What Can The Most Sadistic Deck In Magic Teach Us?

An Indie Dev and a AAA Dev discuss negative play patterns in Magic: The Gathering and what we can learn from them.
Hosts: Forrest Imel forrestimel.com/
Gavin Valentine www.gavinvalen...
Join the Distraction Makers Discord: / discord
Thumbnail Artwork: Ghoulcaller's Bell by Lars Grant-West

[@mostlikelymaybe]

New cards for standard play typically avoid creating decks like lantern control, land destruction, and storm since the designers have learned from those mistakes. Even counterspells tend to be quite weak. Highly invested players can play other formats that still allow those cards and will generally be more comfortable playing against them. The elephant in the room being that WotC lost control of how people play their game and now Commander is the on-ramp for new players which is a terrible way to introduce someone to Magic. The amount of triggers, abilities and combos is insane.

[@distractionmakers]

Totally agree.

[@brandonr.2807]

I would Argue, Lantern is a deck that relies almost entirely on interaction. I do enjoy the "Fun is a zero sum game" aspects of magic though, that interaction with library hand and GY is the high level stuff I love.

[@PopeGoliath]

It even advances its game plan in a public zone, unlike storm. The only problem is that opponents refuse to admit that they have lost. If I have more active mill effects on the board than you have outs in your deck, it's over.

[@ianilgner5556]

RE: (I'm paraphrasing) "We as designers don't want players to win with victory conditions that are obscured to the opponent or are harder to interact with." I would argue that the nature of the game is that the player will choose the method of winning that lends itself to the safest way to win. Combo can tend to be safer than a lot of strategies because it plays on a different axis than a lot of decks, which can make it harder to control. Sometimes being incredibly fast but fair (aggro) is the way to sneak under control decks that are prepared for the combo decks. Different formats and metagames will determine what decks the player will choose. It's not a fault of the game designer for one of these strategies to exist; there are combo decks in every card game. And, in fact, its the job of the players in that format to know what their opponents are playing. Even if a deck is "unintended" by the designers, or players lose one or two games to inexperience, that's the nature of playing a competitive game. Part of the fun of playing old and complex formats like Modern, Legacy, and Commander, is that you get to learn about lots of different decks and it's what makes those formats so rich with experiences.

[@distractionmakers]

You are correct that there is definitely a tension between player and designer here. Players are always going to find an edge where ever they can and designers have to be aware of what that ends up feeling like in play.

[@danielwappner1035]

Why are the people who actively like getting to play against lantern control & storm going unmentioned

[@distractionmakers]

We mentioned this mostly a newer and/or non-competitive player problem.

[@phlsphr42]

@@distractionmakers I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that only newer and/or non-competitive players enjoy playing against Lantern/Storm, or that only those groups *don't* enjoy playing against Lantern/Storm?

[@chrisschweitzer5558]

You mean to say: What can the best deck teach us? Right?

[@distractionmakers]

Exactly 😆

[@HiddenOcelot]

I think bosh and thraben U point to something interesting when it comes to playing against decks like that (combo decks). The true "test of skill" is knowing what things you can or should interact with, and when you should use the things you have to try and interact with what they're doing.

[@distractionmakers]

Good point. The hard part is that is very high skill play and unwelcoming to newer players. Also, we’re not saying these play patterns shouldn’t exist, just that they should be handled with care.

[@HiddenOcelot]

@distractionmakers very fair to say, it's not easy to catch onto those without a lot of skill and time taken to get that good with the rules of the game and the specifics of how those decks work.

[@brendan-kfp7.62mmminigun4]

One of my playgroups has no idea how to build a deck that does not cause a miserable play experience, and then they say all their decks are simply 'interesting takes' on a commander.

[@juter1122]

Every commander can be great when you stax the board down ;)

[@Foyoon]

What we sometimes do is switch decks with the "problematic" one for a few games to le t them be on the recieving end of it, sometimes they agree with the shared expierience and dont play the deck anymore/so often. I was often the problematic deck and even though I didnt mind playing agains my decks it helped me to gauge what decks are acceptable in what playgroup.

[@Grogeous_Maximus]

I wonder how those groups would be like to play D&D with

[@shorewall]

@@Grogeous_Maximus That's what I compare Commander to, D&D. Commander is a collaborative experience.

[@Scratchyyyyyyyy]

I envy you. My playgroup is so preoccupied with teaming up and grouphug its impossible to test if a deck even functions

[@makesquash]

I think most players equate a negative play pattern with how much they think their time is being wasted. An example of this is the Cat / Oven combo from Eldraine standard. Its conceptually a pretty inoffensive play pattern, where you’re looping cauldron familiar once a turn. But it was miserable to play against on Arena because your opponent had to manually click through every step of the process and it took exponentially longer that it would in paper. Cauldron Familiar might not have gotten banned in standard if not for the time consideration.

[@distractionmakers]

Great point. We should have talked about how digital effects play. That’s probably another video. Play time has become a huge focus because of digital play.

[@Drakshl]

This is still bad in explorer. Playing against food in explorer once they get past the point of "no return" is so annoying. You want to play it out because they might make a mistake, but they have access to so many resources and it takes them SO long to use them thay it can be annoying

[@juter1122]

Another new reason to hate digital play

[@maxwornowizki422]

@@distractionmakers I would argue that the general point made by makesquash does not apply to digital play in particular, but is also extremely relevant for paper play and specifically your discussion. To me it seems like prison decks are much more hated (and thus avoided in design) than most combo decks by new players, because the latter at least win quickly once they combo off. A new player might feel like they can't predict when the combo will start and feel helpless, but they will stare at you for 20 minutes with even more frustration when you dropped a lantern, bridge and 3 mill rocks and know much better than they that the game is locked up but far from over. My point is not to blame these players for not conceding quickly enough or blaming them for torturing "themselves". I want to highlight that your premier example for bad gameplay (lantern control) is not miserable because the opponents lack the information that the game is over or what the game is about. The "combo pieces" are all permanents and thus on the board. It is miserable to them, because the game continues for a while without giving them any meaningful decisions, building up the frustration from turn to turn.

[@jonathantsai6107]

WoTC does accept that the core gameplay styles should be aggro(win before interaction is available), midrange(use interaction to support a plan), control(wait until the opponent can't interact), and combo(reduce interaction to strengthen a plan). But what does a negative play pattern look like in each catagory? What does a positive play pattern look like in each? Aggro can be positive because it's shields down face up so interaction is always meaningful. Would a negative playstyle be Aggro being too fast to interact with? Midrange is positive because it incentivizes interaction between players as a necessary part without being too spontaneous with it's plan. Would negative midrange be Control can be positive because you gave the opponent every chance to show their gameplan and the control deck outplayed the threats. Would a negative play pattern be that the control win-con is uninterruptable(not unstoppable since you were suppose to beat the timer to win)? Combo can be positive because it's cool or wacky to see cards have synergy(goldfishing Johnny). Combo is easily negative because sometimes they avoid classic interactable axes to get to a winning state or have the win out of 1 opening moments. If negative play patterns occur because the clarity of threat or possibility of winning is poorly conveyed to opponents of a strategy, why is Azorius control shell positive where as Lurrus, Hogaak-bridge, Yorrion, and pyromancer's ascension bannable in the past? Is lurrus too fast? Is Hogaak too fast or opens up nonlinear playstyles? Is Yorrion too slow to close out winning games? Is Pyromancer ascension both too reliable and too hard to stop as a combo piece.

[@SanchoNil]

Stasis is the most beautiful card ever printed.

[@sablesalt]

I love stasis

[@Unlimitedsigmaow]

Mix it with smothering tithe for even more fun

[@joshua_lee732]

As a Storm player, I agree that while I have a lot of fun, I also know my opponents don't always have fun. That why I don't have just a storm, but also a few other decks. Also, thanks youtube for recommending this channel to me. It's been a fantastic listening experience.

[@MrZix44]

Hey guys, loving these talks, but could you please up your mic volume when recording? I'm having to turn my headphones up to max volume to listen comfortably, which is not usually a problem I have

[@noahwilliams6391]

The most miserable experience I ever had playing magic was against a guy in standard who was trying to win with Millennium calendar. He had at least 8 board wipes in his deck. Literally farwelled me back to back turns. The worst part was I almost beat him despite this, but he got the win the turn before I could kill him. Was infuriating because he had no game plan beyond blowing up everything while he slowly got his combo together and working. I even blew up two of his millennium calendars but he of course had another. I think it set me off because he had no targeted removal, only boardwipes. This player used a Farewell to kill one creature that I’d played after his last boardwipe

[@roshandala]

You're describing control - Which without control decks to keep things in check the format would be a nightmare

[@MetalHev]

Wotc is trying to eliminate negative play patterns, read "we're powercreeping the shit out of aggro and we're removing control from the game".

[@MomirsLabTech]

Players (in general) don't like playing against combo or control strategies, so midrange soup is the only option left. It's fine for awhile but midrange mirrors where whoever resolves their engine card the fastest/most efficiently wins gets very boring very fast.

[@ryanedwards7487]

As someone who, on Arena, out of something like 95 ranked matches this week went up against mono-black discard/mill or Esper Lockdown probably all but 7 games, I could honestly care less what control or mill/discard players cry about. It has been 3 weeks of abject hell trying to deal with someone keeping my hand at 0 while beating me to death with 2 zombies or watching everything vanish with Farewell and Sunfall over and over again. It’s not fun to be the bait over and over again.

[@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandle]

​@@ryanedwards7487control players sure do love to whine when they don't get to have fun, yet mock any of their opponents who do the same. Crazy how that hypocrisy works

[@kevinfarner6052]

The problem with commander is it was never meant to be a competitive format.

[@distractionmakers]

Eventually everything becomes competitive unfortunately.

[@alienkiller0012]

Unfortunately if they do a banlist for commander cedh they will only ban a few cards and other cards that are misrible to play wont get banned. A great example is i have a guy in my pod that runs defense of the heart in every single deck and gets it out stupid early every time.

[@jaredbobier2844]

You are exactly right. Commander is a broken format from its inception. CEDH is actually the “fix” for this, but commander players are allergic to winning games so most of us don’t ever get to that level of play.

[@dariush314159]

Because I tend to see most things through the lens of SDT this entire discussion really boils down to one of player agency, the subjective feeling that the game is not deterministic, that the choices that each player has is actually meaningful and has the potential to influence the final outcome of the game, and that the breadth of choice that each player has is roughly equal to the other players. From that perspective it basically seems that the promotion of "positive play patterns" means building rules and systems that try to maximize the sense of agency of all players. A game without interaction, though potentially still a fun game, like a race or a treasure hunt or something, will fundamentally have less of a sense of agency during the actual game. I feel like dredge in vintage kind of highlights this just as much as a Stax style deck but in the opposite direction. Whereas a Stax deck is diminishing your sense of agency by decreasing your choice in progressing your own game plan, Dredge is diminishing your sense of agency by progressing their own game plan without having to care about your choices thereby rendering much of your choices completely meaningless. Stax is like being shackled and Dredge is like being incorporeal.

[@distractionmakers]

Well said!

[@dariush314159]

Thank you.

[@dariush314159]

Great podcast by the way. I've been enjoying these a lot since first discovering you guys.

[@ianmarteny791]

Part of the reason I exclusively play eternal formats like legacy (when proxy cards are allowed) is that the format can very much feature negative play patterns like you were discussing, but does not incentivize the player to use them. There are a few archetypes that can be very frustrating to play against like prison decks, doomsday, tendrils, or oops all spells just off the top of my head. Often in game one there's very little you can do. But these decks are very rarely considered top tier decks and aren't played much because it takes a very skilled pilot to properly play and I think that's the sweet spot for degenerate decks and negative play patterns. Powerful combo decks need powerful interaction to keep them in check and wizards doesn't like to print powerful interaction in standard sets, which makes sense because there just isn't the sheer card density required to make degenerate decks function, so the powerful interaction ultimately just stifles the growth of positive play patterns. Legacy gives the sociopaths the choice to ruin everyone else's fun, but if they want to win they better be damn good.

[@distractionmakers]

Great insight! Free counter magic seems to be the required interaction to keep the formats in balance. I agree on all fronts and also enjoy legacy and modern for similar reasons. Negative play patterns and high skill are correlated.

[@ccggenius]

I don't know what you people are on about, Lantern is the most interactive deck in the format; assuming things go according to plan, I'll be interacting with literally every card in your deck. But seriously, the deck is entirely built around converting a Timmy's perceptions of mill as removal into a reality, and this concept amuses me. My personal cherry on top was hearing the dude pissing and moaning across the room the next round about how he hadn't played against any "real" decks that day... Dude was playing Scapeshift. The irony was evidently lost on him.

[@simplegarak]

Def agree with you guys. I think some of it is always the options debate as well. So if we're winning by smashing face, I can handle with creatures of my own, or by hitting them with damage, or with kill spells. Basically if I built a fairly average deck, there are good odds I can have a way of dealing with a creature attack. But when it comes to things like combo - my options become more limited. I need to have counterspells or hand disruption or milling in my deck. With the former, you can find an answer in every color. For the latter, not as much. I think that's also another hinderance for new players. If I just learned the game and am building a deck, seeing a card with "destroy target creature" well I can grasp what that does and how useful it might be so it's easy to judge whether I need to include it or not. Whereas combo disruption may not always be as obvious to include for a newbie deck builder or might even seem "too mean."

[@kellysereda4961]

Generally speaking, I would define a Positive playstyle as one where a player has a win-con and actively attempts to achieve it, whereas a Negative playstyle actively attempts to thwart or disrupt opponents from achieving their win-con(s). Balance becomes necessary when Positive efficiency is too great, bypassing interaction, or when Negative interaction makes Positive play impossible - which rules committees and pods recommend for healthy play.

[@Fargren]

I don't agree. Under this definition Storm is a positive playstyle. I think the video has the right idea. Positive play patterns are those that let players interact with what the other player is doing. Negative patterns are those where it's likely only one player will get to participate actively. A pattern can be negative for being so disruptive that it eliminates agency, or by being so strong that most interaction doesn't work against it.

[@kellysereda4961]

I'd also add that, even with bans, historical formats remain wide open to abuse. Social contract in your play group(s) is key, especially in casual. Do unto others...

[@kellysereda4961]

@@Fargren I agree with your view and that of the video as well, along side my inherent take. Together these create a box. Positive and Negative at their base as 'builds (adds), removes (subtracts), but when efficiency of either extreme exceeds balance, it creates an asymmetrical player experience 'positive (enjoyable), vs negative (frustrating, confusing, boring)'.

[@Jawzah]

@@Fargren Well - if "I'm positive that person X is HIV positive.".. Disagreeing about the definition of positive does not change that. The original meaning of "positive" is not "good" or "pleasant" or .. so "that would make storm "positive" is not really a valid counterargument..

[@egoalter1276]

Proactive and reactive is a better naming scheme. Trying to assign morality to playstyles is idiotic. And the only reactive plasytyle is control, so the distinction is nt a good way to categorize playstyles.

[@EYPriest]

I agree that new players want to play in the space of the core patterns. I think for intermediate players, it can be cool to see your opponent do something you've never seen before. It's cool to explore space far from the core patterns, but the problem is that it becomes less and less cool the more it happens. For example, the first time you see an opponent assemble the Urzatron, that's pretty cool, but by the 1000th time they do it, it's not fun anymore. Part of the fun of mtg is the experience of exploring new interactions. Novelty is fun, but it wares off. So the way I see it is that there's this tension for designers of they want to allow players to explore new space to experience novelty, but they want to limit this as well because that space tends to be non-interactive and becomes unfun very quickly.

[@mantidream8179]

I would give up this game is they removed my ability to ruin other peoples' days.

[@LillyVonT]

Same

[@quantum_beeb]

I most love to make people miserable and not be able to play the game. Stasis, pox, mill, solitary confinement, lantern, etc

[@coopertolbertsmith6067]

One note on that mindset transition they were talking about. Even once a magic player has played enough games and started to notice things like the blue player passing the turn with open mana etc, if the way they’ve built there deck doesn’t accommodate for that by running more instant speed interaction or redundancies, then that negative feeling can be even worse as you can guess your opponent is going to interrupt you or combo off and you physically can’t do anything about it.

[@awildsylveon9896]

I hop on Timeless on Arena when I want my combo vs combo fix. It's pretty fun seeing a turn 1 utopia sprawl, knowing that means show and tell, then ripping it out of their hand with a well placed thoughtseize

[@bmccarthy9]

There's two things I think are negative - there are uninteractive plans that avoid letting the opponent meaningfully interfere with the plan. The worst offender on this in mtg has to be tibalts trickery. A deck with the plan "play an unbeatable card on turn 2-3 or do literal nothing and inevitably concede." Manages to not be fun for either player usually. The lantern deck is this but not much more so that any other modern deck. It's more emblematic of the other issue - it's very slow to end the game after it wins. It's about locking the opponent out of winning with ensnaring bridge to turn off creature combat. It sets up the lock in a reasonable amount of time with somewhat reasonable amounts of interaction for winning the game in modern. The issue comes in that to an inexperienced opponent this is not clearly an unwinnable position, and it will take another 10-20 turns to actually properly end the game with the mill cards, which is intensely frustrating. Once one player has won the game it should end.

[@LittleMushroomGuy]

"Degenerate play" has been mostly used by players to describe what Wotc descibes as "negative play patterns" Everyone knows what that means

[@egoalter1276]

The only degenerate play I could call that is nondeterministic one turn win combos.

[@00101001000000110011]

negative play pattern is you playing blue counterspell or black mill vs me. positive play pattern is me playing them vs you!

[@Jallorn]

Really, though, there's actually a point in this joke: I don't think you can really purge negative play patterns from Magic and have it still be the same fun game because often those negative patterns are a result of overinvesting in a particular tactic that is important to have some of in the game. I'm not saying there aren't design mistakes that can be corrected to minimize these kinds of negative strategies, but that I don't trust that WotC in its modern incarnation will recognize which negative play patterns are just an unfortunate burden the game has to bear. Buuut then, I'm probably counted among the old grognards who dislike the design decisions in modern Magic in general anyway, so take my pessimism with a grain of salt.

[@Cybertech134]

Positive play pattern is neither player doing either of those.

[@00101001000000110011]

@@Jallorn if there only was a couple or very few counterspell cards, not enough to build a deck around of, it would be a fine mechanic. it goes into the negative precisely cus you can make a deck out of it. just as an example. so i think you can absolutely be chirurgical and remove negative patterns without axing the mechanics from all the cards entirely. tho, i very much am in line that MtG design path is sinking into a black hole and crossed the event horizon some time go.

[@00101001000000110011]

@@Cybertech134 you missed the joke. and that is not a positive play pattern, that is the absence of negative play patterns. ;)

[@shorewall]

@@Jallorn There are instances where even Land Destruction is needed for the health of the game. Even in Commander, where MLD is pretty much socially banned, decks still run Ghost Quarter, because there are enough OP lands that need to be dealt with. I think the problem is that MTG killed Standard, and Commander is all cards in the history of the game. Standard is supposed to be that rotating format that doesn't get too crazy and lets you play something that we can recognize as Magic. But Standard is dead now. And in Commander, you can make an entire deck of OP counterspells and removal, or OP combos bursting out every which way, some of which are accidental. Commander both is and isn't a casual format. It is like giving kids AKs and telling them to have fun. :D

[@evelyn785]

I actually love playing against lantern control in Modern because i play G/B midrange and play a lot of tools that can interact with them like hand disruption, artifact hate, sweepers that can remove non-creature permanents, etc...

[@radioguy20]

The only modern deck i want is Lantern Control…

[@BrainSlug91]

I like that in describing the "healthy" way to give the same feeling as lantern control (controlling whats on the top of your own deck rather than the opponent) Gavin kind of just described Sensei's Divining Top. I guess you can always have too much of a good thing!

[@distractionmakers]

Haha that’s a good point. I was thinking of toolbox strategies though. 😆

[@tldreview]

All i know is that my favorite strategies to play are alt win cons: mill, exodia, making my opponent throw their computer out a window, stuff like that. And you criticized my play pattern so I'll find where you live and discard your entire library in your sleep. Be warned

[@TyDefender]

Coming from Yugioh, I think combo decks feel fine to me mostly because YGO favors a combo meta. To me casual feels worse when it’s 3 hours in, and the game just devolves into munchkin or one person in my pod brings out Ur-Dragon and out ramps the table This led me to Stella Lee 😅 To me storm or infinite combos with clear points of interaction are fine as long as they aren’t too fast/ 30 minute turns It feels like the strong Izzet is just the natural counter to the prevailing ramp meta people feel more comfortable with in casual commanders. At least in my experience. But it’d be fun to watch a video where you discuss if storm/combo has a place in casual. Especially because more often it’s appears people are resistant to adapting their deck to protect themselves from combos and opt to socially police combo decks out of the meta.

[@DanielRedMoon]

On the topic of Counter-Play from a "designer's perspective". I do see the need for an effect that outright stops a spell from going off (expensive game ending ones, specifically). The problem, to me, its with creatures. Creatures are the element that move a game forward. They are pieces that accrue progress little by little (specially cheap ones early on). Denying a creature is too impactful for gameplay.. as they should be reasonably costed to give an increasing advantage and win a game the longer they stay in play (power = value over time). Countering creatures gives immediate negative feedback that leave a sour taste in Player's mouths. They are making no progress. I would have designed Creature Spells to at least give something in return! Cancel what you wanted, get this crap instead. Whether it is a 1/1 bird or a nerfed version of the attempted creature spell (with lesser stats). That way, even Control Players need to interact on thr Battlefield at some point. Problem with Magic is the fact that powercreep has given Creatures TOO MANY powerful EtB effects (probably bevause of counterplay design), and so.. must of them need to be stopped before they even enter! As the "dies to removal" became the less efficient way to interact.

[@livedandletdie]

Lantern Control is fun, especially the Mirror. Sure the games can run pretty long, but it makes the game into a battle of wits instead of who can dump their hand the quickest..

[@maxwornowizki422]

I could not agree more, but this will basically apply to experienced players only

[@roshandala]

I really don't agree with the premise of this video. Let me give you an example. Mono red (and other aggro decks) is one of the least interactive decks you can play. If they have the turns 1-2-3 curve on the play you're dead. I have lost games on turn for with removal on turns 1-2-3 and died on turn 4. A lot of that deck is creature based and gets on the board so you can 'interact' with it, but interacting doesn't do anything anyway. I honestly find this kind of experience significantly worse than a control match up or a midrange match up against control where they counter / board wipe their way to their win cons. I don't like how people moan and groan when you cast a board wipe, but is playing the deck that doesnt let you cast a spell past turn 3.

[@Joker22593]

The tension between designer and player will only be alieviated when the designers don't control the players by controlling the formats. Competitive pokemon (video game) is best over in Smogon where the focus is on the game and a community based approach to bans is implemented. No statistics about usage and win rate are secret, so everyone can make reasonable decisions. Wotc prints power crept cards and refuses to ban them until the printing presses stop. They have tons of cards nobody ever uses languishing in older formats because they don't have th badwidth to print them into newer formats. The stats are mostly kept secret, only tactically revealed to support whatever narrative is needed to avoid bans until the printing stops. Remember that they threatened MTG Goldfish for gathering and publishing certain stats. MTG format design is a relic of bad pre-internet decisions and it's time to leave them behind.

[@jordantaylor4390]

When I first started playing in alara/zendikar/m10 I made a discard deck based around megrim and burning inquiry, with the discard spells and burn spells of the time. It was a fine deck, and then Liliana's caress came out and it became a very mean deck

[@Governorrr]

Really enjoyed that you all succinctly described one of my biggest gripes with the commander format. Its all about prepping a win con in hand and playing it all at once like a storm deck. In my play group, it basically turns each game to cold war where no really interacts until someone tries to pop off but that just always leaves the door open for someone else to win

[@victoriouscoleman4358]

As a dedicated elf player I can firmly tell you priest of titania is a trap in modern.As long as orcish bow master is legal any /1 that requires you to untap with and costs 2 man is DoA on top of making green mana is not the problem with elves.

[@Epok17]

I have always hated magic that almost completely ignores the combat phase. That a lot of where the heavy decisions, math, and surprises happen. Nothing infuriates me more than not being able to interact with the other player(s).

[@Flum666]

you guys are so insane, I love listening to smart people talk about the game I love

[@viktar3341]

I really can't wrap my head around why Commander is so popular when it has such egregious flaws, flaws that you discussed such as kingmaking. I understand the appeal of the social aspect, but can't other formats like 2headed giant give the same experience, without many of EHD flaws? I will never understand.

[@distractionmakers]

There are quite a few things commander does right. We should do a video on it actually. We’ve criticized it a lot without steel-manning the arguments for it. I think its biggest asset is deck building. Giving the player something to hone over a long period of time and a sense of personal investment is very strong.

[@Duransurik]

There are two worlds in magic, professional, and they are speed building ICBMs while throwing pocket sand at each other, and quite honestly they can handle the heat and casual, where the table should be honest with what they are playing and not playing bully decks unless everyone has a bully deck. That being said I have hard counter decks to dredge and storm decks because I like to flip off those players. What I do see is that power creep is so out of control that in casual not buying the lastest pack modding all your decks out with them, puts you at a massive disadvantage and that's hard to communicate when playing casual. It does get everyone to buy new packs and keeps the game as a whole moving forward but I do wonder, when we will get a green 6/6 that costs 4 with deathtouch vigilance lifelink haste flying and menace cuz that card will be my new Commander 😭😂

[@egoalter1276]

Questing Dreadmaw

[@billtodd2194]

I feel like you're using positive/negative interaction differently than most people would define. Most would call mechanics like hand destruction and land destruction negative as you actively prevent the opponent from playing the game, while a storm deck is noninteractive. As someone who started back in Revised and now play the rare game on Arena, I have noticed that most negatives are toned down. Hymn to Tourachs are not a thing, nor Stasis. Heck, vs modern creatures my old total lock Stasis deck would be far too slow and yet those types of cards still don't seem to be printed much anymore. Destruction seems far easier to come by, but it's all targeted destruction instead of mass denial.

[@distractionmakers]

Yeah I think negative play comes down to removing the agency of the other player. You could do that by attacking their resources or withholding your own. To be clear, I don’t think this should be removed completely. It is a tool like anything else and should be used to evoke feelings in players sparingly.

[@Governorrr]

I think the stereotypical "unfun" or bad play patterns (Storm, LD, or Dredge etc.) are actually good for balancing a format. Formats that include these types of play patterns actual teach players how to become better deck builder and in game players.

[@distractionmakers]

For sure. Negative play patterns are tools like everything. I wonder if we should define them differently to avoid the connotation. It is typical that advanced players will lean towards these strategies because it gives them an edge, but if they run rampant there’s a risk of shutting out less advanced players. Richard Garfield talks about win rates of segments of players and you want each segment to have a 20% chance at minimum of beating the next segment up. Otherwise you end up with too large of gaps between novice and advanced players, leading to a shrinking player base.

[@alexspeedwagon3701]

Commander should definitely start at 20 life

[@pie4dessert]

Hot take positive play patterns are boring. Games need negative play patterns to be dynamic and interesting all of the all time great games have some deeply negative play patterns. By focusing on positive play patterns makes games sterile and samey.

[@distractionmakers]

Hmm I think I agree with your second point. But not the first. It’s not the play patterns that are boring it’s the lack of variety. If you’re avoiding negative play patterns you are cutting yourself off of tools to make people feel differently when playing the game.

[@viggoblavarg856]

I think the trickiest part of positive and negative play patterns in mtg is that many players think that negative just means stuff they don't like. Counterspells are the biggest ones imo. people just get unreasonably annoyed at them while they are probably really good for the health of the game.

[@00101001000000110011]

medicine is really good for health too. but only in small - the right - dosages. not meal size, like deck sizes.

[@viggoblavarg856]

Its just removal with pretty strict restrictions. Yes it interacts with card types not usually interacted with but disenchants do that too. I think the real issue is the lack of stack interaction in other colors, which creates false expectations.

[@Uri6060]

I hate that lanterns a like goto example of this, since imo lantern is the classic like glass cannon gimmick deck. It's more powerful than most, stuff like solemnity 9lives, They can only mill you so much and your never gonna always let them hit lands. The miserable part is that it takes forever, but it's such a heavy a+b+c non guaranteed win and just like regular mill, or theft effects your favorite things disappear in front of you.

[@Uri6060]

But it's just colloquially thought of as a toxic deck, which it is because it's slow but inherently I think it's a super great example of what makes eternal formats so great. And hell, as long as it ain't one of the best decks I think it does that well. Especially since there's so much counterplay.

[@ccggenius]

@@Uri6060 I would contest the claim that Lantern is slow. By and large, my experience is that the lion's share of the clock is eaten up by the opponent slow playing and bm-ing instead of admitting that it is literally impossible to have more outs in a row than I have mill rocks because they only play *insert number here*. Heck, even having to remind them after EVERY CARD to turn over the top card of their deck keeps the meter running.

[@SymphoneersGaming]

I think an aspect of these decks that maybe could have been touched on a little more is the granular and atypical nature in which they operate. In the sense that lantern control and storm both rely on very granular decision making surrounding (usually) the top cards of a deck; lantern control doing that to your opponent, the storm player running the odds of hitting specific cards with their card advantage at any step. It's a very compelling play experience partly because it rewards a really strong grasp on deck structure, and is a way to more actively pull that strategic expertise into the tactics of gameplay compared to most decks. Not that I disagree with the play patterns being undesirable even if I really enjoy playing storm, I just think it's important to underline where the fun is for the purpose of asking further design questions. Applying it to Magic I think it then becomes interesting to interrogate why current designers seem much more comfortable with that oppositional granularity in the form of things like mill and theft effects, where as something like printing Ponder or Manamorphose into standard seems impossible. Designing outside of Magic, what types of resource systems could support more interactable versions of the experience? Would Altered's less permanent creatures and second hand that's open information (the reserve) be a way to combat the downsides of storm in magic? Etc.

[@DanielRedMoon]

I guess it all depends on all the systems involved in a game and what one wants from the product. Magic was conceived as a Creature-first game, and less of a lone Planeswalker hurling only spells until they kill their opponent (Garfield's Keyforge design gives that impression). But the game is good because it evolved into allowing variety and those kind of options as well! Legend of the Five Rings (LCG) made Units temporary (and very centric as well), and so.. they died at the end of turn in which they were played. An additional cost was paid for them to last up to X turns in the Battlefield (called "Fate". It also introduced other resources that limited Actions! Players had honor, and some "Removal" spells had an Honor Cost (losing all your Honor meant losing the game! But honor could also be stolen or increased).

[@distractionmakers]

It is tough. I also love the intricacy of storm and control. I think as your knowledge of the game grows you keep looking for the next challenge. Spells also allow you to use your advanced knowledge to retain information asymmetry. As for Altered, that is an interesting point. We have tried it out with the starters, but interaction feels pretty low right now. Probably worth a video in the future.

[@00101001000000110011]

i personally think that the lack of information is not a problem, in a vacum. usually there are some hints in the form of lands played, spells played, etc that give clues to the opponent that can suffice to let them build countermeasures. to me, the problem lies in the lack of interactivity - especially when it is impossible to break the combo. for MtG and YuGiOh, the board is the focus of interaction, so permanents implicitly are also the focus. since non creature cards rarely do damage or similar, then the creatures therefore are the core of the interactivity. for other games and other designs, assuming the main gameplay is still combat, you need to spot where the focus of the interaction lies, and what it mostly consists of. build around it in ways that seem fun.

[@compacta_d]

I know I'm in the minority of players and probably casual player in particular, but the negative play patterns are what I love about not just magic but all card games. I think we do players a disservice by hyping blue as this instant interactive color and the monopoly on "in response". All colors (and colorless) have instants, and even counterspells. If magic were only creatures it would be extremely boring. Instants are what add the element of bluffing to the game, and having your strategy blown out by an instant you didn't expect or have to read is one of the most fun parts of magic. On that topic I think Bowmasters is prob the best card added to legacy in like 10+ years.

[@distractionmakers]

100%. We’re talking about non-interactive strategies. Instant speed interaction is super important.

[@compacta_d]

@@distractionmakers ha sorry guess I'm too used to coming at it from the perspective of the non interactive player. I'll go back to gold fishing high tide. Lol I still think that they are super important. Non interactive strategies are what forces interaction in other decks. I'd go so far as to say it's the reason for sideboards all together. Without it, we just get a dial of creatures/removal that you turn one way or another for infinite midrange mirrors. Now with CA on every card. And without the creatures+interaction decks we just have Oops/Belcher coin flip mirrors. I feel the mix is what keeps the game interesting.

[@coycen]

i think the best decks are those that have really strong stategies but can be played around or at least be side decked against effeciently without killing the entire strategy. people don't like to play against control decks, but if you know their win cons and how to play around them (if they have any at all, some control decks just win by grinding you to a halt) it's a dance about daring your opponent to be greedy or commit a sweeper at the wrong time. decks like storm are a but... dumb. theres no workaround for you. they either have "it" or they don't. it's entirely luck based and not a fun experience to lose to.

[@Soumein]

In my time playing Magic, Counterspells moreso felt like: when am I supposed to play something? They're playing Draw spells, sifting through the library for their end game, and counters, and I'm top-decking cards that don't seem to matter. Either I don't play it, and thus they have no pressure to do anything, or i do, and they counter it, thus no pressure. I guess I have to wait until they plop down a threat that takes most of their mana, discarding cards along the way, giving them info about what my deck is. If my floodgates can't match their queen, it's a lot of waiting for nothing. Heck, they can even wait an extra turn to get enough mana to counter my removal. I guess that's just control decks in general. It's just not clear what I'm supposed to do. Build a smaller curve, to try and shove a bunch of 1 cost creatures out, and burn their answers through numbers? But then I can't take on more aggressive decks, due to my weaker creatures.

[@hoodiegal]

I feel like Lantern Control would be a really fun deck to play in a PvE game. Unfortunately, in Magic you play against another human most of the time, and while a computer won't mind you bullying it, a human will.

[@nemmielicious]

Interactivity is I agree the main crux of the problem, but what I find interesting is that Magic does generally offer a tool for every problem. Is your opponent on lantern control? Play artifact hosers like By Force, or Harsh Mentor. Your opponent is dredging? Rest in peace. Storm? Flusterstorm. The problem lies in a player's inability to field these specific answers. Assuming a 60 card 15 sideboard format, unless the meta game is extremely known and stable, you're not maindecking any answers like this, they're fighting for sideboard slots against all the decks in the meta. There is extremely limited space for you to bring specific answers, and then you still need to draw them / mull to them of course. This makes the play pattern even worse: if you draw your silver bullet, you just win, if you don't you just lose. Hyperbolic statement of course, but it's essentially a coin flip, and the coin is biased in favour of the uninteractable strategy. There is hope, but it's out of your hands. The answers are there, but not feasibly playable in a normal deck. It also doesn't help that the interaction a normal deck does play gets completely blanked by these strategies. Combo and prison decks play these odds intentionally, and it's just not the cerebral experience most people signed up for when they want to play Magic.

[@PopeGoliath]

The only problem with lantern control is the opponents inability to see when they have lost. There's interaction. There's counterplay. You can see the strategy progressing in public zones. It's perfect. The only thing missing is an opponent who recognizes when they are dead. If you have four outs in your deck, and I have four active mill effects, you've lost. Simple as that.

[@Pehr81]

I miss playing the Witherbloom deck in Strixhaven… it was so fun but was torn apart by all the other decks in standard at the time. I maybe had a 33% win rate, but boy were those wins fun! It’s those kinds of decks that should be encouraged …

[@hugmonger]

1 minute in, looking at the thumbnail and name and I am assuming this is about Lantern Control, a deck all about land flooding your opponent.

[@TheMinskyTerrorist]

The negative play pattern stuff is fine for Vintage, Legacy, and Modern, but should be avoided elsewhere

[@sithapprentic03]

Is a burn deck a negative play pattern?

[@ashadeofnight]

No

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

Definatly!

[@00101001000000110011]

nah, you can certainly easily counter it with life gains, kill them before they can kill you, block their spells entirely, block your hp...... it's fairly accessible across all metas historically to counter any and all burn decks in general. some burn hybrid decks that are not rushing ones, are harder to counter ofc.

[@DanielRedMoon]

I'd say no. Burn and quick aggro play is a necessity that keeps a well balanced game in check. Burn decks don't get the opportunity of drawing too many cards or accruing an advantage while also burning the opponent. I see it as a more risky play pattern and game plan that is easily obstructed and stopped. Battling a life gain deck means you make "no progress"! But you interact with the same element in a back and forth. And life gain doesn't win games alone. Burn does! So burn decks need to also be prepared to go long, which is not often the case.. as they value quick kills.

[@distractionmakers]

It’s a good question for sure. It does creep into the unknown information territory. I’d say it’s healthier than storm because you can see the progress towards victory instead of it happening in one turn.

[@schwarzertee7586]

playing against stax or prison decks is actually a lot of fun if you get over yourself and accept, that the challenge is to not let them get this far. that these decks are like puzzle rooms where the walls come closer. at some point they choke you out until then: try to escape. I find it very rewarding and fun to play against those decks. and to play them stop hating the game, or just move on. there's probably another tcg out there without any of this where you feel better.

[@distractionmakers]

We love magic. That’s why we strive to understand it on a deeper level. The issue is that less experienced players don’t know when they’ve lost the game and lantern control is very slow to win.

[@skyguytomas9615]

​@@distractionmakersThat's being charitable to tournament grinders. The deck is inherently flawed for tournament play due to the opponent's ability to 'rope' you and go to turns even when you have a hard lock on them. That said, Urza's Saga has done a lot for the deck, including providing a much faster clock.

[@lane9668]

@@skyguytomas9615As someone who's played Lantern at FNM almost every week for 4 or 5 months now, there's a huge issue with your opponent realizing you're on Lantern and wasting as much time as possible if it doesn't look like they're going to win. The judges there look out for me a bit and are somewhat aggressive in reminding people not to slow play, (the owner said he considers it a win for everyone if I don't draw any matches) but it's still a pretty big problem. I've managed to win a fair few of these, but it's kind of a running joke that people are relieved when I don't show up.

[@randommaster06]

Coming from Yugioh, it's very interesting hearing this. You frequently have to play into unknown interaction or use interaction without knowing how effective it will be. It's funny that the game our community tries so hard to be different from has the same issues.

[@distractionmakers]

Known and unknown information management is inherent to card games. As long as players have a hand of cards these things will happen.

[@alicewright4322]

the beauty of MTG compared to almost any other game is that they give you enough "game pieces" to break the game or make it totally different than intended. and they also give enough game pieces to stop the game breaking strategies. outside of standard, people should be able to use game breaking strategies. getting beaten by your friend's storm deck 10 times in a row, learning what to sideboard, coming back and beating that deck is an enriching experience.

[@distractionmakers]

100% agree. As long as those tools exist and there is a format for new players to learn the ropes.

[@GerBessa]

I had a Grixis control deck in modern before MH1. I had counterspell, Snapcaster and K command. I loved playing against lantern, storm and ponza, as neither I or my opponent folds to a single card. Having to navigate through welding jars, past in flames and valakuts was always a treat.

[@Ninjamanhammer]

Wasn't counterspell in MH1?

[@chrisrushtonltd]

Mh2

[@Ninjamanhammer]

@@chrisrushtonltd so they couldn't have played counterspell in modern before MH1.

[@ericashmead4049]

Stax stax stax stax stax

[@MrSketchgeek]

My favorite storm deck was infinite Brainfreeze. Just telling people to flip their deck upside down.

[@ericaschner3283]

Usually my negative play experiences come from when the interaction becomes the strategy instead of necessary counter strategy. I need ways to deal with threats and picking the ways I'd like to deal with them and which threats make the list, when to deal with them, etc is a huge part of the skill test. It's also great for the rock paper scissors balance of the game because each color gets better access to different types of interaction which can be adjusted with their offensive strengths. But when a deck is 35 counter spells, or 36 wraths, or (back in the day) 30 land kill, then it becomes both uninteresting and unfun to play against. There's not a ton of skill in just saying "no" to every single thing that comes up and from an opponent's perspective it doesn't even look like you're working towards your win con. It just feels like your opponent, without your consent or notice, has unilaterally decided just one person gets to play Magic today. I'd much rather beat you down to 1 then lose last second on some cheese combo then sit there doing nothing for forty turns until you finally draw your Jace and mill me out.

[@cyberpunklasercat3687]

Imagine having to give consent to your opponent to perform his game plan. lol

[@Foyoon]

fair enough esp, on a more casual level. But playing like full on counter.dec or ld.dec usually only goes so far and loses more often than it wins because it is easier to hate out. granted ot everyone wants to play a deck specifically against another deck but as you said yourself there usually is a but of rock paper scissors element in there even when you dont so there will be matchups you are just horrible against. And if your Pet deck has a really bad matchup against your friends pet deck you would probably change deck anyways why not then do it with decks like that too soon enough the other person is in that predicament. For me that back and forth is also why I love magic.

[@ericaschner3283]

@@cyberpunklasercat3687 I mean, that's Rule 0. I agree that in a tournament setting you do whatever you can to win legally, but in casual where players' feelings about the game are important it's a very important concept. Back in the day I had a very high $, very potent land kill deck. I used it for tournaments. My friends would basically refuse to play it unless there was a tournament that weekend and everyone wanted to get reps in for their more degenerate decks. The Commander Rules Committee says that before every casual game people should have a power / type conversation. If you sat down at an LGS friendly and played Armageddon and Worldfire the table would likely all just quit and never play with you again. Yes, I do have to consent to spend my free time how I wish.

[@lane9668]

@@ericaschner3283You can just concede if you don't want to play. People who simultaneously want to sit around and play a game forever where it's obvious they've lost, then complain that the opponent's wincon wasn't fast enough have had their brains melted by EDH. In any 60 card format, the goal is to win. If you don't want to play, that's fine, but by sitting down to play a game of Magic with someone, you've agreed to play the game by its rules. Realize after a few turns that you aren't having fun? Concede.

[@ericaschner3283]

@@Foyoon oh for sure. It's not even really about winning or losing, it's about how I wish to spend my time. If I'm on Arena casual and someone is playing that awful 36 wrath deck Seth put together or an only counter spell deck, even if I'm likely to win, I'm just going to quit. If it's ranked maybe I'll put up with it. But if I only have 30 minutes to play I'd much rather get in 4 "real games" than one annoying one. From a game balance perspective these strategies aren't broken or anything, but from a fun perspective they miss the mark. Which is why WotC is very careful about how they print land destruction these days. It's no longer a good strategy, but unfun.

[@Deathmperor]

Playing against control is always negative. Nothing, nothing, counter, or destroy into planeswalker or draw. O you managed to put value me and baited removal to get creatures out...board wipe restart. Dont even get me started on sheoldred

[@thered1s276]

lol. lmao.

[@benpuffer7891]

If half of your opponent's deck is counter magic or land destruction, you basically don't get to play MTG.

[@T4N7]

Very good point. My friend just asked me how worried he should be aboit the Niv Mizzet EDH im making n i told him that most of the time it'll be playing a fair ctrl game but at any point I could draw 1 of the 2 cards that go infinite with my general n win on the spot. So people always need to be rdy with instant speed removal for my general or have a counterspell, since once Niv is out, all i need is 1 or 3 extra mana that same turn even to pop off right away. N Niv also will help me dig for my combo

[@heman595]

I have an unpopular opinion and theory regarding the axis that prison/combo exist on. I think prison/combo exist at two separate ends of the action economy.spectrum of gameplay. Prison looks to reduce the action economy within a game, combo looks to warp it to its furthest extreme. The end state created by both gameplay patterns look surprisingly similar, where one players actions are significantly more meaningful. The idea that "Prison" results in an inherently negative play experience is not necessarily true. People who have been playing the game generally do not have the same preconceptions regarding prison that newer members of the hobby do. By removing Prison from the spectrum of the games action economy, we are stuck with the ever increasing power creep in the opposite direction. A few examples: The One Ring Force cycle Evoke elemental cycle Ragavan Up the Beanstalk 3feri Karn the Great Creator Murktide (Delve as a mechanic) Leyline Binding Leyline of the Guildpact The game revolves around hyper efficient removal and equally efficient threats/draw engines. That's the result of pushing prison out.

[@distractionmakers]

Great points. Combo/prison are like two sides of the same coin. I also agree that having a wide variety of play styles requires the ability to play at all extremes of interaction, but designers should seek to make those experiences fun for all players, not just the pilot.

[@carlduzett]

10:30 *sigh* Take another drink, everyone

[@00101001000000110011]

you guys are suicidal. literally playing russian roulette

[@distractionmakers]

Can’t stay away

[@Aaackermann]

One major thing is to NOT refer to your friends as "opponent"! They are not. Changes drastically how you approach a game or a loss. A friend won. Not you lost to your opponent. Think about it.

[@distractionmakers]

That is good insight. It’s fascinating that the player experience of MtG is so broad. Though, it can lead to mismatches in play styles, it’s also part of what makes the game so great.

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

A positive play pattern for me is one where players can stop and prevent the oponent from executing their game plans until eventually some one menages to break throu. A negative play pattern for me is one where dam aggro players go burr and race each other to explode the enemy. Games should last past turn 4, to have twists and turns. Basically, control good, aggro bad. Control with a combo win condition, ok. Aggro rush to combo, verry bad!

[@DanielRedMoon]

"Until someone manages to break through" would be the ideal scenario! Personally, I don't like when the outcome becomes "when you break a Player" instead 😅 Losing all key pieces, running out of time (and deck), drain them out of fun and patience by not being able to impact anything..

[@00101001000000110011]

historically, aggro decks in general fall off in power as the turns go by. control decks are slow at start. sounds to me this is all a you problem entirely, not knowing how to build against and properly counter aggro. i would venture so far as to guess you main control type decks

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

@@00101001000000110011 Aggro X Control is fine when both are balanced. The bad PLAY PATTERN is when Aggro decks are so much more eficient, that evebody plays It. So its Aggro X Aggro just rushing to kill the oponent with little to no interaction. Hearthstone suffers for this quite often. They want the game to be "casual and fast", so in most metas there are Aggro decks that can consinstantly kill the oponent by turn 3-4 without then being able to stop It.

[@00101001000000110011]

@@OrdemDoGraveto i fully agree! hearthstone suffers A LOT from bad design. i wouldn't blame the tools used in that bad design for it tho, the blame is on the ppl balancing and creating the game. and to that point, you even touched on the motivation for it, which we are somewhat speculating, but fairly grounded and again, in agreement: profit and casual focus. i work under the assumption Blizzard wants HS to root itself on the niche of the card game market that is mostly played casually and on the mobile rather than more competitively or as a hobby hours long game session. if that is correct, then some of what i deem bad decisions and designs from them, are quite sensical and sensible.

[@OrdemDoGraveto]

@@00101001000000110011 Still a bad play pattern where both players are just rushing to kill the oponent without ever interacting with whatever they are doing. Eighter by attacking with creatures or combing off.

[@00101001000000110011]

i don't mind playing against "storm combo" type decks at all. i can usually tell what the deck is trying to do before it does it, and even if i don't i still have the chance to break their combo or kill them before they can pull it. counterspell is anti-gaming. it literally denies what you are trying to do against it, and if mana/topcarding is balanced towards the counterdeck you have lost before the 1st card was drawn and have to sit there for over half an hour waiting to get killed. similar thing with milling, you have more of a chance to kill them before they can combo you, but depending on meta it's still breaking your deck without much chance of you contesting it or interacting..

[@thered1s276]

this man doesn't know how to play around counterspells

[@00101001000000110011]

@@thered1s276 son, do you even know what a psychatog is?

[@thered1s276]

@@00101001000000110011sure I do, grandchild. It's a flimsy wincon. Be better.

[@dislikebutton9571]

Me watching this with my stax, control, discard, and land destruction decks and nodding. 🥸

[@sablesalt]

Coming to mtg and being told the closest deck to my preferred playstyle from another game is the most sadistic deck is wild 🥲

[@distractionmakers]

Haha we’re mostly exaggerating. There’s a great video by the channel Rhystic Studies that goes in depth about the history of this deck.

[@xxxav3n6erxxx36]

I play storm and lantern in modern I feel attacked lol

[@distractionmakers]

Haha I love playing these decks too. It’s interesting to operate on a totally different axis and they are quite skill testing for the pilot.