[Article] Old School v. The New School

[Milton]

A point I would like to bring up that was mentioned in the article but is often ignored.  Did TI really have any "good ol' days"?  Days when everyone was on the same page and there was no real conflict?  It seems to me that the format has always had a great degree of social conflict.  It seems to me that there never really was a time since 1997, maybe, when Keeper was king.  It seems as though our format was stagnant for a while but I can't call those times the "good ol' days".  If anything those were the dark ages of our format.

Look, I have argued with just about everyone at one point or another about restrictions, deck design, tiers, tournament structrues, etc...  For now, though, it seems that there is far less conflict about T1 than in the past.  There still are arguments, but they aren't stupid arguments about how Keeper is dominant and Zoo sucks and Gro is overrated.  Now, it seems, we all seem to have a good depth of knowledge regarding the metagame.  We have our little disagreements, but now, unlike any other time in the history of our format, more and more people recognize quality builds and the majority of competent players know what is and is not effective.  Our arguments involve semantics or single card choices, but for the most part it seems as though the debate has been elevated, along with the quality of deck design and play.  

This is great for the format.  Two years ago we were talking about the demise of T1.  Now we are on the verge of a new era.\n\n

[Ric_Flair]

I think this is was an interesting piece, and I wanted to throw my two cents into the fountain.

First, Vintage NEEDS to slow down.  It absolutely has to.  Are we going to be at the point, in three or four years, of "Lay Down" hands?  Do we really want that?  I understand that critical mass has been discussed before, but there is a way to lance the boil so to speak.  Restrictions are necessary and I believe they are an inevitable part of the Vintage landscape, in the past, right now, and forever until the format dies.  Because of the size of the cardpool all of the interactions cannot be tested and so stuff slips through the cracks.  If something passes Steven's test with the unrecoverable early game swing WotC tested added on, then it needs to go.  LED is the only card that warrants a restriction right now.  It is placing too much pressure on the metagame and with the addition of Chalice (no banning required) makes drawing one's opening hand, by far and away, the most important part of the game.  And there is no skill in drawing seven.  So we can still have a good format, and back of the speed a tad with no ramifications, except making things less swingy, which is a good thing.

Point Two: casual players and old school players, like collectors, have no place in sanctioned formats.  The formats are sanctioned for a reason--because they are competitive arenas.  If you don't like it play an unsanctioned format.  There is no way to have it half way--either the format innovates or it doesn't.  If only half innovate then they will dominate the format and the casual players will constantly lose.  It is like perfection--there is no such thing has almost perfect, it either is or is not perfect.  Trying to wish and hope and pray the format back to is casual roots is not only fighting the tide off with a flyswatter it is bad for the environment.  No one cared about Vintage because time and again the same decks played by the same people with the same 15 cards that are broken were winning.  Now that that can't happen that does not mean the format is over, it means that the format is a real format.  If you want a pet deck DON'T play tournament magic.  It is all about change and that is what makes it great.  Just because Vintage does not rotate does not mean that it is SUPPOSED to be the format where you can sit on decks for years and still have them play well.  Any format that does this is not a format worth playing.  Go play War if that is what you want.  This game is great because it changes.  

This does not mean that decks like Keeper are dead, but they require constant, open minded tuning.  Open minded being the key part.  I remember fighting like crazy with people about Psychatog's superiority to Morphling.  Vintage players, as a whole, are resistent to change (one of the reasons they still play this format).  But time stops for no man or card or deck.  I can't even understand why people would want the format to be stagnant.  Switching two SB cards in Keeper is not my idea of earth shattering innovation.  Even when the card pool is so full of useless cards, as it is in Vintage due to the obvious superiority of many common effect cards (Drain v. Counterspell, Duress and Hymn v. other Discard), innovation is possible and necessary.

I hope this does not come off as anti-casual, because I am not.  Casual is a fun and educational format where you can use unusual cards without penalty, but it is not sanctioned for a reason.  Competition is something many people like and these people are increasingly playing what used to be a backwater format.  

I guess it comes down to this: either you are a gamer and like Magic as a game or you really just like you SoLoMoxen and are collector who knows how to shuffle.  I am a gamer.  This is a game.  And there is no way to turn back the clock.

[Smmenen]

Quote (VideoGameBoy @ Oct. 22 2003,09:59)Excellent article Steve - perhaps the best.

This is what I got from your article, and what I personally believe; the majority of T1 players are afraid of change.  That is what drives all these cries to restrict such-and-such card - the format is no longer stagnant.

I think there were three huge objectives with this article:

1) Make a Coherent and Complete Argument for the New Type One.  That is really the overarching goal of the piece - to make a definitive Statement on Why the new Type one is GOOD.  This is the logical side of the peice.  This was in part to rebut Oscar's piece.

2) Make it a emotionally appealing piece as well.  I wanted my vision of type one to realy come accross.  

3) Explain how the convergence of controversies over chalice and Long has misfunnelled anger at Workshop.  And through that and point one, explain why Workshop is not in need of restriction.

The huge flaw, in retrospect, was in keeping with the fundamental turn phraseology as it

a) paints me into a corner that I am not actually in.  Someone in the SCG games forum said that I was a combo fanatic.  That's news to me.

b) continues to scare people and makes Oscar's rhetoric even more powerful

however, I think the piece is sufficiently persuasive that I may not need to have a follow up piece.

Stephen Menendian

[Dante]

Yes, I think many people are confused, particularly with Long around, because the fundamental turn is typically the turn they win, which is typically around 2.

Dante

[Smmenen]

Definately.

You see, I never was a huge fan of combo. I played control for a very very long time simply becuase it was so good. I think that in Type One, you simply need to be competent at specific decks, not necessarily archetypes - becuase each deck is so different from each other.

The reason that the fundamental turn phraseology was probably a mistake is becuase it underemphases the fact that EACH deck has its own speed.

Long is FAR faster than the rest of the decks I beleive.

The theretical flaw in Oscar's article is that it becomes somewhat moot as of three days ago (with mirrodin being legal) becuase the format is now incredibly slower with Chalice. The issues have been distorted becuase we had a convergence of controveries. People were pissed off over long. People were bored under Stax. But what really sparked the gas was my chalice peice. And so you now have people calling for the head of Workshop, when what really needs to happen is for people to just call for LED to be restricted, and let the metagame play itself out.

If Workshop needs to go FINE. But the real problem in type one is Combo being too good, not a fundamental turn.

The reason is simple: when magic is coin flips that is bad. Becuase combo, unlike other decks with a turn 2 fundamental turn, LITERALLY ends the game, then it LITERALLY becomes a coinflip.  Workshop and Mask decks do not.

Ironically, Chalice has made it all MORE coinflippy becuase in order for Long to win it has to be faster than Chalice (meaning turn one).\n\n

[Milton]

Quote Yes, I think many people are confused, particularly with Long around, because the fundamental turn is typically the turn they win, which is typically around 2.

I disagree.  Typically, at the tournaments I attend, the matches that go the full 50 minutes are the combo v. control match-ups and the Prison match-ups.

I am trying to consider a relationship between the "fundamental turn" (a phrase I don't really like either) and the increased complexity of the decisions that have to be made.  This increase complexity can often lead to a much longer game that actually has more player interaction and pushes back the fundamental turn in various match-ups.  So, if you replace the word "fundamental turn" with, perhaps, "ideal turn" you get a much different look at the game.  Ideally Long goes off on turn 2.  In reality, however, it doesn't because it's so damn hard to do so against a decent control deck, and it will become even harder to do in the comming months.

[wuaffiliate]

the sad thing is that chalice does not slow long(with spoils and friends) because its new turn is One.

[doublej20]

Steve, this was by far the best Type 1 article on StarCity ever. While I often find myself disagreeing with you, I thought these 3 points couldn't have been said any better:

Quote In sharp contrast to the vision of a relatively stable format where Brian Weissman can play The Deck for ten years, my vision of Type One is as a very dynamic format. If the same deck is in the top tier from year to year something is wrong. The focus of Type One should be the format, NOT the decks. JP Meyer quoted Chris Pikula as saying that the only reason Keeper was good was because there was no innovation in Type One.

Quote I don't believe it's possible to slow down the format. Even if you restrict Lion's Eye Diamond, Mishra's Workshop, and Dark Ritual, you still have MaskNaught, Academy Rector (which is only marginally slowed down), and Dragon. Even if you restrict Mask, Rector, and Bazaar, it wouldn't really change the fundamental turn. The first reason is that there is too much innovation in Type One. The card pool is just too large and there is too much energy in the format. I am convinced that new decks would pop up that have the same fundamental turn.

This mirrors my thoughts exactly. Restricting Dark Ritual and Lion's Eye Diamond would do nothing to slow the format down. Other cards will fit in those roles of combo decks, and restricting those cards will just hurt other viable decks (like Suicide or Madness).

Quote Some people claim, erroneously, that this card should be restricted. They are upset about the speed of the format and the fact that the deck is a prison deck which either gets or fails to get a lock into place by turn 2-4. What they fail to understand is that prison wouldn't survive if it didn't do just that.

Great article, but your signature at the end of your articles is becoming too long and very Raskso-like;)-. You don't want that, do you??

[Ric_Flair]

Quote coinflippy

Best coined word EVER.

On a more serious note, I am finally glad to see someone agreeing with me that Chalice makes Long even more swingy.

[Grollub]

Quote (SliverKing @ Oct. 22 2003,08:04)

Quote (erik @ Oct. 22 2003,10:54)It's time to draw a line in the sand between casual and competitive, the last year has just been proof to this. I'm getting sick and tired of going to tournaments and/or cardshops and hear the same old whining about how combo is dumb, 10 cards should be restricted and so on just because people don't want to put in the time to playtest in what they see as a "casual and fun" format.

Who cares if Jackal Pup is too slow or there are no aggro decks in Tier1? If you want to play aggro you have three options: find masks, find workshops or find a casual playgroup. What's wrong with turn 2 being the fundamental turn, when that's what happens naturally when you have 30+ broken resticted cards available. It is as if people are still thinking about "the old days" as a static ideal, and the more the meta moves away from those ideals the worse. Just because Magic was about swinging with large creatures in Alpha doesn't mean the game has to be played the same way ten years later. It's called evolution, and I thank you for standing up for it Steve.

Yeah!!!  Screw the attack phase... what kind of idiot wants to play a game with creatures? or offensive and defensive strategy?    Let evolution keep pushing us... turn 2 may even be too slow...   nature dictates there is a turn 1 deck out there, if we can just find it...  
Lets really work hard, maybe we can get a fundamental turn zero deck with a few more sets...   or why even bother with the coin flip? I mean thats a lot of randomness... first man to get to the designated seat wins!!! yeah screw having to shuffle... thats so 1993...    You losers and your juggernauts and morphlings... what kind of retarded timmy-style game do you want???

Well come to the era of Magic: The Arm Wrestling.


Ok. I'll keep this short. Nice and inspirering article.

[Ace Hunter]

Quote (SliverKing @ Oct. 22 2003,05:04)Yeah!!!  Screw the attack phase... what kind of idiot wants to play a game with creatures? or offensive and defensive strategy?    Let evolution keep pushing us... turn 2 may even be too slow...   nature dictates there is a turn 1 deck out there, if we can just find it...  
Lets really work hard, maybe we can get a fundamental turn zero deck with a few more sets...   or why even bother with the coin flip? I mean thats a lot of randomness... first man to get to the designated seat wins!!! yeah screw having to shuffle... thats so 1993...    You losers and your juggernauts and morphlings... what kind of retarded timmy-style game do you want???

I agree with this (the sarcasm behind it) 100%.

[Bastian]

I couldn't agree more with SliverKing too (as Ace Hunter said, sarcasm included). Richmond players are increasing more and more in my consideration!

The game used to be about control-aggro-combo. Combo decks are designing mistakes, mutant decks that were obvioulsy not planned for but exist. What fun is this game if you cut down about a third of it (aggro decks). Is that good?

Quote Lets really work hard, maybe we can get a fundamental turn zero deck with a few more sets...   or why even bother with the coin flip? I mean thats a lot of randomness...

Game between players at vintage tourney:

X-"Hi, I'm playing X deck"
Z-"I'm playing Z.. er, wait, you're playing X?"
X-"Yeah!"
*coin flip* The X deck player wins.
Z- "GREAT GAME!"\n\n

[Smmenen]

Look the whole metagame triangle was obsolete long before combo showed up.

THe Hybridization was taking place with decks like Mask - aggro-combo, Tog - combo-control.  And GAT: Aggro/Combo/Control.

Fact is that the best metagame, I beleive is:

Aggro-Combo - Both mask builds.
Workshop Prison/Aggro - Stacker/TnT (with chalices/TangleWires/Spheres?)
Workshop Prison/Control - Stax/Welder Mud
Combo-Control: Dragon and Tog
Control - Phid and Keeper

and no MORE than 25% pure combo.  Once you reach about that threshold you have some serious coinflipping in the matches.

It's pure combo that makes things bad, not Workshops.

steve\n\n

[Triple_S]

I'd say that is one of the best and concise characterizations of the overall metagame I've heard.  Once LED is taken out of the equation through restriction, and pure combo is somewhat stunted, the metagame should be a much  more enjoyable enviroment.

[Smmenen]

Thank you shane   I spend too much time thinking about these things.  Glad you liked the article too .

Steve

[Bastian]

Quote It's pure combo that makes things bad, not Workshops.

I played workshop decks long enough to know that they can easily make some winning play on their first two turns, and that with Chalice of the Void they can pull out something good enough for the opponent to scoop between turn 1-3. It may not win immediatly, but it can easily make a winning move just as early as a combo deck can.

[K-Run]

That was a great read, Steve. Congrats on this high-quality article.

The way I see it, you take a very rigourous look at the situation in Vintage and I like that kind of approach. Your analysis is well done and on point. On the other hand, Oscar's article brings another point of view : the feelings of the players concerning the fun they have playing the game.

I think we need to embrace both visions (Magic as a fun, competitive game) to get a satisfying answer to today's problem : the visible feeling of boredom coming from a significant number of players.

The problem is the broken mana acceleration NEEDED to get past the format's true offender : Mana Drain. That acceleration allows too many broken starts, decreasing player interactivity, hence skill and, to some extent, deck design, the factors I personally prefer in Magic - and I guess I'm not the only one - at the profit of luck.

I agree that I've been more vocal about Workshop's restriction than about any other card. In retrospect, I think I should've made more comments about the other mana accelerators and Mana Drain, as restricting a single of them is totally useless and crazy. For example, Prison *needs* Workshop, otherwise it gets raped by Mana Drain badly.

Competitive objectives cannot lose anything from these suggested restrictions, since a longer game implies more decisions (playing skills) and a broader metagame allows for more deck/sideboard innovation (deckbuilding skills).

For the moment, since a new T1-significant set is out, I'll wait and see. Despite the arrival of a new strong disruption card, I'm afraid that broken starts will still be frequent due to the presence of mana accelerators and Mana Drain in our format.

[doublej20]

Quote (K-Run @ Oct. 22 2003,23:47)I think we need to embrace both visions (Magic as a fun, competitive game) to get a satisfying answer to today's problem : the visible feeling of boredom coming from a significant number of players.

The problem is the broken mana acceleration NEEDED to get past the format's true offender : Mana Drain. That acceleration allows too many broken starts, decreasing player interactivity, hence skill and, to some extent, deck design, the factors I personally prefer in Magic - and I guess I'm not the only one - at the profit of luck.

I agree that I've been more vocal about Workshop's restriction than about any other card. In retrospect, I think I should've made more comments about the other mana accelerators and Mana Drain, as restricting a single of them is totally useless and crazy. For example, Prison *needs* Workshop, otherwise it gets raped by Mana Drain badly.

Competitive objectives cannot lose anything from these suggested restrictions, since a longer game implies more decisions (playing skills) and a broader metagame allows for more deck/sideboard innovation (deckbuilding skills).

For the moment, since a new T1-significant set is out, I'll wait and see. Despite the arrival of a new strong disruption card, I'm afraid that broken starts will still be frequent due to the presence of mana accelerators and Mana Drain in our format.

K-Run, I respect your opinions, but how on earth can you be concerned about 'the visible feeling of boredom coming from a significant number of players'? Have you not ever played against Parfait, your own creation? There is nothing BUT boredom playing against a deck that masterbates and massages its deck for 45 minutes before playing a win condition. I would MUCH rather play against combo, control, and Workshop decks all day than a single game against Parfait, as would almost every other player I know and play with. I am not joking about this.

Mana Drain is not a problem, it is one of the staples of the Blue mage that helps keep combo from being ridiculously dominant, and makes decks pay for using overpriced cards, keeping them in check. It is kind of like a single card system of check and balance for Type 1.\n\n

[dandan]

Old school vs. New school?

The truth is, I'm an old school player. I enjoy thinking about the days when other people were so bad that I was better, I enjoy thinking about winning tournaments with Sedge Trolls, Erg Raiders, sideboarded Dragon Whelp, Kismet (different deck!), Nova Pentacle, Xira Arian, 4 Stripmines (because I could) and Power Sink.

You know what?

Those days are gone.

Pandora's Box has been opened.

Smmenen is right, the fundamental turn is turn 2 (in those games that reach that far anyway) and not just in one combo deck. A restriction or two won't/can't change that. Neither could a banning or two.

Start by thinking about how Type I could be slowed down.

Ban Lotus
Ban Moxen
Ban those other things with Mox or Lotus in their title.
Ban LED
Ban Sol Ring
Ban Tolarian Academy
Restrict Mishra's Workshop
Restrict Dark Rutual

Does that sound like a format you want to play? (hell, even Sligh would be competitive again) You'd see Black Vise and Sinkholes punishing the slow starts, maybe someone would try to combo with ESG, Channel and artifacts leading to more restrictions, Mana Drain would be huge but there would still be combos. How close is that format to Type 1.5, even to Extended? How slow are those formats?

Evolution only works in one direction...

[Drogo]

Quote (Smmenen @ Oct. 21 2003,22:40)Almost none of the decks win consistently on turn two except for long.   Dragon is generally better and while dragon wins alot (20% of the time or so) on turn 2, and Diceman claims an average of turn three.  I actually think the average is probably like 3.65 or something like that becuase there are so many games where you intentionally draw the game out and so the average skews strongly upward.  

I'm not sure about those numbers, I think Dragon is a lot closer to turn 2 than turn 3.   Just looking at two reports on TMD (Bebe in TO and Hawk in Dulmen) I get an average kill of 2.3* for Hawk and 2.6 for Bebe (Unpowered!!).  

* There was one game he could have won on turn 2 but chose to win by reanimatinng opponents critters instead.  I counted that as a 2.  Also one game where I couldn't really tell if he won on turn 3 or 4, I think it was 3 so I counted it as 3.  

Tony

[Matt The Great]

Ban every card that ebays for over $65 or so and the fundamental turn would slow down by about 1. There's no assurance it would stay there, though.

Certainly no restrictions will slow the format considerably.

[erik]

Witty sarcasms aside, noone has come up with a real argument as to why the type of decks traditionally known as "aggro" has to be a part of the metagame. People usually bring up the old rock-paper-scissors analogy, failing to realize that it is a description of the intra-relations between certain decks, NOT a scheme for what Magic should look like. As I wrote previously, Alpha might have been the first set but it is not holy scripture. If we are going to talk about fundamentals, the vision of Magic being flexible and ever-changing overshadows the "creature decks has to be good" idea.

To say that you need creatures to have a game of "offensive and defensive strategy" is so ignorant that I'm baffled to see it coming from a paragon. In every single game, one deck has to assume the role of beatdown. That's the Tao of Magic. I've had some of the best strategic games of my life between creatureless decks because of the mental challenge involved, and to be honest I think that this is what has traditionally drawn so many good players towards playing designated control decks.

The remark about "Timmy-style players with their Morphlings" actually has a kernel of truth though. As we all know, Morphling has long been replaced by much faster and more effective killconditions like Psychatog and Tendrils. Like Counterspell vs. Mana drain and Juzam djinn vs. Nantuko shade it doesn't necessarily mean that the replaced card is "bad" per se, but simply suboptimal. Given the evolutionary process and the rules of the format (no cards rotate out) this is what HAS to happen, the survival of the fittest. What I'm asking you is why this shouldn't apply to a card like jackal pup (Oscars' favourite example), and on a larger scale 'Aggro' as a whole'? If I was going to play a deck whose goal is to win fast via creatures, why would I settle for a 2/1 on turn one when I can have a 5/3, or a 12/12 on the next? Like I said before, get Workshops, get Masks or stop pretending like tournament magic is some sort of love-in where inferior cards/decks are on the same level as the optimal ones.

What we have now is a format where last years' innovation and deckbuilding has almost made us catch up with the enormous cardpool we have to work with, given the current B&R list. It's all really simple, and I'm puzzled as to why so many seem unable to grasp this. In terms of speed and efficiency: T1 > 1.5 > 1.x > T2 > Block. You complain about a fundamental turn two but what do you people honestly expect? Whe have cards like LED, Workshop, Mask and Dark Ritual as well as one of every R&D mistake ever made...anything less than that would be a disgrace. The tempo is even lowered now that Chalice kicks in. But one thing will not change; the archetypes formerly known as 'Aggro' and and it's twin 'Budget' are dead and buried...

[LoA]

I don't think too many would dispute erik's point, but I have to wonder if it's good for the long-term health of the format.  Type 1 is getting a lot of attention lately, and this is good.  Sadly, the current meta mirrors some of the worst metas of years gone by (Academy, Necro, Trix).  There is no doubt that people should play with the best cards available and there is no rule that Jackal Pup needs to be good for the format to be healthy.

However, when a single deck becomes the standard bearer of the format and that deck can win on turn 2 without much effort, then there is a problem.  This is a game, it should be fun.  It should require skill, practice, and a cardpool too, but it should be a fun field in which to participate.  Flipping coins isn't fun.

I've seen a lot of ideas about which cards should be restricted/banned to fix this problem and I think a lot of cards are on the list because they're broken, but that's no reason to ban cards in Type 1.  

Yawgmoth's Will has been in the format for a long time and while it can swing games and do crazy things, it was manageable (in a Type 1 sort of way).  

Memory Jar has been in a few decks for ages, I'm surprised to see this suggested to be honest.  

I would support restricting Lion's Eye Diamond.  This card's interaction with other cards in the format makes it too good in multiples.

Yawgmoth's Bargain is in the same category as LED.  I think the format would be fine with restricted Bargain and unrestricted Dark Ritual, but Rector changes the balance of things.  I would ban Bargain simply because there are too many ways of fetching it and, let's be honest, it's a silly card.

When Hurkyl's Recall was unrestrcited, I predicted it would make a significant impact on the game.  With the storm mechanic, I think it's still fairly open to abuse.  However, I'll withhold judgement until I see how Chalice affects the format.

[Ric_Flair]

Quote But one thing will not change; the archetypes formerly known as 'Aggro' and and it's twin 'Budget' are dead and buried...

Aggro does not equal budget.  If TnT is "budget" for you then I would like to offer my services as a butler, or perhaps I can be your driver and drive your Ferraris around.  Also non-budget aggro:  Optimal Gro decks (3 Moxen, Ancestral, Timewalk), Virtual Insanity/Stupid Madness (4 Bazaar, 1 Lotus, 3 Moxen, 1 Ancestral, 1 Timewalk), Mask (4 Mask, various assortments of Moxen and Lotus).  These are very expensive decks.  Most of them are aggro or control/aggro.  Not every aggro deck out there is Stompy, Sligh and Sui.  Maybe it is time that you put the antiquated notions of aggro behind you.

Quote Witty sarcasms aside, noone has come up with a real argument as to why the type of decks traditionally known as "aggro" has to be a part of the metagame. People usually bring up the old rock-paper-scissors analogy, failing to realize that it is a description of the intra-relations between certain decks, NOT a scheme for what Magic should look like.

The problem with this thinking is that you are confusing "old school" preferences with game balance.  The rock/paper/scissors metaphor is not a description of people's favorite metagame, but the description of a good and balanced metagame.  In the ideal metagame, all of the deck types, generalized into the three superarchetypes of aggro, combo, and control, are viable.  Why should any one deck archetype be superior?  Variety and change is at the heart of the game.  This three way struggle for supremacy is fun.  It allows for more decks and more creative decks into the top tiers.  If aggro checks control which checks combo which checks aggro, we have a situation in which deck type is important but skill is paramount.  In a balanced metagame where checks and balances are in place, skilled players rise to the top.  When one archetype is dominant, the ability for less skilled players to rise to the top with more ease.  

Look at Block formats where one archetype is dominant.  The PTs won in those situations were one by people that have had little repeat success.  MBC, 6 of the top 8 were awful and never played again.  When combo was dominant in UBC the only repeat winner was the cheater Casey McCarrel.  In short, the more imbalanced the format, the less skill has to do with winning.

With the power level of Vintage being so high it is possible when one deck is dominant for even bad players to "poop" out accidental wins.  This balance is more important in Vintage because games are over so quickly.  With one deck type being so much better than the others luck and netdecking play are larger role in winning than skill.

As such a balanced format is good for all gamers who play because the game is skilltesting.\n\n

[SliverKing]

Quote (erik @ Oct. 23 2003,10:32)Witty sarcasms aside, noone has come up with a real argument as to why the type of decks traditionally known as "aggro" has to be a part of the metagame.

To say that you need creatures to have a game of "offensive and defensive strategy" is so ignorant that I'm baffled to see it coming from a paragon.

Why must aggro be a part of the metagame?  For the same reason that prison and combo should be as minimal as possible... because its what people find enjoyable.  

Yes I realize that some people enjoy combo, some people enjoy being sadistic prison playing bastards.  I realize some people are just builders looking to be the one that breaks something...

however,  and wizards own data will back me up on this,  the MAJORITY of players find the game more enjoyable with high interaction. Combo has none (unless you count Duress/FOW);  nor does prison.    No matter how much any person or group enjoys breaking a format... and good for them if they can, job well done...   it hurts the game in the long run if left unchecked.  If people arent having fun they will put down the cards and find a new hobby... congratulations you havent broken the format, you've killed it.  

RE:  needing creatures to have offense and defense, you need to double check the original post.   Nothing said you HAD to have creatures to have offense and defense in a game... the point was that if a game is (functionally) over by turn 2 where is the strategy? where is the ebb and flow? the balance of offense vs defense, the fight?  "Hey I'm going off,  do you have  a Force?" "yeah, Big D pulls through!!!!"  thats some mind blowing intricate shit right there.

[jpmeyer]

Quote (Matt The Great @ Oct. 23 2003,09:40)Ban every card that ebays for over $65 or so and the fundamental turn would slow down by about 1. There's no assurance it would stay there, though.

Certainly no restrictions will slow the format considerably.

Yeah, maybe.

For a LONG time Extended has had a lower fundamental turn than Type 1.  In fact, I'd say before the most recent restrictions, the fundamental turn had been turn 2 since 1999--and that's in a format with no Moxes, no Dark Ritual, and no Mishra's Workshop.

[Rakso]

Quote (erik @ Oct. 23 2003,07:32)What we have now is a format where last years' innovation and deckbuilding has almost made us catch up with the enormous cardpool we have to work with, given the current B&R list. It's all really simple, and I'm puzzled as to why so many seem unable to grasp this. In terms of speed and efficiency: T1 > 1.5 > 1.x > T2 > Block. You complain about a fundamental turn two but what do you people honestly expect? Whe have cards like LED, Workshop, Mask and Dark Ritual as well as one of every R&D mistake ever made...anything less than that would be a disgrace. The tempo is even lowered now that Chalice kicks in. But one thing will not change; the archetypes formerly known as 'Aggro' and and it's twin 'Budget' are dead and buried...

Just like in 1999.

[MoreFling]

Quote (jpmeyer @ Oct. 23 2003,17:42)For a LONG time Extended has had a lower fundamental turn than Type 1.  In fact, I'd say before the most recent restrictions, the fundamental turn had been turn 2 since 1999--and that's in a format with no Moxes, no Dark Ritual, and no Mishra's Workshop.

Exactly! And right now, it doesn't even seem to be much better, since the new Tinker decks, Goblin Recruiter + Belcher decks, and stuff like Alluren are all set up on turn 2, to take it home on turn 3. So maybe 1.x is a full turn slower than T1, but not much slower.

Let's face it, the fundamental turn will never be turn 3. If it isn't in 1.x, how will it EVER be in T1?

I think people are focussing too much on the fundamental turn terminoligy, and should be focusing more on the % of reliable combo decks / part of the metagame is available. With less reliable combo decks present, games would last a lot longer in the first place. Bah, I don't even feel like elaborating, since it's not worth it for like 80% of the readers  

[Smmenen]

Quote (SliverKing @ Oct. 23 2003,08:28)

Quote (erik @ Oct. 23 2003,10:32)Witty sarcasms aside, noone has come up with a real argument as to why the type of decks traditionally known as "aggro" has to be a part of the metagame.

To say that you need creatures to have a game of "offensive and defensive strategy" is so ignorant that I'm baffled to see it coming from a paragon.

Why must aggro be a part of the metagame?  For the same reason that prison and combo should be as minimal as possible... because its what people find enjoyable.  

Yes I realize that some people enjoy combo, some people enjoy being sadistic prison playing bastards.  I realize some people are just builders looking to be the one that breaks something...

however,  and wizards own data will back me up on this,  the MAJORITY of players find the game more enjoyable with high interaction. Combo has none (unless you count Duress/FOW);  nor does prison.    No matter how much any person or group enjoys breaking a format... and good for them if they can, job well done...   it hurts the game in the long run if left unchecked.  If people arent having fun they will put down the cards and find a new hobby... congratulations you havent broken the format, you've killed it.  

RE:  needing creatures to have offense and defense, you need to double check the original post.   Nothing said you HAD to have creatures to have offense and defense in a game... the point was that if a game is (functionally) over by turn 2 where is the strategy? where is the ebb and flow? the balance of offense vs defense, the fight?  "Hey I'm going off,  do you have  a Force?" "yeah, Big D pulls through!!!!"  thats some mind blowing intricate shit right there.

Your entitled to your view - just don't pollute tournament changes by imposing your views on others.  The DCI does not change type two because people don't like deck X.

Btw, how fun is it to have every spell countered by mono blue?  Or if not countered removed and then watch a control player draw a billion cards while you sit there helpless.

Losing sucks no matter how you look at it - against combo, control, or prison.

You are just heavily biased against combo and prison becuase you love control and you won't even admit it.

Bias is everywhere - but no one can see it.

Steve

[Smmenen]

Quote (MoreFling @ Oct. 23 2003,08:53)

Quote (jpmeyer @ Oct. 23 2003,17:42)For a LONG time Extended has had a lower fundamental turn than Type 1.  In fact, I'd say before the most recent restrictions, the fundamental turn had been turn 2 since 1999--and that's in a format with no Moxes, no Dark Ritual, and no Mishra's Workshop.

Exactly! And right now, it doesn't even seem to be much better, since the new Tinker decks, Goblin Recruiter + Belcher decks, and stuff like Alluren are all set up on turn 2, to take it home on turn 3. So maybe 1.x is a full turn slower than T1, but not much slower.

Let's face it, the fundamental turn will never be turn 3. If it isn't in 1.x, how will it EVER be in T1?

I think people are focussing too much on the fundamental turn terminoligy, and should be focusing more on the % of reliable combo decks / part of the metagame is available. With less reliable combo decks present, games would last a lot longer in the first place. Bah, I don't even feel like elaborating, since it's not worth it for like 80% of the readers  

I don't think i have ever agreed more with you than in this statement rudy.  you are DEAD on.

People also need to look out how consistent prison is as well without looking at fundamental turn.  It's partly my fault in that I used the phraseology in my article, a strategic mistake which played into Oscar's rhetoric - which was extremely powerful.  Unfair becuase Oscar had plenty of time to read my article before making his own    It's unfortunate becuase i feel so strongly that if things go other than as I hope, it would be a unparalled, unmitigated wholesale disaster for the format.

Steve\n\n