General Magic Thread

dragonstout wrote: I, too, still have my mind stuck in the years of old; when I see all these MANY Theros cards of incredibly undercosted creatures with tons of abilities, my eyes go wide, but for Standard players today I don't know if they even register. I see Reaper of the Wilds and think "Ernham Djinn without a drawback and with three good abilities???", but I think it's something that would've been good 5 years ago, not today.

This is why I can't stand Magic today. Too many big, cheap creatures with tons of abilities. There are so many of them now, it just seems pointless. A 4/5 for 4 with three abilities? Who cares, in the next set there will be a 5/5 for 4 with five abilities. I'm planning on making a Danger Zone deck without any cards from after Apocalypse. Hopefully I'll be able to have fun playing this game again.

Malygris wrote: This is why I can't stand Magic today. Too many big, cheap creatures with tons of abilities. There are so many of them now, it just seems pointless. A 4/5 for 4 with three abilities? Who cares, in the next set there will be a 5/5 for 4 with five abilities. I'm planning on making a Danger Zone deck without any cards from after Apocalypse. Hopefully I'll be able to have fun playing this game again.

Trust me, I'll take today's environment over the old "DERP COUNTERSPELL" and rampant, overpowered removal any day. ANY day.

In fact, I'd argue that creatures finally caught up to the insane power level of the spells of yesteryear. And I am *extremely* happy about that.

Ken B. wrote: Trust me, I'll take today's environment over the old "DERP COUNTERSPELL" and rampant, overpowered removal any day. ANY day.

In fact, I'd argue that creatures finally caught up to the insane power level of the spells of yesteryear. And I am *extremely* happy about that.

Just wanted to say that I totally agree with this. I love the mostly spell-heavy Legacy, but it's nice to have creatures be the real focus in the current game, ESPECIALLY in ways that aren't enter-the-battlefield abilities.

I don't like the over focus of creatures in the current environment -- especially as a way to deal damage. I find it a little more boring.

Space Ghost wrote: I don't like the over focus of creatures in the current environment -- especially as a way to deal damage. I find it a little more boring.

I DO like when there are more combo-oriented decks available in current formats, because I definitely like there to always be non-creature ways to win, but of all the ways to deal damage, creatures *by their very nature* are the most interactive card type...and are therefore less boring!

Ken B. wrote:

Malygris wrote: This is why I can't stand Magic today. Too many big, cheap creatures with tons of abilities. There are so many of them now, it just seems pointless. A 4/5 for 4 with three abilities? Who cares, in the next set there will be a 5/5 for 4 with five abilities. I'm planning on making a Danger Zone deck without any cards from after Apocalypse. Hopefully I'll be able to have fun playing this game again.

Trust me, I'll take today's environment over the old "DERP COUNTERSPELL" and rampant, overpowered removal any day. ANY day.

In fact, I'd argue that creatures finally caught up to the insane power level of the spells of yesteryear. And I am *extremely* happy about that.

In most of my games before I got sick of Magic, it was mostly just playing overpowered creatures and removing them. Whoever ran out of Swords To Plowshares or Paths To Exile first lost. Maybe Type 2 is different, I haven't played that in ten years.

Malygris wrote: In most of my games before I got sick of Magic, it was mostly just playing overpowered creatures and removing them. Whoever ran out of Swords To Plowshares or Paths To Exile first lost. Maybe Type 2 is different, I haven't played that in ten years.

I think MtG has gone under a lot of further development in the past 10 years. I stopped playing during Ice Age, picked it back up with Duels '11-'14, and now doing a sealed league. I think Wizards has done a great job keeping the game fresh as well as adopting fan-created formats in an official context. There are a lot of ways to play magic (almost too many). But the game is great.

Moving a lot of the more powerful effects from spells to creatures has been a good move because it prevents locks from occurring more easily like in days past. Creatures are inherently "weak" they can be killed and manipulated by a variety of effect. Also I think some of the crazier effects of the game have been pushed more to 1/2, 2/2, and 2/1 wizard, mage, cleric, arcanist subtypes. These guys are even weaker than most.

dragonstout wrote:

Space Ghost wrote: I don't like the over focus of creatures in the current environment -- especially as a way to deal damage. I find it a little more boring.

I DO like when there are more combo-oriented decks available in current formats, because I definitely like there to always be non-creature ways to win, but of all the ways to deal damage, creatures *by their very nature* are the most interactive card type...and are therefore less boring!

Exactly.

Creature Combat = Ameritrash

Sit and watch your opponent play with himself = Euro

Ken B. wrote: Creature Combat = Ameritrash

Sit and watch your opponent play with himself = Euro

Ha ha! Can't really argue with that. But some of these new creatures are so powerful, the only way to interact with them is to kill them right away or lose. When your opponent plays a 6/6 with flying, vigilance, protection, lifelink, and more, or an 8/8 unblockable that makes you sacrifice three permanents every time it attacks, you don't have many options.

Sounds like you are decribing the Eldrazi creatures which are "new" compared to Ice Age but are now 4 or 5 cycles old. I dont thing there are any creatures like you describe in M13,Innsatrad, Return to Ravnica,M14, orTheros.

And oddly enough, the Eldrazi were, while powerful, not remotely impossible to deal with even in the LIMITED environment of the time, thanks to the plethora of "Eldrazi Spawn" to chump-block with and sacrifice to the annihilator trigger (lands worked just fine too) (fine, Emrakul was actually impossible to deal with, but also impossible to cast). The problem is when stuff like that is getting Show-and-Tell'ed out into play on turn three. But if you're playing in a format where Show and Tell is legal, then I'm sure your deck is *also* doing insane things, and if it's not, it's your own fault.

In fact, both the creatures you're talking about (Akroma, Angel of Wrath for the first one, and some Eldrazi-ish creature for the latter) are pretty much never played without some kind of way to "cheat" them into play, whether via a Reanimate-style spell or a Show-and-Tell-style spell, and at that point you're basically playing a spell-deck/combo-deck anyway. The reason it's the gigantic CREATURES you remember instead of the gigantic spells isn't even particularly that the gigantic spells are less powerful; it's that it's a lot harder to circumvent the cost of a big spell than on the cost of a big creature. Omniscience or Enter the Infinite or Praetor's Counsel are plenty crazy non-creature spells

I wasn't playing in tournaments, it was just casual play-whatever-you-want with friends. So there were plenty of times when someone paid the eight mana to cast Akroma. Sometimes I made a really competitive deck to fight against that, but that wasn't any fun to play either. One deck had Wrath of God, Damnation, Moat, Abyss and Ensnaring Bridge in it. I never lost with it and I never enjoyed winning with it.

Malygris wrote: I wasn't playing in tournaments, it was just casual play-whatever-you-want with friends. So there were plenty of times when someone paid the eight mana to cast Akroma. Sometimes I made a really competitive deck to fight against that, but that wasn't any fun to play either. One deck had Wrath of God, Damnation, Moat, Abyss and Ensnaring Bridge in it. I never lost with it and I never enjoyed winning with it.

Just my opinion, but that last deck sounds not at all casual.

But building a casual deck does not mean, "gently let your opponent roll to 8 mana" either. There's a fine balance there. Even most of my casual decks can kill before turn 8. And decks looking to hardcast Akroma will generally fall to even the slightest bit of disruption.

Anyway...the best part about Magic? Walk into almost any game or comic store on a weekend and you can find a pickup game of it. More than I can say about pretty much any game, ever.

I probably should have mentioned before that these were usually multiplayer games, not one-on-one. Maybe what I'm talking about makes more sense now. Or maybe my friends and I just played Magic differently from most people.

Here's an example of one of my decks: The Land Deck.

4x Exploration
4x Manabond
2x Life From the Loam
1x Crop Rotation

4x Treetop Village
4x Mishra's Factory
4x Mutavault
4x Vesuva
1x Dark Depths
4x Maze of Ith
2x Island of Wak-Wak
4x Deserted Temple
4x Keldon Megaliths
1x Shivan Gorge
1x Dark Depths
1x The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
1x Karakas
1x Strip Mine
2x Wasteland
4x Taiga
4x Stomping Ground
4x Forest

It rarely won, except in team games. It was a lot of fun to build and play.

Ken B. wrote:

dragonstout wrote:

Space Ghost wrote: I don't like the over focus of creatures in the current environment -- especially as a way to deal damage. I find it a little more boring.

I DO like when there are more combo-oriented decks available in current formats, because I definitely like there to always be non-creature ways to win, but of all the ways to deal damage, creatures *by their very nature* are the most interactive card type...and are therefore less boring!

Exactly.

Creature Combat = Ameritrash

Sit and watch your opponent play with himself = Euro

I declare horseshit. What is more Ameritrash than a heavy black mana based combo deck that relies on eating up your own life for the win? Sure the hell not a deck based around Verdant Force and Overrun.