All B/R update speculation.

Words can mean whatever you want them to mean but if your goal is to communicate with other people you have to accept that when you define control broadly enough to include decks that hardcast Emrakul on t5, you're not speaking the same language as most magic players. Yes, sure, lots of decks can do 'controlling' things, Delver controls whether you can cast spells, Storm controls whether you get to play more than 1 turn of magic. But when most magic players use the word 'control' they're thinking of blue-based decks with wraths and counterspells. And if you plan on communicating with them you need to speak the same language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iatee

Words can mean whatever you want them to mean but if your goal is to communicate with other people you have to accept that when you define control broadly enough to include decks that hardcast Emrakul on t5, you're not speaking the same language as most magic players. Yes lots of decks can do 'controlling' things, Delver controls whether you can cast spells, Storm controls whether you get to play more than 1 turn of magic. But when most magic players use the word 'control' they're thinking of blue-based decks with wraths and counterspells. And if you plan on communicating with them you need to speak the same language.

---

Why should I care for other peoples narrow-minded definitions? Sorry, I don't root my arguments on dumb black/white perspectives of the metagame/decks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iatee

But when most magic players use the word 'control' they're thinking of blue-based decks with wraths and counterspells. And if you plan on communicating with them you need to speak the same language.

---

That is a very surprising definition to me. I've seen controls were board control was done by red, black or white, and counterspells are not always part of the equation.

Isn't it easier to define "control" as the behaviour consisting in seeking to answer threats instead of playing some?
Decks that care more about their life total than their opponent's one?
And ultimately decks that have few win-conditions but many card to do either CA and/or neutralizing opponent's win condition.

Miracle is not always playing hard control: in a number of MUs, such as storm or the mirror, the miracle player seeks to resolve his main threat early: CB.

Everybody knows that in the end of the day, the card that needs the ban is Brainstorm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Which for whatever reason includes Elves and Dredge. The joke is that all those decks combined are 20% while Miracles alone is 18,3%

---

How is this comment consistent with your claim that combo doesn't need help - especially if you apparently don't conside Elves and Dredge to belong in that category

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Maybe UR Landstill or BUG Control with Toxic Deluge would return? We don't know as long as Miracles has only Lands.dec and AbruptDecay as enemies in the format...
For me "control" does NOT equal "runs blue and a shitload of counterspells" per definition and nor is "permission" synonymous to "counterspells". "Controlling" the board with stuff like Punishing Fire is totally fitting the description

---

I think 'permission' does mean counter-magic. The idea is that you cast a spell, but need "permission" from the control layer in order to resolve that spell

I also do NOT think control = counter-spells! I do think counter-based (or 'permission') control is a different deck style. Delver, Maverick, and Zoo are all very aggressive decks, but I would still distinguish the styles as being tempo, midrange, and (linear) aggro. Likewise I want to distinguish between Lands and Enchantress being (pro-active) prison control vs (reactive) permission control. This is not a profound or controversial distinction!

As for Punishing Grove, that is an engine and does not determine the play-style of the deck which runs it. Maybe you want to say RUG Lands and Punishing Zoo play a similar strategy and game plan and should both be considered control decks? If not, you'll have to concede something here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Why should I care for other peoples narrow-minded definitions? Sorry, I don't root my arguments on dumb black/white perspectives of the metagame/decks

---

I don't think you get it. If you use your personal preferred definition of words you are speaking to yourself in your own private language. You don't need a message board to do that. If you say "No there are tons of non-Miracles control decks in legacy" to someone and you assume that they can read your mind and know your personal definition of control, you are starting a nonsense argument.

You can present clear arguments about things without having to change commonly used definition of words. It doesn't change anything about the argument, it just makes it easier to follow because you're speaking a common language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

As for Punishing Grove, that is an engine and does not determine the play-style of the deck which runs it. Maybe you want to say RUG Lands and Punishing Zoo play a similar strategy and game plan and should both be considered control decks? If not, you'll have to concede something here.

---

Punishing Grove is an extreme Control engine. Only decks that want to do some heavy grinding would run it, especially because you give life to the opponent. If Zoo would run it, it's not the Fireblast zoo, but the one with reliquary, gaddock main deck, possibly even Kavu Predator ones. That is control, yes. The same goes to Jund, or Aggro Loam who controls the game by a removal engine and prison cards such as Chalice of the void and Loam+Wasteland. That's also control.

There's no such a thing as Punishing RUG because people are retarded and only netdeck.
EDIT: The actual reason is that there are enough powerful blue cantrip spells that justify running only powerful and precise spells such as Lightning Bolt so that you don't need to rely on GY dependant cards as P.Fire. Brainstorm 9999 - Non-bluedecks -0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dte

Isn't it easier to define "control" as the behaviour consisting in seeking to answer threats instead of playing some?
Decks that care more about their life total than their opponent's one?
And ultimately decks that have few win-conditions but many card to do either CA and/or neutralizing opponent's win condition.

Miracle is not always playing hard control: in a number of MUs, such as storm or the mirror, the miracle player seeks to resolve his main threat early: CB.

---

• The mirror is wholly irrelevant, as on the mirror neither deck is more likely than the other to be playing "beatdown".
• Is CB not played solely to seek answers to the threats (in this case Storm) plans to present? maybe we should be discussing the difference between a threat and an answer? Usually a 'threat' is something that threatens to kill/damage the opponent - not something that "threatens" to provide answers!
• Miracles does in fact sometimes play "beatdown". In fact, most of my matches against Miracles can be described as such. It's the fact Miracles is so awkward and inefficient in this role that I insist it's a purer control deck than D&T, Jund, etc (not the fact that those decks don't run counters).

In the storm match up, if the miracles player has a top, counter balance is most certainly a "threat". Especially in game 1 where it's probably unanswerable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

In the storm match up, if the miracles player has a top, counter balance is most certainly a "threat". Especially in game 1 where it's probably unanswerable

---

No, it's an answer. It will stop Storm's threats and that's all.

Threats kill the opponent. Answers delay or prevent those threats from manifesting.

It wholly useless to simply state that X is or is not a threat. Let's sketch out a (rough) definition instead - then we can have a constructive discussion instead of repetitive an inane contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

How is this comment consistent with your claim that combo doesn't need help - especially if you apparently don't conside Elves and Dredge to belong in that category

---

I don't get the question. I don't think Elves, Storm, S&T, Dredge need any buffs currently at all. Its independant from my POV that Elves isn't a combo deck today, easpecially after NO isn't even run that often anymore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

I also do NOT think control = counter-spells! I do think counter-based (or 'permission') control is a different deck style. Delver, Maverick, and Zoo are all very aggressive decks, but I would still distinguish the styles as being tempo, midrange, and (linear) aggro. Likewise I want to distinguish between Lands and Enchantress being (pro-active) prison control vs (reactive) permission control. This is not a profound or controversial distinction!

As for Punishing Grove, that is an engine and does not determine the play-style of the deck which runs it. Maybe you want to say RUG Lands and Punishing Zoo play a similar strategy and game plan and should both be considered control decks? If not, you'll have to concede something here.

---

What kind of strawman is that? Where did I say anything about Maverick, Enchantress and the like in that context? Show me one example where Punishing Fire is successfully implemented in a viable aggro strategy, before coming up with something ridiculous like "Punishing Zoo".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iatee

I don't think you get it. If you use your personal preferred definition of words you are speaking to yourself in your own private language. You don't need a message board to do that. If you say "No there are tons of non-Miracles control decks in legacy" to someone and you assume that they can read your mind and know your personal definition of control, you are starting a nonsense argument.

You can present clear arguments about things without having to change commonly used definition of words. It doesn't change anything about the argument, it just makes it easier to follow because you're speaking a common language.

---

As said, I don't care if you believe "control" has to be blue or if the world was created in 6 days, but don't start to argue based on YOUR definition and hope that everyone else just swallows that narrow idea of what "control" is. I pointed to other control decks in that context, so no mindreading required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Show me one example where Punishing Fire is successfully implemented in a viable aggro strategy, before coming up with something ridiculous like "Punishing Zoo".

---

http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12504&d=272052&f=LE
But I don't see how the successfulness of a deck has any bearing on whether or not it should be classed as control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Where did I say anything about Maverick, Enchantress and the like in that context?

---

Never said you did!

I was making examples to show that categories like "agressive decks" and "control decks" can encompass more than one play-style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

What kind of strawman is that?

---

It's not a Straw-man because I haven't misrepresented your argument. Look it up! A Straw-man would be trying to suggest that I'm claiming contro = blue counter-spells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I don't get the question. I don't think Elves, Storm, S&T, Dredge need any buffs currently at all. Its independant from my POV that Elves isn't a combo deck today, easpecially after NO isn't even run that often anymore.

---

I guess this means you are happy with a meta which is 78%-80% fair decks? I prefer combo to be 30%-35% myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Sorry, I don't root my arguments on dumb black/white perspectives of the metagame/decks

---

Really? Because it seems to me you want to label a deck as being either control or not control, with no consideration to the differences between board control, prison control, or permission contro; as well as no distinguishing between hard control decks vs more aggressive control deck.

I'd say that's pretty black & white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

You've always had sympathy for people who want non-blue midrange decks to be a thing in Legacy; and for the banhammer to be used to fix the problem. Yet when somebody wants permission based (hard) control to be a thing in Legacy, and for the banned list to respect that, you show relative contempt?

---

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the argument of "Insert play style here" should exist has long since stopped being valid in my eyes. The reason: Aggro is dead. I am not suggesting that we ban everything until Fish, Goblins and Zoo are in the DTB again but I feel like it's disingenuous that we accept that the time for Aggro in Legacy has come and gone but yet we make out that a meta shift is in some way the end of the world. It's happened before, the format survived. I mean, as a Goblins fan, it stings, but that's life.

As for Blue/non Blue Midrange, played Shardless for the first time a few weeks back. Fuck that deck is fun. It's just Jund. I mean, it played nothing like I expected out of a Blue deck. It felt so much like Jund it shocked me. If I was not married to Lands at this point, that would be my deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

As for Blue/non Blue Midrange, played Shardless for the first time a few weeks back. Fuck that deck is fun. It's just Jund. I mean, it played nothing like I expected out of a Blue deck. It felt so much like Jund it shocked me. If I was not married to Lands at this point, that would be my deck.

---

I mean, it *is* Jund. Shardless, Elves when they play fair and Jund are more or less the same deck. Jund's just more destructive, Elves and Shardless more focused on building their own resources, but they're the quintessential "drown opponent in CA" decks. It's just a question of where you want to place yourself on the shit on your table - masturbate continuum. Shardless is about midway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

No, it's an answer.

---

No it's a threat.

:)

Your definition is too narrow. Here it is a threat: something that win the game if unanswered.

CB and top really are threats in the storm MU, which is why storm can aggressively play cabal therapy on CB or top instead of keeping it while sculpting is hand like against most other U.decks, and storm SB brings answers to this threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aluisiocsantos

Everybody knows that in the end of the day, the card that needs the ban is Brainstorm.

---

And kill every blue deck ever, if you want to play legacy modern go find another format.

Only card I'd ever consider for a ban is terminus, and I hate dredge engines more because I dont play mtgo and never ever see any of the decks that you all see 10 times in a setting.

Mtgo is the problem, ban mtgo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dte

No it's a threat.

:)

Your definition is too narrow. Here it is a threat: something that win the game if unanswered.

---

CB doesn't actually win the game. The Miracles player needs to drop an actual threat.

But yeah, answering your opponents threats will typically lead you to eventually winning the game. That doesn't mean answers are threats though! I guess RIP is a threat, Moat is a threat, Glacial Chasm is a threat - everything is a threat!

Edit:
This thread has reached a new low of willful ignorance. First aggressive control and hard control are the same thing. Then prison control and permission are the same thing. Now counter-spells are threats?

You guys must be blind with anti-miracles rage I guess. That or I'm being trolled hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

CB doesn't actually win the game.

---

Neither does Time Vault and Voltaic Key? If something assures you can't lose, it won you the game.

If I crop into a bog I can assure victory against a Storm player. Invasive Surgery on Tendrils does the same. Most people would consider those answers to the the threat posed by Storm.

I guess we answer threats with threats not answers.:rolleyes:
And I guess there's only one style of play - trying to win the game. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I hope you guys are having a good laugh. Enjoy your Miracles matches.

It's certainly a threat. And against Dredge, I would very much consider Rest in Peace to be a threat. CB lock in game one against storm is almost certainly GG. Just like 95% of the time RIP is GG. It doesn't actually kill the opponent, but it effectively wins the game. It's not blind hatred for the deck, but if you've ever been on the storm side of the match up you would know that often in Game 1, similar to playing against MUD with chalice, your first order of business is often to try to strip CB or Top from miracles hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

If I crop into a bog I can assure victory against a Storm player. Invasive Surgery on Tendrils does the same. Most people would consider those answers to the the threat of Storm.

I guess we answer threats with threats not answers.:rolleyes:
And I guess there's only one style of play - trying to win the game. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I hope you guys are having a good laugh. Enjoy your Miracles matches.

---

Most of the time, storm will have a way to not lose to rotation, whether it be preemptive discard or seeing it in hand and playing around it via Ad Nauseam or natural chain. You could often simply cast the card Extract and win most game 1's against storm. I had an opponent open on a white leyline at the open against me in game 1 and sent me to game 2 immediately. When facing super powerful but somewhat linear decks, certain cards exist to shut those down and they very often win the game alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

It's certainly a threat. And against Dredge, I would very much consider Rest in Peace to be a threat. CB lock in game one against storm is almost certainly GG. Just like 95% of the time RIP is GG. It doesn't actually kill the opponent, but it effectively wins the game. It's not blind hatred for the deck, but if you've ever been on the storm side of the match up you would know that often in Game 1, similar to playing against MUD with chalice, your first order of business is often to try to strip CB or Top from miracles hand.

---

Generally something we play to shut down a degenerate strategy is called an answer to that strategy.

And usually we don't say threat about something that wins on the spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

If I crop into a bog I can assure victory against a Storm player.

---

Lol, no. Probe, Discard, Ad Nauseam and Natural Stormchain are still a thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

It's certainly a threat. And against Dredge, I would very much consider Rest in Peace to be a threat. CB lock in game one against storm is almost certainly GG. Just like 95% of the time RIP is GG. It doesn't actually kill the opponent, but it effectively wins the game. It's not blind hatred for the deck, but if you've ever been on the storm side of the match up you would know that often in Game 1, similar to playing against MUD with chalice, your first order of business is often to try to strip CB or Top from miracles hand.

---

I think its the same issue I had here before with the term "control deck". Megadeus, you define "threat" as a "problem you can't work around or win the game against" while Crimhead defines "threat" as "something what actually kills you", so don't waste your breath fighting against narrow definitions from the 90s where "threat = creature".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Generally something we play to shut down a degenerate strategy is called an answer to that strategy.

And usually we don't say threat about something that wins on the spot.

---

And there is no such a thing to shut down Miracles' strategy at all, moreover if the deck has answers to everything what bugs it for 1-2 mana (Wear/Tear, Plows, Terminus, CounterTop, Flusterstorm, etc) and access to all that for a single mana (Ponder, SDT, Brainstorm).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

This thread has reached a new low of willful ignorance. First aggressive control and hard control are the same thing. Then prison control and permission are the same thing. Now counter-spells are threats?

You guys must be blind with anti-miracles rage I guess. That or I'm being trolled hard.

---

That's a bit offensive, don't you think?
Otherwise I love to play against miracle. It is always interesting for me, and tight play is on average rewarded. I do not think that it is a crazily uphill fight (and I usually play elf).
And neither I am trolling.


That aside, a "threat" is something that threatens to win the game.
It doesn't have to do damage, or anything. But, if resolved, it should be answered or else will most probably take the game.
Most often, it is creatures.
For instance, with evasion and a correct body, delver perfectly fits this description.

If you disagree with this definition, please explain why.
If you agree with it, you'll see that in some MUs, CB, SDT or RiP can be considered as threats.
To take another example than miracle, against most MUs the biggest threat in elves is the visionary-symbiote engine. It is not because it will make damage points, it is because drawing three per turn will eventually win the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

This thread has reached a new low of willful ignorance.

---

says the man who droped this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

If I crop into a bog I can assure victory against a Storm player.

---

...willingly ignoring that Discard, Probe and Ad Nauseam get around that trick. Its just like claiming that Storm can't beat Mindbreak Trap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

First aggressive control and hard control are the same thing.

---

No one said that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Then prison control and permission are the same thing.

---

No one said that either. Maybe you are confused by the shitty definition of "control = counterspells = permission". There is no "Prison Control" as a subtype. Its either/or. "Prison" implies you cannot "play magic" while "control" hinders you to progress your gamplan. Miracles is not a prison deck and Countertop not a prison strategy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Now counter-spells are threats?

---

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Please fucking stop putting words into peoples mouth. No one said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

You guys must be blind with anti-miracles rage I guess. That or I'm being trolled hard.

---

Lol. You are complaining about ignorance, yet argue based on narrow-minded definitions the last two pages. You claim to GET trolled if YOU are the one throwing "aggressive control and hard control" into the same bowl first

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dte

That aside, a "threat" is something that threatens to win the game.
It doesn't have to do damage, or anything. But, if resolved, it should be answered or else will most probably take the game.
Most often, it is creatures.
For instance, with evasion and a correct body, delver perfectly fits this description.

If you disagree with this definition, please explain why.
If you agree with it, you'll see that in some MUs, CB, SDT or RiP can be considered as threats.

---

I dislike this definition because it's too gauge a concept that one particular card cause a player to win. If I need a sixth land to win the game, is a Forest now a threat?

You definition also blurs the distinction between threat and answer. If I Abrupt Decay that Delver, that might contribute to me winning the game. If I Abrupt Decay that Delver when it was about to kill me (and I go on to win), AD prevented me from losing, hence arguably won me the game. Now Abrupt Decay is a threat?

I think any definition of 'threat' needs to include a contrast between a threat and an answer. Otherwise everything is a threat, because everything we play is there to help us win the game. Threats and answers should be considered different strategic elements, but in order to do so, we need to distinguish between various functions and goals in terms of how they will contribute to a win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dte

That's a bit offensive, don't you think?

---

I try not to get offended, but willful ignorance is certainly annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Lol. You are complaining about ignorance, yet argue based on narrow-minded definitions the last two pages. You claim to GET trolled if YOU are the one throwing "aggressive control and hard control" into the same bowl first

---

eh?

I've been trying to make a distinction between those two styles, claiming Miracles is a distinct play style from aggressive control like Shardless or EsperBlade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

No one said that either. Maybe you are confused by the shitty definition of "control = counterspells = permission". There is no "Prison Control" as a subtype. Its either/or. "Prison" implies you cannot "play magic" while "control" hinders you to progress your gamplan. Miracles is not a prison deck and Countertop not a prison strategy

---

I think we agree 100%. I've been arguing exactly that; that Miracles is not prison, and controls the game in a different style than, eg, Lands. Our only quarrel here is whether or not prison is a sub-category of control. This is strictly semantic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

No one said that

---

Actually they did.
My claim that Miracle is distinctly more control/defence focused than the more aggressive build has been rejected by various forum users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Please fucking stop putting words into peoples mouth. No one said that.

---

Well, CB is arguably a counter-spell.

But if RIP is a "threat" against Dredge, and Moat is a "threat" against Shops, surely FOW is a "threat" against Belcher? Because apparently shutting down a strategy is done with threats and not answers now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

says the man who droped this:

...willingly ignoring that Discard, Probe and Ad Nauseam get around that trick.

---

Whoa there!

I don't mean to say this is a sure fire way to stop Storm! I was saying it is possible for me to beat Storm with a timely Rotation into Bog, and I'm using this possible play for the purpose of contrasting threats vs answers. That is all. Sometimes Storm has to go off in a hurry and they can't wait for discard or Probe (perhaps they just bounced a sphere and need to go off before I recast it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

If I need a sixth land to win the game, is a Forest now a threat?

---

In a way, yes. If you need a land to say, activate Treetop then in all due respect it would be the Treetop that's the threat, but if someone Fatesealed you they would put that Forest on the bottom. Why? It is a threat too.

So there is no meaningful distinction between threats, answers, and enablers? I think this game can bear a deeper analysis that that, but maybe I'm alone on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the argument of "Insert play style here" should exist has long since stopped being valid in my eyes. The reason: Aggro is dead. I am not suggesting that we ban everything until Fish, Goblins and Zoo are in the DTB again but I feel like it's disingenuous that we accept that the time for Aggro in Legacy has come and gone but yet we make out that a meta shift is in some way the end of the world. It's happened before, the format survived. I mean, as a Goblins fan, it stings, but that's life.

---

I'd argue that aggro is strong thanks to Eldrazi Shops.
But it did suck when aggro was dead, and it will suck if hard (permission) control ever dies.

Banning hand over fist until Goblins, Zoo, and Fish come back would be drastic measures. Not banning a card from a boarder-line OP deck is not. If Goblins had Miracles' meta share (and that was the only agro deck in the format), we might be less inclined to want a ban than if Fish and Zoo were also viable competitive decks. And if we did get a ban, it might be reasonable to hope that ban preserves Goblins as an aggro deck. Is that so crazy?

The death of aggro was very said. Even in the later days the decks were moving more towards a midrange style (Zoo was becoming Maverick with red, and Goblins were being called red D&T). The same thing might be happening to Miracles, as Mentor is pushing more towards an aggressive game plan. I hate that pure aggro and pure control are shrinking, while tempo and midrange grow and thrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

As for Blue/non Blue Midrange, played Shardless for the first time a few weeks back. Fuck that deck is fun. It's just Jund. I mean, it played nothing like I expected out of a Blue deck. It felt so much like Jund it shocked me. If I was not married to Lands at this point, that would be my deck.

---

I hope you better appreciate why I can tolerate the high cantrip density on the grounds that these cards support a variety of styles. This is also why I've accused those complaining about no blueless midrange decks as hating blue - it's bizarre to me that people think Jund would add significant diversity to a format where Shardless BUG is already a tier one deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Countertop not a prison strategy

---

Countertop absolutely is a prison strategy. Play it, the opponent isn't allowed to play Magic anymore in many, many cases and it's landed proactively, not to eg. deprive an opponent of built-up resources like blowing up a Storm player's graveyard. Miracles as a whole may not be a purebred prison deck the way the most controlling Lands builds are, but Countertop absolutely is a prison element where Chalice, Teeg and half the stuff played by D&T is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

So there is no meaningful distinction between threats, answers, and enablers? I think this game can bear a deeper analysis that that, but maybe I'm alone on this.

---

There absolutely are meaningful distinctions, just not absolute ones in some cases. The boundaries are not hard and fast in all cases, there is a fuzzy gray area because some cards that can't kill by themselves are usually deployed proactively and for all intents and purposes end the game (Teeg vs. ANT game 1 is for all intents and purposes a hard win condition, for example). Resolve a Moon against BUG and they more or less just can't play Magic anymore. Extreme prison pieces are threats for all purposes besides inane nitpicking. Magus of the Moon is technically a threat vs. Burn (has power, and so can win) but it's practical threat value is terribly low. A BUG deck could have a Strix out and Magus would be much more damaging due to its rules text alone.

There are of course cards that are blatantly one or the other - Decay is an answer and Delver is a threat, I don't think you'd find anyone would argue otherwise. But the problem of strict definitional structures is that they sometimes just don't match reality and reality-matching definitions aren't clean, simple and non-overlapping. Reality is dirty and complicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

I dislike this definition because it's too gauge a concept that one particular card cause a player to win. If I need a sixth land to win the game, is a Forest now a threat?

You definition also blurs the distinction between threat and answer. If I Abrupt Decay that Delver, that might contribute to me winning the game. If I Abrupt Decay that Delver when it was about to kill me (and I go on to win), AD prevented me from losing, hence arguably won me the game. Now Abrupt Decay is a threat?

I think any definition of 'threat' needs to include a contrast between a threat and an answer. Otherwise everything is a threat, because everything we play is there to help us win the game. Threats and answers should be considered different strategic elements, but in order to do so, we need to distinguish between various functions and goals in terms of how they will contribute to a win.

---

A threat is a singular entity that wins the game if left unanswered.

I don't see how this blurs any distinctions...

My opponent plays a Delver. I know that he has lots of permission, counterspells, burn, etc and if I don't take care of that Delver or win quicker, I will die. It is a threat. My Abrupt Decay is an answer to that threat. It doesn't ensure any victory on its own, in any abstract sense. Delver opponent still has other threats that can be employed.

My opponent is on Miracles, and I'm playing Storm. If they establish CB + Top, I will die. In this situation, CB + Top is a threat and my answers consist of pre-emptive discard, and a sideboarded Decay (I'm guessing since I'm not a storm player).

The situation matters. If I'm playing a Chalice deck and my opponent's deck purely consists of 1-drops, is my Chalice an answer or a threat? I think clearly a threat because it wins me the game if it comes down. If my opponent is playing a deck with few 1-drops, perhaps mainly Swords to Plowshares that I'm worried about, then Chalice isn't a threat (although the opponent may still have reason to remove it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Well, CB is arguably a counter-spell.

But if RIP is a "threat" against Dredge, and Moat is a "threat" against Shops, surely FOW is a "threat" against Belcher? Because apparently shutting down a strategy is done with threats and not answers now.

---

I think it is ridiculous to call CB simply a counter-spell. CB is like, endless counter-spells. And Top makes it configurable.

When your "answer" actually "answers" your opponent's entire deck, and they will lose the game if you get your "answer" in play...it just sounds more like a threat to me. I'd be hard-pressed to call FoW a "threat" against Belcher though. Fow and other 1-time use cards just don't continue to lock down a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by square_two

A threat is a singular entity that wins the game if left unanswered.
...
My opponent is on Miracles, and I'm playing Storm. If they establish CB + Top, I will die. In this situation, CB + Top is a threat and my answers consist of pre-emptive discard, and a sideboarded Decay (I'm guessing since I'm not a storm player).
...

---

CB + Top is a lock, not a threat. If the opponent's win cons have been cleared from the deck with something like Bitter Ordeal, countertop is unlikely to win the game, even if it stays in play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

CB + Top is a lock, not a threat. If the opponent's win cons have been cleared from the deck with something like Bitter Ordeal, countertop is unlikely to win the game, even if it stays in play.

---

Of course. If all of an opponent's win cons have been cleared from their deck then the point is moot. Can't locks be threats? I'd say that someone can threaten you by finishing establishing a lock, especially if that lock is very hard to break. For many decks with low cmc, CB + Top is a hard enough lock to be considered a threat. I mean, there is a reason people to try answer it with Decay or Grip, or by preventing both CB and Top from being in play. And if people are paying so much attention and effort to prevent it from happening or from disrupting it once it is in place, then I think that helps qualify it as a threat (again, in certain matchups).

This is dumb. I should've just kept my enjoyment as a spectator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by square_two

Of course. If all of an opponent's win cons have been cleared from their deck then the point is moot. Can't locks be threats? ...

---

They can, but that's like using Solitary Confinement to deck people or the fateseal/ult combination on Jace, the Mindsculptor.

Typically countertop is not used that way. Rather, the plan is to hold the game and beat down for the win with wizards, angels, or monks.

Your definition is 'wins the game if left unanswered', and countertop is not expected to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by square_two

A threat is a singular entity that wins the game if left unanswered.

I don't see how this blurs any distinctions...

---

It gets blurry when we extend that definition to"a singular entity that, if left unanswered, will provide an advantageous game-state that will most likely (or with certainty) allow the player to eventually win the game through some other means".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

CB + Top is a lock, not a threat.

---

One would think that was a reasonable distinction. Anywhere but this thread you could differentiate the two without any confusion or argument.

To that point, neither Blood Moon nor Rip "win the game if left unanswered". They might shut out your opponent entirely, but you still have to do something else with other cards to achieve win conditions such as decking your opponent, bringing them to zero life, or a win the game spell/ability. Calling something a threat should be relegated to cards that actively achieve one of these win conditions.

Top decking a Maelstrom pulse to hit a Moat and be able to swing in for lethal doesn't make the Pulse a threat even if you couldn't have won the game without it. Pulse will never kill your opponent by decking them or taking them to zero life. It's an answer to your opponent's cards. It's still an answer even if they recognize it's your out and fateseal it with jace.

Answers, threats, lands, lock pieces etc can all be crucial to winning the game at one point or another, but if the classification is going to have any meaning in a deck building or card evaluation situation, you can't just say it's all relative and any card can be a threat in some corner case example (like the forest being needed for treetop activation). There are cards that can play multiple roles though, manlands or tabernacle being a perfect example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rackhamm

Pulse will never kill your opponent by decking them or taking them to zero life.

---

Tell that to the guy whose Lich just got targeted. :eek:
Not sure why we're talking about the semantics of the word 'prison' or 'threat.' Seems like you could start a whole other thread dedicated to the topic since it isn't really germane to B/R. The important thing is when you can reduce someone's deck down to 1 card (or one zone, or one mechanic, or one cmc) that actually matters, there's a problem when you can't address it - such is the case for Counterbalance, and that's why it's the most bannable card in legacy on those grounds.

Problem is every time you make that point someone says "but Decay is a card," which has a number of problems not the least of which is format diversity. Let's recap:
-if they resolve CB, you're never resolving a cantrip (certainly not a legacy playable one).
-ergo you must topdeck Decay

If that sounds like Strip Mine (i.e. you can't use mana to find more lands, you better topdeck one), it's because they're about equivocal. No one enjoys playing vs an effortless 2-drop that is somewhere between Time Vault and Strip Mine - that is to say something that basically ended the game, but you can't concede b/c technically there's a chance. Poorly designed card, and there really isn't an excuse since they knew from the time of Ice Age and Alliances just how every card denied should have cost 2 life (Zur's Weirding and Tidal Control).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

So there is no meaningful distinction between threats, answers, and enablers? I think this game can bear a deeper analysis that that, but maybe I'm alone on this.

---

I guess the definition is dependent on the situation at hand? I do not see the point to argue over it personally. It really does not matter in the overall scheme of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

I'd argue that aggro is strong thanks to Eldrazi Shops.
But it did suck when aggro was dead, and it will suck if hard (permission) control ever dies.

---

Did not think of Eldrazi as Aggro, I will concede that point and I do like that the deck is in the format. On the point overall though, will it suck for those who like to play control if Miracles takes a hit? Yes. Is that an argument for keeping it? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Banning hand over fist until Goblins, Zoo, and Fish come back would be drastic measures. Not banning a card from a boarder-line OP deck is not. If Goblins had Miracles' meta share (and that was the only agro deck in the format), we might be less inclined to want a ban than if Fish and Zoo were also viable competitive decks. And if we did get a ban, it might be reasonable to hope that ban preserves Goblins as an aggro deck. Is that so crazy?

---

I was not ever suggesting that we ban things like this, just pointing out that as a fan of Goblins, I have no right to say that "Goblins must be a viable deck" in the same way people are saying "Miracles as the only (insert deck type here) must be viable". Both arguments do not hold water to me and when you see the points side by side, look silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

The death of aggro was very said. Even in the later days the decks were moving more towards a midrange style (Zoo was becoming Maverick with red, and Goblins were being called red D&T). The same thing might be happening to Miracles, as Mentor is pushing more towards an aggressive game plan. I hate that pure aggro and pure control are shrinking, while tempo and midrange grow and thrive.

---

I would argue meta shifts suck for those left behind and those without the money to adapt to them yes, but I am not going to fight the tide of change like I myself have any control over it. If this is the direction we are going, so be it. All I and anyone else here can do is Play or not Play. Those really are your options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

I hope you better appreciate why I can tolerate the high cantrip density on the grounds that these cards support a variety of styles. This is also why I've accused those complaining about no blueless midrange decks as hating blue - it's bizarre to me that people think Jund would add significant diversity to a format where Shardless BUG is already a tier one deck.

---

I do not want to get into a debate on Cantrips again, if you want my views on this topic, PM me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Not sure why we're talking about the semantics of the word 'prison' or 'threat.' Seems like you could start a whole other thread dedicated to the topic since it isn't really germane to B/R.

---

Oh, but it is!

• Whether or not there should be more cards banned is dependant on the health of the format.
• Format health is highly dependant on format diversity.
• Diversity can be gauged not only by the number and distribution of competitive decks; but also by the extent to which the competetive decks play differently from one another.

Essentially, any argument in favour of a ban is an argument that Legacy is not sufficiently diverse. People say this format is not diverse because:

• Too many decks run Brainstorm, or cantrips in general, or blue in general.
• One deck in particular (Miracles) sees too many top8s (or top16s, or whatever).

These points are countered by pointing out that:

• Decks running blue cantrips are of a variety of styles (format diversity is upheld).
• Miracles is a unique play style that might disappear in its absence; thus it contributes to format diversity.

In attempt to dismiss these points, people wish to downplay the differences between various play-styles. To this end, any lingo this game normally uses to distinguish styles of play (or functionality of cards is being challenged); and any such distinctions are being intentionally blurred.

That's why suddenly prison and control are the exact same thing. Hard control vs aggressive control are also indistinguishable - the argument of threat:answer ratio is no good because answers, lock-pieces, and even mana sources are all basically threats because everything is relative to the situation.

This is the lowest and dumbest I have ever seen this threads stoop. Why not go to a deck development thread, and interrupt any discourse related to the number of threats that deck should run with all sorts of useless garbage about all sorts of cards potentially threatening your opponent's prospects? In a practical conversation about deck building, such nonsense would be recognised as obvious, facetious trolling. I will not entertain these "arguments" any longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

I was not ever suggesting that we ban things like this, just pointing out that as a fan of Goblins, I have no right to say that "Goblins must be a viable deck" in the same way people are saying "Miracles as the only (insert deck type here) must be viable". Both arguments do not hold water to me and when you see the points side by side, look silly.

---

I know you weren't suggesting that, but you were making a false ewuivolence. Nobody is saying Miracles must be viable!

What I'm saying is that if Miracles is indeed single-handedly representing an entire play style, the fact that it is arguably hampering diversity (by being overly present in the meta) should be weight against the fact that it is simultaneously preserving format diversity (by keeping an otherwise struggling/extinct play-style in the meta).

There are lots of people who think Miracles is putting up the results to warrant a ban, but lots of people who don't. WotC have yet to make a move against it, well having shown recently they were willing to ban cards when they believe there is a problem.
I think we should all agree that Miracles is boarder-line ban-worthy. Yes?

I think we should also agree that holding off on a boarder-line line ban to preserve a play-style is at least reasonable. It certainly should not be damaged with heavy handed banning to preserve a play-style! Something can be important enough to tip a close decision even if that thing is not important enough to prompt drastic action. (This is where your analogy of using the banhammer to preserve Goblins or Aggro falls apart).

If you don't agree that Miracles is boarder-line ban-worthy you and think it desperately and certainly needs a ban, than my argument holds no water because not banning when the format desperately needs it is a drastic measures. But if you think banning Miracles is otherwise close call my point is more than fair.

Also, banning a card which preserves the deck (in a weaker version) instead of a card which kills the deck is not a drastic measure either. If the point of a ban me too strengthen format diversity, why ban a card that will kill a whole play-style when another card would do?

And I am saying that Miracles, and by extension, control, should not be a sacred cow. We lost Aggro, a shift like that happened. This happens. Does it suck if you want to play that style of deck? Yes. Does that mean it should be treated with kid gloves? No.

"Control must be viable" is in my mind no different from "Aggro must be viable". The format has proven that is not the case. Also, for the record, Control is viable elsewhere. Nahiri made that happen in Modern and that deck rocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

"Control must be viable" is in my mind no different from "Aggro must be viable". The format has proven that is not the case.

---

You keep confusing "control must be viable in Legacy" with "there is a non-zero value in keeping control viable".
The second statement - my actual position - is enough to sway a close decision (and enough to ruin any argument that Miracles should be banned because it is holding down creature decks).

The idea that "control must be viable" is very easy to refute. Too bad it is not my stated position nor is it relevant to my actual argument.