Format Imbalance or Fun?

[PucktheCat]

But arguments that it shouldn't because it is reactive - as if that (if true) somehow insulates it, are bogus for reasons already mentioned.

While this is an assertion you embrace with great certainty, history shows that reactive, interactive cards are substantially less likely to be restricted.  Here are the cards on the restricted list that are reactive, in the broadest sense of the term (meaning they have to do with limiting your opponent's resources rather than accumulating your own):

Strip Mine
Mind Twist
Balance
Trinisphere

Of those cards one, Strip Mine, was restricted at least as much because Wasteland was printed as because it was deserving on its own (until CoW was printed most T1 decks wouldn't have much cared whether you ran 5 Strips or 5 Wasteland).  You yourself have observed that Mind Twist is a borderline inclusion on the list.

Mana Drain is a step more reactive again than the cards above because not only does it interact with your opponent's resources, but it also does so at a time of your opponent's choosing.  Everyone knows about the times you can play an instant to fool with a Drain player: upkeep, EOT, etc.

Leo

Edit; Follow-up now that I have a bit more time:

My point is not that Mana Drain will not be restricted, although I think that is probably the case, but that there is no sense in acting like the question of whether it is reactive isn't relevant to the debate.

[Vegeta2711]

Mind Twist
Balance
Trinisphere

How the hell are these reactive at all?

(meaning they have to do with limiting your opponent's resources rather than accumulating your own)

...rightttttttt. You realize with that loose of a definition, you could make an arguement for almost any card to be 'reactive'.

So discard and mana denial are now reactive?  Bitch, please. Trinisphere preemptively stops you from playing cheap spells. Mind Twist preemptively attacks spells in the opponent's hand before they can use them. Balance, though reactive on destroying lands and creatures, makes no qualm about the discard though. That can easily be used as pro-active disruption and I've seen first turn Balance used to such an extent.

I fail to see how the two non-Balance cards can even remotely be considered reactive.

[CF]

I played Chalice for 5, Upheaval, Chalice for 5, Shivan Dragon today, the turn before my opponent would have killed me - knowing he had FoW in hand. Fun fun fun.

I'm absolutely extatic that 3sphere is gone. The card was utterly stupid.

I play to win, but no way will I bring a deck that isn't fun to play to a type1 tournament. Or any other tournament for that matter. Luckily, I find both control and to some extent combo fun to play.

--
Chris

[Smmenen]

But arguments that it shouldn't because it is reactive - as if that (if true) somehow insulates it, are bogus for reasons already mentioned.

While this is an assertion you embrace with great certainty, history shows that reactive, interactive cards are substantially less likely to be restricted.  Here are the cards on the restricted list that are reactive, in the broadest sense of the term (meaning they have to do with limiting your opponent's resources rather than accumulating your own):

Strip Mine
Mind Twist
Balance
Trinisphere

Of those cards one, Strip Mine, was restricted at least as much because Wasteland was printed as because it was deserving on its own (until CoW was printed most T1 decks wouldn't have much cared whether you ran 5 Strips or 5 Wasteland).  You yourself have observed that Mind Twist is a borderline inclusion on the list.

Mana Drain is a step more reactive again than the cards above because not only does it interact with your opponent's resources, but it also does so at a time of your opponent's choosing.  Everyone knows about the times you can play an instant to fool with a Drain player: upkeep, EOT, etc.

Leo

Edit; Follow-up now that I have a bit more time:

My point is not that Mana Drain will not be restricted, although I think that is probably the case, but that there is no sense in acting like the question of whether it is reactive isn't relevant to the debate.

I may not have been sufficiently clear in my prior posts - but one of the points I made was that even if you can show that reactive cards haven't been restricted, it's becuase even assuming you can adequately define a card as "reactive," the class of cards that we generally speak of ONLY as reactive are very narrow: Removal and countermagic almost exclusively.  There are niche cards that are basically reactive like FORK.  But by and large, given the expanse of magic cards, reactive cards (again assuming you can adequately classify a card as such), are so narrow that it is not suprising that only the reactive cards with the widest application would be restrictable (Strip Mine and Mana Drain come to mind).  

For that reason, I see the argument that a card is reactive as relevant as the argument that a card is a creature.  The only difference is that reactivity has some bearing on interactivity - which as I've said TIME and again, is actually the more appropriate inquiry (since that has actual support to it).

[PucktheCat]

Mind Twist
Balance
Trinisphere

How the hell are these reactive at all?

(meaning they have to do with limiting your opponent's resources rather than accumulating your own)

...rightttttttt. You realize with that loose of a definition, you could make an arguement for almost any card to be 'reactive'.

There are 46 other cards on the restricted list that it would be virtually impossible to make that argument for.  You are right that there are a huge number of cards that are reactive by that definition, which makes it all the more striking that such a tiny minority of the cards on the list fit that definition.  A more restrictive definition of reactive wouldn’t particularly affect the substance of my argument, however – the point is that when a large category of cards that has seen a tremendous amount of tournament play is so dramatically underrepresented it suggests that there is something about that category that is relevant to the issue of restriction.

But by and large, given the expanse of magic cards, reactive cards (again assuming you can adequately classify a card as such), are so narrow that it is not suprising that only the reactive cards with the widest application would be restrictable (Strip Mine and Mana Drain come to mind).

Here I think you are getting at what that something is.  Reactive cards are narrow by definition because they are dependent on your opponent's choices to be useful.  If a card is narrow it is less likely to need restriction.  Therefore, a reactive card is less likely to need restriction than other cards.

There is a line of argument I have seen on this board from time to time put forward to show that Force of Will is broken and would be restricted if not for its “special status.”  It points out that if I play Lotus Petal, Dark Ritual x2, Island, Yawgmoth’s Bargain, and you Force it, you have just negated four of my cards for two of yours and no mana – a huge swing equivalent to a first turn Mind Twist.  What this reasoning ignores is that Force of Will is reactive – in order to make a strong play like the one described you were dependent on my choices to make that play.  If instead of making a high-risk/high-reward play I made a low-risk/low-reward play (Volcanic Island, Grim Lavamancer, for example) Force of Will becomes a decidedly mediocre card.  You can’t ignore that difference, if you do it leads to absurd results like . . . well like the conclusion that Force of Will should be restricted.

I see the argument that a card is reactive as relevant as the argument that a card is a creature. The only difference is that reactivity has some bearing on interactivity - which as I've said TIME and again, is actually the more appropriate inquiry (since that has actual support to it).

Ah, now here I think we are catching sight of a hidden agreement here.  I agree that interactivity is a more fundamental level of analysis than whether a card is reactive.  However, I disagree about how relevant card types are to this analyis.  Interactivity is a complicated and multifaceted concept, and refinements of this concept that simplify the analysis are useful.  One such refinement is that reactive cards, which require at least that your opponent play a card and often require that your opponent play a particular kind of card, are inherently more interactive than cards that deal exclusively with your own resources.  Creatures are also inherently more interactive than other spells because there are so many ways to kill them and they generally have to remain in play a full turn to be dangerous.

The fact that a card fits one of these descriptions isn’t a talisman.  If the reasons creatures less likely to be restricted than usual don’t apply to a creature (Academy Rector, for example) then the argument that it is a creature so it shouldn’t be restricted loses its force.  Similarly, if Mana Drain is difficult enough to play around and devastating enough when it resolves, it may be worthy of restriction.  However, if that is the case it will be because other aspects of the card overcame the presumption that reactive cards are not good targets for restriction.

Leo

[Smmenen]

Yeah, so you agree with my refutation of your point  I have already posted much of that earlier in this thread.  I realize its dense, but its worth wading through.

I agree that none of these descriptions should be a talisman.  I have spent 3 pages trying to refute the notion that "reactivity" has some special status - trying to deal with arguments from Houdlette, Mattiuzzio and now you.

It is worth elaborating, briefly, about creatures.  Creatures are more inherently interactive.  But they are also inherently weaker.  The strongest creatures are really combo parts: Welder, Rector, Dragon or great utility: Squee, Xantid Swarm, etc.  

The best creature that isn't one of those is Tog.  But Psychatog isn't a creature - it's a syphon.  It directly transfers your cards into damage.  It is the reverse Necropotence.

[Smmenen]

From: Pave
To: Smmenen
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:50 am
Subject: Imbalance or Fun?  
I'd add this to the discussion:

The thrust of this exchange concerns not Mana Drain strictly but rather the adequacy of prioritising, as a criterion for restriction, fun (or 'interactivity') over imbalance (or deck diversity). If in future every deck were Zherbus's Keeper, say, and so the environment was highly interactive but also highly imbalanced, would anything (like Mana Drain) deserve restriction? Not if the restriction of Trinisphere is all we have to go on (because it wasn't dominating). It was not the name of justice or fairness (or a balanced and diverse environment) that Trinisphere was restricted; it was in the name of fun. And Steven is right to question that as a proper basis. First, because one man's fun is another's frustration. And second, because if one idea of fun (like interactivity) rules the roost then restriction lists and metagames are finally stifled by those things meant to enrich them. Mana Drain is a sentimental (or 'historical') favourite. How fun is facing Mana Drain, really? Playing spells but not having any resolve is hardly more fun than not being in a position to play any at all. But one can easily work around Mana Drain, some protest. Was Trinisphere that hard to work around? Why did the Top 8s suggest otherwise? Isn't the most 'fun' a diverse (that is, balanced) environment, not a bunch of interactive, identical decks. I suppose what's fun is an interactive AND diverse environment - with Trinisphere those rectriction criterion may conflict.

[Dozer]

Answering the question Steve has asked at the beginning of this (very insightful) thread: I would not mind, because I like many others here think that Mana Drain is the least unfair of the dreaded bunch (Ritual, 3Sphere, Drain).

However, I don't really understand why everybody is pouncing so much on to the "fun" aspect of the restriction of Trinisphere. Aaron Forsythe has said in his article explaining the B/R-changes that they almost had Trinisphere restricted before its release, much like Mind's Desire. Why?
Because Wizards has said time and again, even before this restriction, that they want people to be able to play with their cards. In our format, where the agreed fundamental turn is either the opening hand or the first turn and the midgame starts around three, Trinisphere creates a barrier that stops that. Cold.

The fundamental turn after a first-turn Trinisphere becomes at least three, because before that you will not even play a Mox. Of course, this does not apply symmetrically because of Workshop, which is why Trinisphere virtually never saw play in any other format.

Remember the games when your opponent went first with Workshop, Trinisphere, and you went "Wasteland, evil cackle". In those games, Trinisphere just slowed everything down, basically creating the same play environment as without it -- only it was much, much slower. That not only made 3Sphere mostly irrelevant in that situation, but also took away much of the pleasure that is playing a fast-paced format like Vintage.

When you get down to it, Trinisphere was a design mistake in the first place. It created a noticeable imbalance in a certain situation (1st turn 3Sphere), but beyond that, what impact did it really have? (Apart from the pure threat of a 1st turn Sphere, of course, which applied to deckbuilding and -choices etc.)

That imbalance was not only noticeable, but when it happened, it prevented you from doing with your Magic cards what they were made for. I believe this is the reason for the restriction, and that is what Aaron Forsythe so carelessly described as "fun". Playing around and against Trinisphere was very challenging when it became necessary, but it essentially did not require Magic cards being put on the stack.

Mana Drain, on the other hand, does this. There, it is just a question of doing it or not doing it by your own choice. In other words, you can't bluff against a Trinisphere, but you can against (and with) Mana Drain. That goes back to interactivity and the associated discussion, which has been put forward by minds greater than mine.

However, I believe that Trinisphere was not restricted because too many players complained about it, but because it does something to the game that R&D does not want to see. The fact that people might have complained a lot might have ben the final straw. But I do not think that we will see any of those "unfun"-restrictions in the near future, as R&D will be mindful about actually producing cards that take something so fundamental from the game as playing spells in your first three turns.

Mana Drain does not do that. That's why it is fun. And just for the record, neither does Ritual, which merits discussion based on its power level alone.

Dozer

Postscript: Stax, as other lock decks, do the same thing as Trinisphere and worse. That is what underlies the brief appearance of Winter Orb in this discussion. However, since the era of Rising Waters in Masques Block, WotC has not printed a serious lock component of its caliber (no, the new walking Winter Orb is not it).
Also, Stax needs time to assemble its lock. (Yes, it can go broken, but so can every other deck. It goes without saying.) Trinisphere did not need time, it eliminated time. Much like the grey men in Momo, it did things that should better be left undone by a package so small or means so simple...

[Matt]

But one can easily work around Mana Drain, some protest. Was Trinisphere that hard to work around?

The difference is that 3Sphere protects itself. If I go Workshop, 3Sphere, you could have four Oxidize in hand, but it won't matter. You're still not doing anything until at least turn three. Of course any deck can add basic lands but the problem is that is one of the ONLY answers. There's only one answer, but every deck can employ it - is that what you'd call hard to work around? It's not a clear-cut issue - some people may say yes, some people may say no.

Mana Drain has an analogous workaround - playing cheap spells. But Drain has other nemeses as well - Duress, Therapy, Xantid Swarm just to name a few. I can Orim's Chant to keep you from playing the Drain, or I can walk a big spell into Drain then Chant you on your upkeep and watch you manaburn. There's even stuff like REB and Misdirection that help punch through a Drain. Should Drain decks rise to the top, people have a lot more options in dealing with it than they did 3Sphere.