Ravager-Affinity "Replenished"?

C

Crackdown

Guest
Here is a message I think is worth reading. It is from Boris, the Dwarf on the Magicthegathering.com board at wizards.com:

Sometimes it helps to go back and look at past comments and statements for hints about the feelings of R&D. Here's some from Forsythe:

From "My Year in R&D:2004"


Quote:
The order of the day for the players early in 2004 was Darksteel, home of the sinister Skullclamp and Arcbound Ravager. We knew going in that those two cards were going to be nasty business in constructed play; unfortunately one was a big mistake and one was, well, perhaps a lapse in judgment.




Quote:
Some of the cooler stuff in Fifth Dawn was overshadowed by the mistakes in Darksteel (although, to be fair, Fifth Dawn had mistakes of its own, like Cranial Plating). The biggest card to hit constructed from the set was easily Eternal Witness, giving green decks of all shapes and sizes much-needed utility and staying power.



From "December Bannings, or the Lack Thereof"


Quote:
After States, people here at Wizards in R&D and Organized Play heard the low grumblings about the Ravager Affinity deck and began crunching a bunch of numbers regarding its supposed dominance. Our next step was to figure out what we would ban should we deem bannings to be necessary. Most people involved in the DCI felt that one or more of the “marquee” Ravager Affinity cards--Disciple of the Vault, Arcbound Ravager, and Cranial Plating--should be singled out. That list was quickly expanded to include Aether Vial and Thoughtcast for consideration. I, on the other hand, was the front man for the faction that felt the five colored artifact lands (Vault of Whispers, et al), were the real culprits and deserved to get the axe. For what it's worth, both sides' arguments had problems.

You may recall that pre-Darksteel, Broodstar Affinity was considered by many players to be the best deck in Standard, and that deck didn't contain Disciple, Ravager, or Plating. What that means to me is that the problem lies deep within the mechanic, not just with a card or three on the surface. There's no way for us to be sure that if we banned some or all of the “marquee” Ravager Affinity cards that other cards wouldn't just spring up and take their places.




Quote:
There can be no doubt that banning the five colored artifact lands would rid the world of Affinity. Of course, Ironworks would go away as well. Big Red decks could still play Darksteel Citadels and Talismans to support Shrapnel Blast, and most other decks could loosen up on the artifact hate. It's kind of fun to imagine a world where there are no artifact lands, and what kinds of decks would exist in that metagame. Of course, this speaks more to the fact that maybe we shouldn't have printed the artifact lands than the need to ban them, because, let's face it, banning cards sucks.





Quote:
I've heard from many seasoned players that Affinity is beatable, you just have to put some effort into it. Ravager Affinity took months to perfect; I expect that over a similar period of time a newer generation of decks will shape up into real powerhouses.




Quote:
And when casual players—and even some in the serious rooms—start asking questions like “When are you going to ban Kiki-Jiki?” or “Are you banning Eternal Witness soon?” (someone actually asked if Sakura-Tribe Elder was getting banned.)—you start to realize that people have the wrong idea about banning cards.

First of all, there will always be “best cards” and “best decks.” Banning doesn't do anything to change that statement, it just changes what that statement refers to. Second, Magic--especially small formats like Standard and Block Constructed--is not about banning cards. We like to avoid having to solve problems by banning cards, as that leads to a culture of fear. We certainly don't want people to start believing that all the good cards they own are in the crosshairs of the DCI. With that in mind, can you imagine the weird backlash that would happen if we banned artifact lands? Most players that aren't into the tournament scene would have no idea at all why we did this. Tree of Tales is banned?! It's one of the most powerful cards ever?! Are you kidding me?! While it would certainly solve the problem on the top end, it would alienate and confuse people elsewhere.



I think from these statements we can discern the following:
Arcbound Ravager -BANNED
AEther Vial - BANNED
Cranial Plating - BANNED
Disciple of the Vault - BANNED
 
J

jorael

Guest
I would be unfortunate if they ban AEther vial. The card is good, but it can be used in more than just affinity. Besides, if Raffinity loses an important 1-drop (disciple of the vault) and 2-drop (arcbound ravager), how good will the vial be in any affinity deck?

Meddling Mage is still good with it, but I wonder if they ban cards in more than just type 2.... Extended has enough tools to cope with the affinity, right? Wrong?
 
H

HOUTS

Guest
Ferret said:
Heh heh. Here we go again. I reminds me of Blue Winter all over again. WotC admits that some of the cards they printed were a mistake because they were unable to see all of the possible combinations that could be made with their cards. It happens. I guess some players are going to have to learn to build new decks if they want to win...

-Ferret

"Or download new net.decks..."
Blue Winter was MUCH different. Secondly, WOTC purphosely made Affinity so strong. Think about it. You have an all artifact based deck that is like a pre-made deck you buy for 9.99. How much easier can it get than assembling all the cards WOTC put into the sets? Obviously, they are building these monsterous decks to sell cards. Simple logic 101. They have playtesters, and educated individuals behind the scenes, within the game, that help them out.
Now, they want to move the game on. Don't think for a second they don't have control over what they print, what is played, and what will happen.

But, I do agree...people will have to learn how to build decks. Imagine that...original decks. God helps us all.

HOUTS

"Limited combinations allow for limited decks"
 
T

TheCasualOblivion

Guest
Broodstar Affinity--Wasn't paying attention pre-Ravager. I'm not sure this deck was ever so scary it needed to be dealt with.

Disciple and Arcbound Ravager should be enough to deal with the current environment. Those two are the cards that really make the deck explode. Plating is a tough call. Vial I don't see any reason to ban, it doesn't really break anything.

Banning the artifact lands basically means abandoning the affinity mechanic altogether and I don't think they really want that.

I'm kind of curious what Affinity would look like with the loss of just Disciple and Ravager. I would guess it would be based off of Atog and Cranial Plating. I wonder if it would have enough firepower to still be a threat, or if it would still be able to dominate.

If they need to take a few teeth out of both Ravager and Broodstar Affinity they could ban Seat of the Synod and leave the rest. That is still kind of silly though.
 
N

NorrYtt

Guest
Guys, Extended right now is amazing fun. All the colors are good at doing the things they are supposed to do with some standouts (for example, Duress+Cabal Therapy, and possible Vampiric Tutor is a good enough reason just to splash black, and blue countermagic isn't quite good enough for MUC, but it's excellent when backing up another strategy like U/R Fish or U/G Madness or W/U Scepter). White has weenies (OMFG?!) and even (infinite) life gain is tournament-worthy (and completely trumps red decks), which makes for an extremely interesting format.

AEther Vial is somewhat ubiquitious for creature decks, but I think it allows the mana curves to go higher than usual (for example, there are some crazy explosive things Goblins can do with curving Vials, like 40+ damage after an empty board at their opponent's EOT as described by Flores (involves Kiki-Jiki and many Siege-Gang Commanders). But Chrome Mox is also ubiquitios in combo decks and control decks always seem to imprint a Fire/Ice on Isochron Scepter (like a Rishadan Port that cantrips or can burn weenies and goes to the dome).

Extended just couldn't be any more fun, and I think it has to do with AEther Vial and the Life deck. Life is such an oddball deck since it autowins to creature decks and autoloses to other infinite combo decks (Mind's Desire and Aluren) should it be too slow for Test of Endurance.

They shouldn't screw with Extended at all because "broken" is turn 1 Scepter-Chant (4 cards, still need 1 more mana source, and a white source among the 3, Vial gets under it, Port can break it, instant-speed artifact removal can break it). Affinity is good but the other archetypes have the speed and disruption to handle it (like the extremely brutal Pulverize and Energy Flux).

In Standard, they should ban the artifact lands because they are the true mistake. No other deck in history has all its mana sources pump it's team, tap for colored mana, provide colorless mana for affinity at all times, and cause loss of life upon dieing. The deck is good in Extended, but remember there are cheap cards that wreck "all artifacts" unlike in Standard (Pulverize costs zero, Energy Flux costs 3, Serenity costs 2 with a turn of stall).
 
M

Mr_Pestilence

Guest
Artifact Lands: I don't see it happening - this is just too blunt a move.

Disciple of the Vault, Ravager: there aren't any other banned/restricted creatures, so I think they're safe.

Cranial Plating: I'm betting this is on the hit list.

Aether Vial: this card is not broken or even necessary in Affinity - I took 3rd out of 105 in one PTQ without it, and then 14th out of 154 in State Championships with the same deck.

But then again, I might be wrong.
 
O

orgg

Guest
Aether Vial is a possibility in Extended. It's everywhere. Cards that are everywhere get watched. "Watch List" is very probable, I belive.

The one thing many people miss about Affinity's non-artifact land powerhouses is this: If they're removed, Kark Clan Ironworks, a combo deck that kills turn three or(near-guarenteed) turn four becomes the fastest deck in the format. Affinity kills turn three. KCI? three to four.

If you leave the artifact lands, and remove the nose of Affinity...

...we have a standard dominated by a terribly effective and consistant combo deck.

THAT is why I belive that artifact lands will be hit in some combonation. At this point in the Standard format, the casual players like us must understand that we cannot impede the game's tournament format for the sake of less confusion.
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
There's also the fact that without the artifact lands, you don't NEED to ban the other stuff; it becomes good, but not broken.
But if you leave the artifact lands in, you have to take out a whole bunch of other stuff. Disciple is too good. Ravager is too good. Plating is too good. Etc.
The artifact lands were a mistake. Acknowledge, ban, move on.
 
T

Tabasco

Guest
...still though if they restrict them...you will see 4 copies of enlightened tutor in every deck that runs these artifacts...

March of the Machines, and Karn do a good job of killing off the art. lands too!
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
orgg said:
At this point in the Standard format, the casual players like us must understand that we cannot impede the game's tournament format for the sake of less confusion.
I don't think we're "impeding" the tourney format - this thread was just meant to speculate in fun what the March bannings might be. I don't think anyone seriously thinks "we" can do anything about it...

Tabasco: I don't think there's a Restricted list in Standard. It's all or nothing (but that's why I said earlier a Resticted List would be a good idea, 'cause then you can play with just one of each).
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
Tabasco said:
...still though if they restrict them...you will see 4 copies of enlightened tutor in every deck that runs these artifacts...

March of the Machines, and Karn do a good job of killing off the art. lands too!
Am I on crack, or isn't Enlightened Tutor restricted too?
 
R

<<RagingAscetic>>

Guest
Banning Artifact Lands? I don't think that will accomplish much.

Which would WotC rather do: Kill off all decks that could possibly use artifact lands for some purpose or Kill off the ONE DECK that is ruining standard? Simple. Ban disciple, ravager, or both.

Killing off disciple alone will do a lot, but it will not be the end of affinity. The metagame would be very well balanced afterward. There would be many different decks, instead of only 3 or 4 tier-1 decks that are still not the best.

Killing off ravager would have a much worse effect. Raffinity would become Atog-Affinity, and the kill conditions would be the same. People would just replace their ravagers with atogs, and the metagame would shift slightly in favor of speedy control decks(T&N, etc...).

Banning disciple and ravager, which I think would be the right choice, would balance the metagame AND would give people a chance to build decks that could still contain artifacts(Big Red w/ shrapnel blast, KCI, etc....)

hmmm..... what would be the best choice...


What would be the good of banning cranial plating or aether vial? It would hurt other decks more than it would classic vial affinity.
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
What other decks use artifact lands? Affinity and KCI...and frankly, both of them are a little too good right now. Ban artifact lands, and other decks at least have a fighting chance.
 
G

Gizmo

Guest
My money is on artifact lands going - they're the problem in making Affinity unfair. The deck will still run, will still be powerful, but will not be so explosive in the early turns. Like Trix losing Ritual, the deck will still be Tier-1, just not broken Tier-1.

I don't see the Disciple being a problem (has there EVER been a 1/1 creature that needed banning? They're way too vulnerable to ever need banning), and in response to what somebody said, the Krark Clan Ironworks deck suffers badly from the loss of the artifact lands, possibly worse than Affinity does - the Ironworks themselves become only half as explosive, and the Incubator loses 20 of the artifacts it uses to pump out 1/1 tokens with.

Aether Vial... I don't have enough experience of it to know if it will dominate the scene, I can see it's power but I also think they'll be reluctant to ban more than they have to at one time.

Personally I'm in favour of bannings when they make good on mistakes that have been made. This is certainly such a case.
 
O

orgg

Guest
Everyone is forgetting KCI when they say the artifact lands should stay.

KCI is ONE TURN slower than Affinity on average, and its fast draws are TWO turns faster.

If only Affinity goes down in TYPE TWO(and TYPE TWO only!), then KCI is the deck to play in TYPE TWO.

And this only applies for Type Two. Extended is fairly wide open, though Aether Vial is played in 90% of decks.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Gizmo said:
has there EVER been a 1/1 creature that needed banning?
Wasn't Kird Ape at one point Restricted (I know, not banned. But that's because in Standard it's no Restricted List) way back when? Technically it's a 1/1... :)
 
T

TheCasualOblivion

Guest
Kird Ape was banned in 1.5 when Type 1.5 was first created, along with Serendib Efreet.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Was it banned because it was on the Type 1 Restricted List or added in addition to all the cards on the Type 1 Restricted List (slight difference because it wasn't really the Ape's fault in the former's case, which is the reason why Type 1.5 split last year to have a separate B/R List).
 
T

TheCasualOblivion

Guest
It might have been when extended was first created. I'm not sure if the first extended format went all the way back to Revised. Whether it was extended or 1.5, those two were banned in addition to and independant of the type 1 restricted list. I'm not sure they were the only two either. I know those two were banned and it angered me since I used them all the time.
 
Top