Creature comforts
August 11th 2011 06:27
The First World War, it came and it went.
The reason for fighting, I never did get.
But I learned to accept it, accept it with pride,
For you don’t count the dead when God’s on your side.
-- Bob Dylan, “With God on Our Side”
You’ve read some historical perspectives on Magic, right? You’ve read people talking about how underpowered older creature cards were, or perhaps shaking their heads at the kind of “terrible” creatures they used to play with as newbies? Most people have. Here is another historical document you may not have seen before: the decklists from the 2000 U.S. national championship. Keep in mind that the artifact-based combo decks were gone, but there were other spells that were very powerful. Counterspell and Dark Ritual were still legal, as was Yawgmoth’s Will (later banned in Extended and Legacy and restricted in Vintage) and Grim Monolith (see Yawgmoth’s Will). There were powerful anti-creature cards and strategies available – the unkillable Wall of Junk, the vicious Hibernation, and perennial AAA-rated damage spell Earthquake.
And yet as you see from clicking that link, the top eight was dominated by creature decks.
Granted, that was an era of stable – and by then, professionalized – card design. There were in fact some pretty strong creatures in the Urza block, even if the spells overshadowed them. Probably those stories date from a couple of years earlier, right? Mirage and Ice Age, yeah? Let’s ask Randy Buehler, one-time director of Magic development, and someone who played competitive Magic in that era:
”Erhnam Djinn was a house and Serra Angel got its fair share of play. Ihsan's Shade hit the table alongside Wildfire Emissary and even Mahamoti Djinn.”
But . . . but how is this possible? Swords to Plowshares was everywhere! Terror was around, still with that awesome art by Ron Spencer! Reprisal! Control Magic! Oh, the humanity!
I won’t deny that some of the people playing these creatures probably just liked them and didn’t “know any better.” There’s also an element of truth to the argument that they were merely the best for their time, and that you saw them in competitive play for that reason even if they weren’t “ideal.” (Only an element: if creatures were consistently awful compared to spells, there would have been no creature-based decks in 1995. But, as we've seen, there were.)
To me, this may not even be the most interesting problem. Since about the Onslaught era, Wizards of the Coast has consciously attempted to increase the power level of creatures in their new designs. And yet, here in 2011 at the tail end of these efforts, creatures as a card type are generally considered less viable in the competitive arena and less powerful in general. Part of it is the inflation in creature abilities, based on the mistaken notion that this is what makes creatures “playable,” thus meaning that most creatures that don't have an ability are automatically considered unplayable. Part of it is the odd, relatively-recently-acquired strategic conservatism of many players, and their intense fear of losing a creature to something like Terror.
As I have said before, this is as much our fault as it is R & D’s – if it’s been imposed in modern sets, it's only because we allowed it to be. We’re the ones who have always liked creatures. We’re the ones who told them we liked when they were relevant. We’re the target market for the recent cards that far surpass every notion we’ve ever had about what constituted a powerful creature. And we’re the ones who are shedding tears for creatures that would once have been considered unprintably powerful – not to mention all the older, iconic, famous creatures – that can’t find a place in competitive play, and which even many casual players are being urged to cut.
The reason for fighting, I never did get.
But I learned to accept it, accept it with pride,
For you don’t count the dead when God’s on your side.
-- Bob Dylan, “With God on Our Side”
You’ve read some historical perspectives on Magic, right? You’ve read people talking about how underpowered older creature cards were, or perhaps shaking their heads at the kind of “terrible” creatures they used to play with as newbies? Most people have. Here is another historical document you may not have seen before: the decklists from the 2000 U.S. national championship. Keep in mind that the artifact-based combo decks were gone, but there were other spells that were very powerful. Counterspell and Dark Ritual were still legal, as was Yawgmoth’s Will (later banned in Extended and Legacy and restricted in Vintage) and Grim Monolith (see Yawgmoth’s Will). There were powerful anti-creature cards and strategies available – the unkillable Wall of Junk, the vicious Hibernation, and perennial AAA-rated damage spell Earthquake.
And yet as you see from clicking that link, the top eight was dominated by creature decks.
Granted, that was an era of stable – and by then, professionalized – card design. There were in fact some pretty strong creatures in the Urza block, even if the spells overshadowed them. Probably those stories date from a couple of years earlier, right? Mirage and Ice Age, yeah? Let’s ask Randy Buehler, one-time director of Magic development, and someone who played competitive Magic in that era:
”Erhnam Djinn was a house and Serra Angel got its fair share of play. Ihsan's Shade hit the table alongside Wildfire Emissary and even Mahamoti Djinn.”
But . . . but how is this possible? Swords to Plowshares was everywhere! Terror was around, still with that awesome art by Ron Spencer! Reprisal! Control Magic! Oh, the humanity!
Scary thought of the day: on average, creature removal is stronger now than it was in 1995.
I won’t deny that some of the people playing these creatures probably just liked them and didn’t “know any better.” There’s also an element of truth to the argument that they were merely the best for their time, and that you saw them in competitive play for that reason even if they weren’t “ideal.” (Only an element: if creatures were consistently awful compared to spells, there would have been no creature-based decks in 1995. But, as we've seen, there were.)
To me, this may not even be the most interesting problem. Since about the Onslaught era, Wizards of the Coast has consciously attempted to increase the power level of creatures in their new designs. And yet, here in 2011 at the tail end of these efforts, creatures as a card type are generally considered less viable in the competitive arena and less powerful in general. Part of it is the inflation in creature abilities, based on the mistaken notion that this is what makes creatures “playable,” thus meaning that most creatures that don't have an ability are automatically considered unplayable. Part of it is the odd, relatively-recently-acquired strategic conservatism of many players, and their intense fear of losing a creature to something like Terror.
As I have said before, this is as much our fault as it is R & D’s – if it’s been imposed in modern sets, it's only because we allowed it to be. We’re the ones who have always liked creatures. We’re the ones who told them we liked when they were relevant. We’re the target market for the recent cards that far surpass every notion we’ve ever had about what constituted a powerful creature. And we’re the ones who are shedding tears for creatures that would once have been considered unprintably powerful – not to mention all the older, iconic, famous creatures – that can’t find a place in competitive play, and which even many casual players are being urged to cut.
Nice going, Aaron.
| 19 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
