[Discussion] Addressing Playskill in Vintage

[paradigm]

One thing from Ben's articles that struck a chord with the type one community is the assessment of how bad we are - particularly compared with the pro tour players. Whether the latter part is true or not, the fact that mistakes - both obvious and not - are there, evidenced of course by Gencon last year - or watching any tournament for that matter - perhaps not as bad as Gencon, but regardless, the assessment that the collective whole of type one players are lower at the collective whole of PTQers also has some merit in that sense.

However, the counterbalance to the argument is the nature of mistakes in type one. Minor mistakes often blow up quite large. In control, one open window can lead to Mind Twist, Slaver, Combo, Ancestral Recall, Yawgmoth's Will and the like, and the same goes for Prison. The acceleration of the format (both in mana, draw, and brokenness) means the same for aggro - giving up even a turn can lead to broken plays to balance the game in a way that does not translate to examples in other formats.

One fact is that type helps to hone one's skills in a way that extended, standard, and limited often cannot. The approximations - both in deck building and in every play are the norms in type one, especially when analyzing a metagame, numerous matchups (as opposed to Ravager, Goblins, and R/G Ponza), and constructing even the 15-card board - it's not as simple as people believe it to be with tossing in the power nine, and 51 broken cards and calling it a day. There's more threats, more answers, and thus it leads to a better understanding of what works BEST and what doesn't, and not only that, but why it works.

In type one, you are also used to the razor's edge - namely making decisions that decide games at a very early turn. In standard, this simply does not exist - although Ravager and Goblins puts you on a fast clock, there is often very little one can do about it - the decisions aren't as critical persay - you either do X or you don't. Although this leads to more mistakes, it also leads to increased understanding. Before we work on innovating the format, someone noted in the sticky's that one needs to understand the intricisies of the format before they try to innovate it. Learning to play a deck before adjusting it is imperative.

Granted, we make mistakes. Stupid ones. Alot. And we need to do our homework. However players have also mastered complicated aspects as well - and understand the mechanics of the game in a unique manner that other formats cannot offer.

For those TMDers who play extended and standard in particular, how true to you believe this statement to be? Do type one skills carry over into other formats - do they make you a better player in such formats than say, a vice-versa situation of a two player entering one? In what ways? This is not to inflate our opinions of ourselves as much as it is to define the format itself - and the nature of the players in them - the learning curve is certainly different, and before we decide where we go we must know where we are.

One point not in contention is that we are not all great players (and there are very, very few exceptions to this rule, of which I am not one). How does the community improve this? How does an individual improve this? More testing obviously, but from the tournament warriors - what strategies do you use to keep in games, to furthur the understanding of the community itself? Testing in what way - how do you control for errors and misplays? Not to prove someone wrong, but for the sake of the format. For this after all, is the most important thing, because it's the one thing that we can directly change ourselves. What things do we need to keep in mind that we are not?

One last point of discussion - in terms of innovation. We need it, obviously. But don't test every single card - like Finkel once noted, he sees things differently. Remembering the basic ideas - two card combos are usually not good, there are solid gold standards in terms of counter and draw and so forth go a long step towards saving time.

It is put-up or shut-up time for the community.

[aside]
As a personal example - I believe that vintage translates into increased skills. For regionals, I did not intend to play, and ended up building a deck from scratch a half-hour before. Utilizing principles used in type one to build the deck (in terms of curve and types of threats), as well as taking an understanding of the control-beatdown roles from playing 4-Color a year back, I finished second - not because of my mad skillz (which I have none), but due to experience from the researching type one. I would not have entered without that knowledge - I did nearly zero testing in standard.
[/aside]

[Loci]

It is apples and oranges.

GenCon had no real admittence threshold and Type 1 is much, much less confined than Type II.

So it is comparing apples with oranges.

[rvs]

Gencon should not be used to measure the skill of the general T1 population. It's write-in, and I'm sure there are a TON of bad players at your avarage GP or PTQ. Once it starts being invite-based, like the PT is, then the skill-level of the whole thing will definately rise.

[Mr. Channel-Fireball]

Be happy that Gencon is being referred to as the Pro Tour of T1, and in that regards, that those who make T8 are being thought of as the "Pros" of this format.  Look where we were at two years ago.

I mean, if any one person can do better then take a shot, eh? As far as I knew it was an open invite.

<--------Optimist.

T1....The "peoples" format!

[DavidHernandez]

I find that Type 1 skills carry over to 1.5. You just have to get accustomed to a slightly slower opening hand and then watch out for creatures (!).

Personally, I find that I suck at Type 2.  I'm so out of touch with some of the card pool and their interactions at the Type 2 level that my skill set from Type 1 doesn't matter.

Dave.

[paradigm]

Gencon should not be used to measure the skill of the general T1 population

That is very true - however it did show that work is needed, and unfortunately, it is the measuring stick for players who do not play or follow type one, and does reveal some of the unpleasamt realities about the average type one tournament field. As an aside question - do we even have enough people that could make it to an event to have invite-based and still have a reasonably large, and thus, notable tournament?

[jazzykat]

I find that the more strict rule adherence of t2 made me more tight of a player. I really can't say that playing T1 would make me a better T2 player personally because, their format is so slow and I have become spoiled by the tons of tutors, and moxes that are available to me.

Since I haven't played t2 in a little over a year, I would just play t2 like I would a draft deck trying to exploit creature imbalances and tricks, minding tempo all the way.

[Ric_Flair]

From my vantage point I see that, in general, Type 2 players are more skilled than Vintage players.  That is, if you could play a match where only skill was at issue (mirror matches, some common ground format that that both players are equally familiar with) over time you would see the Type 2 player pull ahead.  

But good players are good players regardless of format.  Samite Healer is one of the better Vintage players I know and he is good in every format we played.  He was good in draft, in Type 2 (though he hated it), and Extended.  Good players are good player regardless of format.

One of the reason that Vintage has a lower skill level, overall is because there is less prize incentive.  If, for some reason, Bill Gates decided to sponsor a one time $10,000,000 prize Vintage tournament, you would see great players from all over the gaming world, Scrabble, Poker, Bridge, Chess, and even the PT drop what they are doing and play Vintage.  Money attracts better players.  There is no way around that.

Second the nature of Vintage, while it does ride on a razor's edge in one respect, can be argued the other way.  If one small mistake can lead to disaster because the cards are so powerful, then the opposite is also true, one small mistake can be covered up or ignored because the cards are so powerful.  If I tap an Underground Sea, eot to cast Ancestral, when in all likelihood I should have tapped a Trop, but you do nothing and I draw Yawg Will, Cunning Wish, and Force of Will, it really doesn't matter that I made a mistake, in terms of winning the game.  In T2 there are no equivalently broken plays so the likelihood that that mistake will cost me more is greater.  Powerful cards allow people to compensate for bad play.  Sometimes in Vintage you just get the lay down hand and there is nothing the other guy can do about it.

Finally, a lot of people got into Vintage because they were sick of the boring, pre-made decks WotC is spitting out for the younger formats.  As such they are at least in part tired of the micromanagement that is modern T2 (short of Skullclamp, which makes up for lots of mistakes).  These people love the bomb-y nature of the format and they hate the bits and bites nature of other formats.  In part this is saying: "I hate having to play close for the whole game.  Just gimme a Yawg Will so I can bash your face in."  The problem is with people like Smennen, JP, and others who have taken the format to the next level, this attitude just won't work.  So now with people playing close, even in Vintage, we see how bad we are as a community at the game.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

I find that Type 1 skills carry over to 1.5. You just have to get accustomed to a slightly slower opening hand and then watch out for creatures (!).

Personally, I find that I suck at Type 2. I'm so out of touch with some of the card pool and their interactions at the Type 2 level that my skill set from Type 1 doesn't matter.

Dave.

My experience with T1 skill applying in t2 is twofold. It helps a lot building decks from the t2 pool, even though you usually end up with more draw than most t2 players :/.

As for playing, the controlmatchups are easy. The Aggro vs Control match remains quite the same, just the decks are both slower and the bombs are called Wrath Of God and Decree of Justice instead of Balance or Will.
On the other hand most t1 players (including me) lack a different skill, creature combat. I was playing the meatgrinders for our nationals last week (with Ravager and Goblins respectively) and all the matchups where my opponents didn't also drop hordes of ability-critters where quite easy to play. Against the other aggro decks, my head started spinning pretty fast, I just wasn't used to calculating combat damage with so many creatures and creature triggers. This is where t1 experience doesn't help at all.

/edit ricflair postet after I did start writing:

Second the nature of Vintage, while it does ride on a razor's edge in one respect, can be argued the other way. If one small mistake can lead to disaster because the cards are so powerful, then the opposite is also true, one small mistake can be covered up or ignored because the cards are so powerful. If I tap an Underground Sea, eot to cast Ancestral, when in all likelihood I should have tapped a Trop, but you do nothing and I draw Yawg Will, Cunning Wish, and Force of Will, it really doesn't matter that I made a mistake, in terms of winning the game. In T2 there are no equivalently broken plays so the likelihood that that mistake will cost me more is greater. Powerful cards allow people to compensate for bad play. Sometimes in Vintage you just get the lay down hand and there is nothing the other guy can do about it.

I think that's not actually true. Having played quite a lot of t2 lately, I can not see that there is a large difference in how many games are won simply because of the perfect hand. It's just not as obvious it happened, as the opponent seems to be in the game, when you actually know he is already dead, it will just take two turns longer to be able to cast your stuff. This happened in t2 often enough, it just wasn't as splashy.

[DavidHernandez]

Ok, here is an example:

I wanted to play some T2 at a local store, so I researched decks and decided on U/G Madness.  It was an awesome deck and was considered "Tier 1" at the time.  So the first guy I play against has Eldemari's Vineyard or some such, and goes off on turn 2 (or something like that).

2 weeks later, his deck isn't legal anymore (neither was mine).  That sucks.  I hate T2 for that.

I supose if i could throw more time at it I would fare better and do quite well.  With barely enough time to play in Type 1 I can't see investing time or money(!) into T2.  

1.5 is a different story.  I can still play the majority of my cards, the decks don't get banned every couple of months, and I don't have to spend a ton of money to get the few cards that I need.

dave.

[Ultima]

Really any statement that type 2, limited, or extended pros are better than type 1 players is a load of garbage for several reasons.

1. DCI supported formats are structured in such a way that the "pros" have to work and test all the time for their ratings and match up skills.  Moreover, they are stuck having to devote more time to buying the hottest rares as soon as they come out just for testing and innovation.  T1 is alot more laid back and doesn't demand the amount of work that the other formats do in order to be considered a "pro"

2. The card pools make a large difference.  In the other formats, there are no Yawg wills or Balances to save them, so the margin for error is much smaller again forcing more time into testing.

3. The DCI's prize support brings in a much more competitive atmosphere.  Some of the shit I've seen T2 players do to each other to win is fucken aweful.  

In general, the so-called pros are FORCED to work harder which is the biggest difference.  But that DOESN'T mean that any pro can just pick up a Hulk deck and beat everyone at Waterbury.  Far from it.  And vice versa, most of us can't pick up Tooth and Nail deck and win a PTQ like that either.  

So all of those who better than who statements are crocs of shit said only to boost already insecure people.

[MrZuccinniHead]

I just started to get into type one, and i have to say that this format has made me a much better deck builder.  I can actually see the applications of some cards i didn't see before.  The decks are complex and make me think a lot more than type 2.  The razor's edge theory is what causes that.  I like to have to think a lot harder...do i tap out to get my threat?  What is he forces it?  I won't have enough mana open to mana drain next turn!  In type two, letting little things go by is not big deal.  It is a VERY forgiving format (except in urza's legal type 2...renounce bargain was...wow).  I like the larger card pool, the more broken plays, and the fact the decks only go out of style when they're meant to, not when the set rotates out.

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

@Ultima

Actually, Pro Tour players NEVER buy cards.  They usually just borrow them from barns or do small trades.

[goober]

But in order to get to that level they need to shell out a lot to buy the rares, then earn their ranking, then get sponsered.  So it is a huge money investment, plus the entry fees of all the tournaments they have to enter.

[Ric_Flair]

Second the nature of Vintage, while it does ride on a razor's edge in one respect, can be argued the other way. If one small mistake can lead to disaster because the cards are so powerful, then the opposite is also true, one small mistake can be covered up or ignored because the cards are so powerful. If I tap an Underground Sea, eot to cast Ancestral, when in all likelihood I should have tapped a Trop, but you do nothing and I draw Yawg Will, Cunning Wish, and Force of Will, it really doesn't matter that I made a mistake, in terms of winning the game. In T2 there are no equivalently broken plays so the likelihood that that mistake will cost me more is greater. Powerful cards allow people to compensate for bad play. Sometimes in Vintage you just get the lay down hand and there is nothing the other guy can do about it.  

I think that's not actually true. Having played quite a lot of t2 lately, I can not see that there is a large difference in how many games are won simply because of the perfect hand. It's just not as obvious it happened, as the opponent seems to be in the game, when you actually know he is already dead, it will just take two turns longer to be able to cast your stuff. This happened in t2 often enough, it just wasn't as splashy.

Right now T2 is AWFUL.  Skullclamp has ruined everything.  It has essentially made Wrath of God awful, creature removal stupid, blue pointless (because there is better colorless draw), and certain decks (Bidding and Raffinity) so much better than anything else.  In normal T2, when there is not something hideously broken, what I said is more true than it is now.

[JDawg13]

Keep in mind that Pro Tour players are just that: Professionals.  They play the game for a living.  I know I can't say the same for Type 1 players.  So it makes sense that guys that extensively test Extended, Block, and Type 2 are going to be better players.

@Ric_Flair: I agree that T2 right now blows horribly.  I've played Ravager Affinity so much that I'm sick of it.  If my friend wasn't so hell-bent on playing it in Type 1, I'd just trade the Ravagers away for $20-25 a piece.

[goober]

One thing about the games which are "I was losing then topdecked Will."  While these do happen there are also games which are far more complex than anything Type2 has to offer.  I recently played Drain Slaver vs Stax, and pulling out the win required a massive amount of Stack Tricks and good plays.  Games in T1 are much harder to pilot because of the amount of options.  In T2 you can usually only cast 1 or 2 spells in your hand, so the decisions are minal compared to T1 where each turn has a plethora (Three Amigos owns) of decisions.  Look at Combo, a good player is a turn or more faster than a bad player, it requires a ton of skill to play, and a lot more than someone piloting Ravager, Goblin Bidding, or UG Madness (from when the format didn't suck).

Saying that the brokenness makes it easier isn't true, your opponent also has it.  T1 looks a lot like 2 piles of broken going at eachother, and whoever pilot's their pile better wins.  There will be some topdeck for the win situations, but anything thats topdecked can be countered, and in T1 its easier to counter than anywhere

[jpmeyer]

Part of the problem is that in Type 1, you usually don't have to try to maximize your cards because they are simply so powerful that just getting "most" of the effect can be good enough.  Will is the best example of this.  A small, early Will is often all you need to win, but you might not see that.  Instead, you make a larger Will a few turns later and win.  Those few turns could've lost you the game, but since you won and won in a more spectacular fashion, it doesn't appear as such.

It's like the story that Flores loves to tell about Steve OMS vs. Dave Humpherys at Nationals 2000.  Instead of playing Ritual, Stromgald Cabal and more or less winning against Humpherys' Replenish deck, Steve OMS first casts Negator and then VT's for Dark Ritual on his upkeep so he can cast the Cabal turn 2.  The turn 1 Cabal probably would've won and this probably would've made it look like the right play, but it actually gave Humpherys time and therefore outs.

[walkingdude]

Yeah, often people fall into a trap of playing the same way all the time when the circumstances demand something else. I know I lost to trix at one event by trying to hold YawgWill until I could do something broken with it when the right play would have been to cast it and go slight of hand, brainstorm go. Two cantrips may seem like a pretty pathetic will, but when all you need to do to win is dig till you find a coffin purge digging 5 cards deeper was all I needed. I lost because I failed to think about what I needed to do and played it like a standard control match where you want to set up and resolve a truly broken will.
One of the big things we can do to improve play skill is to actively think about what’s needed at every moment of each match.

[PucktheCat]

One part of the problem is the Oracle wording and errata issue.  T1 cards are much more likely to have wording that doesn't accurately reflect what they do.

Not sure how big a part of the problem it is, but it is certainly a part.

Leo

[CrazyCarl]

Be happy that Gencon is being referred to as the Pro Tour of T1, and in that regards, that those who make T8 are being thought of as the "Pros" of this format.  Look where we were at two years ago.

I mean, if any one person can do better then take a shot, eh? As far as I knew it was an open invite.

<--------Optimist.

T1....The "peoples" format!

I agree completely with that last statement.  It's not a DCI supported format for the most part.  It's only carried on as long as it has because of the dedication of it's players.

As for playskill, I hate watching some people play because of all the mistakes they make, and then they win despite said mistakes.  However, I do it too, albeit less often, but I do.  The only way I know to get better is to to play a lot, don't take back mistakes, watch better players play, and LEARN THE GODDAMN RULES PEOPLE.

-Thirst for Knowlege/Intuition/Fact or Fiction/Balance go ON TOP of the cards that go to the GY.

-Discarding is the absolute last thing to happen in the end step(IE. no more effects)

-Cycled cards go directly to the GY

and other awesomesauce things that I can't think of right now, though there are a lot of things involving Joblin Welder and whatever.

Just practice people and the "outsiders" will have nothing to base their negative criticism on.

[Jebus]

One part of the problem is the Oracle wording and errata issue.  T1 cards are much more likely to have wording that doesn't accurately reflect what they do.

Not sure how big a part of the problem it is, but it is certainly a part.

Leo

It's something I see all the time, and that's why I try to do what I can to educate players on knowing their cards.

I've seen this happen enough to be concerned, but I'd like to say it seems that things are improving in this respect.

However, if there is one thing wrong, it is that a lot of people still are sketchy on a lot of rules and often without even knowing they've got something wrong.

That is the one thing that still sticks out at me during major type 1 tournaments.  Another problem are the amount of  judges who simply have no interest in anything outside of Type 2 or Extended.  Many of them feel that older cards and rules that only deal with older cards are "obsolete".  This needs to change.

More judges need to take responsibility for knowing the relevant rules and rulings for Type 1, especially if they will be actively working a Type 1 event.

[Kerz]

For those TMDers who play extended and standard in particular, how true to you believe this statement to be? Do type one skills carry over into other formats - do they make you a better player in such formats than say, a vice-versa situation of a two player entering one? In what ways?

For the most part, type two players are on the whole just better than type one players. What causes this? Type one is admittedly a "sheltered" format- very few people play it seriously and competitively in relation to the number of those in type two.

Most stores hype type two up more- a person gets into magic and sees people playing FNM and talking about PTQ's and stuff more than they would see some type one games. Type two is the moneymaker for businesses too- on a dealing sense, a dealer can invest $250 in type two rares and nearly double his money, while a type one dealer has to invest approximately $230 in a power card, only making $50 max.

Type two tournaments have a MUCH larger allure than type one tournaments. The absolute PINNACLE of type one is  a "double-lotus" tournament. These tournaments maybe have $1000 worth of prize support, not holding a candle to PTQs, GPs, PTs, Regionals, and Nationals.

Type two is the most popular format. In many areas, such as California for example, it is nearly the only option. Due to the larger player support, type two trives wherever magic does, while type one only thrives in certain areas, where the "type one" people are. We are an isolated group, not really part of the magic player population.

Skills from type one really don't carry over to other formats, but like.. general skill in magic will help you in type two. Type one is totally barren of the combat phase, an absolutely HUGE part of other formats. Limited and Type Two are all combat-based, with all competitive players knowing the phases and steps like the back of their hand. Many type one players can't even tell you the order a turn goes in, nevermind the combat phase.
Playing type one will gain you general knowlege of the game, which will make you better in general, but doesn't really compare to the amount that type two will make you better.

The more you play type two, and much much moreso limited, the better you get at all formats. The format is just so skill intensive in all aspects, it vastly improves your skill in making decisions and other choices in-game.
I absolutely do not want to argue about T1's skill intensity versus T2's skill intensity, because all good players should already know the answer clearly. Type one doesn't have a Pro Tour for a rason.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE our format, but type two is also great- don't be ignorant and just dismiss it.

[Jhaggs]

One point not in contention is that we are not all great players (and there are very, very few exceptions to this rule, of which I am not one). How does the community improve this? How does an individual improve this? More testing obviously, but from the tournament warriors - what strategies do you use to keep in games, to furthur the understanding of the community itself? Testing in what way - how do you control for errors and misplays? Not to prove someone wrong, but for the sake of the format. For this after all, is the most important thing, because it's the one thing that we can directly change ourselves. What things do we need to keep in mind that we are not?

A big problem that I have noticed playing on-line through MWS is that people almost never test games 2 and 3 with the use of a sideboard.  Fortunatly, I am able to play against friends that I know will have a functional sideboard and will always board for the next games in the match, but whenever I play against someone with whom I am not familliar they almost always decline the next game using a SB.  In my opinion this is a terrible avenue to improve your skills.

Utilization of a sideboard is an absolute must.  It is at least 50% of all of your total games in a tournament.  Why people insist on never testing a true second or third game senerio escapes me.  Building the SB is almost as important as the selections in the MD.  Both games 1 and 2 (3) need to be played out.  How does your rogue.dec perform against Hulk?  How does it perform against Hulk with MD REB?  How does your build perform against Slavery with MD blood moons?

I think a lot of mistakes are made not only in normal play styles but also in how players approach their SB and approach their meta games.  I think often times deck discussions lose sight of the fact of how a build improves/lessens after your opponent knows what your playing and how they might SB against you.  

Perhaps a large reason as to why pros (and a large portion on competative type 2 ) are considered so godly is not on the sheer volume of testing that they do (although that is obviously important) but the method in which they test.  I know I have personally benifited from a more heightened awareness of post sideboard testing.  I suspect that many in type1 who do not frequently play in competative tournaments casually disregard post side board testing.  Those that can innovate for games 2 and 3 will almost always will have a superior advantage despite what broken cards their opponents draw into.

[The Atog Lord]

There are, I believe, two fundamental differences between Type One and Type Two that lead to the misconception that Type One players are somehow less skilled than Type Two players. (Everything I say about Type Two also applies to Extended).

First, simply put, many Type One decks are just more challenging to play than Type Two decks. I have never played a Type Two deck as challenging as Long or Keeper. Some Type Two decks – such as Fires --  run on autopilot. Others, which require some skill, require far less skill than some Type One decks. For example, Ravager Affinity is a very skill-intensive deck to play; one of the most skill-intensive Type Two decks in years. However, it has nothing on Long.

The second reason that Type Two players appear to be better is that it is much, much easier to prepare for a Type Two event than a Type One event. Its limited card pool leads to a dearth of viable decks in Type Two. Therefore, one preparing for a Type Two tournament has only to learn a handful of matchups in order to be able to perform well with a deck.

On the other hand, a player preparing for a Type One tournament needs to prepare for many more decks than one preparing for a Type Two tournament. The wide array of decks one may encounter – and the fact that rogue decks are more common and more viable in Type One – means that it is impossible to spend as much time preparing for each match in Type One.

Thus, it is unfair to call Type One players bad players. And just in case its an issue, I’m not saying this as someone who plays Type One to the exclusion of other formats. I don’t mean to brag, but I’ve had a fair degree of success in Type Two and Extended.

[Azhrei]

IMO, Vintage is more about deckbuilding and aiming at running on autopilot than it is about player skill. All most decks do is find an engine and then push it as fast as possible and try to ignore the opponent.

Which is the right strategy, but it doesn't make for in-game skills like Limited does. I suck at Limited completely because I'm a sloppy player who gets bored with long, drawn out games-- but I build good decks for the format because I'm happiest when I can win on turn 2 and then grab a snack. Competitive Vintage is for people who like to play Magic without actually having to play out a full game.

[mongrel12]

IMO, playskill in game in vintage is generally more about stopping the opponents broken hands, rather than golfishing (which is still significant). While it is true that bad players can simply take a deck like tog or slaver and get a few wins simply based on the deck's brokenness, it is generally true that the in-game playskill in vintage involves adressing the broken plays your opponent makes with nonbroken or equally broken strategy yourself. The route that decks take to minimize the chance of an opponent going outright broken can be varied (keeper, as opposed to gay/r) but in the end, the most successfull players are able to win even against some of the most broken plays in the game.

[PucktheCat]

All most decks do is find an engine and then push it as fast as possible and try to ignore the opponent.

Pushing a deck's engine can require its own kind of skill.  Think about all the tutoring in Long.dec or all the rules issues with Dragon.dec.  Those aren't particularly interactive play skills, but there is a kind of skill there, probably more skill of that sort than is required in any other format.

Often the issue is knowing your own deck extremely well.  In T2 you basically make decisions to optimize the resources available.  In T1 decisions tend to be about potential resources somewhere in your library and how to get at them.  That's the difference between a combat oriented format and a card-drawing oriented format.

To give an idea what I am talking about, think about this common scenario:  you are playing Hulk and you don't have a land to play this turn but you have a Brainstorm.  Do you play the Brainstorm on your main phase and hope to find a land or do you wait until your opponent's end step?  What if you have only UU available and a Mana Drain in hand?  What if you have been fetching aggressively?  What if you have exactly the amount of mana you need for a now-or-never play?

These kind of decisions aren't the same as the ones that usually come up in Limited or T2 but they do require skill.

Leo

[Ultima]

@Ultima

Actually, Pro Tour players NEVER buy cards.  They usually just borrow them from barns or do small trades.

Raj,

I don't know what Pro tour players you talk to but after knowing quite a few and talking to them, they sort of have to in order to test* and make new decks.  The people that don't are net deckers.  Most of the good pros or teams aren't net deckers.  It also falls in line with the idea that most aren't going to unveil their teched out deck until a PTQ, Grand Prix or Pro Tour.

Because testing is never done with proxies... They actually just borrow/buy at the last minute whatever they don't have from drafting. -Dr. S.

[Milton]

One thing about the games which are "I was losing then topdecked Will." While these do happen there are also games which are far more complex than anything Type2 has to offer. I recently played Drain Slaver vs Stax, and pulling out the win required a massive amount of Stack Tricks and good plays. Games in T1 are much harder to pilot because of the amount of options.

This point really, really needs to be underlined and emphasized.  Someone good needs to write an article on this.

The very complex interaction of cards in T1 makes the format far more difficult than anything T2 has.  I would guess that if anything is going to break T1, it is that cards Wizards designed for one T2 or Block season can interact in a very broken way with cards designed for a different T2 or Block season.  Squee, a good card in MM Block, becomes a broken card with Survival and Bazzars and stuff.  Think of how broken Yag Will is in T1.  Brokenness is greatly enhanced in T1.  Mind's Desire is another great example.  

Do we really see "innovation" in Type 2?  It doesn't seem like innovation because most sets are so overdesigned that the decks are already made when the spoilers come out.  

Also, with no invite the play skill at any T1 event has got to be much higher than the play skill at any PTQ.  It seems that the random T1 player takes the game much more seriously than the random T2 player.  The complex interaction of cards, the major swings that take place and the varried metagame (20+ viable decks) magnify any mistakes that any player may make.