Flying vs Ttrample

[robort]

Something I was just thinking about the other day. If I could only have 1 to use specifically in a deck would it be flying or trample. Going over the top of my opponents creatures or going through. Having no extra text on a creature I prefer just going through. Going through a creature makes it 1 less creature to deal with is more my preference. With flyers though the mana cost is much less and are quicker to deal damage because of this. This is of course excluding such cards that carry any extra text on the card besides trample or flying. So my question then is you can only choose trample or flying which would it be and why. No right or wrong answer

[ApothecaryGeist]

Interesting question. 


I feel like flying is better to have when you are on defense, as a flyer can block flying or nonflying.  And, of course, trample is meaningless when blocking.


Trample is generally superior (if the creature in question is large) on attack, as it can go through flyers or nonflyers.  While flyers can only get through nonflyers.


Generally speaking, I play aggressively, so in most of my decks I would prefer trample over flying.


Occassionally, I build a control deck.  With that kind of play style, I would prefer flying over trample.

[crimsonking]

In short, flying is better when you go wide (lots of small creatures) while trample is better when you go big (a few big creatures).
I'd say going big in general pays off better than going wide. Decks that rely on lots of small creatures normally play aggro, which isn't fast enough to win against combo and can easily run out of gas against control. Decks that rely on few big creatures, on the other hand, tend to play midrange, which has a fair match-up against more archetypes.
Moreover, on an average-sized creature, I'd prefer flying because it's harder for the opponent to trade on block, while I can still do so when he's attacking me.
In the end, I'd say flying is better.

[12aptor1nfinity]

I prefer flying in general as a passive on creatures. Strong on defense and forces opponents to have to defend it as well. A single, smaller creature with flying in early game can be REALLY annoying and people often don’t want to waste removal on it.

Trample I think of more as a wincon for an army of creatures because of all the green cards that give tons stats and trample until end of turn. Or trampling to hit with infect/toxic.

For me, its those big sorceries that give +X/+X and trample to all creatures that I fear the most, but that is because I have plenty of flying in my deck.

I think flying (or reach), or something else to defend against flying is more necessary to have in your deck though because it is REALLY hard to counter trample combos in my experience (at least for my white/black deck). I just messed up my deck when I tried to include cards that could specifically counter that stampede-style combo. Now I try to build up so much life I can still take the damage or control the opponents board so they don’t reach critical mass to pull off the win if they combo.

[WWolfe]

Interesting question. I prefer flying in most of my decks. I think I really only focus on trample in one of my decks (Skullbriar) and that's just because of the focus of the deck. Sidisi has both trample and flying but I tend to focus more on the flying. It's generally an easy way to get in or makes a world of difference on defense.

[stuffnsuch]

I prefer flying.  I like to have a wide board and I typically never go big enough on a creature to make trample very meaningful.  In a lot of cases, when I do have trample matter, it's because I was in a dominant position and was able to swing all out a little earlier thanks to trample damage, but if I'd waited a turn or two more, I could have won regardless.  Flying, however, seems more useful as it can chip in damage while working towards that dominant position or block a little extra damage from an opponent with fliers should you ever be on the weaker side of the table.