In Legacy we have the original Dual lands paired with Fetch lands, having perfect access to mana without any downside. My question is more of just a thought experiment, but besides being on the Reserved List, what is the point of punishing player 2 health to play a dual land?
Mana screw is never fun for either player, and I think one of the major attractions to eternal formats is that you are pretty flexible with the mana base when it comes to deckbuilding.
I never really think its that great when the opponent is at 15 and I havent even attacked with a . creature or done any damage whatsoever.
What's your thoughts?
What's the point of the shocklands? Because they're powerful yet basically fair for all formats, and anything like a drawbackless dual land would be much too strong for Standard?
Building a mana base is also an important strategic part of Magic. You have to consider what lands are right for your deck; I don't think all Modern decks should have endemic mana base problems with 15+ years of card pool.
What's the point of the shocklands? Because they're powerful yet basically fair for all formats, and anything like a drawbackless dual land would be much too strong for Standard?
Building a mana base is also an important strategic part of Magic. You have to consider what lands are right for your deck; I don't think all Modern decks should have endemic mana base problems with 15+ years of card pool.
It seems like pretty much every 3 color deck will inevitably have a ton of issues with mana in Modern. In my mind, all this does it gives a deck like Burn much more play... and I think Burn should be on the power level how how it exists in Legacy, as a tier 2 deck, and not some tier 1 or close to tier 1 deck as it is in Modern
You can also avoid mana screw by playing a mono color deck and running a proper manacurve.
See, the problem with consequence-free dual lands is that it promotes three and four color decks with each color covering the weaknesses of the others. With shocklands, fastlands, etc, WOTC adds weaknesses to these decks that are trying to avoid having any weaknesses. Red is supposed to be unable to deal with enchantments, but you pair red with green and you no longer have that issue.
Ultimately, variance is what separates magic from board games like chess and other esports like CS:GO. You make choices in play and deckbuilding considering risk vs reward.
It would be nice if Modern was actually friendlier to mono-color decks, with more mechanics like devotion to color or things that synergize with their own color or are slightly strong normally but have strong penalties if you have any non-basic lands or lands of more than one basic land type. I'd love it if there were T1 or T2 decks of every mono-color that weren't just budget variations or weird fringe things, but actually typical strategies associated with those color's normal play-styles.
Having access to perfect mana can lead to reduced deck diversity and Wizards has always expressed that they desire deck diversity.An easy example of this is KTK-BFZ Standard, where a lot of the decks bled together and the format became all about jamming the best cards available on curve, with no regards to the colored symbols in the mana cost. This is the main reason we’ll probably never see perfect mana in Modern, even though Modern has less of a risk of that happening since the card diversity outside of the land base allows for a lot of competing strategies to function.
Also, with varied mana, it creates a huge number of interesting choices that a deck builder must make. Fetchlands and Shocks set up mana very well, but it comes at the cost of life. That damage can hurt them against aggro/burn decks. You can opt for Fastlands, but then you run the risk of them coming into play tapped in the late game. Cavern forces you into a tribal them, as does Ancient Ziggurat and Unclaimed Territory.
It really forces the player to think hard about the choices they make when it comes to a land base, which on a personal level, I appreciate.
The best way to view this is to take it to the extreme. What if I declared that only tapping for two colors or only having four copies was a downside, and I demanded a land that not only tapped for all colors, but one that I could put any number of in my deck (like a basic)? With access to truly perfect mana, what happens? The answer is that the color pie, along with each color's identity and any sort of creativity in using them goes out the window. Five color decks become the norm, running the best and most efficient cards of each color. Every deck becomes goodstuff and goodstuff only. Maro frequently says that "restrictions breed creativity," and it certainly holds true here. I like what BlueTron said earlier about balancing risk vs reward - that sums up the entire game, and your manabase is the foundation of it. Why should it be treated any different from the rest of the game?
The whole point is to balance the game in a risk vs reward fashion. So take the most extreme scenario, that all your lands tap for any colour (or colourless) and come into play untapped with no drawback. That is, each land can be used to cast any card in your deck. What deck becomes the best deck in the format? Probably some 5 colour monstrosity that just plays the best parts of every colour. Maybe it's something like those 5c Tribal Flames decks we saw a few years ago at the World Championships. Maybe it turns out some deck shores up all their weaknesses by having access to answers in a colour they're not playing. Almost for sure though, you end up playing 5 colour decks because why not.
With imperfect mana, you have to make tradeoffs for your cards. If you want to splash a colour, it hurts you consistency or your life. There are meaningful consequences, and there's meant to be meaningful consequences. Take, for example, GB decks before we got Fatal Push. Often, they would play red or white because they just couldn't deal with the fact they had bad removal. They'd play cards like Victim of Night because they had to, not because they thought it was good. You'd splash white because white just happened to have Path, or a card like Lingering Souls.
What happens when decks just start splashing answers to problematic situations? Let me just splash some life gain. Blue deck having trouble with creatures? Let me just play Path because it's free.
In Legacy we have the original Dual lands paired with Fetch lands, having perfect access to mana without any downside.
I'm not sure where you get the idea there's no "downside." Even if we ignore the impact of hate cards like Wasteland, you're still paying life for those fetchlands. It's less of downside than the shocklands, but there is still a downside for that "perfect" mana.
My question is more of just a thought experiment, but besides being on the Reserved List, what is the point of punishing player 2 health to play a dual land?
Because the original dual lands were way too good. There should be an actual built-in drawback to playing a dual land rather than a basic land, and there really wasn't one for the original dual lands. Even before the Reserved List was created, Wizards of the Coast had realized that the original dual lands were too powerful and discontinued them in favor of dual lands with built-in drawbacks like the painlands. It's true the shocklands came much later, but they, just like all the later dual lands that had a built-in drawback (fetchlands, checklands, fastlands, etc.) were just following in the footsteps of the painlands.
Mana screw is never fun for either player, and I think one of the major attractions to eternal formats is that you are pretty flexible with the mana base when it comes to deckbuilding.
I agree mana screw isn't fun. There's a reason subsequent card games like Hearthstone have generally eliminated it or at least reduced it. Hearthstone eliminated it entirely by giving you a guaranteed mana each turn. The Pokemon TCG, while still having a system similar to Magic's that allows mana screw to occur, is set up in such a way that you're less likely to be hurt by mana screw (there's a lot of consistency cards--which don't require mana to play--to help ensure you draw them, plus the way the game plays out means you can actually go your first and possibly second turn without hitting any "land drops" and still be in a good position).
However, what you are talking about isn't mana screw (which is not drawing enough lands at all), but color screw (not drawing the right color of lands). Mana screw is a problem, color screw isn't, because color screw is 100% avoidable: Simply play a monocolored deck. Sure, that comes with some disadvantages, but that's the tradeoff: If you want to play more colors, you therefore accept the higher risk of color screw.
The "perfect mana" of Legacy exists in a format with Wasteland. Fetches can be stifled, and playing just 6 real lands in the deck plus fetches/wastes can end up in manascrewville when the some of fringe parts of the format contains actual landkill cards like Cataclysm, Smallpox, Sinkhole, Port, Smokestack, Armageddon, Nethervoid and Ghost Quarter/Wasteland life from the loam or Crucible engines plus trinispheres to make all those spells cost 3.
The shocklands also get use in Death's Shadow UB, a very decent Legacy deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
Perfect mana is actually kind of a problem in that it makes it too easy to leverage what should be unique strengths of each color. It has some purpose when a color is out of balance with another, such as blue was way back in the day, or black in pauper being rather weak and needing help, but when it becomes too easy to go three or even four color it does negate some of the fun of deck building, as well as makes the game rather complicated for less enfranchised players. This isn't really unique to magic the gathering as much as any game that has a resource system with a color pie of some sort. Force of will had the same issue with green not long ago.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
In my mind, all this does it gives a deck like Burn much more play... and I think Burn should be on the power level how how it exists in Legacy, as a tier 2 deck, and not some tier 1 or close to tier 1 deck as it is in Modern
I'd like to add that Burn is tier 2 in legacy because combo decks not because of the painless dual lands, price of progress more than makes up the difference. The power levels of Burn in Modern & Legacy are similar in the context of each format.
Guys please opinions on japanese cards. Lost a 3/3 creature against Japan celestial colonade. This guy played all creatures and spells in english cards, but some cards in his manabase was japanese. I dont registrated this really ( my brain say its all fine and all english to me lets attack his empty board)...and i am sure it is a Kind of legal cheating. It is not ok, but i know legal. I Hate such people. I never forget colonade normally, but with this Tricks it can happen one time in 3 years and such people take advantage of this
If I am a customer spending premium amount of dollars, I expect a premium service. Jund falls into the category of a premium deck costing more dollars than a majority of the rest of the format. I'm not getting the desired performance ratio per dollars spent out of the Jund deck because WOTC decided to make the format more diverse.
In my mind, all this does it gives a deck like Burn much more play... and I think Burn should be on the power level how how it exists in Legacy, as a tier 2 deck, and not some tier 1 or close to tier 1 deck as it is in Modern
I'd like to add that Burn is tier 2 in legacy because combo decks not because of the painless dual lands, price of progress more than makes up the difference. The power levels of Burn in Modern & Legacy are similar in the context of each format.
Plus...let's be real, who gives the OP the right to decide what deck should and should not be popular or successful? "I don't like burn, therefore it should not be tier 1. If it is, that indicates a problem with the format?" That's silly, to say the very least.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Mana screw is never fun for either player, and I think one of the major attractions to eternal formats is that you are pretty flexible with the mana base when it comes to deckbuilding.
I never really think its that great when the opponent is at 15 and I havent even attacked with a . creature or done any damage whatsoever.
What's your thoughts?
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
Building a mana base is also an important strategic part of Magic. You have to consider what lands are right for your deck; I don't think all Modern decks should have endemic mana base problems with 15+ years of card pool.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
It seems like pretty much every 3 color deck will inevitably have a ton of issues with mana in Modern. In my mind, all this does it gives a deck like Burn much more play... and I think Burn should be on the power level how how it exists in Legacy, as a tier 2 deck, and not some tier 1 or close to tier 1 deck as it is in Modern
URStormRU
GRTitanshift[mana]RG/mana]
I am a big fan of perfect mana though, a reason I hate Field of Ruin... lol
Spirits
See, the problem with consequence-free dual lands is that it promotes three and four color decks with each color covering the weaknesses of the others. With shocklands, fastlands, etc, WOTC adds weaknesses to these decks that are trying to avoid having any weaknesses. Red is supposed to be unable to deal with enchantments, but you pair red with green and you no longer have that issue.
Ultimately, variance is what separates magic from board games like chess and other esports like CS:GO. You make choices in play and deckbuilding considering risk vs reward.
Also, with varied mana, it creates a huge number of interesting choices that a deck builder must make. Fetchlands and Shocks set up mana very well, but it comes at the cost of life. That damage can hurt them against aggro/burn decks. You can opt for Fastlands, but then you run the risk of them coming into play tapped in the late game. Cavern forces you into a tribal them, as does Ancient Ziggurat and Unclaimed Territory.
It really forces the player to think hard about the choices they make when it comes to a land base, which on a personal level, I appreciate.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
With imperfect mana, you have to make tradeoffs for your cards. If you want to splash a colour, it hurts you consistency or your life. There are meaningful consequences, and there's meant to be meaningful consequences. Take, for example, GB decks before we got Fatal Push. Often, they would play red or white because they just couldn't deal with the fact they had bad removal. They'd play cards like Victim of Night because they had to, not because they thought it was good. You'd splash white because white just happened to have Path, or a card like Lingering Souls.
What happens when decks just start splashing answers to problematic situations? Let me just splash some life gain. Blue deck having trouble with creatures? Let me just play Path because it's free.
Grixis Death's Shadow, Jund, UW Tron, Jeskai Control, Storm, Counters Company, Eldrazi Tron, Affinity, Living End, Infect, Merfolk, Dredge, Ad Nauseam, Amulet, Bogles, Eldrazi Tron, Mono U Tron, Lantern, Mardu Pyromancer
Because the original dual lands were way too good. There should be an actual built-in drawback to playing a dual land rather than a basic land, and there really wasn't one for the original dual lands. Even before the Reserved List was created, Wizards of the Coast had realized that the original dual lands were too powerful and discontinued them in favor of dual lands with built-in drawbacks like the painlands. It's true the shocklands came much later, but they, just like all the later dual lands that had a built-in drawback (fetchlands, checklands, fastlands, etc.) were just following in the footsteps of the painlands.
I agree mana screw isn't fun. There's a reason subsequent card games like Hearthstone have generally eliminated it or at least reduced it. Hearthstone eliminated it entirely by giving you a guaranteed mana each turn. The Pokemon TCG, while still having a system similar to Magic's that allows mana screw to occur, is set up in such a way that you're less likely to be hurt by mana screw (there's a lot of consistency cards--which don't require mana to play--to help ensure you draw them, plus the way the game plays out means you can actually go your first and possibly second turn without hitting any "land drops" and still be in a good position).
However, what you are talking about isn't mana screw (which is not drawing enough lands at all), but color screw (not drawing the right color of lands). Mana screw is a problem, color screw isn't, because color screw is 100% avoidable: Simply play a monocolored deck. Sure, that comes with some disadvantages, but that's the tradeoff: If you want to play more colors, you therefore accept the higher risk of color screw.
The shocklands also get use in Death's Shadow UB, a very decent Legacy deck.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I'd like to add that Burn is tier 2 in legacy because combo decks not because of the painless dual lands, price of progress more than makes up the difference. The power levels of Burn in Modern & Legacy are similar in the context of each format.
Plus...let's be real, who gives the OP the right to decide what deck should and should not be popular or successful? "I don't like burn, therefore it should not be tier 1. If it is, that indicates a problem with the format?" That's silly, to say the very least.