[Article] -- The Suck Dilemma, or How YOU are Ruining Type 1

[CrazyCarl]

Don't suck and complain and me and JP won't write about you anymore[/url]





In Soviet Russia, Type 1 ruins you...

[Komatteru]

I have to say that that article was one of the most entertaining articles I have read in quite a while (as your stuff usually is, Carl).  Well done, fellas!

However, there are a couple of things that I disagree with in the article.

1) Netdecking has an important place in T1, but to discourge originality is bad, even a bit arrogant.  Clearly, this weeked, Meandeck did not net deck and placed 4 members in the T8.  However, this creates a bit of a rift.  Clearly, teams are important to Vintage, and are generally responsible for the creation of new deck types.  However, not everyone is a member of a team, and not everyone who is on a team has some of the best players in the format on that team.  Simply put, MeanDeck (I'm using you guys as an example because of both the article and the weekend results) is not going to not netdeck.  They are going to innovate.  By encouraging everyone else to netdeck, they can develop new decks that wreck existing decks and therefore guarantee themselves the success they desire.  It's very similar to a certain person from TMD publishing articles about Fish (encouraging people to play it) before Gencon when he knew very well that he was going to be playing a deck that would destroy it.  The "major teams" are not the only ones capable of developing something new that's good.  While developing something good is difficult, and when you have a lot of great players collaborating on something, that time can be reduced, but if a couple of people want to try something new, I don't see a reason why that should be discouraged.  (I'm not hating on teams in general.  They're good for the game, but they're not all of the game).

3) Pimping out a deck is a player's choice.  I have foil Brainstorm, foil Dark Rits, Beta this, Beta that, tons of signed cards, etc.  I've traded for a large number of them.  I haven't really spent the cash to get it all that it might seem.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who's pimped out a deck in this manner.  I picked up the foil Brainstorm this weeked at States for a bunch of stuff that I really didn't need.  Yeah, I gave up a bunch for them, but what I got was more valuable to me than what I gave up.  Remember that the game is collectible, and people do prize cards for their rarity.  If they want to spend the cash, or can trade for them, that's really their perogative.  JP's argument that that money might be spent for tournament fees is sound, but some people would rather have nice cards than play a couple tournaments.

8) I'm a little torn toward T2 players.  I don't mind them, and I love trading with them, since the better T2 players are often to get rid of nice foils and other rarities from years past that are no longer legal.  However, I often find that they don't understand important terms like tempo and card advantage as well as they should, and often don't appreciate the value or rarity of older cards.  In addition, the difference in mentality between the two formats is huge, and it doesn't even seem like Vintage and Standard are the same game sometimes.  The formats are just so different.  I liken the "rift" between Vintage and Standard players more to a case of experience than anything else.  In general, Vintage players have been playing a lot longer (usually twice as long) than Standard players, and everyone knows that veterans are always knocking "newbies."  Simply put, a player who's been playing for 8 years develops a bit of an attitude toward those who've been playing under 2 years.  The fact that the former is the average Vintage player and the latter is the average Standard player is largely irrelevant.

As for being too willing to shell out for cards, the problem is that if everyone set reasonable limits, we'd be fine.  That is, if everyone said "I won't pay more than $250 for any Mox." then the price would stay at that.  However, that's not going to happen, and everyone knows it, so people pay more for stuff than they want to so they don't have to pay even more for it later.  People say "$320 is a lot, but it's not going down, and if I don't pay $320 for this $300 card now, I'm going to pay $350 for it later."  That's the problem we have.  I don't see a way to fix it other than setting those limits.  But that will never happen.

Other than that, your points of impatience, Vintage is not cheaper than Standard, the thing about region, and not knowing how to play a netdeck are all really good and I agree wholeheartedly.  The insult about "your metagame sucks" is just hilarious and is one of the funniest things I've read about Magic ever.

Well done.  Keep up the good work.

-JD

[SpencerForHire]

Excellent read guys.  I agree with alot of points laid down.  What are your views on "foreignizing" your deck? (aka. Making all your cards asian etc languaged)

[CrazyCarl]

Thanks for the constructive critisism.  Now to address it:

1) I'm not trying to discourage creativity(Revenge anyone?).  I probably should have brought this up, but I HATE it when people dismiss new decks(I'm guilty of it too sometimes) and don't even try to help out.  That's stupid.  Plus the netdecking and playing like a bufoon doesn't help.

3) I get your point.  Again, I'm guilty of the same to an extent.  Generally I'm willing to spend <5 bucks to *upgrade* something.  "Pimping" is one of the things that make Vintage so fun.  I just don't like how certain cards(A/B power) will drive up the unlimited versions as well because they have virtually no limits.

8) Unfortunately I don't have anything else to say about Standard ;x, but you do bring up some good points.  What gets annoying to me(OK I had something to say) is when an unscrupulous player rips an ingnorant noob a new one.  The "good trade" dilemma is another age old issue, but yeah.  hate at that.

Thanks for the well thought out response. Getting replies like that is a rarity nowadays(check out the SCG thread for a few examples ;x)

EDIT: As for foreigning out cards, for the most part I'm against it.  It's not usually safe to assume someone knows what all the cards in the environment do.  In the case of permanents, it can lead to confusion for the opponent.  Granted it's a good strategery, but it's still kind of annoying.

[Komatteru]

Let's not even talk about the Star City forums...it's painful to read a lot of the time...

8) One last thing.  I hate players who rip ignorant noobs as well. Not cool at all.  A lot of cards aren't worth as much to T2 players as they are to T1 players.  For example, I was able to trade for foil Skeletal Scrying for like $1 each because the card isn't worth much at all to anyone who doesn't play 4CC.  T2 players trade at dollar values almost exclusively.  An older foil rare may book for $15, and a T2 player will trade it for that much in good T2 rares because a non-legal foil rare isn't as good to him as a stack of solid playabe rares.  That's what I meant by not appreciating the rarity of older foils and rares.  It's like how you divide cards into categories: if you're going to trade something like dual lands, you better be getting stuff of similar quality back, like other duals or...well, you get the point.  T2 players don't usually make that distinction.

Years ago (like 5+), a dealer friend of mine mentioned that some people liked foreign cards because opponents react differently if they don't know what something does and can't read the card.  Granted, players are always given access to the Oracle wording of a card in tournament play, but it's a colossal pain to call a judge over all the time when you don't know what something does (so no one does it).  Its pretty douchebagish to play foreign cards to attempt to confuse or distract your opponent.  Playing with some because they're neat is ok, especially if they're widely played cards that everyone should know (Vamp Tutor, Sol Ring, etc.).

[jpmeyer]

When it comes to the whole netdecking thing, we're talking more about the "OMG I HAVE TO BE ROUGE" mindset, where people are playing off-the-radar decks not because they think that they'll be a good choice for the expected field or because they've felt that the deck is actually really strong, but just because they "want to be different" or because "netdecking is like cheating."

Personally, I like having the most recent Oracle wording on my cards.  However, if it's an older card that wasn't reprinted recently, the wording on the card is probably not current and may even be very different from what the card actually says, so the fact that your opponent can't read it doesn't matter.  Thus, if you've got say, a Japanese FBB 4th Edition Animate Dead in your Dragon deck, that might actually be better than an English one because your opponent won't try to read it and think that it works a different way.

[Arkeld]

An ok article but I strongly disagree on the pimping a deck issue.

To me, there's two aspects to Magic: playing the game and collecting the cards and I enjoy both of those. Seriously, I do take pleasure out of admiring my all-beta/foil/signed/altered/whatnot 4CC (no, not that kind of pleasure you sicko!). I'm full well aware that it doesn't make me a better player but if I can afford it, why not? Face it, if you can afford Beta power you're not going to stumble over a $15-20 fee for a tourney. BTW, until they rotated out I also played an all-chinese Goblin-Bidding deck in T2 (except for CoB because it's nigh-impossible to find black-bordered chinese cities). The idea behind it, btw, was not to gain unfair advantage, I simply liked the idea.  

But yes, it does help to intimidate people. Despite the fact that I've only taken up competitive magic less than a year ago, people who don't know me automatically assume I'm a veteran when they see such decks. (I used to play in a lot in the 1990s and always owned a set of UL power but a 5-6 year hiatus has kinda voided that).

[Nantuko Rice]

"JP: There's a story that Rich Shay loves to tell. A few months ago, he was at a small tourney where there were a ton of Control Slaver decks. He walked over and saw a small child playing the deck. He had a Goblin Welder out, a Mindslaver in the graveyard, and a Pentavus in play, so he was just about to get Mindslaver recursion going. So he Slaves his opponent, makes him kill a bunch of his stuff, and then makes him attack with the River Boa into his Pentavus. Except he forgot the fact that River Boa has Islandwalk and lost the game, since he was only at one life.

Naturally, the child complained for the rest of the day about how horrible of a deck Control Slaver is."

 = = =

I'm assuming that the story was changed to protect the "small child." It was just a play error, but quite funny nonetheless. I do stupid stuff like that all the time. But I still know the real story.    Unless this happened a second time somewhere else.  :lol:

[jpmeyer]

I don't actually know any specifics, hence the usage of the term "small child," and also that story has been telephoned so many times that it's gotten a bit changed by this point.

[jdl]

As for being too willing to shell out for cards, the problem is that if everyone set reasonable limits, we'd be fine.  That is, if everyone said "I won't pay more than $250 for any Mox." then the price would stay at that.  However, that's not going to happen, and everyone knows it, so people pay more for stuff than they want to so they don't have to pay even more for it later.  People say "$320 is a lot, but it's not going down, and if I don't pay $320 for this $300 card now, I'm going to pay $350 for it later."  That's the problem we have.  I don't see a way to fix it other than setting those limits.  But that will never happen.

If you somehow managed to set a limit like that (which would require some bizarre government action), you would accomplish exactly the opposite of what you want.  Think that moxes are hard to find now?  Set a price cap on them and you'll never see one again.

If you want cheap moxes, push for reprints or play in proxy tournaments.

[policehq]

I kind of disagree with the sentiment that Vintage is more expensive than Standard, and it all has to do with the "instant gratification" and your notes about cards like Urza's Rage, Call of the Herd, etc. that drop prices as soon as they leave Standard. I started playing Standard when Torment was released, catching up by buying boxes from Invasion up, and then buying boxes of Judgment when it was released. By the time Onslaught block had been Standard-legal, I probably spent (on average) $300 per set to keep up with competitive decks. Now, of course, I have the mindset of a Vintage player, and I only buy singles that I actually need, but still that's about $2,700 spent on Standard for two years of play. Now that Champions of Kamigawa has been released, it would've cost me $1,200 more to keep up.

I believe that in the long run, I'm saving myself a LOT of money by trying to play competitive Vintage than Standard.

Barry

[CrazyCarl]

I kind of disagree with the sentiment that Vintage is more expensive than Standard, and it all has to do with the "instant gratification" and your notes about cards like Urza's Rage, Call of the Herd, etc. that drop prices as soon as they leave Standard. I started playing Standard when Torment was released, catching up by buying boxes from Invasion up, and then buying boxes of Judgment when it was released. By the time Onslaught block had been Standard-legal, I probably spent (on average) $300 per set to keep up with competitive decks. Now, of course, I have the mindset of a Vintage player, and I only buy singles that I actually need, but still that's about $2,700 spent on Standard for two years of play. Now that Champions of Kamigawa has been released, it would've cost me $1,200 more to keep up.

I believe that in the long run, I'm saving myself a LOT of money by trying to play competitive Vintage than Standard.

Barry

Well of course in the long run.  But nowadays it's going to take about like, 5 years for that to be the case.  I know for me it's been mad cheaper.

[TracerBullet]

Of course, you're not factoring in the fact that Type One cards don't just hold their value, they often increase.


In the time that I've been playing Type One, I've spent somewhere in the range of 1100 dollars on cards, for a collection that is now worth somewhere in the range of 2000.  I really don't know of a reasonable way to do that with standard.

[Nijo]

Btw: using 1337 speech throughout the article and then signing it with your hotmail adress = lame.  :p

[CrazyCarl]

Btw: using 1337 speech throughout the article and then signing it with your hotmail adress = lame.  :p

Granted, it's hotmail, but spambots suck.

[Whatever Works]

I agree with your comments on people getting upset about shuffling there decks, but you never specified what you qualify as shuffling... I personally would get angry if someone riffle shuffled my type 1 deck. I am fine if they do piles or something similar to what Kerz does but riffling a type 1 deck is like egging a car. However, I would not get angry if they riffle shuffled a type 2 deck for some reason... Perhaps its because the card values are less and its not like your hurting an antique...

About the comment on type 1 being cheaper your completely right, but their are circumstances in which case type 1 is cheaper. These being that the person plays type 1 for more then 3 years (type 2 sets add up), and what deck the person plays in type 1. You said it would cost 4000 to get power/drains/workshops... Why would you get drains AND workshops??? There is no deck that uses both, and if money is an issue you probably would only play 1 deck at a type. Type 1 is cheaper if you play in the east coast where it appears that EVERY major tournement has a 10 proxy rule. then again it appeared your references are for standard events such as Gencon, and other sanctioned tournements.

[Covetous]

On netdecking--if you want to win a tourney, you either need to netdeck or test a new deck/build against a gauntlet of net decks.  Standard has an incredible rate of metagame mutation mostly due to the huge amount of netdecking that occurs.  Standard also has a real metagame, which is what we vintage players aspire towards.  Sure, people will play their random "rogue" (that's how you spells it for those of you who are illiterate ) decks, but you don't want to have to worry about randomcrap.dec when you are trying to build a tourney-winning sideboard for your tourney-winning deck.  If people want to play bad decks, let them play bad decks.  In general, you will annihilate them with your good decks.  It's just when you get your awesome powered deck stomped by some crappy budget aggro deck that you get pissed off.  The point about people from big teams wanting other to netdeck so they can own them with new tech is very astute, however.  

On pimpin'--to each his own.  People who pimp out their decks are the people you can make serious profits off without having to rip them off exlicitly (although $30 or $40 each for foil common brainstorms is quite a rip).  If you get some pimp foil before it's popular, then you can trade it for a lot to a pimper (not a pimp) once it becomes expensive.  Or, if you do some legwork and get some good cards signed you can do the same.  Some people just like shiny things.  On the foreign issue--FBB cards can be really cool.  But doing using them just to throw off your opponent is incredibly lame.  

On the vintage players vs. standard players issue--in my experience, the people who play standard have a much lower average age than the people playing vintage.  I mean, you can always find 8 year old kids at FNM or other standard events, but when's the last time you saw someone that young at a real vintage event?  Or, more accurately--how often and how many?  Jeff (SamiteHealer) once said that vintage is a gentleman's game, like high-stakes poker.  If you need $300 cards to play, that keeps the riff-raff out (and a lot of others, unfortunately).  In my personal experience, I find a lot more "cool" players (in terms of people that I enjoy spending time around) at vintage tourneys as opposed to standard ones.  This of course doesn't mean that all standard players are little annyoing 8-year-olds.  It's just that the vintage crowd is generally older, as in college age plus or minus.  It's great for young kids to play MTG, but let them play standard, where if you have someone decent build you a deck you can win while spending around $50 rather than $5000.  Of course, we should try to keep our children away from this game, because it's addictive as hell.

On the issue of card prices--the obscenely inflated prices of vintage staples have made a lot of people a lot of money.  They are the single most important reason that there are big vintage tourneys every few weeks.  Who would play for a lotus if it was only worth $25?  How much money would TOs make if they could only charge $5 because the price is worth bupkis?  If you don't like the price of type 1, then clamor for more unlimited-proxy events.  I have personally held 3 power tourneys with unlimited proxies (including the much-neglected Maine Lotus tourney that barely anyone showed up to).  Just remember that without $300 moxen, nobody would hold mox tourneys (or if they did the tourneys wouldn't be very successful).  If you don't like expensive cards, play standard with the little children.  You shouldn't have to pay out the ass to play vintage, but that's why there are proxy tourneys at all and that's why people come up with decent budget decks (recall the last SCG tourney with a T8 budget deck).

[jdl]

On the issue of card prices--the obscenely inflated prices of vintage staples have made a lot of people a lot of money.  They are the single most important reason that there are big vintage tourneys every few weeks.  Who would play for a lotus if it was only worth $25?  How much money would TOs make if they could only charge $5 because the price is worth bupkis?

Where is it decreed that you must play for cards?  These would simply turn into $500 cash tournaments.

[jpmeyer]

Personally, I think that money tournies might be better than Power ones, because if people want to just sell what they win, the card goes off to the void of eBay.

[Komatteru]

Personally, I think that money tournies might be better than Power ones, because if people want to just sell what they win, the card goes off to the void of eBay.

"Void of eBay" => Europe probably...I just sold a Bazaar on ebay to a guy in Italy, and thought "Well, there goes one more old power card off the continent."  Oh well...

Edit: Note: This post does not imply any disrepect toward European players.  Just that many power cards on eBay are purchased by Europeans and every card that leaves this continent increases the scarcity of cards of which they really aren't enough to go around (got to represent for the old USA).

[PacmanXSA]

Regarding the pimping of ones deck; I believe it's totally personal preference.  I just shelled out about 100 bucks for that alpha wheel and a beta mana vault.  I'm totally against foils however.  People see that as weird, but, to each his own baby

Regarding net decking, for consistent results, you need netdecking.  To the contrary, I believe that for GROWTH, you need ingenuity and creativity.  SOMEONE has to be the initiator and create something that blows away the meta.

Vintage Vs. Standard: Bah, I hate to say it but I agree.  T2 is a necessary evil although I'll probably never play it.  

Card Prices:  They're only going up.  I just but up a bunch of beta stuff recently due to the stronger Canadian dollar as of late.  If the dollar goes up more, I'll be looking at beta p9...  Vintage costs are only going up... We just have to accept that.

Decent read.  Wasn't too impressed with all the internet lingo... I see enough of that already

Pac

[snotball007]

I only disagree (somewhat) with 2 points in the article.

1) Type 2 can be much more expensive than vintage depending upon how many PTQ's and drafting one does. Especially since the booster price increase.

2) Power is naturally going to go up in price. If you want it to go down in price then refresh the rumors of "Die roll is what matters the most" and "The format is way to expensive to start anyway". The price of good vintage cards is in general going to increase if the format becomes more popular. Maybe that is why a mox was attainable for under 100 bucks a few years ago.

Either way it was a good article. Seemed like it was full of inside jokes, but I expect that from CrazyCarl articles.

[wuaffiliate]

I enjoyed the article very much, thank you.

Oh i have a t2 player story btw. I was playing some t1 at the store with a friend(specialk) and some t2 player started talking shit about how t1 takes no skill and how hes good and places well at ptqs so hes good and shit. So i tell him ill play him extended for $100 a game, a format neither of us play much, "bring out the real skill, in exploring new territory" and what not. He said no. What a surprise. All talk bitches.

That was in no way useful, just a funny story and it's late.

[Nazdakka]

Oh i have a t2 player story btw. I was playing some t1 at the store with a friend(specialk) and some t2 player started talking shit about how t1 takes no skill and how hes good and places well at ptqs so hes good and shit. So i tell him ill play him extended for $100 a game, a format neither of us play much, "bring out the real skill, in exploring new territory" and what not. He said no. What a surprise. All talk bitches.

Come ON... Just because he's sensible enough to not gamble $100 on a single game of Magic, in which either of you could randomly lose, doesn't mean he's necessarily a bad player. If I were him I would be cautious about getting ripped out of $100 because you have some quality 1.x tech which you chose not to mention. Randomly challenging people to high-stakes ante games is NOT a sensible way to determine playskills.

[andrewpate]

I agree.  There's no way I'd gamble $100 on a game of Magic even if I were using my Type 1 Oath deck against a Type 2 precon.  You just never know what's going to happen.

That said, I do know a lot of Type 2 players who talk a lot of crap about Vintage because they see Belcher and Storm decks that can win on turn 1 and don't really bother thinking about the fact that we have FoW and beatdown decks that win on turn 3.  It doesn't really bother me; if all the players who play Standard switched to Type 1, let's just say you wouldn't be able to find many Black Lotuses on eBay anymore.

[Kowal]

I routinely gamble $300 or so on type one mirrors.  It's called the finals.

[Nazdakka]

Yeah, but it's not money in the bank you're going to be losing. There's a big difference between a final, where you're (say) either getting a Lotus or a Sapphire, but not losing anything, and potentially going down $100 because you got manascrewed. A tournament final is 'Win lots/Win a bit less' as opposed to Win/Lose.

[Rico Suave]

To be honest, I couldn't read the article.  

I'd rather read a one paragraph article with good content than read a multi-page one with the same content and a bunch of irrelevant inside jokes.  It's a waste of time.

[Alfred]

I for one, am calling for an end to the "{something}!!1!!!!one!!!eleven!!!!!" joke, which is used a couple of times in this article. ITSGETTINGREALLYOLDANDIDONTWA NTTOHAVETOSEEITANYMORE

[EnzoPolotso]

know who I think is ruining Type 1?
Snotty fucks like the majority of people here.