Let's Talk about Trinisphere

[Windfall]

Well, since the thread in the Open Forum went to shit, I decided to bring the idea up to some people about starting a clean "Trinisphere is restricted - Discuss!!" thread.  Since everyone that can post here has earned his or her membership, and I trust Zherbus, I feel that we can actually get a decent discussing going here in the Vintage forum.

In the old thread, there were a few key ideas I'd like to touch on before everyone starts bashing other peoples' arguments like angry children...

1)  When I saw the changes to the list at like 12:03a, I yelled "WHAT!?!?!?" and stormed out of the room.  I'm sure I'm not alone in my surprise.

2)  When I got home and started reading through the Open Forum thread, I wanted to respond to a lot of people, but found the thread difficult to navigate because it was littered with junk.  I was interested in reading/responding to the following points:

Why did WotC restrict Trinisphere?  This issue is important, because if it's not a good reason, it might be something we can use to get Wizards to unrestrict it in the future.

Is Trinisphere a card that enables or prevents player interaction?  Hell, what is player interaction?  I think this question can be argued both ways.

And, of course, How do you feel about Trinisphere being restricted?  This point is where the juicy conversations begin.  I think there is a lot to be said for both sides - some people like Trinisphere, others hate it to no end, and then there are a few that just don't care about it.

Now, let's have some intelligent conversation about all this...

     ~Mark B.

[rvs]

Maybe we should wait until Friday, when Forsythe will post his explenations article. I'm sure we'll get more insight in the exact restriction decisions, and wether or not we agree with that. (which is the main point of the whole discussion, right?).

[Windfall]

I never understood why they make the players wait several days before giving explanations to B/R List changes.  However, perhaps you're right about the waiting.

Still, Friday seems like a long time from now, so I figured I'd at least get those of us that are concerned discussing again.

[Gabethebabe]

I assume they will have some vague explanation like "This has been on our watchlist for a long time" and "the card changes the rules in such a way that people cannot play spells in their first two turns" and "it allows random wins when supported by other cards like Smokestack and Crucible"

It is a but too early to predict the consequences of this change. We will have to see how the environment adapts and if the result is something pretty.

The big question is: with the enormous card pool we have now and with the numerous design mistakes (Tendrils anyone) will it be POSSIBLE to create a "balanced" T1 environment? Time will tell.

[dandan]

I'll try to format my reply as you have

1. My reaction - not at all surprised. Personally I was a firm 'don't know' about what, if anything, was needed. As a result, and using the proven formula of 'if in doubt, do nowt' my choice was do nothing. Having said that, if someone twisted my arm and forced me into making a (non-Portal)change I would probably have had to say that Trinisphere would be my choice. This is despite my admiration of the design elegance of the card itself and the simple fact that Trinisphere was not the problem but turn 1 Trinisphere was certainly a problem. The Vintage B&R list does appear to have chosen 'sacred cows' in FoW, Mana Drain and now Workshop, which are spared despite being having power levels and metagame effects clearly higher than many restricted cards. I am unsure if this is a good or bad thing, I'm just pointing it out.

2. Why did they do it?
I think they felt that something had to be done and hitting Trinisphere was the lesser of many evils (as it nukes no decks). Basically they felt that Workshop and Trinisphere couldn't both be unrestricted and that restricting Workshop would have an major and extremely unpredictable effect on the metagame. Given that the current metagame is varied and balanced (at least in the Vintage 'equal amounts of unbalanced plays'), a major change was not wanted. It remains to be seen if the minor change results in a cascade effect or not, bit IMHO the direct effect of the change is as small as any significant restriction could have had.

Is Trinisphere a card that prevents player interaction?
Of course it is. It does, however, prevent a number of other strategies that have even less player interaction. If we rephrase the question as 'Will the player going second get to do anything significant in an average game as the result of this restriction?' I'm afraid I don't know.

I hope that this restriction is digested before people start concerning themselves with Portal's tutors. Fears of rampant combo seem to have unleashed a few strong reactions against allowing these tutors. Looking at the Portal issue on its own, there was no real case for not allowing Portal and the two restricted cards are towards the lower end of the power level for restriction (worthy but hardly up there with Demonic Tutor). Grim Tutor is pretty good and I am glad they left it unrestricted so we get a chance to try it out. There are 2 more B&R announcements before Portal becomes legal and it is very likely that we will know if there is a problem, before that problem occurs. I suspect they have got the Portal B&R right (my personal opinion was to restrict Grim Tutor too, just to head off anti-Portal concerns).

Dandan - proud owner of 4 Chinese Trinispheres and 1 Grim Tutor

[Komatteru]

My personal feeling about Trinisphere is that it is an abomination of a card that induces some complete randomness and leads to games where you do nothing but play land for a few turns, trying to get to 3 mana, while getting locked down by stuff like Smokestack, Tangle Wire, and Wasteland.  To be honest, it's really disencouraging to sit there and want to draw basic land, or fetchland so you can get basic land.  How many times have you been under 3sphere, drawn a dual, and cursed that it was a dual that was just going to get Wasted?  

That said, my personal feelings are irrelevant in the matter.  All that matters is what should be done, and what the card is.

The mere mention of interactivity, of course, lends itself to a definition, which no one has really tried to do.  Mike Flores talked about it in his last article, but he really didn't produce a definition that would be applicable for our purposes.  I personally find it very difficult to discuss a concept that we use so often yet have never actually tried to define with words.  I propose the following concept for interactivity: Interactivity is the process of each player using his available resources to play the cards in his hand in an attempt to make the opponent play your game instead of his.  That's not the most elegant definition ever, but what I mean to say is this.  Every deck has a goldfish strategy, an ideal way that the game should play out.  The problem is that there's an opponent on the other side of the table who wants to do the same thing you do: win.  He also has a goldfish strategy.  When you interact, you seek to play your cards in a way that leads more toward where you want the game to go.  You disrupt some of your opponent's strategy, play things that you want to make him deal with, etc.  Essentially, I believe interaction is both players trying to force each other to conform to their game by playing spells and advancing the board.  If one player doesn't play any spells, then that player is not interacting.  He's just allowing the opponent to proceed with his goldfish strategy.

By this definition, Trinisphere does not meet the requirements for encouraging interaction because of that last clause in bold.  What Trinisphere does is change the game from being about the strategy of your deck to having to figure out how to get to 3 mana and/or remove the Trinisphere from play.  The trouble is that lock components such as Smokestack and mana denial such as Wasteland are coming down from overhead.  With Trinisphere in play, you're not interacting because you're neither using your resources nor playing cards from your hand.  You're trying to develop some resources so you can interact.  I don't think that anyone would say that playing against a mana screwed opponent is an interactive game.  That's what Trinisphere does: it forces mana screw.  You're first concern when Trinisphere is in play is how am I going to get to 3 mana?  What you do with the mana when you get it is secondary, since you need to have the resources to make figuring out what you're going to do with them relevant.  Your opponent has nothing to do with your ability to draw land from your deck.  Your opponent is trying to make things even more difficult on you by removing the few lands you have in play and seeking to make sure that you don't ever actually play anything in the course of the game.  The goal of Trinisphere is to turn the game into a solitaire match that lasts what seems like an eternity.  Combo seeks to end the game quickly, and forces the opponent to have answers.  Forcing the opponent to have answers is very, very different from not allowing the opponent to play any answers at all.  It is important to make this distinction.

The reason I believe it was restricted was because it places too much importance on land.  The game is all about resource management and the player who manages his resources more skillfully wins.  However, Trinisphere doesn't allow you to do that, because you don't actually get to have any resources to manage.

While I strongly dislike the card, I am not in favor of its restriction.  What we had is what seems like a very delicate balance in the format, and I fear that the weakening of Stax (one cannot argue that the loss of 3sphere will not make Stax weaker in some fashion, even if it is not disasterous), and huge blow dealt to Workshop aggro, will make the other decks in the format that much stronger.  I was willing to sacrifice some things to maintain the balance, and I think that Trinisphere was fairly important in maintaining that balance.  I hope I am wrong.  It is very possible that the format is more robust than we give it credit it for, and everything will work out well in the end.  The loss of Trinisphere might add the possibilities for some new decks (or revival of old favorites), which might be a good thing.  I don't want to be a predictor of doom and gloom, but I am worried about things.  Only time will tell, and I hope that my worries are relieved.

[rozetta]

Why did WotC restrict Trinisphere?  This issue is important, because if it's not a good reason, it might be something we can use to get Wizards to unrestrict it in the future.

While I was also waiting for Friday's article from Forsythe for explanations on this restriction, I am somewhat expecting what has already been stated here: some short paragraph containing a normal DCI catchphrase. For one, it's obvious that most of the article will be dedicated to explaining in detail the 8 bannings in standard. Also, since we know that WotC does not test type 1 for the most part, their explanation cannot really address any concrete data of theirs, so it's likely to be mere handwaving.

I supppose that if I had to guess why the restriction happened, it's because of WotC's general stance on mana-denial strategies - they would rather not have them be too viable. On the whole, mana denial strategies cause more general unhappiness in the Magic playing population than other lock strategies (such as Mono-U). This was probably done because enough people whined publically about it.

Ultimately, though, I think it will be a good example to the "restrict Workshop" people, since it's easily the best spell one can cast with a turn one Workshop.

Is Trinisphere a card that enables or prevents player interaction?  Hell, what is player interaction?  I think this question can be argued both ways.

I think the point about it forcing mana screw is quite valid; decks in type 1 _must_ run multiple colours in order to run enough broken spells to be competitive against the other decks' brokenness. What Trinisphere decks did was essentially further increase the gambling factor down to the deck choice decision; some decks autolose to Trinisphere and even some hands lose to it.

Is a game under Trinisphere interactive? If you can get to 3 mana, yes it is.  If you run wastelands, it might be. Getting to that 3 mana is almost always the problem, since it often takes more than the first 3 turns. Having been of both sides of the thing, I'd have to lean towards the fact that, yes, it was an interactive game on the whole, if you were playing the right deck. The number of times that I got completely locked out of playing due to a Smokestack or Crucible/Strip Mine following the Trinisphere were very few as I recall.

And, of course, How do you feel about Trinisphere being restricted?  This point is where the juicy conversations begin.  I think there is a lot to be said for both sides - some people like Trinisphere, others hate it to no end, and then there are a few that just don't care about it.

To be honest, I'm currently on the fence about the whole thing. The card hasn't seriously bothered me enough to where I wanted to see it go. The fact that it was suppressing some of the decks I really dislike was a good thing, but the fact that it also suppressed decks I'd like to play was a bad thing. If fish, tog or gat return to the metagame, I'll be unhappy, but if more interesting combo decks become viable, I'll be delighted. To be honest I haven't been that bothered about playing recently - not because of Trinisphere, but because of general boredom of the format and not feeling like gambling on a deck choice for my metagame.

[Wollblad]

Why did WotC restrict Trinisphere? This issue is important, because if it's not a good reason, it might be something we can use to get Wizards to unrestrict it in the future.

To me it is clear that they didn't restrict it due to some very powerful deck. With this restriction, they actually managed to kill the Workshop-aggros since they cannot replace Trinisphere with Sphere of Resistance (like Stax can). And I think we all can agree that although good decks, they were not dominating the meta game. Contrary to most contributions above, I think the restriction has very little to do with the mechanisms of the game. Probably, R&D have for once listened to the Vintage community. Over the last year the two central arguments have been:
- Restrict Workshop, I hate turn one Trinisphere.
and
- Workshop should not be restricted since the format is balanced.
I think that both arguments are valid in the sense that turn one Trinisphere is, if nothing else, boring while Vintage is balanced at least using dandan's definition: equal amounts of unbalanced plays (best definition ever   ). Cutting Trinisphere nullifies the first argument while it is (almost) in agreement with the second argument.

How do you feel about Trinisphere being restricted?

I won't miss Trinisphere number 2, 3 and 4. Not in any deck I would play and certainly not in any deck I would be up against. Whatever base R&D had to restrict Trinisphere, I think it will be really revitalizing for the Vintage format with less Trinisphere and more interaction (whatever that is)!

[jpmeyer]

On this whole "interactivity" thing, Stax interacts with you (it's tapping your board, killing your lands, etc.) and with Trinisphere it says "If you want to win, you'll have to interact with me first."  The reason that it seems uninteractive is because most of the decks that roll to turn one Trinisphere DON'T want to interact and therefore are ill-equipped when they are forced to do so.

[dicemanx]

I do not believe that Trinisphere held any decks in check. I do not fear any "explosion" in combo, but I do admire the determination of many randoms who are threatening to dominate with their combo decks in the wake of the restriction.

Also, I find it a bit insulting to common sense to have to define "interaction" in order to determine if Trinisphere was contributing to or stifling that "interaction". Defining the term is not critical at all if we bother to use a little logic. Let me play devil's advocate here. Let's say that Trinisphere did indeed hold combo, and perhaps even control Slaver, in check. Now how exactly was it accomplishing this? Well, quite simply put, it was, for the most part, an all or nothing effect. Either you completely shut out your opponent and prevented him from doing *anything* (effectively "winning" immediately), or the opponent busted out of the Trinisphere lock and practically rendered it a dead draw.  

Now, I'm sorry, but if we have to depend on such a completely retarded effect to hold our format together, then I find that completely unacceptable. I would rather start restricting Welder or fast combo pieces down the line (which I really doubt will be necessary) rather than relying on Trinisphere to effectively ruin many individual games or matches in the interest of maintaining balance. Balance should not be retained on the backs of ridiculously broken, immediate game ending effects or combos. The notion that we have "adapted" to Trinisphere (ie we have severely distorted the environment because of the need to account for such a devestating potentially game ending 1st turn play) is no justification for permitting the card to stay unrestricted in the format. With its restriction, we open the floodgates to many new decks, including aggro and aggro-control along with Hulk and 4CC to some extent. Of course many will be playing combo decks as well, but it seems to me that the environment has demonstrated that it can keep combo in check without resorting to Trinisphere packing decks to accomplish this.

[Machinus]

Why did WotC restrict Trinisphere?  This issue is important, because if it's not a good reason, it might be something we can use to get Wizards to unrestrict it in the future.

I was attempting to start this discussion in the open thread, but the second half of my post was more incendiary and so the good questions I asked got ignored (to be fair, I shouldn't have posted what I did). I think it is exactly the point to ask why WotC restricted trinisphere BEFORE Friday's article.

I am deliberately trying to not start another flamewar here, so please give me the benefit of the doubt. CH41N5 already asserted that it was a "PR move," and I am sure there are others in the community (perhaps also on Meandeck...feel free to chime in) with equally confident diagnoses of exactly what motivated the DCI to make this move. If it isn't obvious from my other posts, I don't think that anyone in the community can say with that level of certainty why the DCI did what they did, and as I stated before, if anyone in the community has relevant, important information on the subject, I would very much like them to share it.

One of the main issues that I have with all of this theory and speculation is that it neglects the apparent business model of WotC. What does business have to do with the restriction of trinisphere? To answer that question I have one word - proxies. While it may seem obvious to some and fallacious to others that WotC considers the status of the proxy metagame, does anyone really know their policy at the moment? Hasn't it traditionally been anti-proxy to the maximum? But wouldn't it also be stupid for the DCI to ignore data from some of the the largest US tournaments? Of course this is a contradiction, but unless I see hard evidence otherwise, we don't know yet how the DCI treats this information, and we don't know how they make their decisions. All this leaves for us is hypothesis. We have a lot of data, on both the DCI and the history of the metagame, but we don't know for sure what is going on.

[Smmenen]

Why did WotC restrict Trinisphere?  This issue is important, because if it's not a good reason, it might be something we can use to get Wizards to unrestrict it in the future..

I'm telling you - as you will see Friday - it was becuase of the interaction issue.  I am crafting an article that relates to all of my previous arguments against Restriction that should be up next week.  I'm putting more effort into this article to make it crisp, articulate and cutting - than I have with any article I have written recently.  This is an important issue.

As for what interaction means - you need to read the Flores article on it from three weeks ago.

[Purple Hat]

I propose the following concept for interactivity: Interactivity is the process of each player using his available resources to play the cards in his hand in an attempt to make the opponent play your game instead of his. That's not the most elegant definition ever, but what I mean to say is this. Every deck has a goldfish strategy, an ideal way that the game should play out. The problem is that there's an opponent on the other side of the table who wants to do the same thing you do: win. He also has a goldfish strategy. When you interact, you seek to play your cards in a way that leads more toward where you want the game to go. You disrupt some of your opponent's strategy, play things that you want to make him deal with, etc. Essentially, I believe interaction is both players trying to force each other to conform to their game by playing spells and advancing the board. If one player doesn't play any spells, then that player is not interacting. He's just allowing the opponent to proceed with his goldfish strategy.

I don't like this definition.  It makes decks like Deathlong and belcher appear interactive when really they just try to play within themselves.  They never attempt to force the opponent to interact with them, they'd really prefer if the opponent didn't interact with them at all.  Dragon is the same way in alot of cases.  The whole concept of combo is that it is noninteractive in that it attempts to make all actions by the opponent irrelevent by putting some game winning set of cards together.  That's intensely non interactive.

@dicemanx: Until we are all talking about the same thing when we say interactive and non interactive we can't really have a productive conversation on the concept.  Clearly JP sees trinisphere as forcing interaction while you see it as forcing non interaction.  This is a problem with the definition of interaction not a problem of understanding the effect of trinisphere on the game.

hale

[Elric]

Are we using "interaction" as a shortcut for "fun" here.  If so, we might be able to skip the idea of needing to define "interaction".  Wizards of the Coast is clearly trying to maximize the amount of fun players have while playing magic.  Players are also trying to maximize their own fun (which involves winning as well as the games themselves).  

Interactivity seems to be a term that has been created (to be fair, I haven't read the Flores article because if I remember correctly it was premium) to try to measure fun without acknowledging it.  The question “what is interactive?” seems designed to create an objective measure.  If you are trying to proxy fun, though, this can’t be correct because fun is not objective—it is subjective.  

Let me pose the question “Is Trinisphere fun?”  If you think that Trinisphere is not fun but that Trinisphere is interactive, then your definition of interaction shouldn’t really be used as a proxy for fun.  

I feel that fun is subjective, not objective, and that efforts to define it objectively (through something such as interaction) will not fully succeed.  You may get a good guideline (and I am sure Wizards R&D knows a lot about players find fun) but you are only approximating what you are actually looking for.

[Windfall]

I am going to assume that there are a lot of people that are happy that Trinisphere is gone, and I would have been one of those people a couple of months ago.  I remember saying something along the lines of "I might start playing Magic again if Trinisphere is restricted."  I now realize that I was speaking out of hatred for a card that just wrecked my deck.  I now know that a lot of decks, and specifically the top two decks, don't care about Trinisphere unless it's followed by a Smokestack.

I have been playing Stax and tweaking it to beat both TPS and Control Slaver - not an easy task - for the last two months.  My teamate and I have come up with a pretty unique and cool build that was gettin better every day, until yesterday... now it's a pile.

I have to tell everyone that plays combo and wants Trinisphere restricted that you have to play with the card to realize that it's not broken enough to be restricted.  Everyone talks about god hands of Stax and like they happen so often.  Well, let me tell you, they don't.  First of all, first turn Trinisphere meets Force of Will almost every time, and if it resolves, the opponent is still not dead.  Consider the following reasons:

1 - I cannot argue that a second turn Smokestack after a Trinisphere is usually game over, but I can argue that it requires a lot of specific cards in  the opening hand and for the opponent to be both on the draw and lacking Force of Will.  If the opponent played first, this does not end the game, espcially after sideboard.  Rack and Ruin targeting Trinisphere and Smokestack is probably good game for Stax.

2 - Tangle Wire does not end the game under Trinisphere 2nd turn.  It isn't good for you, but you will have time to get to three land because I will have to tap my Workshop and other sources because I will not want to tap Trinisphere...

3 - Crucible lock on turn 2?  Please...  Honestly, since the the bad matchups play with numerous Fetchlands and Basics, Crucible of Worlds is not even good.  Wasteland is not as strong as it once was - it usually hits nothing.  Assuming Stax will always have Strip Mine (or ways to find it) is folly, especially since the tutors for Strip Mine will require 3 mana and Workshop will not help with any of that mana.

4 - The Bad Matchups play with two very problematic cards - Goblin Welder and Rebuild.  After board, the Welders are joined with Rack and Ruins and the Rebuilds quadruple in number.  It's very hard for Stax to win against this, since Wasteland does nothing and against both TPS and Slaver, Smokestack often does nothing.  Slaver has Welder for Smokestack as soon as a counter is on it, and TPS just puts it into your hand - it's far too slow.

5 - Stax is inconsistant because it does not play Brainstorm and has to run 28 or more mana sources so it can cast all of it's 3 mana bombs.  Sometimes you just draw land, and a lot of it.  It happens a lot and keeping a weak hand off the strength of Trinisphere alone will cost Stax players games.  It's misleading.

6 - Trinisphere beats Land Grant decks and combo decks without basic land - I do not see this as a bad thing.  Thank you JP for putting it right - the decks that roll to Trinisphere are those that do not want to interact with the opponent - those that want to win on turn 1.

Seems like a great idea to get rid of the card that keeps turn 0-1 combo decks in check... I can't wait for the next tournament...  ::Sigh::

     ~Mark B.

[Komatteru]

I don't like this definition.  It makes decks like Deathlong and belcher appear interactive when really they just try to play within themselves.  They never attempt to force the opponent to interact with them, they'd really prefer if the opponent didn't interact with them at all.  Dragon is the same way in alot of cases.  The whole concept of combo is that it is noninteractive in that it attempts to make all actions by the opponent irrelevent by putting some game winning set of cards together.  That's intensely non interactive.

Well, to be honest, combo does do one thing: it manages its resources better than its opponent to win.  It doesn't deny what the opponent has in play or in hand so much, it just uses what it has to develop faster and win.  That is really the core strategy of the game: resource management.  Here's the fundamental difference between a card like Dark Ritual and Trinisphere: Dark Ritual is fundamentally card disadvantage.  You are trading a card in your hand for some mana to play something once.  Clearly, a deck cannot contain too many cards like this, or it will expend itself too quickly and run out of resources.  It's like the all Lightning Bolt decks from the past.  When all the Bolts were gone, you had nothing.  Your resources were expended and you had to try to rebuild midgame.  People didn't really know of this concept back then, and were amazed when LightningBolt.dec didn't really work.  Ok, I digress.  Trinisphere.  Trinisphere is a resource denial card.  It's similar to Wasteland, Duress, Strip Mine and even Pernicious Deed and Hymn to Tourach, except that it hits on multiple levels--it damages your mana development, board development, and sometimes even your hand development, where as other resource denial cards like I mentioned only go after one of those--and strikes harder than anything like it.  I think that playing the game is managing your resources.  Trinisphere denies one player the opportunity to do that, and it really makes him not playing the game.

I'll admit that my definition isn't exactly perfect (I cooked it up as I wrote that last night...err, this morning), but I think it's really the way interaction has been being used around here.  People want to be able to play their spells and use the cards they have to their advantage and want their opponent to be doing the same.  Personally, interactive games are not something that are going to be plentiful in T1.  There's too much brokenness around.  If you want to develop a good definition for the concept of interactivity, you need to look to other formats.  Type 2 isn't a bad place to look (extended isn't so good for it right now), as it involves a lot of creature combat, but the best place to go see interactivity is limited.  I'm not much for limited myself, but it reveals more about the game and how players interact than any other form of Magic.

decks in type 1 _must_ run multiple colours in order to run enough broken spells to be competitive against the other decks' brokenness

Not so much even multiple colors.  In all formats, monocolor decks are really quite scarce.  The color pie has been divided in a way such that playing only one color makes your deck rather limited.  It's not so much that decks need to play multiple colors to keep up with brokenness; it's more that you need to play more than one color so you have flexibility to deal with the wide variety of situations that might arise in the course of a game.  Trinisphere really punishes multicolor decks because they are more vulnerable to Wasteland, but don't forget that it can really harm a two color deck (or two color with splash) as well.  Control Slaver for instance.  You would probably keep a hand that looks something like: fetchland, dual, mox, 4 other business spells/card you like.  Yet this hand can still leave you screwed over by Trinisphere.  You don't get to play your Mox, and your one dual in your hand might get wasted.  This leaves you with the Fetchland you use to get basic Island.  Now you need to draw land, but not just any land.  You really need to draw basic land or fetchlands, lest you fall victim to another Wasteland.  If you draw that land you need, then you can get out, and go from there.  If you don't, you lose.

Here's a great quote from Kevin Cron from one of the locked threads that really needs to be here.  It's something that no one should be forgetting:

The goal of all decks in T1 right now is to force strategic non-interation through varying degrees of tactical interaction.[/color]

This is a problem with the definition of interaction not a problem of understanding the effect of trinisphere on the game.

Precisely.  Diceman says we don't need a definition for interaction and that we can use logic instead.  I find it very difficult to discuss something when we don't really have a definition for it.  If I were to come up to you and tell you that "all functions are green," you wouldn't be able to tell me whether or not I'm right if I don't ever define "green," and the very nature of the statement changes if I change my definition for green.  The same thing goes with interactivity.  We really need to decide what it is we're talking about when we use the word for it to mean anything at all.  I think Elric has it with "fun."  I think it's likely that all the complaints about Dark Ritual and Trinisphere not being "interactive" are really just coverups for people thinking that those cards are played in decks that aren't fun.  And let's level here.  We're playing a game.  It's supposed to be fun.  It does seem fairly acceptable to use fun as a criteria for what's ok and what's not, as long as we're reasonable about it.

[Smmenen]

Kevin's whole post should be copied here, becuase its excellent.

[Windfall]

Justin, it's not fun to sit on the other side of the table watching your opponent take 20 minute turns jerking off over his Rituals deciding how high he wants his storm count when he finally does kill you...

...and being completely powerless to stop it because you have either Duressed all my Force of Wills, or I did not draw any Force of Wills.

Consider the following hand for Control Slaver --

Ancestral Recall
Polluted Delta
Mox Pearl
Sol Ring
Goblin Welder
Mana Drain
Thirst for Knowledge

This is one of those hands that you would want to keep and the reason is because it's very strong.  It's frusterating when you feel like you made a play error because you didn't mull something like this - because you didn't have Force of Will and your opponent just combos you out and takes 30 minutes to do it.

     ~Mark B.

[Shock Wave]

Consider the following hand for Control Slaver --

Ancestral Recall
Polluted Delta
Mox Pearl
Sol Ring
Goblin Welder
Mana Drain
Thirst for Knowledge

This is one of those hands that you would want to keep and the reason is because it's very strong.  It's frusterating when you feel like you made a play error because you didn't mull something like this - because you didn't have Force of Will and your opponent just combos you out and takes 30 minutes to do it.

That hand is clearly a keeper (if you're playing 1st). Whether or not that hand wins you the game is irrelevant. You should never mull a hand such as that on the premise that your opponent is going to go ape shit on you on Turn 1. A Duress is not going to cripple you, and if your opponent has 2 and a threat to follow, then so be it. That is not a regularity when playing against combo.

It seems like you and Toad are playing against the same combo decks, the type that draw with unmitigated consistency and force you to mulligan exceptionally strong hands like the one that you've posted. Can we tone down the exaggeration just a wee bit? Combo doesn't consistently nuke people on Turn 1.

[Matt]

Why did WotC restrict Trinisphere?
Because it causes unrecoverable early game swings, right? I mean that was their justification for Goblin Lackey in extended.

Is Trinisphere a card that enables or prevents player interaction?
It doesn't necessarily prevent interaction but it sets the stage for it. A Trinisphere on its own isn't enough to kill interaction, but it pushes the game state to just underneath a certain threshold, where Trinisphere plus almost anything further will prevent the opponent from interacting in a meaningful way. It's like filling a room with sawdust and fertilizer and oily rags. No, you didn't start a fire, but it only takes a little spark.

How do you feel about Trinisphere being restricted?
Good. I hope it DOES cause a restriction cascade, because I hate almost every top Vintage deck with a passion and I would like nothing more than to see them all in ruins.

Let me draw an analogy. Have you ever seen a rainforest? There's actually relatively little underbrush, because the treetops are so thick that very little light makes its way to the forest floor. That is what Vintage is like. The top decks are all[/i] so powerful that decks and even entire archetypes which I enjoy playing cannot thrive.

So I say, fire up the buzzsaws. The worst that can happen is that it'll result in another, different format I won't play. But I won't play it now, so from my perspective, what harm could it do? Of course this is totally selfish but I won't apologize for that either.

Metagame balance is nowhere near as important as fun. Right after Invasion was released, in one of the original Metagame Clock articles, the author noted that the Fires-dominated metagame was nowhere near as balanced as the Saga/Masques Standard had been. But that didn't matter, because people liked it more. And in that sense, no objective criteria for restriction amount to a hill of beans next to the subjective ones. It is not enough that a format be balanced, it must also be enjoyable, and I haven't enjoyed Type One in a very long time. As I recall, before Skullclamp was banned Affinity and Goblins made for a VERY well-balanced Standard format. And it was one of the most loathed formats outside of block constructed ever.

P.S:

Essentially, I believe interaction is both players trying to force each other to conform to their game by playing spells and advancing the board.

I think this is a very bad definition. What does "advancing the board" even mean? Say I cast Wrath of God. Did I advance the board, or retard it? Wrath is clearly an interactive card.

[Smmenen]

Consider the following hand for Control Slaver --

Ancestral Recall
Polluted Delta
Mox Pearl
Sol Ring
Goblin Welder
Mana Drain
Thirst for Knowledge

This is one of those hands that you would want to keep and the reason is because it's very strong.  It's frusterating when you feel like you made a play error because you didn't mull something like this - because you didn't have Force of Will and your opponent just combos you out and takes 30 minutes to do it.

That hand is clearly a keeper (if you're playing 1st). Whether or not that hand wins you the game is irrelevant. You should never mull a hand such as that on the premise that your opponent is going to go ape shit on you on Turn 1. A Duress is not going to cripple you, and if your opponent has 2 and a threat to follow, then so be it. That is not a regularity when playing against combo.

It seems like you and Toad are playing against the same combo decks, the type that draw with unmitigated consistency and force you to mulligan exceptionally strong hands like the one that you've posted. Can we tone down the exaggeration just a wee bit? Combo doesn't consistently nuke people on Turn 1.

Actually, you should mull that hand.  If I was in the top 8 at SCG VA and playing against Jay Coffman or Eric Miller and it was game three.  And they were going first.  I would mulligan that hand.  I would rather have a much worse hand with two lands than risk just losing.

[Shock Wave]

Actually, you should mull that hand.  If I was in the top 8 at SCG VA and playing against Jay Coffman or Eric Miller and it was game three.  And they were going first.  I would mulligan that hand.  I would rather have a much worse hand with two lands than risk just losing.

We're not talking about playing against Eric Miller and going second. We're talking about playing against combo and going 1st.

[Windfall]

Well, I actually posted that hand and I should have been clearer - if you are on the draw, would you keep that hand?  The land issue is not something that concerns me that much, considering I will see 8 cards in the first two turns.  What concerns me is that combo decks, while not winning on turn 1 every time, will win on turn 2 if they are pressed to win before I have UU up.

I don't think I'm assuming too much when I say TPS can combo you out with two land in play.  It can, and other combo decks can do it with just 1 land in play.  If I'm playing with Trinispheres, they just wait until they have three land in play, Rebuild me, and then go off.

[Purple Hat]

JDizzle wrote:

Well, to be honest, combo does do one thing: it manages its resources better than its opponent to win. It doesn't deny what the opponent has in play or in hand so much, it just uses what it has to develop faster and win. That is really the core strategy of the game: resource management.

Well I have trouble arguing with this as I believe it to be the case, however I don't agree when you say that combo doesn't deny what the opponent has in play or in hand.  I've played combo and i've played against combo.  combo decks CLEARLY deny what the opponent has in hand or in play.  As long as what your opponent has in hand isn't force of will and what your opponent has in play isn't trinisphere or null rod why in gods name do you care what it is if you're playing belcher?  The only time that combo decks worry about what their opponent is doing is when it either interupts their combo or stops them from comboing all together (ie. ground seal vs dragon, null rod vs belcher).  I don't understand how you can complain that trinisphere makes your opponent irrelevant on the one hand and on the other be extoling the virtues of simply KILLING your opponent now.  At least against a turn one trinisphere you have some chance of getting to 3 mana and being able to win.  Against a turn one such as: land grant, ritual, mox, belcher basically your only option is to pray they don't EVER draw more mana or remove the belcher.  that's pretty interactive.  it gets even worse when they actually manage to make the kill if they have an LED or something to go along with their belcher.  

But maybe belcher is too inconsistend to use in this argument what about against Dragon.  If Dragon resolves turn one xantid pre board there's just very little you can do.  it doesn't matter what your board is.  When playing Dragon, which I do somewhat frequently, I often drop my bazaar, start looking for things and pay no attention whatsoever to my opponent until he does something that might disrupt me.  I realize this is an over simplification of how I play Dragon but seriously, when you can straight RACE a turn one sundering titan or turn two colossus why bother interacting with your creature wielding opponent?  Combo is INHEIRENTLY non-interactive.  Yes it plays spells but to define combo as different from prision because it requires you to manage resources differently (notice I say differently, not better) is just Hypocracy.

JDizzle wrote:

Here's the fundamental difference between a card like Dark Ritual and Trinisphere: Dark Ritual is fundamentally card disadvantage.

everything is fundimentally card disadvantage unless it draws you cards.  ritual is an exchange between resources in the same way that Yawgmoth's Bargain is an exchange between resources.  Dark ritual lets you turn cards in hand into mana extremely cheaply and Yawgmoth's Bargain lets you turn life into cards in hand very cheaply.  Think about it this way in magic you are managing resources in two ways 1) you are managing the amount and types of resources you have available (mana, cards in hand, perminants, life total, graveyard, cards in library) 2) you are managing the zones in which those resources are allocated (hand, library, graveyard, in play, RFG/sideboard).  In order to move a card between zones you need to pay a cost and in order to exchange between resources you need to pay a cost.  Brokeness exists where those costs are incorrect in some manner.  Trinisphere costs one card in hand and 3 mana to POSSIBLY negate a significant portion of your opponents hand thus generating virtual card advantage by rendering the cost for exchange between cards in hand and cards in play or mana too high.  Dark Ritual produces +2 mana and one spell at the cost of one card in hand.  

The distinction between cards in hand and cards in play or in the graveyard is important here because if you are playing a long style combo deck or dragon or something like that you are actually generating something when you send cards to your graveyard rather than losing something.  in highly graveyard interactive decks I do not believe it is correct to consider cards in the graveyard as a lost card.


JDizzle Wrote:

Trinisphere is a resource denial card. It's similar to Wasteland, Duress, Strip Mine and even Pernicious Deed and Hymn to Tourach, except that it hits on multiple levels--it damages your mana development, board development, and sometimes even your hand development, where as other resource denial cards like I mentioned only go after one of those--and strikes harder than anything like it. I think that playing the game is managing your resources. Trinisphere denies one player the opportunity to do that, and it really makes him not playing the game.

dude, killing your opponent on turn one is pretty limiting of their ability to manage resources.  there are certainly decks out there with a 20% turn one kill rate and since turn one wins restrict your opponent's ability to manage his resources both when he plays first AND when you play first this is roughly the same percentage as trinisphere denying the other player the oppertunity to manage resources.  If trinisphere makes your opponent not playing the game, I don't agree but lets just assume your premise, what exactly does this do that's different from turn one kills by belcher, deathlong or meandeck tendrils that makes these decks ok but makes trinisphere not ok (which appears to be the argument you're making)?

JDizzle wrote:

It's supposed to be fun. It does seem fairly acceptable to use fun as a criteria for what's ok and what's not, as long as we're reasonable about it.

i think it's obvious what the problem here is.  Everyone has a different definition of fun.  It appears, from your comments here, that your definition of fun is trying to make your deck go off as quickly as possible.  First of all notice that this goal does not inheirently involve your opponent, who may not be having much fun at all sitting there an watching you jerk off while he's praying he finds an answer so he can do something or may be completely resigned to losing and attempting to advise you on how to boost storm as much as you can (I actually did this with an opponent at the last tournament I went to.  I got stormed out to the tune of 102 coppies).  The point is that your definition of fun is extremely different from your madness playing opponent or your affinity playing opponent who sits there knowing he's a full turn slower than you and is probably going to lose.  He probably thinks it's fun to hit people with big creatures because he's still got some timmy in him.  Some people just like being able to say "NO!" when people play things.  If you duress them and then just win the game they're not having much fun.  My point here is that fun is far too subjective a criteria.  The best we can do is attempt to force the scenario which allows BOTH players the most say in what type of game is being played so that BOTH players get the oppertunity to have fun.  If you win the game on turn one or two your opponent doesn't have that oppertunity.

[Komatteru]

Justin, it's not fun to sit on the other side of the table watching your opponent take 20 minute turns jerking off over his Rituals deciding how high he wants his storm count when he finally does kill you...

Now this is an entirely different discussion alltogether. Combo warrants a different look at interactivity and such because the game just ends when combo does what it wants.  Lock decks end the game, but don't.  They agonize you turn after turn where you're helpless (or at least that's their game plan).  Realize there is really little difference between these situations: the game ending after 1 20 minute turn; and 20 minutes of you going: draw a card, "Is it land?" No, then discard something, if yes, then maybe play it and hope it doesn't get Wasted.  Meanwhile, you opponent is tossing various stuff that's not good for you at all onto the board to keep this going.  In either situation, you're not doing anything.  It's just that one of them allows you to (fasely) hope that you're going to do something by giving you some turns (you get to look at all the neat foils in your deck at least), while the other just says, "ok, let's get this over with."  This thread is about Trinisphere, and I didn't want to mention combo because I figured it would get all sidetracked.  If you want to discuss this further, PM me or start a new thread about it (the latter has been beaten to death and seems unnecessary).

Ancestral Recall
Polluted Delta
Mox Pearl
Sol Ring
Goblin Welder
Mana Drain
Thirst for Knowledge

Now, you say that this hand can lose to combo if it goes off on turn 1.  Great, combo can go off on turn 1.  This goes under the classification of "sometimes you just lose" (Ben and I have had a few discussions about this, and Mark, I suggest you do the same), that you had to keep what you had and it just happened that what your opponent had was better than what you did.  It happens.  Cards are random like that.  If your opponent is able to bust turn 1 win, ok, hooray for him, but that doesn't happen every game.  The best I've been able to fish with DLong is under 20%, and in a tournament, I rarely ever go for the turn 1 win (I think the number of times I've won on the first turn in tournament play is countable on one hand), unless it involves a solid Mind's Desire, because it's usually just so much better to use the first turn to set up than risk it.  So this hand is not terrible against combo at all.  If he has Duress in his opening hand and decides to play it (instead of perhaps using Brainstorm), then you pressure him to win on his next turn, as you will likely have UU open.  The thing about this game is that you have to accept that there's always only so much you can do.  You can never really do anything about an opponent's god-hand, nor his topdecking.  Sometimes you just lose.

However, this hand is actually worse against Trinisphere.  Except for Meandeck Tendrils, combo does not combo out on turn 1 any more frequently than turn 1 Trinisphere hits.  In fact, it's probably less often.  TPS's turn 1 kill rate is very, very low, and Long's isn't all that high in tournament play. Meandeck Tendrils demonstrated that even an astronomically high turn 1 goldfish win rate doesn't necessarily apply in tournament play. Combo is more than likely going to use turn 1 to set up, and give you a chance to play Ancestral Recall (assuming it doesn't get Duressed away) and find Force of Will.  If Trinisphere hits, you have only one card in your hand that is of any use: Polluted Delta.  Then you go into topdeck for land mode, and hope it works out for you.  If that Trinisphere is followed by a Smokestack before you can find 3 land, you lose.  There is not really a difference between this situation and the game being actually over (as in, your signing the match slip).

everything is fundimentally card disadvantage unless it draws you cards.

Well, not exactly.  Dark Ritual trades a card in hand for some opportunity once.  If you what you play is countered, your opponent just 2-for-1'ed you.  Moxes are very different.  If you play a mox and something and it gets countered, your Mox is still around next turn.  Your opponent didn't go 2-for-1 on you.  Black Lotus is also fundamentally card disadvantage as well. Note that card disadvantage is not always the worst thing ever, as sometimes the risk you take pays off really really well.

that's different from turn one kills by belcher, deathlong or meandeck tendrils that makes these decks ok but makes trinisphere not ok

Well, actually, if you read my first post in this thread, you'll find that I was not in favor of the restriction of Trinisphere.  I've discussed this with several other members of the community, and I'm not in support of the decision.  What I've tried to do here is provide some insight into what Trinisphere is, and try to understand why what it is has warranted its restriction.

[Purple Hat]

JDizzle wrote:

Purple Hat wrote:

that's different from turn one kills by belcher, deathlong or meandeck tendrils that makes these decks ok but makes trinisphere not ok  

Well, actually, if you read my first post in this thread, you'll find that I was not in favor of the restriction of Trinisphere. I've discussed this with several other members of the community, and I'm not in support of the decision. What I've tried to do here is provide some insight into what Trinisphere is, and try to understand why what it is has warranted its restriction.

well, yes and no.  Your first post suggested that lack of interaction was the criteria by which trinisphere was being restricted.  You offered a definition which was flawed in that it allowed a whole bunch of things that were extremely noninteractive to pass as interactive.  This was the point I was making in my frist post, which you refuted.  My responses were to the concept of a definition of interaction which made trinisphere non interactive because it "prevents your opponent from managing his resources" but does not make meandeck tendrils non interactive because it plays spells and attempts to force it's opponent to play according to it's game plan.  My point was that your interactivity argument is flawed in an extremely important way.

hale

[virtual]

TPS's turn 1 kill rate is very, very low, and Long's isn't all that high in tournament play. Meandeck Tendrils demonstrated that even an astronomically high turn 1 goldfish win rate doesn't necessarily apply in tournament play. Combo is more than likely going to use turn 1 to set up, and give you a chance to play Ancestral Recall (assuming it doesn't get Duressed away) and find Force of Will. If Trinisphere hits, you have only one card in your hand that is of any use: Polluted Delta.

Just a point I'd like to bring up, given the fear of combo reigning supreme.  Disrupting Shoals is potentially more useful against 0th turn combo rather than 0th turn trinisphere, because Combo (more than likely) attempts to resolve *multiple* crucial spells, with varied casting costs, whereas 0th turn trini was 1 spell.  Intuitively then, DShoals > vs 0th turn combo than 0th turn trinisphere.

[Windfall]

Thanks Purple Hat for doing a good job saying a lot of what I was thinking while reading JDizzle's post.

One other thing, though.  Justin, I never ever said that playing against Trinisphere is fun.  Restricting cards for "fun factor" would be ridiculous.  I don't see how a combo player can say "It's not fun, so it should be restricted."  Just because I play with it and would like to see it unrestricted immediately does not mean I think it's fun.  =)

Dark Rituals create a game where it says "Force of Will or no?"  Trinisphere creates a game where it says "Do you have ample land to reach a point where you can destroy my permanents or return them to my hand?"  There are oftem more land cards in a deck than Force of Wills, and Shop decks give you turns to find them.

Again, I repeat, the best two decks (TPS and Slaver) play a lot of basics and ways to find them, and Wasteland does not affect them.  Please stop saying that all you do against Stax is hope your land won't get Wasted.  The other thing you need to keep in mind is that Stax relies on playing first more so than other decks because it can lose to multiple Moxen openings really fast.

Just out of curiosity, Justin, why are you against Trinisphere's restriction?  It appears you are glad it's no longer in the way of you comboing people out turn 1, as your quote says.

     ~Mark B.

[Komatteru]

One other thing, though.  Justin, I never ever said that playing against Trinisphere is fun.  Restricting cards for "fun factor" would be ridiculous.  I don't see how a combo player can say "It's not fun, so it should be restricted."  Just because I play with it and would like to see it unrestricted immediately does not mean I think it's fun.  =)

As for the fun factor, it's a little more apparent on the list than you think.  Strip Mine is one of these.  Playing back in the 4 Strip Mine era just wasn't fun.  That's really the best way to describe it.  It was just stupid.  Strip Mine is just brutal, vicious, too powerful, distrorting, etc. -- really, it's just not fun.  You can look to T2 for this as well.  Ravager was a problem there, no doubt, but decks that had a pretty good game against it existed.  The deck was powerful and could be beaten if you had some will power (you didn't even need 15 hate cards either), but its complete and utter destruction largely stem from the fact that people no longer enjoyed playing in T2 because of Ravager Affinity.  A weakening of the deck was all that was needed to make the environment a little more healthy, but the DCI elected to come out and ban the deck alltogether.  I refuse to accept that banning 8 cards in Standard was necessary for reasons other than to make people happy--so they could have fun playing the format again.  Just because it's not the most objective or legitimate reason doesn't mean it's not a factor in the decision of the DCI.

Again, I repeat, the best two decks (TPS and Slaver) play a lot of basics and ways to find them, and Wasteland does not affect them.  Please stop saying that all you do against Stax is hope your land won't get Wasted.  The other thing you need to keep in mind is that Stax relies on playing first more so than other decks because it can lose to multiple Moxen openings really fast.

For the record, I assume that we only speak of Stax playing first when we discuss problems with Trinisphere.  We've all acknowledged that Trinisphere isn't really very good when your opponent opens with a few Moxes with a land.  Now, when I say "hope it doesn't get Wasted," I mean you need to draw land that cannot be Wasteland.  I mean, yeah, you have basics and ample ways to get them (fetchlands), but that's not so good if you're drawing dual lands.  Trinisphere forces you not just to draw land, but to draw a specific kind of land.  Shop decks do give you time to find that land, but you need to find enough of those before they find a Strip Mine or a Smokestack.  You have more "correct" lands than they have Smokestacks and Strip Mine, but you need to find two of them.  A crude probability exercise indicates this:

Assume 10 basic lands + fetches.  The probablity that you find 3-4 (5 or more just gets too small to matter) of them in the top 12 cards of your library is 29.5%.  In the top 15, the odds that you find 3-5 are 46.99%.  This model doesn't take into account that if you have to use the fetch, the number of correct lands in your deck is now 1 smaller, and your probabilty of drawing one decreases.  The probablity of finding 1 Smokestack in the top 12 cards is 60.01%.  In the top 15, it's 69.44%.  The probablity of drawing a Wasteland is the same, so the prob of having a Wasteland and a Smokestack is roughly equivalent (or no less than, really) to multiplying the two together (~36% for Waste + Smoke in top 12, ~49% in top 15).  This doesn't take Strip Mine into account.  The actual more precise modelling is much more complicated, as your drawing without replacement.  The actual probabilities will be a little higher than my estimates there.

It comes down to a race between that.  Mathematics indicates that you will tend to lose the race if you're the one trying to find the land.  That's really what I mean when I say "hope it doesn't get Wasted."  You have to actually draw the correct land, which is not in your control.

Just out of curiosity, Justin, why are you against Trinisphere's restriction?  It appears you are glad it's no longer in the way of you comboing people out turn 1, as your quote says.

Well, Mark, I felt it was necessary for maintaining the fragile balance of the format.  Stax will be able to live without Trinisphere, but I think that Workshop Aggro loses too much without Trinisphere.  Stax will still be good without it, but one cannot say that it will not weaken or have to change somehow.  Decks like Belcher just got a bit better, and now we can expect to see some multicolor control attempt to make a comeback.  Fish will also return.  The emphasis on Workshop decks will be much lower now, and it will really be second seat to the other decks.  Stax will still be good, but Workshops won't be as represented since now there are less good decks that use them.  I will also admit that Trinisphere did help to keep combo in check.  It was a silver bullet when you got it down before they won, and that, together with fast combo's inconsistencies, was enough to make playing fast combo a bit of a liability.  Yeah, combo could win against Trinisphere (I busted my biggest Tendrils ever after breaking a soft Trinisphere/Tangle Wire lock), but it did make its life more difficult.  That you have to admit.  You drop Trinisphere against TPS, and it's not like "I win," but it certainly isn't something TPS wants to see, and it never says "haha! that's funny!"  I might be wrong that the format's balance was a bit fragile, and I'm not certain that the decreased emphasis on Workshop decks will drive combo and control to be more insane, but I am worried about it.  I really hope I'm wrong and the format proves itself to be robust enough and adapt to deal with all the incoming threats that just surfaced.

[MuzzonoAmi]

I was just about to say the same thing Virtual did. Everyone else here is completely overlooking what is probably a huge factor in the DCI's descision to leave Trinisphere last time but axe it now - they knew Shoal was coming, and rather than axe it in December when combo would've had to fight only 0th turn Force and possibly MisD (which isn't all that effective against modern combo) then there could have been tons and tons of restrictions coming now to keep whatever combo showed up in check since we would probably keep bitching about the brokenness of combo deck X even once Shoal was leaked. This way, Shoal does the opposite of what I predicted it to do - it got Trinisphere restricted by filling its anti-combo niche instead of keeping it off the list by being a strong answer to a turn 1 Trinisphere.  I doubt that combo will dominate. Actually, there's a strong chance that non-Shop aggro may see a resurgance.