[Article]Ben Bleiweiss Opinions 5D and Type One

[Calibus]

I agree with the first statement, but disagree with the second.  Making money on the Pro Tour is not worth the effort you put in to earn it.  Go to Medical School or Law School and put in that same effort and you will be making far more money.  

The reason to put the PT level effort into Type One is simple: becuase it is enjoyable.  And anyone who plays on the Pro Tour only rationally does so because they enjoy magic.  Hell that level of card skill would be much more lucrative playing Poker - which many magic players do.

Steve

I wasn't clear.  I wasn't saying that the PT players necessarily MAKE money on the Pro Tour, but the money is there.  When the best players have free time, the majority are going to practice for the next Pro Tour where they have a chance to win money, as opposed to practicing Type 1 which is strictly enjoyable.

It would be nice if people would put PT level effort into Type 1, but I don't think most people will.  It seems that most Type 1 players don't take it seriously enough (TMD members excluded).

JD

[jpmeyer]

I've played with some "pros" or wannabe pros at Type One tournament.  At Crazy Con, Mike Krum tried to cheat Frankson out of a match, which they ended up tying (leaving Fraknson undefeated with like 5 draws).  It's the spirit of play of T1 players that is important.  There are also nice people that play both formats.  It's all about the type of players that you attract.  Type One being a semicasual attracts a generally more attractive crowd to the frequenters of this site.  The people mostly have jobs or are young and intelligent.  The lack of innovation is all relative.  I don't really have any reason to continue, so.

The problem is that the Type 1 community thinks that they're so friendly and fun to play against and stuff but the second someone says something it's like "STFU I AM BETTER THAN ANY PRO OUT THERE."  You'd think people that were so laid-back and whatnot wouldn't be ready to rip someone's head off if so much as looked at Type 1 in a non-worshipful way.

[Smmenen]

I agree with the first statement, but disagree with the second.  Making money on the Pro Tour is not worth the effort you put in to earn it.  Go to Medical School or Law School and put in that same effort and you will be making far more money.  

The reason to put the PT level effort into Type One is simple: becuase it is enjoyable.  And anyone who plays on the Pro Tour only rationally does so because they enjoy magic.  Hell that level of card skill would be much more lucrative playing Poker - which many magic players do.

Steve

I wasn't clear.  I wasn't saying that the PT players necessarily MAKE money on the Pro Tour, but the money is there.  When the best players have free time, the majority are going to practice for the next Pro Tour where they have a chance to win money, as opposed to practicing Type 1 which is strictly enjoyable.

It would be nice if people would put PT level effort into Type 1, but I don't think most people will.  It seems that most Type 1 players don't take it seriously enough (TMD members excluded).

JD

Quite frankly, the way things are going - T1 is very lucrative at the moment for the effort.  A black Lotus is well over $500 now and Moxen are approaching $300.  It's obviously nothing you can live on, but it certainly is a significant enough incentive to think seriously about Type One.

[Swanky]

I've played with some "pros" or wannabe pros at Type One tournament.  At Crazy Con, Mike Krum tried to cheat Frankson out of a match, which they ended up tying (leaving Fraknson undefeated with like 5 draws).  It's the spirit of play of T1 players that is important.  There are also nice people that play both formats.  It's all about the type of players that you attract.  Type One being a semicasual attracts a generally more attractive crowd to the frequenters of this site.  The people mostly have jobs or are young and intelligent.  The lack of innovation is all relative.  I don't really have any reason to continue, so.

The problem is that the Type 1 community thinks that they're so friendly and fun to play against and stuff but the second someone says something it's like "STFU I AM BETTER THAN ANY PRO OUT THERE."  You'd think people that were so laid-back and whatnot wouldn't be ready to rip someone's head off if so much as looked at Type 1 in a non-worshipful way.

I feel as though the semi-casual nature of the format contributes to the vehemence people with which people are willing to defend it.  The fact that there are only a handful of people willing to truly analyze the state of the format and develop/tweak/innovate decks to accommodate that state, and the additional fact that many people are perfectly content with showing up with Random.dec and going 1-6, puts us in a position in which we feel the need to almost affirm our validity at every turn.  "Sure," it's easy to say "we're a laid back crowd that largely plays for the much-exalted 'love of the game'," but at the same time any time when people assert Type 1 is semi-casual there is a great insurgence of people who point out individuals X, Y, and Z that are truly taking a professional look at Type 1.

I, personally, don't see why some feel the need to try asserting validity to the Magic population-at-large.  Anyone who truly has interest in the format will quickly realize that Type 1 is indeed a valid format, while the cries of those who assail the format from afar will be largely deafened by their noted inexperience.  This was largely the case with Bleiweiss' article; many were able to ascertain that Benny might not be thoroughly entrenched in "avant-garde Type 1," so to speak, and as such treated his article relatively lightly.

Type 1 should ultimately be viewed in a way similar to other formats.  It's competitve to a degree, casual to a degree, and for the most part people play for the sake of playing the game/small cash/card prizes.  Anyone who views their respective format of choice as something to be worshiped is ignorant.

[Crazy Pierre]

The problem is that the Type 1 community thinks that they're so friendly and fun to play against and stuff but the second someone says something it's like "STFU I AM BETTER THAN ANY PRO OUT THERE."  You'd think people that were so laid-back and whatnot wouldn't be ready to rip someone's head off if so much as looked at Type 1 in a non-worshipful way.

Several points here are quite true.

We now have monthly or bi-monthly sanctioned Vintage tournaments, and the guys that win ALWAYS have Power 9. Oddly enough, the Vintage tournaments these days over here are drawing more people because the pace is more relaxed than Standard, where you have to deal with speedy Ravinity decks or Gobbo decks.

As to JP's comment, I've also heard these types of assertions as well; it's the type of feeling that because you play with the older cards and you own over three grand worth of cardboard in your deck, your opinion supercedes that on anyone else in your Magic community.

I think that a great part of the mystique that surrounds Type 1 is that you do, indeed, have access to 6000+ cards to choose from.

The reality is that the pool is probably closer to 200-300 cards at most, the Power 9, a smattering of cards from Arabians-Legens-Antiquities and several of the newer cards.

Type 1 is actually Type 2, but with much more explosive turns.

[Milton]

I read the article.  Not much of an article.  Most of us could have put together a much better analysis of T1 and 5th dawn.  It was mostly a look at what cards can fit into what decks.  Something like this:

'X card deserves a slot in Keeper.  Y card is a great tutor effect.  Z card should be put into black decks as Duress #5-8.'  

This is a very, very narrow way to look at the format.  Don't ask which cards make which decks better, ask which cards potentially break the format (or foil a good archtype).  If anything, our lack of innovation comes from trying to make great decks greater, not in making new, innovative and great decks that shock the metagame.  

The huge shifts in our format come from a radical new innovation, like figuring out the interaction of cards that can create a Mindslaver deck (as opposed to adding Mindslaver to Keeper or TnT and calling it an improved deck).  Ironic that Ben talked about stagnation of development in our format, then he did what everyone else does... he simply threw 5th Dawn cards into existing decks.  Very stupid.

[Calibus]

I agree with the first statement, but disagree with the second.  Making money on the Pro Tour is not worth the effort you put in to earn it.  Go to Medical School or Law School and put in that same effort and you will be making far more money.  

The reason to put the PT level effort into Type One is simple: becuase it is enjoyable.  And anyone who plays on the Pro Tour only rationally does so because they enjoy magic.  Hell that level of card skill would be much more lucrative playing Poker - which many magic players do.

Steve

I wasn't clear.  I wasn't saying that the PT players necessarily MAKE money on the Pro Tour, but the money is there.  When the best players have free time, the majority are going to practice for the next Pro Tour where they have a chance to win money, as opposed to practicing Type 1 which is strictly enjoyable.

It would be nice if people would put PT level effort into Type 1, but I don't think most people will.  It seems that most Type 1 players don't take it seriously enough (TMD members excluded).

JD

Quite frankly, the way things are going - T1 is very lucrative at the moment for the effort.  A black Lotus is well over $500 now and Moxen are approaching $300.  It's obviously nothing you can live on, but it certainly is a significant enough incentive to think seriously about Type One.

Agreed.  However, my point was that most people given the chance to play in three 100 person tournaments for a power or a 300 person tournament for $30K will play for the cash.  

The other problem is location.  The odds favor someone flying to a tournament to play for $30K than flying to a tournament to play for a Black Lotus.  I am in California and I never see anything for good Type 1 tournaments out here.  They are all small 8-16 person tournaments.  It seems like there frequent Type 1 tournaments in the eastern US.  If I want to play in a Type 1 tournament for power, I need to fly somewhere.

The unfortunate thing is, WoTc will probably never sanction a big Type 1 tournament for big cash prizes because of the availability issue.

[OPColby]

This article is absolutely atrocious.

Milton hit the nail on the head.

This Bleiweiss' article has so many problems with it...*gag*

1)  What does Bleiweiss hope to accomplish by calling our innovation stagnant and dead?

2)  I don't see a new deck coming out of Bleiweiss' mind and fingertips which is completely different and ROCKS the meta of type 1.  I swear, the guy who posted the Intution for Squee, Bazaar to Zombie Infestation deck should be worshipped by Bleiweiss.

3)  The metagame in type 1 is CRAZY.  There are over 20 competative decks in type 1.  What do you expect us to do?  Create a new Academy deck that rocks EVERYTHING?  You're an idiot.

4)  What innovation is there in freaking type 2?  AFFINITY?  COME ON.  Affinity is a _MECHANIC_.  Think about that for a second.  R&D knew EXACTLY what decks they were making when they came up with the affinity mechanic.  "Affinity" is not a deck consisting of cards with wonderful synergy with each other, it's a deck where all the cards have the same mechanic, thereby making everything go 'bam bam bam.'  The only thing in affinity which had to be playtested even a LITTLE bit was Broodstar, and that turned out to be overshadowed by the almighty Ravager (duh).  What else is innovative?  Goblin Bidding?  Get real.  Tooth and Nail?  That's a given when you have Darksteel Colossus.  Type 2 sucks.

5)  His attitude towards players and type 1 itself is just disdainful.  He's not a type 1 player, he wouldn't know.  End of story.

I hate this article, and this gives me a newfound look of grotesqueness towards Ben Bleiweiss.

[Toad]

3)  The metagame in type 1 is CRAZY.  There are over 20 competative decks in type 1.  What do you expect us to do?  Create a new Academy deck that rocks EVERYTHING?  You're an idiot.

I'm not advocating in favour of Bleiweiss because I think most of his article is wrong. But quite frankly, the fact that we have 20 competitive decks in Type One is NOT a good thing. This shows most of the people play with pet decks or  are still at a casual level. See Standard or Extended. For each season, you don't have more than 5 really good decks in any of these given formats. That means Extended and Standard metagames are really stronger than our Vintage metagame. People that go to PTQ play the best decks in the format. If I have to go to a standard tourney, I'd play Tooth and Nail, Ravager Affinity or Goblins Bidding. Period. If I have to go to an Extended tourney, I would play Tog, Red Deck Wins, Aluren or other decks like these. Only TOP decks. Why do we still see Stax or Welder MUD Top8ing when Slavery exists? Why do we still see Stacker or TNT Top8ing when Ravager based decks exist? People love to play with suboptimal decks in Vintage, because they feel like doing so.

Diversity is nice, but too much diversity is a proof of an under developped format.

[rozetta]

I think that 's only part of the picture. In type 2, there are only a few decks available because the card pool is so limited and the dominating decks rise to the top in a pretty obvious way. There's no way to build more than those 3 decks and have a chance due to the limitations. This goes deeper, since WotC have been making sets without regard to options of building many good decks (excluding the Invasion block era). But that's a whole nother problem, and might be attributing to why more and more people are becoming interested in other formats. (Only a good thing for us, eh?)

However, in Vintage, there are not 3 dominating decks. Sometimes it is just simply a metagame call to play something which is not one of the 5 or 6 absolutely tier 1 decks. In this regard, I'm not talking about playing something sub-optimal like Suicide, but just choosing a deck which is borderline powerful, such as TnT. For instance, if one expected a lot of Null Rod, they'd probably shy away from decks which are hosed by it such as Belcher, Affinity or maybe even workshop Slavery even though they're established as some of the best decks out there currently. Another example would be if one is expecting heavy control, a properly constructed TnT might be a good, if not the best metagame call. We do see evidence of this in, for instance, Dulmen.

In this regard, we can deduce that Vintage does have plenty of separate archetypes. Since it's possible that someone might make a metagame decision to play deck X, we need to consider that option when choosing what we're playing and how we build our sideboards. This is something that I think every tournament-going Vintage player is familiar with, since preparing for such a diverse range of possibilities is infinitely more frustrating that "my side is built to deal with the other 2 archetypes".

I'd venture to guess that if vintage were to mirror standard as it has been for the last few years, we'd be talking about a metagame where you play GAT or long.dec or get slapped around like a red-headed stepchild.

[PucktheCat]

Diversity is nice, but too much diversity is a proof of an under developped format.

I agree that many of the decks that top 8 have no reason to exist, Welder MUD is a good example, but it also seems to me that the nature of T1 will inevitably create more viable archetypes than something like T2.

Look at the number of ways you can build a deck that all have a competitive combination of speed and consistency.  Hulk, Belcher, Slaver and Draw 7 for example, are all decks with strong engines but they share very few cards in those engines.  All of these decks have a combination of disruption and fast kill that makes them competitive.  Taken "objectively" there may be a calculable difference in power level between them but that difference is fairly small.

Compare this with T2.  In T2 there is basically only one engine available - Affinity.  Nothing else really comes close to it in power level.

In T2 you are probably making the wrong choice if you play anything other than Affinity.  Even though all the hate is going to be pointed at you, avoiding all that hate would require you to accept a MUCH weaker engine than simply playing Affinity and confronting the hate head-on.

In T1, however, where perhaps 3-4 decks all have engines that are within the same basic catagory of power level, there is much less of a penalty for switching from the targeted deck to another one that avoids hate.

All that, of course, ignores metagame and rogue decks, which proliferate similarly both for the same reasons mentioned above (there are many competing strategies with different strengths and roughly the same power level) and also because they need to respond to very different top teir decks depending on the current state of the metagame.

Basically, I think there is no reason to thinkt the format has 20 viable archetypes, but it may be unreasonable to expect the format to ever only support 3-4.

Also, remember that every format has a fair number of bad decks that continue to see play.  If Vintage naturally has 7-8 really good decks it might be inevitable that 14-15 see play, just as formats that have 3-4 good decks continue to have 6-7 decks see play.

Leo

[Gothmog]

Type I's cardpool is so wide, and the cards are so good, it is inevitable that it will have a wider variety of available decks than in the other formats.  Wizards' focus on mechanics for each block also seriously narrows the available strategies in standard at any given time.  For the past few blocks, the best cards have been not general use cards, but cards associated with specific mechanics seriously narrowing the available decktypes.

In addition, the assertion that the vast majority of decktypes have another type strictly better is flawed.  There very well may be a good reason to play Stacker over a Ravager type build.  Stacker may give you less vulnerability to certain hate or availability to tools that Ravager has a tough time using.  The same is true for TnT decks.  Stacker & TnT can be good decks, plenty good to win a given tournament.  A majority of very smart people on this site may think a Ravager deck is better now than TnT.  That even may be true in the majority of circumstances, but that doesn't take away that TnT is a damn good deck.  In the right environment, with the right build, it can and will be tough.

This format will never be "developed" to the extent some on this site want because the cards are too good.  Unless you group decks much more widely (ie grouping everything that plays Yawg Will together into one decktype), there will be multiple decktypes that use certain overpowered cards.  For several decktypes viable in Vintage now, one of their paths to victory is a game-breaking Will.  You can make the same argument for a few other cards, Ancestral for example or in previous years, Balance.

Wizards' is giving us a new archetype each year or so with each new block, U/G Madness, Affinity, etc.  As Wizards' adds new mechanics, to the extent they interact in positive ways with old cards, they will create new archtypes or variations on old ones.  Some of you expect these new decktypes, with enough testing to distill themselves down to only a few "best" decks.  In my view, this is exceedingly unlikely because the call between what is the right choice may be almost impossible to make and fundamentally make be based on a variable criteria: metagame.

[jpmeyer]

I love when people talk about "innovation."  I honestly haven't seen a deck that I've cared about since the Slaver decks came out with Mirrodin.  The way the other formats tend to work is that people find the new decks pretty soon after each set comes out.  People look at what's new, work hard, and have their new decks.  The whole "innovation" thing in Type 1 seems to me that either a) people weren't working hard enough in the first place to come up with decks or b) people aren't being discriminating enough with the decks that they work on.  I know it's frustrating to hear "how is this better than Tog?" or "how do you expect to beat Slaver?" or "this combo takes too many cards to pull off" but usually, it's the truth and if you're playing Standard, you're not going to delude yourself into thinking that your deck is good if you just cannot beat say, Goblin Bidding and Tooth and Nail.

4) What innovation is there in freaking type 2? AFFINITY? COME ON. Affinity is a _MECHANIC_. Think about that for a second. R&D knew EXACTLY what decks they were making when they came up with the affinity mechanic. "Affinity" is not a deck consisting of cards with wonderful synergy with each other, it's a deck where all the cards have the same mechanic, thereby making everything go 'bam bam bam.' The only thing in affinity which had to be playtested even a LITTLE bit was Broodstar, and that turned out to be overshadowed by the almighty Ravager (duh). What else is innovative? Goblin Bidding? Get real. Tooth and Nail? That's a given when you have Darksteel Colossus. Type 2 sucks.

I would have to disagree.  I think that Goblin Bidding is one of the most innovative decks that I have seen in a long time.  It is the first deck that I can really think of that can play combo, control, and aggro all at the same time.

In addition, the assertion that the vast majority of decktypes have another type strictly better is flawed. There very well may be a good reason to play Stacker over a Ravager type build. Stacker may give you less vulnerability to certain hate or availability to tools that Ravager has a tough time using. The same is true for TnT decks. Stacker & TnT can be good decks, plenty good to win a given tournament. A majority of very smart people on this site may think a Ravager deck is better now than TnT. That even may be true in the majority of circumstances, but that doesn't take away that TnT is a damn good deck. In the right environment, with the right build, it can and will be tough.

I have to disagree on this one, too.

[PucktheCat]

I think that Goblin Bidding is one of the most innovative decks that I have seen in a long time. It is the first deck that I can really think of that can play combo, control, and aggro all at the same time.  

It isn't THAT different from old T2 Living Death decks, really.

[jpmeyer]

How was Living Death supposed to get a turn 3-4 kill aggro draw?

[PucktheCat]

Sligh, the aggro standard of that era, aimed for turn 5-6 kills.  Suicide, the other aggro standard was a bit faster if it got a ritual draw.  A deck didn't have to win turn 3-4 in that environment to be competitive.

Leo

[rozetta]

I would have to disagree. I think that Goblin Bidding is one of the most innovative decks that I have seen in a long time. It is the first deck that I can really think of that can play combo, control, and aggro all at the same time.

Nah, nah, mate. You'd have to be off your rocker to think that goblin bidding was anything less than a deck fed to the magic community by WotC. Seriously, man.

Edit
Yes, of course, posting while drunk is always a good idea. Thank goodness Goober articulated what I really mean't which was basically to say that the card synergies were obvious all the way down to the use of Patriarch's Bidding to bring back creatures of a certain type from the graveyard. While I can agree the deck is innovative in the way it works, the innovation award has to go to R&D, not the players.

[goober]

Putting a Sligh deck together doesn't take much innovation.  Search for T2 legal creatures that cost 3 or less, which ones are awesome, put them in a deck.  Ok how do we beat Wrath of God, ok throw in Bidding.  Is combining Goblin Warchief with a lot of goblins an innovative combo?  Piledriver is insanely straightforeward.  The Sharpshooter combo is interesting but not too impressive.  It isn't a hard card to think of adding once you have Bidding, Sledder, and the Prospector.