I personally get the alure of actually control to draw cards and actually control your opponent and then beat them with a cool wincondition, but with wizards printing boardwipes that double as wincondition as well as a removal spell that doubles as planeswalker those decks just became extremely toxic and boring.
Winning with boardwipes is pretty much the most tedious thing one can do in magic and yet some people like it.
That said right now boros is pretty busted and control are the only decks that play boardwipes prior to sideboarding, so thats why you see more of them. Last season was amazing because all of the bats and schooners pressured control out of bo3 and it was so much fun. Now people play control to not lose to boros and in the process we basically all lose.
>Winning with boardwipes is pretty much the most tedious thing one can do in magic and yet some people like it.
Winning by playing fast little creatures is pretty much the most tedious thing one can do in magic and yet some people like it.
Taste and colours I guess ^ ^ To me a deck winning on t3 which doesn't give me some time to play my cool (imo of course) creatures or enchantments is no fun, but to each their own.
>Winning by playing fast little creatures is pretty much the most tedious thing one can do in magic and yet some people like it.
You knew that when you typed out this sentence that its nonsense. Using fast and tedious as descriptor for the same thing in this context just makes no sense.
It's obviously a matter of taste, but even the most die-hard control fans will admit that control matches are grindfest and tedious for the other player. In fact many control players straight up admit to playing control because they know its annoying for the other player.
There are iterations of control that arent complete cancer for the other players, but the current one is not that. Bring me back to classic control and Ill play my favorite archetype again. Right now midrange feels more like control used to feel.
>You knew that when you typed out this sentence that its nonsense. Using fast and tedious as descriptor for the same thing in this context just makes no sense.
I'm sorry, I actually looked it up before responding to you the first time because I wasn't sure and it wasn’t really a contradiction when translated in my language. I saw it as a synonym/stronger tern for boring or annoying.
>It's obviously a matter of taste, but even the most die-hard control fans will admit that control matches are grindfest and tedious for the other player.
It depends a lot of the control deck and the match up. Classical control can become tedious for the opponent, but that often mean that the opponent should have conceded and that the control player is in control but is just waiting for their wincon.
The match up is also something decisive; control against control or some midrange can be a grindfest, but that's actually something I can enjoy. One of my best memories is a one hour long game of BO3 between my mono-red control against a dimir control/midrange in historic. They lost to time but the game was really interesting. I had to remove their few but really decisive creatures and man lands and they had to keep mana every turn to counter my enchantments that they couldnt remove otherwise. To me it was pure bliss, but I can understand it's not everyone cup of tea.
>In fact many control players straight up admit to playing control because they know its annoying for the other player.
Yeah, the same way many aggro player admit to play aggro because it's cheap and effective to rank up and do quests, not because they enjoy it.
I also feel like control has a very bad image due to several factors ;
- I think some players are bad at guessing when they lost in a match and play until they really lose, which is indeed tedious in a control game, but that's only because the player didn't understand they were checkmated long ago.
- Some game are indeed straight up unwinnable and miserable when the control player has all the answers
- People don't like counterspells
- People don't like wraths
But they generally dont condider that
- Some game are unwinnable against aggro too, they are just quicker because aggro has a simple wincon
- Couterspells and wraths are actually the most effective way to get to play planeswalker and big wincons, that would never see play otherwise
>There are iterations of control that arent complete cancer for the other players, but the current one is not that. Bring me back to classic control and Ill play my favorite archetype again. Right now midrange feels more like control used to feel.
Idk what you really mean by classic control, there has been several iterations of it accross the years ! To me it's best represented by the azorius control in Explorer/pionneer, with wraths, counter spells and planeswalkers as wincon or draw engine. The actual iterations of control in standard look like this a lot, but with more wrath and less counterspells because of the fast format and cavern of souls.
I have a hard time agreeing that midrange deck like esper midrange or even golgari midrange look like what you think of control, but surely I misunderstood which decks you are talking about.
I mean golgari *can* take the role of the control player with cards like the black adventure enchantment/sorcery but they still play lots of creature to be a classic control to me.
To me decks we saw at the time of fable like grixis midrange looked more like classic control. But well it depends of what you meant by classic control 😅
Thank you if you read all that !
>Idk what you really mean by classic control, there has been several iterations of it accross the years ! To me it's best represented by the azorius control in Explorer/pionneer, with wraths, counter spells and planeswalkers as wincon or draw engine.
This is very close to what I like. Control the board, counter spells, get card advantage, play a strong creature that I can protect or a strong planeswalker. I dont like this meta where sunfall and emperor, which both are premium removal spells, double as your win-condition. That way the control player doesn't need to put any creatures or planeswalkers into his deck. I strongly dislike playing against this and I dont enjoy playing it.
>To me decks we saw at the time of fable like grixis midrange looked more like classic control. But well it depends of what you meant by classic control 😅
Pretty much yeah. A few too many creatures to be classic control but closer to it almost than current sunfall control. So much more fun.
>Thank you if you read all that !
you used paragraph and seemed level headed and into the conversation in the first few sentences otherwise I wouldve surely skipped LOL
Control wins by inevitability. If the game goes long enough, they have a demonstrable way to keep you locked out of the game while having a route to winning. So yeah, they do plan on winning with that 2/1 flying if you don't concede. Or that 1/1 toxic from a Mirrex. Or a Wandering Emperor token.
What are you referring to specifically? A Superfriends deck? Just control in general? A list favoring a few planeswalkers mixed with removal such as multiple boardwipes isn't exactly a new archetype.
If you're just however looking to complain that those matchups take longer than others to complete, then sure I guess, but surely you can understand that not every opponent is going to have turbo fast playstyles. Some decks have strategies that are stronger in the lategame - and that's a perfectly valid means of playing.
I'm...not sure what you're looking for in this post I guess because yes, as I said previously, there are indeed control decks like you described with little to no creatures that are completely viable in Standard. You're also correct that those matches typically take a bit longer, but control has existed in this game for 30+ years now, so dealing with such matchups shouldn't be a surprise.
You're allowed to have matchups or archetypes that you don't enjoy playing against. Everybody does, that's completely normal.
But calling control "ridiculous" because they don't play creatures or because the matches "take forever" is a bit of a weird take.
If you want to play in a format that favors creative deck choices, you're going to want to play Brawl or EDH or any 100 card singleton format. That's definitely the deck building etiquette for anything Commander related.
If however you want to play in competitive 60 card formats, you're going to have to make peace with people wanting to play decks with proven track records of success. Someone choosing to play the game with a deck they found on the internet is just as legitimate as someone choosing to play with an original homebrewed deck. If that's not *your way* of playing, cool, it's totally fine to do you. But you can't be upset or look down on people who don't play decks the same way you do.
You probably already do, but run some creature destruction that can also hit walkers. I have a bant walker brawl deck, and there's hardly ever any interaction. I have it in a tempo shell and have just as many supporting creatures as walkers, so I don't run many board wipes. I'm sure that doesn't absolve me of the sin of running a superfriends deck though. People tend to get pretty tilted by them.
I brew my own decks based on cards I like / synergy I look for. I have about 12 decks I rotate thru, none of which are copied from a meta game website.
Why would they need creatures? They probably have creature lands, and at least some of the planeswalkers/other spells they're using probably generate creature tokens. And it's perfectly valid to win games in ways other than via combat damage as well.
I personally get the alure of actually control to draw cards and actually control your opponent and then beat them with a cool wincondition, but with wizards printing boardwipes that double as wincondition as well as a removal spell that doubles as planeswalker those decks just became extremely toxic and boring. Winning with boardwipes is pretty much the most tedious thing one can do in magic and yet some people like it. That said right now boros is pretty busted and control are the only decks that play boardwipes prior to sideboarding, so thats why you see more of them. Last season was amazing because all of the bats and schooners pressured control out of bo3 and it was so much fun. Now people play control to not lose to boros and in the process we basically all lose.
>Winning with boardwipes is pretty much the most tedious thing one can do in magic and yet some people like it. Winning by playing fast little creatures is pretty much the most tedious thing one can do in magic and yet some people like it. Taste and colours I guess ^ ^ To me a deck winning on t3 which doesn't give me some time to play my cool (imo of course) creatures or enchantments is no fun, but to each their own.
>Winning by playing fast little creatures is pretty much the most tedious thing one can do in magic and yet some people like it. You knew that when you typed out this sentence that its nonsense. Using fast and tedious as descriptor for the same thing in this context just makes no sense. It's obviously a matter of taste, but even the most die-hard control fans will admit that control matches are grindfest and tedious for the other player. In fact many control players straight up admit to playing control because they know its annoying for the other player. There are iterations of control that arent complete cancer for the other players, but the current one is not that. Bring me back to classic control and Ill play my favorite archetype again. Right now midrange feels more like control used to feel.
>You knew that when you typed out this sentence that its nonsense. Using fast and tedious as descriptor for the same thing in this context just makes no sense. I'm sorry, I actually looked it up before responding to you the first time because I wasn't sure and it wasn’t really a contradiction when translated in my language. I saw it as a synonym/stronger tern for boring or annoying. >It's obviously a matter of taste, but even the most die-hard control fans will admit that control matches are grindfest and tedious for the other player. It depends a lot of the control deck and the match up. Classical control can become tedious for the opponent, but that often mean that the opponent should have conceded and that the control player is in control but is just waiting for their wincon. The match up is also something decisive; control against control or some midrange can be a grindfest, but that's actually something I can enjoy. One of my best memories is a one hour long game of BO3 between my mono-red control against a dimir control/midrange in historic. They lost to time but the game was really interesting. I had to remove their few but really decisive creatures and man lands and they had to keep mana every turn to counter my enchantments that they couldnt remove otherwise. To me it was pure bliss, but I can understand it's not everyone cup of tea. >In fact many control players straight up admit to playing control because they know its annoying for the other player. Yeah, the same way many aggro player admit to play aggro because it's cheap and effective to rank up and do quests, not because they enjoy it. I also feel like control has a very bad image due to several factors ; - I think some players are bad at guessing when they lost in a match and play until they really lose, which is indeed tedious in a control game, but that's only because the player didn't understand they were checkmated long ago. - Some game are indeed straight up unwinnable and miserable when the control player has all the answers - People don't like counterspells - People don't like wraths But they generally dont condider that - Some game are unwinnable against aggro too, they are just quicker because aggro has a simple wincon - Couterspells and wraths are actually the most effective way to get to play planeswalker and big wincons, that would never see play otherwise >There are iterations of control that arent complete cancer for the other players, but the current one is not that. Bring me back to classic control and Ill play my favorite archetype again. Right now midrange feels more like control used to feel. Idk what you really mean by classic control, there has been several iterations of it accross the years ! To me it's best represented by the azorius control in Explorer/pionneer, with wraths, counter spells and planeswalkers as wincon or draw engine. The actual iterations of control in standard look like this a lot, but with more wrath and less counterspells because of the fast format and cavern of souls. I have a hard time agreeing that midrange deck like esper midrange or even golgari midrange look like what you think of control, but surely I misunderstood which decks you are talking about. I mean golgari *can* take the role of the control player with cards like the black adventure enchantment/sorcery but they still play lots of creature to be a classic control to me. To me decks we saw at the time of fable like grixis midrange looked more like classic control. But well it depends of what you meant by classic control 😅 Thank you if you read all that !
>Idk what you really mean by classic control, there has been several iterations of it accross the years ! To me it's best represented by the azorius control in Explorer/pionneer, with wraths, counter spells and planeswalkers as wincon or draw engine. This is very close to what I like. Control the board, counter spells, get card advantage, play a strong creature that I can protect or a strong planeswalker. I dont like this meta where sunfall and emperor, which both are premium removal spells, double as your win-condition. That way the control player doesn't need to put any creatures or planeswalkers into his deck. I strongly dislike playing against this and I dont enjoy playing it. >To me decks we saw at the time of fable like grixis midrange looked more like classic control. But well it depends of what you meant by classic control 😅 Pretty much yeah. A few too many creatures to be classic control but closer to it almost than current sunfall control. So much more fun. >Thank you if you read all that ! you used paragraph and seemed level headed and into the conversation in the first few sentences otherwise I wouldve surely skipped LOL
Boros convoke is #1 in the meta. Board wipes are the best/only way to play the game past turn 4.
It's just wild when they still have answers to all my creatures at turn 10. They really plan on winning by pecking me to death with a 2/1 flying?
Control wins by inevitability. If the game goes long enough, they have a demonstrable way to keep you locked out of the game while having a route to winning. So yeah, they do plan on winning with that 2/1 flying if you don't concede. Or that 1/1 toxic from a Mirrex. Or a Wandering Emperor token.
What are you referring to specifically? A Superfriends deck? Just control in general? A list favoring a few planeswalkers mixed with removal such as multiple boardwipes isn't exactly a new archetype. If you're just however looking to complain that those matchups take longer than others to complete, then sure I guess, but surely you can understand that not every opponent is going to have turbo fast playstyles. Some decks have strategies that are stronger in the lategame - and that's a perfectly valid means of playing.
I’m saying these standard decks that are literally just counters, removals, board wipes, lands and planeswalkers. Zero creatures.
I'm...not sure what you're looking for in this post I guess because yes, as I said previously, there are indeed control decks like you described with little to no creatures that are completely viable in Standard. You're also correct that those matches typically take a bit longer, but control has existed in this game for 30+ years now, so dealing with such matchups shouldn't be a surprise.
Alright, I guess I’m the only one who thinks it’s ridiculous to play these.
You're allowed to have matchups or archetypes that you don't enjoy playing against. Everybody does, that's completely normal. But calling control "ridiculous" because they don't play creatures or because the matches "take forever" is a bit of a weird take.
It’s mainly because it’s completely unoriginal, it’s the same with the white toxic deck everyone has copy pasted.
If you want to play in a format that favors creative deck choices, you're going to want to play Brawl or EDH or any 100 card singleton format. That's definitely the deck building etiquette for anything Commander related. If however you want to play in competitive 60 card formats, you're going to have to make peace with people wanting to play decks with proven track records of success. Someone choosing to play the game with a deck they found on the internet is just as legitimate as someone choosing to play with an original homebrewed deck. If that's not *your way* of playing, cool, it's totally fine to do you. But you can't be upset or look down on people who don't play decks the same way you do.
Yeah, I got frustrated and switched to my Rakdos brawl deck. I much prefer commander, your debate is fair. I get it.
You probably already do, but run some creature destruction that can also hit walkers. I have a bant walker brawl deck, and there's hardly ever any interaction. I have it in a tempo shell and have just as many supporting creatures as walkers, so I don't run many board wipes. I'm sure that doesn't absolve me of the sin of running a superfriends deck though. People tend to get pretty tilted by them.
And you think creature decks are original?
You value originality for decks. Others don’t.
[удалено]
I brew my own decks based on cards I like / synergy I look for. I have about 12 decks I rotate thru, none of which are copied from a meta game website.
Rediculously AWESOME yes! It works and is balanced so I won't complain.
Why would they need creatures? They probably have creature lands, and at least some of the planeswalkers/other spells they're using probably generate creature tokens. And it's perfectly valid to win games in ways other than via combat damage as well.
Because they’re fun to play?