbers a certain card sees should be the deciding factor for whether something gets banned. But please have the maturity to acknowledge that not everyone shares your sentinment. I for example couldn't care less for numbers of a certain card if the meta itself was super diverse from a strategic point of view.

---

It's a slippery slope. At the end of the day, one mana dork has to better than the other, just like one cantrip has to be better than the other. Do we ban Brainstorm because it invalidates playing other 1cc cantrips? Can the same be said about Ponder?

When you combine a card being the best of it's type with crazy % of representation amongst meta decks, it can get annoying. The question, for me, becomes how can a meta be so diverse if a single card is seeing high % numbers?

For example. Brainstorm decks aren't all the same, sure, but I think we all saw the trend when DTT was legal. There was basically a shell of blue cards one could pick up, and then you just had to choose your kill condition. Did you want to Brainstorm, DTT, Ponder into Omniscience, Miracles, or Delver? Just my 2c.

edit: for the record, I think Deathrite is fine, for now.

Turn 1 U Sea -> DRS leaves a lot of room for interaction. Turn 1 Island -> Top could only really be "answered" by Pithing Needle or Revoker, only 1 of these being maindeckable, and already at a losing proposition by being an "answer" against a deck built to beat creature strategies. I think that possibility to interact is what will keep DRS around. Sure there are frustrating games where you are behind all game because of a turn 1 DRS that snowballs, but the same was true of goblin lackey, llanowar elf, mother of runes, etc. for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ironclad8690

Turn 1 U Sea -> DRS leaves a lot of room for interaction. Turn 1 Island -> Top could only really be "answered" by Pithing Needle or Revoker, only 1 of these being maindeckable, and already at a losing proposition by being an "answer" against a deck built to beat creature strategies. I think that possibility to interact is what will keep DRS around. Sure there are frustrating games where you are behind all game because of a turn 1 DRS that snowballs, but the same was true of goblin lackey, llanowar elf, mother of runes, etc. for years.

---

And people have been whining about SDT for a decade; and pretty heavily for 3-4 years. DRS has some time left ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Griselpuff

https://www.channelfireball.com/arti...hrite-is-next/

So hypothetically, if the little green guy hits 50% of the meta, but it's not one deck. How would you guys feel?

I don't think it's inconsistent to leave Brainstorm (70%) and ban Deathrite because Brainstorm enables far more strategic diversity, whereas Deathrite makes games revolve around him, and he's just plainly too undercosted.

---

it was inconsistent banning anything before brainstorm in the first place. namely treasure cruise. that card wouldve been fine without brainstorm
that said, i dont see them ever banning a creature that can be both bolted and sworded

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humphrey

it was inconsistent banning anything before brainstorm in the first place. namely treasure cruise. that card wouldve been fine without brainstorm

---

Fun fact: Treasure Cruise AND Brainstorm would be fine without Fetchlands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Fun fact: Treasure Cruise AND Brainstorm would be fine without Fetchlands

---

One of my friends locally hates playing Legacy/Modern just because of all the shuffling due to Fetches.

Remember, Harsh Mentor has just been released, who knows how things will pan out. It's a perfect answer to DRS imo.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

and to fetchlands, in general. They become Bolts.

With Stifle, Wasteland and some soft counters Mentor is a win-con alone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poron

and to fetchlands, in general. They become Bolts.

With Stifle, Wasteland and some soft counters Mentor is a win-con alone

---

When can we see a DRS Damping Matrix deck from you?

the day you learn how TNN works

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poron

the day you learn how TNN works

---

Oof, touche.

eheheh :cool:

always love to everyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catmint

Most guys posting here overestimate DRS power level quite a bit I think.

I played with him in Delver variants, BUG Midrange and Elves over the years.

Sure he has value against Storm, Reanimator and dredge, but it does not turn matchups around. These decks can play through/around it and are fast to just kill you if you go "manadork" - go.

His value against mana denial decks is there but Delver decks can just kill/daze it on sight which is a fair trade and DnT can lock it down with Revoker.

He is primarily mana acceleration which is fair because it is conditional - not having a land in GY for a 3 mana in turn 2 happens often enough.

He is strong because he has late game value which regular mana dorks don't But compared to a strong late game play on your opponents side he is mostly embarrassing. I know a very competent playgroup which cut him out of Stoneblade back then because he was "good" but not "good enough". Debateable decision of course but shows that he is not an "auto-4 of" as a splash if you are not BG.

Comparing to the other power 1 drops I feel:

Delver is MUCH stronger - How many people won games by playing delver and having their only land wasted but managed to protect their delver with 1 Force of Will... :) ... or you play Delver, Daze, Delver... Multiple DRS do not nearly offer the same incremental power compared to multiple Delver.

Mother of Runes is hard to compare. But in the DnT mother is the best creature (? - never played the deck - but hated to play against mother sooo much)... the power level of MoR in D&T is arguably better than DRS in a BG deck.

Like any other creature which is viable in legacy DRS is overpowered in general :smile: ... but no problem in legacy standards. :wink:

---

It's funny how you compare DRS to "strong late game plays" and say he is fine because he cannot kill a MU alone, and then talk about how much Delver is stronger because he wins games UNHANDLED in CONJUNCTION with other cards. :DD
Saying "mother is better in DnT than DRS in BGx" is also something I'd think about twice. BGx Decks without DRS are lackluster to begin with in any matchup.
Comparing it to Delver and saying it's much weaker makes me wonder as well. Of course Delver will win way more games directly by chewing at the opponents life total. That's the ONLY thing it does. No ramp. No HP gain. No reach on board stalls. Plus, it also needs setup. You seem to either down play DRS' incremental value or you are completely unaware of what it does in a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catmint

Delver was (semi) king before Miracles - and was still strong during miracles - so it is a fair assumption that if a 1 drop creature will be king - it won't be deathrite. ;)

---

Delver was printed how long before Miracles became a thing? DRS was printed DURING the reign of Miracles and was already the most played creature before the ban. Fair assumption. :))))))
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/legacy