Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade

@thewhitedragon69 sorry man, but "hate" is a word that's been into Magic's dictionary for way too long for you to question it now. There's a reason hate-cards are called that. Hatebears just got that nickname because it's a bunch of hate-creatures with other semi-hate and utility ones. It's a much better name than "Fish" which is what is was called back when it had blue.

last edited by fsecco

@aelien said

TLDR: "X cant be done" cards are incredibly boring, dont take any play skill from both sides and are just very lazy and bad game design. The more cards like this see print, the worse MTG gets as a whole.

This is almost exactly how I feel, specifically the part about lazy game design. Non-symmetrical cards require much less thought and timing than others, especially when backed by 4 cavern of souls.

I play this game because of its intricacy, decision making skills, and interactivity, and personally feel that cards that diminish these possibilities are lazy at best, detrimental at worst. If this card said "players" instead of "opponents", I would have roughly 0 things to say about it and would consider it a well designed and legitimate (highly playable) card, but as it is, it is removing most of the thought process away from both parties. For example, imagine Ensnaring Bridge stating "opponents creatures". Or similarly for Tangle Wire, Sphere, etc.

I've got no issues with people playing their extremely hateful decks when said decks have had a thought process behind them, but cards that lend themselves to less interactive game states do not sit well with me, and I feel that this is one of the more egregious examples in a long time.

well, after reading the comments in this thread I have just one thing to say: I'm glad most of you all are not in charge of R & D. People are ripping this card apart without even understanding that it really only answers unfair plays in the first place. If you don't think playing a Dig Through Time for UU without really blinking an eye is broken as shit, then could you find it within yourself to kindly F-OFF! Would you?? Wait. . . have you done it?!! NO?? Please do. Like I'm sooo sick of this BS. It wasn't lazy design. It was sufficient design to actually make an effing difference vs. all the nonsense blue has received over the past 5 years. It actually DOES something relevant vs. PO AND Jeskai, providing a traditional human deck with a much needed 2-drop to supplement Thalia. It also plays very nicely with Wasteland and Knight of the Reliquary. I think this card makes such a deck a much more competitive prospect and SO WHAT IF IT IS?? I really just want to give every complaining character in this threat the tiniest Violin to help assuage their delicate egos. Magic is ever evolving. Vintage is ever evolving.

LEARN. . .
TO. . .
ADAPT. . .
YOU. . .
FREAKING. . .
MORONS.

Blue decks having Force of Will and cards that just draw them into more of that card have enjoyed having answers for virtually everything all the time. If Cavern of Souls makes that proposition slightly less certain then GREAT!!! It's about time that Force of Will got taken down a peg or two. Maybe start playing real 2-for-1s and run some Wastelands? Like, there are a lot of options. Jimminy Christmas!

-mic drop

last edited by Stormanimagus

@pilsburydohboy42 said in Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade:

@aelien said

TLDR: "X cant be done" cards are incredibly boring, dont take any play skill from both sides and are just very lazy and bad game design. The more cards like this see print, the worse MTG gets as a whole.

This is almost exactly how I feel, specifically the part about lazy game design. Non-symmetrical cards require much less thought and timing than others, especially when backed by 4 cavern of souls.

I play this game because of its intricacy, decision making skills, and interactivity, and personally feel that cards that diminish these possibilities are lazy at best, detrimental at worst. If this card said "players" instead of "opponents", I would have roughly 0 things to say about it and would consider it a well designed and legitimate (highly playable) card, but as it is, it is removing most of the thought process away from both parties. For example, imagine Ensnaring Bridge stating "opponents creatures". Or similarly for Tangle Wire, Sphere, etc.

I've got no issues with people playing their extremely hateful decks when said decks have had a thought process behind them, but cards that lend themselves to less interactive game states do not sit well with me, and I feel that this is one of the more egregious examples in a long time.

Well, most cards in Vintage are non-symmetrical from Island to Paradoxical Outcome. Why should it be different when it comes to creature?

Reality check needed for most people here.

I run cards like Notion Thief, Misstep, Force of Will, Sensei Top, Dack, Containment Priest, Pyroblast, Mindbreak Trap, Demonic Tutor, all the power... Every game is intensive and requires high skill to pilot.

I think piloting a PO deck is easy compared to piloting a 5C Human deck.

The 'hatebear' (stupid naming btw) decks people are referring too here are no longer being used. The closest thing is eldrazi, shops, dredge and survival. In fact most PO / Blue decks can be considered 'Human' decks, because I see a lot of Snapcaster, JVP, Kambal, Pyromancer and so on...

@griselbrother said in Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade:

Well, most cards in Vintage are non-symmetrical from Island to Paradoxical Outcome. Why should it be different when it comes to creature?

Most creatures are not "symmetrical" they only have upsides for you and downsides for your opponents. Iam talking about creatues that further your own game plan like Mentor, Bob, BoP etc.
These are not cards designed to be disruptive to your opponent most of the time, but they are designed to further your own gameplan. Just like Island and PO are as well.

@stormanimagus said in Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade:

well, after reading the comments in this thread I have just one thing to say: I'm glad most of you all are not in charge of R & D. People are ripping this card apart without even understanding that it really only answers unfair plays in the first place. If you don't think playing a Dig Through Time for UU without really blinking an eye is broken as shit, then could you find it within yourself to kindly F-OFF! Would you?? Wait. . . have you done it?!! NO?? Please do. Like I'm sooo sick of this BS. It wasn't lazy design. It was sufficient design to actually make an effing difference vs. all the nonsense blue has received over the past 5 years. It actually DOES something relevant vs. PO AND Jeskai, providing a traditional human deck with a much needed 2-drop to supplement Thalia. It also plays very nicely with Wasteland and Knight of the Reliquary. I think this card makes such a deck a much more competitive prospect and SO WHAT IF IT IS?? I really just want to give every complaining character in this threat the tiniest Violin to help assuage their delicate egos. Magic is ever evolving. Vintage is ever evolving.

LEARN. . .
TO. . .
ADAPT. . .
YOU. . .
FREAKING. . .
MORONS.

Blue decks having Force of Will and cards that just draw them into more of that card have enjoyed having answers for virtually everything all the time. If Cavern of Souls makes that proposition slightly less certain then GREAT!!! It's about time that Force of Will got taken down a peg or two. Maybe start playing real 2-for-1s and run some Wastelands? Like, there are a lot of options. Jimminy Christmas!

-mic drop

Calm down buddy. I don't think Lavinia is impossible to deal with or game-breaking in any way, I just don't agree with this style of design. Again, I think Cavern is my real issue (uncounterable rainbow mana?) because even if I decide to deal with it my opponent has most likely already produced at least 1 threat and Wastelanding it is probably going to be negative tempo at that point. That said, it exists, so I will deal with it, but I do not like the way it causes my opponent and I to basically ignore each other.

I also disagree with your Dig Through Time example. Not only has Dig been restricted for very, very good reason, it also (usually) takes a staggering amount of thought and sequencing to get to the point of casting it for UU, and even then it is easily countered (non-blue decks have Pyroblast).

@griselbrother said in Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade:

Well, most cards in Vintage are non-symmetrical from Island to Paradoxical Outcome. Why should it be different when it comes to creature?

Hmm, I wasn't trying to imply that it should be different, instead that all cards should be designed with interactivity in mind. Paradoxical is an interesting example because it imposes severe restrictions to your deckbuilding ability, much like Thalia or Oath of Druids. Lavinia can pretty much slot in anywhere, particularly the sideboard of control decks, and I can picture it making the control mirror abysmal to play in. I recognize that there is a lot of personal bias here because I find the vintage control mirror to be the most engaging, thoughtful, and grindy match of magic that I've found thus far, but that's my opinion.

@pilsburydohboy42

To be fair, caverns is our Force of Will. It is extremely easy for a blue deck to out tempo a creature oriented deck that is not running Caverns or can put out multiple strong threats in a single turn. Force into Jace into too much tempo/value. Not to mention that nowadays 1cc removal into snapcaster for more removal is a follow up to that FoW your first spell. So without Caverns, it would be impossible to have a game with the 'slower' aggro control decks. The creature control player does not run all the broken blue card draw spells, and must gain some virtual card advantage with cards like Cavern of Souls and whatever is being cast with this Cavern of Souls.

Dredge/Survival has Bazaar to cheat free spells into play.
PO is just broken with all the artifact mana and card draw
Workshop has 9 Black Lotus now (which enables multiple threats in a single turn)
Eldrazi has the temples and tombs to cheat mana for high quality creatures (Knot, Displacer, ...)
'Hatebears' has Caverns + Mox which is not enough in most games. Lavinia is not going to change this.

The real problem for hatebears and 5c humans is the need for a card that is both good against PO and Workshop (50% of the meta right now). A Stony Silence is a good example that is good vs PO and welcome vs Shops. Need more strong cards like that to fill in the 60 (75) available slots.

Right now the reality is that we need to run Thalia and Misstep (which are completely useless against Workshop) to stay alive and then try to do good follow ups like Lavinia. And then we also need to dedicate other slots in our deck to fight Workshop decks. In classic hatebears there is no tutoring or deck manipulation. Maybe a bob or a recall... So you are left to the mercy of whatever you topdeck. To improve this deck and to make it relevant again there is need for multifunctional creatures (specifically like i said above, something good vs blue AND fast decks like Workshops / Eldrazi.

Now this is exactly why I designed 5C Humans with Top & Dack, Tutors & other draw spells. It still has the creatures but also digs for answers with leftover mana. Dack is also a powerful out vs Tinker, good vs Shop and steals mana.

Another place Lavinia can find a home is the Humans deck from modern but with power(which is basically the same deck we designed way back in the day but without power). I am playing the 8 lords (mayor & thalia's luitenant) with Force of Will and enough blue cards. Soon Lavinia can join the team and it will be a strong addition. I also use Null Rod. No Thalia or Missteps. For the moment I use Stern Proctor to gain tempo vs Workshop or Oath. It is also an out to Tinker/Omni. I also added some Magus of the unseen which is decent against Workshop and is an additional permanent that prevents TV/Key or Tinker and can disrupt stuff like Sol Ring/Mana Crypt/Vault. There are not many blue vintage relevant Humans out there (need it for FOW). Meddling Mage is of course in the deck as a 4 off. So again, Lavinia is most welcome in this pile.

Guli

I think the blue mages here are proving a point for the other side...

Yes, cavern is something that bypasses counters. That doesn't make the creatures non-interactive, it just means your FoW isn't allowed to counter every spell in the game of Magic like you want. You have to actually have another kind of answer. And if wasting a cavern is tempo negative, boohoo. Why should blue be the only deck allowed to gain tempo advantage (time walk much?).

The whole "blue is interactive, hate-bears is not" line is total BS. Bear decks can't just plop down any random bear whenever. There is the "baiting" thing to consider when playing around removal. Do I overcommit and run the risk of getting swept, or do I hold back and slow my clock letting the blue mage lucksack into ancestral->walk->dig->tinker shenanigans? Playing creatures, even with caverns, still requires a lot of thought. And saying counterspells are thought intensive is a bit misleading. Misstep is thought-minimal. You can choose what to counter or counter the first 1cmc spell, and you still gain tempo. The fact you probably have 2 in hand (or Fow, mindbreak, daze, fluster, etc) also makes it less thought intensive. A counterspell is typically a 1-for-1, but you blue mages are posing the scenario that you have to rack your brain to decide "do I FoW spell X, and then have my pants down, or hold back?" The reality is, if it's ANY kind of threat, you counter it. Then you cast ancestral and draw another counterspell....and stop the next threat. Then you Timewalk, gush, treasure cruise...and draw another counterspell....and counter the next threat. Then you play Jace, preordain x3, dig...and draw another counterspell/timewalk, and just bury the other player before they get to resolve anything meaningful. That's your idea of interactive/thought-intensive? Counter everything meaningful that they do and draw your deck into more brokenness and counters? Yeah - real interactive.

Blue mages only want interactivity when THEY can interact and stop the opponent. They don't want the opponent to be able to do anything meaningful that gets through their counterspells (unless it's another counterspell from an opposing blue mage). I call horse crap on that.

last edited by Thewhitedragon69

The more I read here, the more I agree that blue mages are living in a bubble. They don't want do run situational answers, they don't want to adapt, moreso, they don't want to be challenged, they only want to do what they've been doing forever and play between themselves as the top decks. They see creature decks as inferior and losing to one of them as an annoyance, like it's something that shouldn't happen (while doing nothing to prevent it from happening).

It's really making me think about social classes. People on top with all the privileges have been there long enough that they don't understand the lower class is actually struggling to get to their level. When there is a creature that COULD have an impact and shift the metagame (but ultimately never does in a major way), they panic at the idea that "lesser" decks might get a piece of their pie, because that would mean changing what they've been doing, and change is scary.

last edited by Wagner

@thewhitedragon69
Hatebears just rolls off the tongue, I guess. Lol. As opposed to ControlBear. But I refer to them as control-creatures. That not only covers Thalia but Thoughtknot seer and even Sundering titan.

@wagner said in Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade:

The more I read here, the more I agree that blue mages are living in a bubble. They don't want do run situational answers, they don't want to adapt, moreso, they don't want to be challenged, they only want to do what they've been doing forever and play between themselves as the top decks. They see creature decks as inferior and losing to one of them as an annoyance, like it's something that shouldn't happen (while doing nothing to prevent it from happening).

It's really making me think about social classes. People on top with all the privileges have been there long enough that they don't understand the lower class is actually struggling to get to their level. When there is a creature that COULD have an impact and shift the metagame (but ultimately never does in a major way), they panic at the idea that "lesser" decks might get a piece of their pie, because that would mean changing what they've been doing, and change is scary.

Ehm, yeah, really social classes....
Vintage is a format among others that's played for fun. I don't see why you expect everyone that loves vintage to want vintage to change? I think we all can agree that creature strategies are more viable in vintage today than 10-15 years ago, and the trend seems to be that it will become more viable. Why do i have to see that as a good thing? Why should "lesser" decks get a piece of the pie? There will always be "lesser" decks.

What i see is that some people came to this thread stating that they dislike the current design direction with it's focus on "hatebears". Then a group of people starting to claim that "it's unfair!! you have this and that" etc etc.

Instead of demanding that i should adapt to and embrace change, please respect my opinion that i don't like "hatebears" because matches that include those rarely brings me any enjoyment. I do respect that people feel different, even tho i can have a hard time trying to understand why people who love playing with creatures focuses so much on the format that historically has had the fewest viable creature strategies.

last edited by JosefK

@josefk just calling creature decks "lesser" tells me a lot of your thinking.
It's funny though, what creature strategies are dominating Vintage that I don't know of? We have Shops, that changed a lot after restrictions, but after that... are you telling me Survival is a bad addition to the format? Or that Eldrazi is dominating?

Seriously, Magic players are in general entitled complainers, just like gamers and any other major geek culture right now, but the Vintage crowd being like this is surprising to me. It's been growing for the past few years, but man, all I ever hear is people complaining, even now when the format is completely balanced people manage to complain about the meta AND about a deck that isn't even part of it. This is boring.

@fsecco
I was not the one calling them "lesser", that came from the post i quoted which implied that these "lesser" decks should have their piece of the pie...

Don't recall i said that any creature deck is dominating? All i said was that there is more creatures now than before and that i don't like "hatebear" matchups.

I actually hate complaining and very much prefer enthusiasm. I saw this thread, read some post i agreed with saying that they dislike "hatebears" and what came next was a flurry of posts arguing about "blue mages this blue mages that". Suddenly someone implies that everybody should love change, love the new creature focused development or else they are equal to
"People on top with all the privileges have been there long enough that they don't understand the lower class is actually struggling to get to their level. "
Seems absurd to me...

@fsecco

Seriously, Magic players are in general entitled complainers, just like gamers and any other major geek culture right now, but the Vintage crowd being like this is surprising to me. It's been growing for the past few years, but man, all I ever hear is people complaining, even now when the format is completely balanced people manage to complain about the meta AND about a deck that isn't even part of it. This is boring.

I feel the same.

To think that after all the printings, rules changes, the scrye rule and restrictions over the past 15 years the one reason I'm thinking of taking a break from the format is the wave of complainers in vintage.

@ten-ten I find it hard to understand people complaining about change, be it new printings or bannings/restrictions, since that's exactly what keeps the game alive after all these years. People can play Old/Middle School if they want, and they're amazing formats (I'm in love with Premodern), but Constructed Official formats are meant to be dynamic (and come on, the Scry rule is awesome).

EDIT: I for one, whenever they print something broken or seemingly broken, it makes me very happy and anxious to try it out and see how the meta will shape around it. This game is all about discovering broken things to do, that's the fun of it.

last edited by fsecco

@fsecco i believe that "blue mages dont like change" is just a massive straw man. Many players dont like change for the bad, while still getting excited about interesting and powerful cards. The thing about Lavinia is that she is not interesting at all.

@aelien Not for you. I find her very interesting, as a blue player.

You know, all I said was that the hate bears that need to be printed need to not be so binary in their function and they become more interesting to play against for me.

Resistors are examples of interesting hate because there are multiple ways to deal with it. I like playing against resistors as it promotes interesting gameplay. It taxes and slows you down, but is usually symmetrical and you are still able to play your cards and attempt to execute your gameplan, albeit slower. I enjoyed playing against workshops very much, even when it taxes my deck to defeat. Similarly, Thalia is just as interesting to play against, in my opinion.

On the flipside, cards that say "your opponent cannot do X" is on the other end of the spectrum and extremely boring to play against. If such a card is effective, it usually shuts down a deck from functioning till you can remove it. Worse, sometimes there cards aren't even symmetrical effects.

Once again this is simply my opinion. I dont understand how this went to talking about social classes and all that when I simply expressed my preferences and what I enjoy when playing magic. This has nothing to do with wanting change or not wanting change. I'm happy to see more Vintage relevant cards being printed, but I wish they were less binary in their function. Of course this card has already been printed and I'll have to deal with it one way or the other, but it doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy it.

last edited by Hrishi

Since I helped to derail this threat, I will now attempt to put it back on the tracks. I acknowledge that there is deep seeded disagreement about the perceived "fun" of cards like this. My bottom line is I love diversity in any format and I like seeing wildly different or opposed cards/strategies collide on the battlefield. I find that sort of jockeying for position to be what makes matches of magic worth watching. But, I digress. Back to analyzing THIS card :).

Here are some ways I think this card could be built around:

  1. A deck with Knight of the Reliquary and Ramunap Excavator. My reasoning for this is that if you can keep your opponent at less lands you can keep them even MORE hard locked. I also like the idea of Sylvan Safekeeper in such a list to ensure that the Lavinia survives early spot removal. Such a list would also run 3-4 Stony Silence to make sure moxen can't help cast things if they are eeked out early. I think this list would be Bant.

  2. A more Esper approach with something like Salvagers as a win con. I think a deck like that might be able to make use of Lavinia's ability to essentially stop Force of Wills. This kind of deck could probably also run its OWN Force of Wills. I'm also not sure this sort of list would be able to max out on Caverns.

Those are the main 2 shells I see this card being abused in. Do other people have additional thoughts?

-Storm

  • 219
    Posts
  • 59526
    Views