Future Sight blue pact?

[dicemanx]

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.

A specific reason was offered. I want to use one word instead of spending a paragraph describing what I mean. I am also not the originator of the term, which was first used by MaxxMatt to my knowledge. I felt it was an adequate and appropriate term to use when describing not only certain archetypes, but certain approaches to an archetype or the use of certain specific cards (for instance, MDG being more "binary" in nature than a more control-oriented Drain/Gifts deck, or Trinisphere being a more "binary" card to use in Stax; while some may challenge such assertions, the definition of the term is not what's at issue here).

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 felt that this was a fair question. Stating that something is "fundamentally broken" in a format whose top decks use an overwhelming number of spells that can be characterized as such isn't very insightful. Did Steve mean that the spell is merely playable, or will it turn vintage on its ear? Furthermore, is there some difference between "broken" and "fundamentally broken"? Or is the word "fundamental" inserted there to make it sound more impressive?

I find it a little puzzling that you would have issue with an uncommon term, while the use of an arguably overused term whose meaning is ambiguous slips through without comment.

[Smmenen]

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.

Actually, I find that pretty insulting.   I can't speak on behalf of the Vintage community, but most of the people on my team are professional adults.   We've all transitioned from college students playing a game to adults who enjoy a periodic hobby much as other adults enjoy other hobbies (such as golfing, etc).   We are not lingering adolescents.  We have good paying jobs with girlfriends, wives, and even families.   Think of myself, Kevin Cron, Mike Bomholt, Steve O'Connell, Roland Chang, Matthieu Durand, etc.   

My problem with binary has less to do with its ambiguity than its sweep.   In my view, it assumes what it concludes.   Peter set up this term as a point of difference for the purposes of applying it to demarcate that point of difference.   It ignores the complex reality of the situation by simplifying in a far too simplistic manner.   It's a false dichotomy that I don't think describes objective reality.  I think it helps Peter organize and think about vintage magic.  But ultimately, I don’t think its accurate.   Peter sets up many such false dichotomies.  For instance, he describes Gifts and Long as the best decks and suggests, or at least strongly implies, that people play other decks when they shouldn’t.   He also categorizes Gifts and Long as flexible and other decks as binary.   The binary term also aggregates a host of variables: mulligan rates, resilience, consistency, and power.   Decks aren’t static.  I’ve seen Gifts hands that fold to Null Rod and Long hands that fold to Force of Will.    How is that any less binary than Ichorid losing because it didn’t get Bazaar?  Peter might answer because those things happen less frequently.   I would contest that assertion.   Ultimately, I think that his lens for examining decks does not hold up to close scrutiny and can be sharply contested.   I think it may serve the practical purpose of helping him select decks that seem to have better tournament performances.  But I wouldn’t attribute any special inherent value to that fact that correlates to his descriptor.    It’s more a matter of historical contingency than objective reality.    I could elaborate on why this is the case, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to this thread.  I will say, however, that his snap judgment of Pact of Negation merely reaffirms my view that Peter, while a smart guy that I respect, suffers somewhat from a failure of imagination.   

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 felt that this was a fair question. Stating that something is "fundamentally broken" in a format whose top decks use an overwhelming number of spells that can be characterized as such isn't very insightful. Did Steve mean that the spell is merely playable, or will it turn vintage on its ear? Furthermore, is there some difference between "broken" and "fundamentally broken"? Or is the word "fundamental" inserted there to make it sound more impressive?

I find it a little puzzling that you would have issue with an uncommon term, while the use of an arguably overused term whose meaning is ambiguous slips through without comment.

In part I was reacting to your comment.  You stated that you thought the card wouldn't see play.   I think it will see play.     My comment was offered to support that contention.   I think the answer to whether it turns vintage on its ear or not will depend upon historical contingency rather than inevitable progress.   It certainly has the potential to do so.   My guess is that it will not.  At least not in the near term.   And even if it does, again, your question begs the question what is meant by "turning vintage on its ear."  Are we talking Mind's Desire or ETW?    I do believe it will see a decent measure of play.   It will also find a home in Legacy and extended.   

[Klep]

We here at The Mana Drain have no intention of discouraging the use of a broad and intelligent vocabulary.

[Draven]

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.

Actually, I find that pretty insulting.   I can't speak on behalf of the Vintage community, but most of the people on my team are professional adults.   We've all transitioned from college students playing a game to adults who enjoy a periodic hobby much as other adults enjoy other hobbies (such as golfing, etc).   We are not lingering adolescents.  We have good paying jobs with girlfriends, wives, and even families.   Think of myself, Kevin Cron, Mike Bomholt, Steve O'Connell, Roland Chang, Matthieu Durand, etc.   

My problem with binary has less to do with its ambiguity than its sweep.   In my view, it assumes what it concludes.   Peter set up this term as a point of difference for the purposes of applying it to demarcate that point of difference.   It ignores the complex reality of the situation by simplifying in a far too simplistic manner.   It's a false dichotomy that I don't think describes objective reality.  I think it helps Peter organize and think about vintage magic.  But ultimately, I don’t think its accurate.   Peter sets up many such false dichotomies.  For instance, he describes Gifts and Long as the best decks and suggests, or at least strongly implies, that people play other decks when they shouldn’t.   He also categorizes Gifts and Long as flexible and other decks as binary.   The binary term also aggregates a host of variables: mulligan rates, resilience, consistency, and power.   Decks aren’t static.  I’ve seen Gifts hands that fold to Null Rod and Long hands that fold to Force of Will.    How is that any less binary than Ichorid losing because it didn’t get Bazaar?  Peter might answer because those things happen less frequently.   I would contest that assertion.   Ultimately, I think that his lens for examining decks does not hold up to close scrutiny and can be sharply contested.   I think it may serve the practical purpose of helping him select decks that seem to have better tournament performances.  But I wouldn’t attribute any special inherent value to that fact that correlates to his descriptor.    It’s more a matter of historical contingency than objective reality.    I could elaborate on why this is the case, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to this thread.  I will say, however, that his snap judgment of Pact of Negation merely reaffirms my view that Peter, while a smart guy that I respect, suffers somewhat from a failure of imagination.   

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 felt that this was a fair question. Stating that something is "fundamentally broken" in a format whose top decks use an overwhelming number of spells that can be characterized as such isn't very insightful. Did Steve mean that the spell is merely playable, or will it turn vintage on its ear? Furthermore, is there some difference between "broken" and "fundamentally broken"? Or is the word "fundamental" inserted there to make it sound more impressive?

I find it a little puzzling that you would have issue with an uncommon term, while the use of an arguably overused term whose meaning is ambiguous slips through without comment.

In part I was reacting to your comment.  You stated that you thought the card wouldn't see play.   I think it will see play.     My comment was offered to support that contention.   I think the answer to whether it turns vintage on its ear or not will depend upon historical contingency rather than inevitable progress.   It certainly has the potential to do so.   My guess is that it will not.  At least not in the near term.   And even if it does, again, your question begs the question what is meant by "turning vintage on its ear."  Are we talking Mind's Desire or ETW?    I do believe it will see a decent measure of play.   It will also find a home in Legacy and extended.   

Steve, it sounds like all those bucks you packed into law school is paying off  Very amusing, thank you...

Now to the issue of the pact, it is probably going to be a card that helps you "win more". Meaning, the only time this card will be used is when you are going to win anyway. (I use "only" very loosely, there are "always" exceptions.) Maybe a team like MeanDeck will make a suicide combo deck (kinda like Doomsday) where you force through that win on turn one or two or you lose. I personally don't like that kind of gamble, however, that sort of aggression does have it's advantages.

Finally, if I am reading the card correctly, it has a zero casting cost when it is being played, so does Chalice (x=0) cut this off too? That kind of works against that mad dash to the finish line if chalice not noly shuts off your mana base but also your protection.

[policehq]

Finally, if I am reading the card correctly, it has a zero casting cost when it is being played, so does Chalice (x=0) cut this off too? That kind of works against that mad dash to the finish line if chalice not noly shuts off your mana base but also your protection.

Chalice of the Void does counter it.

Aren't cards that are dead in your opening hand and thereafter until you are winning frowned upon generally? That seems to be exactly what this card is. However, I do see that running 4 of these dead cards will allow you to run less blue cards to meet Force of Will's in your deck. I think that the blue cards and the flexibility of Force of Will are more important.

-hq

[dicemanx]

My problem with binary has less to do with its ambiguity than its sweep.

It isn't a sweep - there is a continuous spectrum where a truly binary archetype represents an extreme that no deck has reached. Some archetypes are more binary than others - less flexible, more "all-in", less able to exploit differences in playskill and more based on deck construction skill (which loses the desired effect once a decklist becomes known). Unless you feel that archetypes do not fall into such a specturm at different positions, you cannot accuse the term of being a sweep. For instance, would you be in disagreement with a statement such as: Meandeck SX is more binary in nature than Grimlong?

Remember that more binary in nature doesn't automatically make for a weaker archetype - however, right now in vintage, the more binary archetypes struggle because of the resiliency of the format to even the fastest turn 1-2 kill decks. It is arguably the reason why decks like MeandeckSX, Belcher, or Ichorid don't put up very impressive numbers despite how amazing they look in testing or when goldfishing. You even demonstrate in your Belcher vs Gifts match-up articles how Belcher is very much not only at the mercy of its opening draws or topdecks, but at its opponents draws or top decks. It doesn't mean that it won't win, but even if you give Belcher a 60% edge in that match-up or any match-up (a huge edge I might add), Belcher will still fail to perform consistently in a tourney environment. Vintage isn't just about squeezing percentages in individual match-ups - sometimes it is about opting for an archetype with weaker overall numbers but that is better at exploiting playskill differences because of the flexibility and the interaction that it forces. Playing a deck that aims to minimize interactivity with little resource in recovering from attrition wars or powerful hate cards is not a good idea for a skilled player if they wish to maximize their chances of tmaking t8 or winning events.

In my view, it assumes what it concludes.   Peter set up this term as a point of difference for the purposes of applying it to demarcate that point of difference.   It ignores the complex reality of the situation by simplifying in a far too simplistic manner.

That a categorization doesn't account for many subtleties or complexities doesn't automatically make it too simplistic or not useful. I have a feeling that you're interpreting statements such as "more binary" as assuming the absence of the importance of playskill or complexity involved in decision-making or outplaying your opponent based on various subtleties. Perhaps the problem lies in how YOU are interpreting the word, because you are assigning more meaning to the term than it is capable of encompassing. You also seem to attribute the term as a flag for inferiority, so when I make the claim that "Pact is more binary in nature than FoW or Misd" that would somehow be equated to the card being inferior. That it is more "binary in nature" is incontestable given the fact that it lacks a great deal of flexibility and is used primarily for a solitary purpose. That it might be inferior is a function of the environment and how resilient that environment is to very fast and focused archetypes that attempt to minimize interation because they are not very flexible and capable of coping effectively when forced to interact. To suggest that Pact is sufficient to make such decks competitive and elevate them to top tier status is speculative, and if one is critical of such early proclamations apparently that is supposed to be an indicator of "lack of imagination" as you put it.

It's a false dichotomy that I don't think describes objective reality.

That you believe it represents some sort of a dichotomy already signals to me that you inaccurately assuming that I am fixated on two extremes (binary and non-binary decks), whereas I am working with a continuous spectrum. I don't see others in these forums struggling with the concept, and while they might challenge the placement of certain decks or cards in that spectrum the concept itself doesn't seem to be in question.

Peter sets up many such false dichotomies.

Well, this should be interesting.

For instance, he describes Gifts and Long as the best decks and suggests, or at least strongly implies, that people play other decks when they shouldn’t.

How does that even qualify as a dichotomy, much less a false one? I am in fact echoing Flores' argument that if you're not playing the deck that produces the best stats in major events (in terms of ratios of decks played to the number of t8s/t4s/t2s), you're playing the wrong deck. (and try not to accuse me of presenting a simplistic argument by not taking into consideration things like archetype expertise or surprise factor, because I was making such arguments on these forums long before you wrote articles on this subject; the assessment is based on objective deck strength independent of the "human element", as best as we are able to define what "objective strength" means).

He also categorizes Gifts and Long as flexible and other decks as binary.   The binary term also aggregates a host of variables: mulligan rates, resilience, consistency, and power. Decks aren’t static.

While you correctly identify some of the ideas that the "binary" term aggregates, you proceed to make a puzzling statement, which perhaps stems from your belief that we're working with some sort of "dichotomy" here.

I’ve seen Gifts hands that fold to Null Rod and Long hands that fold to Force of Will.    How is that any less binary than Ichorid losing because it didn’t get Bazaar?

This is like telling me that it is possible to generate the number 7 when the average of all of the numbers is 5, because you believe that I am assuming that if the average is 5 then all numbers must be 5. You can quote all of the ancdotal evidence for me, but it will come down to this, which you identify yourself:

Peter might answer because those things happen less frequently.   I would contest that assertion.

So that's it? You "contest that assertion"? I would assume that if you plan to effectively rebut a contention, you rebut it with evidence and not just offer up a contention in turn.  The "evidence" that you did elect to present merely supports the contention that "sometimes Gifts and Long cave in to hate". Too bad that this isn't the point of debate. Granted, frequency is hard to support with evidence, but we can make a correlation to other measurable apects of an archetype, including things like threat diversity and strategic contingency, tutoring power or draw/search cards to find solutions or to press through a contingecy plan, mana/resource diversity to decrease vulnerability to the prevalent disruption elements in the format, or use of flexible disruption spells that have offensive and defensive functions. I don't need to generate 10,000 games as evidence that, for example, Ichorid will struggle much more in finding a solution to Pithing Needle on its Bazaar or to Leyline of the Void shutting down its game plan entirely than Gifts finding removal for Null Rod which is impeding the YWill plan in the event that its contingency plan of Tinker or EtW isn't successful or feasible.

Ultimately, I think that his lens for examining decks does not hold up to close scrutiny and can be sharply contested.

Then contest them. But make sure that when you challenge me you hold yourself to the same standard and everyone else to that standard, because what you claim is applicable to any theory propsed on any magic site - things are always "more complex" and contain many "more subtleties" than any theory or any set of theories could possibly encompass.

I think it may serve the practical purpose of helping him select decks that seem to have better tournament performances.  But I wouldn’t attribute any special inherent value to that fact that correlates to his descriptor.    It’s more a matter of historical contingency than objective reality.    I could elaborate on why this is the case, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to this thread.  I will say, however, that his snap judgment of Pact of Negation merely reaffirms my view that Peter, while a smart guy that I respect, suffers somewhat from a failure of imagination.   

You are confusing my criticism of jumping to conclusions or challenging strong proclamations with a "failure of imagination". I stated that I have a gut feeling that Pact will end up having minimal impact on the format because it will not be enough to elevate the more binary archetypes to a top tier, and in pushing them into a more binary nature any gain in percentages for any matchup will be offset by the decreased flexibility that the card will offer. Perhaps that Pact will push through that YWill in one game, but you will get your head caved in the next game when your opponent leads with CotV or Null Rod or SoR or Leyline or whatever else fortuituously manages to shut down your gameplan and you're holding a Pact instead of FoW or leading with Duress, or you'll use Pact to force through a hail Mary but won't find the resources to win the game even though after that Will or Necro or Wheel or Jar you would otherwise find yourself in a position to win.

This doesn't mean that I won't try to break the card in half, or that I will dismiss it in testing. This has nothing to do with imagination, or any lack of it.

[Smmenen]

Peter sets up many such false dichotomies.

Well, this should be interesting.

For instance, he describes Gifts and Long as the best decks and suggests, or at least strongly implies, that people play other decks when they shouldn’t.

How does that even qualify as a dichotomy, much less a false one? I am in fact echoing Flores' argument that if you're not playing the deck that produces the best stats in major events (in terms of ratios of decks played to the number of t8s/t4s/t2s), you're playing the wrong deck. (and try not to accuse me of presenting a simplistic argument by not taking into consideration things like archetype expertise or surprise factor, because I was making such arguments on these forums long before you wrote articles on this subject; the assessment is based on objective deck strength independent of the "human element", as best as we are able to define what "objective strength" means).

It's a dichotomy because you are dividing the universe of decks into Gifts/Long and everything else and calling the former playable and everything else unplayable (or at least, not compared to the former).     

It's a false dichotomy because its not true.    It's a matter of historical contingency than objective strength independent of the human element.   

Moreover, there is no such thing as objective strength independent of the human element.    The human element helps shape what is objectively strong.    The enormous amount of people (myself at or near the top of the list) of people who have made Gifts and Long good are what makes Gifts and Long good.   

I remember reading a Gifts thread that you posted very shortly before I unveiled Meandeck Gifts.   You were querying the VIntage community about which Gifts list was best - and your point of reference was some hybrid of Gifts.fr and Probasco gifts.    All the components to meandeck gifts were legal, but no one had yet put them together.   

If that effort had been put into other decks over a similar time scale, then those decks would be "objectively" best and would have performance scales that measure up.   It's a matter of choice and historical contigency rather than objective assessments over power.   I would argue that Control Slaver could right now be the best deck if people played it and people didn't play Long.   In fact, if I hadn't have pushed Grim Long, PItch Long may never have emerged and right now Gifts could be kept in check by Control Slaver (a deck that doesn't have to combat combo then).  In fact, regardless of Long, I see no real structural reason for the shift away from COntrol Slaver.    Slaver could still be the best deck.   It's just not played as much or by the best players. 

You put far too much emphasis on what you see as objectively true when in fact it is historically contingent. 

This doesn't mean that I won't try to break the card in half, or that I will dismiss it in testing. This has nothing to do with imagination, or any lack of it.

Your earliest posts in this thread suggested otherwise:

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.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement suggesting that you have any interest in testing it, especially since we are all aware of your disdain for binary decks.

[Dxfiler]

Er... here's my two cents:

This card seems good but not ba-roken.  In the right deck it could be a hell of a supporting player.

 As already stated by people, this card seems like the exact card Dragon has been waiting for months on end.  Dragon wanted a nice blue card to help out with big brother FOW, and just read the runes wasn't cutting it.  The fact that dragon can go off on upkeep in response to the lose the game trigger puts this thing over the top in that deck.  You'd be hard-pressed to find an immediate better fit for this card in a specific deck. 


 It also seems like a nicer filler card for oath.  Previous successful versions of Oath seemed to have an identity crisis in that they ran alot of moxen but they had to have disruptors that interfered such as null rod or chalice... or both.  I think this card can take the place of rod and/or chalice in Oath builds, streamlining it into a much more focused deck that can REALLY protect its win condition.  Also, with all of the moxen run by oath, the upkeep costs seems much easier to pay in this archtype than most others.

I don't see this card doing squat in fish =p

As for its implications in other combo decks such as gifts/long, I'll leave that to the 'experts' to argue.  I think it's too early to really tell if its the second coming of FOW or just another extirpate, but in the right combo deck I suspect it will be impactful.

So in a nutshell, I expect this card to move and shake some decks, but not to a degree that it warps the format. 

- Dave Feinstein

[dicemanx]

It's a dichotomy because you are dividing the universe of decks into Gifts/Long and everything else and calling the former playable and everything else unplayable (or at least, not compared to the former).     

This is a distortion of the argument - other decks are not unplayable, they are simply not the best objective choice if we remove the human element from the equation (as playskill disparities can allow even the strong players to win with lower tier archetypes). The term "best" can be part of a spectrum and not a dichotomy, or two extremes. Why not, for instance, label it as a trichotomy: Objectively best decks, Decks that can still compete with the objectively best decks because of the human equation, and the unplayable decks which struggle to compete in spite of the human element?

I didn't believe this to be the case a year ago, but now I've come to a different conclusion - I think we've reached a point in vintage where we are starting to approach archetypes which could be labeled as objectively best. That such decks exist is virtually incontestable, but what is contestable is whether we have reached a point where we can begin identifying what they look like. If it will take a card like Pact and the accompanying rise of extreme binary archetypes to the upper tiers of vintage for there to be a shift in the vintage archetype power struggle, that is not a healthy format to me.

 

I remember reading a Gifts thread that you posted very shortly before I unveiled Meandeck Gifts.   You were querying the VIntage community about which Gifts list was best - and your point of reference was some hybrid of Gifts.fr and Probasco gifts.    All the components to meandeck gifts were legal, but no one had yet put them together.   

If that effort had been put into other decks over a similar time scale, then those decks would be "objectively" best and would have performance scales that measure up.   It's a matter of choice and historical contigency rather than objective assessments over power.   I would argue that Control Slaver could right now be the best deck if people played it and people didn't play Long.   In fact, if I hadn't have pushed Grim Long, PItch Long may never have emerged and right now Gifts could be kept in check by Control Slaver (a deck that doesn't have to combat combo then).  In fact, regardless of Long, I see no real structural reason for the shift away from COntrol Slaver.    Slaver could still be the best deck.   It's just not played as much or by the best players. 

You put far too much emphasis on what you see as objectively true when in fact it is historically contingent. 

Your criticism would be more valid if we were constructing such arguments a year ago, or two years ago. I would even agree with you that historical contingency would help explain certain decks rising to the forefront in the past as opposed to some objective truth regarding deck strength; in fact, *I* was using such arguments to rationalize why certain decks performed better than others, so you don't have to clarify such obvious concepts to me. If you recall, I was also the one vehemently opposed to any notion of "objectively best decks", because what I felt was that the ideal build was an ever changing build that maintained surprise value even at the cost of playing a suboptimal card or suboptimal build. To me the human element was a significant contributor to deck success, not the precise archetype that was played or the match-up it was involved in.

However, much has changed since then. We were rummaging essentially in the dark for all of those years, and as a result many interesting and radically different decks enjoyed success, some more briefly than others. But over time, deck development must reach a nadir in the absence of change (whether the B/R list or a significant infusion of T1 worthy cards from newly released sets). The only question is whether we've reached that point now, or whether development still has a long way to go and meaningful progress can be made (as opposed to minor tinkerings like deciding on EtW over Tinker DSC). You are essentially of the opinion that we haven't approached the identification of the most powerful archetypes or the most ideal builds of those archetypes, and your proof is one of "historical contingency". Well, that argument has a time limit attached to it, unless you think that the sets WotC pumps out are sufficent to keep the interest in vintage alive without it approaching a coin flip format. The fact that a card like Pact is viewed as potentially exciting or the ridiculous tools that Ichorid will be getting is quite disturbing, and reflects negatively on the state of the format in my opinion.

Therefore, when we DO reach the nadir, the argument will flip from historical contingency to the actual approach of objective truth when we attempt to rationalize the kind of dominant numbers put up by a pair of archetypes at major events, and at a lot of local events as well. The only question is how close are we to getting there, if we're not there already. Perhaps the saving grace of the format is that people quite willfully opt to play second rate archetypes or elect to muck up streamlined builds for the sake of playing "something different" rather than maximizing their chances at making t8 or winning. They likewise happily ignore the "dangers of cool things", because there is a relatively small time and financial investment made into participating in T1 events. It is akin to me bringing a Eureka deck to a T1 FNM, where I'm more interested in doing something cool than winning.

Your earliest posts in this thread suggested otherwise:

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.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement suggesting that you have any interest in testing it, especially since we are all aware of your disdain for binary decks.

If a "binary archetype" is truly the best deck to bring to a tourney in order to win/make t8, then I will play it. I would still have a problem that such an archetype is allowed to exist. I don't relish the fact that decks like WGD, Ichorid, Belcher, or very fast Tendrils combo (MSX) exist, but at least they aren't very good options to maximize chances of winning events so they are not very popular archetypes; this also likely stems from their more binary nature.

You make the connection between "I don't think it will have a big impact" to "I won't be testing it", but you are incorrect in your assumption. 

[BreathWeapon]

@Steve

Lingering adolescent wasn't intended to be an insult, I have a law degree, a law practice, an officer's commission, a wife, kids etc. and I still consider myself to be a lingering adolescent, after all, most of us who are professionals and parents didn't start  this game after we were adolescents.

@Shockwave

Point is, there's no reference for the use of terms such as "Binary" in Magic available, and the actual definition of the term doesn't make its use on the subject self evident. If you walked into a literature classroom, and some started spouting the words monological and dialogical, would you really have any clue about what they were saying if you just looked up the word in a dictionary?

I thought I had indicated I wanted this line of discussion to end. Apparently not.  If you are confused by a word or term used in a user's post, ask for clarification.  Do not complain about that user making full use of his intelligence.

-Klep

[Aardshark]

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.

@ the community
I wanted to say that this thread embodies exactly what I love about this forum (and format): lively and heated debate about a shared passion between extraordinarly intelligent (if sometimes slightly immodest) individuals.  Defined terms will arise in any intellectual community, and can both serve as valuable shorthand and become rhetorical crutches. I will say that Peter's "binary" was far more intelligible within the context of this thread than many terms thrown at me in my jurisprudence class a few years back.  (Disburden, your advise for effective writing is otherwise right-on.)

[zeus-online]

I've played dragon for a while now, and i honestly don't see this replacing anything. FoW is better because i don't have to pay 3UU during my upkeep, or have both a dragon in the yard and a necromancy in hand - In short the requirement for using fow is lower then that of using pact.

I don't think i'd cut duress either, without having tested pact i'd say that my first thought was that pact is inferior to duress:
Duress gives me information which is vital when you concider that if my combo fails, my board often goes with it - IE. Knowing if he has 1 stp and 1 bounce spell or similar cards is really important, and pact can never do that.

So...:
In extreme situations where you're forced to go off or loose, pact is better.. But in a normal situation where you're just building up and still have a turn or two before you have to attempt the combo, duress is far better.

A deck such as belcher might be able to use this card though, or some crazy storm deck - I do not like this card, if any deck emerges that uses this card to its full potential its gonna be another non-interactive storm combo deck, which is NOT what i think vintage needs.

/Zeus

Note: This is my first impression of the card, and is not based on any play testing whatsoever.

[dicemanx]

There are two further considerations with regards to Pact in WGD:

1) Pact, like FoW, is incapable of stopping targeted removal if you want to go off with Bazaar, unless your opponent does you a favor by walking into your Pact before you start milling yourself.

2) Pact doesn't address the manner in which WGD loses games, at least in my experience. The games I've lost with WGD can be split into three categories:

a) Getting outraced (usually by Long or Gifts, and also CS if they get a quick Slaver)
b) Dying to Crypt or Leyline and not finding an answer in time, or having development slowed down by Pithing Needle (ie *permanent-based* hate cards)
c) Suffering at the hands of mana denial (CotV or Null Rod along with Wastelands and Stifle)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a separate category for Extirpate if I played WGD now.

I don't look for tools to help me push an animate past counterspells or deal with targeted removal/instant speed hate, which Pact is designed to address; instead, I need to be considering the three categories above. This is why I've dropped Xantids from the deck, and why I've been contemplating Abeyance to address (a) and (b) along with Extirpate (another card that Pact fails to address).

Pact, therefore, appears to assist in something that WGD does well already, and it will take away from the resources needed to deal with the threats outlined above. The suggestions I've seen claiming that Pact can replace FoW are pretty out there, and replacing RtR with Pact is a very bad idea - you don't just swap combo pieces for disruption, especially for a disruption piece that is solely designed to push through the combo in the first place!

This doesn't mean that there isn't some speed WGD build that cannot exploit Pact out there waiting to be discovered (someone mentioned PTW's suicide build as an example), but this is not a card I'd be looking to add in a slower WGD build like WGDX that is designed to be more flexible in dealing with many problem situations. 

[madmanmike25]

It also seems like a nicer filler card for oath.  Previous successful versions of Oath seemed to have an identity crisis in that they ran alot of moxen but they had to have disruptors that interfered such as null rod or chalice... or both.  I think this card can take the place of rod and/or chalice in Oath builds, streamlining it into a much more focused deck that can REALLY protect its win condition.  Also, with all of the moxen run by oath, the upkeep costs seems much easier to pay in this archtype than most others.

To me it seems horrible in an Oath deck.  The reason that Null Rod and Chalice don't really interfere with the moxen is because Oath's mana curve is low, and the namesake card costs 1G.  I can't see Oath wanting to pay 5 mana next turn to protect it's win condition as a common scenario.  It's not worth the possibility of losing the game.  Oath's win condition is Oath of Druids.  Once that resolves(and stays on the table), the Angels become the win conditions.  They still need 2 attack phases(sometimes 3), making a 5 mana upkeep a bad idea as you might not be able to protect them again.  If you are talking about using it as protection on the winning attack phase, then sure it works.  That's just a very narrow use of the card.

I think this card is best utilized by decks that are faster than Oath.  I'm going to test it in my Belcher builds.

[kombat]

Remember that more binary in nature doesn't automatically make for a weaker archetype

Strictly speaking, a "binary" deck would be a deck characterized by only being capable of existing in two states - winning or losing overwhelmingly.  I have no problem with this term being applied to certain decks because, quite frankly, it's appropriate.  Decks that strive to go "all-in" as quickly as possible are very aptly described as "binary."  If you can stop them, then they'll lose.  If you can't, then they'll win.

I agree with Peter that such a characterization does not necessarily imply a weaker archetype.  A deck that explodes 90% of the time, but completely dies the other 10% of the time at the slightest resistance is still a very strong deck.  But with absolutely no long-game capability, how else could you describe it other than "binary?"

How does that even qualify as a dichotomy, much less a false one? I am in fact echoing Flores' argument that if you're not playing the deck that produces the best stats in major events (in terms of ratios of decks played to the number of t8s/t4s/t2s), you're playing the wrong deck.

Here, I've got to strongly disagree with you, Peter.  This is a classic fallacy.  If a tournament is held with a great, diverse metagame, and Goblins happens to win it (it's happened), then everyone took your advice and played Goblins at the next event, what will the top-8 look like?  Of course, it will be entirely Goblins.  This sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy, where since Goblins is the deck that's winning all the tournaments, people following your advice would conclude that it must be the best deck in the format and will play it.

If, however, one rogue player shows up with an Oath deck, or some other deck with a great Goblins matchup and wins the whole thing, is that a fluke?  Or, in that metagame, was Oath the "objectively best deck?"

This also demonstrates why there can be no single "objectively best deck," as every deck must compete against a dynamic metagame.

As for the pact, I think it might find a home in a couple of the fastest combo decks, but nowhere else.  We've seen so many cards in the past couple of years that have promised to turn Vintage on its ear (Pithing Needle was supposed to make Dragon extinct, Quicken was supposed to usher in a new breed of combo decks, then Children of Korlis spelled the end of combo) that I'm very cynical now when it comes to evaluating the impact new cards will have on Vintage.

[dicemanx]

Here, I've got to strongly disagree with you, Peter.  This is a classic fallacy.  If a tournament is held with a great, diverse metagame, and Goblins happens to win it (it's happened), then everyone took your advice and played Goblins at the next event, what will the top-8 look like?  Of course, it will be entirely Goblins.  This sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy, where since Goblins is the deck that's winning all the tournaments, people following your advice would conclude that it must be the best deck in the format and will play it.

While I agree that such statements *could* be considered fallacies in certain circumstances, or could fall under a historical contingency argument, they could likewise signal that we are, in fact, seeing evidence of what should be considered the best or ideal decks or archetypes in the format. Remember, we're not arguing about one tourney where Gifts did well; we are looking at 15 months worth of tourney data at major events. We are also not examining tourney results in a vaccum, but understanding how the top decks win, and scrutinizing their power, speed, or resiliency and seeing the correlation to tourney performance. I felt very comfortable contesting the notion that CS was the best deck in the format 2 years ago when we were likewise observing overwhelming numbers put up by the archetype, or even that the original pre-restriction Long was a deck that would dominate in the meta (4 copies of LED makes the deck perhaps unnecessarily more binary in nature), but but what we are seeing now is different.

Even when teams or individuals claim that they are on the verge of innovating something new and exciting, they have to do so with this backdrop of these two monstrous archetypes that are setting the standard in vintage. Look at the last major archetype to enter the competitive arena, albeit unsuccessfully - a vicious turn 3 kill deck that is very binary in nature (Ichorid). Also examine which cards from Future Sight are making waves - we have a couple of Ichorid cards that apparently promise to make the deck be a more consistent turn 2-3 killer, a counterspell that will make it easier to combo off on turn 1-2, and a card that will reduce these killing machines into slimmer 56 card decks. This to me will constitute fleeting excitement in the format, because once we experience how cool these broken cards are we will tire of it very quickly and get more annoyed by the speed of the format and the overwhelming power of the Will/Storm centric archetypes or binary archetypes that aim to remove all interactivity from the game. Forcing interaction with such archetypes will involve less playskill and more chance (do I have the right disruption in my opening hand or do I have to aggressively mull into it so I don't die?).

[kombat]

Remember, we're not arguing about one tourney where Gifts did well; we are looking at 15 months worth of tourney data at major events.

That's valid, but you must also remember that the tournament data we're analyzing is still fairly geographically localized to the metagame of Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada.

In order to conclusively evaluate an objective "best deck," you'd have to take a wide selection of all possible builds of all possible candidates, test them all against each other, and record the results.  Furthermore, this would only give you a comparative ranking of how the decks fared against each other in game 1.  Factor in sideboards, and it gets even more difficult.  Do you assume the same 15-card sideboard available for all matchups?  Or do you permit the decks to draw on their usual sideboard answers for each matchup?  That said, I do agree that the eventual winner would likely be a deck that strongly resembles modern Gifts variants, simply owing to that deck's virtually unsurpassed density of restricted/overpowered cards.

This to me will constitute fleeting excitement in the format, because once we experience how cool these broken cards are we will tire of it very quickly and get more annoyed by the speed of the format and the overwhelming power of the Will/Storm centric archetypes

Unfortunately, I think you're right on this point.  Wizards has given us some new tools to speed up certain decks, but this time they've neglected to include the usual checks and balances.  There's no Meddling Mage or Null Rod or Pithing Needle in this set to offset the new combo tools.  While I think the majority of these cards are being overhyped, they will nevertheless have an undeniable "speeding up" effect to the format.  However, I think the DCI is more likely to address this with targetted restrictions (Bazaar, Grim Tutor) before we see the outright banning of Yawgmoth's Will.

(I don't want this to turn into another "restriction" thread, but before I get attacked with the cries of "Restrict Bazaar, are you nuts?", consider this: Which is more broken in today's Vintage metagame: Library or Bazaar?)

[dicemanx]

That's valid, but you must also remember that the tournament data we're analyzing is still fairly geographically localized to the metagame of Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada.

In order to conclusively evaluate an objective "best deck," you'd have to take a wide selection of all possible builds of all possible candidates, test them all against each other, and record the results.  Furthermore, this would only give you a comparative ranking of how the decks fared against each other in game 1.  Factor in sideboards, and it gets even more difficult.  Do you assume the same 15-card sideboard available for all matchups?  Or do you permit the decks to draw on their usual sideboard answers for each matchup?  That said, I do agree that the eventual winner would likely be a deck that strongly resembles modern Gifts variants, simply owing to that deck's virtually unsurpassed density of restricted/overpowered cards.

You're of course correct in pointing out what needs to be done and what considerations need to be made, but we don't have the time or luxury to do this. I think someone put it best during the Trinisphere restriction debates: to paraphrase, "I cannot quantify it for you our outline precise criteria, but I'll know there's a problem when I see it". In other words there's this intuitive sense that something is off. Even the 15 month evidence from major NA events isn't meant to be hard proof - that data is more supplemental and is used to flag some (disturbing) trends. Also, fortunately we don't have to treat B/R changes in vintage with surgical precision because arguably any change, even if not objectively best or entirely warranted, is beneficial for the format. Plus, it's not like WotC has been basing its past B/R changes on much scrutiny; would there be a reason to be so cautious now?

[Shock Wave]

If a tournament is held with a great, diverse metagame, and Goblins happens to win it (it's happened), then everyone took your advice and played Goblins at the next event, what will the top-8 look like?  Of course, it will be entirely Goblins.  This sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy, where since Goblins is the deck that's winning all the tournaments, people following your advice would conclude that it must be the best deck in the format and will play it.

If, however, one rogue player shows up with an Oath deck, or some other deck with a great Goblins matchup and wins the whole thing, is that a fluke?  Or, in that metagame, was Oath the "objectively best deck?"

This also demonstrates why there can be no single "objectively best deck," as every deck must compete against a dynamic metagame.

I think you've raised an excellent point. I've long said that there is no objectively best deck in this format, and that once we do reach the point of the existence of an objectively best deck, there will be a need to make restrictions or bannings (although this isn't the only circumstance under which bannings or restrictions are necessary).

I agree that we cannot rely on tournament results to determine the "best" deck. All we can say is that the decks that consistenly perform well are the stronger decks in the format. I would go even further to say that a deck can only be objectively best once we can identify that it is both binary in nature and extremely resilient to disruption. This would remove a large enough degree of the interactive element from every matchup so that the deck in question can consistently win without really caring about what the opponent does on an overwhelming majority of the occassions. For example, let's say that this pact card somehow sends Meandeck SX over the top. Immediately, we have an objectively best deck in the format, since we already have a deck that is binary in nature and is only lacking in the resiliency department. Looking at the crooked beasts of the past, I would contend that we've actually had very few occassions of "objectively best" decks in the format (Long, Academy).

As long as a deck like Gifts is disruptible, which it is, and promotes interactivity with the opponent, which it does, it cannot be viewed as objectively best. In a significant number of games, Long variants can blow the opponent out of the water. However, since it is not overwhelmingly resilient to disruption, and has similiar weaknesses to Meandeck SX (although obviously not to the same degree), we also cannot argue that this is an objectively best deck.

This to me will constitute fleeting excitement in the format, because once we experience how cool these broken cards are we will tire of it very quickly and get more annoyed by the speed of the format and the overwhelming power of the Will/Storm centric archetypes or binary archetypes that aim to remove all interactivity from the game. Forcing interaction with such archetypes will involve less playskill and more chance (do I have the right disruption in my opening hand or do I have to aggressively mull into it so I don't die?).

I absolutely agree. However, I don't think we're at that point right now. Maybe these pact cards will add a degree of resiliency to binary archetypes or minimize interactivity with the opponent in such a way that we will find ourselves in a situation where change to the format (in some facet) needs to be addressed. We really have to wait and see though, because like Kombat, said, we've heard it all before.