Future Sight blue pact?

[Ged]

Blue pact
0
instant
this card is blue

counter target spell

at the begining of your next upkeep pay 3UU or you lose the game


Got it from:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=73868

Could it be for real?

[ErkBek]

I've been eagerly anticipating seeing what the blue pact is for about a week now. It seems like bounce, counter, or draw as a free spell could all be potentially very broken in vintage. With that said, I really don't think this card is for real, or at least I hope its not. This card would be simply amazing in Long and I'm sure storm decks in other formats could abuse this too. In non-combo decks its nothing really special IMO.

If it were to actually be a counterspell, I would expect something like Daze. Maybe something like counter unless they pay 1, die unless you pay 1U.

Hydo, the mod that confirms everything, has seen the card and hasn't ruled it out. Also, the guy that spoiled it supposedly correctly spoiled a number of Time Spiral cards. I'm not the type to say the spoilers are inaccurate, but I'd hold out on this one before going bonkers.

[wethepeople]

http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=300425

This card isn't real, but I am sure that the blue pact will be similar to what you've described, just weaker.

[Stamford]

even if it could be real, i think it would not be played majorly.
From what i see,
Firstly, its a combo protector.
It cannot be used to counter threats of your opponents, only counterspells that are hindering your combo turn.
What i mean is, in decks with Fow, Fow is often used
a) to counter other counters that are targeting the bombs in the deck.
(E.g. I play a lethal Yawgmoth's Will, that if resolved, wins me the game, you FoW in response. I FoW back to protect my Will./////////////// I play a Wheel of Fortune to redraw a new hand when i only had 3 cards in my hand left while you have 7 cards, you FoW and I FoW in response.)
b) to counter the bombs of the opposing deck.
(E.g. You play a Trinisphere down using a Mishra Workshop, I FoW in response to prevent it from wrecking my gameplan.////////////// You play a Yawgmoth's Bargain with 15 life, i FoW to prevent you from winning with it.)

The new blue pact, if its true, only manages to cover part (a). In the case of part (b), it does not help to any extend at all. Seeing that it is almost impossible to pay its upkeep. And even if you do manage to pay its upkeep, you still skip a turn.

However, it does not help much in part (a) either.

For example, while playing a tendrils based deck, you managed to do the following----
Turn 1,
Land, Mox, Crypt, Dark Rit, then Wheel of Fortune, with BBB float. If your opponent FoWs, and you use Blue Pact, your Wheel would resolve. However, what IF the next 7 cards you see, do not contain the win condition or any relevant tutors and mana accelerators to continue on the combo? Say, you drew a hand with, Grim Tutor, Land, Land, Mox, Necro, Brainstorm, Ancestral Recall?
Though it may not contain the win, the new hand you get could just pretty much ensures that you win the next turn.
However, the blue pact's upkeep trigger is unpayble.
The blue pact is not as efficient as either Duress, Xantid Swarm or FoW simply is.

Assume you swapped the Blue pact in the above situation with either Duress, Swarm or FoW, im sure you will have a better result.

Im sure many of these scenarios will come up and will render the Blue Pact unplayable.

in the case of (b), you basically traded 1 for 1, but you have to find some way to pay the upkeep or lose. And even after you paid, your opponent has basically just Time Walked you.

NOTE: All of the above is under the assumption that the card reads:
Blue Pact          0
Instant
~ is blue.
Counter target spell.
At the beginning of your next upkeep, pay 3UU or you lose the game.

[BreathWeapon]

There are a lot of scans of cards from Russia on their .ru, I'm going to start digging thru' them and see what I can translate.

[Harlequin]

Even in the example above, the combo player is not sunk.  You could use the BBB floating to search for Black Lotus.  Now it puts you behind, because like you said, your opponent gets a free timewalk - and you waste a tutor + lotus simply to not loose the game. 

So it was obviously not great.  And if they counter the Grim or the lotus, then you do loose.

Another interesting option is to run a maindeck stifle.  This way you could Grim for Stifle or Trickbind.  This way you convert the 3UU to U, or 1U uncounterable.  Not terribly bad. 


At the last Myriad, an interesting point about these pact cards was raised (I think by Ray).  Throught mtg history, there have always been choices to make durring your upkeep.  Those cards are almost always "may" abilies, that have a built in punishment if you "Forget" to pay and draw a card.  Kataki clears your artifacts, Oath does nothing, Grunt Dies, Echo creature dies ... etc.  The most difficult upkeep card to judge to date is confidant.  It can be tough on how to judge what happens with a missed confidant - and if the game state is too unrepreable then warnings leading to game losses could occur.  And lets not pretend that this "only happens to bad players."  At this same myriad event, in round 2 Andy Probasco forgot to pay his grunt before he drew his card.  Like a true veteran he just sac'ed and said "oops."  These pact cards have an "Auto-loose" penalty built right in.  So even if you have the mana up, if you draw a card ... are you really going to say "oops, lets go to game 2."

I think my response is there is no question of clear intent to opt "not to loose."  Let's take kataki as an example.  Obviously seeing your next card can influence what you pay for and choose not to pay for, and perhapse what mana you spend to pay for things.  Even with Grunt, knowing that your top card is or ist not recoup or yawg will change how you pay for your Grunt or if you pay at all.  In this case, its hard to argue that knowing the top card of your library will ... influence your decission to loose the game before you even draw said card. 

On the flip side, if you attack me for lethal damage, and I don't block effeciently (and then clearly say "These are my blockers").  I can't use this Intent not to loose plea here. 

[dicemanx]

I think this card will not have a very big impact, because it would further push combo into being "binary" - by comparison the premier combo decks, Gifts and Long variants, try to maintain a more flexible approach and have decent mid-long games.

In the event that this card actually does have an appreciable impact on vintage, it might prompt the restriction of certain combo pieces, which I would welcome - I don't think that we should have turn 1-2 consistent kill decks in this format.
 

[Draven]

Even in the example above, the combo player is not sunk.  You could use the BBB floating to search for Black Lotus.  Now it puts you behind, because like you said, your opponent gets a free timewalk - and you waste a tutor + lotus simply to not loose the game. 

So it was obviously not great.  And if they counter the Grim or the lotus, then you do loose.

Another interesting option is to run a maindeck stifle.  This way you could Grim for Stifle or Trickbind.  This way you convert the 3UU to U, or 1U uncounterable.  Not terribly bad. 


At the last Myriad, an interesting point about these pact cards was raised (I think by Ray).  Throught mtg history, there have always been choices to make durring your upkeep.  Those cards are almost always "may" abilies, that have a built in punishment if you "Forget" to pay and draw a card.  Kataki clears your artifacts, Oath does nothing, Grunt Dies, Echo creature dies ... etc.  The most difficult upkeep card to judge to date is confidant.  It can be tough on how to judge what happens with a missed confidant - and if the game state is too unrepreable then warnings leading to game losses could occur.  And lets not pretend that this "only happens to bad players."  At this same myriad event, in round 2 Andy Probasco forgot to pay his grunt before he drew his card.  Like a true veteran he just sac'ed and said "oops."  These pact cards have an "Auto-loose" penalty built right in.  So even if you have the mana up, if you draw a card ... are you really going to say "oops, lets go to game 2."

I think my response is there is no question of clear intent to opt "not to loose."  Let's take kataki as an example.  Obviously seeing your next card can influence what you pay for and choose not to pay for, and perhapse what mana you spend to pay for things.  Even with Grunt, knowing that your top card is or ist not recoup or yawg will change how you pay for your Grunt or if you pay at all.  In this case, its hard to argue that knowing the top card of your library will ... influence your decission to loose the game before you even draw said card. 

On the flip side, if you attack me for lethal damage, and I don't block effeciently (and then clearly say "These are my blockers").  I can't use this Intent not to loose plea here. 

Don't forget about the Mana Drain trigger argument. Like when players burn becasue they forgot about the mana. Does the opponant have an obligation to remind the player about the mana trigger. Does the opponant have an obligation to remind about the pact trigger?

Ick, I think you are right Harlequin, this cycle is a total rules mess...

[Vegeta2711]

Does the opponent have an obligation to remind about the pact trigger

They must remind you if you 'forget' to pay the trigger. You can choose not too or be unable too, but you can't forget.

[Disburden]

The 3UU for the Upkeep cost isn't too out of power for the card. I can't really call this fake or not. We already got a Pay 2 life free Cycle out of this set. Even that seems a little crazy when considering what we can do with the card in Vintage.

[Draven]

Does the opponent have an obligation to remind about the pact trigger

They must remind you if you 'forget' to pay the trigger. You can choose not too or be unable too, but you can't forget.

Let's play this example out:

They pact counter a spell during your turn. You end the turn. You watch them untap (enough mana to pay the pact mana). You see them reaching for their deck to draw the card for the turn. You are getting excited because if they do not pay the pact mana, you win the game. What do you do? Do you say "STOP! There is an upkeep trigger"? Or do you let them draw the card and lose the game? (I know this is almost the same argument as the Mana Drain trigger.)

[Vegeta2711]

If they draw a card, then it would work like most cards when you ignore an effect and both players have passed by that time. It'll go on the stack immediately to be resolved.

That said, it appears the rules will be changed and if you forget you WILL lose, but you can put a visual cue as a reminder on the top of your library. So the point will be moot anyway.

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:18:31 -0600
From: Scott Marshall <scott_j_marshall_jr@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Pacts and a way to not forget them

In case you didn't see this before - the Future Sight mini-site has been
updated with Rules Primers:
<http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/expansion/futuresight>

As noted in the Rules Primer, some cards introduced in Future Sight
involve a delayed trigger ability (DTA) worded like this:
"At the beginning of your next upkeep, pay {mana cost}. If you don't,
you lose the game."

A player who forgets to properly resolve that DTA will, according to our
current Penalty Guideline procedures, lose the game:
"If the trigger has an instruction that specifies a default action
associated with a choice (usually "If you don't ... ") resolve the
default action immediately without regard to the timing rules for that
particular game." (Game Play Error - Missed Trigger)

The June 1st rules update will change UTR 37 (No game markers of any
kind may be placed on top of or in a location that obscures a player's
deck.); beginning with the prerelease, we will allow players to use a
visual reminder - on top of their library - and we recommend an
announcement, before deck construction, similar to this:
"If you resolve one of the Pacts and you could lose the game on your
next upkeep, please place a non-game item on top of your library as a
visual reminder. Please don't use a card or anything that might obscure
the library - use something small like a coin or a bead, just so you'll
remember to handle the delayed trigger ability."

And, if a player still manages to forget this DTA, despite your efforts
at education, then they will indeed lose the game - and probably gain a
valuable lesson.

Thanks! -- Scott Marshall <scott_j_marshall_jr@yahoo.com>
DCIJUDGE-L / MTGRULES-L NetRep, L4, Denver

[Smmenen]

I think this card will not have a very big impact, because it would further push combo into being "binary" - by comparison the premier combo decks, Gifts and Long variants, try to maintain a more flexible approach and have decent mid-long games.

In the event that this card actually does have an appreciable impact on vintage, it might prompt the restriction of certain combo pieces, which I would welcome - I don't think that we should have turn 1-2 consistent kill decks in this format.
 

All due respect, but you have got to be kidding!!  This card is fundamentally broken. 

[desolutionist]

This will warp Vintage more so than Empty the Warrens. 

[dicemanx]

I think this card will not have a very big impact, because it would further push combo into being "binary" - by comparison the premier combo decks, Gifts and Long variants, try to maintain a more flexible approach and have decent mid-long games.

In the event that this card actually does have an appreciable impact on vintage, it might prompt the restriction of certain combo pieces, which I would welcome - I don't think that we should have turn 1-2 consistent kill decks in this format.
 

All due respect, but you have got to be kidding!!  This card is fundamentally broken. 

Unless it will push "all-in" combo to a overwhelmingly dominant perch, I wouldn't expect this counter to be played much. This counter isn't a very easy fit to existing fast combo decks - having the Pact isn't going to do you any good in forcing through spells like Necro, Wheel, Twister, Jar, or EtW unless you like to gamble or unless you want to go with a more vulnerable "all-in" deck. But then even with such a deck the Pact won't stop disruption like CotV, Null Rod, or SoR since Pact has no defensive capabilities. I don't think that you can perform consistently based on pure aggression.

[Vegeta2711]

I think this card will not have a very big impact, because it would further push combo into being "binary" - by comparison the premier combo decks, Gifts and Long variants, try to maintain a more flexible approach and have decent mid-long games.

In the event that this card actually does have an appreciable impact on vintage, it might prompt the restriction of certain combo pieces, which I would welcome - I don't think that we should have turn 1-2 consistent kill decks in this format.
 

All due respect, but you have got to be kidding!!  This card is fundamentally broken. 

Unless it will push "all-in" combo to a overwhelmingly dominant perch, I wouldn't expect this counter to be played much. This counter isn't a very easy fit to existing fast combo decks - having the Pact isn't going to do you any good in forcing through spells like Necro, Wheel, Twister, Jar, or EtW unless you like to gamble or unless you want to go with a more vulnerable "all-in" deck. But then even with such a deck the Pact won't stop disruption like CotV, Null Rod, or SoR since Pact has no defensive capabilities. I don't think that you can perform consistently based on pure aggression.

I'm curious Peter, how is this not easy to fit into combo builds? A deck like Pitch Long it's a simple card swap and for faster 5c grim long decks that can't run FoW to the number of blue cards I can easily see this replacing whatever the 2nd disruption/protection card of choice is behind Duress. Perhaps even surpassing it in builds that focus around the turn two win.

The thing I disagree with in your analysis, is that the main way combo wins -will- be benefited from this card. Yes there are some delayed effects which this card doesn't help with, but there are a higher amount it does assist.

[Smmenen]

I think this card will not have a very big impact, because it would further push combo into being "binary" - by comparison the premier combo decks, Gifts and Long variants, try to maintain a more flexible approach and have decent mid-long games.

In the event that this card actually does have an appreciable impact on vintage, it might prompt the restriction of certain combo pieces, which I would welcome - I don't think that we should have turn 1-2 consistent kill decks in this format.
 

All due respect, but you have got to be kidding!!  This card is fundamentally broken. 

Unless it will push "all-in" combo to a overwhelmingly dominant perch, I wouldn't expect this counter to be played much. This counter isn't a very easy fit to existing fast combo decks - having the Pact isn't going to do you any good in forcing through spells like Necro, Wheel, Twister, Jar, or EtW unless you like to gamble or unless you want to go with a more vulnerable "all-in" deck. But then even with such a deck the Pact won't stop disruption like CotV, Null Rod, or SoR since Pact has no defensive capabilities. I don't think that you can perform consistently based on pure aggression.

You set up these  structures in your head about whether a deck is all-in or whether the format is "binary" or certain decks are "binary".  It's just the way you organize information and isn't necessarily a description objective reality.   

This card is broken and should be viewed more of as Misdirection: a counterspell that protects your game winning bombs.   It will require less mid-range spells that combo traditionally runs.  But combo traditionally only ran that crap because it had to win wars of attrition.   That's no longer the case.  Moreover, just because a deck runs Misdirection (as many do), doesnt' mean that they are entirely aggressive and have no stamina in the face of resistence. 

Believe what you will, however. 

EDIT: One more comment: This card absolutely supports and aids the fundamental strategy of Vintage: playing and resolving Yawg Will.   It will make Yawg. Will even more powerful than it already is. 

[The Atog Lord]

While it isn't quite so stunning as a First Turn Kill deck, I'll mention that Dragon has long been held back by its requirement to run enough blue cards to make Force of Will work. No longer. Dragon can now run this card instead, and thereby avoid the need to run cards like Read the Runes to increase its blue count. Dragon is even one of the few decks in the format which can play this Pact, untap, stack the Lose the Game effect, and then win in response.

However, given how good Ichorid is going to be after the new set is released, I'd expect there to be even more graveyard hate than before, making Dragon even more vulnerable to splash damage.

[BreathWeapon]

While it isn't quite so stunning as a First Turn Kill deck, I'll mention that Dragon has long been held back by its requirement to run enough blue cards to make Force of Will work. No longer. Dragon can now run this card instead, and thereby avoid the need to run cards like Read the Runes to increase its blue count. Dragon is even one of the few decks in the format which can play this Pact, untap, stack the Lose the Game effect, and then win in response.

However, given how good Ichorid is going to be after the new set is released, I'd expect there to be even more graveyard hate than before, making Dragon even more vulnerable to splash damage.

Isn't Dragon the one combo deck that uses its Force of Wills to stop the opponent's hate and not protect it's threats? It's not as if running out of gas was ever Dragon's issue, Bazaar of Baghdad and Squee, Goblin Nabob are about as inevitable as it gets in this format.

What is interesting tho' is this in non-blue based Dragon, PTW's old Spoils Dragon would have ate this card up.

[dicemanx]

You set up these  structures in your head about whether a deck is all-in or whether the format is "binary" or certain decks are "binary".  It's just the way you organize information and isn't necessarily a description objective reality.

This should be a rather intuitive concept, and doesn't warrant much explanation. What it does require is a clarification that I'm talking about degree, not an absolute (pushing a combo deck into being more "binary" is not the same thing as being a "binary" archetype, which no deck is).
   

This card is broken and should be viewed more of as Misdirection: a counterspell that protects your game winning bombs.   It will require less mid-range spells that combo traditionally runs.

Misdirection can still assist in pushing through spells that don't offer guarantees in immediate victory, such as Jar, Necro, Wheel, Twister, or EtW. Pact represents a more extreme version of Misdirection - no defensive capabilities and requiring no margin of error when "going off", but being much more efficient in pushing through immediate wins. Even if the inclusion of Pact raises your win percentage against an opposing archetype by 10-15% (a substantial increase), this might very well be negated (and more) by making the deck more binary in nature. An archetype such as MeandeckSX perfectly illustrated this idea, and Manaless Ichorid is not too far off. These decks in my opinion will likely not enjoy much success in this format, not now or in the future, and any combo that is more binary in nature won't be too successful even with the printing of Pact.

If you are uncomfortable with the term "binary", perhaps you can stick to less abstract and more tangible terms such as "inflexible", "weak mid/late-game", or "increased vulnerability to (pre-emptive)  hate".

While it isn't quite so stunning as a First Turn Kill deck, I'll mention that Dragon has long been held back by its requirement to run enough blue cards to make Force of Will work.

I wouldn't consider this as something that has held WGD back. In fact, the primary thing holding WGD back is the fact that it runs so many terrible, conditional cards. Running Pact would definitely add to that lengthy list, and wouldn't be something I'd entertain in this archetype; I'd rather stick to making Duress or Abeyance work, which at least have some strong defensive capabilities.

Dragon can now run this card instead, and thereby avoid the need to run cards like Read the Runes to increase its blue count.

I always considered RtR as a bonus for being blue and contributing to the blue card count in support of FoW, but this never was a significant consideration when deciding if RtR would make the cut. In fact, if you cut RtR and put more emphasis on Bazaar, that Bazaar will weaken those FoWs and Pacts as defensive measures as your opponent could wait until you strip your hand with Bazaar before using a removal spell.

I'll be testing Pact along with everyone else, but I'm cautious in making any proclamations regarding magnitude of impact. This is reminiscent of Magus of the Jar, which by some accounts was poised to destroy vintage upon becoming legal in the format.

[Stamford]

I think this card will not have a very big impact, because it would further push combo into being "binary" - by comparison the premier combo decks, Gifts and Long variants, try to maintain a more flexible approach and have decent mid-long games.

In the event that this card actually does have an appreciable impact on vintage, it might prompt the restriction of certain combo pieces, which I would welcome - I don't think that we should have turn 1-2 consistent kill decks in this format.
 

All due respect, but you have got to be kidding!!  This card is fundamentally broken. 

Unless it will push "all-in" combo to a overwhelmingly dominant perch, I wouldn't expect this counter to be played much. This counter isn't a very easy fit to existing fast combo decks - having the Pact isn't going to do you any good in forcing through spells like Necro, Wheel, Twister, Jar, or EtW unless you like to gamble or unless you want to go with a more vulnerable "all-in" deck. But then even with such a deck the Pact won't stop disruption like CotV, Null Rod, or SoR since Pact has no defensive capabilities. I don't think that you can perform consistently based on pure aggression.

You set up these  structures in your head about whether a deck is all-in or whether the format is "binary" or certain decks are "binary".  It's just the way you organize information and isn't necessarily a description objective reality.   

This card is broken and should be viewed more of as Misdirection: a counterspell that protects your game winning bombs.   It will require less mid-range spells that combo traditionally runs.  But combo traditionally only ran that crap because it had to win wars of attrition.   That's no longer the case.  Moreover, just because a deck runs Misdirection (as many do), doesnt' mean that they are entirely aggressive and have no stamina in the face of resistence. 

Believe what you will, however. 

EDIT: One more comment: This card absolutely supports and aids the fundamental strategy of Vintage: playing and resolving Yawg Will.   It will make Yawg. Will even more powerful than it already is. 

Unless there is a resurgence of Meandeck Tendrils kind of decks, there is actually no point in playing a card like this.
This card, now called Pact of Negation is very narrow.
In fact, more narrow than that of Misdirection, it does fundamentally the same thing. However, it does not include the added side effects of Misdirection, which are mainly Ancestral Recall, and counterwars over something that "might" not win a game.
(E.g. Your opponent trying to resolve a Gifts Ungiven and you FoW it, it gets FoW back and you MisD it. Something along this line.)

You really have to play a All-In or Lose type of deck to abuse this card, and it is the type of cards that would not fit into decks with cards that power out lots of card advantage but may not neccessarily win you the game on the spot, like what was mentioned in previous posts, Necro, Draw7s, Jar, and a bunch of other things.

Only decks i see it may go into would be Belcher and Meandeck Tendrils ( maybe some new update which you would most likely do, together with Street Wraith, the free cycler.)

Lets just hope that you and your team could come up with a new MD tendrils deck that was not as vulnearable as that of the past. Though i think it may be too draw dependent and possibly harder to play than the original, which would make it lose. Since in the original, making minor mistakes and wrong predictions, in what you will likely draw, cost players the game entirely, this probable new one would be no different.

Though, on a different note, this card would affect formats like Extended which is not as fast, and would go straight into the deck Teps which i developed.

EDIT: To state that this card COULD change the way vintage is being played, together with Street Wraith. Also to state that Pact may fit in Dragon as well.

[Disburden]

While it isn't quite so stunning as a First Turn Kill deck, I'll mention that Dragon has long been held back by its requirement to run enough blue cards to make Force of Will work. No longer. Dragon can now run this card instead, and thereby avoid the need to run cards like Read the Runes to increase its blue count. Dragon is even one of the few decks in the format which can play this Pact, untap, stack the Lose the Game effect, and then win in response.

However, given how good Ichorid is going to be after the new set is released, I'd expect there to be even more graveyard hate than before, making Dragon even more vulnerable to splash damage.

I made the very same comment about Dragon over as SCG forums. You don't need to run 14+ Blue spells now to protect your animation cycle. All you need is this free counter and you can run a full set of Duress and other ways of finding your combo.

I also don't feel like the term Binary in every post about combo decks is an effective way to get a point across. If anything it becomes confusing and redundant. I understand what the point that is coming across is, but it is still pretty ineffective at expressing a point to a reader without causing them to feel alienated. One of the big things I dislike about Vintage (and this only actually) is that writers and posters feel they need to use Flowery wacky terms to make themselves seem more intellectual in their posts and articles. Read articles by the Pros, the best players in the world, and they don't bother using terms like Binary to try and make a point.

And comparing this card to Magus of the Jar is just insane. I don't think anyone outside of a few posters on the Improvement Forum thought that card was going to break the format. I don't think Rich Shay, Steve Menendian, or other big Vintage names were giving that card any attention. I think your vision may be blurred when trying to see if the two cards look a like.

[runeblayde]

I agree that this could be good for Dragon.  With the limited number of blue spells in dragon to begin with, plus the fact that cards like intuition and RtR that are needed to get the combo going leave you with even less expendable blue cards, FoW too often finds itself without that extra blue card to pitch.  I agree that this card has a more narrow focus and in most cases would not be a good replacement for FoW or Misdirection, but it doesn't have the pitch requirement, it's free and it's drawback doesn't occur until the next turn, often times when the game would be over in your favor anyhow.  It certainly doesn't have the stopping power to break an opponents combo that FoW does, but there are still plenty of times when you're facing down the endgame with your opponents win on the stack and you have the ability to tap  during your next upkeep (via sol ring, crypt, moxen, and god forbid...even lands!).  I think it has a good niche waiting for it and I for one will certainly give it a few extra minutes in the playtesting pool. 

[dicemanx]

I also don't feel like the term Binary in every post about combo decks is an effective way to get a point across. If anything it becomes confusing and redundant. I understand what the point that is coming across is, but it is still pretty ineffective at expressing a point to a reader without causing them to feel alienated.

You indicate that you understand the term and the point that it is conveying, but yet you claim that the term is "confusing" and "ineffective". Additionally, how the term is "redundant" or "alienating" is unclear.

One of the big things I dislike about Vintage (and this only actually) is that writers and posters feel they need to use Flowery wacky terms to make themselves seem more intellectual in their posts and articles. Read articles by the Pros, the best players in the world, and they don't bother using terms like Binary to try and make a point.

If I can use one word to encompass an entire paragraph's worth of information, then I will use that one word. If it confuses you, here is a tip. Why don't you ask for a clarification rather than presenting such rants. The term "binary" is not even my own, but yet when I saw it used it was pretty clear to me what it suggested and encompassed.

And comparing this card to Magus of the Jar is just insane. I don't think anyone outside of a few posters on the Improvement Forum thought that card was going to break the format. I don't think Rich Shay, Steve Menendian, or other big Vintage names were giving that card any attention. I think your vision may be blurred when trying to see if the two cards look a like.

Actually, it was more than just "a few posters on the improvement forum", and I doubt that the "big vintage names" were ignoring the card. Good players tend to be cautiously optimistic when it comes to cards that seem like they will greatly impact the format - it is too easy to get absorbed in all of the amazing things that a card does without giving fair weight to the negatives. If your argument regarding this blue pact amounts to things like "it will make going off with Will easier", that is an incomplete argument that is also missing a critical component - weight assignment. Weight is derived from testing, not theoretical considerations, so it is a little too early to be making strong proclamations about the card's impact on the format, don't you think?

[Disburden]

 I actually feel our discussion on this thread is going to ruin everything that was in mind when the poster started it. I feel we are just going to run in circles over what our opinions are and end up with no way to resolve anything for the time being. I feel that when posters try to use big vocabularies in their posts it makes readers feel more confused and frustrated more than anything else. I think this happens way more often in the Vintage format threads than anywhere else in any other format's discussion boards. I understood what you meant by binary, but only by a vague assumption of what you were using the term for. I mentioned that Steve said the blue Pact was fundamentally broken and you responded with, "What does that even mean?". I am sure you knew what he meant when you asked that question. I am just hoping in the future when Vintage Adepts, Full members, etc create threads on these forums they realize that sometimes using less is more.
 I have a friend who wanted to be a writer in College but he always received bad grades when he submitted his work. The reason was because instead of writing in a way where a reader could enjoy his stories, he wrote as if he read the Dictionary all day long. It made reading his work more of a chore than something that would supposedly be enjoyable and recreational. Sometimes, in my opinion, that can be the case when reading or posting in these forums. It can be rather intimidating.

About the card, I agree that we need to test more to see what happens. I think the card is pretty nuts when considering how it changes a lot of the way spells should be played in the game. Free Cyclers and Free counterspells seems like something that shouldn't exist in the game by today's Tier 2 Standards.

[desolutionist]

About the card, I agree that we need to test more to see what happens. I think the card is pretty nuts when considering how it changes a lot of the way spells should be played in the game. Free Cyclers and Free counterspells seems like something that shouldn't exist in the game by today's Tier 2 Standards.

These cards aren't free; especially the Street Wraith.  You can't claim that you have a 56 card deck if 57, 58, 59, and 60 are Street Wraiths because Street Wraith is in fact a card, whose average power level is equal to the average power level of the cards in your deck.  Hopefully I'm not beginning to sound too redundant, but you cannot conceivably cut anything but lands for this card without worsening your deck. (special cases aside)

Pact of Negation, as potentially distortive as it is, makes me happy because it introduces a new level of skill to Vintage and thickens the boundary between good and bad players.  Despite what I believed when I first heard the rumors, I probably won't be using any more than 2 maindecked because of how often I'm actually sure I'm going to win during any turn.  As Diceman points out, the Pact is incredible specific in how you have to approach winning so it can only be used if your win is guaranteed. (a trap that a lot of new players will probably fall into)  The card is truly broken in decks that lose if they don't win this turn anyway (SX); the Long builds that I've been playing successfully with usually count on winning by playing bombs every turn until one gets through.

[Shock Wave]

I actually feel our discussion on this thread is going to ruin everything that was in mind when the poster started it. I feel we are just going to run in circles over what our opinions are and end up with no way to resolve anything for the time being. I feel that when posters try to use big vocabularies in their posts it makes readers feel more confused and frustrated more than anything else.

Unfortunately, literature in the real world doesn't cater to people who require words to be dissected into the most rudimenatary concepts. How about asking for clarification about a word or concept that doesn't seem clear to you, instead of suggesting that it is inappropriate for someone to use "big vocabulary" for the sake of brevity and clarity?

I have a friend who wanted to be a writer in College but he always received bad grades when he submitted his work. The reason was because instead of writing in a way where a reader could enjoy his stories, he wrote as if he read the Dictionary all day long. It made reading his work more of a chore than something that would supposedly be enjoyable and recreational. Sometimes, in my opinion, that can be the case when reading or posting in these forums. It can be rather intimidating.

Just because it is intimidating to someone who does not understand, that does not make it inappropriate or ineffective communication. Our target audience is not pre-school kids and we're not writing children's books. My professor put this note at the top of every one of his tests and exams: "Loquaciousness is larceny.". He would actually dock you marks if it took you a paragraph to communicate what could be conveyed in one sentence. Check out your local reputable newspaper. The columnists aren't trying to dumb down their work. They are striving to be clear, yet concise.

If it is a struggle for you to get through an article or a post by a Vintage Adept or a Vintage columnist, then perhaps it is better that you stick to reading articles of other formats, because nobody is going to spoonfeed you here. A little willingness to learn is not a lot to ask for.

[policehq]

Isn't this, for most practical purposes, a sorcery-speed counterspell? Unless you're playing High Tide or something and cast your win condition on their turn.

I'm not even sure what I would cut from Belcher to add this. Duress acts as a counterspell against Force of Will and Mana Drain, and still it nabs Null Rod or a card that can beat you sooner.

Orim's Chant and Abeyance do not require a certain number of blue cards, and they protect you from the opponent winning and from the opponent disruption your chances of winning. Still there is debate as to whether they are worth it in Long decks etc. Is the advantage of this, costing 1 or 2 less mana, worth absolutely losing if something goes wrong and not being able to stop your opponent's game plan or ability to disrupt yours?

-hq

[BreathWeapon]

I actually feel our discussion on this thread is going to ruin everything that was in mind when the poster started it. I feel we are just going to run in circles over what our opinions are and end up with no way to resolve anything for the time being. I feel that when posters try to use big vocabularies in their posts it makes readers feel more confused and frustrated more than anything else.

Unfortunately, literature in the real world doesn't cater to people who require words to be dissected into the most rudimenatary concepts. How about asking for clarification about a word or concept that doesn't seem clear to you, instead of suggesting that it is inappropriate for someone to use "big vocabulary" for the sake of brevity and clarity?

I have a friend who wanted to be a writer in College but he always received bad grades when he submitted his work. The reason was because instead of writing in a way where a reader could enjoy his stories, he wrote as if he read the Dictionary all day long. It made reading his work more of a chore than something that would supposedly be enjoyable and recreational. Sometimes, in my opinion, that can be the case when reading or posting in these forums. It can be rather intimidating.

Just because it is intimidating to someone who does not understand, that does not make it inappropriate or ineffective communication. Our target audience is not pre-school kids and we're not writing children's books. My professor put this note at the top of every one of his tests and exams: "Loquaciousness is larceny.". He would actually dock you marks if it took you a paragraph to communicate what could be conveyed in one sentence. Check out your local reputable newspaper. The columnists aren't trying to dumb down their work. They are striving to be clear, yet concise.

If it is a struggle for you to get through an article or a post by a Vintage Adept or a Vintage columnist, then perhaps it is better that you stick to reading articles of other formats, because nobody is going to spoonfeed you here. A little willingness to learn is not a lot to ask for.

I disagree with this as a publisher,

TheManaDrain isn't an Academia or a scientific journal, where the use of a specific sub-set of words regarding the subject can be understood because the readers were educated, trained and worked in the field, it's an internet forum where people from teenagers, college students and lingering adolescents gather to discuss a game, a game that hasn't even had the amount of people or time behind it as Chess or Poker to become a real science.

In fiction, there has to be a specific reason for the use of the word and a correlation between the word and the person using it, so Desolutionist's argument is sound.

Newspapers for certain do not use terms just to use terms, and when Newspapers do use terms there is often a bullet to define the term, the reason is that Newspapers are intended to address the masses, not the educated elite, and bring a sense of social consciousness to them about subjects that could well be over the average person's head.

I have never heard the term Binary be used to describe anything in this game before, but I can assume he wants to draw a correlation between Binary, or the dichotomy of two parts, and the "just run counters and bombs complex" of this format. That wouldn't be as apparent to some one who wasn't as well versed in this format as I am, and no one could just refer to the term in a dictionary and understand the words application if they weren't versed in the format. In fact, I think the term in and of itself is illogical to use, because it disregards mana as a functional part of a supposedly binary system.

[Shock Wave]

I disagree with this as a publisher. TheManaDrain isn't an Academia or a scientific journal, where the use of a specific sub-set of words regarding the subject can be understood because the readers were educated, trained and worked in the field, it's an internet forum where people from teenagers, college students and lingering adolescents gather to discuss a game, a game that hasn't even had the amount of people or time behind it as Chess or Poker to become a real science.

I don't understand the relevance of comparing TMD to a scientific journal. The point I was making is that since we're communicating in English and this is a public forum with no specific target audience (much like a newspaper), we should expect to read articles that have words that we've never seen before or words that are being used in a context that we're unfamiliar with. Hell, we should be willing to learn new words or new applications of words we already know regardless of what we're reading.

In fiction, there has to be a specific reason for the use of the word and a correlation between the word and the person using it, so Desolutionist's argument is sound.

I'm not interested in debating the use of words for the purpose of writing fiction. Disburden was using an example of a student who alienated his audience to support his argument that Vintage writers should refrain from using "big vocabularies" to avoid the same result. This comparison is not sound, simply because we're not trying to cater to a specific audience of 10 year olds. As adults, we should have the maturity to look up the meaning of a word, and if we still don't understand the meaning or context, we can always ask what the intended implication was. However, that does not mean that we should refrain from using "big vocabularies" for fear that people do not understand.

Newspapers for certain do not use terms just to use terms, and when Newspapers do use terms there is often a bullet to define the term, the reason is that Newspapers are intended to address the masses, not the educated elite, and bring a sense of social consciousness to them about subjects that could well be over the average person's head.

Dicemanx has defined the term "binary" and its relevance to the discussion on many occassions before, much like a newspaper would define a word or terminology being used in a very specific context.

I have never heard the term Binary be used to describe anything in this game before, but I can assume he wants to draw a correlation between Binary, or the dichotomy of two parts, and the "just run counters and bombs complex" of this format. That wouldn't be as apparent to some one who wasn't as well versed in this format as I am, and no one could just refer to the term in a dictionary and understand the words application if they weren't versed in the format. In fact, I think the term in and of itself is illogical to use, because it disregards mana as a functional part of a supposedly binary system.

Just because you've never heard it used to describe anything in this game before, it does not mean it is an inappropriate word to use. The term was used to describe certain decks as inflexible, much like Meandeck SX and Ichorid. The binary aspect of these decks is that they are severely constricted to winning or losing in the early game and are highly dependent or "All In" based on their opening 7 cards, unlike non-binary or flexible decks which force a degree of interaction with their opponent. This was pretty clear to me, but had it not been, I would've just asked for clarification, instead of deciding that "big vocabularies" alienate the Vintage masses.