Single Card Discussion - Lavinia, Azorious Renegade

To me it's always the same complaints by control-combo players. They want to mostly goldfish with counters, and get very irked when a new card would require them to have a maindeck answer that would weaken their matchup against other control-combo decks.

This new card here is strong, but it can be answered by pretty much ALL removal in the format. But people get all up in arms at the thought of putting 2-3 StP, Bolts or REB maindeck, or even Karakas.

I left this discussion when it went to the "let's complain about hate" usual thread. But man, are we REALLY using "dies to Bolt" arguments here? Haven't you ever read the famous David Price line of "there are no wrong threats, just wrong answers"? What happens when you fill your deck with 3 Plows and Karakas and your opponent just combos out? Or worse, you just don't draw them in time. Filling your deck with creature removal is not suboptimal because it makes your other combo-control matchups bad. It's suboptimal because you may not even have time to find those answers.

Remember when we had 4 Lodestone and 4 Mentor in the format what people would do? They actually would pack a bunch of creature removal in their decks. You know what happened a lot of the time? They died to those creature anyway, because once it's in play you either have the immediate answer or you lose. As much as I loathe this complaints on new hate-cards (the only way to compete with power without printing more powerful stuff is printing hate) no one is complaining of having to play creature removal, they are complaining that this gives the make a little bit more variance, since there will be more games like "He played Lodestone and I didn't have Bolt".

last edited by fsecco

@fsecco except Lavinia is nowhere near as powerful as Mentor or Lodestone cause it's a freaking 2/2! A. . . FREAKING. . . 2/2! If you can't beat that, then get adda the room!

-Storm

@stormanimagus Yep. Power and toughness is what determines how powerful a card is. Time to unrestrict every non-creature because they're not powerful.

@thecravenone That's clearly not the point and you're just being absurd.

A turn 1-2 Lodestone followed by another lock piece left you very little time to find an answer.
Mentor also usually gave you 2-3 turns to find an answer.
Creature removal was clearly not good against Lodestone and Mentor, but it's fine against this guy.

This guy prevents you from playing Moxen and betwen 0-6 spells in your deck, is a very slow clock and gets a lot worse as the game progresses.
Also, if you want it early every game, you need to run more copies, making it a risk since it's legendary.

"What happens when you fill your deck with 3 Plows and Karakas and your opponent just combos out? Or worse, you just don't draw them in time."
If you don't want to run answers to hate cards that's fine, but you can't complain about cards that prevent you from goldfishing if you're unwilling to answer them.

last edited by Wagner

@stormanimagus Did I say it was equally powerful? I just said people are willing to adapt to powerful creatures. If Lavinia ever proves to be such a thing, people will pack removal. It might work, or not, just like removal for Mentor and Lodestone didn't, but they'll try.

@wagner The theory-craft around Lavinia is that she'll also give you little time to react. You can discuss how good she is or isn't, but that's not my point.
This discussion assumes she's good enough in the meta to warrant MD answers. If she is, it's because she can give you a huge tempo boost and also make you the only player able to play countermagic. A Misstep protecting Lavinia is way powerful than a Misstep protecting Mentor, specially early game when you're the only one able to actually pay life for the Misstep.

Also, if she's that good, the answers to her are not that good. Once she's in play it becomes way harder to actually answer her, that's the point, and also the point of most playable Vintage creatures. Think Thalia, TKS, Smasher, Mentor, Golem, Snapcaster, etc. Once they hit play, the damage is already done.

You totally missed my point about answers x threats. You can simply not draw it and it'll be too late - even if you pack a ton of hate.

last edited by fsecco

@fsecco Of course you can not draw your answers, just like you can not draw your counters in time. But if no one is willing to run answers because you might not find them, then we're just back to goldfishing.

last edited by Wagner

@evouga

'Fun' is not some defined concept lol... I can't have fun right now, I want the tools I need to fight.

The more tools I have at my disposal to crush Workshop and PO the better. So I would like a 2 drop Human in this set (on top of Lavinia) that would devastate Workshop decks.

Guli

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

if you are coming from the assumption that blue-on-blue as it currently looks is way more interactive than blue vs. hatebears/humans or blue vs. shops or blue vs. dredge. . .

I believe I made it clear that this was not my assumption in the very first sentence of my post. I'm not quite sure what your numbers 1-9 are supposed to respond to (maybe they're responding to someone else's post). I'm pretty happy with the metagame right now. What I am not as happy about is WotC's consistent trend of printing one sided hate creatures with each new set, because it is likely that this approach to card design will eventually cause the metagame to spread so wide that a large percentage of matchups will not be able to interact in a meaningful way. We've already seen this happen once with dredge. Thankfully dredge matchups can be mitigated by sacrificing almost half of your sideboard for it. But we're one more uninteractive archetype away from games becoming like extended rock paper scissors. Would it be fun if a good number of Vintage matches you played were to become as one-sided as Two Card Monte vs. Dredge? It's not so much about preserving the status quo for the sake of preserving the status quo, as preventing the format from becoming conditional solitaire.

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

So I think you are totally unfounded in whining about a 'fun police,' as you put it, that doesn't even really exist in any statistically relevant numbers.

I borrowed the term 'fun police' from your own post. By "Human 'fun police'" I was referring not to a Humans deck, but to the one-sided cards that Wizards has been printing lately, and apparently will be printing, that have and will find their way into Vintage decks.

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

It might just mean that more decks splash that Karakas in the sideboard or, you know, run ACTUAL removal and not just that 1 tutorable repeal. Or you can just NOT prepare for this card and occasionally get #wrekt by it lolololol. I really don't give a flying fart if that makes you feel bad. Deal with it and start building your decks to deal with it.

Obviously if you pack too many answers in your maindeck and/or sideboard that only work against one or two archetypes, you are weakened by that many cards for other matchups. We already have one archetype that necessitates 4-6 dedicated sideboard cards. For me, having a chance against most or all decks in the metagame feels better than having miserable matchups because you built a deck that only preys on a couple of decks. I guess it works for some people to pretend that certain matchups don't count. I can understand why. But if the game requires you to 'deal with' bad matchups despite optimal deckbuilding against a large portion of the field, it just means that the game is poorly balanced.

We seem to agree on most other things but there seems to have been a great deal of misinterpretation or miscommunication.

last edited by Guest

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

But if the game requires you to 'deal with' bad matchups despite optimal deckbuilding against a large portion of the field, it just means that the game is poorly balanced.

See, this means the opposite to me. You're not supposed to have a deck that is optimized against a larger portion of the field. You can either devote more slots to your bad matchups, or lose to them. That makes the game balanced to me.

And this card is far from Dredge, it's a 2/2 with no evasion and an 8 turn clock.

last edited by Wagner

I don't think anybody here is arguing that Lavinia, in a vacuum, is too powerful, too quick of a clock, or too hard to remove. Arguments about power/toughness or answers vs threats are a red herring here.

The charitable interpretation of people's complaints about Lavinia is that she is one instance in a pattern of WotC printing efficient hosers for traditionally-popular Vintage strategies and tactics. It is almost indisputable that such hosers, if printed in sufficient quantity and quality, would irreversible alter the texture of the Vintage metagame.

Reasonable people can disagree on (i) whether it is desirable to maintain the status quo in terms of viable Vintage archetypes, or better to shift Vintage in a new direction, and (ii) how close we currently are to a format-warping quantity and quality of hosers. But arguments along the lines of "why are you guys complaining about Lavinia? She's [so easy to remove|not that disruptive|not that fast of a clock]!" are missing the fact that people are complaining about the pattern of WotC printings and not about Lavinia per se.

@evouga If that's the question, then I'm 0% worried about that. WotC has been printing gradually better hate-bears for what, 15 years now? And how many of those have been used a lot in Vintage so far? 2, maybe 3?

And it's not like Vintage decks don't also get broken stuff here and there to counteract the slow creature power creep. I'm not worried about hate creatures making a big impact when the power-level is rising on all fronts.

last edited by Wagner

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

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

But if the game requires you to 'deal with' bad matchups despite optimal deckbuilding against a large portion of the field, it just means that the game is poorly balanced.

See, this means the opposite to me. You're not supposed to have a deck that is optimized against a larger portion of the field.

'Optimal deckbuilding against a large portion of the field' does not necessarily produce a deck that is 'optimized against a larger portion of the field.' 'Optimal deckbuilding against a large portion of the field' just means putting together about 75 cards that best support the fundamental ideas of a deck in the context of a metagame. This doesn't preclude a deck from having bad matchups.

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

You can either devote more slots to your bad matchups, or lose to them.

This just makes me think you didn't read the post you're responding to.

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

And this card is far from Dredge, it's a 2/2 with no evasion and an 8 turn clock.

Nothing in my post says that this one single card is dredge.

last edited by Guest

I hate this constant printing of humans whose names I can't remember that say "you cannot do X" where X is something I like to do in Vintage. So much fun!

The deck I hate playing against the most is hatebears because there is next to no decision making for me. Do I have the removal? Yes? Awesome, I will most likely win. Do I not have the removal? No? Cool, I'll lose while I get beaten down by shitty 2/2s that prevent Vintage decks from working, that being their only function.

You know, it wouldn't be so bad if Hatebears took up a larger metagame percentage because then I wouldn't feel bad for including a full-blown SB plan to deal with them. As it stands, it's irresponsible to include too many SB cards specific to Hatebears considering the tiny metagame percentage it usually occupies, which really makes it a coinflip as to whether I can draw removal or not.

last edited by Hrishi

@hrishi
I remember all of them and will use them to pilot myself into plenty of victories. I dislike the printing of PO and restriction of Chalice, giving blue decks so much more winning chances for no reason.

@hrishi Sounds like they need to print more and better Hatebears. Then they'll see more play and you can play your Lightning Bolts and your Swords and "not feel bad".

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

@hrishi Sounds like they need to print more and better Hatebears. Then they'll see more play and you can play your Lightning Bolts and your Swords and "not feel bad".

No, the hatebears that need to be printed need to not be so binary in their function. I don't really consider bolting a hatebear whose only function is turning specific vintage cards off to be the epitome of interesting gameplay. More binary hatebears simply mean there'll be more such non-interesting decision making in games.

But perhaps this is simply my opinion.

last edited by Hrishi

Come on, are we really complaining about a non-existent problem? Hatebears is not a deck and if it ever is we'll do OK. You know, creature removal can still exist in a control/combo environment. Legacy does this just fine and they don't even have access to Balance.
Complaining about hate creatures is completely off for me. The most we'll ever have is a Death n Taxes equivalent in Vintage, which is totally fine.
Sounds like we can't have taxing decks in Vintage anymore. It's all "let me do my thing and let's see who does it faster". This 1 Lodestone, 1 CotV, 1 Thorn, 1 Trinisphere age is spoiling people hahahha
We're really getting into an age where Vintage players are sounding like beginners who hate "land destruction and counter decks" 😛

PS: I didn't even mention Oath of Druids.

last edited by fsecco

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

The deck I hate playing against the most is hatebears because there is next to no decision making for me. Do I have the removal? Yes? Awesome, I will most likely win. Do I not have the removal?

You can replace hatebears here by basically any threat control has. Oh Jace, I have no answer, I lose. Oh, a giant robot, no answer, I lose.
Is it really that difficult to be able to make a deck that can reliably find answers? Isn't that pretty much all blue decks have been doing forever?

last edited by Wagner
  • 219
    Posts
  • 26222
    Views