I was trying to debate with a friend online as to why the go-wide strategies in cube were performing so well of late, and why it is so hard to counter them. I made this claim regarding the general state of things;
"Creatures are just the most power per mana by, like, a long, long way. So if you are not in the dork game, you are at a huge disadvantage. The most dork heavy decks, the ones that bring the most dorks to bear in the shortest time frame and the decks that use scaling/synergy effects for dorks, are the most powerful."
Now a deck being the most powerful within a meta shouldn't be a problem, as the meta should respond and adapt. The natural counters for the most powerful deck should rise up and balance things again. Sadly that breaks down when there is insufficient diversity in the meta, or worse still, no actual counter-play options. Diversity is no problem in the cube, the issue is the latter.
“Now hold up one second”, I hear you say! Isn't Wrath of God the simple counter to go-wide plans? Well, yes and no. There are several problems there. The biggest one being that decks using Wrath of God-style effects will be creature light, so they can best abuse the symmetry of the card. Your deck will just have terrible self-harm elements if it all is your own dorks and Wraths! If we return to my quote at the start, we see that such decks are putting themselves at disadvantage for power and options because they are electing to run a reduced number of the most powerful and abundant card type.
Good control decks these days cannot rely on removal and permission to keep a handle on the board. It is near impossible these days to run a creature-less control deck, or one with just an Aetherling as a win condition. The best control decks simply try and buy a little bit of time in the early game and then control the game with more powerful creatures, higher up the curve. They look like a mix of control spells and midrange cards. Wrath effects absolutely have a place in such decks, but they are not such a significant and key part of those strategies any more. Mass removal cards that simply calm the board and that offer a little more control tend to work out best. Cards like Ratchet Bomb, Ugin, Engineered Explosives, Toxic Deluge, etc. are the mass removal tools you want more at your disposal in control decks. They let you work situations where you get to keep far more board presence than your opponent. You get to run dorks and mass removal together without it gimping you and more-over, you get to have far swingier turns. A Wrath typically resets both boards to nothing and thus equal, whereas a well-planned Engineered Explosives, for example, can leave you ahead on the board. I still always want a classic hard Wrath in my control decks, but that is more to keep my opponents honest than anything else. I am certainly not turned off the archetype because I don't have a Damnation, Day of Judgement, Supreme Verdict or other Wrath option.
The other limiting aspects of mass removal as a counter to creatures in cube is something I talk about a fair bit, so will keep it brief here. It is all the persist, undying and recursive dorks. The indestructible ones. The fact that many threats are no longer dorks when most mass removal is active. Man lands, vehicles and other such elusive beaters are all a real chore for mass removal. Lastly in this sphere of general issues for Wraths, we have the fact that planeswalkers are a thing. Super powerful, hard to remove and very much threats, these Wrath proof cards have absolutely been the biggest headache for control decks to deal with. All these many things allow players to diversify their threats, allowing the ability to continue developing without over-extending. I can easily lay a threat every turn and have a Wrath go less than one for one!
Next up, we simply have the fact that Wraths are nowhere near as good as they once were, relative to what is going on. By that, I mean you could easily get a three for one with an old Wrath,because threats were so slow and poor that in order to have any sensible sort of clock, that is at least the amount of extension required from the aggressor. Now Wraths are frequently needed for just a single threat - so often does the Rabblemaster (and his bonus token) command a Wrath all by themselves! You used to be able to Wrath and be fairly confident in not being devastated on the following turn. It would not only act as removal and value but it would provide great tempo due to being a much like a Fog. Now when you wrath, it just feels like giving your opponent a window in which to bend you over. There are always a few cards you really need to not let resolve, and being forced into Wrathing often provides the perfect window for these control killers. Some examples include most planeswalkers, Sulphuric Vortex, Aetherling, Glen Elandra Archmage, Fractured Identity and that sort of thing. A big haste dork post-Wrath can often be all too much for them to cope with as well. Playing into mass removal, I will often try and open one of these windows for myself if I have the appropriate bomb I want to force through. I will do this by intentionally over extending and offering up at least a two for one. The card disadvantage is irrelevant if you are setting yourself up for a winning line. Over extensions also pay off massively when they are not appropriately countered, so you are making somewhat of a win-win play.
A Wrath is often not even a tempo win. Imagine I go generic aggressive one- and two-drop dorks and then make a three mana planeswalker, and then you Wrath. You kill two of my dorks, but you paid four mana and I only paid three. I also got some attacks in with those cards, further pushing the exchange in my favour. Post Wrath I am ahead in every way except for cards and I should be able to make up for that, either with the tempo I have gained, the thing I play post wrath, or the walker I might have in play from my turn three. Even just looking at killing my one-and two-drop – let’s say I got a mediocre six damage in with the pair of them, before the Wrath (which is pretty baseline, if the one drop was Goblin Guide it would do that on its own!). The overall result of that exchange is that I pay minus one mana and one card to do six damage. That is the best Lava Spike you will ever see!
So this is why I maintain that there is little counterplay to creatures in magic at present. Spot removal really isn't an answer either. It can gain tempo, but it is much harder to force value gains with. It fails very hard at matching up against dorks that provide value too. Unable to gain value (and often losing it) makes it sounds pretty bad! We all know why we play spot removal and why it is good and, indeed, necessary. I am just making sure we are all on the same page, as to why you can't counter creature decks with it. Spot removal is simply a supplement to other strategies. Threats are better than the answers, more tenacious and far more abundant! You could match your removal count in cube to the threat count, but that would be a terrible design choice. For one thing, the power level difference would be absurd. The average removal spell likely fails to kill the average creature, if building a cube like that!
This generally all means that the best counter to creatures is, indeed, creatures! This has lead to the most powerful decks being the ones that really push that creature theme in my current meta,as my self-quote at the start suggests. This, in turn, has led to what will be the topic of an upcoming article and that is the increased value of toughness on creatures. Although my argument makes it sounds very unhealthy for the state of the game, there is light at the end of the tunnel. We are starting to see more cards that are able to act as good counters to the most extreme creature builds. Cards that offer some form of mild culling to the enemies board, but on the back of an otherwise-playable card. We are mostly talking of Plague Mare and Goblin Chainwhirler here, although there are others that are gaining prominence too. These cards can be played in aggressive or midrange decks and offer perfect counter play to the problem at hand. One is a bit dull and the other a bit narrow and powerful, and both are a bit polar, too, but that is likely due to people not respecting and playing around either enough yet. Hopefully we shall see more cards like this, that help ease the dominance of the go-wide decks.
I thought I would finish with a decklist to further make my point. This is a pretty average deck I had in a sealed pool last night. It didn't look exciting and really would have liked the Young Pyromancer. I only did it due to having seven Boros dual lands. My Golgari deck looked great, but simply didn't have the same quality of fixing. Despite how fair it looks, it utterly crushed. It won quickly if not interacted with, yet it also won going long. It was too dangerous to get aggressive against and too adept at forcing through damage to easily stabilize against. I was super comfortable being so light on answer cards, as I was afraid of very little! Mostly it is just a great example of a deck that leverages creatures, by having a high density of cheap ones plus supporting synergy.
26 Spells
Land Tax
Burst Lightning
Goblin Guide
Grim Lavamancer
Thraben Inspector
Rustwing Falcon
Skymarcher Aspirant
Soldier of the Pantheon
Dauntless Bodyguard
Legion's Landing
Town Gossipmonger
Goblin Bushwhacker
Krenko's Command
Dragon Fodder
Raise the Alarm
Gather the Townsfolk
Arc Trail
Goblin Bombardment
Dark-Dweller Oracle
Precinct Captain
Spear of Heliod
Brimaz, King of Oreskos
Goblin Rabblemaster
Monastery Mentor
Hellrider
Outpost Siege (I chose Dragons 100% of the time)
14 Lands
5 Plains
2 Mountains
Plateau
Sacred Foundry
Inspiring Vantage
Rugged Prairie
Battlefield Forge
Needle Spires
Clifftop Retreat
No comments:
Post a Comment