Renewing the Debate about Crucible

[dicemanx]

Most other blue-based control decks have adapted to Crucible, these wont auto-lose to a resolved Crucible, and you still need brains to play these decks so why don't people switch instead of complaining?.

You don't just "adapt" to CoW without weakening yourself in the process (like sacrificing color consistency). This means that you can pursue two avenues - minimization of getting locked by CoW but decreasing the power and scope of the deck, or not changing anything but leaving yourself open to random CoW locks. Furthermore, its not like 4CC has been pushed out of the environment due to non-basic hate; don't simplify the argument by trying to suggest that we have 4CC players spearheading the attack on CoW who refuse to adapt and resort to complaining.

I think that we should be exceedingly careful about "expanding the bubble" to include cards like CoW. Because unless we have a strong understanding of where the lines are drawn--which I think can only be achieved with a well-defined set of restriction criteria--we are in constant danger of overstepping the bounds and simply restricting any card that is powerful.

I don't think that we are in any danger of "overstepping the bounds" for two reasons. Again I use quotes because this idea of "boundaries" needs to be clarified. As I posted above, even if the DCI errs or is too hasty to restrict a particular card (and they've done just that in the past), it is very likely to not be detrimental to the game itself or the format's "balance". I'm not suggesting that the DCI should open the floodgates and axe everything powerful in sight, or that the restriction of CoW would open up that possibility. But even if it did happen, it would hardly be the end of the world - T1 would still be an exciting, competitive format.

Interestingly enough, we could argue that the Extended format might not have required mass bannings to neuter many of the top level decks. What if we still had many of the powerful cards in the format, such as Goblin Lackey and Recruiter, Oath of Druids, Survival of the Fittest, Metalworker, Grim Monolith, Entomb, Replenish, Skullclamp, Tinker, Hermit Druid, Earthcraft etc. Is it not conceivable that the format would retain some sort of "balance" akin to the type of balance we have in T1, where each deck almost ignores its opponent and races to do its own broken play? Is this an idea of an exciting, competitive format, or would it be deemed as being simply too random and not sufficiently skill-intensive, and hence providing justification for the chain reaction of bannings? It seems to me that this sort of chain reaction of restrictions/bannings could easily occur in T1 - start by axing CoW and Trinisphere and perhaps even Mishra's Workshop, then move on to control and nail the Mana Drains and ban Yawgmoth's Will to retain the balance, but in doing so restrict Dark Ritual, Charbelcher, and Bazaar of Baghdad to ensure that no combo deck can combo off on turn 1-2. I'm not implying that this should be done, but it would be consistent if we wanted to move away from much of the randomness and have more skill intensive battles.

[The Atog Lord]

What if we still had many of the powerful cards in the format, such as Goblin Lackey and Recruiter, Oath of Druids, Survival of the Fittest, Metalworker, Grim Monolith, Entomb, Replenish, Skullclamp, Tinker, Hermit Druid, Earthcraft etc. Is it not conceivable that the format would retain some sort of "balance" akin to the type of balance we have in T1, where each deck almost ignores its opponent and races to do its own broken play?

If those cards were not banned, most Extended games would be over on the third turn. Replenish, Tinker, and Druid especially lead to degenerate combo decks, and a format without Force of Will in particular isn't set up to prevent them. Right now, people are playing decks build around Cephalid Illusionist and Nomad EnCor, a two card combo that emulates a single Druid.

I remember playing Tinker Stax last season against Rock. While Pernicious Deed could be powerful, Rock would often not hit three mana in the entire game. That's how lopsided those cards could make games.

[jpmeyer]

There's adapt, and then there's "adapt."  A deck like Control Slaver could adapt, while Tog had to "adapt."  Control Slaver had no problem losing a color in order to get mana stability, but when Tog had to choose between red or green, it would end up losing key cards for important matchups (REB versus Control Slaver, Berserk versus Workshop Aggro, etc.)

[dicemanx]

If those cards were not banned, most Extended games would be over on the third turn. Replenish, Tinker, and Druid especially lead to degenerate combo decks, and a format without Force of Will in particular isn't set up to prevent them.

This is very true, but this also occurs in T1 to some degree already. So why not eliminate all such degeneracy completely? The DCI had a pretty good track record up to now, always pre-emptively eliminating fast (turn 1-2) combo decks. Why did they stop? We still have Belcher, MeanDeath, and Trinisphere around.

[Saucemaster]

Is it not conceivable that [Extended] would retain some sort of "balance" akin to the type of balance we have in T1, where each deck almost ignores its opponent and races to do its own broken play? Is this an idea of an exciting, competitive format, or would it be deemed as being simply too random and not sufficiently skill-intensive, and hence providing justification for the chain reaction of bannings?

The thing is, the very NATURE of Vintage means that the balance that we currently have--brokenness races and a severe focus on tempo and disruption at the cost of almost everything else--makes it impossible for a post-banning Extended style format to become a reality.  As long as the SoLoCryptoMoxen exist, as long as Ancestral Recall exists, as long as we have Wheel of Fortune, Timetwister, Tinker, the tutors, etc--as long as all those exist, there will ALWAYS be dumb hands that win on turn 1 or 2.  There will always be broken strategies and the best route for a deck to take will always be to focus heavily on pulling off its own broken plays while disrupting its opponent's plays as much as possible.

My point is, if you try to change that, eventually you will have to ban Moxen.  You will have to ban Lotus.  You will have to ban the Draw-7s, and the tutors.  And what are we left with then?

Type 1.5.  The format that Vintage would become if we wanted to focus on making it as competitive and skill-intensive as the post-banning Extended format already exists, even if it's in its still in its infancy.  I'm not just being an asshole and saying "go play Type 1.5", but honestly, there's some truth to that notion.  Vintage IS broken, and if it stops being broken, it stops being Vintage.  If you want a format that is relatively fair, skill-intensive, and reduces randomness, you HAVE to ban the Moxen, you have to ban Mana Drain, you have to ban the Tutors, etc.  I honestly believe that there's just no other way to do it.

Let's be clear about this: the *only reason Vintage exists* is to allow players to play with cards like the Moxen, Lotus, and the rest of the Most Wanted List.  I'm not totally strict on this point; I think a good case exists for banning Will, for example, because we *do* want to keep a balanced format, even if it is only "balanced" in that Type 1, increasingly-Blackjack-like way.  But the whole purpose to banning Will would be to keep all the other broken, restricted cards around.

In short: if you're looking for a format like the current Extended format, powerful but without the overpowering random brokenness of (contemporary) Vintage, you aren't looking for Vintage.  It's just not going to happen, and if it does, it will happen only because we've taken Vintage and turned it into 1.5.   And why do that when 1.5 already exists?

P.S.: and actually, I think the new 1.5 (assuming they can get it right) could be a spectacular format.  I think it could be exactly what you're referring to above, dicemanx.  I think we need a format like that, I just think that it's impossible for Vintage to remain Vintage and ever BE a format like that.

[dicemanx]

As long as the SoLoCryptoMoxen exist, as long as Ancestral Recall exists, as long as we have Wheel of Fortune, Timetwister, Tinker, the tutors, etc--as long as all those exist, there will ALWAYS be dumb hands that win on turn 1 or 2. There will always be broken strategies and the best route for a deck to take will always be to focus heavily on pulling off its own broken plays while disrupting its opponent's plays as much as possible.

Sure, although we can limit the likelihood of that happening (early turn kills) without eliminating it entirely, otherwise we would have something akin to T1.5 as you suggest.

We don't have to start with such a drastic chain of restrictions, which I only suggested as an example. I think that something like the restriction of Trinisphere, Ritual, and CoW would eliminate much of the early turn randomness, and maybe we can toss in the banning of YawgWill for good measure although for an entirely different reason. We've identified the last remaining culprits, the key cards of the fastest decks (and the Trini is the fastest kill *card* in the environment), now its just a question of whether the DCI elects to finish the job.

[MuzzonoAmi]

Trini doesn't warp the format in any way that Mana Drain doesn't, though. I'm totally against banning Will, but these are both sort of off topic.

Crucible does not, in and of itself, hurt the format. I honestly haven't seen a single good argument put foward to support that point. Really, it hasn't done a whole lot other than find its way into a lot of decks as a secondary control/lock spell. Neo-TurboLand is the exception to this but it's not out there tearing everything to shreads, either.

But like I said earlier, the potential for degeneracy is there. But if we start restricting things based on potential, we'd have at least 15 more cards on the list already.

[dicemanx]

Crucible does not, in and of itself, hurt the format.

But like I said earlier, the potential for degeneracy is there.

Well, CoW has already inflicted some damage in certain metas. It's no longer the case that there is mere *potential*. That potential has been realized already. The "potential" likewise has been realized for Dark Ritual and Trinisphere. I don't know about you, but I always dread having to face Trinisphere packing decks or turn 1-2 combo, because I know that regardless of my playskill I can get my ass handed to me by a weaker player without being able to put up a fight. Should I just accept that as being part of the T1 environment? Not if the solution is readily at hand, without damaging the "balance".

Trini doesn't warp the format in any way that Mana Drain doesn't, though.

This isn't a good comparison in my opinion. Trinisphere is the type of card that you simply cannot play the game around when it comes down first turn. It shuts down almost every single deck in T1, and, (unless you're playing Workshop yourself) you essentially need *three consecutive land drops* without the ability to do anything else in order to break out of the lock, *and* hope that your opponent doesn't do anything too damaging in the meantime. That is a tall order, especially since the average T1 deck plays around 17 lands. Even with a high basic land and fetchland count you will have a tough time.

This does not mean that Trinisphere is part of a dominant archetype or is too distorting, at least in North America for the time being. It's one of those cards that is dependent on certain conditions, the biggest being the need to win the die roll and go first. But this highlights the fact that the card is simply too random and literally reduces games to a coin flip.

I'm totally against banning Will, but these are both sort of off topic.

While the thread started off with a focus on CoW, it is evident that there are a lot more issues that merit discussion beyond just this one card. It seems that our goals for the format are in question - once we understand what it is exactly that we want, we will better understand how to proceed with the bannings/restrictions. This is where Steve and I differ significantly in our views.

[Fishhead]

Trinisphere is the type of card that you simply cannot play the game around when it comes down first turn. It shuts down almost every single deck in T1...

I suppose you're exaggerating to make a point, but you make it sound like a turn 1 Trinisphere is grounds for concession by the opponent!  ( If that were true, we'd all be playing Stax and mulliganing aggressively. )

I just don't buy the idea that Trinisphere is skill-less either; sure it's obvious to drop Workshop->Trinisphere if you draw it early in the game, but take a look at all the different SB plans from 5/3 and Stax players in major events.  Knowing what to do with your Trinispheres -- on the off chance you wont draw them on turn 1 -- is something you can see lots of different opinions on.

edit: As for Crucible, I feel even more that it's proper use requires skill.  It may not be rocket science for experienced players, but I have seen people resolve Crucible, do pointless things with it and lose.  Workshop->Crucible is not an autowin either.

[Shock Wave]

Trinisphere is the type of card that you simply cannot play the game around when it comes down first turn. It shuts down almost every single deck in T1...

I suppose you're exaggerating to make a point, but you make it sound like a turn 1 Trinisphere is grounds for concession by the opponent!  ( If that were true, we'd all be playing Stax and mulliganing aggressively. )

I don't think that is an exaggeration at all. Is a 1st turn Trinisphere grounds for concession? Well let's take a look at your options when your opponent plays MWS -> 3Sphere on Turn 1:

1. You have FOW.
2. You have a Wasteland and some lands to follow.
3. You have your own MWS.

Those are the only 3 plays that keep you in the game at this point. It doesn't warrant an immediate concession, but unless you have the resources to allow you one of the 3 outs described above, you are going to lose.

I just don't buy the idea that Trinisphere is skill-less either; sure it's obvious to drop Workshop->Trinisphere if you draw it early in the game, but take a look at all the different SB plans from 5/3 and Stax players in major events.  Knowing what to do with your Trinispheres -- on the off chance you wont draw them on turn 1 -- is something you can see lots of different opinions on.

We're not talking about the SB options and the scenarios in which 3Sphere requires some thought. The point being illustrated is that on Turn 1, playing an MWS and then a 3pshere is a very consistent 2 card combo that is going to win you the game against every deck in the format unless your opponent has the resources for one of the above mentioned solutions. That's extremely random and skill-less.

edit: As for Crucible, I feel even more that it's proper use requires skill.  It may not be rocket science for experienced players, but I have seen people resolve Crucible, do pointless things with it and lose.  Workshop->Crucible is not an autowin either.

Well, in my experiences, playing a Crucible has required very little thought and is often a game breaking play. A Crucible on Turn 1 is hardly as lethal as a Trinisphere, but it is a game breaking play far too often.

[Smmenen]

Here are the issues that are recurrent in this thread that I'd like to hit upon.

1) Coherence

I think one of the biggest problems with restrictions is precisely that the format is NOT coherent.  If Crucible is ruining Toronto, is it fair to restrict a card to ruin someone else's deck in Paris?  I don't think so.  That's why I think that restriction should only happen as a very last resort.  

2) this leads to another point;

Diceman said:

Deck design has almost ground to a standstill as decks are published and optimal strategies or card choices are made known; its therefore conceivable that, unless the new sets coming out will sufficently shake up the format or there will be some blockbuster b/r changes, we will eventually slip into a tedious format where everything will be predictable as everyone will play the top tier decks, and decks themselves will play out almost on autopilot. Skill will still be the deciding factor in many games, perhaps enough to differentiate between the really talented players versus the more average ones more often than not, but that gap will get smaller and smaller. This is not my idea of an exciting format.

Oh man do I disagree with this.  

Type ONe is DRAMATICALLY underdeveloped.  I keep saying this, but no one beleieves me.  I have played 5 different decks in the last 6 tournaments I've played in: Central Coast Championship (tog), Gencon (Meandeath and then mono blue), SCG II (Oath), and SCG III (Doomsday).  

Doomsday has been legal for over a month but I am probably the first to play in a tournament killing with Beacon.  That's sad.  There are LOTS of type one decks out there that people just haven't tapped into  the players of this format tend not to develop new decks - they rely on someone else to do well before picking up another deck.  We are awful at innovation and as a result our format is backward in that regard.  I had hoped that teams would help this, but they haven't so far.  Short Bus - Meandeck rivalry hasn't really created more new decks than in its absence.  That trend may change though.



3) Control as more Skill Based than Combo.  I STRONGLY disagree with this.  

4) 4cc's weakness because?/

Furthermore, its not like 4CC has been pushed out of the environment due to non-basic hate; don't simplify the argument by trying to suggest that we have 4CC players spearheading the attack on CoW who refuse to adapt and resort to complaining.

I don't agree. I think 4CC and all other four color decks are pushed out by the following facts:
1) Back to Basics
2) Blood Moon
3) The existence of Fish
4) Lots and Lots of wastelands in the field
and
5) crucible.

I think 1-4 is enough alone to do it.  That's why 4 color tog is also out of the question.  

You can't go, Island, Sea and not expect the sea to get wasted.  If the sea gets wasted, your another turn away from gettnig out from under Trinisphere or being able to stop Juggy.  

5) Combo.  I think that the Canandians misperceive combo and the Americans are getting slightly better.  So long as this format has accelleration, I don't think you can ever take away the randomness of the oops I win.  Cards like Mind's Desire and Tendrils make that almost impossible.  

6) Solutions to Trinisphere

2. You have a Wasteland and some lands to follow.

Which is why I think Wasteland is a strategic card and not a tactical card.  Many decks will strategically require it, but I'm comfortable with that.

[Toad]

I don't agree. I think 4CC and all other four color decks are pushed out by the following facts:
1) Back to Basics
2) Blood Moon
3) The existence of Fish
4) Lots and Lots of wastelands in the field
and
5) crucible.

I think 1-4 is enough alone to do it.  That's why 4 color tog is also out of the question.  

Back to Basics, Blood Moon and Wastelands have been there for ages. Fish is not an issue for 4CC. I stopped playing 4CC because of Crucible of Worlds and nothing else. Back to Basics and Blood Moon can be played around with stuff like Blue Elemental Blast, Disenchants and the off colour Moxens (and possibly a basic Island / Plains). And you don't need to deal with these the turn they come into play. Crucible of Worlds needs to be answered the turn it comes into play, or you'll lose. I've won multiple games where my opponent landed an early game Back to Basics or Blood Moon with 4CC. I've won none against a first turn Crucible of Worlds.

I've been playing a lot of 4CC mirrors lately. The opponent can win games by topdecking broken stuff after a Mind Twist or a Yawgmoth's Will. This is not common (pretty rare) but it happens. You can't win if the opponent drops a Crucible of Worlds. I've even found myself mulliganing non FOW hands when going second, because Crucible of Worlds comes before Mana Drain then. Mulliganing into FOW. In control mirrors. That is absurd.

I've done some more games today, mirror again. I had 3 Crucibles. My opponent had 2. So I had 60% of the Crucibles present in both decks. And I won 60% of the games. ALL games (and by "all" I'm meaning "all", not "all but one") were decided by Crucible of Worlds. Little to no skills here. 4CC mirrors are extremely boring now. And I loved them before Crucible of Worlds.

[Smmenen]

Which is partly why I said "and other 4 color control decks."

Even assuming that is all true, Tog is a 4 color control deck that was massive hurt, not by crucible, but by Fish, Back to basics, and jsut Wasteland in general.  Tog was very very good when there were almost no wastelands in the format.

Maybe its time for multicolor control decks to pack maindeck artifact removal?

[Toad]

Maybe its time for multicolor control decks to pack maindeck artifact removal?

That is what I do. But by the time you draw it or tutor for it, you already have no lands left.

EDIT to avoid multiple posts (see above)
I'm not talking about Gorilla Shaman

[Smmenen]

I'm not talking about Gorilla Shaman

On a serious note, I don't want this thread to degenerate into a discussion of 4 color control decks, because its probably the most minor issue I brought up in my previous post.

[dicemanx]

Oh man do I disagree with this.

Type ONe is DRAMATICALLY underdeveloped. I keep saying this, but no one beleieves me. I have played 5 different decks in the last 6 tournaments I've played in: Central Coast Championship (tog), Gencon (Meandeath and then mono blue), SCG II (Oath), and SCG III (Doomsday).

Steve, Type 1 is still in the process of evolving. Players are certainly much more competent now and play better decks now than say one or two years ago. I never claimed that we have reached the end point that I so dread, but we are well on the way to getting there. Yes, we might agree that players in general tend to be lazy and don't playtest/hone their skills as much as they "should", but we are certainly making it easy on them by divulging secrets, publishing optimized decklists and play/SB strategies. True, you may be willing to publish after abandoning an idea and moving on to the next one, but T1 has an upper limit as far as viable strategies are concerned, and you are eventually going to exhaust them all.

1) Coherence

I think one of the biggest problems with restrictions is precisely that the format is NOT coherent. If Crucible is ruining Toronto, is it fair to restrict a card to ruin someone else's deck in Paris? I don't think so. That's why I think that restriction should only happen as a very last resort.

Crucible is not ruining Toronto. It is increasing the randomness factor to an unacceptable degree. This is *not* something that applies exclusively to Toronto and nowhere else. As Rich pointed out, a broken or random mechanic is still broken or random no matter how much you "adapt", or how little of the card sees play in your specific environment. You also mention that the idea of restricting a card might not be in agreement with everyone around the world, which is fair. However, part of the reason why CoW merits consideration is precisely because it will *not* be missed. Players in the US seem to underplay it so they won't care too much, and players in Europe might *finally* get some measure of relief from Stax after being ignored for so long.

Furthermore, even though you don't actually present the argument in your post, I have issues with this striving for "coherence" (and if you use a word with a such a positive connotation, let me counter by using a word with a negative connotation - stagnation). The B/R list serves to improve the environment, even if we cannot completely decide on an elegant set of criteria and their associated cut-offs. We shouldn't strive to better the environment and generate this "coherence/stagnation" to make it easier for us to understand how to best handle cards that are "on the bubble". I think you are placing the emphasis on the wrong end here.

I don't agree. I think 4CC and all other four color decks are pushed out by the following facts:
1) Back to Basics
2) Blood Moon
3) The existence of Fish
4) Lots and Lots of wastelands in the field
and
5) crucible.

That's funny - perhaps someone should have told me this, as I have been playing Keeper for the past three months almost exclusively . Keeper is probably one of the easier decks to misplay and, probably more importantly, misbuild. I think people are unaware of the resources that the deck has available; plus, its much easier to just concede to your point and play either MeanOath, mono-U, Control Slaver, and 5/3 or Titan. It is far too easy to resign ourselves to the supposed correlation between the diminishing popularity of Keeper + Hulk + other 4C decks and the increase in the non-basic hate.  

5) Combo. I think that the Canandians misperceive combo and the Americans are getting slightly better. So long as this format has accelleration, I don't think you can ever take away the randomness of the oops I win. Cards like Mind's Desire and Tendrils make that almost impossible.

How do we misperceive combo? All of our good players elect not to play it in our events because they enjoy playing less random decks. I appreciate the fact that you need a tremendous amount of skill to pilot combo decks successfully, but let's not kid ourselves in thinking that they have answers for everything, and that playskill and deckbuilding expertise will be enough to overcome all obstacles. As I've been saying, I'd love for some of you guys to come up here and try your luck (we have 2 Lotus events in the next two weeks!!).

Also: I don't think the intent here is to eliminate randomness entirely. This is clearly not possible, as some degree of randomness is inherent in the game itself. What we would like to do is at least elimitate some of the biggest offenders, and it seems that Trinisphere, Dark Ritual, and CoW are the biggest problems by far.

...Which is why I think Wasteland is a strategic card and not a tactical card. Many decks will strategically require it, but I'm comfortable with that.

What you call "strategic" I call "cross your fingers and pray you have a solution", because that's what it really is.  Its just like calling FoW "strategic" because it can randomly stop you from losing to a broken play. And both "strategic" cards don't diminish the randomness and brokenness of other problem cards. Having solutions in the environment is not a valid criteria for not pulling the trigger.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

I'm personally on the side of hitting both 3Sphere and Ritual.

I wanted to point out something:
Everybody in this discussion pretty much conceded that turn 1 3Sphere will win you the game on a regular basis, as in you don't have a lucky Wasteland for the Shop (The game: With seven cards, draw one of a five of in 60 -> you don't loose the game right here. Sounds great, doesn't it?). Sounds pretty broken to me.
Yes, we have other broken things happen, that just win on turn 1 or 2. Those cards are part of the restricted list usually, though. When cards randomly win the game on turn 1 with the help of just 3 mana, I'm used to them ending up there.

The case for Ritual is similar, the fastest existing combo-decks win on turn 1-2, which turns the game into "FoW/Null Rod or no?". That shouldn't be the case REGULARLY. Which is, again, exactly what the restricted list is supposed to accomplish.
In Rituals case the effect is made less of a problem, because the Ritual-Decks are all unusually hard to play, so you don't loose to bad players just because they knew how to tap 'shop for Trinisphere.

As for Crucible, even though everybody assumed my article was calling for it's restriction, I did not make that call conciously. It was meant more as a "look Danger" kind of thing, but oh well.
I'd say we should allow Crucible to show that it's really as powerfull worldwide as I believe it is, and kill it if it is truely bad. But to really look at that issue, we first have to remove the more broken cards by which Crucible is overshadowed at the moment.

[Smmenen]

You didn't really attack the logic of any of the points I made such that it necessitates a response, but I would like to just flesh out what I meant by this one:

1) Coherence

I think one of the biggest problems with restrictions is precisely that the format is NOT coherent. If Crucible is ruining Toronto, is it fair to restrict a card to ruin someone else's deck in Paris? I don't think so. That's why I think that restriction should only happen as a very last resort.

Crucible is not ruining Toronto. It is increasing the randomness factor to an unacceptable degree. This is *not* something that applies exclusively to Toronto and nowhere else. As Rich pointed out, a broken or random mechanic is still broken or random no matter how much you "adapt", or how little of the card sees play in your specific environment. You also mention that the idea of restricting a card might not be in agreement with everyone around the world, which is fair. However, part of the reason why CoW merits consideration is precisely because it will *not* be missed. Players in the US seem to underplay it so they won't care too much, and players in Europe might *finally* get some measure of relief from Stax after being ignored for so long.

Furthermore, even though you don't actually present the argument in your post, I have issues with this striving for "coherence" (and if you use a word with a such a positive connotation, let me counter by using a word with a negative connotation - stagnation). The B/R list serves to improve the environment, even if we cannot completely decide on an elegant set of criteria and their associated cut-offs. We shouldn't strive to better the environment and generate this "coherence/stagnation" to make it easier for us to understand how to best handle cards that are "on the bubble". I think you are placing the emphasis on the wrong end here.

I was imprecise when I said "ruining."  I meant distorting, etc.  

I do not argue for coherence anymore becuase I think we are already there, by and large.  I don't think type one can stagnate, even with coherent metagames.  I am able to anticipate fairly accurately what I'm likely to play against and beat it with strategies that I will delve into further in SCG articles of the future.   Part of the reason I've abandoned the proposition you suggested I might argue for is becuase I truly beleive that T1 is now a PTQ format with a rapidly shifting metagame.  

Oh, and I would only play combo in Toronto if I felt it was the right deck for the metagame, but I'm confident that I would have an excellent shot at any top 8 with meandeath - no matter where I was playing it.

[Dozer]

Even assuming that is all true, Tog is a 4 color control deck that was massive hurt, not by crucible, but by Fish, Back to basics, and jsut Wasteland in general.  Tog was very very good when there were almost no wastelands in the format.
Maybe its time for multicolor control decks to pack maindeck artifact removal?

Speaking of coherence, a statement like "there were no Wastelands in the format" totally illustrates that there is/was no coherence between different geographic regions, because there were notable amounts of Wastelands before - but just not everywhere. Looking back at the German tournaments in the last two years, Tog was good even when there were a good deal of Wastelands in the format, most notably from Stax and Keeper. In fact, maybe Tog was even so good that so many Waste-less Tog decks started showing up that their sheer number reduced the amount of Wastelands present!

What I am trying to say here (without digging up through the morphling.de archives) is that the format is/was not yet widespread enough that local metagames could be superceded by worldwide common developments. This has become better in the last months, citing as an example the last 5-proxy in Sydney last weekend, where Oath was highly present after Meandeck's success with it. But it is just starting. I think our format's current position is in a transitional state, which makes it just possible to detect influences from one local metagame to the other.

Because of that, I believe that calls for coherence and streamlining of the format are a little early, and I don't think we are there yet. The coherence I can already see is one between the big tournaments in the US, notably Waterbury, T1 Champs and the SCG tournaments. And I also see more netdecking becoming possible and done, thanks to the work of our StarCity writers. But at the moment, the different metagames in different parts of the world are still worlds apart both in the kind of decks and the builds of decks that are present. So when Steve speaks of coherence, I think he is missing the bigger picture. Even though Vintage has become a PTQ-style format, it is still not coherent enough to make any call about the format as a whole, because the worldwide metagames do not fit under the same hat.

In the PTQ-circuit, you can make metagame calls based on a known number of top decks, and try to anticipate *which* of these decks will show in any given area. In Vintage, you need to make this call as well as ask you the question "what else" might be there? The problem I see is that the data - as evidenced by the numbers Phil gives us - still shows trends that cannot be explained by a rational search for the winning decks.
I am just not sure if this will ever disappear, and I don't want it to anyway. I just wanted to point out that coherence might be there, but it is not everywhere, as opposed to the formats with a much larger player base like Standard or Extended.

Vintage will always surprise you, whatever happens. Anyway, I feel I am running in circles on the restriction issue. Cards might be format warping, but when one doesn't see them in one's metagame, one is not concerned. The coherence is not big enough to warrant a good call for restrictions based on general format warping instead of an individual card's brokenness. So I argue against restrictions at this point, because I want to see the format flesh out itself more without behing hindered by any restrictions - I give priority to development over a coherence that is artificially procured by restrictions. I echo Steve's call for "restrictions as a last resort", and as far as I am concerned, that last resort is pretty far away.

Dozer

[Fishhead]

Everybody in this discussion pretty much conceded that turn 1 3Sphere will win you the game on a regular basis, as in you don't have a lucky Wasteland for the Shop ...

Wait, wait, wait; I joined late and haven't conceded that yet.  Let me try my point from another angle:

How do people feel about the Dragon v. 5/3 matchup?  To me, that's hugely in Dragons favor; Dragon just fetches some basic lands and goes off when it gets to 3 mana.  Now, if Dragon is not conceding to turn one Trinisphere, what is it doing right that everyone else is doing wrong?

edit: ps. Saying something about Crucible.  Um. Um.  OK, sure, Crucible v. Crucible games are boring and can be more about luck than skill.  Mirror matches tend to be degenerate like that in a lot of cases, so I am not surprised/frightened/offended.

[CrazyCarl]

Why doesn't anyone play Planar Void?  That -completely- shuts down Crucible and it's damn good against almost every popular deck ATM.  Annul is a solid solution to both Crucible and Trinisphere.

The problem with the innovation in Type 1 is that yes, players are getting better and yes they're playing better decks, but by and large they aren't developing/creating them.  Don't worry, I won't go into a Meandeck/Shortbus roxxors tirade, but I just ask that you consider cheap hosers that deal with these "problem" cards very efficiently and that are availible to many decks.

[Raph Caron]

If R&D had followed my advice, we wouldn't have this debate right now (well, two weeks ago).

I haven't changed my mind : restrict Mishra's Workshop and you solve a lot of problems with Type 1. Less randomness, less whining, less cards to restrict.

A little question for you Steve : Is it reasonable to use your criteria for a PTQ format like Type 1?

Granted, "coherence", as you say it, would greatly help to determine the truly offensing cards. However, I think this coherence is only an utopia since we can't force people to play certain decks. Personnal factors such as one's financial ressources, preferences and style make it impossible. Are you aware of that?

[Smmenen]

I think we already have coherence in the SCG tournaments and Gencon results.

[TracerBullet]

Why doesn't anyone play Planar Void?  That -completely- shuts down Crucible and it's damn good against almost every popular deck ATM.  Annul is a solid solution to both Crucible and Trinisphere.

Funny part is, I've been advocating it in the Black Oath sideboard.  It doesn't harm your Oaths if you hit a Blessing, as you control both triggers, and it will always remove the opponent's grave.


At the same time, there's no single matchup that it just wins.  It's solid in a lot of matchups, but no deck out there autoscoops to it.  I like it in Oath because it will often become a stall, allowing you a few extra turns in games that would otherwise be lost in matchups that would otherwise be more difficult.  It's just not effective enough for most other deck's sideboards.

[Matt]

Now, if Dragon is not conceding to turn one Trinisphere, what is it doing right that everyone else is doing wrong?

Running more lands than other combo and only needing to cast one spell (unlike control), I should think.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

Now, if Dragon is not conceding to turn one Trinisphere, what is it doing right that everyone else is doing wrong?

Running more lands than other combo and only needing to cast one spell (unlike control), I should think.

That's point 1.
Point 2 is, Dragon, unlike any other deck (aside from Madness, ok) has a draw-engine that is not stopped by Trinisphere. Trini is so powerfull, because unlike any other turn 1 threat (aside from the kill), it stops all your library manipulation, so that you don't find extra-lands to get out of Trini-range in time. Dragon can simply ignore 3Sphere and start digging.

[Fishhead]

...so that you don't find extra-lands to get out of Trini-range in time.

This is what it comes down to; either you get out from under the Trinisphere "in time" or you don't.  Dragon, despite playing a lot fewer land than a control deck, plays sufficient fetches and basics to not fear the Wasteland that often follows the 3Sphere.  The Bazaar-based search helps too, but don't forget that you need to survive extra turn if you drop Bazaar instead of mana.  

What's interesting to me is that the Dragon matchup shows that "in time" is often turn 3, 4 or even later.  

...only needing to cast one spell (unlike control)...

If control Wishes for R&R (or just plays R&R in games 2-3) thats pretty good too.  

My point is that a first turn 3Sphere is vulnerable to a plan of 1-2-3 land drops and then playing a threat (Dragon) or an answer (R&R).  First turn 3Sphere is pretty darn good, but it's not an auto-win by a longshot, especially against a deck that is prepared (play land!    

Approaching it from another angle: would anyone consider mulliganing a decent hand, hoping instead for 'shop + 3Sphere?  You do against decks like Belcher where 3Sphere really is an autowin, but the 3Sphere just isn't good enough in other matchups to be worth the risk.  So there is a limit on how broken that play really is.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

A typical T1 deck has no more than 20 lands. Your chance of having 3+ lands in the top 10 cards is  72.24%, which means over 25% or 1/4 of the time you simply just loose to Trinisphere, because you don't even hit your third landdrop on turn 3, which should allow any half-decent Workshop-hand to win.
If even one of those lands is a non-basic land and they do have a single Waste, you need 4 lands in your top 11 cards to break out till turn 4. The probability for that is only 44.05%, which means Trinisphere + Wasteland should win the game ~55.95% of the time, if the Stax-player does know how to mulligan alone. Nice effective win percentage for a three card combo with a CC of 3.
To ignore these Wastelands, you have to draw 3 Basic Lands or Fetches in your first 10 cards. Considering you have 11 basic lands or Fetches in your deck (I don't think there is a viable deck aside from MonoU that has more, Dragon included, correct me if I'm wrong), the chance for that happening is around 26%, which is not something I'd like to gamble on.

(26%*55.95%= 15%, which means your basics will save you from Wasteland about 15% of the time, so Wasteland+Trini "only" wins an effective ~40% of the time if you actually are prepared for it.)

So I guess the high count of basics in Dragon is not really the answer to why it can work under 3sphere better, it just turns a majority of losses to 3Sphere into a small minority.
It is because Dragon will have seen more cards till turn 3, as well as Bazaar drawing Wastelands away from your mana lands.
Having an Instant-speed kill, that is not affected by Goblin Welder (which makes R&R a pretty try but not much more) and that only needs you to play a single spell per game helps a lot, too.
Maybe you shouldn't base your opinion on Trinisphere on it's effect vs a single deck whichs basic skeleton makes it mostly immune to Workshops threats anyway. Dragon always had an insanely good matchup vs Workshop-Prison exactly because of that.

Approaching it from another angle: would anyone consider mulliganing a decent hand, hoping instead for 'shop + 3Sphere? You do against decks like Belcher where 3Sphere really is an autowin, but the 3Sphere just isn't good enough in other matchups to be worth the risk. So there is a limit on how broken that play really is.

No, but that is like asking "would you mulligan every hand in Belcher that doesn't have a Belcher and a Land Grant in it". You can obviously win with Stax without turn 1 3Sphere, the problem is the opposite: Trinisphere + Workshop will often win without further help before turn 3 if it comes up.  

If Stax actually couldn't win without 3Sphere, that would be fine. There is a 16% chance of turn 1 3Sphere with Shop+Sphere alone, a combination of artifact-mana + Ancient Tomb will raise this by a perceptable amount, to maybe 25% (this single percentage is guessed, as it seems to complicated to me to be worth actually going through for a difference of like 5%).
This means about 6% turn 1 kills of only a decent 3 Mana + 3Sphere hand, and ~12% turn 1 kills for any hand of turn1 trini + Waste.
Considering Stax did have acceptable to good matchups vs a lot of decks without 3Sphere already, these BONUS turn1 kills THAT DON'T COST THE DECK ANYTHING compared to before 3Sphere Stax, imo pushes Trinisphere over the top. You have to consider that means that just because of Trinisphere, you can add between 6 and 12 percent to Staxs matchups vs EVERYTHING just because of random turn 1 3-Sphere.

You might say that 12% is not much, but remember even the most favorable matchups in T1 are about 70-30 because of T1s brokeness-factor, and you see why an additional 6-12 percent is HUGE. That increase brings even rather unfavorable matchups into acceptable territory and leaves only the worst matchups (like Dragon) at something where the other player has a definite advantage in a three game set.
 
And while doing all this, don't forget I assumed the Workshop-player won't drop any further lock-parts before turn 3. How likely is that, if you don't have a Wasteland and the player actually knows what he's doing?

And you also have to keep in mind that this also doesn't include other sick stuff like turn 1 Smokestack, Crucible+Waste and things like that, which will win quite a bit more games without 3SPhere being involved in any way.

These increases might not make Stax dominating, but they turn quite a lot of games into coinflips (I know Smmenen hates people saying that, but how else does one say "are decided by the fact that Stax is going first" without using a complete sentence for something that can be said in a single word).
And deciding games through the coinflip is definitly not something that is good for a format, I hope everybody at least agrees on that fact. All spells that do these broken things are found on the restricted list.

Just for comparison, let's do a little experiment:

You have a 40% chance of dropping a turn 1 Black Vise.
How often will Black Vise deal enough damage to win the game if it came down for you on turn 1 and you play your next spell after that on turn 4? Not very often I guess. Just look how fast current decks, even control, can drop their hand on the board if necessary.
How often will Vise + Waste win you the game? More often, let's say 50% of the time? You see where this is heading... 50%*40% = 20%.
If turn 1 Black Vise was as good as turn 1 Trinisphere, though, Workshop-Aggro should probably be playing Iron Maiden, shouldn't it?

And Black Vise also shares Trinis disadvantage of getting worse if you go second and being mediocre after turn 3. (Black Vise is arguably even more useless at that point)

Now, anybody here who wants to play with unrestricted Black Vise again?

Ok, I concede this example is lacking a bit, as multiple Vises turn 1 can be quite degenarate where multiple 3Spheres are sucky. On the other hand, look at Aggro, Combo and Workshop, which will probably be able to pretty much ignore Vise (or take it as a Bolt to the head turn 1, with close to no further effect). On the other hand only an opposing Shop-deck can regularly ignore 3Sphere, and even there shutting down the opponents artifact mana is a huge advantage.
Essentially this part of the comparison boils down to "you can play Black Vise turn 1 about twice as often as Trinisphere, Black Vise will be rather useless against ~50% of your matchups, though (assuming 50% control, 50% other) while turn 1 Trini is great against anything but Workshop (like, 20-30% of the meta?).

On that basis, which card is more deserving of restriction?

This turned out longer and more complicated post than planned, sorry. Anyone who finds the place where my logic really breaks down, please point it out clearly, and I'll see if I can understand what is wrong and how that changes my assessment of Trinispheres effect.

/edit: Btw, turn 1 double or more Black Vise has a Chance of 6.32% of happening, even considering you can always cast all the Black Vises you draw in your opening hand on turn 1.

[Fishhead]

Considering Stax did have acceptable to good matchups vs a lot of decks without 3Sphere already, these BONUS turn1 kills THAT DON'T COST THE DECK ANYTHING compared to before 3Sphere Stax, imo pushes Trinisphere over the top. You have to consider that means that just because of Trinisphere, you can add between 6 and 12 percent to Staxs matchups vs EVERYTHING just because of random turn 1 3-Sphere.

And how would that compare with a first turn Sphere of Resistance or a first turn Chalice = 1 or =0?  You can't just claim that a first turn 3Sphere adds 6-12% to the win column in most matchups.  A first turn 3Sphere is a good start, but not that good.

Anyway, my main complaint was with people saying "You might as well scoop to a first turn 3Sphere."  No, you might as well play on and see if one of a hundred things happens because you aren't out of the game until they back 3Sphere up with another threat.  (See below about Welder).  I think some people are grossly overstating how effective 3Sphere is against a prepared deck.

Maybe you shouldn't base your opinion on Trinisphere on it's effect vs a single deck (Dragon) whichs basic skeleton makes it mostly immune to Workshops threats anyway.

I've played a game or two with this card called 3Sphere, so don't think I am basing my opinion soley on the Dragon matchup.  I brought it up because I think that this matchup is the clearest illustration of how a first-turn 3Sphere is not the be-all and end-all that people are making it to be.

...that is not affected by Goblin Welder (which makes R&R a pretty try but not much more)...

Both players are under the 3Sphere; where are they getting an active Welder from?  (This brings up the point that it's hard to follow a first turn 3Sphere with a non-Artifact; the Stax and 5/3 manabases are notoriously a bit rickety due to the inclusion of the Workshop.)

These increases might not make Stax dominating, but they turn quite a lot of games into coinflips ...

I can't think of a deck or a matchup that I don't care about the coinflip. I want to win all the coinflips I can.  

This is the real question to me: does the first turn 3Sphere affect too many games?  And the math above shows that it doesn't.  You have to win the coinflip.  You have to draw the 'shop & 3sphere.  And you have to build a commanding position before your opponent gets to 3 mana.  So what percentage of games could this first turn 3Sphere win for you?  And then, you have to avoid the FoW, the Wasteland, the R&R and the opposing Workshop just to name 4.  How many is it winning now?  And how does that compare with any other good start in MtG?

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

And how would that compare with a first turn Sphere of Resistance or a first turn Chalice = 1 or =0? You can't just claim that a first turn 3Sphere adds 6-12% to the win column in most matchups. A first turn 3Sphere is a good start, but not that good.

You realize that these percentages are those games vs 1st turn Trinisphere where you don't even hit your third land on turn 3 (6%) or a single Waste will screw you out of that even if you are prepared with 11(!) Basics/Fetches (12%)! This means those games are won by Trinisphere alone (I hope you agree that any deck that doesn't do anything vs Shop for 4 turns should loose like 95% of the time, I remember the outrage at Smmenens different example in the DeathLong article). If you figure in the shop-player doing anything else to lock you, which he regularly will, if he's not to bad, this win-percentage rises a lot.
That's why you can add these percentages directly to the "W" side of the matchup, imo.

As for Chalice: Chalice for 0 does kill your moxen, too, but it allows you to dig for more mana, so you can get out AND you are still allowed to FoW/Drain their next threats or play threats of your own. Chalice 1 stops your digging/Duress, but not your mana development, so you can either go broken or, again, counter the follow-up threat. Chalice 0 and 1 kills bad decks, Trinisphere is a beating against anything because it shuts down everything. Honestly, how many games have you lost with a non-countercontrol deck after your opponent just said "go" and "resolves" during his first turns? This is what Trinisphere produces.

Anyway, my main complaint was with people saying "You might as well scoop to a first turn 3Sphere." No, you might as well play on and see if one of a hundred things happens because you aren't out of the game until they back 3Sphere up with another threat. (See below about Welder). I think some people are grossly overstating how effective 3Sphere is against a prepared deck.

You should never scoop against anything that doesn't actually kill you, that's true. You still loose to it something a lot more than half the time if the Stax-player knows what he's doing while he's allowed to mulligan.

I've played a game or two with this card called 3Sphere, so don't think I am basing my opinion soley on the Dragon matchup. I brought it up because I think that this matchup is the clearest illustration of how a first- turn 3Sphere is not the be-all and end-all that people are making it to be.

Nice to hear . It might be the easiest place to see that Trinisphere doesn't totally auto-win, it's still not a good thing to judge Trinispheres power on, as just about no deck can "adapt" to look enough like Dragon to make Trinisphere fair (everythin running 4 Bazaar and a 1 card combo kill? come on, that sounds stupid).

Both players are under the 3Sphere; where are they getting an active Welder from? (This brings up the point that it's hard to follow a first turn 3Sphere with a non-Artifact; the Stax and 5/3 manabases are notoriously a bit rickety due to the inclusion of the Workshop.)

I've been testing vs Stax a lot lately, if they can't get the Welder down with the help of turn 1 artifact mana and the turn 2 land and can't follow up the 3Sphere with more lock-components either, they should have mulliganed even though they had 1st turn Trinisphere. You don't keep hands that only have a single business-spell, as FoW is legal in this format.
Oh, and PLEASE let's forget about 5/3. That drops creatures, which is inherently fair because they don't affect the game-state and make Trini seem fairer than it really is. I'm talking about Stax. Drop Smokestacks, not Juggies. I'm not sure why 5/3 is winning a lot more in the US, in my experience it's strictly worse than anything with Smokestacks.

This is the real question to me: does the first turn 3Sphere affect too many games? And the math above shows that it doesn't. You have to win the coinflip. You have to draw the 'shop & 3sphere. And you have to build a commanding position before your opponent gets to 3 mana. So what percentage of games could this first turn 3Sphere win for you? And then, you have to avoid the FoW, the Wasteland, the R&R and the opposing Workshop just to name 4. How many is it winning now? And how does that compare with any other good start in MtG?

Again, my math points out the games where Trini ALONE all but wins you the game. These are the games where you don't even hit three lands with a deck prepared as much as possible without turning it into dragon or MonoU.
If you figure in all games Trinisphere wins because Stax DID have something to do before it's 3rd turn, you'd get a far higher percentage.

Aside from the 4 cards you mentioned, there is Bazaar of Baghdad and that's pretty much everything that answers that Trinisphere (ok, Artifact Mutation, other artifact-1for1-removal usually doesn't cut it).  
And that is the real problem imo. This turns the game into "draw 1 of 2 cards in your deck in your opening hand or loose", which is not the way magic should work out. If I wanted that, I'd play Black Jack or Poker.
Against everything but Trinisphere and turn 1 Combo-Kills there are a multitude of solutions available, which is the reason why I think they are problems. Any other card that has the impact Trinisphere has is on the restricted list. Let's get Trini to it's buddies .

Oh, and if I have to choose, I'd prefer a 1st turn Black Vise to 1st turn Trinisphere against me every single time. And I am just about always playing control (yes, including 10+ basics/fetches/Darksteel Citadels). Just look at the example above with that in mind again and think out which card you'd rather see come down for the opponent turn 1.