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

[Smmenen]

Blurb:

So when does a card meet the distortion criteria? That’s one of the primary questions I want to address in this article. It requires a close analysis and a careful look. The critical inquiry is whether a card is “excessively� distorting. This is the problem with Crucible of Worlds. Crucible of the Worlds is not an inherently powerful card, but its presence in Type One is disturbing to many players. Crucible presents an important test case for my proposed framework and to that end I’m going to parse out these arguments for and against restriction in detail.


As a side note, I wanted to address a comment by VGB in the SCG forum.  He criticized me for calling Crucible the new LOA and then not "sticking with it."

I am making a nuanced distinction.  I was criticizing the Cotter article that called Crucible the New Black Vise on the grounds that of all the cards it is closest to, Crucible is truly closest to LOA for the reasons I pointed out.  However, I think that LOA is on the bubble of restriction, and the very slight differences are which make Crucible not need to be restricted.  So I think Crucible is CLOSEST to LOA of any card on the restricted list, but should serve as a marker for where a card should and shouldn't be restricted for "distortion."

[rozetta]

This was a good article in that it very well explained, with a given example, your well-defined criteria for restriction. It was an excellent read and I hope R&D and DCI officials will take those points to heart, especially when faced with the perpetual random uninformed rants that they probably have to wade through on a daily basis.

As a point of fact, I'd liken the restriction of Workshop, for those who still moan about it, to those calls for restriction of FoW that we saw some years ago. Basically, Workshop decks are as much the glue that holds Type 1 together as things like FoW. Without the threat of turn 1 Trinisphere, we'd see a lot more viable and dangerous combo around.

[majestyk1136]

Resource denial is one of the worst aspects of the game in my opinion due to the non-interactive nature of the play that it tends to foster.  This isn't a strong enough reason for restricting the Crucible in my opinion, but it does call to the forefront the question of how much of this is too much.

The strategy of deniying your opponent the capacity to resolve spells is not a new concept, but utterly denying them the ability to even play their spells is somewhat discouraging. (especially to new players)  If type I is to continue to mature and grow games that begin 'shop/sph3re=>go are going to be a major problem.  I'm not saying that Sp3re needs to get the axe or even that MWS needs that treatment, but the mana denial aspect that Crucible encourages is far too easily played.  Simply arguing that FoW can keep this in check or that Dropping a Strip/Waste off the draw to blast the MWS are enough to fix the problem is not enough.  The raw number of competetive decks shrunk pretty quickly when Crucible was released and the absolute number of cards that are seeing play has also narrowed.

Some see this as "weeding out the chaff" or survival of the fittest at work but a lot of the concepts that I've been trying out lately are subject to the same problem that Smmennen stated:  The strength of mana denial simply makes some archetypes unviable and the unrecoverable swing that the 'Shop provides in tandem with Sph3res and Crucibles forces decks into 2 camps.  There are decks that play MWS to overcome the hole that an opposing Sph3re/Crucible creates in their mana and there are Decks that play FoW/Crucible to defend themselves against this.  If you look at the decks that we're building there really are no decks (successful ones that is) that don't include one of these strategies.  You can make the argument that some of the combo decks (Belcher, Long) don't include these strategies, but the results clearly show that the inherent instability that these decks have simply can't stand up in a long-term fashion to the consistency of Control decks.

For example, at the last tournament that I attended I ran into a Belcher deck in the second round.  I was playing 7-10 and won the Die roll.  I played first and dropped a Sphere on turn 1.  Obviously I won.  Game 2 and 3 however involved him drawing God Hands and going off before I had a decent defense set up despite mulliganning aggressively into hate.  Now Belcher is an inherently unstable combo deck that just dies to mana denial, and I would lump Long into the same category.  I would further wager that given the chance to have another crack at the situation I would probably have won because my deck is inherently more stable and redundant than his.  So even with all this in mind the most successful decks are still the ones that pack one of the 2 strategies that I mentioned before and I would argue that this can't be a good thing because it simply forces deck design to start out with certain core cards before you insert the win condition of your choice.

I wish I knew what could be done to prevent this sort of "Channelization" of the deck design process without jumping to the restriction axe, but some things are required in my opinion to foster a healthy metagame and insure that potentially good new players continue to join the format and aren't forced to just give up on potentially good designs because they don't follow one of the the 2 paths described above.

EDIT:
@Smmenen:  I can see your logic in comparing the Crucible to LoA, but I would Liken it more to Time walk.  Crucible allows you to "turn back the Clock" on your opponent by undoing what they have done.  By replaying a wasteland and destroying another one of their lands you set their board position back by a whole turn and have cost yourself next to nothing given your ability to simply replay the same land again next turn.

[Covetous]

(I'm pissed because my computer crashed in the middle of a well thought-out and possibly insightful post)

Steve--Great article.  I'm glad to see that you favor Crucible's continuing unrestriction until something changes suggesting that it should get the axe.  A lot of people are mad at crucible because it can be used to exploit the inherent weaknesses of their favorite decks, the manabase.  People are used to playing a multicolor deck with the best cards of each color, for maximum power level.  The drawback was that their manabase would require tons of nonbasic lands, and just generally be bad.  Until relatively recently, this was okay, but then decks like Fish came along and showed us that nonbasic hate leveled at weak manabses was a successful strategy.  Crucible plays into that strategy and it has people all riled up because they are forced to play with only a few colors in order to have a stable manabase.  This is not really a bad thing IMHO because it seeks to remedy a glaring weakness that decks like 4cC and 4cTog have had for a long time.  Eventually, when all the major decks adapt to nonbasic hate, it will not longer be a viable strategy and will fall out of favor, allowing multicolor decks to return, which will in turn allow nonbasic hate to once again be successful.  It is the innovators who are successful at tourneys based on metagame decisions and the ability to foresee shifts of this nature.

On a different note, I think it is interesting that you choose to define restriction criteria based on deck performance.  I'm not saying I disagree, but it's slightly different than the criteria I generally consider fair, which are based on several attributes of specific cards that lead to these cards being broken by certain decks.  In some cases, the inherent brokenness of these cards lies dormant until someone can build a deck that either abuses or ignores their drawbacks (think LED or Gush).  My general criteria are:

1.  Card advantage--if a card allows you to draw more cards than the number of mana you invest in it, it probably should be restricted unless there is a serious drawback that prevents it from being abused in too many decks (i.e. Meditate).  This is why Gush should have been restricted--it allowed you to draw 2 cards for free, and it took GAT to show us how this could be really busted.

2.  Mana acceleration--if a card allows you to get more mana out of it than you invested, it should be restricted, especially if it's an artifact. If the card is colored then it should not warrant restriction unless it is shown to be unfair (i.e. DR and ESG aren't particularly offensive despite breaking this rule).  This is why LED should have been restricted--it's 3 mana of any color for free.  It took decks like Burning Desire to show us how to get around the drawback and prove that LED is as busted as it is.

3.  Tutors--cheap, effective tutors should be restricted.  This means cards that allow you to put cards into your hand or on top of your deck for 1-2 mana, or into play for 3 mana or less (Tinker).  This is why Burning Wish had to go but Cunning Wish can stay for now.  Desire abused the inherent brokenness of Burning Wish to play 4 copies of restricted sorceries in a deck for the meager investment of 2 mana.  Thus, these cards should be restricted.

4.  Other--this is the catch-all category that holds all other game-breaking cards that are inherently unfair for some other reason (i.e. Yawgwin).  This is my criteria that specifically allows cards that fuel a dominating deck to be axed--if they allow something too unfair to occur through (unforeseen) interaction with other cards, they they should be nixed.

But, where these criteria intersect with Steve's is that there are a few cards which should by these criteria be restricted but have not yet caused enough trouble to warrant it.  Some of these cards are perpetually on the watch list and IMO include Welder (rule 4), Intuition (rule 3), Workshop (rule 2), Bazaar (rule 1), Diminishing Returns (rule 1) and a host of other almost-too-broken things.  When a dominant deck emerges that breaks one of the almost-broken cards, then it should be restricted.  For example, if GY hate hadn't served to prevent Dragon from dominating, then it would have been completely fair to restrict Bazaar due to the fact that it's a land (i.e. free) that draws you two cards and thus violates Rule 1.

[Shock Wave]

As a point of fact, I'd liken the restriction of Workshop, for those who still moan about it, to those calls for restriction of FoW that we saw some years ago. Basically, Workshop decks are as much the glue that holds Type 1 together as things like FoW. Without the threat of turn 1 Trinisphere, we'd see a lot more viable and dangerous combo around.

I totally disagree. Trinisphere is NOT the glue that binds this format. Combo was not an invincible deck prior to Trinisphere. Chalice of the Void is also a very adequate hoser, and it does not rape every deck in the format the way Trinisphere does. There were tools to fight combo with long before the advent of Trinisphere.

[rozetta]

Okay, I was perhaps a little drunk last night when I posted that, but I have been thinking along those lines a bit recently. Basically, my thought process went like this. WotC openly state that they don't like fast combo. I think they knew what they were doing when they released Trinisphere, knowing that people play Workshops. It's their way of keeping the threat of fast combo down to a minimum. It also enables aggro decks to return to the scene. I do agree that to some extent, Trinisphere poses problems to other decks, especially those not running Wasteland.

Agreed, there have always been other tools available to fight combo, but a lot of them got relegated to sideboard (Chalice of the Void). Remember that turn 1 Sphere of Resistance is nowhere near as much of a hoser for combo, since you can go land, tap to cast mox, tap to cast mox.

This is where Crucible comes in. Most decks designed for more interactive play (aggro and control) already run Wastelands which are a decent answer to a turn 1 shop->sphere. This now creates a Type 2-like game state where making a land drop every turn is important. Crucible makes this situation unfair if the shop player manages to drop it before the opponent has reached their 3 mana (and have a wasteland).

There are a few decks that play Shop, Crucible and Trinisphere - the Stax variants and the Juggernaught decks. Those decks are slightly inconsistent in that they do rely, to a certain degree, on getting a Workshop early enough to power out these threats. When I goldfish a deck I often try goldfishes with the following scenarios:

a) The opponent plays a turn 1 Trinisphere
b) Your first spell is FoW'd and your first land is wasted
c) Turn 2 Null Rod with opponent going first

This is to see if the deck I'm working on can recover from these potentially common scenarios.

If we look at what a first turn Trinisphere shuts down, it's actually a lot more than just straight combo (as you guys mentioned). As an example, basic Affinity is also shut down quite well.

I've played both sides of the game and I know that if I'm playing a turn 1 Shop->Trinisphere, I can sometimes just as easily get hosed if the opponent wastes a land or two and happens to draw more land than I do to recover from the situation (the Type 2 scenario). In this scenario, I might not draw land quick enough to play out that crucible before the opponent has recovered. The fact is, playing a turn 1 Trinisphere against any deck that runs Wastelands is a potential gamble unless you drew a second Workshop.

As a combo player, the fact that any game can be opened with a turn 1 Trinisphere, and follow it up with a Crucible + Wasteland means that it's impossible to build a broken enough deck solely on the fact that the mana-base must be resistant to Wasteland, since combo is about the only archetype that does not run their own wastes to slow down that scenario.

To be honest, I've played with Workshops and Crucibles recently and can agree that an early enough Crucible + Wasteland, Trinisphere or no, is pretty nasty. Although, moxen do allow an out from that situation if you draw them quickly enough, it's still an unfair and potentially unwinnable position to be in.

To summarize:

- Workshop decks are still inconsistent
- Trinisphere was specifically designed to keep broken enough fast decks in check - it's much better than any other maindeck hoser in this respect
- Trinisphere was also designed to give aggro a slot in the metagame
- Most non-combo decks have a good answer to Trinisphere with Wastelands
- Crucible can create unfair situations, Trinisphere or no, but help to reinforce the lock against very fast combo only if Trinisphere is in play. There are anyway better cards available to these decks to fight combo such as Chalice of the Void.

Edit:
Sorry about pulling this thread off track. I felt bad about making a statement without posting my thought process behind it and wanted to try and clarify the situation (albeit this might look a little muddled).

[Smmenen]

As a point of fact, I'd liken the restriction of Workshop, for those who still moan about it, to those calls for restriction of FoW that we saw some years ago. Basically, Workshop decks are as much the glue that holds Type 1 together as things like FoW. Without the threat of turn 1 Trinisphere, we'd see a lot more viable and dangerous combo around.

I totally disagree. Trinisphere is NOT the glue that binds this format. Combo was not an invincible deck prior to Trinisphere. Chalice of the Void is also a very adequate hoser, and it does not rape every deck in the format the way Trinisphere does. There were tools to fight combo with long before the advent of Trinisphere.

I think there is good reason to think this is no longer the case.  Type ONe has continued to mature rapidly in the last 9 months.  I think that if you removed Trinisphere from the format, Combo would just dominate.  Of course, this is my own intuition.

[Komatteru]

I think there is good reason to think this is no longer the case.  Type ONe has continued to mature rapidly in the last 9 months.  I think that if you removed Trinisphere from the format, Combo would just dominate.  Of course, this is my own intuition.

If combo trounced control all the time, this would be the case.  However, the combo/control matchup is very difficult for both players.  Workshop aggro's only hope against combo is that it gets out a Trinisphere.  The rest of aggro, of course, just gets trounced by combo.

Trinisphere (and formerly Sphere of Resistance) is the reason why combo doesn't dominate Workshop-based decks.  The other stuff (Smokestack, Tangle Wire, etc.) merely buys time for the Shop player to find a Trinisphere.  In fact, Trinisphere is the reason Shop decks win.  It's nearly as brutal to control as it is to combo.

As for Crucible being in the new Library of Alexandria (the original point of this thread), I think it's an interesting comparison.  The point has nothing to do with Crucible being as powerful as Library, but similar in function.  I'll concentrate solely on the swings the cards create and not the distortion effects (there is little question that Crucible has forced players to re-evaluate their manabases to include more basics, whether or not that is good is another item).  While there really are no cards that we can truly compare Crucible to, Library is a better choice over Black Vise, which was the comparison everyone was making.  Black Vise makes the opponent dump his hand and just creates a life swing.  It has to be followed with some other way to do damage; you can't just throw it out and then think it will win the game hands down for you.  An early Library creates insane card advantage, usually to the point where the opponent can't recover.  Late in the game, it's good, but not nearly as spectacular.  Crucible is the same.  Crucible/Wasteland really isn't that exciting if it hits when you already have 5 land and some Moxes in play.  There are other cards on the restricted list that might make nice comparisons for Crucible. Balance and Mind Twist (mentioned in the article) are the two that come to mind immediately.  While Crucible is nowhere near the power level of those two cards, the swing it creates can be similarly unrecoverable as those two.  We used to joke that Balance should just read "If you were losing the game, you are now winning."  Crucible is similar in that respect.  It all too often says "If you have a Wasteland or Strip Mine, you might have just won the game."  Then again, there are other cards not on the restricted list that can create huge, unrecoverable swings.  The biggest culprit of that is Mana Drain.  Multiple Duress in succession are also similarly game breaking (let me tell you about that).

[Smmenen]

I think there is good reason to think this is no longer the case.  Type ONe has continued to mature rapidly in the last 9 months.  I think that if you removed Trinisphere from the format, Combo would just dominate.  Of course, this is my own intuition.

If combo trounced control all the time, this would be the case.  However, the combo/control matchup is very difficult for both players.  

A big part of this is the fact that combo has to worry about Workshops.  If Combo didn't have to worry about Trinisphere, Id play Xantids MD more likley and no Hurkyl's or Chains.  It would free up mad space to devote to Control.

[Komatteru]

A big part of this is the fact that combo has to worry about Workshops.  If Combo didn't have to worry about Trinisphere, Id play Xantids MD more likley and no Hurkyl's or Chains.  It would free up mad space to devote to Control.

This is starting to get off topic, but let's examine New England.  No Stax there, and combo doesn't dominate.  There's lots of control though...but not much combo to be seen.

[Smmenen]

A big part of this is the fact that combo has to worry about Workshops.  If Combo didn't have to worry about Trinisphere, Id play Xantids MD more likley and no Hurkyl's or Chains.  It would free up mad space to devote to Control.

This is starting to get off topic, but let's examine New England.  No Stax there, and combo doesn't dominate.  There's lots of control though...but not much combo to be seen.

Workshops are highly prevalent now, and Carl Winter got 2nd with Meandeath at the Waterbury.  Take a look at the top 8 of the mana drain open.  Lots of shops.  I heard there were like 10 meandeaths that all lost to Trinispheres at TMD open.

[jazzykat]

  An early Library creates insane card advantage, usually to the point where the opponent can't recover.  Late in the game, it's good, but not nearly as spectacular.  Crucible is the same.  Crucible/Wasteland really isn't that exciting if it hits when you already have 5 land and some Moxes in play.  

I don't disagree about the swing that Library creates in control vs. control matchups early game. If you are playing against aggro or workshop decks you may not get to use it once due to having to deal immediately with the threats the other deck is playing. My real issue I take with your argument is that crucible/wasteland really isn't that exciting later in the game.

While it is often the case that you may not have enough cards to use LOA late in the game, using a COW/wasteland is brutal to everyone but mono blue. Being a control deck and  not having as much mana as possible makes a difference. It can often mean the difference between casting a strong draw spell (scrying, FOF, TFK) and a counter(drain?). Or hard casting a FOW.  Your Will turn is neutered hugely. I would argue that if you have non basics and someone drops cow, with a wasteland in the yard it does matter.  Especially when the basic lands are usually islands so that you are cut off from all of your secondary colors. If you happen to have your secondary moxes then you are lucky, fetching out the right colors you had control over and fetched when you needed them, but they get to kill all of them with 1 land.

Lastly COW is card advantage and tempo advantage. They keep using the same land to cripple your mana base. Forget about a random striip winning you a game, now its the systematic destruction of your non island mana!

I hope this was coherent enough, I am still not sure if COW should be restricted but  I needed to point out the full effect of the card.

[everythingitouchdies]

This is starting to get off topic, but let's examine New England.  No Stax there, and combo doesn't dominate.  There's lots of control though...but not much combo to be seen.

I have to admit, considering the metagame of Pandemonium throughout the summer, this comes off as fairly narrow and almost naive. I see the point you are trying to make, but I dont think it fully addresses the scope of the argument at hand.

Throughout the summer, there was NO stax, and the workshop that there was took on a very random flavor. Serialjester's MonoBrown Crusher did not run 3sphere in any of its incarnations. Brian had retired Stax, and control seemed to have its day.

But an interesting thing happened. 4cc started running Crucible of Worlds (which is, for the most part, the card this thread is discussing) and using wasteland to lock out its opponents. This was largely in response to decks like fish starting to show, which were dealing a fair amount of damage to a field that used to be mostly Tog and 4cc. With the retreat of Tog (Josh even switched to 4cc) and the arrival of CoW in Control decks, as opposed to Prison decks, and the intrusiveness of Null Rod wrecking early builds of control slaver, things were quickly spinning towards a one sided metagame.

But there were a few exceptions. Where was the combo? Why didnt it dominate as you imply that Steve implied it would? Its simple. You had a field of control players all packing extra hate for the small amount of combo (namely me) that appeared. And, contrary to the hate and the dominance of control, I faired extremely well with Dragon on a weekly basis. At points there were players siding in 9 cards to deal with me.

What happened was simple. With the absence of Workshop Prison from the metagame, the control decks were able to focus more on how to handle combo decks without damaging the mirror match. When you remove that element for combo you also remove it for everyone else. Eventually Mark (Windfall) shows up with a Mono U Trix deck and wrecks everyone much in the way that Mono U later hit the scene at GenCon and how Oath did at SCG2. He had all the necessary tools and was tuned to dodge through the meta. It only worked for a moment, because it woke everyone up. Soon Workshop reestablished itself and out of it arose a metagame very similar to what we see in the current field.

And in the Center of all of it is Crucible of Worlds. And standing right beside it is the infamous Trinisphere. Neither of these cards could have impacted the format as much as they do together. It is no accident that they both cost 3 mana. While this is a solid lock, it requires as much set up as any combo deck, and is easily countered or hit with Duress before it is played. The reality is that they enrage alot of people, make them feel like the Workshop decks are unfair. But this is simply another narrow glance at a new appendige of competition. How fair do you think the Workshop player feels it is when he is holding his precious 3sphere or WasteLock and you Tendrils him to death before he plays a spell?


Food for thought.

EITD

[dicemanx]

How fair do you think the Workshop player feels it is when he is holding his precious 3sphere or WasteLock and you Tendrils him to death before he plays a spell?

That's because getting killed on turn 1 by Belcher/Tendrils decks is just as unfair, and they need to be taken care of as well - this is something the DCI was quick to do in the past, but now they seem to be mesmerized by the apparent format "balance". The fact that the combo decks actually require some skill to pilot is no justification. It is also no justification that Trinisphere needs to stick around to keep combo in check - two wrongs won't right themselves in this case. If we contemplate the axing of Trinisphere, then it would have to be coupled with the axing of Dark Ritual. CoW is almost a separate issue, but it has tie-ins to both Trini and Ritual in that it can randomly lock certain decks (or rather, the majority of decks) far too easily.

Plus, prison still has many good options as far as disruption is concerned - most notably the vastly underplayed Chalice of the Void, and Trini's weaker cousin Sphere of Resistance.

[VGB]

Dicemanx, you are starting to sound like Legend.

He said, to the effect, "restrict everything until Sligh is good"; you seem to be of the mold "restrict everything until 4CC is the best deck again".

Not like that is an altogether bad thing, though, but when T1 is at it's most boring is when 4CC crops up in T8's.

[Shock Wave]

Dicemanx, you are starting to sound like Legend.

He said, to the effect, "restrict everything until Sligh is good"; you seem to be of the mold "restrict everything until 4CC is the best deck again".

Not like that is an altogether bad thing, though, but when T1 is at it's most boring is when 4CC crops up in T8's.

Perhaps that's true, but what we're seeing here is a conflict of opinions as to where the format should be going. Personally, I loved T1 before the advent of Trinisphere and Crucible.

I remember that before the advent of Trinisphere and Crucible, every archetype had a chance to win. Control was good, Combo was still good, and even aggro could steal a win here and there. Now, Control randomly scoops to Trinisphere and Crucible, Workshop decks win randomly on Turn 1, and aggro no longer exists. Even aggro-control has become nigh hopeless.

Steve seems to think that combo would rule if we got rid of Trinisphere, but I don't think so. I think it would be strong, but there are still tools to fight it. My proposition is that we restrict the new offenders and go back to where we were before their inception. I remember the format being both diverse, competitive, and having a "balance" in terms of skill and luck.

If combo somehow managed to dominate with Trinisphere restricted, then perhaps they could both be given the axe as well, although I feel Charbelcher should be the 1st to go and not Ritual.

That's my vision. What are your visions? I've heard Steve's enough to make a tintinnabulation sound off in my head every time I read this thread, but what I would really like to hear is where everyone else wants this format to go, particularly the VAs and users that have an educated, experienced appreciation for this format.

[Zherbus]

Rich, I agree with your entire post. The only thing I think I deviate with is that I think that Trinisphere is only as guilty as Workshop.

[VGB]

What are your visions?

The more I play T1, the more I agree with the "Legend sentiment"; that if you can whip out a dumb deck like Ankh Sligh and occasionally T8 in a random field, then the format is balanced.  And screw the healthy versus balanced argument (or should I say degenerate versus healthy?).

That said, key components of every deck that continually take spots in the top tables while squeezing out other fundamental archetypes would get the axe were this approach implemented.  You still get an ongoingly fresh format that takes minimal supervision - all it takes is a brief perusal of Steve and Phil's lists every month.  Obviously workshop decks would be the present main offender, as they have consistently been dominating T8's the world over for many months now.  This includes pre-Crucible.

[Ric_Flair]

I agree with Shockwave about Trinisphere.  It is a great card at keeping combo at bay, but it is not the end all and be all of combo hosing.  My experience with combo since Chalice was reprinted is that Chalice forces combo off its game.  It may not shut down combo like Trinisphere or Null Rod, but it does make the matchup more fair.  When the combo deck is siding in Overloads it is diluting its power.  Even without Trinisphere I think there is a sufficient amount of combo hate to stop or slow down most of the combo decks out there.  Steve, what combo deck are you thinking of that can walk all over Chalice?  I can't think of a combo deck utterly unaffected by Chalice (though Dragon is close, but Dragon is not a problem deck).  

As far a Crucible is concerned I think that it represents the upper most limit of unrestricted cards in the format.  My big concern is that if Wizard's restricts Crucible we will see good reason to restrict other cards as well.  Previous eras of Vintage have shown that Mana Drain, Intuition, Workshop, Dark Ritual, and other cards are all really busted.  Though it may not seem so right now, perhaps a turn in the metagame will vault these cards or another card into the problem child slot currently occupied by Crucible.  If Crucible goes then these cards very similar in power seem to be in jeopardy.  Right now it may seem hard to believe, but taking a long, historical look at the format, I think it is clear that Mana Drain and Crucible are of roughly equal power.  Whatever the difference is, it is insignificant over the long run.  And there are ton of other cards in the same situation.  What, besides the changing vicissitudes of the metagame, is the power difference between Crucible and Ritual, Ritual and Drain, Drain and Intuition?  Restricting Crucible, in my mind, is almost nearly arbitrarily choosing to restrict it over any of the other cards I mentioned.  And seriously, how can we talk about restricting a card without looking at our favorite deck manipulation card--Brainstorm.  I think that Brainstorm is better than all cards so far mentioned.  It has been very good, in tons of different decks, for a long, long time.  If Crucible goes can we seriously and reasonably claim that Brainstorm should remain unrestricted?  I don't think we can.  

Personally, I think we should wait a little longer and see what happens.  Two major tournaments with many different decks in the top 16 is a good thing.  And if Crucible goes, then they should just reset the bar for restricted cards and take out a bunch of stuff, otherwise they are just forestalling the inevitable.

[Shock Wave]

Rich, I agree with your entire post. The only thing I think I deviate with is that I think that Trinisphere is only as guilty as Workshop.

This is both true and untrue. It is true in the sense that Trinisphere without MWS is absolute shit. On the otherhand, MWS without Trinisphere is still broken, but is capable of a random win on Turn 1 much less frequently as a result of Trinisphere's restriction.

I think that MWS is hideously broken, don't get me wrong. However, the ramifications of removing it would have combo shitting all over our environment. Workshop decks should always be the achilles heel of combo, but they should not have an inherent 2 card combo that decimates every deck in their path.

I disagree that MWS decks are capable of "dominating" without Trinisphere and Crucible. I know this for a fact. If I can beat pre-trini-cow Stax with Landstill (convincingly), that is a clear indication that it is not invincible, as Landstill is the antithesis of "broken". Insert CoW and Trinisphere into the mix, and the matchup is absolutely hopeless. I'm not saying that the viability of Landstill is the crux of the argument. What I am saying is that if a deck with relatively no broken cards can beat pre-cow-trini stax, then it is conceivable that many other decks in the environment can do so as well.

[Smmenen]

Rich, I agree with your entire post. The only thing I think I deviate with is that I think that Trinisphere is only as guilty as Workshop.

This is both true and untrue. It is true in the sense that Trinisphere without MWS is absolute shit. On the otherhand, MWS without Trinisphere is still broken, but is capable of a random win on Turn 1 much less frequently as a result of Trinisphere's restriction.

I think that MWS is hideously broken, don't get me wrong. However, the ramifications of removing it would have combo shitting all over our environment. Workshop decks should always be the achilles heel of combo, but they should not have an inherent 2 card combo that decimates every deck in their path.
.

I think this post is DEAD ON.  Well said rich.

[Shock Wave]

I agree with Shockwave about Trinisphere. It is a great card at keeping combo at bay, but it is not the end all and be all of combo hosing. My experience with combo since Chalice was reprinted is that Chalice forces combo off its game. It may not shut down combo like Trinisphere or Null Rod, but it does make the matchup more fair. When the combo deck is siding in Overloads it is diluting its power. Even without Trinisphere I think there is a sufficient amount of combo hate to stop or slow down most of the combo decks out there. Steve, what combo deck are you thinking of that can walk all over Chalice? I can't think of a combo deck utterly unaffected by Chalice (though Dragon is close, but Dragon is not a problem deck).

I agree with everything stated above, except your initial statement about Trinisphere, which I find disturbingly gentle. Trinisphere is not a "great card at keeping combo at bay", it keeps everything at bay. I don't know if it was your intention to come across the way you did and I doubt it was. However, I think the community needs to make an assertive acknowledgement that Trinisphere is an extremely degenerate card. We are not dealing with a minor inconvenience here. We are dealing with a very grotesque detriment to the enjoyability, diversity, and skill balance of our format.

As far a Crucible is concerned I think that it represents the upper most limit of unrestricted cards in the format. My big concern is that if Wizard's restricts Crucible we will see good reason to restrict other cards as well. Previous eras of Vintage have shown that Mana Drain, Intuition, Workshop, Dark Ritual, and other cards are all really busted. Though it may not seem so right now, perhaps a turn in the metagame will vault these cards or another card into the problem child slot currently occupied by Crucible. If Crucible goes then these cards very similar in power seem to be in jeopardy. Right now it may seem hard to believe, but taking a long, historical look at the format, I think it is clear that Mana Drain and Crucible are of roughly equal power. Whatever the difference is, it is insignificant over the long run. And there are ton of other cards in the same situation. What, besides the changing vicissitudes of the metagame, is the power difference between Crucible and Ritual, Ritual and Drain, Drain and Intuition? Restricting Crucible, in my mind, is almost nearly arbitrarily choosing to restrict it over any of the other cards I mentioned. And seriously, how can we talk about restricting a card without looking at our favorite deck manipulation card--Brainstorm. I think that Brainstorm is better than all cards so far mentioned. It has been very good, in tons of different decks, for a long, long time. If Crucible goes can we seriously and reasonably claim that Brainstorm should remain unrestricted? I don't think we can.

Restricting Crucible does not imply that we need to look for more cards to restrict. Of the cards you've mentioned above, none have ever raised ire from the community in the way Crucible has. Let's take a look:

1) Dark Ritual: the only reason to restrict this card is because it gives combo an unfairly quick kill, at times. I say so be it, but others disagree. That's cool, the community is going to be 50/50 on issues like this. In my opinion, as long as MWS is in the format and cards like CotV and SoR exist, Dark Ritual is not that unfair. (I could be wrong, this is my gut speaking)

2) Mana Drain: There's no reason to restrict this card. Yes, it is broken, but it demonstrates the side of control that is fairly broken, the same way Dragon is broken but agreeably fair. Yeah, it stops you from playing overcasted cards and can fuel some broken plays. Big deal. If you take this bad boy away from control, that's the last you'll see of the archetype.

3) Intuition: This is another of those 50/50 cards. I'm on the "leave it be" side, but others would disagree. I'm agree that this card is potentially degenerate, but until we see ample reason to give it the hose, leave it be.

4) Brainstorm: Ric, the other cards you've mentioned I can fully relate to on the issue of extreme power. However, you're really going to have to dig deep on this one. What in God's name are you talking about? This card is pretty far from any sort of consideration for restriction.

My vision for type one is very different than the vision where some guy can pick up ankh sligh and randomly top 8. Ideally I would prefer if all good decks were also hard to play, you should have to work for your top 8s. Combo I’m fine with, its complex. Control is full of decisions, even fish requires a lot of skill to manage properly. What I’m not ok with is losing to random quick aggro decks with great draws, which for anyone who remembers the “good old days� was an annoyance that could happen to everyone.

To me this question boils down to are crucible decks more like fish or like sligh (from the old days, now it’s a dead deck). I’m not really sure on this issue yet.

How is losing to MWS -> Trinisphere decks any more permissable than losing to "random quick aggro" ? You do realize that a "God hand" with an aggro deck requires a combination of at least 4 cards right? Even then, it is far from an automatic win. The annoyance that you're referring to is a very minor one. If I play T1 and my opponent beats me with an aggro deck such as Sligh, then they have my utmost respect because non-mws aggro decks that win in T1 are almost unheard of.

[Smmenen]

Rich, I think we should realize that there is some pretty deep biases at work about Mana Drain.  Most older Type One players really really like Mana Drain.  They enjoy playing Mana Drain decks and like Control.  I think this view can be rather narrow.  I enjoy playig Mana Drain decks as much as I enjoy playing Dark Ritual and Workshop decks (after all I played mono blue at Gencon).  But I think we need to recognize how seriosly distorting Mana Drain really is.  If we were to knock off Workshop and Dark Ritual, Mana Drain would once again return the format top 8s into mana Drain top 8s with Mana Drain being in 5-6 of the top 8 decks lists, regularly, as it was 2 years ago and earlier.  

Even though some people may assert that Control mirrors are interesting and skill intensive (which they are for the most part, although that sentiment is exaggerated a bit), Mana Drain is an extremely stifling card.

Finally, I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that "Workshop, Trinisphere" is not fair.  I pointed that out in my article.  No one in their right mind can call that a fair play.

However, there are some reasons why I think it shoudln't be restricted that are ignored when we are talking abstractly about the card.

When we speak about Trinisphere, we are generally just amorphously imagining what happens when Trinisphere comes down agianst deck X.  The problem with that thinking is that it is non-tournament contextual.  In a tournament there are up to three games in any match.  Why is this significant?

Take Suicide Virus or Madness.  That deck loses to Trinisphere if Trinisphere comes down before it gets a turn.  However, that doesn't make Suicide Virus nonviable.  Why Not?  Becuause you can play the numbers game.  You will get to go first at least one game, and even if Trinispher ecomes down on Workshops first turn, you get to play Ravager and other threats (or if you are playing Long - you can Duress or Win on turn one).  And it is also unlikely that in both of the games that the Workshop player goes first they will be playing Trinisphere on turn one. It is more likley that it will happen only one of those games.   Secondly, Trinisphere decks, with the excception of your UB Workshop deck and 7/10 decks, do not run Force of Will.  This means that Suicide Virus and any other deck for that matter can actually get a threat into play before Trinisphere comes down which makes them not automatically unplayable.

EDIT:
I also forgot to mention that Crucible really hasn't raised the ire of the community.  The only reason this thread exists is because I wrote an article like two months ago - mostly becuase of YOU Rich.  I wrote this to really document what you and peter were saying and try to understand your perspective.  ALl of the tournaments I've competed in this year, I haven't heard one person say a single word about Crucible being too good.  It's really, for the most part, a non-issue. I've haerd lots and lots of people complain about Workshop and we talked about banning yawgmoth's will and restriction Intuition quite a bit, but rarely if at all about Crucible.

[Ric_Flair]

First thing first.  I am not saying restrict Mana Drain, etc., merely that if you restrict Crucible how can you leave these other equally powerful cards unrestricted?  I really believe that Mana Drain is as powerful as Crucible.  If you restrict one and not the other all you are doing is merely ignoring other problem cards, that for one reason or another, aren't perceived as problems right now.  And that is the heart of the issue--restrictions should not be based on perceived problems, but actual ones.  It is a classic slippery slope argument.  If you do X and X is virtually indistinguishable from Y, then you should do Y as well, and so on...If Crucible goes I just can't see why some of these other cards wouldn't take its place as the problem child.

As far as Brainstorm is concerned, it is one of those background noise cards.  It is so good, and has been for so long, that people have stopped seeing it for what it is--ridiculously broken.  Brainstorm, in this metagame, with fetchlands and all, is crazy good.  To quote the Jacob Orlove: "Brainstorm is better than half the cards on the restricted list."  While that quote is accompanied by a dollop of hyperbole, I think it belays a truth--Brainstorm is amazing.  It may not be offensive in the same way that a Strip/Crucible lock is or a turn 1 3sphere, but it is equally powerful.  How many Brainstorms are in the average top 8?  TONS.  If mere bountiful presence is enough to get restricted then Brainstorm should be looked at.  And if performance over time is a factor then Brainstorm should be looked at.  

If Crucible goes then so should Brainstorm and at least four other cards.  Our biases and preconceptions about what should be restricted is the only thing blinding us into missing the truth.  

I say hold off on axing Crucible and wait and see.

As far as 3sphere is concerned, I would have made my statement stronger if I did not believe that another card is actually more the source of the problem....

[Shock Wave]

Rich, I think we should realize that there is some pretty deep biases at work about Mana Drain. Most older Type One players really really like Mana Drain. They enjoy playing Mana Drain decks and like Control. I think this view can be rather narrow. I enjoy playig Mana Drain decks as much as I enjoy playing Dark Ritual and Workshop decks (after all I played mono blue at Gencon). But I think we need to recognize how seriosly distorting Mana Drain really is. If we were to knock off Workshop and Dark Ritual, Mana Drain would once again return the format top 8s into mana Drain top 8s with Mana Drain being in 5-6 of the top 8 decks lists, regularly, as it was 2 years ago and earlier.

Even though some people may assert that Control mirrors are interesting and skill intensive (which they are for the most part, although that sentiment is exaggerated a bit), Mana Drain is an extremely stifling card.

Steve, you're very right in everything you say, however I think you're overlooking a very important notion. That notion is that of "fair" brokenness (a paradox if I've ever heard of one). What are we talking about here? We're talking about cards that fall into the category of "the upper most limit of unrestricted cards in the format" (Ric Flair). These are the cards that are undeniably powerful, yet not powerful enough to warrant their restriction. Yes, Mana Drain will pop up in T8s in numbers again given the circumstances that you've described above. That's a moot point. There is always going to be that one unrestricted card that is the most prevalent in T8s.

The issue here is that these "fairly broken" cards are distortive. So the question is, what makes them fair then? Well, now we're back to square one and the whole argument of restriction criteria. What I was getting at is that you can't restrict everything in T1. We need to acknowledge that certain cards (like Mana Drain) are distorting, but not worthy of restriction. It is the nature of our format that cards be distorting, however it is a fact (in my opinion) that certain cards that are not worthy of restriction are also distorting.

I would also like to echo that control mirrors are the most interesting and skill intensive (and I don't feel that is exaggerated). I'd go further to say they are the most pleasing to watch and appreciate. That is entirely my opinion. However, if a "fairly broken" card were to be responsible for the insurgence of a particular archetype, I'd much rather that archetype be control than anything else, on the premise that control mirrors have the best combination of luck and skill than any other.

When we speak about Trinisphere, we are generally just amorphously imagining what happens when Trinisphere comes down agianst deck X. The problem with that thinking is that it is non-tournament contextual. In a tournament there are up to three games in any match. Why is this significant?

Take Suicide Virus or Madness. That deck loses to Trinisphere if Trinisphere comes down before it gets a turn. However, that doesn't make Suicide Virus nonviable. Why Not? Becuause you can play the numbers game.

It's paragraphs like these that make me severely resent the influence you have on this format. How is the analysis above "non-tournament contextual" ? Have you not seen a Trinisphere come down on Turn 1 in a tournament before? There are up to 3 games in a match, thanks for that disclosure Steve. Is this the logic that constitutes your vision for this format: "Cards that bring games down to a coin flip are ok because you can always win the die roll." That's essentially what you're stating. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but if I'm right, I genuinely hope people start disregarding anything you've contributed to this issue, regardless of the wishful thinking.

I also forgot to mention that Crucible really hasn't raised the ire of the community. The only reason this thread exists is because I wrote an article like two months ago - mostly becuase of YOU Rich. I wrote this to really document what you and peter were saying and try to understand your perspective. ALl of the tournaments I've competed in this year, I haven't heard one person say a single word about Crucible being too good. It's really, for the most part, a non-issue. I've haerd lots and lots of people complain about Workshop and we talked about banning yawgmoth's will and restriction Intuition quite a bit, but rarely if at all about Crucible.

You can't be serious. You're going to try and convince me that Peter and I are the only ones calling for its head? I can think of about 10 people off the top of my head that would love to see it go, and a good number of those are players with an intimate understanding of the principles of this format. I suppose it suits your argument to say "I haven't heard anything about Crucible, you're on your own Rich.", but that's an absolute crock, of fecal origins. What may be true is that I have voiced my opinion most adamantly, but don't be so obtuse to suggest that I am the only one who shares that opinion.

[Smmenen]

[
I would also like to echo that control mirrors are the most interesting and skill intensive (and I don't feel that is exaggerated). I'd go further to say they are the most pleasing to watch and appreciate. That is entirely my opinion. However, if a "fairly broken" card were to be responsible for the insurgence of a particular archetype, I'd much rather that archetype be control than anything else, on the premise that control mirrors have the best combination of luck and skill than any other.

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.  

When we speak about Trinisphere, we are generally just amorphously imagining what happens when Trinisphere comes down agianst deck X. The problem with that thinking is that it is non-tournament contextual. In a tournament there are up to three games in any match. Why is this significant?

Take Suicide Virus or Madness. That deck loses to Trinisphere if Trinisphere comes down before it gets a turn. However, that doesn't make Suicide Virus nonviable. Why Not? Becuause you can play the numbers game.

It's paragraphs like these that make me severely resent the influence you have on this format. How is the analysis above "non-tournament contextual" ? Have you not seen a Trinisphere come down on Turn 1 in a tournament before? There are up to 3 games in a match, thanks for that disclosure Steve. Is this the logic that constitutes your vision for this format: "Cards that bring games down to a coin flip are ok because you can always win the die roll." That's essentially what you're stating. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but if I'm right, I genuinely hope people start disregarding anything you've contributed on this issue, regardless of the wishful thinking.

Either I wasn't clear, or you are not understanding what I'm saying.  Certainly I've seen Workshop come down on turn one, obviously.   I'll try to clarify.  

What I'm saying is that decks like Madness or Suicide Virus can beat Trinisphere decks even if a resolved Trinisphere means that the opposing deck willl never be able to play a spell.  How?

If deck X loses the coin flip:
Mishra's Workshop Player will have, presumably, two games going first.   Becuase Trinisphere costs 3, it can't just come down on turn one without:
1) one of four mishra's Workshops
2) black lotus
3) mana Crypt
4) mana vault
5) double moxen
6) Sol Ring, Mox and a land
or combinations thereof.

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.  

I also forgot to mention that Crucible really hasn't raised the ire of the community. The only reason this thread exists is because I wrote an article like two months ago - mostly becuase of YOU Rich. I wrote this to really document what you and peter were saying and try to understand your perspective. ALl of the tournaments I've competed in this year, I haven't heard one person say a single word about Crucible being too good. It's really, for the most part, a non-issue. I've haerd lots and lots of people complain about Workshop and we talked about banning yawgmoth's will and restriction Intuition quite a bit, but rarely if at all about Crucible.

You can't be serious. You're going to try and convince me that Peter and I are the only ones calling for its head? I can think of about 10 people off the top of my head that would love to see it go, and a good number of those are players with an intimate understanding of the principles of this format. I suppose it suits your argument to say "I haven't heard anything about Crucible, you're on your own Rich.", but that's an absolute crock, of fecal origins. What may be true is that I have voiced my opinion most adamantly, but don't be so obtuse to suggest that I am the only one who shares that opinion.

I'm not saying you were the only one who wanted it restricted, but you and Peter were among the only one's I heard this season saying it should be restricted, in person.  There were people like Steve Jarvis who suggested that Fastbond should be banned becuase of Crucible, but we ignore them.  I am being perfectly honest that you are the only one, who has told me, face to face that Crucible should be restricted.  that doesn't mean I don't think there are other people out there who share your view, but I think there are lots of other cards more people are concerned about or have sought to restrict.  

On the broader issue: I don't agree at all that this format is a coin flip.   Consistently better players put up consistently better results despite the randomness inherent in the format.  Deck design is a huge part of this.  Certainly people will feel like the format is a coin flip if they don't have a deck that can realistically win if your opponent goes Workshop, Trinisphere.  You have to have Force of Will, Wasteland, or a really strong turn one threat so that you can win the game where you are on the play and then the battle becomes for game three.  That's basically where I think Trinisphere comes down.  If you aren't playing with a potentially game winning threat on turn one, Wasteland, or Force of Will, then you probably shouldn't be playing this format.  I realize that may sound narrow, despite the amazing depth found in "turn one game winning threat (could be Oath, Tendrils kill, or even Juggernaut)," the alternatives aren't much better.  The accelleration in this format leaves it fundamentally broken.

Re: Brainstorm

I agree with Forsythe that this card is broken.  The combination with Fetchland is a draw engine in itself.  But what really puts Brainstorm over the top is the density, almost saturation of restricted cards in the format.  Remember those discussions a year ago about how Type oNe was going to have so many restricted cards that it almost wouldn't matter?  Brainstorm is ridiulous in Combo for this reason.  

However, Brainstorm also makes the format more consistent, rather han less.  So although it might be everywhere, it serves a useful purpose.  

I would find Trinisphere more disturbing if it weren't for the fact that I think there are plenty of good players playing good decks and winning despite it.  Rich Shay will continue to play Control Slaver, I have no doubt - and at many, many turns this year, I have had ample chances to play with the beloved Workshop, Trinisphere play, but have passed it up for other decks - as have many other players.  I think we should continue to monitor and see what happens.  If Trinisphere needs to be restricted, then its day will come.  Take Belcher.  The creator of the deck got 3rd place at Gencon.  If Belcher is truly just a random deck, how did he do that against round after round of Null Rod decks, Trinispheres and Force of Wills?  It certainly was more than just luck.  He used his knowledge and skills to the hilt and came out ahead.  This is what I was talking about above in the Trinisphere discussion.

In conclusion, I think we will all find in five months or so that these issues are really non-issues.  I think with very rare exceptions, most of the problems of the format naturally sort themselves out with time without DCI intervention.  We have come very close to calling for restrictions of many many cards that never actually came to pass in the last year.  I think by March of next year, we will know if something has to be done.

[Shock Wave]

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.

[walkingdude]

My comment about aggro randomly winning in a skill free sense doesn’t apply today, most aggro sucks and the decks that do work, like Fish and company are tricky decks. But 5-6 years ago, a whole lot of games were decided in the first 3 turns by random blitz starts. Today a whole lot of games are decided in the first 1-2 turns by random blitz kills. The main difference is that most of the new decks that end games in 2 turns are hard to play, like draw seven. It’s a lot more acceptable to die without a turn if you are killed by a good player who worked for it.
I think that’s a lot of the issue here, people feel that shop sphere is insufficiently skill intensive. In terms of power over the first few turns shop-sphere is a lot less broken than the 1st turns belcher and 2nd turns draw seven can manage. There if you don’t have force you are actually dead. With sphere not having force just means you need wasteland or a good mana draw coupled with them not having strong follow up.
The 3 sphere lock may be too easy, but it doesn’t actually happen that often, maybe 1 game out of 3 and so 1st turn 1 out of 6. In a macro sense, that’s small enough to really not be too unbalancing to the format. But on the micro there are still going to be lots of players who just randomly lose games to it.

[dicemanx]

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.

[jazzykat]

I am personally of the opinion to wait and see for now. With that said I feel that trinisphere could be a sole restrictee because:

It is a no brainer win to be dropped first turn against most decks, regardless of archetype or skill of the other player. It successfully hoses just about anydeck, and there are plenty of other tools to slow down combo (cotv and sphere of resistance) as well as good control hosers (tangle wire, cow+wasteland), and aggro...well who gives a shit I have never heard of a new stax deck loose to non-Workshop aggro.

Cow while it sucks and demands an immediate answer is not nearly as immediately detrimental as trinisphere. COW requires a waste or strip and resolving the COW, that is a helluva lot fairer then dropping 3sphere and just winning.

As I said before I am not sure if anything should be done, but 3sphere+ all the other effective hosers does seem to be too much power for shop decks. I would like to see some more results but I have a feeling that stax decks will dominate the top 8's.