The state of the format

[Azhrei]

What I am aiming at is to say "I am a better player" is really to say "I have more experience and knowledge as a player." By re-examining what it means to be skilled (and not necessarily to HAVE skill,  e.g. some inherent quality), I want to demonstrate that the game has a constant amount of skill at work regardless of how long games go, how many turns are taken, or how much direct player interaction is involved. Skill is linked to player choices, and because luck plays a factor sooner than later does not mean the format is better or worse, because luck is the deciding factor in most games once the initial hand has been drawn. Skill is what happens before that.

[Saucemaster]

@ Azhrei:  Oh!  Well then I totally misread your original post.  I am in complete and total agreement with you, then.

[Bastian]

[/QUOTE]... mean that, because of the unlimited cardpool, the format will one day reach a critical mass where the sheer number of cards produces decks which are too good.

I think that the last time we saw a "critical mass" where we started having too many broken cards and decks to handle was during combo winter, when the Urza Block was being released (Urza's Saga, Legacy and Destiny). But even with the wide ammount of combo decks that were available at the time restrictions and bannings soon followed. I doubt that they would ever let something like this happen again, and if some deck starts becoming too good (like it happened with 4-necro trix, gro-a-tog) they'll keep it in check by restricting its key cards (even if sometimes they are as stupid as to restrict cards like entomb or earthcraft...) but I think the format is pretty much in check.

Perhaps type 1 will die when Magic goes, hopefully from many years from now on. It won't go on forever... but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy it as long as it lasts.
In the worst case scenario the format doesn't die, but it gets forgotten because there's a limited number of power printed and not everyone will always have access to it, but there have always been people selling their old cards away, right?

I think that we shouldn't worry too much with these things but rather just keep them in check so we can take whatever actions we can to protect the format. Otherwise... just be cool:)

[Zharradan]

Quote (Fever @ July 01 2003,02:43)Does this mean you would support the printing of an Anthologies-like set containing all the power cards?

I certainly would.
I've always been of the opinion that this is a game - if you want a secure investment perhaps you should look into long bonds. I have no sympathy for those that complain that it would devalue their collection (and I don't believe that it would, anyway - people still pay more for Alpha than Unlimited, for example... it's not like new prints (with the new face or new art, etc) would make the existing old power worthless overnight).

[Milton]

First and formost, there is this nonsense about reprinting cards.  It will not make our format more acceptable.  It will not be good for the game.  It would be horrible for shops that have purchased P9 cards at high prices.  It will crush our stores that support T1 and hold T1 tournaments and carry T1 cards.

Also, there are many more restricted cards, powerful cards, old cards, necessary cards than there are competitive T1 players.  Across the whole world how many competitive T1 players are there?  2000?  3000?  There are more than 3000 Black Lotuses and Moxes out there.  If you want to compete, get the cards.  It's not that hard!  Reprinting will crush our game, a major component of which is collecting.  No standard player can compete without getting the good cards.  T1 players shouldn't expect to be different.  

Second, T1 is about one thing: YOUR METAGAME!  Everyone around here talks about the metagame.  The mythical, elusive metagame in which everyone has power, everyone is greatly skilled, everyone has a first turn whatever.  That's not reality.

How healthy is the game?  It depends on how healthy your metagame is.  Mine is great.  There are more T1 tournaments than ever before.  There are more T1 players investing in cards and becoming competitve than ever before.  Matches are becoming more and more complex, which means that play skill becomes more and more of a factor.  Now, more than ever, having power cards counts for less and less.  More players are interested in the format worldwide since the format was created and separated from T2.

Are we on the verge of colapse?  Hell no!  Just as metagames correct themselvs, so to does the huge card pool correct the broken decks.  If anything we haven't been creative enough in finding easy solutions to dominant decks.  Lets go!  The solutions are out there!  

If we are the people that truly love this environment and if we want to act as ambasadors for our format, then lets lead the way.  All to often, on this very damn site, innovative ideas are squashed.  It isn't until something creative is done in Duhlemen or at NG that we bother to react postively.  And, react is the key word.  We are way too reactionary and we aren't very proactive in leading deck design.  Lets do a better job of innovating and fostering free and independent thought, instead of simply reacting to tournaments and saying "well, that would never win in a good metagame" or "well, everyone at that tournament must have been a scrub".

We (most of us, that is) were way behind the curve on Gro.  Embarisingly so.  Pat Chapin should be laughing at us from his cell.  We were way behind the curve on Gush.  We were way behind the curve on TnT, and Ductape.  Let's go!  Innovate.  

It seems to me that we as a community have the ability to completely change the metagame.  Our members have gotten things restricted, for Christ sake!  If we can do that, then we can find a solution for dominant aggro-combo-control decks.

[dicemanX]

A few thoughts:

I think you guys worry way too much about reaching the so called "critical-mass". First of all, that might not happen for a very long long time, especially if current sets offer little to the T1 environment like they have done for quite a while now.  Secondly, there is nothing that cannot be fixed, either through mass restrictions, or bannings. For now, outright banning of any card is unneccessary, and furthermore Wizards does not like to make any non-ante card completely unplayable competitively. However, for the health of the environment, this is something that can be resorted to quite readily. They already did this with Mind Twist at one time.

With respect to diminishing play-skill and player interaction because of decks that bust out starting brokenness and otherwise essentially play themselves, we can name the culprits. They are:

1) Stax/MUD/Ducktape
2) TnT
3) Masknaught/Mask variants like Vengeur Masque
4) Rector-Trix
5) Academy
6) Hulk
7) Keeper (to a lesser extent, since explosive Keeper starts that feature stuff like Balance, Mind Twist, or Future Sight are quite rare)

If we want to put a limit on early game broken plays, which we can all agree will most likely decide the game, all we really need to do is restrict a whole slew of cards. For instance, let's say that we restrict:

Survival
Mishra's Workshop
Illusionary Mask
Academy Rector
Meditate
Cunning Wish
Intuition
Future Sight
Psychatog

Lets ask ourselves: would this bring back player interaction, and extend games beyond the coin flip and starting hands, and thereby improve T1? It would also eliminate the need for newer players to acquire expensive cards beyond the P9, like Workshops or Masks. Oh, and arguing against the expansion of the restricted list because it's "inelegant", or that we should be striving to minimize it, is total bullshit. If we have to put 200 cards on the restricted list because it will create a healthier environment, then that should override all other considerations. And if we have to start banning stuff (leading candidates would be Bargain and Academy, for instance), so be it.

Anyways, are these type of restrictions what we want? Or are we content with the environment right now, with copious amounts of broken early plays and all? I personally haven't made up my mind. I have power and I enjoy pulling off the ridiculous early turn stuff, because to me that's a large part of the appeal of T1. But at the same time, I know that this is very selfish of me, because as Phantom Tape Worm pointed out, it could eventually alienate the newcomers or the have-nots and potentially lead to the death of T1 in your area.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not suggesting that any of these restrictions are by any means necessary. The environment is very diverse (even more so post GAT) and nothing truly dominates. The restrictions are meant to address the sheer brokenness that certain decks can generate, which increases the luck factor and could potentially turn away those players that are unpowered. A minimization of luck and increasing player interaction are what we are after here, through expansion of the restricted list.

[Smmenen]

Mishra's Workshop will never need restriction unless Wizards does something really stupid in Mirrodin.  Stax can never truly dominate a format for very long becuase there is too much effective hate.  Stax shines when it is unexpected.  If any component of a Workshop deck would ever be restricted, it would be Survival.  

Rector and Intuition on the other hand are excellent candidates for abuse and foreseeable restriction targets.  But I doubt that will ever happen.  Who knows?

I would say the July Metagame is going to be very healthy.  I see no reason why you are concerned now.  If anything the concern over the format should  have been in April or May when GAT seemed to be everywhere and very format distorting.  

Your concern is basically a dislike for the fact that Hybrid decks are the future.  Each of the best deck is full of little mini-combos: Intution/AK, Berserk/Tog, Survival/Squee/Incarnations, Cabal Therapy/Rector, Illusions/Donate, Welder/Jar, Meditate/Smokestack/Tangle Wire, Illusionary Mask/ Phyrexian Dreadnaught, and the list goes on and on.  Combos don't mean that there is no interaction.  Casting Berserk on the Tog doesn't require more than removing a few cards and then playing a Spell.  That doesn't mean that the format is unplayable.  

Another thing you have to remember is that REAL environments are not pure combo heavy.  

Steve\n\n

[dicemanX]

Smennen, you are missing the point of my post.

The health of the metagame post July 1st is not at issue here. The dominance (or lack thereof) of any one deck is not at issue. This also has nothing to do with a like/dislike of the fact that "hybrid decks are the future".

What is the issue is the fact that "luck of the draw" has more of an importance these days over play skill and player interaction, because the decks I listed are capable of terribly broken starts that can be impossible to recover from. What you perceive as a "balanced" environment where no deck dominates could very well be because many of the high powered decks have the possibility of getting "lucky" with their starting hands and pretty much winning outright. Mask, RectorTrix, and Stax are the absolute worst when it comes to this problem. All three don't dominate in any powered metagame because they all have major inherent weaknesses, but when they succeed in doing what they are created to do, then its pretty much lights out. If such decks meet in a tournament, then its all about who is luckier. There's your balance right there.

That kind of balance can just suck sometimes. Nevertheless, I'm still not convinced that we need to change anything myself right now, but if we were to solve this problem then the restrictions that I gave as an example would be one possibility.

[Smmenen]

The second part of my post wasn't aimed at you Diceman, I was talking to Tape worm.

 I was pointing out that Hybrid decks don't necessarily mean decreased player interaction.  Some combo's don't take 15 minutes to complete.  Dark Ritual Mask, Naught, go is rather straightforward.  Same with Intuition, and Berserk.  Stax and Rector Trix are the worst offenders, but two examples of hybrid/pure forms in a sea of hybrid's hardly means insufficient player interaction to make T1 bad.

Steve\n\n

[dicemanX]

I'd put more emphasis on the "too much luck" problem in the format rather than the decreased "player interaction".

I also think we are not interpreting "player interaction" the same way. The lack of such interaction has nothing to do with one player sitting there for 15 minutes while the other combos out. It has more to do with the fact that if one of the players gets a broken start, he will most likely win, regardless of the opponent and his deck. For instance, going Ritual-Mask-Naught is pretty much over unless the opponent can "interact" and is fortunate to have FoW/StP. Or combo out faster with his broken deck. But then, to survive a broken play and have a chance of "interacting", one has to get lucky too in turn.

Yeah, this is an oversimplification, but the question is if we can do without decks like Stax/Mask/RectorTrix/Academy altogether and eliminate the massive luck factor that such decks bring to the T1 environment. Incidentally, Wizards already started the ball rolling by restricting Entomb. They did this not because Entombs were part of some dominant deck (Dragon) but because Dragon had arguably the most horrible lucky broken starts that even an unpowered player could pull off.

[SpikeyMikey]

I have to agree with whomever said that unpowered decks are taking a huge hit as of July 1st(tomorrow).  Everybody has been so wrapped up in bitching about 'tog and how hard it is to beat, they don't think about the effect that the loss of GAT is going to have on the metagame.

Look at the other major deck types out there right now, decks like TnT, Mask, Stax, Trix.  These decks do amazing things in the first couple turns that will usually win the game, undisrupted.  Tog does so well against the field because it has an abundance of ways to say no early, even going so far as running a couple Daze.  It also has creatures that can match an early Juggernaught.  It can stop these decks before they get started, but still compete with them if they do get started.  That's what makes it so hard to beat.

There isn't currently an aggro deck that can run the counters to these decks, nor a control deck that runs the creatures to stand toe to toe with TnT or Masknaught.  Gush getting the axe makes 'tog weaker, although Hulk is still viable, but it simply makes these incredibly expensive, fully powered, workshop laden decks all that much better.

I used to play Sligh, and yes, it can win, in fact, Sligh took second at the T1 side at Nat'ls, but it has too many bad matchups to really be considered a solid deck.  TnT is a problem, MaskNaught is a problem, even Stax is a losing matchup.  A good hand from any of these decks is an almost insurmountable problem for Sligh.  The matchups rely too much on them getting a mediocre or bad hand and you getting a good one.  Now that's not hard with Sligh, since it's very redundant, and very consistant, but counting on TnT to get a hand without Survival or 'Core is just kinda stupid.

I'm saying that unpowered decks will have a harder time competing because while it's not hard to board in cards that give you a good shot at beating tog, it's a bit harder to find board room to shore up your matchups against all these other decks that will be more prevelant.

I'm not saying that T1 is going to hell in a handbasket, or that the format will soon die off, it's not, and it won't, but my current deck, which we will classify as aggro for the sake of this argument, runs no basic lands, in fact, it's mana base consists of 8 duals, 2 moxen, 2 cities, a waste, a strip, 3 fetches and 4 tithes.  The mana base for this deck alone can easily cost you over $400 online(figure 10 bucks per dual and fetch, 150 per mox, you're already looking at $410, and I've seen prices go quite a bit higher on E-Bay).  That's not counting the power in the main, the Ancestral, the Timetwister, and the Walk that I would run if I owned one.  Yes, you've only got to buy a mox once, but the way prices are getting, you could play Standard for a couple years for the price it will take you to put together a decent T1 deck.

Proxy tourneys help, but that's not going to cut it forever, prices have been going up, and while some of that is probably due to the fall of the dollar against other currencies, quite a bit of it is due to an increased interest in the format.  I picked up my first Ancestral Recall about a year and a half ago, and payed $120 on a NM Alpha.  Now, I see NM Unlimited Recalls going for $220.  I wish I could say that I have an idea of what to do about this, but honestly, I don't have the solution.

[Azhrei]

Deck quality being equal, the luck of the draw is the single most important factor in Magic. The best decks reduce luck by being very redundant, using a lot of tutors, using a lot of draw spells, or using very broken cards that nullify an opponent's advantage. Skill plays a role before the tournament but not during.

The best decks limit player interaction as much as possible, in fact. Even TnT, a top aggro deck, seeks to win before the opponent can effectively mount a defense or interact (e.g. destroy) its threats. Good decks interact with an opponent through mana denial, card denial (discard or countermagic), and by killing them.

"Better lucky than good" is the truest statement ever made about playing a game of Magic. Anyone who has topdecked a YawgWill knows this; so has anyone who has lost their first three lands to Wastelands.

If you want player interaction as you seem to define it, it is very easy to do: ignore 10 years of theory and knowledge and ignore the fact that mana and cards are what win games. Or, you can play Limited, where there can be no really good decks and there is a ton of interaction.

Budget decks have always been worse than powered decks. This is nothing new. There just happen to be GOOD aggro decks for once, and now people want to cry because they lose in 5 turns instead of in 10. Budget decks don't stand a chance in a fully powered environment unless they get lucky.

Luck > deck quality > player quality.

If "interaction" is for you, Type One isn't. If a game based on mana and card denial and advantage is for you, welcome to the format I have loved since 1996. It hasn't changed one bit, but it tries on new clothes once in a while.

Remember, in 1996 games were decided by who drew LoA or Mind Twist first. At least now there are various ways to go broken. Variety is the spice of life.

[Smmenen]

Darren has just made one of the most correct and important insights on T1 that could be made.  Which is why Surprise and SBs are so important.  Surprises Always tend to do well in T1 if they are powerful. Because an unknown deck design will not face SB or metagame opposition.  


Steve

[Nimrod]

I was talking with Os-V about this earlier on AIM, and I stand to what I said.

Winning takes investment, whatever you are speaking about, be it studies, sports, career, anything. If you aren't going to invest, you can try to do well, but you hardly are going to be the winner. And Im not talking neccesarily about money, but about other resources too, be it time, effort, whatever.

Everything comes with a price tag in the real world, which isnt always payed with money, in this case, mtg, it does to some degree, as it does with most of stuff in the real world.

Remember 2001, the budget decks were Sui, Sligh, and Stompy (and shitty BBS), none of them, except 4 FoF BBS was expected to take major places at tournaments, Sui ocasionally did, but because it was a hate deck (and the correct one for the time, to boot), and even there it was really hard for them to win. Now we have, what? Ankh Sligh, Fish, Sui (which isnt a hate deck anymore). Any of those decks, or the new bugdet decks, are way better and funnier to play with than the older ones, and Sligh nowadays stands a better chance to randomly win a tourney than what it did on 2001. You are claiming this issue to be new and the end of it all. It isnt, it hasnt ever been.

You complain that this decks play themselves, so this means that playing Hulk is more straightforward than playing 2001 Stompy or Sui or anything? People complain about this in every format, be it block, t2, and now even t1. And there is a luck factor there too, people have complained about the luck of the roll in standard and block for years, I dont know how true that has been, but they have done so too about t1, and all this years they have been wrong.

You mention that nowadays the game goes like "I dont go broken, do you?" "yeah" "ok, you win". But isnt quite so, Every top deck out there has some disruption, and packing the right disruption can just win you, or practically win you, the game (say, something to blow the illusions agaisnt Trix). Even in t1 it isnt just like goldfishing, which deck cannot disrupt you anyway? Duress, REB, FoW, Orim's Chant, etc, any deck can potentially screw with you, and even if they didnt, if they just wanted to try and play their own game, you CANT just rely on being broken in your first draw, even academy hasnt done so, why would any other deck?

 There has always been a luck factor, but the Skill factor is way more important, I wanted to prove this to a friend the other day, so I let him play without using the restricted list, so he used God know how many Lotuses and Moxen and shit, and I still beated his ass, with fucking parfait, and he couldnt touch me, then we procceeded to repeat the proccess with different decks. No matter how you define it, there is a skill factor, and it wins games, the issue here is that when players invest enough time and money into the format, they want to play something that can reflect it. What happens when a good, experienced player takes a budget aggro deck? Allow me to remind you about Legend and Sligh, thank you. Skill made that difference, luck didnt make LAS, or its accomplishments for Legend with it.

Also you might be exaggerating in the newbies issue, seems like you dont know how scrubbish most of metas are, even there, no matter the format, anyone who breaks into a competitive tourney or meta with a shitty deck will get his ass kicked badly. He will whine, he will leave, or maybe he will try to do better, its his choice from there, all of us got our ass kicked at some point, and we are still reading this, at the best t1 forum that there is.

I wonder something though, do you think that reprinting power cards would solve things more or less? If not, what? What is the problem behind everything for you? Its all about availability to me, since there will always be scrubs, but Im curious about your opinions.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

@ dante:

Quote Again, if the choice is between 2-3 more years of Type 1 as-is and then it dying out OR having to dumb down the environment to extended-type decks to accomodate having enough players, I'll take the 2-3 years of Type 1 like I like it.

If competitive type 1 is falling into a combo winter like state (which we know is bad for the format), it is my belief that we should take action to correct the problem.  You and i simply have a difference in values, I do not want to see an end to the format and i fear we are headed in that direction if we continue along the path we are on.  I think I am willing to sacrifice a certain amount of brokenness in the format to ensure that it survives as a game.



@ azhrei:

Quote What I am aiming at is to say "I am a better player" is really to say "I have more experience and knowledge as a player." By re-examining what it means to be skilled (and not necessarily to HAVE skill,  e.g. some inherent quality), I want to demonstrate that the game has a constant amount of skill at work regardless of how long games go, how many turns are taken, or how much direct player interaction is involved. Skill is linked to player choices, and because luck plays a factor sooner than later does not mean the format is better or worse, because luck is the deciding factor in most games once the initial hand has been drawn. Skill is what happens before that.

What you are missing is that the skillset involved in player interaction (do i choke when the pressure is on, can i size up my opponent's hand by his body language, can i bluff my opponent into making a fatal error) can be very different from the skillset involved during the deck construction process (knowing what to play, what cards to use in board, estimation of the metagame, knowledge of the rock paper scissors game of magic).  Being a good player and a good deck builder do not necessarily go hand in hand.  And all the practice and familiarity in the world with a given deck will not prevent someone who lacks the "player interaction skills" from choking.

It is the difference between being a good mechanic and being a good race car driver.  Yes, i need to know the ins and outs of my automobile in order to drive it optimally around the track, but i must also have nerves of steel to impliment all of my knowledge under pressure, as well as a slew of other qualities.

In a metagame where player interaction skills are increasingly less meaningful, we lose a HUGE element of the game.  An element that attracts many to not only our format, but magic in general.  When we lose player interaction, we lose many players as we saw during combo winter.  If our format is to grow and flourish we should strive to avoid this state.




@ milton: your enthusiasm is refreshing milton.  But those of us in that mythical metagame you describe where everybody does indeed have power can see that something is brewing on the horizon.

In the past i have always been on the side of "just adapt to your metagame", but when you start to look at the current trends in deckbuilding, you begin to see that the top decks are becoming harder and harder to disrupt, while simultaneously becoming faster (often they are so hard to disrupt because they are so fast) and more consistant.  The top decks are just getting better, so much so that they are decreasing the need for actual play skill.  This is the biggest problem we face since it eliminates the importance of the person playing the deck.




@ smmennen and dicemanx: dicemanX has hit the nail on the head.  Too much luck is exactly what i'm referring to.  In fact, i think everyone should re-read diceman's posts, because he explains perfectly what i am getting at.

[Dante]

Quote (Phantom Tape Worm @ July 01 2003,00:07)@ dante:

Quote Again, if the choice is between 2-3 more years of Type 1 as-is and then it dying out OR having to dumb down the environment to extended-type decks to accomodate having enough players, I'll take the 2-3 years of Type 1 like I like it.

If competitive type 1 is falling into a combo winter like state (which we know is bad for the format), it is my belief that we should take action to correct the problem.  You and i simply have a difference in values, I do not want to see an end to the format and i fear we are headed in that direction if we continue along the path we are on.  I think I am willing to sacrifice a certain amount of brokenness in the format to ensure that it survives as a game.

But I think we disagree on whether it's falling into a combo-like winter.  All of the top decks mentioned can all deal with each other in some way (or play around/try to outrun the other deck).  And I've seen good, long, interactive games with each.

Given that there aren't any broken decks out right now (publically being played), restricting cards as a whole (workshop, rector, cunnish wish, etc) to make the format "more accessible" is absurd.  This is type 1.  If you want accessible, go play type 2 or extended, that's why they were created.

If you start restricting/banning those types of cards, type 1 isn't type 1 anymore, it's some new super-extended format.

As for being selfish, you're right.  I don't love Magic.  I don't love type 2.  I love Type 1.  While many people here like to draft, play standard, etc, the only format I really like is type 1.  There are a lot of players like that.  If type 1 got dumbed down into a pseudo-extended format, it's not an evironment change, it's a format change.  It's not type 1 anymore at that point.

Dante

[Azhrei]

I dream of a day where I can play Magic without interacting with my morbidly obese, unwashed, unkempt, 15 year old opponent, who undoubtedly has long, grime-caked fingernails. Please Lord, send me more blue draw!

Player interaction exists when decks are equal. You play Hulk on Stax, and you have a TON of interaction. You play Hulk on Suicide and you can pretty much phone it in while getting a blowjob and cooking a souffle. Every deck has always been about getting a broken draw-- Mind Twist for 6, Ritual-Necro, LoA... but now more decks can do that more often. It's not a bad thing. I think it's great that there are more good decks than really ever, and that those good decks are better than every overall. It's a very exciting time to be playing. The INCREDIBLE thing is that while Ritual-Necro was almost always game-over, now you can actually OUT BROKEN someone! Think about it. I was facing a turn two Naught a couple weeks ago, and was smacked down to 8 before I played my fourth land. I Walked, Willed, Walked, and WON because I did every single crazy thing you can possibly do. It was awesome. Way, way better than topdecking a Swords or something.

If you insist on bringing skill into it, think about the newest skill needed being "How broken can I make my turn?" Good decks can go VERY broken, and good players choose these decks and then push them to the limit.

I have yet to see anyone saying anything in favor of "interaction" who doesn't sound as if they are saying "I want to keep scrubs playing so I have someone to beat up."

It is irrefutable that the best decks will always be the ones that do not allow the opponent to play their game, be it through resource denial or speed. Competitive Magic is at its best when your opponent isn't getting to play their game. There hasn't been a single deck EVER that was any good that wasn't built upon the idea that the opponent must not be able to do whatever it is they are trying to do. It is never enough to have your strategy be better than the opponent's; you must deny the opponent his strategy entirely. Tournament deck construction absolutely cannot be concerned with whether or not your opponent's feelings get hurt.

Just as there are tiers of decks, there are tiered metagames and tiered players. Just because I'm not Tiger Woods doesn't mean I can't go golfing with my buddies, nor does it mean I can't do well in a small tournament either. If I go to the Masters, I damn sure would expect to get demolished. I'm not about to go challenge Michael Jordan to a game of basketball either. I had a fairly successful career wrestling, but I'm not going to try and pin Brock Lesnar. I accept that some things are out of my league-- and it may not even be skill related. Lesnar, for example, has about 7 inches and a good 100 pounds on me. Even if I were a superior technical wrestler, he'd crush me effortlessly. That's why they have weight classes.

That's also why we have local Timmy tournaments and why we have GenCon and Origins. Combo Winter had a negative impact because Standard was popular and common, and had a readily available card pool. Type One is totally different-- do you know how many BBS decks showed up in Richmond that whole year? ONE, ONCE. People don't always play the best deck, and they don't always play in good environments. You happen to have the unfortunate luck of being in an area where a lot of good players have good decks.

Still, in our testing, games between evenly matched decks will go long as often as they go short-- and go about 50-50 for the most part. That's the truth. Bad decks (or even just slightly worse decks) lose sooner more often, but they also lose almost all their games. That's not a lack of interaction, that's a clear cut strata in which several decks are all evenly matched and evenly good and can combat each other's brokenness effectively, and a bunch of other decks who have to try and play catch-up-- and don't.

So yes, a Babycakes deck will lose to Hulk almost every time and gets no chance to play its game, but how surprising IS that? Stax and Mask get to play, Hulk gets to play, Keeper can play, so can other hybrid decks. Maybe the format isn't becoming less interactive after all-- maybe the bad decks just can't get lucky as often. Remember, luck is what matters the most (you agreed when I said the two blue bluff is a thing of the past because people will play their spells anyway), so decks that can be lucky more often are better. If you want a purely skill based game, play chess. If you want to play Magic, accept that most of your skill goes into picking the cards to use before the tournament and that all the ability in the world can't help if you don't draw a single counterspell in 30 cards. The only way to reduce luck short of rigging everyone's deck is to play with redundancy, tutors, or draw. If you use all three, more power to you because you're less reliant on luck than someone without one of the three.

What is pretty funny is that at a certain point of reduced luck (e.g. consistency), the matchup becomes about which deck is lucky enough to get the least luck-affected cards. That's just how Magic works. It's theory that totally overshoots a lot of people for various reasons, mostly because people don't like to accept that their decks have never really needed them at the helm.

Not to mention most of the top decks win with creatures. I mean, come on. CREATURES. You can't get more interactive than the attack phase, after all.  

If you want to enhance interaction, play Limited. If you want to take away enough consistency so that it becomes a matter of luck of who topdecks what and not who draws what, play Highlander.

I'm getting a real kick out of breaking this news. It's SO true. The things that reduce luck in a deck eventually make luck the only thing that matters. If you take away the aspects of a deck that do this (redundancy, tutors, and draw), you have a deck that is ENTIRELY dependent on luck to draw what it needs. The joke is that luck matters so much in one way and that's supposed to be a problem, and the solution is to make luck matter just as much in a different way. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, but gosh darn it they SOUND different, right?

Luck is practically EVERYTHING during a game. Hone your skills before the tournament, pick the best deck you can, and then hope for the best because all the practice in the world won't save you if you have to triple mulligan for some reason.

p.s. Amen Dante!

[waSP]

I'm constantly perplexed by the affronting arrogance many of the more respected people on this forum.  I respect your opinions, I do, but you care for yourself, and yourself only.  I have access to a good majority of the power and I'm in a similar position to PTW in my metagame.  I play at the same store as Milton, although he only comes to the power tournaments.  I've been with this scene for about a year now, and I've watched it grow immensely.  Originally it was the stereotypical scrubby metagame.  Reanimator and BBS were untouchable, and I was tuning my R/G creatures with toughness greater than 3 deck (to abuse Endangered Armodon).  I remember those days fondly.  Slowly I realized things about my deck, and began to understand magic.  Once I started reading online stuff, playing more, I was able to actually understand what I was doing.  I played a R/G Beatz deck in a 60% powered tournament and won in a sea of blue based control.  TnT had not caught on yet and it was reminiscent of what Azhrei describes as the Keeper owns everything days.  This metagame has grown and evolved since then.  We've gained many more players and the ones that remained have improved immensely.  What is most important is the growth.  Now the FNM's that used to be won by the turn 3 avatar of woe, now are filled with excellent players and good decks.  Everyone isn't powered, in a "perfect metagame" everyone shouldn't be.  There should always be something higher to strive for, or else we are just sitting there playing checkers.  The most important thing is that most of the players come for fun, for community, not to smash face with the greatest deck.  My friend Jon just abandoned Rector Trix because he wasn't enjoying his matches anymore.  There is a wonderful community here, I'm very happy to be a part of it and I hope we can find the solution to the problems an infinite card pool presents.  I don't think that, because we've gotten bored with actual duels, matches should be more about luck than play skill.  I appreciate that the best player will bring the best deck for the metagame, play the deck the best, and ultimately win.  But the best player might also be playing the game for more than to be better than the rest of the field.  I see that as a pathetic reason to play magic.  Meeting challenges set by your peers seems more reasonable.  It's like bringing an academy deck to a field full of t2 stuff.

Before what might be the beginnings of a rant, I respect you Azhrei, but your comments are the strongest, and as they are contradictory to what I feel, the best place to start a reaction.

Quote Azhrei-
I dream of a day where I can play Magic without interacting with my morbidly obese, unwashed, unkempt, 15 year old opponent, who undoubtedly has long, grime-caked fingernails. Please Lord, send me more blue draw!

It sounds that you are disgusted with the players magic attracts.  I'm also disturbed by some of the people I meet at some magic tournaments.  I believe they see it as a refuge against the rest of the world which is cruel to their ilk.  I don't especially like that magic serves that function, I cannot wholly reject it.

Btw Azhrei, casual magic with your friends sounds much more like something you'd enjoy.  Just throw some money in a pot and play your equal decks with your equal skill and let luck take you.

I see your point, but I know that no one is flawless.  Steve claimed that he had found the perfect build of GaT (I believed him), but after Origins completely changed his mind.  Magic is an evolving game that should be based on how your opponents play.  I love playing against either control or aggro, because they allow me to outplay them.  I don't mind playing against combo decks like academy, because I can still outplay them.  Decks like Rector Trix are a problem.  It is an extremely well built deck, but it is somewhat degenerate.  I watched a Rector Trix player make a huge mistake that should have costed him the game.  He was at 2 life, about to lose the game with bargain out.  He payed a life hit will and went off vs. GaT.  It's great how his broken play beat his opponent's broken deck, but I talked to him afterwards, and he felt a little ashamed that he did that.  You may get some release from smashing people, but destroying your peers isn't healthy.

I'll end my thoughts by saying this.  I love this game.  I love winning.  I dislike losing, but if my opponent plays better than me and I lose because of it, I don't piss and moan about power, because I don't bother to play with it.  Instead I shake his hand and ask if he'd like to play another for fun.  If my opponent completely demolishes me without ever bothering to give me a chance to play, I'm a bit annoyed.  These decks ruin the fun involved with magic.  If you parallel it to sports, competing in those sports is fun.  You don't play just to win, because that would be ludicrous.  Players that are worse than you would quit, and by the same logic you would too if someone was better than you.  A healthy metagame isn't only diverse, it has to interactive.  Blue being king is good because it forces interaction, they have to actually decide to counter your spells.

[MoreFling]

Quote (Azhrei @ July 01 2003,05:50)Skill plays a role before the tournament but not during.

Then why do most of the times the (also) good players win the tournaments?

Sure, it's important to metagame correctly, but in the game, there's still decisions to be made, and apart from playtesting a lot, making the right choices at the right time requires a good player.

So I think you are really simplifying things there.

[Hanzalot]

Dante, Azhrei, Milton and Nimrod: I am in complete agreement with you guys.

A couple of points:

1) Budget decks:
How cheap do you expect a deck to be? Buy a mox sapphire and an ancestral recall and play fish - this deck placed second at the Danish Worlds qualifier in a sea of powered GAT, Stax and Mask. Or play Ankh Sligh it just placed first in a 29 player and power heavy tournament in Eindhoven.
Furthermore, if you know your metagame is it really that hard to construct a budget deck that stands a chance? Like for example r/g/b aggro with naturalize, rack and ruin, duress and so on (just a thought...).

In this game cards cost money and the best and rarest cards cost the most. As Milton pointed out it isn't hard to obtain power cards. I don't see any problem in the fact that you have to commit a certain amount of money to play type 1.

And don't forget that you get the unbelievable benefit of being able to sell your cards if you grow tired of them or need the money perhaps even with a surplus. This is a pretty unique aspect of type 1. I seriously doubt that Azhrei will be able to sell his old wrestling suit whether it is "near mint", "good" or whatever   .

*Edit: Sui placed second at Origins, without black lotus...

2) Broken plays:
I think some of you are seriously overstating the brokeness that goes on. Yes it's true that all the top tier decks can do crazy stuff [/I]if they're not disrupted but wtf is wrong about that? If a soccer team chooses not to try to take the ball from the opposing team I'm guessing that there will be a lot of goals scored and besides what decks doesn't play disruption?

ALso some people seem to think that TnT, Mask and Hulk is immune to wastes and duresses and so on. News flash: they really aren't. I don't think I'm the only one to have had my workshop wasted and juggie removed just to sit and stare at my lone land and mox while top decking nothing all the time while my opponent beat me down.

3) Current state of the format (post GAT):
Having played since Weissman's the Deck was king, I could never have hoped to see as many great decks as are currently viable. As someone else pointed out it seems that the ones who miss budget decks want to return to the time when it was Keeper against "mono colored budget hate decks" - surely we are having much fun now than then. Azhrei is dead on when saying that budget decks really aren't worse now than they were 3 years ago when Keeper steamrolled them all (except the most hateful).

4) Reprinting:
One of the great things about magic (which in my world is synonymous with type 1) is that you spend ressources (time and money) to collect the cards for a deck and then play that deck with much more joy than if you could just print out a deck list from TMD and then go to the nearest store and pick up the cards right away at little cost.
I think this card collecting proces is one of the reasons why people in type 1 doesn't just play the best deck. Look at tournament reports to see how many players say something along the lines of: "I'm playing this deck since I got it all foiled" or "I found all these madness cards and decided to give them a try" or "it's in my favorit color combination" etc.

For the last couple of month i've been playing Vengeur Masque not as much because I think it's the deck that gives me the best shot at winning (for my meta, rector trix would probably kick arse) but because it's just so darn fun as well as packing all these cool cards (the art on BoP makes me feel good). It's not even that expensive (5 power cards, masks and 4 duals) and is certainly competetive.

I think reprinting power cards would narrow the format and make it more hateful since sideboards could be much more focused at hating the top decks. If everyone has power then I'll make a crappy, boring hate deck that brings in 12 cards against GAT (pre july 1st) instead of playing a cool mask deck that does its own thing. My 8 blasts will provide more "interaction" but is that really all that positive?

anyways i hope this made sense...In relation to the current state of type 1 i'm really just "one happy camper" (as Pat Bateman would have put it).

[Azhrei]

Lol, at one Extended PTQ a while back one of my friends played against a guy so disgustingly dirty that he actually made his deck smell. No joke. By touching my friend's cards, he passed on an odor so rank that he ended up having to throw away the sleeves. It was unbelievable.

I've played Magic very rarely since November. What happened was basically that I got sick of playing Keeper because there were other decks that were comparably good. I like to play the absolute best deck possible, so I wasn't having fun. I asked JP to build me a Psychatog deck since I'd heard a lot about it in all the other formats and thought it might be fun. It came back Ub, and the rest is history. I have a deck I enjoy playing again.

You're absolutely right though; I'd much rather have 7 friends over and run a tournament in my basement 80% of the time, if I even feel like playing at all. However, as much as I focus on winning at a tournament, while I'm there I laugh more than anybody and goof around with people regardless of game state. I've never thrown my cards or anything of the sort out of frustration. Because my focus in on building the best deck I can, if I have done that I don't care about bad luck because I accept that luck is inevitable. Sometimes you just don't draw a third land, or whatever. No biggie. My enjoyment of Magic comes solely from deck theory and from the friends I have made through the game; if I never played again I'd be fine.

Oh, and good players will generally win because they have experience from before the tournament and have selected a deck with which they are comfortable and minimizes the luck factor.

Let me explain it another way:

To illustrate my point: say we had a Paragons Invitational. We all had a limitless card pool and could pick whatever deck we wanted to play, and then played a round-robin tournament where everyone played everyone else. Since we are all on more or less an equal playing field in terms of understanding Magic, our in-game abilities should not affect the outcome of the matches. What would affect the outcome would be the decks used in question (Sligh will not beat Mask, Suicide will not beat TnT, etc.) and luck (who went nuts first, who got YawgWill, who got active LoA, etc.). Skill would only be a factor in choosing what deck and which list to play, and after that I'd wager that in 10 matches 9 of them would be decided purely by luck of the draw or the topdeck.

I'd also wager that this would hold true using the available card pool for any point in time in Magic's history.

Luck rules Magic.

[dicemanX]

There is so much stuff discussed here that has nothing to with Phantom Tape Worm's initial post. Despite Azhrei's rather long winded and often meandering thoughts (which have apparently dipped into other areas like body odor) the heart of the matter is right here:

Quote Every deck has always been about getting a broken draw-- Mind Twist for 6, Ritual-Necro, LoA... but now more decks can do that more often. It's not a bad thing. I think it's great that there are more good decks than really ever, and that those good decks are better than every overall. It's a very exciting time to be playing.

The bolded sentences are my doing, because these are the very points of contention.

1) The fact that many MORE decks can have broken starts, at *very early* stages in the game, is not necessarily a good thing.

2) This is not necessarily a very exciting time to be playing because of #1.


Azhrei, nobody disputes that Magic isn't mainly about luck, or that the best decks strive to eliminate player interaction altogether. You are stating the obvious here. The question is a matter of degree. This format in the past has always been one where luck plays a major role, but not to the degree that it does currently (with the obvious exception of the times when Academy and Necro combo decks dominated).

[Os-Vegeta]

Nimrod hit the nail on the head.  He said a nice amount of what I wanted to say and more.  

I would like to say a couple things, though, that I brought up when I discussed this topic with Nimrod, as well as other things that I didn't think about at the time.  Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not seeing PTW, Fever, and others bitching about the possible "combo-winter"-like situation happening right now, but instead I see them worrying about what could happen years down the road.  I worry about that too, as I enjoy Vintage too much to lose it.  Right now though, I don't see anything that is really worth complaining about.  If it's that budget decks cannot compete with the upper tier decks, I have two things to say:

1) It's an uphill fight for budget decks.  It's always been that way from what I've observed.  Skill plays just as big of a role when piloting these decks, thus the reason why the budget decks are often associated with newbies who can't play well yet - they don't have the money for an upper tier deck, and they don't have the skill developed yet to pilot any deck well enough.  Legend did well with Sligh, a budget deck, because he had all the skill necessary to pilot whatever he wanted to pilot.  I can understand, though why some of the good, experienced players who only have the money to pilot budget decks could be worried.  

2) Budget decks really are looking like they're not even trying to adapt.  Sui really hasn't changed much at all from a year ago, and Sligh really hasn't changed a whole lot either besides Ankh.  Keeper and TnT builds, however, have undergone quite a few changes over the past year, and Mask has grown into a few different, very competitive decks.  It's because of this that I've really kept my own focus on working with budget decks.  (Yes, I am working on quite a few different builds as we speak.)  In any case, the upper tier decks like Hulk, Stax, Keeper, and Mask will be better than the budget decks strictly because they can go broken more often than the other decks out there.  That's why they're so good.  However, not every good player can have access to every card he or she desires - life isn't fair, and costs in Magic isn't either.  It's just a fact of existence.                
    
Skill still does play a very important role in this game, though luck is as important.  Skill, to me, is partly what Azhrei says it is - testing, deckbuilding, and prepping before a tournament and choosing the deck that one will be most comfortable piloting in a said tournament metagame, be it Origins or Uncle Buck's Comics.  Though this is just my opinion, there is more to it, as Nimrod said.  His example of Legend's success with Sligh really said much of what I wanted to say, and it is because of this that I have come to a conclusion.  

Skill matters a lot, except when you're in an environment full of people on the same skill level as you, like Origins or Vintage Worlds.  There, it just matters a little less, as luck will play more of a role.  Skill still does tie in, as it was shown on Day 3 of Origins.  The Keeper player who took first place not only had the amount of skill to know how and why to tune his deck, but he had the experience (which is a huge part of skill, in my opinion) to know the when's and why's of playing what against which deck.  Luck does not do all of that, though I cannot refute that luck played a role at all.

The point I'm trying to make is that "Skill" and "Luck" are like Yin and Yang.  They are to work together in harmony.

Regarding reprints:  I'm all for them.  I believe that they would make Vintage more appealing and maybe even a little easier to get into if an Anthologies-like set was printed.  Now what about the older power, etc...?  Well, it's my opinion that the argument that reprinting power will cause older power to become virtually worthless is really an empty argument.  There still will be players out there who want the original power, and collectors will still desire Beta moxen.  The store owners will not lose out on their investments, as when the newer players and even current players get more money they will most likely want to do what many players already do - pimp out their decks.\n\n

[David Hernandez]

Rakso always says "this is type-1...broken things happen."

I agree with Azhrei that skill goes into building the deck, however I believe that there is also "play-skill".  I see this as the ability to strategize, theorize, and apply your knowledge of the players, the cards, and your deck to the point that you can defeat an opponent.

I agree that "Luck" plays a big part in MTG, because (unless you're cheating) you don't have any guarantee of a good draw.  However, after using skill to construct a deck to minimize the luck factor, "play-skill" (as I described above) must be used.  

Truly good players will look at their cards and will know how to manipulate them for maximum advantage.  You must have skill to know when to play certain cards, and when NOT to play them.  Or when to play them in a certain order, whether that is to give you more advantage or in order to bluff the opponent.

While both skill-types are necessary and different, they are intertwined so that they blend.  A skillful player with a well constructed deck can win games that others lose, simply because they know how things work.  Creativity is NOT lost in this game--not in deckbuilding, and not in game play either.

I think that the Type-1 environment is the best it's been for a long time.  Even with GAT, there are plenty of powerful decks available that are good to play in tournaments.  What I mean is, it's not like the black-summer we had when all decks were either Necro or Anti-Necro.  

Now we have to account for "broken things happening" in a variety of ways, and we need to build decks (and play them well) so that we can stop the opponent and then do broken things ourselves.

The "luck factor" is not a negative aspect of the game--it's what makes the game "magic".  It's what gives you a rush when you're about to lose to a weenie horde, and you draw Balance.  

I think that "Luck" is often good fortune that finds it's way to someone who is prepared to receive it.

By the way, I am not against reprinting, but I am concerned that if they ever did it (or allowed proxy's in sanctioned tourneys) there would be less incentive to be creative in building decks.  I think the environment might suffer because players would be less motivated to build newer technology.

Edit to avoid double-posting: I would also welcome proxy's in sanctioned tournaments, if they held it to two proxy's in a deck (which includes the sideboard).  That would allow most players to put a lotus and ancestral in their deck, or complete the missing power.  It would also protect the collectible  market by encouraging the purchase of the other cards.

--Dave.

[Matt The Great]

Quote I can understand, though why some of the good, experienced players who only have the money to pilot budget decks could be worried.  

Damn straight. No one is complaining that type one costs money - it's the sheer AMOUNT of money that's the sticking point.

I'm not a rich guy. I have enough money to throw a few dollars here and there on this game, but I can't imagine being able to just go out and buy Power cards. Without reprints, I will never own a Mox. I will never be able to build the most fun decks in Magic.

I also cannot afford the hottest type two decks right now - right now. But in awhile, the price on those Urza's Rages and Necropotences and Upheavals will fall, and I can eventually own them.

The price on Power cards keeps going up and up. Barring some windfall, like winning the lottery - which I do not play - I will never be able to afford them.

Life isn't fair, but when people call for reprints, they are trying to MAKE it fair. Standing in the way of that is tantamount to hailing life for being unfair. I'm at the top of the hill and I will be cold and buried before I'll give you a helping hand up.

Also, to a certain extent, budget decks cannot adapt. A Sligh deck only has so much it can do before it exhausts its options. You really, really need access to multiple colors - dual lands - to make any meaningful adaptation.\n\n

[Dante]

Quote (Matt The Great @ July 01 2003,14:01)Also, to a certain extent, budget decks cannot adapt. A Sligh deck only has so much it can do before it exhausts its options. You really, really need access to multiple colors - dual lands - to make any meaningful adaptation.

True (on the only doing so much in a budget deck), but if you can't afford 4-5 fetch and 4 duals in your collection..well...sorry.  8 x $8 = $64 investment to run a second color.  

Dante

[Smmenen]

MTG, I was thinking along similar lines.  I mean Sligh can easily splash Green now with Fetchlands.  If you are in a heavy stax field, I see no excuse not to.  You get Artifact Mutation for both TnT AND Stax.  And even naturalize, should you want it.  

Even Suicide black can splash for Blood Moon and Red Blasts using 4 Mires and 4 Badlands.  Fetchlands have made it possible.  

Steve

[Matt The Great]

I would have replied to this sooner, but the boards were down.

Well, yeah. That $64 is a high, but not unreasonable amount to spend. The problem is when the requirment to play a deck starts to push $500 (non-'pimped out'!) it becomes totally ridiculous, and unattainable to anyone who isn't pretty damn affluent*. And the best decks regularly break that figure. Hanzalot said something like "[Vengeur Mask] is not even that expensive (5 power cards, masks and 4 duals)". ONLY five power cards, AND Masks?

It would be alright if the budget versions of the best decks were still playable, as is the case with Suicide or Sligh (you don't NEED your Mox and Lotus to win, it just makes the deck better). But there is no point in playing TNT without the moxen and workshops. There is even less point to playing Stax without those selfsame ultra-rares. Any kind of control blue deck loses half its power when its Power goes. By and large, there are no viable unpowered versions of the best decks.

The problem is not that some cards are just better than others, that's inherent in the nature of the game. The problem is that the best cards are also the most expensive, and the degree of that differential.

Imagine if Ancestral Recall was $20 but Morphling was $300. You could still play a budget monoblue deck (perhaps with Masticore as the kill card, perhaps not) and it would still have much of the power of the Powered version.


*or started back in 1994.\n\n

[Phantom Tape Worm]

Hmmm...let's see if i can't steer this post back into the direction of my original intent.  And i will try to clearify my points so that there is less confusion and more on topic discussion.

to quote dicemanx

Quote
1) The fact that many MORE decks can have broken starts, at *very early* stages in the game, is not necessarily a good thing.

2) This is not necessarily a very exciting time to be playing because of #1.

This is right on, but let me take it a step further.

If this trend in deckbuilding continues, ie. decks more focused on going broken fast and therefore winning sooner, we may lose many of the most attractive features of this game.  Most notably the human element of magic, in game playing.



Note, i am not saying that I want an end to broken things happening in the format, I don't, i think that would also be unhealthy.  I am saying that i don't think that being uber-broken should be the focus of our format.  And that is where it is headed.  There is such a thing as too much broken.  And i think this because i genuinely believe it would help our format to survive in the long run.



Additionally we must consider the effect these types of decks have on the growth of the format.  These broken decks all require power, and therefore are not easily accessable to potential type 1 players.  Very soon the days of "you too can play type 1" will be gone.  When new players no longer feel they have a shot at competing, their interest in attending tourneys will dwindle.  And without new blood, our format will die.

My sentiment's about legend's statement "when sligh is not competitive something is wrong with the format" i think are very appropriate.

Quote He picked up some heat for making that statement, but i am starting to believe he was right.  Sligh is the deck with the least amount of player interaction that still provides a game to its opponent.  It can't kill turn one and it can't virtually end the game turn one either.  It kills fast, but not so fast that your unpowered opponent feels cheated.

Now combine those reasons with the reasons mentioned above and you see that we are slitting our own throats with this new trend of "focus on the broken" when deckbuilding.

Think of our commitment to the ideology that "budget decks must be viable" as the necessary public relations that sports like baseball and basketball need to do in order to stay popular.





Now when you combine the fact that the trend in deck building as of late has been to focus on the broken starts with the reality that just restricting cards means nothing ever goes away even though more broken cards keep bleeding into the format.  You then reach a point where restricting cards cannot stop decks from being too good/degenerate.


Once/If we are in agreement that we are on a collision course with a big problem, then that brings us to the second aspect of the discussion.

What do we do about it?


I understand many of you do not honestly believe that we are currently experiencing a problem.  The game is still fun and very much alive.  Some have even said that this is THE most exciting time to be playing the format.  I would say this is because the problem is just beginning.

I started this post with the intention of bringing the problem to light so that we could correct things before they got out of hand.  And by out of hand I mean an en-mass quitting of the format akin to what happened during combo winter.  We have some of the greatest type 1 minds on the planet here at the manadrain.  And we, the manadrain community, do influence WotC and their policies.  If we want our format to succeed, we must be prepared to do what is best for it in the long run.  Let us take the necessary steps now in order to ensure that type 1 has a future.

[Hanzalot]

Quote Hanzalot said something like "[Vengeur Mask] is not even that expensive (5 power cards, masks and 4 duals)". ONLY five power cards, AND Masks?

Well, I knew that statement would be thrown right back at me and somewhat justified   . My point was that if you have been playing type 1 for some years getting 5 power cards over the coarse of that period shouldn't be that difficult or cost demanding, just as illusionary masks haven't been expensive until recently.

However you can't just buy them all on the day you decide to play type 1, but I don't think that the costs are that unbearable. If you really want to play type 1 then cut down on other things and buy those power cards. I'm sure many could find the extra dough if they really wanted. I think it is a matter of card buying disciplin. If you each time you would have bought a booster or some random rare card instead put that money in a jar it wouldn't take that long before you can afford a power card. That being said of course TnT and ducktape are very, very expensive.

Saying that reprinting power cards won't affect the price of the old ones is pretty far fetched. Baring totally crappy art, how much more would you spend on unlimited power cards compared to new ones?

Quote Very soon the days of "you too can play type 1" will be gone.  When new players no longer feel they have a shot at competing, their interest in attending tourneys will dwindle.  

Very soon I really don't think so. I think many metagames allows budget players to compete (at least mine do). And if they really like type 1 why would they quit instead of trying to obtain power (start by selling their type 2 decks)?

Quote My sentiment's about legend's statement "when sligh is not competitive something is wrong with the format" i think are very appropriate.

I don't agree but it doesn't matter since sligh is still competitive or at least just as competitive as ever. Neither TnT nor Stax crushes sligh.

Quote If this trend in deckbuilding continues, ie. decks more focused on going broken fast and therefore winning sooner, we may lose many of the most attractive features of this game.  Most notably the human element of magic, in game playing.

But some of us think that the coolest thing about type 1 is when someone thinks up a new great (and broken) deck. It seems like you aren't that interested in deck development. This might be inaccurate but it is my interpretation of your comments.

Quote If we want our format to succeed, we must be prepared to do what is best for it in the long run.  Let us take the necessary steps now in order to ensure that type 1 has a future.

This is a praiseworthy attitude and I'm sure no one disagrees with you here. I just really can't see what it is were supposed to do - stop making broken decks? Write wizards begging for reprints or bannings? I think it is very hard to be proactive in this matter.