Anyone who followed the Highlander format knows that
there has been a fairly lively debate going on for the past few months
regarding the potential pointing, or not pointing, of everybody's favourite
cards to lose to:
The debate has its vocal proponents on both sides and I
have been very clear in my belief that the level that these cards are played at
in the format is a bad this and that a pointing is in order to relieve the pressure
their presence puts on the format.
Disclaimer: Before
I go into the core of my arguments, it should be noted that I am a Melbourne
player and while I do check Canberra deck lists from time to time, the Canberra
meta is not my area of expertise.
My aim here is not to get the committee to put 3 points
on each of these cards and call it a day, that just isn't a thing anyone wants,
well... perhaps some do..., but it's not what anyone is realistically arguing
for. The anti Moon stance is generally
that these three cards need 1 or 2 points collectively.
No one is calling for points on Magus of the Moon since
it's a creature that is easily dealt with.
The argument breaks down to pointing either Blood Moon or
Back to Basic (or both, but realistically that isn't going to happen unless one
is pointed first and they keep repressing the format even more than they are
now).
Each time the debate comes up, the pro Moon players
present these kinds of arguments for why the 3 moon effects are not worth a
pointing:
- Keeps greedy decks in check/Good for the health of the
format
- Incentivises creative deck building
- It's a pillar of the format
- Good players play around it/It's easy to play around
Ok, well, that's just like, your opinion man.
Are any of these arguments actually true? Let's break it down.
'Keeps greedy decks in check'
Ok this one sounds like a freebie right? If everyone's playing Blood Moon decks, you
can't just play 3+ colour decks and get away with it right?! Well, wrong.
You can play 3+ colour decks and even if you don't you'll still lose to
Blood Moon and co.
People still play 4c midrange decks that have favourable
matchups against UR Moon, people still play 3/3.5c control decks (which I can
only assume do have a terrible Moon matchup) and do well with them, Tolarian
Academy/Gaea's Cradle decks became so good and
popular recently that they copped a pointing on Crop Rotation, various Shops
decks which rely heavily on their sol/utility lands even though they tend to
run few colours still see play.
Thing is, the 3 moon cards aren’t good because the crush
4-5 colour 'greedy' decks, they're good because a certain percent of the time
they just auto win when they resolve against ANY 2+ colour deck that is not
running red as a main colour or any 3+ colour deck that is running red and
people who play them love their free wins. Who doesn't right?
Let's say you're playing a 2 colour agro deck, say
black/white (yes I know it's not actually a deck, it's a hypothetical). You have 1 drops in both colours, double cost
cards at 2 mana in both colours. Is this
a 'greedy' deck? I think you'd have to
be insane to say that it is.
You draw your 7, it has 5 spells, 2 fetchlands,
perfect. Obviously you want to fetch
Scrubland into Godless Shrine since you know you may have need of WW and BB in
the early turns of the game and it's important for an agro deck to get a good start,
is it 'greedy' to do that though? What
if you do and your opponent goes turn 3 Blood Moon? Well, you may as well scoop.
This brings us to the old 'Good players play around
it/It's easy to play around'.
But what's the alternative? Getting a Plains and a Swamp? Sure, ok, say you do that, congrats you
played around Blood Moon, winning.
Problem is, you STILL lose to turn 3 Blood Moon
here. Opponent plays Moon, you draw your
3rd land and... it's a non-basic. Grats,
you still can't play your BB or WW spells.
Even if you're #GoodAtTheGame and draw another basic, you're still locked out of half your double cost cards.
Say you play 4 basics in a row, cool, you only had to wait till turn 4 to play that Hymn to Tourach or Silver Knight, you can still win right? No, no you can't, damage done.
Even if you're #GoodAtTheGame and draw another basic, you're still locked out of half your double cost cards.
Say you play 4 basics in a row, cool, you only had to wait till turn 4 to play that Hymn to Tourach or Silver Knight, you can still win right? No, no you can't, damage done.
The argument that Moon only hurts 4+ colour decks is a
lie. It hurts all 2+ colour, especially aggressive
decks, immensely. Think about it, when
was the last time you saw a Zoo deck do well at an event? Or a 2c agro deck that didn't run red?
Aside: Personally
I find the 'just play around it' argument insanely condescending. You think I don't know that basics don't get
turned off by Blood Moon, really? Give
me a break. You and I both very well
know that people play Blood Moon decks because you actively CAN'T play around
it a significant amount of the time, yes, even in 2 colour decks. That's why the cards are good and why they
see a huge amount of play.
In the end we return to 'Good for the health of the
format'.
Is it? Is a Highlander format
where non red agro is unplayable and where control is super heavily skewed towards UR
lists that all play the same 3 unpointed cards healthy?
Well, if you think so I probably won't change your mind
but I for one miss agro being a thing.
What's even more ironic is that Zoo used to be the non-basic police. It could Wasteland and Strip Mine (THAT'S THREE POINTS BTW!) you out of the game and kill you from 10 with a Price of Progress. People used to play around these cards, a lot, no one was just running rampant with overpowered 5 colour decks because Blood Moon saw little play.
What's even more ironic is that Zoo used to be the non-basic police. It could Wasteland and Strip Mine (THAT'S THREE POINTS BTW!) you out of the game and kill you from 10 with a Price of Progress. People used to play around these cards, a lot, no one was just running rampant with overpowered 5 colour decks because Blood Moon saw little play.
But why encourage people to have to think about and spend
points on their land hate when you can just play a simple UR deck and get a
stronger effect for free I guess... I miss you Wild Nacatl, I really do.
'Incentivises creative deck building'
I honestly don't know where to start with this. What does that even mean?
Does it mean I should figure out how to remove 2 colours
from my 4c deck so that it's better against Blood Moon? Or does it mean that I should be creative and
figure out how to play a 3c deck with 12 basics in it?
Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong, maybe it means I should
put answers in my decks! I know, I'll
just put Qasali Pridemage and Abrupt Decay in my deck and it will be fine! Good. Plan.
Like we weren't playing these cards already. Issue is they're both uncastable through a
Moon and one of them dies to bolt.
Putting fetches and 3-5 basics in your 3c deck doesn't
require skill, it's not creative and at the end of the day, doesn't REALLY help
you not lose against Blood Moon all that much.
I guess I could be looking at it completely from the
wrong side though, maybe they mean it makes the Blood Moon player more
creative.
Ok let's see, well the cards are red and blue, sweet,
guess we're playing UR. Now, they shut
off non basics so... I know! We'll put
basic Islands in the deck! Such
creativity, much wow.
Because these cards are completely unpointed, it also
means UR players just jam them in their deck because, well, they can. Even 3c players have been jamming them lately
since they can play 2-3 Moxen to power them out and get around their mana
issues.
Seriously though, if someone can explain to me why having
to build every single deck in the format around 1 set of three cards inspires
creativity, I would LOVE to hear your explanation, cos it really doesn't.
Hell, if you want to encourage creative deck building,
point fetches! That is something that
would actually make people think about their mana bases.
'It's a pillar of the format'
Yes, it is. This
one is 100% accurate; triple moon decks are a pillar of the format.
To me a pillar of the format is a card/set of cards that
get built around. Not just cards that
see a lot of play but cards without which decks would not exist.
Let's have a look at some other sample pillars of
Highlander:
- Equipment package creature decks (5 points in 4 cards;
SFM, Steelshaper's Gift, Jitte, Clamp)
- Academy wheel decks (3 points in 2 cards; Tolarian
Academy, Crop Rotation. Additionally all
wheels are 1 point)
- Mud decks (1 point in 1 card; Mishra’s Workshop. Additionally all the good mana rocks are
pointed from 1-3 points)
- Storm (7 points in 2 cards; Black Lotus, Yawgmoth's
Will)
- Acall control (5 points in 2 cards; Ancestral Recall,
Merchant Scroll. Additionally all
remotely playable blue cards are 1 point)
So where does the Triple Moon pillar fall here? Zero points in 3 cards.
The above is certainly not a comprehensive list but you
get the idea.
I agree, Triple Moon is a pillar of the format, it sees a
huge amount of play, and it should be pointed accordingly.
I am of the firm opinion that Highlander was a much
better format before half of it (again, talking Melbourne meta here) started playing triple moon and that both Blood
Moon and Back to Basics are well deserving of a point each both based on power
level and on how much play they see but as I mentioned earlier, I think
starting with just one of these is the correct approach.
So which one?
Well, I think it's certainly close but I would lean
towards pointing Back to Basics myself.
Yes, I think Blood Moon is a slightly more powerful card
but it also goes into decks that don't actively abuse it (basically mono red
needs all the help it can get) while Back to Basics pretty much funnels them all into UR moon control/combo shells which use heavy card draw to find them and
counterspells to force them through.
At the end of the day blue is a much stronger colour than
red in highlander.
People keep telling me that if you put a point on BtB and
Moon the UR deck will just drop something like Dig Through Time and still play them. Well, ok… doesn’t that indicate that they’re
worth the points if you’re cutting a great 2 point card for them?! Think about it just a little.
Anyway, I don't really expect to convince people who play
these cards because, well, they're good cards and people like winning games. It's a complete no brainer to put them in any
UR deck you happen to be playing, I get that.
What these Moon effect cards are more than anything are the epitome of miserable to play against.
What these Moon effect cards are more than anything are the epitome of miserable to play against.
My hope is that maybe the committee will one day point
these cards for the enjoyability of the format if nothing else and that I will
once again be able to play Zoo but until then I guess I'll play the deck that
has the best UR Moon matchup; 4c Bant.
Cheers,
TJ
