WotC future vision of Aggro vs. Control

[Lemnear]

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles...ion-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...
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 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

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

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 , 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 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%.