[Article]Crucible of Worlds is the New Library of Alexandria

[dicemanx]

Which cards are too powerful when they are all so close in power?
When is something distorting or when is it forcing the meta to evolve?

OK, let me make it easy for you :

1) If it can randomly bash your skull in on turn 1 almost single-handedly, it crosses the line

2) If its part of a combo deck that can randomly crush you inside of two turns, with an appreciable number of times on turn 1, it crosses the line


How's that?

[ruken]

Without going too deeply into the mathematics involved, suffice to say that your earlier example of the chances of Trinisphere being dumped 1st turn of (.4 * .4) is disproved by the examples you set forth earlier; to wit, a much greater ability for your average deck packing Trinispheres to play first turn than merely hoping to pair it with a Mishra's Workshop.

In your posting, you listed three additional single-card methods for a deck packing Trinisphere to dump it first turn -  Black Lotus, Mana Crypt (we are, naturally, taking it as a given that at least one land will be included with any given hand that we play, be it ever so simple as a Wasteland), and Mana Vault.  Furthermore, there are a few multiple-card combinations (or those involving specific lands) that enable a first-turn drop as well, as you also specified - Mox + Sol Ring, Mox + Mox, and others which weren't even discussed, such as Ancient Tomb or Forbidden City + Mox whatever/Ring/Lotus Petal.  Taking the single-card combinations with Trinisphere into account alone, this gives us 7 potential cards, which is ... err.. 73% chance of drawing one of those in any given hand that also contains a Trinisphere.  (someone correct me if I'm wrong)  So these decks will have a 29.2% chance of dumping a Trinisphere with a -single- card every single game, assuming NO MULLIGAN (this of course will increase if the player mulligans poor hands, or worse yet, aggressively mulligans to a Trinisphere).  This is significant.  Furthermore, some mathematician is going to have to derive the odds of dumping the Trinisphere first turn with a multiple-card combination such as those I mentioned above, as that may be significantly beyond my capabilities.  

If the Trinisphere player goes first, the ramifications of a successfully cast Trinisphere is significant - you are essentially forcing your opponent to play 1.5 against your Type 1 deck.  Furthermore, your aggressively-priced fat matches up better against his cheap solutions, and you already have the mana on board to cast it, while your opponent struggles to hit his third land to do anything at all.  All of this also applies if your opponent went first but had anything short of an explosive first turn with loads of acceleration.  Being crippled like this in over 30% of your games means a lot of automatic losses.

I'm not making a judgment on what to do with Trinisphere, but these facts remain worthy of examination.

Kevin

[jpmeyer]

It seems that the following are the issues to look at with Trinisphere:

1) First, the statement that you deck needs either Wasteland, Force of Will, or a "win" on turn 1/2 is important.
2) Trinisphere is a turn 1 "win", with the important words here being "turn 1" (rather than turn 2, turn 3, etc.) and "win" (in quotes) rather than "win" without quotes
3) Turn 1 Trinisphere is a "win", but turn 2 Trinisphere is not

#1 seems kind of rough, but if you look at most decks, they are trying to do this so this point really doesn't need to be discussed.

#2 means that Trinisphere provides a big effect on turn 1 which is very often a win, but is not necessarily a true win.  This is important because of the fact that many combo decks for instance can kill on turn 1 as well (and be just as hurt by Force of Will), but they are allowed to exist.  The issue here then becomes whether or not a) the "win" is too easy to get (both in terms of probabiliy and skill required to assemble it) or b) the "win" is too close to a win (without quotes)

#3 deals with the power level of the effect.  A turn 1 or a turn 2 Goblin Welder/Oath/most "win" cards (or a turn X "win" card) is always still good, and a turn 1/2/X comboing out from Belcher/Long/Doomsday will still always kill you, but a turn X+1 Trinisphere SUCKS unless you are playing against combo.  How should this affect the decision-making?

[Smmenen]

I think the sentiment you expressed here fairly puts you in the category of players I discussed early - who enjoy mana drain decks and have a clear bias for them. That's fine - you are welcome to that view, a view that many others share. But it's not a view that I think is objectively recommendable. One reason is that I disagree with your premise that Control mirrors are the most skill intensive.

*shrug*. One of the major factors that makes Magic enjoyable for me is the concept of player interaction. I'd much rather watch a T8 full of control mirrors than a T8 full of combo mirrors. How can you dispute that luck is more of a factor with combo then it is with control? With certain combo decks, you can win outright on Turn 1 regardless of what your opponent has in hand. This is almost never the case with control.

Granted, sometimes the combo is exceptionally complex to perform properly. However, the fact that the other player has to just sit there and watch you do your business helplessly is NOT enjoyable. With a control mirror, in some cases the game is over in a few turns, but at least you had the opportunity to do something.

If Trinisphere and Workshop only show up in hands of 7 40% of the time, then getting both is going to be 40% * 40%, or at least, smaller than 40% of the time. This means that in a match of three games, the opposing deck will get at least one game going first, which it can try to win, and one game in which Workshop, Trinisphere won't be the opening play. Alternatively, if WOrkshop, Trinisphere is the opening play, this is a chance you can break serve because the Workshop player may not have a follow up. They may, but they may not. It isn't a done deal. That's how I can actually say that Meandeath is viable. I have broken serve many times against Workshop decks with it for that reason. And if you win the die roll, you have two games going first. Either way, there are realistic, statistical chances that you will get to play threats and thereby win the match.

Steve, the statistical evidence you provide does not elude the principle for restriction. If I play 1st, and I have a 2 card combo, I win. You don't need a mathematician or an elaborate observation to see that this is unacceptable. A 2 card combo, that wins on Turn 1 and is irrespective of play skill, is absolutely absurd.

The crux of your argument is that you can win the die roll, and that when you don't, there's a statistical chance that in 1 of those games your opponent won't have the combo. That is absolutely ridiculous and I honestly can't believe that a person with your insight is making such a contention.

That's because you have simplified my argument to make it weaker.  This is also why I said that we need to look at a tournament situation.  We can talk all day about the problems of WOrkshop, Trinisphere, but we are massively ignoring the realities of a tournament match.  Workshop decks will only draw Trinisphere 40% of the time.  They can't mulligan into it well becuase it costs 3 to play.  And what's worse, Workshop Trinisphere isn't even a game winning play of itself.  A non trivial amount of the time you draw that in hand, then you will not have a fast follow up which provides an opportunity for your opponent to break out.  Let's face it, magic is NOT two decks piloted by two players battling to see which deck and player is best.  Tournament magic is much, much narrower.  You only get three games.  Rather than detail all the potential ways the game could play out, let me say no more than this: If I am playing Meandeath and my opponent is playing Stax, I feel I STILL Have at least a 50% chance of winning the match.  That's really the strongest argument I can make.
 
Keep in mind that I'm no slouch with Workshop decks.  I've been playing Stax since early 2003 and have continually updated lists.

 Like I said, if you don't have a make a game winnign play (either now or a play that wins later) on turn one, Wasteland or Force of Will, you shouldn't be playing this format.  

The format is not a coin flip.  For the reasons I've already mentioned.

@ Ruken, I said it will be at NO MORE than 40%.  If you read that sentence you quote I qualified it.  That's why I phrased it so carefully.  You need to get the Trinisphere, which you ony get 40% of the time.  Aggressive mulligans to Trinisphere don't work like mulliganing for Sphere of Resistence of Chalice of the Void.

This thread has run its course.  It was originally about Crucible and somehow has become about Trinisphere and Workshop.  The arguments for Crucibles restriction seemed to have subsided into the other two cards.  Arguing about Trinisphere and Workshop is not appropriate for this thread.  Those are different questions and different issues.  There are more compelling reasons to unrestrict some cards, than to restrict other cards at the moment.  Stroke of Genius and possibly some other cards merit serious review.

[Smmenen]

OK, I just have one question. Why are people suggesting that just because we might find three specific cards problematic (Trini, CoW, and a combo fast piece - Ritual is my suggestion), that this could somehow open the floodgates to the axing of anything remotely powerful including Mana Drain, Brainstorm (wtf!?!), Workshop, etc. Or, alternately, that we have some sort of bias here, and that we are some sort of Mana Drain whores, crusading to make Drain decks stronger than anything else. Do you guys seriously think that the DCI, upon hearing arguments for the restriction of those three aforementioned cards, will at some point say, "aw, screw it, lets just nail everything"?

No.

The DCI has always been very careful about what they ban or restrict, but if you have paid attention to their actions in the past few years, they have targeted unacceptably fast combo decks. Tendrils and Belcher are unacceptably fast.  Trinisphere is unacceptably fast. It doesn't matter if these decks or combos actually dominate or distort the meta.  It doesn't matter if you can spew some statistical analysis showing that you can break out of the first turn Trinisphere lock 69.72!1eveventy11% of the time with your metagamed deck packing 5 islands and 4 fetchlands, or that going first you have a 78.43523% chance of dropping a Mox or Sol Ring or FoWing the Trinisphere thereby negating/preventing the lock. All of this doesn't detract the argument that Rich and I continuously put forth, and it historically didn't stop the DCI from making decisions to bring the hammer down on ridiculously fast combos. They seem more reluctant to do so now because they have been lulled by this idea of format "balance". Forsythe basically summed that up in his tournament report from SCGII - he felt that we've reached a stage where every deck tries to do its own broken thing without one strategy being any more successful than another. However, this to me is hardly a sufficient analysis, because it doesn't examine *how* that balance is achieved. As I said in another thread, if such a notion of balance was the primary issue, then we should be happy as pigs frolicking in shit if half the matches were to be decided by coinflips. That's as balanced as it gets.

As Rich and I have stated, we feel that at least two cards *specifically* have crossed the line, and we've put forth the arguments as to why. If you want to debate the merits of restricting Mana Drain or Workshop, go ahead, but don't make suggestions that we are somehow biased or that this will start some sort of snowball effect (it never happened in the past - why should it now?). We are not out to nail every powerful card out there, and we are not trying to cleanse the format of randomness completely. Both of these tasks are inherently impossible.

Becuase mana drain is too powerful if Workshop and Dark Ritual don't exist.  Going over tournament data for the year, Mana Drains have shown up in tournaments about 2 in every top 8 on average with 2 Workshop decks on average in Pips data through Sept.  Mana Drain in multiples of 6 or more is something we could easily see.  If we got top 8s with 6 of the decklists running Drains regularly and the other two decks being bad aggro or something like that, then it would easily have to be axed.

I'm as frustrated with your policy toward Combo as you are with my views on Crucible.  

Combo is one of the few decks were your play skill DIRECTLY and most strongy correllates with the decks success.  It is an immense burden to learn and play correctly and rewards the very few and dedicated.  I think LED and Burning Wish should NOT have been restricted becuase so few people actually played Long that it punished only a very few who were skilled enough to manipulate it most adeptly.  Restricting to kill speed combo punishes skill, NOT randomness.  That sends clearly the wrong message.  Take Michael Simister.  I bet you NO ONE ELSE in the world could take belcher to 3rd place at Gencon.  I know I probably couldn't.  He did it through round after round of Null Rod, Trinipshere, and FoW only becuase he is the decks creator and knows it so damned well.  
 
Killing combo that almost no one can play correctly enough to win just becuase it can randomly win in the hands of a newb is a horrible idea.  

Again, what I say directly refutes the idea of matches as coinflips.  In my experience, only good players do well with combo.  
Combo doesn't reward just good technical skill, it requires extreme practice and know-how to master.  How could that be any less coinflippy?

[Smmenen]

This debate is NOT resolvable unless we agree on some first principles.  I have made mine clear, but I think you could be clearer on yours.  Here is what I think are the policy goals:

Policy Considerations
I don't think anyone who says that Mishra's Workshop, Trinisphere or winning on turn 1 or 2 with Dragon Combo or Tendrils is "fair" is telling the truth. However, these plays and the decks that run them have sufficient weaknesses that they are unable to win enough tournaments or be sufficiently problematic to meet any reasonable criteria for restriction. The aim of any restricted list is to do what is best for the format it affects - and by extension, the game. But what is best for the format? Do we tow the line at keeping the format fun and fair, or where there is a dynamic, balanced and competitive environment, even if it isn't quite "fair"?

Ultimately, there is only one way to come down. The foundational principle of Type One is that you get to play with all of your cards. Restriction is something which is unnatural to the purpose for which Vintage exists. The format is inherently broken and maintaining a dynamic, balanced and competitive environment is really the best you can hope for, and what should be sought. The fact that you can play one of a dozen wildly imaginative designs with vastly different card pools (okay, so everyone has a few Moxen) and win tournaments suggests that the restricted list policy is working, even if these decks are unfair under any other standard. More importantly, even if the decks are a bit on the degenerate side, the fact that a significant number of Type One matches go to time in a fifty minute round, or that you can play any one of a number of these decks means that the format is competitive and relatively balanced. While it may not be fair, it is really the competition which makes things fun, not the fact that you can get to play any strategy, no matter how weak.

Almost every premise in my quoted blurb is critical.  If you don't agree with them, then we need to discuss why before we can move onto the other substantive issues.  

To head off a bit of your line of thought for the moment, let's suppose that Belcher wins on turn 1 30% of the time, and you find that offensive.  Then the argument against restriction goes to the next level: what are the counter arguments? There are quite a few.  

One is splash damage.  Restricting Dark Ritual kills other combo decks which don't have the speed of Belcher.  Another is Diversity.  That is, you take out the ability of some of the metagame to shift and thereby make it less resistent to stress.  It reminds me a bit about using uniform crops.  If you use the same crop without variation, then a single strain of disease can wipe it all out.  Type One needs lots of diversity to help immunize it from threats.

Another is that why should we restrict a deck that wins 30% of the time if it has almost no shot at making top 8 and winning?  Becuase we want to just elimiante that on principle?  The reason that Long was restricted is becuase it SHOULD have dominated.  The deck was clearly ridiculous and had solutions to almost any threat with Burning Wish.  It won a ridiculous amount of the time on turn 1 and shoudl have been winning tournaments.  What we have today is vastly different.  We have decks that are much objectivley weaker than that.

[Ric_Flair]

I am not sure if this has been emphasized enough, but every deck in the format that is worth playing can win or be in an "unloseable" position on turn 1, given the best possible hand.

Prison can drop Trinisphere.

Combo can go off.

Control Slaver can drop Slaver.

Aggro can bust out crazy wins (see Virtual Madness).

The idea is that this format, like Forsythe said, is two decks doing crazy shit a lot of the time.  We have to accept that this is a possibility.  But that alone cannot make a card restriction worthy.  Consistent first turn kills goldfishing is not enough.

My other point about these upper tier unrestricted cards is not that Wizards should restrict all these cards, but that if one goes the others will likely dominate AND there is really no reason one of these cards are favored over another other than the quirks of the current metagame.  Change a few things here and there and I honestly think that Dark Ritual, MWS, Mana Drain, or Intuition could be in the problem child slot.

Also, again I am not saying restrict it, but really Brainstorm is fucking pure nuts.  It is uber good and while it makes things more consistent, it is sort of like the blank in Scrabble, whoever gets the most Brainstorms (aside from ridiculously bad ones) wins.  Brainstorm is often times the second most important spell to resolve in any game of Vintage.  It is just innocously powerful.

[dicemanx]

OK, back on track.

Do we tow the line at keeping the format fun and fair, or where there is a dynamic, balanced and competitive environment, even if it isn't quite "fair"?

This question implies that we somehow cannot have or at least strive to have both a fun and "fair" format, and a format that is "balanced". As your opening paragraph suggests, what's really at issue is the notion of fairness. First of all, I think it's safe to assume that most people are aware that this format is inherently unfair. In fact, the most successful deck designs try to exploit this fact to an extreme degree. This is of course very obvious. It's something that will happen no matter what the card pool happens to be, and regardless of how many restrictions are imposed on the system.

However, we have some say as far as what the acceptable weapons of choice are to be for the deck designer and player. There is no doubt that we agree on certain cut offs associated with the established criteria (particularly the criteria of dominance, distortion, and individual card power).  We have to reconcile this with our desire to keep numerous unbalanced and "unfair" cards in the format, because part of the attraction of T1 is the potential of explosiveness and wild game swings that the format has to offer.  In doing so we have lowered the so called "fundamental turn" quite drastically; and yet, it is this very idea of a lowered "fundamental turn" that perhaps has blinded us in accepting certain overpowered cards, because regardless of where the fundamental turn lies, this is very most likely completely independent from "format balance".

Let me explain two things. One goal of most competitive players in Magic is to ensure that a balance in the format exists. This is already taken care of nicely by our current criteria for restrictions/bannings. The moment that the format slips from balance, it will be due to some sort of dominance or distortion (two ideas that are actually very closely related, because it's arguably impossible to create a deck that is completely dominant - it will most likely at worst degenerate into the strongest deck + the best hate deck, which is the classic and most extreme case of distortion). Once we recognize the dominance/distortion, we have the b/r list as a tool to try to introduce balance into the format again. We do not have any guarantees that balance will be established or restored though - instead, the format has to be made "right" by trial and error, through potentially many successive steps, but the good news is that the eventual balance is most likely never out of reach.

OK, so are there any other goals that players have in T1 magic? Yes, of course - the "fun" factor. I'm not talking about casual magic or building of fun decks. That is certainly possible, but for competitive players we can make the assumption that much of the enjoyment comes from three areas:
 
I. Designing powerful, competitive T1 decks (the creative aspect of the game)
II. Interactive, competitive play (pitting your skills against others, while hoping that luck will play a minimal role).
III. Making spectacular, broken plays (we hope to either be lucky or that our opponent will offer minimal resistance)
 
Points I and III are really at odds with point II: On one hand we wish to limit player interaction as much as possible and maximize the explosive/broken potential (or otherwise increase the luck factor) via our deck designs or deck choices, and yet paradoxically hope that the format is not degenerate enough and actually allow some level of interaction. This is because III really gets old fast - there needs to be a sense of struggle, a sense that you are actually fighting an opponent as opposed to merely being skilled enough to pilot a deck proficiently to a win regardless of what your opponent might contribute to a battle. III really gives us that "dirty feeling" that Steve and others have alluded to, but it also happens to be precisely why we play T1 and not any other format.

OK, notice, however, that the notion of "format balance" in no way distinguishes between II or III. We can have a format filled with ridiculous bombs and game ending combinations, and yet if there are a sufficient number of such cards or strategies available where one cannot be considered superior to the rest, then we have achieved the desired "format balance". On the other hand, we can attempt to limit III severely by restricting key components of explosive decks, and attempt to maximize player interaction. This will push us closer towards II (whether this would ever be achievable is another matter), but once again, so long as the resulting format doesn't yield a deck that could be considered superior to the rest, we will have balance in the format.

Therefore, I think we should discard Steve's original notion that having a "balanced environment" is the issue here. That *is* clearly one of our goals, but it's not the heart of the matter. Instead, what we should focus on then is outlining a set of criteria to maintain a reasonable "fun-factor balance". This is considerably more difficult to do because it happens to be highly subjective. This is exactly why I mentioned at the start of these lengthy deliberations that it would be impossible to not only establish criteria that everybody would be happy with, but more importantly come to some sort of agreement as to what the cut-offs need to be.

So where do we start? Let's begin by examining the so called fundamental turn, because this seems to be at the heart of "fun-factor balance" in T1. The fundamental turn is linked to power level of the cards - we could easily raise it through a specific set of restrictions. So what does the fundamental turn mean? Quite simply it refers to the turn during which a deck "sets itself up" to do its thing, whether to generate some sort of combo or otherwise disrupt the opponent. Due to the acceleration in the format and the low casting cost of the most powerful cards and card combinations, this turn is presently somewhere between turn 1 and 2. While each deck essentially tries to "do its own thing", there is still some level of interaction. There is a competition between the various "clocks". Stax might try to lock the opponent with Tangle Wire and Smokestack while slowing the opponent down with disruption, Oath might try to establish its Oath engine early and win via the fast clock in a few turns, Welder based decks might try to establish a Welder early and Thirst their way into threats while protecting itself with disruption. Mono-U or Keeper may try to put themselves in a position where they can Mana Drain themselves into a big play. It is at this stage that decks are struggling to build and manage resources, disrupting the opponent wherever possible while trying to further their own plans. But in the course of such a game, there is quite a sense of struggle, and you are afforded the opportunity to outwit and outplay your opponent even when facing off against extremely powerful cards. Sure, there will be instances where your deck is stacked in such a way that prevents you from ever being in a game. However, most of the time you are given opportunities to regain the balance of power or even take the initiative. T1 games on average tend to be like that - lengthy struggles where many important decisions have to be made - a good test of skill if you will.

So, despite the fact that the fundamental turn is so low, and that T1 is riddled with extremely strong cards, rarely do such cards or card combinations set up near unrecoverable game positions so early in the game. You might have that first turn Welder resolve with Thirst to follow, or perhaps you plopped down that Smokestack with your Workshop and Mox, or maybe you reached two blue mana and have a Drain in hand along with a powerful mana sink. The struggle hasn't been decided yet though, as your opponent is likely to have quite a few resources at his disposal and might very well be able to stop your plans or counter with his own if he plays his cards right. There are, however, very specific cards or card combinations which are at one extreme - those that make the statement "deal with me immediately or lose on the spot". Trinisphere is one such offender, a rather poorly designed card that is severely limited in power apart from its ability to nearly shut down the opposing deck completely if played on the first turn. Sure, Trinisphere is not part of a dominant archetype, and sure there are ways of dealing with it, including FoW or playing sufficient numbers of lands while you hope that the opponent doesn't have a strong enough follow up. The problem though is that the ability to deal with such a card comes down to nothing more than sheer dumb luck. It will be either - "Oh look I lose on the spot turn 1" or perhaps the stars are in alignment for you and you are able to somehow survive the temporary lock. Combo decks that have the ability to end the game on turn 1 or 2 an appreciable amount of time pose a similar dilemma "deal with me immediately or lose". They negate all aspects of player interaction or sense of struggle because the game is essentially decided on the spot based on what you have in hand. If you can survive the terrible onslaught, then the struggle continues, if not, then you lose, end of story. Crucible of Worlds is perhaps the most subtle offender and the one card in this debate that is the most difficult to justify restricting, but it too frequently makes the statement "deal with me or die" when it resolves. One gets a sense of CoW being a problem card through experience rather than being able to "prove" that it is problematic.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate having to face such situations of immediate doom on turn 1/2 with appreciable frequency. Sure, once in a while a deck might pop up and fluke a 1st or 2nd turn win, but there is little issue that I have with such an occurrence. It's part of the cost of retaining the power cards in the format. So what exactly is considered "appreciable frequency"? There is no number that we can really use to establish such a cut off between appreciable and not appreciable. Instead, it has to be something that is intuitive. It is intuitively obvious to me, for example, that Belcher or Tendrils decks are simply way too fast in this format, or that Trinisphere and CoW decide games far too frequently when played in the early game than what I would deem as acceptable. There is a significant difference between specific instances where the fundamental turn is the decisive turn as opposed to being the turn in which a deck "gets itself going and does its thing". We shouldn't have cards or decks in the environment that are so immediately decisive so early, period. What's important to stress here is that "appreciable frequency" is quite different from being "prevalent" or "dominant/distorting".  That is, these cards/decks will not be decisive turn 1/2 an overwhelming amount of times, but they don't need to be for there to be a problem. If they end the game so mindlessly an "appreciable" amount of time, that is problem enough for me.

---------------------------------


OK, so whats the next logical step then? Well, do a little bit of hand waving and hope to convince people what should and shouldn't be done in the format. Why - to make it more suitable for you personally and increase the fun factor for you, and hope that many others will find your wants agreeable. The problem is that most people *don't actually know* what they want. They haven't thought about the long term implications of certain decisions, and are almost willing to acquiesce to being led by the hand, and Smennen has only been too willing to do much of the leading. The old adage "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it" applies here (the most poignant recent example was the Berserk unrestriction and the resulting "chicken little" response). I cannot say if there's a "best" resolution to everything, but I do know one thing: the journey there will be as important as reaching some sort of end point. This essentially means that people desire both growth and change, and they abhor stagnation. This leads me to my final points then about restrictions:



1. Any kind of B/R decision doesn't have to be so meticulously thought through or have to be based on precise cut-offs. It also means that we don't have to hold off on restrictions until "absolutely necessary". While the decision to ban or restrict might not necessarily be consistent with some sort of end point or goal of T1 Magic, or might be made impulsively, it can be viewed as one potential source of change in the format. This doesn't mean that we have to use the B/R as a way to keep the format fresh and fight stagnation - instead, it can be thought of more as an ancillary benefit. Format changes can also be viewed as a test of skill - the most creative and adaptable players will end up doing much better than the rest on average.
 
2. While the fundamental premise of T1 is that it is the one format where you have access to every card ever printed, there are self imposed limitations on the format based on what ISN'T restricted. There is no need to operate with such a theoretical notion that every card is accessible - in actuality, the competitive T1 card pool is much smaller than the T2 card pool because the significant disparity between power levels of the first few hundred cards compared to the remaining thousands. Instead, we should not put so much weight on such a romantic notion and worry about maintaining "format balance" and "fun-factor balance" first and foremost.

3. There is nothing wrong with restricting based on intuition or a “gut feelingâ€?. This requires fairly considerable experience, as intuition isn’t something people inherently possess. Now, it stands to reason that the people most qualified to discuss the problems associated with a card are those that have seen it in action first hand and are able to provide some anecdotal evidence to back up their claims of why a card is so problematic. For example, none of the statements that Rich and I have made arose in a vacuum. They are based on observation and play experience over a long period of time. Others might dispute our claims, but its hard to give weight to an argument that is based on a card's absence. They might speculate as to why a particular card in underplayed in a particular meta, and perhaps the truth is that it really isn't that problematic after all.  However, what is the sense in erring on the side of caution in this case? If CoW, for example, is restricted, it will solve the issues in the meta where it is very prevalent and responsible for much of the damage, and meanwhile it will never be missed in an environment where it is hardly played at all. So long as its restriction doesn't affect the format balance, and so long as we are not enchanted by the notion that T1 is the format where you can and should be allowed to play "anything", then where is the harm?

[jpmeyer]

I think part of the problem comes from the fact that since Type 1 games are so compressed, there can only be a small window for when your God draw can operate.  Back in the day, the random turn 4 kill from an aggro deck would be this sort of thing, and it would happen because that kill was just a solid 1-2 turns earlier than the fundamental turn that the other deck was operating on.

As we've stated earlier in this thread, the fundamental turn is probably turn 2 for Type 1.  Therefore, if you're going to get a good draw, it HAS to be a turn 1 play.  There just isn't anywhere else for it to go.  Similarly, the fundamental turn for combo is the turn that it goes off, so if it gets a good draw it only has turn 1 as a time to play this.  As I also tried to outline in my thread in closed Type 1, the format is loaded with enough cards that even while restricted allow you to build your deck with a fundamental turn of 2 in mind.

When the structure of the format makes it so that an above-average draw seals the game on Type 1, there simply will be an inevitable lack of interactivity at times.

[Saucemaster]

3. There is nothing wrong with restricting based on intuition or a “gut feeling�. This requires fairly considerable experience, as intuition isn’t something people inherently possess. Now, it stands to reason that the people most qualified to discuss the problems associated with a card are those that have seen it in action first hand and are able to provide some anecdotal evidence to back up their claims of why a card is so problematic.

This was a truly amazing post, and there's SO MUCH to reply to that I'm not sure I'll really have time to get to all of it, but my first reaction is to this point.

I said in the Vintage forum thread that I think that intuition is a good--possibly the only--starting place for restriction.  I stand by that.  However, it has proved more difficult to get a card unrestricted than to get it restricted, and that alone should set off warning bells for all of us.  As long as it remains more difficult to unrestrict than to restrict, we will have to be particularly careful about what gets the axe and what doesn't.

With all that as necessary background, I think that intuition alone is simply too nebulous a method.  This is for two reasons.  One is the subjectivity problem--subjectivity of the player, and subjectivity of the metagame, both of which are facets of the same underlying issue, unverifiability.  The second is the way that intuition interacts with what I've been referring to as the "slippery slope" problem, but is better named the "precedent" problem.

The subjectivity problem is the most obvious reaction to the use of intuition to determine restriction, and is probably everyone's first reaction.  Nevertheless, the fact that it's a somewhat banal reaction doesn't preclude its being a powerful counterargument.  A player, or group of players, may have many reasons to feel that a card is overpowered.  Without referring to or implying anything about anyone in this thread, those could include everything from playing in an underdeveloped or insufficiently flexible metagame (Exalted Angel makes it impossible for my Sligh deck to win, she must be banned!), to personal biases (one player loves combo, the more degenerate the better, while another loves control, while another loves aggro), to simple occasional lapses in judgment or unwillingness to adapt to a changing environment (imagine if Meandeck's reaction to Tog (aka Meandeck) getting its ass handed to it by Fish (aka Shortbus) at SCG1 was not to either retool Tog or drop it, but instead to call for the restriction of Wasteland or Null Rod).  Now, again, I am NOT implying that anyone in this discussion is engaging in any of this.  If I want to make that argument, or if I think it needs to be made at any point, I'll just make it straight out and not slink around implying it, trust me.

Given that we cannot be entirely sure of what the source of a player's intuition is, and to what degree they're influenced by any of the above, I think intuition is already somewhat problematic.  Further, once we've decided to restrict a card based solely on the intuition of a few (very good) players, we would pretty much by definition be ceding that we could not objectively verify the card's need for restriction.  If we could, that would comprise our case, and there would be no need for an appeal to intuition.  Once we've given up on verifiability as part of our method for determining what does and does not meet the restriction criteria, we have a further problem, namely:

Precedent, a.k.a. The Slippery Slope.  First, let me say that of course I understand that no one here is calling for the restriction of Mana Drain, and that its restriction would in no way be implied by, say, axing Trinisphere.  In fact, that's exactly why I'm going to use it as an example.

So assume for the moment that it's hard to make the data on Trinisphere indicate that it's unduly distorting the format.  Forget about the "where do we draw the line between adaptation and distortion" question for the moment and assume for the sake of argument that, in this fantasy world, everyone pretty much implicitly agrees as to where that line is.  And in this case, all the Dr. Sylvans and Zherbuses of the world can't provide us with enough hard data that we can point to and say "restrict this card".  Nevertheless a number, though not a majority, of the format's best players simply feel that, for other reasons, it's too much of a problem and needs to be next on the chopping block.  Their only real appeal is to intuition, but the DCI listens and Trinisphere joins the ranks of the illustrious on the Restricted List.

The problem is that we've now created precedent for a small group of players--however good, however intelligent--who are subject to all the potential problems I listed above, getting a card restricted based on unverifiable claims.  We'll assume that the DCI is, of course, somewhat rational, and won't just restrict any card.  But this format just is just one powerful card after another, many of them unrestricted.  So let's say we then have a small group of players who begin to think that Drain is just too powerful.  This is not at ALL out of the realm of possibility, by the way; I remember having conversations during The Year of The Tog about the way that the deck was fueled entirely by Drain, and that if innovation didn't take Tog down a notch, maybe someday something would have to be done.  Regardless, these players can now point to similar precedent for restricting a powerful card based on nothing but unverifiable, subjective intuition, prone to numerous problems.  That IS a slippery slope, because there will always be extraordinarily powerful cards fueling extraordinarily broken decks in this format (which we've all agreed).  And we have nothing with which to argue against such people.

I think that the real solution, by the way, is both more obvious and difficult than I want it to be: consensus.  Some form of consensus (obviously not unanimous), reached by most of the format's best minds, as to what has truly slipped over the edge and tipped the "fun-factor" balance would minimize alot of these problems.  Of course, consensus is difficult to reach.  As reason to hope however, I would like to say that, while I actually used to be against restricting Trinisphere, dicemanx's post has actually, in a nail-in-the-coffin sort of way, convinced me that it really is deserving of restriction.  In other words: I was wrong, and dicemanx convinced me.

Is that the first time that someone has ever admitted that someone else was both convincing and correct on the internet?  Can I get a gold star next to my name or something?

[Shock Wave]

Did you actually watch that match?

The first two games were sealed up rather quickly, it's true, But game three was FAR more interesting. Simister should have won game three, but he made multiple play errors in a row. The game actually lasted for some time, despite the power of hte turn one Trinisphere. I can't actually remember the details of it four months later, btu I remember talking with Travis Hopkins (who co-designed the belcher deck) and we were talking about how Simister could have won game three.

How typical that you isolate a match and say: oh look, the coin flip was heads, I guess that's game instead of looking at the broader context which is that: a) Simister STILL played the deck and b) planned on making top 8 with it despite realizing that he would lose many of those matches.

Type One is, in NO SMALL part, about deck choice. Your choice of deck, is, and has always been, as improtant as how well you play.

I did watch small intervals of games 1 and 2, which were decided in typical fashion. I stopped watching game 3 when I saw that David had an MWS and 3Sphere in hand. Whether or not Michael had the opportunity in that game to win is entirely irrelevant to my argument against Trinisphere: the majority of the time, you don't have the opportunity to win. What is "the majority of the time" ? Well, you can crunch numbers all day (the numbers Mox Lotus posted are incorrect, by the way), but it is going to be difficult to use numbers to convincingly decide the debate one way or the other. I'm sure it is possible to crunch numbers for every single combination of starting 7 cards in a given matchup that proves the argument, but I frankly don't care enough to waste a day of my life doing it. To facilitate understanding of the implication of "starting 7" card combinations, consider this example:

Player A: Shop, Trinisphere, 5 random cards
Player B: Wasteland, 6 random cards

Player A begins with the combo. Player B plays Wasteland on the Shop. That's good and all, but in how many of those cases will player A follow up with another Shop, or an Ancient Tomb, or a City of Traitors, etc etc etc. How many times will Player B have FOW but no other blue card? The statistical reference that Mox Lotus provided is overly simplified to the point of irrelevance (no offence intended, but this is true).

So where were we Steve? Oh ya, you feel that often there is a way out, I feel there is not. If you want to crunch those numbers and prove it to me, I encourage you to do so. I'm content using my intuition and experiences as a player as evidence to say that you're wrong. You, on the other hand, are doing quite the same, and that's cool. I'm fine with that, just don't expect me to agree with you.

I can see Rich coming back and saying: ok, so let me get this striaght, your saying that MWS players don't win games when they have Trinisphere (that's the kind of quality of responses I've been eliciting from him recently). That's not what I've said nor what I'm saying. Certainly MWS players will win many games after turn one Trinisphere, but it is FAR from actually ending the game right there unless you are playing speed combo. Control Slaver, other Workshop decks, and many many other decks can easily survive the Trinisphere. I can't even count anymore the number of games that my mono blue deck has just TORN someone apart becuase they resolved turn one Trinisphere.

Awwwww Stevie hunny, you're hurting my feelings. Don't get your panties in a bunch. I can understand how you've come under the impression that my posts serve as nothing more than to "give you attitude" or to straw man your arguments. That will always be the result of subjective debates for which conclusion will never be arrived upon. Let's get something straight, however. While I think your vision for this format should be shot, pissed on, and left for dead, this has absolutely no bearing on my opinion of you as a person. I enjoy your posts, I think you're extremely intelligent and I think you argue for your vision with utmost diligence, sincerity, and clarity of thought. It is only because I have utmost respect for some of the contributors to this thread that I actually read it, because it became clear to me some time ago that we're trying to bust through a brick wall with a rubber hammer. That being said, I implore those who have been contributing to continue to do so because some of the expression in this thread has been rather brilliant (and also in vain, unfortunately).

[Smmenen]

Diceman, very interesting post.  I read it carefully, and I have some thoughts

First of all, as for your first principles, there is really nothing in them that makes me disagree with them.  one could argue that they restricted Long becuase it was a deck that truly could win on turn 1 an appreciable amount of the time (i.e. more than 30% say (although they said 60%)).  I won't dispute their numbers becuase I wasn't actually trying to win with long on turn 1 most of the time, becuase I'd like to play it safe and set up a turn 2 win.  

I think its pretty clear that the DCI DOES NOT want a turn 1 win combo deck.  In my battle of the banned deck test run where we played Academy and other old decks, none of those decks were remotely as fast as Long despite the perception that they were.  In my view, as JP suggested, people's views of the Urza's Saga combo were skewed by memory, but objectively speaking, it wasn't nearly as fast as long.

I can accept all that and STILL NOT accept that Trinisphere needs to be restricted.   It is absolutely incredibly, if not amazing, the sheer difference Trinisphere makes against Belcher or Meandeath when compared with Trinisphere against Control Slaver or Meandeck Oath.

Unless that Trinipshere is immediately followed by Juggernaut AND ANOTHER Juggernaut, Meandeck Oath can easily beak out of it if it is 5/3.  With a turn 1 Trinisphere, the Workshop player only has one turn to take someone out of the game.  Tangle Wire isn't not enough.  Neither is Crucible.  It usually takes something like Smokestack to realy kill a person then and there.  But most of the WOrkshop decks don't even run Smokestack.  They play with Juggernaut or a Crucible - or if they are lucky a Tinker or something like that.  The game is far from over.  Trinisphere, against these decks, is just a nice tempo swing.

And I'm talking about situations where there wasn't even a FOW or a Wasteland to answer.  Almost every control deck but Control SLaver plays 4 FOW and 5 Waste/Strip (that's 9 cards and you have a very low chance of not drawing one of those).  

That's exactly the problem: Trinisphere DOES NOT actually just win the game.  Even followed by reasonable threats, reasonably built decks don't auotmoatically lose except speed combo.

That's actually why Trinisphere is GOOD.  Becuase it is such a huge burden on speed combo while its impact on other decks is so low.

Just as an aside, the only person I lost to at SCG II, Va was the guy who got 2nd - and I played him in the swiss.  I had won game two, and he won a very long game one and we sat down to play game three.  He was playing first and my hand was:
Orchard, Oath, Intuition, AK, Mox, Island, Island.  

OF COURSE You keep this hand.  Of course, he opened with : WOrkshop, Trinisphere.  I was fine with that as you can tell.  I have 3rd Turn Oath.  He played Turn 2 Juggernaut.  I was still fine with that.  I played my 2nd Island.  He swung for 5 and then played a SECOND Juggernaut.  At this point I lose.  4cc wouldn't lose here becuase they could play Rack and Ruin, but I can't actually Oath before I'm at 5 life.  He only had 4 juggernauts in his deck and no Su-Chis or other creatures.  

If he had almost anything else in his whole deck I would have been fine.  Was I upset that I lost? Sure.  But I consider that the exception, not the rule.  If you ask my team about all of our combined matches under T1 Trinisphere, you will find that while we might well have lost a majority of those games, those games were NOT over by turn 1.  It was the huge tempo swing that made climbing out of that whole difficult, but not impossible or even unlikely.  

Not So with Long.  With Long, there was no tempo swing.  You were dead.  Period.  The game was over and you had shuffled up and went home.  With Trinisphere, there is still hope.  The game has not ended.  This is particularly true of the decks that currently are doing well.  

As for crucible: that is non issue.  If you lose to Crucible you deserve to lose to Crucible either becuase a) they have strip mine and are lucky or b) you have too many non basics.  

I can see Rich coming back and saying: ok, so let me get this striaght, your saying that MWS players don't win games when they have Trinisphere (that's the kind of quality of responses I've been eliciting from him recently).  That's not what I've said nor what I'm saying.  Certainly MWS players will win many games after turn one Trinisphere, but it is FAR from actually ending the game right there unless you are playing speed combo.  Control Slaver, other Workshop decks, and many many other decks can easily survive the Trinisphere.   I can't even count anymore the number of games that my mono blue deck has just TORN someone apart becuase they resolved turn one Trinisphere.  

Oh man do I love mono blue

Simply stated, it's not a problem.  Is is broken and grotesque?  Yes.  But its not a problem.   Neither is Belcher - which DOES NOT win on turn 1 to a sufficient degree and often dies to the slightest disruption.

Sure, Trinisphere is not part of a dominant archetype, and sure there are ways of dealing with it, including FoW or playing sufficient numbers of lands while you hope that the opponent doesn't have a strong enough follow up. The problem though is that the ability to deal with such a card comes down to nothing more than sheer dumb luck. It will be either - "Oh look I lose on the spot turn 1" or perhaps the stars are in alignment for you and you are able to somehow survive the temporary lock. Combo decks that have the ability to end the game on turn 1 or 2 an appreciable amount of time pose a similar dilemma "deal with me immediately or lose". They negate all aspects of player interaction or sense of struggle because the game is essentially decided on the spot based on what you have in hand. If you can survive the terrible onslaught, then the struggle continues, if not, then you lose, end of story.

I wouldn't call it dumb luck.  I'd call it intelligent luck if your opponent goes turn one Trinisphere and you have either FOW or Wasteland.  Like Mox Lotus said, there is only a 12% chance they'll have Trinisphere and you won't have one of those cards.  

Intelligent players play those numbers when they design decks.  That's how one wins.  If you don't agree that we should be playing the numbers, then you want to play a deck that is immune to these threats without actually being willing to play the cards that make you immune.  The fact of the matter is that some decks aren't meant to be viable.  If you don't have a FoW or Wasteland, then you need a realistic plan for beating Workshop decks that invovles a very strong turn one play and an experienced plan for breaking their serve.

Finally, I want to say that I STRONGLy disagree with restrictions based upon gut-level feeling.

I simply have very little regard for your results or findings as they flatly contradict what I have experienced a multiplicity of times at the largest tournaments in the US over the course of this year - in environments that have very little resemblance to your own, evidently.  Restrictions based upon your experience reflects a very, very small set of players.  We don't restrict cards based upon the experiences of the best of the Italian players, and we should'nt restrict based upon what the best Canadian players think.  There needs to be widespread consensus.

So where were we Steve? Oh ya, you feel that often there is a way out, I feel there is not. If you want to crunch those numbers and prove it to me, I encourage you to do so. I'm content using my intuition and experiences as a player as evidence to say that you're wrong. You, on the other hand, are doing quite the same, and that's cool. I'm fine with that, just don't expect me to agree with you.

Is your experience and intuition based upon your opponents playing lots of nonbasics?  

Trinsiphere certainly should win a majority of the games IF RESOLVED.  But that is partly a function of the fact that it is so radically powerful agaisnt different decks.  Worshop Trinisphere againast Belcher means that belcher has like a 2% chance of winning, if that.

However, against Control slaver, Trinisphere is MUCH MUCH weaker.

Take some examples:

Workshop, Trinisphere, Juggernaut, Mox X, Land, Wasteland, Thirst for Knowledge.

Against:
mono blue:
Island, mox, Island, Fetchland, Impulse, Mana Drain, Back to Basics, energy Flux

This deck could well be Oath or it could be mono blue.  This hand has neither wastleland nor FoW, but it is well prepared to deal with Trinisphere.

Now take this hand, from, let's say 4cc:
Fetchland (assume an island in the deck), Volc, City of Brass, Skrying, Brainstorm, Mana Drain

See the big difference here?

Turn One:
Workshop, Trinisphere

4CC: Fetchland

Turn TWo:
land, Juggernaut

4cc: City of Brass

Turn Three:
Waste the city.  Swing with Jugg.

4cc is now still under Trinisphere and can't yet brainstorm to find an answer to jugg.

The difference is DRAMATIC.  Once people realize that YOU MUST play more basics, I think Trinisphere will be dramtically less powerful.  

Consider this.  If it is game three of a match in a tournament and your opponent has just played Workshop Trinisphere and you have only one basic, that is possilby enough to cost you the match right there that you would have won if you had more basics.

I think that people will need to learn from this.  From what I saw at Chicago, people didn't yet get it.  You can't play 3 color decks anymore unless you have 4-5 Basics and 4-5 Fetchlands - at least not if you want to beat Trinisphere.

[jpmeyer]

Leaving aside other stuff, the odds of having MWS + Trinisphere in the opening 7 comes in at around 11% - hardly scary stuff.

How about...
3sphere + 1 land and 2 moxes
3sphere + ancient tomb + 1 mox
3sphere + city of traitors + 1 mox (reaching here....)
3sphere  + 1 land + mana crypt
3sphere + 1 land + 1 mox  + 1 sol ring
3sphere + 1 land + 1 mana vault (fine if backed up by more land in hand)
3sphere + 1 land + 1 mox + grim monolith (reaching here....)
3sphere + 2 land + 1 mox + timewalk

there are an assload of probabilities to calculate. I doubt a deck would play city of traitors or grim monolith but the other scenarios seem rather probable.

Once you start considering combinations that require more than two cards to generate the three mana (land, Mox, Mox, for instance), Trinisphere is less powerful because it's harder to follow it up when you only have 3 other cards in hand rather than 5 other cards in hand.  You should probably stick with just looking at Workshop/Trinisphere, land/Crypt/Trinisphere, and land/Vault/Trinisphere

[Godder]

Those combinations all involve restricted cards, with Vault and Crypt being the only single restricted card options. Without running through the exact probabilities, it's not hard to dismiss them as being quite unlikely, and less of a concern than MWS + 3sphere. Even adding all of them together, and MWS + 3sphere as well, the odds of me holding FoW + Blue card are considerably better.

[Smmenen]

@ jp: Good reasoning in that respect... the probability that they have something else evil in the 3 other cards is starting to get low.

@godder: Fair enough point.

RE: Ancient Tomb:
How about the ancient tomb. I keep playing against stax decks on line and I never see tombs...am I missing something (I am not that experienced with playing workshop decks, I am a combo/control control and combo player)?

So, I think we have all agreed that in order to be successful, you either have to have: fow, wasteland, and or mws in your deck.

Not at all.  Read what people say more carefully.

[Royal Ass.]

Diceman-

I agree with just about everything you say, but like Saucemaster stated, there are too many variables and motives that could be behind this whole intuition thing.  I brought up the “gut feelingâ€? criteria in the other thread on CoW. (Which was later moved to the Vintage forum and all basic user posts deleted …weird??)

Here is what Saucemaster responded to my post with:

(Royal Ass.) Another difficult thing about this is that the restriction of cards is very subjective. Its hard to give concrete evidence oftentimes as to why a card should be restricted, many times leaving it to more of a gut instinct.(Royal Ass.)


(Saucemaster) I don't agree. The restriction of cards shouldn't be subjective in the least, hence the attempt to define a number of criteria for restriction. If it's hard to give concrete evidence, you need to either a) try harder, or b) realize that you shouldn't be calling for a card's restriction in the first place.  (Saucemaster)


After giving the issue of intuition further thought I’ve taken a third viewpoint, being that, while intuitively restricting a card would be acceptable by my standards, it should not come from within the format, but from an objective outside third party.  For a format like type 2, this third party would be the DCI or Wizards.  Technically this is the same institution that is supposed to be working for Type One, but in practice is not, leaving the type one community to police itself.  Most of the restrictions and unrestricting of the past few years have for the most part come from within the community itself because they are the ones that have the most knowledge of the format. Wizards is such a separate entity from Vintage that it can’t adequately make these kind of decisions.

The reason I’m stating this about Wizard’s Type One oversight, is because I think that if Wizard took a renewed interest in Type One than we could have restrictions on cards like Trinisphere based on more qualitative reasoning, but those decisions would have to come from the third party, ie the DCI.  

Until Wizards re-adopts Type One as a format, this thread is what the restriction process is going to look like for ambiguous cards like Trinisphere in CoW.  That’s not to say that this thread is in vain, however.  Unfortunately it looks like Wizards doesn’t plan on parenting Type One anytime soon, especial when they wont accept proxies.  I guess my main point is that I like the intuition idea, but like Saucemaster said, it cant come from Type One players, but from an objective third party that has extensive knowledge of the format.  Yet there is no such thing these days.

[dicemanx]

Given that we cannot be entirely sure of what the source of a player's intuition is, and to what degree they're influenced by any of the above, I think intuition is already somewhat problematic. Further, once we've decided to restrict a card based solely on the intuition of a few (very good) players, we would pretty much by definition be ceding that we could not objectively verify the card's need for restriction.

Indeed, there are some serious downsides to basing decisions on intuition, but again, there wouldn't appear to be any really serious repercussions to decisions based on instinct. The format will adapt and move on like it always has done in the past. I don't believe that there are any sacred cows in this format, and even if cards like Mana Drain and Workshop were to somehow be restricted (which will probably not happen any time soon), we could hardly know if it would have a disastrous impact on the environment - for all we know a new format balance might be established.  

Just to clarify though, I'm not entirely suggesting that we only adopt the intuitive approach to all future decisions regarding the restricting or banning of cards that are "on the bubble", which could lead to the kind of potential abuse that you speak of (your Mana Drain example).   My main point is that we shouldn't be afraid to adopt such an approach when it comes to specific cases, as long as the reasons put forth are based on clear logic along with some amount of empirical evidence. For example, in the case of Trinisphere and even Belcher, we don't even need to rely solely on intuition - there is a preponderance of evidence out there, it's just that players didn't really pay attention to what was happening. And theoretically speaking, there is really nothing to debate - it's just a question of whether you accept the fact that certain decks/card combinations have the ability to win through dumb luck (ah, excuse me, INTELLIGENT luck). For some, it is evident that they look at the probabilities, and based on the numbers they are fine with cards like Trinisphere in the environment. This is because they have some level of tolerance for such combo decks/ cards like Trinisphere or CoW. They say "I will only lose to a first turn Trinisphere 10% of the time, so I'm fine with that".


My argument however doesn't revolve the examination of probabilities, and this is perhaps what many of the posters are missing when they come here and crunch numbers for us or give us a multitude of examples of how a first turn Trini can be beaten. I know how it's done guys. I've beaten my fair share of first turn Trinispheres. I've lost many games after resolving one of my own. However, here is the point I'm making:

If a first turn Trinisphere instantly wins the game only X% of the time, that is around X% too much for me. See the difference? Some have  tolerance for such cards/combos/decks, I have zero tolerance. I am contending that cards that have a capability of ending the game immediately (theoretically speaking), and in fact do so an "appreciable" amount of time (based on empirical evidence), have no business existing in the format, ESPECIALLY if they are not the "glue of the format" (ie their absence will not affect format Balance). Extend this argument to Belcher and to a lesser extent CoW, and you might finally understand why we wish to impose certain restrictions.



   

I think that people will need to learn from this. From what I saw at Chicago, people didn't yet get it. You can't play 3 color decks anymore unless you have 4-5 Basics and 4-5 Fetchlands - at least not if you want to beat Trinisphere.

Trinisphere and CoW are not a big enough problem to severely restrict your deck choices (mono-U, or worse yet Meandeck Oath) or sacrifice color consistency (Control Slaver). I will continue to run heavily teched out 5CC decks because they still perform well enough against the field in general, and I don't lose to Trinisphere or CoW often enough to dissuade me from my deck choices. You cannot just simplify the argument by saying that running decks with 5 basics and 4+ fetchlands will do the trick, because unfortunately you have around 15 other archetypes to contend with. Quite frankly U/G Oath is not a very strong deck, and we're not exactly itching to play mono-U, and Control Slaver has its fair share of problems. Is that what we're expected to run just so that we can reduce the chances of losing to first turn Trinispheres? If we drop the odds of losing to such a card from 10% to 5%, have we accomplished much? Furthermore if we are reduced to running two decks (and perhaps Oath as a third somewhat viable option) to hedge against non-basic hate, wouldn't that be a classic case of distortion? No, not necessarily, because 3+ color decks are in fact doing just fine - as long as you don't shamelessly or mindlessly net-deck or follow some fruit-analogies and actually put some thought into deck construction.

Hmm, perhaps we're just doing it all wrong, and all decks in the environment need to be Meandeck decks. Meandeck Oath, Meandeck mono-U, Meandeck Slaver or Titan, Meandeck Stax, Meandeath, and 5/3 (is that a meandeck deck yet?). It seems like Chicago was a good start with the progression towards the utopia vision of "coherence". We should call that tournament "attack of the drones". Looks like we missed some good times.

And yet its quite amusing that we just finished our unlimited proxy Lotus event in Ottawa this past Saturday (70+ players) that featured swarms of Workshop and MeanOath players. No Oath made top eight except a version of my teched out 5CC-Oath. Two Stax decks did make top eight, and there were 6 fully teched out decks featuring more than 2 colors that don't match any of the current published archetypes. One Stax deck even fell to a well built 3C Goblin Control deck (I kid you not) in the quarterfinals, after losing just once in the swiss to a 5CC deck (oh, the injustice!).