Does WotC Still Support Defensive Strategies?
General forum
Posted on Feb. 4, 2023, 6:29 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Magic: the Gathering has numerous different strategies that players can employ, which is great, as that adds diversity to this game and ensures that it never becomes boring or repetitive, and using creatures is one of the most popular strategies, but I have noticed that WotC seems to be emphasizing attacking more than blocking, which I dislike. For example, most creatures still have first strike and double strike unconditionally, but there are some creatures that have first strike or double strike only when they attack (but never only when they block), there are numerous cards that reward players for attacking, but every few cards that award players for blocking, and WotC has stated that they are no longer using the "this creature may block additional creatures" ability, which is unfortunate, because I like that ability and feel that defensive strategies are just as valid as are offensive strategies, so I do hope that WotC still supports such strategies.
What does everyone else say about this? Does WotC still support defensive strategies?
Grubbernaut says... #3
In general, people much prefer attacking; same reason fighting games have largely incentivized offense.
February 4, 2023 6:44 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #4
TypicalTimmy, not all games have time limits, so I feel that WotC should not be penalizing players who prefer long and defensive games because some events have time limits.
Grubbernaut, have you ever heard the phrase "the best offense is a good defense?" I feel that WotC should at least acknowledge that some players prefer that strategy.
February 4, 2023 6:48 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #5
True, so they could make precons that are defensive. But largely anything else they do will be strained though an LGS whether it is a prerelease for a Modern Horizons 3 or the next Un-set, a Standard set, or anything else. And those are timed. So even if 98% of players aren't attending tournaments, it doesn't change how the initial launch of 90% of their products are seen with a prerelease time limit. Meaning, a player who has a pack of mostly defensive cards will inevitably lose the entire night before it even starts.
And "The best offense is a good defense." is mostly referring to being prepared, ready and able. Not sitting around soaking up damage.
February 4, 2023 6:55 p.m. Edited.
wallisface says... #6
DemonDragonJ some thoughts:
-
Wotc have to make sure that limited formats like Sealed and Draft, as well as constructed formats like Standard, Pioneer, Modern, can reliably have a best-of-3 set of games happen within 50 minutes. Even if you don't play these formats, its important that these formats don't become completely grindy stalemates.
-
Mark on Blogatog has said many times now that if they'd written FirstStrike and DoubleStrike today, those effects would only work on the controllers turn. They've long had problems with how easily it is for a bunch of FirstStrike creatures be able to prevent attacks by being able to block together too well.
-
The game has to end, and Wotc want to encourage play-patterns that lead towards a games conclusion. They don't want blocking to trump attacking. They've learnt a lot over the years of what leads to bad gameplay patterns, and now work a lot harder towards avoiding that. There are still plenty of viable defensive strategies (Control decks exist in basically every format), but defensive strategies generally still need some measure of proactive measures to ensure the game ends.
February 4, 2023 7:11 p.m.
wallisface says... #7
DemonDragonJ also, your reply to Grubbernaut uses a phrase that doesn't exist. The actual phrase is "The best defense is a good offense" (wiki article here) - this is a mantra Wotc apply pretty well for defensive strategies.
February 4, 2023 7:14 p.m.
Aside from time limits, there's the matter of perceived entertainment value. I speak from experience when I say it's not actually much fun to be sitting behind a Solitary Confinement while cracking Elixir of Immortality for the sixth time, in constant motion without actually progressing. High-level Stax decks in EDH are usually considered one of the most unfun strategies to sit across from, because they stifle activity without adding any of their own.
Defensive cards still very much have a place, but they're being treated more cautiously because too many of them at the same time, or a too-reliable lock, ends the game without actually ending it. The current development pattern encourages active and dynamic board states and effects, so that even if a player is running Clockwork Drawbridges and Gibbering Barricades, there's still an way to keep the game moving forward with Guardians of Oboro and Blight Pile, to give some examples from Standard.
February 4, 2023 9:15 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #9
wallisface, in that case, I am very, very glad that first strike and double strike apply at all times, rather than only on their controller's turn, since I feel that it would be ridiculous otherwise.
February 4, 2023 11:44 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #10
Defensive strategies are absolutely, unequivocally and undeniably supported by WOTC.
Every set, or at least every other set contains some version of a Fog and some version of a Wrath of God.
These are incredibly defensive cards.
February 5, 2023 12:59 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #11
Also, spot removal like Hero's Downfall are defensive, Counterspells are by definition, defensive.
Just because WOTC doesn’t support board stalls doesn’t mean they don’t support defensive strategies.
February 5, 2023 1:01 a.m.
Last_Laugh says... #12
I feel like WotC learned not to fill the standard format with too much in the line of defense around the time of RTR standard.
Esper Drownyard at that time could successfully run 0 creatures and instead relied on Nephalia Drownyard to mill you a whopping 3 cards at a time. I've never had a more miserable experience in mtg than facing down a deck that was quite literally full of removal, boardwipes, and counterspells...
February 5, 2023 2:47 a.m.
FormOverFunction says... #13
So don’t hold out hope for cool walls to come out unless there’s a paint-by-numbers deck made to utilize the existence of defender critters (such as “mill x” or “deal x” where x is the number of defenders). It had always been this way, but it’s much more so now: whatever it is you want out of magic needs to primarily come from yourself. You can have defensive play styles and plans... but you shouldn’t wait for WotC to do it for you. That doesn’t work well for standard, because you’re 100% at their mercy, but for everything else... it’s BYOBB (bring your own Blistering Barrier).
February 5, 2023 10:48 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #14
Daveslab2022, what about cards such as Story Circle or Righteous Aura or the protection and hexproof mechanics? Why has WotC been so stingy with those, recently?
February 5, 2023 10:57 a.m.
TheOfficialCreator says... #15
This reminds me of the Amonkhet playtesting back when it was in its preliminary stages. The playtesters noticed that because of the wither and a ton of -1/-1 mechanics in the set, the games were dragging out and becoming standstills. The solution they came up with was to remove wither from the set and add in exert, which fixed the limited format's issues.
February 5, 2023 11:04 a.m.
Someone already mentioned, you put a reversaroo on the actual phrase. However, they do keep printing vigilance, a "poop" tier ability, which I actually quite like. But, vigilance is a weird one.. It is hyper offensive while not letting you hemorrhage on crackback. They SHOULD put vigilance on some lower CMC creatures... It usually sits on 4 cmc critters
February 5, 2023 11:44 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #17
Those cards are not fun to play against. Plain and simple. WOTC’s game design strategy has changed over the years. But just because the specific defensive cards you want stopped being printed, doesn’t mean that a defensive strategy has been abandoned. The exact opposite, actually. By not printing these boring cards that turn every game into a slog, they are making defensive strategies more fun and interactive for both sides of the playing field.
February 5, 2023 12:22 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #18
(But I would argue Nine Lives is the new version of those cards).
February 5, 2023 12:22 p.m.
Specifically with hexproof:
Shroud, no targeting at all, is very inactive (and had comprehension problems: "Why can't I target my own creatures/myself?")
Hexproof, no targeting by your opponent, replaced shroud and is both more powerful and more active. (Hands up if you remember trollshroud.)
Ward is the newest variant, and is more active than both. A strict enough ward requirement could essentially double as hexproof, and while hexproof is still sticking around, it's showing up a lot more as a temporary or conditional effect.
So the direction even over a long stretch of time is from less active to more active. It's also worth noting that while shroud -> hexproof is power creep, hexproof -> ward is power drop.
February 5, 2023 2:38 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #20
Gleeock, I like it when creatures have both first strike and vigilance, which means that they may both attack and block with impunity, requiring that their opponent find another way to deal with them.
Daveslab2022, is that also why damage prevention in general is far less prevalent, recently?
legendofa, are you saying that being interactive is a good thing?
What about the "this creature may block multiple creatures" mechanic? If "this creature can be blocked only by two or more creatures" was given the menace keyword, why has the other ability fallen out of favor?
February 5, 2023 4:55 p.m.
DemonDragonJ I'm more saying that WotC sees interaction as a good thing, or at least better than two people playing solitaire.
I'm not sure I would say "can block additional creatures" has ever been in favor. 10 cards have or grant "can block any number of creatures," 28 cards have or grant "can block an additional creature," and then there's some miscellaneous stuff like Hundred-Handed One. So there's 40-45 ways to block multiple creatures, which is not a significant number. Is there another effect I'm not thinking of?
February 5, 2023 5:07 p.m.
wallisface says... #22
As far as I can tell there's only about a few dozen cards in the 30 years of magic that could ever block multiple creatures (or allow that to happen). Its not that the mechanic has fallen out-of-favor, its just that it was never popular to begin with.
February 5, 2023 5:09 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #23
legendofa, I can understand that, since I have, on occasion, had the misfortune to play against players who were essentially playing solitaire, and it was very annoying, indeed.
wallisface, why is the mechanic not popular? What is there to not like about it?
February 5, 2023 5:13 p.m.
wallisface says... #24
DemonDragonJ I can't speak for that. Personally it's always seemed like a pointless mechanic to me - and I suspect the community and Wotc has also found it incredibly boring and super-limited in design-space.
February 5, 2023 5:19 p.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #25
I'd argue that WotC still supports defensive play, but they've stopped supporting defensive effects that are static. The problem with effects like multi-blocking is that your opponent can see them, and will simply adjust their attacks accordingly. There's no interesting play there. It can be effective, but it doesn't feel rewarding to use, and it can feel very frustrating to be up against, because it often means you just can't, or shouldn't, attack at all.
Selfless Squire was reprinted in C21, and I think it's a good example of how WotC designes defensive cards these days. Fog effects like this sit in your hand, they're plays the opponent doesn't see coming, and actively benefit you, instead of just stalling out the game.
February 6, 2023 7:01 a.m.
DemonDragonJ of course interaction is good. It's the cornerstone of any good deck. And to speak on why they don't print defensive cards anymore it's because a majority of players find that play loop extremely unfun to play and play against.
February 6, 2023 8:40 a.m.
Defensive strategies do not win games - they enable another strategy to win by buying time. That creates problems in Limited, where you’re less likely to end up with an infinite combo or bomb. You might draft or open in sealed a bunch of cards that slow down the game, but not anything to actually close the game out, resulting in slow games without anything to actually end them. That means stalemates, boring games, and games going well past time due to potentially long turns. That’s not great for the players in the game itself, but is really not great for the other folks in the tournament and the tournament organisers.
These same problems exist in Standard, where the combo and threat levels are much lower, meaning you might have a way to end the game, but not as efficient of one to end one in a timely manner, again creating problems for tournaments.
Players, especially new players, are also likely to play at kitchen table with cards they drew from packs. But, as I’m sure everyone here knows, there are plenty of folks who build defensive decks thinking they’ll be fun, but forget to include a win condition - again, especially new players. So, if there is a high density of cards in a set that slow the game, there likely is a major uptick in kitchen table games that end up stalling with no respite in sight.
That said, it would be nice to have some new defensive toys. Trample, for example, was designed with a way to stop it in mind - and the game could probably use some of that balance restored.
February 6, 2023 2:25 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #28
Just as flying has reach, I think it would be nice if a keyword was invented to showcase how a creature can block more than one per combat. As in how menace stipulates it must be blocked by two or more. Perhaps a keyword such as Stoic. So it may read as,
Stoic (This creature may block an additional creature per combat. A creature with stoic may block a creature with menace by itself.)
Simple, clean and effective. That would be a great defensive strategy, at the off-cost of likely being killed due to absorbing so much incoming combat damage in a single round.
Even the second half is clean and effective, or could be dropped entirely to not include menace.
Anyway, you get the idea.
February 6, 2023 7:17 p.m. Edited.
wallisface says... #29
TypicalTimmy the main reason i don’t think Wotc probably won’t do this is because it might make attacking/blocking too messy/complicated, particularly for newer players. I’m not convinced the payoff is worth the extra overhead.
February 6, 2023 7:41 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #30
I could see a test where a few creatures are printed with it in a single set, and if it's accepted and easy to follow it becomes keyworded later on. But yeah you're right.
February 6, 2023 10:58 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #31
Gavin Verhey recently posted a video entitled "the future of first strike," but why would first strike's future be in question, when the futures of flying, vigilance, trample, and haste are not in question?
February 20, 2023 5:40 p.m.
Without watching the video, is first strike somehow being questioned? Going strictly off the title alone, they might be putting first strike on every white creature going forward. (Not that I think that's going to happen; I just think the title is a little generic to broadly speculate about.)
February 20, 2023 6:03 p.m.
wallisface says... #33
DemonDragonJ i haven’t watched the vid, but its natural for a company to question mechanics they don’t think play well. The reason they’re not doing vids about trample etc is because they don’t have the same concerns about those mechanics.
February 20, 2023 6:05 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #34
legendofa, wallisface, what is wrong with first strike? I feel that it is a perfectly functional mechanic exactly as it currently is.
February 20, 2023 6:14 p.m.
wallisface says... #35
DemonDragonJ Wotc doesn’t like how strong it is defensively, particularly on-masse. Rosewater has stated multiple times that if the mechanic were made today, it’d only work when you’re attacking (much like trample, vigilance etc).
February 20, 2023 6:25 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #36
wallisface, but there are numerous real-world examples to support such a strategy, such as a wall with long spears sticking out of it, which prevent enemies from approaching too closely; how else would WotC portray that, if not with first strike? And what is wrong with defensive strategies, anyway? They are a tried and true strategy in actual warfare, so I fail to see why they are such a problem in this game.
February 20, 2023 9:34 p.m.
wallisface says... #37
DemonDragonJ i’m only conveying the messaging as heard from Wotc. And this thread has already extensively discussed this topic.
I’m not sure what more conversation you want here, that hasn’t been covered already.
February 20, 2023 9:43 p.m.
Grubbernaut says... #38
It's not about powerlevel; it's that stalements are (generally) considered to be boring. Being able to block disproportionately is less interesting than being able to attack disproportionately.
February 20, 2023 9:46 p.m.
wallisface says... #39
The tldr of why Wotc is very careful with defensive strategies is that games need to end - and in the case of every competitive format, as well as store event (including sealed/draft/pre-release) players need to be able to reliably get through a best-of-3 match (so, 3 games) in 50 minutes.
Added to all that, gumming up the board with impenetrable pieces generally isn’t seen to lead towards good gameplay. The game plays at its best when there is a high level of interaction and “back-and-forth” tension going on.
February 20, 2023 9:48 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #40
wallisface, flying and vigilance both have defensive applications beside their offensive applications, but no one is questioning those mechanics, so what makes first strike any different? And what about events that do not have time limits?
February 23, 2023 9:46 p.m.
wallisface says... #41
DemonDragonJ While Vigilance allows you to block and also attack, the only time in which Vigilance actually provides any benefit is when you attack (if you're not attacking, you might as well not have Vigilance). The ability encourages being aggressive - and its defensive benefits are only granted by being aggressive. Furthermore, you can't abuse Vigilance to clog-up a board state like First Strike can.
Flying is an ability that also is generally geared towards promoting offensive play. Yes, you can use it to block against other flyers - but generally speaking to make the most of the ability you want to be using it to attack through an opponents lines unblocked. Whichever player ends up "controlling the air" will end up being able to attack with those flyers uncontested.
Neither of these abilities are anywhere near as abusable as First Strike. Its very easy to assemble a group of 3-4 2/2s with First Strike and then be able to block-and-kill anything the enemy tries to attack with, by group-blocking. Unlike the abovementioned abilities, First Strike becomes a LOT stronger on the defense, because the player blocking gets to choose how they do so, and can then use First Strike to present an impenetrable wall.
Having just watched the Gavin Verhey video you mentioned, he goes over the pretty-clear problems of First Strike - did you watch it??
February 23, 2023 10:23 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #42
wallisface, I have not yet watched it, but I shall do so, soon, and the situation that you described is exactly why I am so fond of first strike being useful for defense, as well.
February 23, 2023 10:37 p.m.
wallisface says... #43
DemonDragonJ I'd really suggest at least watching the thing you're questioning, before questioning it.
February 23, 2023 10:53 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #44
wallisface, I have watched the video, and Verhey does make some excellent points; I do not agree with him, as I still think that first strike is perfect as it is, but he did present his case very nicely. I think that the best strategy in this situation is to alternate between "normal" first strike and conditional first strike, depending upon which is better for a particular situation.
February 26, 2023 8:27 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #45
“ And what about events that do not have time limits?”
All sanctioned WOTC events have a time limit.
February 27, 2023 11:51 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #46
Daveslab2022, that is very true, but I still feel that WotC should still take into consideration casual events, which do not have time limits.
February 28, 2023 4:57 p.m.
wallisface says... #47
DemonDragonJ how? What set could they release such cards into, keeping in mind such cards would have to not be available to any non-casual game?
Furthermore, who is wanting to sit down to a 1v1 game that’s going to take 2+ hours to get through? There’s no demand for that. Even in multiplayer nobody wants a game to drag on forever.
I really think you need to look at this from a game-design perspective, because what you’re proposing here isn’t healthy for the game.
Added to this, Wotc have had 30 years of fine tuning the game system to provide the best possible play experience, so you can bet they’ve got a lot more well-thought-out reasons for changing stuff like First-Strike, than an individual clambering for a dated, 30-year old effect, staying unchanged.
February 28, 2023 5:06 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #48
wallisface, that is exactly what I am saying; if first strike has worked for all this time, why change it, now? Also, making your opponent exhaust their resources to make them easier to defeat is a tried-and-true tactic in actual warfare, so I believe that it absolutely is a valid tactic in this game, as well.
February 28, 2023 5:09 p.m.
wallisface says... #49
DemonDragonJ because the more sets the company produces, the more they learn about what works well and what doesn’t. The longer the game progresses, the more the cracks start to show. That’s what’s happening to First Strike now.
There are plenty of valid archetypes that exclusively involve depleting your opponents resources - in Modern: 8rack, Scam, Jund, TheRock, etc. Importantly, none of these strategies drag the game out for massive amounts of time, and they can still win the game proactively.
I feel like you ignored 90% of my last post.
February 28, 2023 5:15 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #50
wallisface, I care more about how fun and exciting a game is than its duration; as long as every player feels as if they are actively participating in a game, its duration should not be important.
It does not seem that you and I shall be able to agree on this subject, so I do not feel that we should continue to discuss it, since each of us feels strongly about it.
TypicalTimmy says... #2
I believe the answer, barring minor thematic exceptions such as vampires obviously having lifelink or walls having defender, is no.
The reason is that in a sanctioned tournament game, restrictions apply with regards to time limits. If one player is strictly defensive, it could easily push up against the allotted time limits. And if both players are, it becomes a war of attrition with no clear winners.
February 4, 2023 6:37 p.m.