Is something going right or am I just an ass?

[Piggy]

Everyone seems to think that the format is going straight to hell.  I understand that combo is gaining power, as that is quite obvious when you look at the top table at your average July tourney.  This isn't good for the future, but it seems to me that it isn't a bad thing for the short term.  As much as I like control(I have always had a phid deck at the ready), it has had a bit of a monopoly on the format in recent years.  First Legend Blue raged through the format(B&R).  Then keeper stood tall until the invasion of the artifacts.  At which point we had what many have claimed to be the best, most varied format in years.  Enter Groatog(B&R).  This leaves us at now, but I'll come back to the present later.  Each of those single decks that dominated the format were control or control/x decks.  Perhaps it is time that control took another break from the top spot.  When is the last time that someone could take a combo deck to a tournament and seriously think they wouldn't be countered out of contention relatively early?

Back to now.  Todays combo is definitely borderline ridiculous, and I don't dispute that.  However, in the short term this leaves us with another jumbled format where a large number of decks have a good chance of winning as long as they pack some way to deal with combo.  It just seems that many players think the format is in the early stages of apocalypse when it is actually just upheaval.  Control having to board cards specifically for the combo match-up doesn't equal the end of T1.  As a community our first response recently has been to complain rather than adapt.  Now I am going to get off my ass and proxy up some new designs to find what the best answer to the new meta may be.

Hopefully wizards is smarter than we give them credit for, and they already have some eloquent plan to "fix" the format when we reach "critical mass".  Fortunately that time isn't here yet.

[Justin]

Amen!

[TracerBullet]

Until these nigh-unbeatable combo decks start to consistently run the major tournements, most of the apocalyptic speak is simply hot air.  I've heard it probably a thousand times.  People thought when Trix was major that only combo decks would ever be good in T1.  People thought that when Mono-U was dominating that the format would forever be nothing more than a sidenote because younger people don't like counterspells.  People not even six months ago were saying that GroTog should have %100 win totals (yes, that's you Smmenen) and that it would continue to be unbeatable.  

Stop worrying about how bad you percieve things to be and start worrying about how to make it better damnit.

[BillTheDuck]

T1 isn't going to hell. The environment is healthy as it possibly can be with several competetive decks and none of them truely dominate. If the new tendrils decks become to good, restrictions may occur, but more likely good old hate will put them in their place.

It is true that aggro is having a tough time right now, but it doesn't mean a well metagamed aggressive deck can't win anyway. I've got a few ideas I'll testing out myself.

[Eastman]

You're absolutely right. The format isn't anywhere near the levels of the combo-winter. When the average sideboard packs 4-6 Blasts it is obvious that control holds its dominance in the meta. When the average sideboard packs 4 stifles, we may see that we're in a combo-heavy meta. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Rakso]

I emphasized in my articles that the combo decks are hardly unbeatable.

"Frustrating" is the term I used since there is the potential for too many coin flips, whether he has a normal card or a Storm card, whether he has a Stifle or an ordinary counter (and in any case I prefer Orim's Chant), whether he has the mana to Cunning Wish, etc.

If it gets to a point where you have a card that practically reads "This card wins, unless your opponent is holding X", the fact that X is in print does not bolster my interest in the game.

[jntemp777]

The new Tendril/BangBus Decks are VERY difficult for control to beat.  I've been testing Bangbus, and it really does steamroll over control.  

I cannot say which 2 or 3 combo decks are the best in the field, but to have a combo deck(s) as the top tier really does make Type 1 silly.  PLAYER INTERACTION IS MORE IMPORTANT IN A CARD GAME THAN IN VIDEO GAMES.  Wizards please listen.

When I'm playing a fast paced solitaire-like game trying to kill my opponent, the opponent becomes merely a speedbump.  

I really hope this is not what the future of type 1 holds.

[HengeWolf]

I think what's been glossed over is how multiple dominant combo decks will effect potential new players. Most players who've already invested in the format seem to be at least cautiously optimistic, or at least not ready to throw in the towel despite some genuine concerns. This is admirable, but if you look at Vintage from an outside, unpowered player's perspective, it's looking pretty unappealling.

I'd hazard a guess that a very significant portion of all magic players don't like "hard" combo just on principal. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't still hear people randomly whining about Urza Block being the worst set ever, despite its many positive contributions to the game as a whole.

When Vintage was still being run by control decks, some aggro people felt left out. TNT did a lot to change that (in theory at least), but it was still an issue. The problem used to be, "How do we get aggro back in the game, to attract more players." I don't think anyone ever said, "What about combo? Where's the tier1 combo?" And rightly so. Combo is the most anti-social, least appealing way to play magic. If you took a poll right now, more players would say they hate combo than any other style of deck, except maybe a deck with over 12 counterspells. I imagine WotC would've attempted to kill hard combos a while back, if they weren't well aware that without regular bannings in nearly every format, they will never be rid of them. Personally, I'm willing to let combo decks exist; I'd just rather they didn't dominate.

Now the format is being overrun by decks that, although they undoubtedly require some skill to pilot, are primed to make a mockery of player interaction. It's not about whether or not they are unbeatable. It's not about whether or not you can hate them out effectively. It's about new players looking at the dominant decks and, on top of price concerns, just passing on the format.

This isn't really a rant. I haven't played a lot of Vintage since Legend Black Suicide was brand new tech, so I'll leave the big questions and answers to those more qualified than myself. All I'm saying is that I think this combo explosion is just another potentially huge PR problem for Vintage.

[Toast]

ultimately I think any single card that nets you more than 5 cards at a castable mana cost is really detrimental to the format....eventually I think the draw 7s and bargain etc will have to be banned...not for a while though...right now I think the best bet is restricting rector

[Rico Suave]

Quote (jntemp777 @ July 17 2003,08:46)PLAYER INTERACTION IS MORE IMPORTANT IN A CARD GAME THAN IN VIDEO GAMES.  

I don't understand how Tendrils targetting your opponent is any less interactive than a sligh deck using Lightning Bolt in the same exact way.  At least with combo you get to Duress/Therapy your opponent.  What does sligh do?  Tap it's own things.  Big whoop.  

Toast, that's a somewhat acceptable philosophy, but many cards oftentimes indirectly net more than 5 cards.  Look at Pernicious Deed, Survival of the Fittest, Bazaar of Baghdad, and any kind of lock-down card.

[Fishhead]

Quote I don't understand how Tendrils targetting your opponent is any less interactive than a sligh deck using Lightning Bolt in the same exact way.  

Because Sligh is always doing something.  Its Turn 1, they are casting Pup.  Turn 2, another creature and some burn.  Regardless of whether its true or not, their opponent feels like he can affect the course of the game.  

Things like Trix strip your hand (which is annoying to new players in of itself - I brought cards so I could play, not so I could look at my empty hand) and then go off.  The opponent must sit there with nothing and hope the Trix player fizzles; watching forlornly while Trix draws cards.  If anything puts the luck factor in clear perspective it's knowing that you have ceased to matter in the game, but you might still win.  :-/

[Toast]

Quote Toast, that's a somewhat acceptable philosophy, but many cards oftentimes indirectly net more than 5 cards.  Look at Pernicious Deed, Survival of the Fittest, Bazaar of Baghdad, and any kind of lock-down card.

yes this is very true, and it is my mistake for not clarifying myself better. what I meant is cards that net you more than 5 other cards over the period of 1 turn. Even though necro nets you 18 cards theoretically without other cards in the mix I would not consider it broken enough to be banned because of the heavy restrictions put on it (the set aside as opposed to draw and the remove from game instead of discard).

pernicious deed can net you more than 5 cards but it is usually at a high cost or over a couple turns (because your moxen will trade evenly for their moxen when figuring net so often you need to pay about 3 or so before it nets you more than 5 cards)

survival and bazar only net you cards if you have squee (in general ) this also means it will usually take multiple turns to net you more than 5 cards.

cards that I didn't include but could be waranted in getting the axe using my logic....balance, yawgmoths will, future sight.

some of these cards are less likely to be banned then others because they can only situationally net you more than five cards instead of always doing so...but there is no question that combo is made good by cards that net you far more than they are worth, if combo had to rely on smaller card draw and tutors it would no longer be viable because it would be much more difficult to gain enough momentum to "go off".

I do think some combo is good to keep control honest....but I also think the DCI needs to put in some more work to keep combo honest

[Matt The Great]

People like to see an opponent have a response, a reversal card that says "I undo your attack". But to undo something, it has to be done first - people like to see their cards in action. Which is why most people hate counterspells, discard, fast combo, mana denial (both LD and prison like Stax) or all four.

[David Hernandez]

@Rico:

Quote I don't understand how Tendrils targetting your opponent is any less interactive than a sligh deck using Lightning Bolt in the same exact way.

LOL. Because Lightning Bolt doesn't copy itself 8 times to deal 24 points of damage...  

dave.

[jntemp777]

Storm cards were simply not designed well.  I'm a combo player.  I've played academy, trix (before rector) and rector trix.   The more I test out Tendrils/Bangbus, the more obvious this fact becomes to me.  

Let me give a more true definition of Mind's Desire:
 
1.  Academy needed another draw 7.  Mind's desire is more akin to a draw 6 to ~14+ cards.  
2.  All the drawn cards have a built in Dream Hall's ability(you get to play them, without paying mana cost!).  
3.  This spell is uncounterable (like obliterate).

As I tested Bangbus against various T1 decks, I tried to think how they could have originally designed this card better.  Things like "lose 3 life" per storm copy came to mind.  Or "discard a card" or "sac a permanent" per storm copy.  There really should have been SOMETHING that was negative per storm copy.  

... so when you start to think about Tendrils of Agony/Brainfreeze, these really seem like cards a little kid writing in to Inquest designed.

[Toast]

tempest(put a copy of this spell on the stack for each spell played before it this turn, these copies do not have tempest)

this would be a good stormesque mechanic...the problem that I see with storm is the fact that it has an ability that triggers before the spell even resolves.

[Matt The Great]

Quote (Toast @ July 17 2003,20:32)tempest(put a copy of this spell on the stack for each spell played before it this turn, these copies do not have tempest)

this would be a good stormesque mechanic...the problem that I see with storm is the fact that it has an ability that triggers before the spell even resolves.

What is wrong with having things trigger before the spell resolves? Argothian Enchantress does it all the time. So does Nether Void. So do Madness cards but that is a giant can of worms.

I think Storm should have simply allowed you to pay mana and Fork the spell (a la a one-shot Mirari). As in, I cast Mind's Desire, and may pay 3 to copy it any number of times. Or something. This seems more natural than having to pay life or sacrifice permanents to create copies.\n\n

[Solaran_X]

Quote (Toast @ July 17 2003,09:26)ultimately I think any single card that nets you more than 5 cards at a castable mana cost is really detrimental to the format....eventually I think the draw 7s and bargain etc will have to be banned...not for a while though...right now I think the best bet is restricting rector

The Draw 7s are restricted for a reason. In multiples, they are simply broken. Restricted, they are actually balanced.

Timetwster - resets the library, and gets you a new hand of cards. Sometimes, it works in your advantage. Sometimes not. At 2U, it is undercosted - hence the restriction

Time Spiral - same as Timetwister, except it removes itself from the game instead of going into the new graveyard. Costs 4UU, which means it won't be used first turn for pure advantage. However, it does untap six lands - making it essentially free.

Wheel of Fortune - 2R. Cast it, and everyone discards their hand and gets a new hand of seven cards. Undercosted, but effective. However, it can go against you and give your opponent a huge boost.

Windfall - 2U. The blue Wheel of Fortune, only it only gives each player cards equal to the greatest amount discarded by any player. Not a true Draw 7, but useful.

Memory Jar - the artifact Draw 7. 5 to cast, and sacrifice it to use. Upside, both players get a new hand at almost no disadvantage - except they have to discard the new hand at the end of the active player's turn and return their old hand. If you can't play out the new hand, you just Mind Twisted yourself for seven. But then again...you're almost guaranteed to Mind Twist your opponent for seven as well.

The Draw 7s may be broken, but they are restricted. And they fuel combo, which is a good thing.

[Lord of the Goats]

honestly i don't think that storm is at all what's causeing the metagame shift toward combo. it's the fact that cabal therapy was printed. prior to therapy, rector based combo had to run janky ass crap like diabolic intent and phrexian tower. there was always a lot of difficulty finding a card that would sac a rector but not be ass without it.

enter cabal tharapy. rector based combo gain an extremely good disruption spell than can be cast as soon as you have 1 mana. it's not sitting in your hand waiting for the rector to resolve, it's helping it resolve. then it can be flashed back later to sac the rector and get some more hand disruption while you're at it.

disruption shouldn't further the combo. combo should have do devote slots to disruption and balance dead cards vs protecting combo pieces, not therapy away your fow and the ritual out a rector and sac it while therapying you again.

tendrils just provides a kill that's less dead cards than any other combo.... the games over before they cast it.

as for academy, as someone said, it's always needed 1 draw 7. i thought future sight might have been it,  but that didn't cut it. mind's desire does the trick though, and burning wish helps a lot as well.

i don't have a problem with any of the new academy builds, i think they're fairly balanced. however i think that cabal therapy with rector is a problem

[Toast]

I agree with goat entirely,I did not mean storm was the cause of the combo, but I still think storm was a shitty mechanic.

@matt my problem is an ability on the card that is resolving that triggers before the card resolves.

Nether Void, and Enchantress are both sources that have to be resolved before they affect the cards by adding when {you, anybody} play effects.

Madness the ability does trigger before the spell resolves, but it also triggers before it is cast, so it (along with the fact that it has nothing to do with making copies) is not a card that can't really be countered.

A good example of another card I think is shitty is Phyrexian Dreadnaught because it also has an ability on it that triggers before it resolves ( I conceed that the card would be easy to combo with either way but I still think as a general rule abilities shouldn't trigger on cards until they resolve;I think that makes more sense stack wise)

furthermore cards like nethervoid which add an ability could easily be errattaed so that they still accomplish the desired effect but don't break this hypothetical new rule.

normal card- counterspell = everything on card fizzles
ability triggers before resolves card- counterspell = effect still happens = bad

[beastmouth]

Quote A good example of another card I think is shitty is Phyrexian Dreadnaught because it also has an ability on it that triggers before it resolves ( I conceed that the card would be easy to combo with either way but I still think as a general rule abilities shouldn't trigger on cards until they resolve;I think that makes more sense stack wise)

With Dreadnought, is it not that the spell resolves, and then, before it becomes a creature in play, 12 power must be sacrificed?

[Lupo]

ummm guys,  

I do believe that one of the top type one writers said it best:

This is type 1, broken things happen

One post listed a bunch of things that people dont like and it included essentially everything powerful.

If you dont want broken cards and combinations, I would reccomend Onslaught Block Constructed, where you can ram 9 casting cost creatures and spells into each other.  I do not mean to sound critical or arrogant, but that is the way it is.  New players should expect a tough fight everytime they sit down.  

I love combo and believe it is part of balance of magic, aggro, control and combo, three sides to the triangle.  You will have to sell me pretty hard if you want me to believe that it is more fun to stare at keepers full hand when you have 2 and you still have only managed to resolve 1 spell all game, or when sligh has 6 power worth of creaturs on turn 2 with 10 points of burn in its hand, than it is to shuffle your library and draw 7 cards a bunch of times.  It is all part of the game, every good deck tries to win regardless of what the opponent does, that is what makes them good, they can win under all circumstances.

If type one was not powerful, what good would it be?

[Toast]

@ wolf

I feel that no matter how powerful type 1 is supposed to be...A. there are certain fundamental laws of the game that should not be broken ever...even with a new mechanic, and that the DCI needs to keep combo in check because an expanding cardpool often causes unwanted card interactions.

 No matter how broken the format is it stops being fun to play after a while. A format with no restricted list would quickly become retarded because the game would come down to whoever won the coinflip...If I wanted to flip a coin for hours I would get change for a dollar and sit in my room intead of buying expensive pieces of cardboard and driving to stores to do it.


also your analagy about all the decks being good enough to not care what the other player does...what happens when two decks that don't care face each other...In theory they will negate each other and both players will quickly start caring...the problem comes when one deck stops caring significantly more than all the other decks care and the deck that doesn't care and is supposed to beat the deck that stopped caring more can no longer beat it.

If you are confused at this point good...because i definately am.

@ beast

I am no rules guru, but I believe that as soon as the spell resolves the comes into play triggered abilities go on the stack, I think for dreadnaught it actually happens before it resolves. As soon as I play it, it "would come into play" if you counter it, it still 'would have came into play" before I had cast anything which would cause it to trigger then (before I had cast anything)

The awkwardness is obvious which I why I think it sucks.

[Matt The Great]

The awkwardness of Dreadnaught's replacement ability (for that is what it is) is directly due to the fact that it was for so long a combo card.

[Toast]

I know... damned if you do, damned if you don't...I think it was nessessary for them to errata it but it still is awkward.

[Matt The Great]

A very similar wording is used on the Lake of the Dead-cycle of lands to avoid their mana abilities from being used before they enter play, where they could be used as mini-Petals (or in Lake of the Dead's case, Rituals 5-8).

The coolest ideas usually wind up being really crappy to read. But then, the cool cards are the ones that are easy enough to understand intuitively but when it comes down to actually writing the card, it needs to be very explicit and clear. Remember Raging River? Very obvious just from reading the card what it's supposed to do...but what a wild, strange trip through the land of Errata it's taken.

[TracerBullet]

Quote (Matt The Great @ July 20 2003,17:25)A very similar wording is used on the Lake of the Dead-cycle of lands to avoid their mana abilities from being used before they enter play, where they could be used as mini-Petals (or in Lake of the Dead's case, Rituals 5-8).

You're thinking of Lotus Vale more than Lake of the Dead.

[Matt The Great]

Both, actually. "If ~this~ would come into play, do X. If you do, put it into play, if you don't, put ~this~ into its owner's graveyard." It's the same wording.

[TracerBullet]

It's just that Lotus Vale was infinitely more abused when first it appeared than Lake of the Dead.

[HengeWolf]

I don't know, I definitely remember sac'ing my one tapped swamp and letting lake of the dead die in order to add BBBBB to my mana pool on turn 2.

Of course, I'd rather just let a Lotus Vale die after getting 3 mana of any single color, but I think that trick was only viable before Weatherlight. I remember asking someone if you could do it with the Vale right after Weatherlight came out (last box I ever bought, snif), and they told me no.

I guess I don't disagree with the errata (although I always thought that lake trick was fitting for black, since it killed two lands and stunted your mana). The original way made much more sense though, especially if a mana ability can't be countered or use the stack. I'm no rules lawyer, but that's just my take.

Ah, Lake of the Dead. I still love it, even if I never use it.