Is Slaver Too Good?

[InsaneScrub]

Hi my name is Gale Innes, I have been playing magic since 95, I started playing type 1 in 96, after I had enough money.  Furthermore, through the years, I have seen magic decks come and go, but I have never seen a metagame where the tier 1 decks had more or less rule over the format like Gat/Hulk/Tog decks did.  I am not saying Tog is the end all deck, because it can be beaten.  Now I look at Meanslaver or Control Slaver, and I see another potential bomb deck, is the deck a little too good?

So here is my question to all of you type 1 fans, would restricting World Gorger Dragon, Academy Rector, Psychatog, and Mishra's Workshop shake up the metagame enough to make it more fun?  Or would that just be insane?

I would really like to play a more open type 1 metagame, it's quite open now, I just hate to see the broken draw power and speed of some of these decks...

[InsaneScrub]

For future reference, try not to post identical threads with different titles.  I merged them for you. -Rico[/color]

[Shock Wave]

would really like to play a more open type 1 metagame, though it's quite open now, I just hate to see the broken draw power and speed of some of these decks.

So to clarify, the premise for your argument is as follows:

- Mindslaver might be too good
- you hate to see broken draw power and speed of some decks (!!)

Perhaps I'm being a little rash here, but I would never introduce subjective evidence as the basis for an argument. I've seen a ton of these restriction threads come and go, and they really serve no purpose. Unless you really have compelling evidence as to why the restriction list should change or why a deck is damaging the environment, I would recommend steering clear of such discussion.

[Ric_Flair]

This idea that personal dislike should shape the banned and restricted list is absurd.  I don't care what you like.  TMD doesn't care what you like.  Vintage players don't care what you like.  And most importantly the DCI doesn't care.  This is not to say that you personally are wrong, but merely to point out that voicing personal tastes is not an effective way to change policy.  You need some better arguments.  

I think for better or worse the DCI, at least in their past few actions, has adopted a combination of Steve's test, their own early game swing test, and my suggestions about presenting the information.  The key to affecting a change is laying out reasons, not simply saying: "I think the format is too fast."  Or "there is too much brokenness."  We all know that the the format is fast.  Tell us why it is TOO FAST.  We all also know it is full of brokenness.  Tell us why it is TOO BROKEN NOW.  I strongly disagree with the sentiment that Vintage should be hideously broken.  Even a fast format like this still needs some limitations.  But finding those limitations is more than simply using opinion and anecdotal evidence.  

I think that Phil's number show a really solid, diverse metagame.  As such there is nothing out there that warrants a restriction under Steve's tests or the early game swing test.  If you disagree, walk us through your argument as to why.  But no one gains anything by reading your intuitive understanding of the format.  

Finally, I don't mean to be harsh.  I really think that this topic is worth talking about, but in order for it to not spin out of control and become pure stupidity, we need to speak in a certain way, with certain principles guiding the discussion.  Personal opinions should have no weight here unless backed up with solid arguments and numbers.  We have the standards.  We have seen the applied.  And we have the numbers, thanks Phil.  So there is no excuse to argue from personal opinion.

Here are some things to look at when starting this debate:

Steve's article:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=5636

My Open Letter:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=6184

and

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=6190

DCI's actions after Steve's article and my open letter:

Extended:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/rb100

Type 1:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/rb102

Phil's Numbers:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7054

Based on these four articles I think it is clear that we can affect the DCI, but to do so we need to talk in a certain way and argue within a set of well-defined parameters.  So I suggest that if you want to really engage in this debate you use the things that Steve laid out,  that I added to, and Phil's numbers to do so.

Correction aside, I don't think anything needs to be restricted as of right now (April 7, 2004).

[Lockdown]

I've seen a ton of these restriction threads come and go, and they really serve no purpose. Unless you really have compelling evidence as to why the restriction list should change or why a deck is damaging the environment, I would recommend steering clear of such discussion.

What he said.  Threads like these really serve little or no purpose in the end.  As of right now, if you look at Dr. Sylvan's March Metagame Analysis, Tog is doing well, but unlike GAT in it's heyday, it's not metagame defining (e.g. it doesn't take 6 slots out of every T8).  If there's a broken deck, the DCI will realize it in the end and will do something about it (see restriction of LED/Burning Wish to stop Long.dec).  What happens, will happen, they don't really need help from TMD to decide what to do.

[Razvan]

Type 1 is all about fast and broken plays. There are some opening hands that are no-brainers, but generally, the broken-ness and how to best exploit it is the best part of Type 1. Although it might only come up once or maybe twice in any given match (not just opening hands), it goes a long way in deciding who actually wins the game.

Taking that out of type 1 will make it into 1.5 (which is fine in it's own regard), or some horribly unplayable format (like Type 2, or whatever it's called).

You say Tog is the best deck right now, and that might actually be true. However, it's also maybe that a lot of players play it (a lot of good players). Last 2 tourneys I heard of, Dragon and Control Slaver won (in Ontario, and last TMD, I think). So it's not quite that dominating.

[InsaneScrub]

Excellent points, I think I will shut up now.

[Ric_Flair]

Insane Scrub:

Don't shut up.  I think there is merit in this discussion, but only if we keep it on track and use the language that makes a difference.  If you really believe something is worthy of a restriction, tell us.

[Razvan]

Excellent points, I think I will shut up now.

Yes, please don't.

If you do, the Mods will win.

That was a joke. But it does feel a bit stuffy here. Everythings seems to be so controlled, and a lot of people (I know I am) are so wary about writing anything. Bah.

But no, back on topic. The restriction thing needs to be done carefully. Restricting the Gorger, Rector, Tog and Workshop will kill all the decks I can think of right now (minus Keeper and a few others). I am not sure that it's the best idea.

Restricting Mindslaver? Maybe. I don't think that will really do much, since people can play with one (they can use Fabricate, although that really sucks given the great synergy with Thirst for Knowledge). But whatever.

[Diddler]

So here is my question to all of you type 1 fans, would restricting World Gorger Dragon, Academy Rector, Psychatog, and Mishra's Workshop shake up the metagame enough to make it more fun?  Or would that just be insane?

I think the fact that you mentioned four cards that build so many decks shows how diverse the metagame is right now.  Restricting these four cards would essentially kill many decks, and, in all honesty, narrow the metagame.

Correction aside, I don't think anything needs to be restricted as of right now (April 7, 2004).

I love that this is dated.  Clever.

[Rico Suave]

That was a joke. But it does feel a bit stuffy here. Everythings seems to be so controlled, and a lot of people (I know I am) are so wary about writing anything. Bah.

If you want to know how to go about this, the answer is playtest.  

It is fairly obvious when a person doesn't practice careful playtesting, and those are generally the people who are "controlled" as you put it.  If you playtest, then just trust your playtesting and post accordingly.  If your playtesting differs from the rest of the communities, then at the very least you'll be learning and improving your skills for further testing.

I really can't stress how important this is.

[xzero]

If one thinks that multiple cards should be restricted, then that means that those are key cards to multiple decks, and since there are multiple decks, there isn't really one that is dominating.  The only time something needs to be restricted is if it truly stands out.  And, at this time, nothing stands out.  Sure, Tog is good.  But it loses to Slavery and Dragon sometimes.  And sure those decks are good, but even Fish can beat those.  And Fish gets beaten by other decks.  It's truly balanced.

[Razvan]

If you want to know how to go about this, the answer is playtest.

It is fairly obvious when a person doesn't practice careful playtesting, and those are generally the people who are "controlled" as you put it. If you playtest, then just trust your playtesting and post accordingly. If your playtesting differs from the rest of the communities, then at the very least you'll be learning and improving your skills for further testing.

I really can't stress how important this is.

I don't think I ever stopped posting something, but I can see how it would affect people that aren't as confident as I am. This is not to empower anything or anyone, just in general.

I do agree that just posting a random deck with no explanation or testing is bad, but I wonder if that is really all that is controlled. There was a stretch of about a few days not too long ago, where all I could see was most of the mods competing with one another as to whom could close more threads down. And while I do agree that some did need closing, some didn't. It was really a binge.

I never had a thread closed on me (phew), but still. Anyhow, we diverge.

[InsaneScrub]

OK, since I am not the only one who thinks we should discuss this, let me make my point of view extremely clear, and why.

First and Foremost, I don't think mud/stax/slaver, and any other deck that uses Mishra's workshop is so powerful it cannot be dealt with, but obviously these decks were made to handle certain other decks.  Though meanslaver on the other hand has proven to me to be insanely powerul, even more powerful than the most powerful decks in the format.

Which leads me to the discussion as to why mishra's workshop should be restricted.  First and foremost, it produces 3 mana, and land that can stay on the table and do that, is broken, unless it has a significant draw back.  The draw back being you have to use it to cast artifact spells isn't a draw back at all if you consider most of the decks that use it, use almost all artifacts.

Psychatog, this deck is not broken, but insanely good, though it should take a hit too.  Intuition, is undoubtably too good, bah roken even.  With AK and Deep analysis, it's isanely bahroken.  Not to mention it acts like a tutor, and tutors are too powerful to be three in a deck.  Which brings me to Cunning wish, this card is too good.  There are too many targets for Cunning wish, while it's still versatility, it still has the power to go get one of up to 15 cards in a sideboard to answer anything you just played, and possibly other cards you have played in the past.

Cunning wish to me isn't bah roken though, though extrememly good.  This is a card I would say should stay out of the restricted list, for now.
Control has been reigning in power since the beginning it seems, so if control began to dominate again after intuition was restricted, maybe then it should be reconsidered.  Besides, I have played against the artifact decks, and most of the time 3 rack and ruin and 2 gorilla's just isn't enough!

Last but not least, Bazaar of Bahgdad, this card is uncounterable, and with dragon, it makes the deck too good, not to mention a few other decks.  With squee or a purpose behind it, Bazaar is altogether busted.

In the past many cards were restricted solely because someone found a way to bend or break it.  Those 3 cards have definitely been bent all to hell.  That is my premises for their restriction.

So I say, Death to the 3 most powerful cards in type 1, open the format up again to allow other decks a chance to compete.

[riggy]

I'm not sure if you did or not, but upon re-reading the links presented by Ric_Flair, a lot of those cards are discussed, including Bazaar, Workshop, and Cunning Wish.

Regarding Mishra's Workshop: You'll notice that there were 4 Meandeck slavers in Columbus' tourney. None of them took home the prize. It was U/G madness that won it.

Regarding Dragon and it's use of Bazaars. Dragon is facing a lot of graveyard hate right now and it's having a tough time winning any major tourneys. Read this particular link Ric_Flair posted:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/rb102

It addresses very succinctly the reasons why those cards you name are good, yet not unbalancing.

[Ric_Flair]

First off, Randy mentioned why Workshop and Bazaar did not get the axe when they killed Burning Wish.  He also mentioned why Cunning Wish was not killed.  But I think there are other reasons.

Workshop:  The basic complaint here is that it produces three mana and is a permanent.  Everyone who complains about this card says the same thing.  However, performances indicate otherwise.  Looking at Phil's numbers, this card is not dominant.  In fact it is so NOT dominant that an artifact based deck, Control Slaver, chooses not to run it.  If it were truly too good, every deck that could even benefit a little by it would run it and they don't.  Affinity also "could" use the card but it is not that good.  The problem with Workshop is consistency.  In Mike Flores' article on Finding the Tinker deck (see Reading the Classics sticky) he mentioned the all mana and big threats deck.  He also mentioned why these decks, while powerful, can struggle.  The speed of Vintage makes this problem even worse.  Decks based around lots of mana and BIG threats are inconsistent.  The potential for the all mana or all threat hand is damaging to their consistency, and as the numbers show, their tournament performance.  This takes care of Workshop on all of Steve's criteria.  In terms of the early game swing, two cards--Force and Wasteland make this card just safe enough.  When you can counter a threat AND Waste the Workshop next turn, there is nothing to worry about here.  Not dominant, not format warping, and not too fast.

Intuition:  Again this is a card that people often cite as a problem, but I just don't see it.  Though it is a tutor, it is a very limited tutor.  And it is a tutor of unrestricted cards (generally) and as such does not have the trouble other tutors do (namely, essentially unrestricting restricted cards).  Furthermore only ONE deck runs this card.  If it were truly as good as you say, then it would show up more often.  I think the issue here is that it is REALLY good in Tog.  But again, I don't think that is enough.  Tog is not dominating the way that GAT did in Steve's example.  This card is also not too fast.  It is three mana, requires you to change the way you build your deck, and can only tutor certain cards.  There is no early game swing here.

Cunning Wish:  The essential issue with Cunning Wish is that it is utility and spot utility most of the time.  Also it is INCREDIBLY slow.  It is two cards and at least three mana.  If it could fetch things like Will then there would be an issue, maybe, but as it is, this is fine.  Plus it shows up only in control decks.  

Bazaar of Baghdad:  This card is very limited in its application.  It requires a huge dedication of deck slots.  It is not something that can be casually used.  Furthermore, without tricks it is card disadvantage.  Finally the decks using it are not dominating like GAT.  The fact that it is a land is never an issue.  Sure it is uncounterable, but Wasteland is FREE and UNCOUNTERABLE and CAN USED WITH MINIMAL DECK SLOT DEDICATION.  Any deck can play Wasteland and stop this and/or Workshop.  Finally while this can be fast, it is only fast in a combo that is slower than other combo decks.  If the faster decks have nothing warranting restriction (you did not name anything in TPS or Daw 7) then this card, by implication, cannot be too fast.

[thorme]

Giving Workshop the axe would not kill Slavery...there are viable Workshopless, Mana Drain-packing lists of Control Slavery out there.  Also, IMHO, the prison decks have taken on control's traditional role of keeping combo in check ever since the Storm mechanic was printed.  I'm not anxious to see how powerful combo can get w/ artifact prison out of the meta.

Bazaar is very easily hosed by Wasteland, a readily-available answer that can fit easily into just about every deck.

Cunning Wish - Hey, I agree with you on this one!  Relatively cheap instant tutoring should certainly not be unrestricted.  Once upon a time, decks had to actually have maindeck answers for cards the opponent might play, and this was an important part of deck building.  I think the game is much poorer with unrestricted Cunning Wish around.

[FORCE-OF-WILL]

Once more, PLZ explain how intuion is in the same class as workshop and Bazaar.

You state intuition is broken, and even more so with DA and AK, plz tell me how its broken without these cards.

More importantly intuition costs THREE....yes its a tutor....yes it goes into yer hand...yes its an instant.....but i requires you (for the most part) to play three of the card yer going to get.

Besides restricting it wouldnt KILL tog....if we made the three restricions you propose, guess what? Tog is STILL the best deck in the format.

[jpmeyer]

The problem with any restrictions right now is that there is a pretty balanced metagame with a few best decks and then a few more decks that are still good.  Since nothing is dominant, you'd need a mass of restrictions in order get keep decks in check, at which point the only purpose is to power down the game rather than to open up the environment.

[Swanky]

Ultimately, the almost knee-jerk reaction that is "restrict something" is usually biased in two regards: Context Bias and Metagame Bias.

Context Bias is essentially your argument for restricting Intuition; the card is awesome in Tog.  However, Intuition in almost any other non-Tog deck is marginal at best.  For instance, if you were to throw the Intuition-AK/Deep Analysis combo in - say - Mono Blue Fish, it would be a huge detriment to the deck.  Many competitive decks are streamlined to a point- their build is as such because it's most likely the most efficient way that deck can operate.  As Ric_Flair stated, in running Intuition, you're essentially committing yourself to an additional 3-4 slots that will be taken up by one of the aforementioned card-drawers.

Metagame Bias results from what a person knows and experiences on a regular basis while playing the game.  If I encounter builds such as Slaver, Stax, or MUD on a regular basis and my face consistently bears the bruises of a thousand Juggernaut smashes and Triskelion pings, I might be more apt to say "Workshop is a beast!" or something along those lines.  Likewise, if I find my Sunday afternoon tournaments rife with a cavalcade of Dragons coming back from the dead and Wurms that think far too highly of themselves, I might have a slight proclivity toward condemning Bazaar of Baghdad.

When thinking about things like restrictions, it's best to have a relativistic point-of-view.  Statistics would seem to state that the format is fairly healthy.  Heck, even Non-goblin, sans-Food Chain Sligh decks are still making Top 8's every now and then (Yay).  That's a pretty decent indication of how balanced the format is.

On a somewhat-related note, I suggest the following metagame solution:

Iraqi Guerilla (R)
1/1
Whenever an opponent takes control of a land you control, destroy target Bazaar of Baghdad.

Well I thought it was funny.

[InsaneScrub]

Ok, let me discuss one more thing, before I end this discussion, meaning I won't post on it any more.  Thank you guys for your insight, and posting me links to read some great articles.

Though I have one more question to through out here.  Psychatog has dominated not 1 but 3 formats, and it dominated hard when it had the right cards.  Now in type 1 it is unquestionably one of the best decks of the format.  Is Tog bah roken, maybe not, but does it need restricted?  I am just sick of seeing the deck win, win, and you know it, win some more!

[FORCE-OF-WILL]

No it does not need to be restricted......Tog is fine the way it is.

[Chaos Blade]

I believe Workshop should not get the "axe". Its one of the archtypes which keeps combo in check some of the time. One thing im sick of seeing is seeing Tog always winning and winning and winning. If by summer if its still on its win record like it is now I think DCI or some group of people need to look into it more, but who knows as alot can happen in a month.

[MasterIth]

hey, i would love it if some important piece of tog was restricted, such as tog itself, it is a hard matchup for me.

[Diddler]

Is Tog bah roken, maybe not, but does it need restricted?  I am just sick of seeing the deck win, win, and you know it, win some more!

I think there are two reasons it wins, wins, and wins more.  First, it's a good deck.  Second, more people play it than they play other good decks.  I may be wrong, but I don't think it's winning percentage is so much higher than the other good decks...

[Ric_Flair]

MasterIth:

hey, i would love it if some important piece of tog was restricted, such as tog itself, it is a hard matchup for me.

This is the absolute WRONG reason for restricting a card.

As for Tog, I think that there is no reason to restrict this card.  It is an AMAZING creature, in fact, the best of all time, but it is not something that could be restricted.

First, creatures are AMAZINGLY vulnerable to removal.  Second, again, the deck is good, but not dominating.  The fact that it shows up in the Top 8 twice as much as the next deck is do to the fact that the metagame is SO diverse.  It "seems" dominant because there were something like 15 other decks in the metagame showing up with some regularity.  Third, Tog is not incredibly fast.  As was pointed out in another thread, the deck MUST have Time Walk to win.  The deck works, a large percentage of the time, by chaining uber cards together like Will and Ancestral and Walk.  So it is not that fast.  The other issue, the determinative one from my point of view, is that Tog is not the reason Hulk is so good.  The geometric exploitation of power cards is what makes the deck good.  Similarly in other formats, blue's brokenness is what made the card into an amazing deck.  In fact, after 8th and Counter was lost, Tog was not seen in Standard again.  It is a great creature, but only because it is so synergistic with blue's best stuff.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Intuition would be a useless card to restrict. I would expect Hulk lists to simply cut one and pack a Deep Analysis or maindeck Fact or Fiction--there are many replacements waiting in the wings for that single slot change. Regardless of whether Tog is dominant or not, restricting Intuition is on the same level as restricting Merchant Scroll, but with the added annoyance of hurting Dragon decks that don't need to be hurt.

Similarly (though notably with higher potential impact) is the idea of restricting Psychatog. This would certainly affect the viability of Hulk. However, I equate this with the old Extended idea of banning Donate/Illusions. The broken accelerant here is Mana Drain (1.x analogy: Dark Ritual), and the broken search is Cunning Wish (1.x analogy: Necropotence). Cunning Wish is, in fact, restrictable, thanks to Berserk. In another thread (possibly the one about Smmenen's metagame-pentagon article), Smmenen agreed with the idea that Cunning Wish -> Berserk is for Hulk what Burning Wish -> Yawgmoth's Will was for Long. I believe that these are the cards which deserve attention when considering policy reactions to Hulk. (Which, just in case anyone wasn't clear on this, I do not favor at the present time.)

[Triple_S]

The problem with the Tog deck isn't one individual card, its just an highly effective card drawing engine that has the perfect outlet for it to be capitalized upon:  Tog.  While I think Intuition fits the same criteria for restriction as Entomb (and no that shouldn't have been restricted either), there is no one identifiable broken card in the deck that isn't already restricted or easily replaceable.  Others have pointed out how extra Intuitions would be replaced, the same could be done with other aspects of the deck.

If one were to look at creatures for restriction, I would suggest Goblin Welder as a better candidate.  While I don't champion its restriction, the card does allow you to bypass mana costs in a way not dissimilar to Tinker.

[Swanky]

MasterIth:

hey, i would love it if some important piece of tog was restricted, such as tog itself, it is a hard matchup for me.

This is the absolute WRONG reason for restricting a card.

Hence, metagame bias. :)

As Randy Buelher mentioned,  cards that can be acceptably restricted are those that are either A.) Horrendously undercosted for their effect, or B.) Inherently broken due to a novel/powerful effect.  

Psychatog, as Ric pointed out, is neither.  It's just a very good card; people play good cards in Type 1.  *Gasp of revelation*

[Ged]

Workshop:  The basic complaint here is that it produces three mana and is a permanent.  Everyone who complains about this card says the same thing.  However, performances indicate otherwise.  Looking at Phil's numbers, this card is not dominant.  In fact it is so NOT dominant that an artifact based deck, Control Slaver, chooses not to run it.  If it were truly too good, every deck that could even benefit a little by it would run it and they don't.  Affinity also "could" use the card but it is not that good.  The problem with Workshop is consistency.  In Mike Flores' article on Finding the Tinker deck (see Reading the Classics sticky) he mentioned the all mana and big threats deck.  He also mentioned why these decks, while powerful, can struggle.  The speed of Vintage makes this problem even worse.  Decks based around lots of mana and BIG threats are inconsistent.  The potential for the all mana or all threat hand is damaging to their consistency, and as the numbers show, their tournament performance.  This takes care of Workshop on all of Steve's criteria.  In terms of the early game swing, two cards--Force and Wasteland make this card just safe enough.  When you can counter a threat AND Waste the Workshop next turn, there is nothing to worry about here.  Not dominant, not format warping, and not too fast.

I see what you're saying (and mostly agree with it), but there are some points you haven't mentioned or I'm not comfortable with:

1) It seems that availability of workshop is an issue. If it were printed in large amounts (like, for example, Tog), wouldn't it be a bit (lot) more represented? It's almost impossible to make a workshop deck in a 5-proxy tournament, unlike Hulk.

2) I'm not sure I agree with (or understand) the 2nd point you're trying to make - All you need to stop a workshop.dec is FoW AND Wasteland? Isn't that a proof of a 'brokeness'?

I'm not trying to argue for a restriction of Workshop in any way, nothing needs to be restricted right now, these are just some questions I'd like an answer to.