Article: Deconstructing the Flash Argument

[Shock Wave]

http://magiceternal.com/vintage/flash.html

Hi all. I offer this article to the community as a continuum of the Flash thread which was recently closed. I've decided to continue the discussion here as opposed to the open forum in an attempt to keep the signal/noise ratio down. If you do not have the privilege to post in this forum, feel free to send a message with your thoughts to myself, any other VA, or Moderator/Administrator, and they will be happy to add your thoughts to the discussion if they are deemed to pertain.

Thanks for reading!

[Polynomial P]

That was a very well written article. Are you of the opinion that 'only' flash should be restricted, or do you think mechant scroll should also be restricted?

[Shock Wave]

That was a very well written article. Are you of the opinion that 'only' flash should be restricted, or do you think mechant scroll should also be restricted?

I would love to see both go. Merchant Scroll has been, on a functional level, almost equivalent to Demonic Tutor. It sends the Gush engine, which may be fair without Scroll, over the top. With Flash in its current incarnation, it provides the consistency and resiliency that makes the deck highly competitive.

My problem with leaving Flash alone is this: Let's say you give Scroll the axe. What happens to Flash?

- 3 Scroll
+ Imperial Seal
+ 2 Lim Dul's Vault/Ponder/Sensei's Divining Top/<insert semi-viable Flash digger here>

What ends up happening? Flash becomes a weaker deck from consistency and resilience perspectives, perhaps even enough to damage its credibility as an archetype that can T8 or win a tournament. However, it doesn't lose much on the goldfish. It will still randomly tear you open with a combination of speed, resilience, and simplicity that no other combo deck can boast.

I think that if action is to be taken against the Flash archetype, it makes the most sense to just nip it altogether. Remember what the DCI did with Affinity in standard? They could have allowed a few pieces of the deck to float around, but the problem with that approach was revealed in their testing when the archetype they were attempting to neuter proved capable of resurfacing in other less powerful but equally damaging manifestations. It would be equally painful for the DCI to take action against Scroll, only to find out that Flash is still a monster. Comparing these two archetypes, we can equate Flash to Arcbound Ravager, and Merchant Scroll to the rest of the problem Affinity cards. Nixing one, or the other, seems to be addressing only half the issue and is likely to lead to problems down the line.

[goobafish]

Great article Rich,

I agree that the restriction of Merchant Scroll does not substitute the restriction of Flash. Flash itself needs to go. Personally, I think they both need to go, but Flash is the more pertinent problem.

It is the tenth consideration that I would like to single out. I think it is essential that the format is seen as an interactive format, where new players can join and bring their budget decks to try and compete. Flash creates a huge entrance barrier to those players, and will likely cause them to never return. I think it is important that Vintage attracts new players, because we are constantly loosing players. If you showed up at a tournament with an Extended Goblin deck tweaked for vintage, you have absolutely no chance against flash, and no matter how explosive your start is, you cannot win. Combo decks in the past have required more turns to set up, and in general, did themselves quite a bit of damage in the process, making the match with the goblin deck much closer and more interactive.

The addition of the Reveillark has brought it over the breaking point. The ability to win in response to a pact trigger gives it the ability to use it's Pact of Negations offensively to counter cards like Chalice of the Void, Null Rod and Duress/Thoughtsieze. The sliver combo could be stopped by amassing blockers to stop the combo in an aggressive deck, but Flash can now in at instant speed with fewer combo cards. While people say this combo is more susceptible to hate like Pithing Needle and Tormod's crypt it is important note is that Tormod's Crypt is not seen very often, especially in Control decks because leyline permanently shuts down Ichorid, as opposed to a temporary solution to an inevitable overrun.

[Polynomial P]

While Flash itself is the kill, I perceive Merchant Scroll to be a real problem for vintage right now. Merchant scroll powers a number of the top tier decks right now and has for quite some time. I think Smmenen made the argument that not banning Yawg will will cause a number of cards to become restricted down the road. I think that leaving Merchant scroll unrestricted would do the same thing. Your point concerning what the DCI did to Ravager Affinity is apt and perhaps any deck capable of a turn 1 win percentage of 20% or higher with a number of good protection spells will be considered too broken for vintage.

[Toad]

I really liked the article Richard, it is fairly easy to read. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I would want to see Flash restricted. When playing Flash, the cards I want to see the most in my opening hand are usually Merchant Scroll, Brainstorm and Island, probably in this order. Flash would be a distant 4th, and with the amount of hate you would face in sideboarded games, Chain of Vapor might be ranked above Flash. Merchant Scroll is IMO the truely dumb card in Flash, because it enables your kill (Flash), your protection (Force of Will, Pact of Negation) and your solutions to threats (Chain of Vapor, Rebuild, Gigadrowse). It also enables a B-plan when fetching Mystical Tutor for Tinker.

The Leyline of the Void argument is fairly accurate. People would mulligan into it, and lose regardless since they got forced to keep crap cards. Tormod's Crypt, Stifle or Extirpate are more efficient against Flash, and are nice if they resolve, but are kinda pointless when facing Tinker, or when the opponent simply Scrolls for Gigadrowse

From what i could see in Vintage lately, Merchant Scroll seems to be another glue card for the format, along with Force of Will. The fundamental between both is that while Force of Will prevents brokeness to some extend, Merchant Scroll enables it and pushes it to levels we never saw before. Current Vintage really evolves around Merchant Scroll, with Flash, GAT and Tyrant Oath behing top contenders.

[Akuma]

Great article. I guess I would be one of the 50% who does not want Flash to be restricted but would not really care if it was.

With regards to the "God Hand" you listed, how about making one little change:

Black Lotus, Pact of Negation x 3, Chain of Vapor, Flash, Hulk

How is that for unbeatable 

[Shock Wave]

I really liked the article Richard, it is fairly easy to read. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I would want to see Flash restricted. When playing Flash, the cards I want to see the most in my opening hand are usually Merchant Scroll, Brainstorm and Island, probably in this order. Flash would be a distant 4th, and with the amount of hate you would face in sideboarded games, Chain of Vapor might be ranked above Flash. Merchant Scroll is IMO the truely dumb card in Flash, because it enables your kill (Flash), your protection (Force of Will, Pact of Negation) and your solutions to threats (Chain of Vapor, Rebuild, Gigadrowse). It also enables a B-plan when fetching Mystical Tutor for Tinker.

The only part of the above that I disagree with is how you've ranked Flash on the scale of cards you'd like to see in your opening hand. When I envision the best hands possible for the archetype to begin with, they all include Flash. Not surprisingly, the hands I deem to be the best are also the ones I want to see the most.

The Leyline of the Void argument is fairly accurate. People would mulligan into it, and lose regardless since they got forced to keep crap cards. Tormod's Crypt, Stifle or Extirpate are more efficient against Flash, and are nice if they resolve, but are kinda pointless when facing Tinker, or when the opponent simply Scrolls for Gigadrowse

From what i could see in Vintage lately, Merchant Scroll seems to be another glue card for the format, along with Force of Will. The fundamental between both is that while Force of Will prevents brokeness to some extend, Merchant Scroll enables it and pushes it to levels we never saw before. Current Vintage really evolves around Merchant Scroll, with Flash, GAT and Tyrant Oath behing top contenders.

Agreed. However, if you restrict only Scroll and allow Flash in multiples, you still allow the archetype to goldfish extremely fast and with a very comparable level of resilience. Do you feel this is acceptable?

Great article. I guess I would be one of the 50% who does not want Flash to be restricted but would not really care if it was.

With regards to the "God Hand" you listed, how about making one little change:

Black Lotus, Pact of Negation x 3, Chain of Vapor, Flash, Hulk

How is that for unbeatable 

Thanks for the feedback. I considered the addition of Chain in the opening draw as an afterthought, however I omitted it because I had specified that this God hand exists in several different permutations. You're certainly right though, there's no reason not to throw a Chain in to make it as resilient as possible.

[nataz]

I feel like you are overreacting to flash - figure I'll throw that out at the start of things.

- On your your "testing":

- At the event, I played six rounds and a total of 14 games. In three of those games (21.4%), the game was over on the first turn. In two of those games (14.2%), the game was over on the first turn with the protection of 1 disruption spell. In 1 of those games (7%), the game was over on the first turn with the protection of two disruption spells.

Sounds pretty impressive until you realize that you went 3-2-1 (assuming that it’s the same event). Seriously, you make the argument of "most broken deck ever" with that record? You didn’t even make top 8, and the %'s don't mean much with out significant numbers behind them. You could win 1 game on turn 1 and have a 100% turn 1 win ratio, but that doesn’t provide much information.

Then, look at your 27 matches against opp of "varied" skill. You manage a 22.5 % t1 win, but you only go first half of the time. Extrapolate that out, and even assuming your numbers are correct, you win 11.25% of the time on the play (or rather - when only leyline or fow could stop the combo). I'm not exactly sure thats all that scary. 11/100 games opponents will have to rely on Force of Will -OR- Leyline of the Void, or even a Pact of Negation to stop you?

What kind of decks where you playing against? GAT, Prison, Landstill? I seriously question the relevance of your testing. I mean no offense here, but your numbers just aren't all that convincing. I've been playing Flash against some of the best players in New England pretty constantly since it came out. I've logged 100's of matches with it, and I'm not anywhere close to a 22.5% turn 1 win ratio. In the real world people have FOW, spheres, duress, thoughtseize, leylines, unmask, pact of negation, pithing needle, crypt, chalice, etc.

Look, I'm a research scientist by trade, and I realize the difficulties in getting something significant as far as testing magic goes, but I honestly dont think 27 matches is even remotely close. Especially when you don't release what kind of matches they were. I think the mind finds what it wants to see, and I think you have an obvious bias. You had the answer framed in your mind, and you went looking for a result. Bias is a real thing, especially when you are trying to extrapolate trends, which is what we are really doing when we are “testing”. If the deck was anywhere near as good as you claim it to be, simply by the numbers it would be crushing the format. Seriously, a 1/4 chance to win t1 every time you shuffle up? I just don't buy it.

- On leyline in general
Okay, Okay, we get it. You can beat a leyline of the void. I've beaten it plenty of times, but it does take time, and it certainly sinks the t1 kill %. You can bounce it/destroy it, which in general takes about 1/2 turns, or you can switch gears and avoid it with things like tinker and oath. But I'm not sure that the ability to run a transformational sideboard is reason to restrict something. You mention ichoird going leyline, pass. Flash tinkers in an angel and wins. Thats terrible logic. 1), ichorid is hardly flash's worst match up (the version with serum powder which you mention in the example). Think about it, its a deck that needs 2 specific 4 - ofs to function against flash. It needs a Bazaar AND a Leyline to be relevant, and has to mull aggressively to find them. Any other deck can throw down a leyline and often enough can still function. Having to find Bazaar and leyline is an example of leyline's deficiency of having to be int he opening hand taken to the extreme.

As for your logs, if thats the first time you had someone complain about a vintage deck being "unfun", I think you need to check the MWSfunnies thread more often. Everything from leying a mox to casting gush has enticed far more heated "discourse" on MWS. Another fun note/debate for another day: why is it okay for most of the format to have to play a blue card, that requires a large portion of your deck to also be blue, but its not okay to have to play what is essentially a colorless, free form of disruption, that asks nothing else from your deck?

Finally, on your informal polls and gauge of the current vintage reactions to flash: Again, I don’t think its all that relevant. First off, TMD is a closed system of thoughts and posters. We are essentially and echo chamber, with those posting the most frequently/with the greatest conviction setting the tone. However, loud does not make right. There have been serious calls for the restriction of everything from Bazaar, to welder, to Crucible, to shop. All of those have passed as the meta game evolved. Demars said it best when he admitted to enjoying playing type 1 with his pet deck. He doesn’t want to play the best deck, he wants to play his deck, regardless. There are a lot of people like him out there, and it takes time for the meta-game to shift to competitive decks, rather then comfortable decks. GAT was dominating early after Gush’s restriction, but everything from WS aggro to tyrant oath is making gains as people adjust.
 
So in summation:

- I think you had a serious testing bias which leads to an incorrect extrapolation of trends.
- I think that using leyline as an example of how good flash can be is very flawed.
- I think that calls for restriction in general on the basis of “fun” are often knee-jerk reactions, and given time settle themselves out of the meta-game.

[dicemanx]

Sounds pretty impressive until you realize that you went 3-2-1 (assuming that it’s the same event). Seriously, you make the argument of "most broken deck ever" with that record? You didn’t even make top 8, and the %'s don't mean much with out significant numbers behind them. You could win 1 game on turn 1 and have a 100% turn 1 win ratio, but that doesn’t provide much information.

A deck could have a 70% first turn kill rate, be the most broken deck ever, and yet not top 8. I'm not sure what your argument here is. Furthermore, you subsequently criticize the author for an insufficient sample size, and yet you seem fine in challenging the conclusion based on a single performance (and never mind the fact that another Flash deck actually won the whole event).   

Then, look at your 27 matches against opp of "varied" skill. You manage a 22.5 % t1 win, but you only go first half of the time. Extrapolate that out, and even assuming your numbers are correct, you win 11.25% of the time on the play (or rather - when only leyline or fow could stop the combo). I'm not exactly sure thats all that scary. 11/100 games opponents will have to rely on Force of Will -OR- Leyline of the Void, or even a Pact of Negation to stop you?

I'm not sure I'm understanding the point here. The deck won 22.5% of the time on the first turn. What is the purpose of your "extrapolation" to 11.25%? It suspiciously sounds like you have your own agenda in minimizing the significance of the results, so you too can be accused of introducing your own bias.

What kind of decks where you playing against? GAT, Prison, Landstill? I seriously question the relevance of your testing. I mean no offense here, but your numbers just aren't all that convincing. I've been playing Flash against some of the best players in New England pretty constantly since it came out. I've logged 100's of matches with it, and I'm not anywhere close to a 22.5% turn 1 win ratio. In the real world people have FOW, spheres, duress, thoughtseize, leylines, unmask, pact of negation, pithing needle, crypt, chalice, etc.

This is a pretty weak rebuttal. Why don't you post your numbers instead of being so vague? Also, of what significance is the fact that you play against "the best players in New England"? Do the "best players" draw FoW or Leyline more often than weaker players? Notice that the argument here isn't whether the deck wins more often than not in drawn out, interactive battles; the argument is whether it is acceptable to have a top tier archetype that wins with terrifying frequency on the first and second turns.

Look, I'm a research scientist by trade, and I realize the difficulties in getting something significant as far as testing magic goes, but I honestly dont think 27 matches is even remotely close. Especially when you don't release what kind of matches they were.

Does it matter if he's playing GAT or NoobFish.dec if the game ends on turn 1? You are confusing the fact that the purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate the absurdly unfun game quality that Flash generates rather than support the idea that the deck is completely dominant. Furthermore, do you think that magic players are looking at his 27 matches and are thinking "wow, that's pretty compelling"? Do you not think that they would instead try to relate Rich's little experiment to their own personal experiences and observations? The purpose of these discussions is for people to bring their own experiences to the table - if they are in agreement that Flash is a hideous blight on the vintage landscape, you can bet that it isn't because some guy tested 27 matches and came to his apparent, according to you, "biased conclusion". But then again, you'll see what *you* want to see in the data.

Remember, this wasn't research done in preparation for a research paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal which would have very high standards as far as sample size and statistical analyses are concerned. Instead, it is research conducted to add to the growing anecdotal evidence that seems to indicate that we have a potential problem on our hands; even without the 27 matches as "proof" the discussion would still have a *lot* of merit. Recall that when we were arguing for Trinisphere restriction we didn't use any anecdotal evidence at all. Why do you suppose that we were successful in getting it restricted?

I think the mind finds what it wants to see, and I think you have an obvious bias. You had the answer framed in your mind, and you went looking for a result. Bias is a real thing, especially when you are trying to extrapolate trends, which is what we are really doing when we are “testing”. If the deck was anywhere near as good as you claim it to be, simply by the numbers it would be crushing the format. Seriously, a 1/4 chance to win t1 every time you shuffle up? I just don't buy it.

So Rich had the notion that the deck wins too often on turn 1, and he was able to magically will his deck to do exactly that? I'm not quite sure what your accusation is here exactly. Furthermore, is it your belief that a deck that has a "1/4 chance to win on the first turn" should automatically be the best and most dominant deck in the format? That is simply not the case in general, but in Flash's case that might actually be proven true. Whether it does end up being true nevertheless doesn't have the slightest impact on the argument, because the argument is not contingent on Flash dominance.

Okay, Okay, we get it. You can beat a leyline of the void. I've beaten it plenty of times, but it does take time, and it certainly sinks the t1 kill %. You can bounce it/destroy it, which in general takes about 1/2 turns, or you can switch gears and avoid it with things like tinker and oath. But I'm not sure that the ability to run a transformational sideboard is reason to restrict something. You mention ichoird going leyline, pass. Flash tinkers in an angel and wins. Thats terrible logic. 1), ichorid is hardly flash's worst match up (the version with serum powder which you mention in the example). Think about it, its a deck that needs 2 specific 4 - ofs to function against flash. It needs a Bazaar AND a Leyline to be relevant, and has to mull aggressively to find them. Any other deck can throw down a leyline and often enough can still function. Having to find Bazaar and leyline is an example of leyline's deficiency of having to be int he opening hand taken to the extreme.

I think you've missed the point entirely. The transformational SB has really nothing to do with the central point here, and that is the fact that Flash puts such an immense premium of finding Leyline to survive the early game that it reduces the quality of the match and puts more emphasis on luck. If you are forced to mull until you find Leyline you are at the mercy of your opening seven and your opponent's draw, removing any skill from the actual play. That isn't magic, that's blackjack. The same goes for any other 1st turn disruption card; this game shouldn't be reduced down to forcing players to have specific cards in hand or they lose.

As for your logs, if thats the first time you had someone complain about a vintage deck being "unfun", I think you need to check the MWSfunnies thread more often. Everything from leying a mox to casting gush has enticed far more heated "discourse" on MWS. Another fun note/debate for another day: why is it okay for most of the format to have to play a blue card, that requires a large portion of your deck to also be blue, but its not okay to have to play what is essentially a colorless, free form of disruption, that asks nothing else from your deck?

Your overall argument is a series of disconnected attacks. Instead of breaking down and attacking individual components, how about a more holistic view of the argument presented in the article? The fact that people frequently complain on MWS, or in real life, doesn't minimize the argument in the slightest. In fact, if you look at the article again, Rich does actually address the point that people frequently complain about the state of the format almost on a daily basis. 

Finally, on your informal polls and gauge of the current vintage reactions to flash: Again, I don’t think its all that relevant. First off, TMD is a closed system of thoughts and posters. We are essentially and echo chamber, with those posting the most frequently/with the greatest conviction setting the tone. However, loud does not make right.

What's your proposition then? Don't listen to anybody on anything, because whoever posts "most frequently/with the greatest conviction" isn't automatically right? This is a nonsensical argument.

There have been serious calls for the restriction of everything from Bazaar, to welder, to Crucible, to shop. All of those have passed as the meta game evolved. Demars said it best when he admitted to enjoying playing type 1 with his pet deck. He doesn’t want to play the best deck, he wants to play his deck, regardless. There are a lot of people like him out there, and it takes time for the meta-game to shift to competitive decks, rather then comfortable decks. GAT was dominating early after Gush’s restriction, but everything from WS aggro to tyrant oath is making gains as people adjust.

Demars has indicated that he is switching from his "pet deck" to Flash because he recognizes its power. Nevertheless, let me see if I'm getting your argument here. You are proposing that instead of restriction of a Flash component, we wait until the "metagame adjusts". This adjustment would involve shifting to "competitive decks" away from "pet decks" or "comfortable decks". This shift will likely result in more people playing Flash and decks that attempt to fight Flash through hate. The resulting dynamic might lead to a balanced format, but one, according to Rich's argument, that is based primarily on luck rather than skill. Again, you are confusing the arguments - this is *not* a matter of Flash dominating the format, and if we wait long enough the format will "adjust" to deal with the problem. the format cannot so easily adjust to address the principal arguments for Flash restriction - namely that it produces unacceptably frequent first turn kills and reduces matches to games of chance thereby minimizing the skill component.

The only possible way of arguing your point is if you have some way of establishing that the meta is capable of pushing Flash entirely out of the format so that it would be played about as often as MeadeckSX (i.e. virtually never). The problem is, how long are you willing to wait while this blight upon the format persists, hoping that the miracle cure will come, when in fact it might never happen? 3 months? A year? 

So in summation:

- I think you had a serious testing bias which leads to an incorrect extrapolation of trends.

The only accusation you're entitled to make is conclusion bias, not experimental bias, unless you feel that Rich is somehow using his "bias" to "will himself" into getting a higher first turn kill rate, or unless you think that Rich has purposefully selected his opponents in advance with full knowledge of their playskill and deck choice with the intention of proving his point. More importantly, it is one thing to ask for details about the method to determine *if* there is any experimental bias, and another thing altogether to actually *accuse* someone of bias without knowing any of those details. Your conclusion is therefore based on assumptions rather than evidence, which, I'm sorry to say, leaves your argument without merit.

- I think that calls for restriction in general on the basis of “fun” are often knee-jerk reactions, and given time settle themselves out of the meta-game.

According to the logic of your entire argument everything and anything can be categorized as a knee-jerk reaction, including your own rebuttal. The article presented rational, well-thought out arguments backed by a touch of anecdotal evidence after many months of being subjected to Flash in the format. That defies categorization as "knee-jerk".

[ErkBek]

Great article Rich. I agree with these points the most:

2. Never has a deck combined the speed, resilience, and consistency that Flash has in one archetype.

4. The only combo decks that have been both blazingly fast and resilient in their respective Vintage environments were rightfully neutered (Long, Academy).

8. Perhaps most importantly, is the reaction from the community regarding this archetype. It is reaching a level of outcry semblant of the Trinisphere era. The heinous "unfun" word is back, and it would not take more than a few surveys to conclude that while allowing the current incarnation of Flash to exist in Vintage will certainly push players out of the format, it will not introduce many at all.

10. Flash contributing to the perception of vintage as a luck-based or skill-less format is a major issue

Flash is a joke. It might might be the best deck in the format, but all its games are decided on how well it draws since it tries to remove all interaction via Pacts, FoW, and Misdirection.

There really isn't much of a Vintage scene where I live, and as much as I try to help it grow, Flash just brings it down. Whenever there is an upcoming t1 tournament in the area, I invite friends that are either on the PT or high performing PTQ player to go with me. Typically after a few testing sessions they decide they hate the format because of 2 cards Flash and Fastbond. Just yesterday this exact situation came up. There's a mox tournament on Saturday, but a friend backed out b/c of the format being too "luck based." Thanks Flash.

[Zherbus]

There's a mox tournament on Saturday, but a friend backed out b/c of the format being too "luck based." Thanks Flash.

That says a lot. While some of us may be able to help avoid losing to it, that doesn't change the format perception. Perception is reality, and if there's a way for the format to straighten itself out, it's not happening fast enough to give a different perception.

That said, the big problem we deal with in Vintage is that there are too many times people have cried wolf. Now we're stuck with two vicious camps where one feels this is immensely damaging to the format and one who has seen, like all of us, too many times people clamor for a restriction only to see the situation work itself out.

I wish I could say it's interesting, but it's really frustrating no matter which camp you belong to. I think the Flash question is more contesting than Trinisphere was. But I think the Merchant Scroll issue requires much more finesse in convincing people. I think a card that allows a deck 4 additional ways (as Vintage has enough tutoring without Scroll) to find one dedicated answer card, in addition to perpetuating Gush is pretty damn good. But it's hard to properly judge what really needs to go. I have my own theories, but I change my mind on these things every day.

[Shock Wave]

Here is something to consider, from playkenny's post in another thread:

Shockwave, I read your article and can fully understand your frustration, as well as the frustration of others. Your main arguments against Flash seem to be that its unfun, uninterative, overly powerful via free spells and consistantly degenerate. Your opinion is to ban Flash, but leave scroll. Leaving scroll, i can agree, since it does more damage to other top decks than flash as you have outlined previously.

I'm actually not sure if Scroll can stay. My hunch tells me that it is too strong, especially in a slower format (which would result if Flash left). Scroll would still be a tutor for Flash, which is a very powerful effect. The only thing I am sure about is that Flash, in its current oracle wording, absolutely cannot exist in multiples given the current card pool.

Just a hypothetical - Pretend:

Summoners Pact cannot search for Hulk
That playing the card “Flash” required you to play further spells to win and needed similar skills to that of storm combo.
Flash can still kill at instant speed, but again, further spells are required.
Flash can still kill at sorcery speed, and it required less work than at instant speed
When Hulk dies, you can respond to the trigger by removing hulk from the grave which, in a magical land, counters the search ability.
Still no attack step required for the kill
Flash still maintained (if desired) the use of 4 scrolls and 4 pacts.

Now, do you think that if a flash deck with these constraints would still be a powerhouse? Or be manageable? Or Fair?

If people said yes, has it occurred to anyone that perhaps restricting/banning hulk is the correct move? During affinity’s dominance over standard, DCI restricted Disciple, and overzealously, vial and the artifact lands. Looking at the current extended, affinity lives on even with the loss of Disciple and Vial. If DCI bans Hulk, it effectively means that Flash becomes Rector Flash, which is restrained by the above constraints (replace rector with hulk in the above hypothetical, and use brainfreeze/tendrils for the instant/sorcery skills).

What if hulk is restricted? The deck becomes:
4 flash
1 hulk
4 summoners pact
x Worldly Tutor?

Weaker? I would say so, but by how much? That is up for further discussion, but you would say that turn 1 kill % would decrease, and most players would get to turn 2.

You raise an interesting point. Is Flash/Rector more fair than Flash/Hulk? To be honest, I'm not sure. I've played against it, but not enough to get an idea about how frequently it violates the player interaction rule. My guess is that it is less broken than Flash/Hulk, but whether or not it falls into the fair range of broken play is beyond me. Certainly, the loss of Summoner's Pact will hurt its goldfish rate, but I'm not sure what the overall implications would be for that archetype. Perhaps someone with more Flash/Rector experience can chime in here.

Here's another thing to consider: Flashing a Rector into play on the first turn is functionally a first turn kill. Much like the Flash/Hulk example I provided in my MWS logs from the article, the privilege of being given a turn is largely negated because anything you'll be able to play simply won't resolve. If I get a Bargain into play on the first turn, and I see around 25 cards immediately, it's likely that I won't need to pass the turn, and if do, I'm just going to counter whatever you're doing anyways.

Many other anti flash arguments stem from flash being a brainless deck which chimps can pilot, and have brainless turn 1 wins at a consistent basis. People then state that it’s not much different to long decks, but that argument is shot down when comparing the skill required to generate lethal storm counts vs finding and resolving flash, not to mention consistency issues. Banning/Restricting hulk means that the skill element with rector/storm comes into play thus nullifying that “chimps can play” argument. Furthermore, instant kills are much harder to assemble (via brainfreeze) and there is more interaction (well as much interaction as playing against long/gifts). It reduces the brokness of the free spells, and it keeps a strong combo deck in the format whist not reducing the power of the next big decks (GAT and Oath) by axing scroll. The same hate cards - and more, can be applied to rector flash, 1 hulk flash, which still overlaps with Ichorid.

Banning Flash means that your combo element of the format is maintained by mainstream TTS/Long, Empty Gush etc. Why not keep flash as a combo? Flash has other uses, but it just so happens that hulk broke it. Perhaps people can create a wacky "Dump Truck" style deck, with cards like welder and titan – flash in titan? Then weld? Possibly open doors for a reanimate style deck with flash/tinker, titan/angel of despaire, reaminate? I know it sounds janky, but so did stifle+nought initially.

I think playkenny raises some valid points. I can't imagine the DCI restricting Protean Hulk, because that card is just, well, very weak. However, if Flash/Rector is deemed to be a fair/viable archetype, it would be nice to keep it around. I think it is a consideration that has some merit, although it would involve a very bizarre restriction and is an action I assume the DCI would not be willing to entertain.

[Moxlotus]

Then, look at your 27 matches against opp of "varied" skill. You manage a 22.5 % t1 win, but you only go first half of the time. Extrapolate that out, and even assuming your numbers are correct, you win 11.25% of the time on the play (or rather - when only leyline or fow could stop the combo). I'm not exactly sure thats all that scary. 11/100 games opponents will have to rely on Force of Will -OR- Leyline of the Void, or even a Pact of Negation to stop you?
 

I think you failed at math or wording on this one.  He won 22.5% of his turn 1s.  It is very possible that it means he won 22.5% turn 1 on the play and then 22.5% turn 1 on the draw.  The numbers will work out.  If I claim that I play Ichorid and beat deck X 100% of the time--that doesnt mean I only won on the play 50% of the time.  It means I won every time on the play and then every time on the draw.  Maybe you meant that 11.25% of all games the opponent didn't get a turn?

Personally I think and have thought Scroll should go.  I thought Scroll should go instead of Gifts.  I think Scroll is what gives the deck such consistency to find either their flash or the pact or bounce.  Without Scroll I feel the deck would still be powerful enough to be a viable contender and would still have a pretty large turn 1 kill percentage--but the turn 2 or 3 with protection would go down significantly.  Lots of games I could go turn 1 flash, but would rather Scroll for Pact so I can get a protected turn 2 kill.  It's much less likely that I will be stopped on turn 2 w/ counter backup than I would if I just threw out an unprotected flash turn 1. 

I don't mind a deck having a large turn1 kill % (I couldn't care less about MDTendrils being in the format) if it has a hard time following up after it has gotten disrupted.  The same way we didn't go nuts with trinistax and restrict both Trinisphere and Crucible I think we should just restrict 1 thing at a time to keep the deck viable, but weakened.

[nataz]

Maybe you meant that 11.25% of all games the opponent didn't get a turn?

pretty much, assuming that he won 22.5% of turn 1's in general -> 22.5% turn 1 win % overall. I assumed this on the fact that he was presenting this % as an example of an above threshold value of turn 1 wins, which implies that this is the avg. turn 1 win % in general. since we only go first half the time, that reasonably assumes an 11.25% turn 1 win on the draw, and turn 1 win on the play. Turn 1 win on the draw has many many possible foils, so I focused on the more disturbing figure of turn 1 wins on the play where your opp doesn't get a turn.

If its how moxlotus suggests, and shockwave won 22.5% on the play, and 22.5% on the draw, well I would consider that suspect. Common sense would indicate that the difference of a turn by the opp should have some impact on the win %. Take for example something as simple as the example given by Ben.

Turn 1
Player 1: cast oath

Turn 2
Player 2: cast flash
Player 1: Pact of Negation, targeting flash

Turn 3
player 1: oath -> platty, resolves pact trigger, still alive.

This series of plays, and many other plays could never have happend with out player 1 going 1st, and therefore its logical to assume that flash going first = a higher turn 1 win %.

but hey, 22.5%...

Of course, thats a lot of assumption. Of course, since we just have raw numbers, who knows what the case really is. But hey...22.5%. yea.

My point of bias was that opp decks do matter. My goldfish with flash is a lot faster then my actual turn win %'s. I can win turn 1 much more frequently against decks that don't carry FOW, Pact of Negations, Contagions, The red pitch dmg spell, Leylines, etc.

Not only do your opponents decks matter, but so does your mind set going into a match. Suppose you are over estimating how often flash wins on turn 1. Instead of sculpting a hand in which you MUST have leyline, perhaps your win % against flash would improve if you kept marginaly disruptive hands more often. Turn 0 FOW, turn 1 duress has kill more flash hands then I can count (anticdotaly of course).

Bias can also carry over into deck constuction. To me, your obsession with leyline of the void highlights this fact. I'm pretty sure the leyline gambit is just that, a gamble. You would prob be much better off with something along the lines of extirpate, or in some decks crypt. Maybe even a combonation of the three. Nothing in the world says that you have to only have leyline as an answer to flash, or that only a mulligan to leyline will save you. This also ties in neatly with the pet/comfortable deck theory in which people are slow to adapt.

I don't expect you to have answers, or even try and remove the bias, there are just too many variables. That said, with out some really obvious numbers (or at least more then 11.25 if I'm reading yours correctly), I think the best way to handle things is to wait and see. I FEEL that 3 months is too short of a time, I'd rather have something along the lines of a year or more. Sure, thats just my opinion, but its no less valid then you saying flash is un-fun. This is just my way of being subjective.

and hey, you are right. My response WAS a knee-jerk reaction, mostly because people like you have called wolf so many times before. I'll agree that flash is really good, and may eventually become a problem, but I feel the same way about gush, pact of negation, bazaar of baghdad, merchant scroll, workshop, etc. I DON'T think that they are a problem now.

[hauntedechos]

To start off I'm going to state that I'm not even interested in the numbers or figures presented...not in the least.  The compelling aspect to this article is the responses of the players that have been quoted.  No player should be dismissed, wholesale as if they were just a punching bag for another players amusement.  I acknowledge that there are varying levels of play skill in Vintage.  I acknowledge that some players are new and just bring terrible decks that they are forced to play, either because of budget restraints or lack of understanding of the format.  These factors can make newcomers feel stupid as if it is their fault somehow, yet they can improve or save up money as a recourse.  Playing against Flash either makes even the most seasoned players feel this way or it really pisses them off that such a deck is allowed to exist.

I've sleeved up Flash and had my fun with it, it was really amusing until I paid attention to my opponents demeanor.  I like to win, no question about it man, but NOT at the cost of the opponents feelings, while knowing I'm playing a deck that removes all chance.  I tested the deck, saw my friends reactions and packed the deck away and have never even thought about taking it to a tournament, sorry it just won't happen: I don't need to win that badly and I don't even own a piece of power.

Mine might not be the most scientific of reasonings, but then again I'm in home construction, not a mathmatician or scientist.  People that feel the need to win so badly, that they resort to this kind of deck, clearly have some sort of issues that they need to work out.  You can argue all day long with facts and figures and try to convince everyone that somehow it's acceptable -but in the end, you only have to look around you, at the people you played against to know full well that the deck should not be. period.  They've cut off cards in the past for less.

Haunted.

[Shock Wave]

It seems that although I'm getting a lot of mail which supports my argument, not many people are willing to share their opinion publicly on this issue. I encourage everyone to post their thoughts (for or against), and for those who cannot, to please send them to me so that I may post them. Every voice counts!

Hey,

Thanks for spearheading the battle against Flash.  Your article was very thorough and well-explained - a great example of argumentation and easily one of the better things I've read on Magic.  Though I already felt that Flash was super-broken, I'm now completely convinced thanks to this weekend.

I played in two tournaments the 3/29 Hero Zone tournament in Sandusky, OH and the 3/30 RIW tournament in Livonia, MI.  There were 14 people at the first and 13 at the second, at least six of whom went to both.  (I'd like to blame the low turnouts on Flash, but I think that had more to do with there being a PTQ on Saturday and a $30 entry on Sunday.)

For the past few months, I've been playing Belcher.  You can probably find a list around, I T4'd a previous RIW tournament with around 30 players about a month ago.  It's a recognized deck, handles blue well thanks to maindeck REBs, has an excellent turn one ratio, but is extremely fragile.  I can't have REB all the time, I can't always have turn one, and I'm extremely vulnerable to all kinds of permanent artifact hate.  Plus, for me to have a turn one win, it generally uses most or all of the cards in my hand and will take me a few turns to recover.  Some might disagree, but I'll be willing to argue that Belcher is a "fair" turn one deck.  While I've certainly had my share of turn one wins, I've also had some epic interactive and fun matches for both players.

This weekend I played against Flash five times and lost all five.

Saturday, I played against Justin Morford, Paul Mastriano, and Sandusky local Nick Sherwood and went a combined 2-6 in games.  Against Nick, I Emptied the Warrens for 14 tokens on turn one and couldn't race.

For Sunday, Jerry Yang and I tested the matchup and made sweeping changes to my deck, turning it into a Flash-hating machine.  The sideboard Jester's Caps got maindecked over Empty the Warrens (which were too slow), and we added two more REBs, bringing the maindeck total to seven.  Post-board, all eight REBs were present, along with three Tormod's Crypts.  The REBs (combined with Simian Spirit Guide) give me comparable chances to have a turn one Force of Will effect on Flash.

Essentially, post-board, including early Belcher kills, I had 19 answers to Flash, 11 of which could be active first turn.

Let me tell you, it's a very strange feeling when Belcher has to play the control role.  But it does; there is nothing faster or more reliable than Flash.  I noticed today that the only interactive matches that Flash seemed to have were mirror matches.

Sunday, I played Justin Morford (again) and Brian DeMars and went 1-4 against them.

The most interactive match I had against Flash was on Sunday (after the modifications) against Justin Morford.  He won game one on turn two through REB (and could have played through more hate); I won game two on turn one.  Game three he opens by Thoughtseizing my Belcher, seeing the REB and a Tormod's Crypt in my hand.  I take my turn and Street Wraith into another REB and another Tormod's Crypt, and I play Tinder Wall (to activate the REBs) and both Crypts.  We play draw-go for a while, me looking for a win condition, him putting together a rock-solid hand.  I have two Red Elemental Blasts and a Pyroblast in my hand by the time he considers going for it.  He Mystical Tutors at the end of my turn and doesn't fight the REB that hits it.  On his turn, he Chain of Vapors one of my Crypts, plays Pacts on both of my REBs, and Stifles the last Crypt to win.

He played through five pieces of hate.  Later he said that he was just going to get another Pact with the Mystical Tutor.

Awesome!  Fun format, guys!  If that's interactivity, I don't want any.

It may sound hypocritical coming from a player of another turn-one deck, but Flash is like a Perfect Storm of ridiculousness that came together - free counters, instant-speed win, efficient blue draw, tutoring (also free!), and cheap win condition.  I have never been more disenchanted with the format.  GAT at least let me feel like I was participating.  Even the people playing Flash admitted it was unfair and needed to be restricted.  When I asked Nick, who is a relative newcomer to Vintage, about Flash, he said, "It feels cheap."  I couldn't agree more.

Anyway, sorry for going on like this.  I'm going to write more about this and will contact Mike Turian and Mark Rosewater on this as well.  There is a clear objective best deck in the format right now, and there's very little outside of luck that can compete with it in speed and resilience.

Thanks,
Nat Moes

[Shock Wave]

I'm not able to post in the Adept Chronicles so I'm pm-ing this to you, instead.  I, also, played at the Hero Zone tournament with Nat on Saturday.  I brought two other guys with me and we all played Slaver tuned for Flash, Oath, and Workshops because Ohio has always been Workshop heavy.  This was the list we played:

2 Thoughtseize
4 Force of Will
4 Mana Drain
4 Brainstorm
4 Thirst for Knowledge
3 Spell Snare
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Yawgmoth's Will
1 Tinker
2 Mindslaver
1 Sundering Titan
1 Triskelavus
1 Tormod's Crypt
1 Echoing Truth
3 Goblin Welder
1 Black Lotus
5 Moxes
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Sol Ring
3 Underground Sea
3 Volcanic Island
3 Island
1 Tolarian Academy
5 Fetchlands

I've posted the list so you could see we hadn't sacrificed many business spells for relevant game one hate against the expected field.  Our board looked like this:

4 Leyline of the Void (Flash/Ichorid)
2 Thoughtseize (Oath/Flash)
2 Extirpate (Flash/Oath/Ichorid)
2 Red Elemental Blast (Oath/Mirror)
3 Rack and Ruin (Workshops)
2 Engineered Explosives (MaskNought/Ichorid/random aggro)

Two of us played Flash five times and combined we lost twice and those were in the top 8.  In testing, to have a chance in this match, we needed to side in eight cards.  Drain was too cumbersome, as well as the third Welder.  We ended up siding out Tormod's Crypt because the only games it would get there was when we had Tinker, Will, or Tutor in hand as well.  Without a fast clock they would just get 6-8 worth of power on the field and beat down.  I actually lost my top eight match to Carrion Feeder beats for 14 turns!  Basically, our idea was to disrupt on three levels postboard with graveyard hate, spells hate (Thoughtseize and counters), and instant speed bounce or removal (Echoing Truth and Extirpate) while getting one of our four-ofs (Demonic Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Tinker, and Yawgmoth's Will).  I noticed that all my Flash matchups were largely played off the top of the deck, hence so many cards coming in.  We couldn't rely on a three casting cost draw spell because we could lose in response or have the mana to cast it Duressed out of our hands before we could play it.  We also needed to save our Tutors and bombs in order to win once we stabilized the game state. 

There is no reason to have to interact so much on the first turn, even in Vintage.  Cards have been restricted for less in the past.  It's aggravating to play Vintage right now.  I've already sold over $1500 in cards because I'm quitting.  Drafting is just more fun than Vintage to me, now.  I hope this helps your case against Flash.

[ErkBek]

I attended a local type 1 tournament this weekend, 15 other players showed up. At the tournament I asked 9 people about their views on Flash (8 which are regulars, 1 which this was his first t1). Each one had the same conclusion. Flash is ridiculous and something needs to be done. It also makes Vintage suck.

At the tournament 2 players played Flash going 15-3 in games. 2 of the losses were to me in the final round only because I drew the absolute nuts in both of my wins (Turn 2 Kills both game after turn 1 hate card when on the play). Both of us know that I played difficult hands perfectly in my wins, but that I still got lucky.

In the final round of the Swiss Jesse, who was 6-1 with Flash at the time, was paired up against Drain Tendrils. I pointed out how favorable the match is for him by saying this "He pays 2U to net 1 card at instant speed. You win the game for 1U at instant speed." That was the theme of the tournament. Jesse is an average player and this was his first type 1 tournament in years. He went 8-1 in games only losing to Goblins going Lotus Warchief, mox, earwig squad on the play. "How is this legal? Nice format." was all he had to say. I asked if we would have still showed up if flash wasn't in the format, he said "Yeah, I'd probably play storm combo and screw up."

Flash dominated our small tournament placing its 2 players in the top 4. I think the general consensus was not to hold another type 1 tournament until Flash is gone. If we want brokeness in South Carolina, it's going to have to be cube drafting. Honestly, I wouldn't care about the format either if it weren't for the double P9 in May.

I'm not sure if how much this has been said here, but ICBM's view on Flash is "Deez Noughts beats it." BFD. While I haven't tested the matchup extensively, I'm sure Flash still wins it's fair share of games. Flash is warping the format with its brute power and simply makes the format unfun.

[Akuma]

It is sad that the people that were quoted had a bad outing, but they seem like really bad examples. First, Belcher and Slaver are hardly tier 1. I love pet decks as much as the next guy but I don't expect to have stellar matchups against all of the tier 1 decks. Since when does Slaver beat combo? Belcher is a coin-flip deck with zero manipulation...

It also seems that some of the best players are running Flash at these small (15 people?) tournaments. Mastriano / DeMars have a great Vintage track record, seems like they would have ruined peoples' days regardless. I would definitely like to see what happens at the next SCG.

It seems like Flash is the flavor of the week thanks to all of the publicity it is getting lately (causing a spike in the numbers played). I guess now we'll see what is what. It would be great to hear the opinions of some of the great players, from different parts of the globe (Shay, Scott-Vargas, Beduzzi, Kotter, etc.)

Given some of the great players that have already spoken out about it (you/Mattiuzzo, Becker, DeMars...), you might be seeing the change you are looking for fairly soon 

[dicemanx]

It is sad that the people that were quoted had a bad outing, but they seem like really bad examples. First, Belcher and Slaver are hardly tier 1. I love pet decks as much as the next guy but I don't expect to have stellar matchups against all of the tier 1 decks. Since when does Slaver beat combo? Belcher is a coin-flip deck with zero manipulation...

The examples support the idea of distortion - unless you play the top archetypes, you will die to Flash. They also support the idea of non-interactivity - as one stated, at least losing to GAT would give him the impression that he just played a game of magic rather than blackjack. Many T1 players play for the sake of playing T1 rather than having ambitions of winning. Flash basically comes into the format and starts squeezing such players out.

Without Flash the tier 2 decks would have a better chance even if they continue to be inferior. Flash is just too punishing and distances the tier 1 archetypes away from anything tier 2 or less, which is a prime example of format distortion, a criterion for restriction if said distortion is bad enough.

[Akuma]

@dicemanx
Point taken, but these tier 2 decks don't have much of a chance against tier 1 decks to begin with.

I think the idea of distortion would be much better supported if we could have examples of good players playing tier 1 decks feeling this so-called "blackjack" effect.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of distortion, I just think it would be better if we could get some good players (such as yourself) to post about tournament experiences against Flash using something like a well prepared Tyrant Oath, GAT or Storm Combo deck.

[Shock Wave]

It is sad that the people that were quoted had a bad outing, but they seem like really bad examples.

I didn't post these examples because I felt that they were very good or very poor. I posted them to give these players a voice in the discussion. I actually think both posts contribute to the argument, to some extent.

Regarding Hitman's post: Sure, traditional Control Slaver has never had a great combo matchup. However, look at his list. It is tuned to beat Flash, as indicated by the Spell Snare, Thoughtseize, and Crypt in the maindeck. The sideboard is heavily geared towards stopping Flash as well. Now, I wasn't there to watch the matches, so I can't attest to the skill of the play, but with that much hate you'd think the matchup would be overwhelmingly one sided. For example, if I sided in twelve cards against GrimLong or MeandeckSX, do you think they would have much hope? I think this sort of experience is a testament to the resilience of the deck. The brute speed of Flash forces you to dilute your game plan by slowing down the game, yet Flash is more than capable of playing the slow game as well.

Regarding Nat's post: I think this is important because it illustrates how yesterday's combo decks have essentially gone down the tube as a result of Flash. It's really difficult to justify playing a combo deck other than Flash these days, even those who may have a higher goldfish rate.

Also, while these are examples are of archetypes that are not considered amongst the strongest of the current T1 archetype pool, they should still be very playable decks. As Dicemanx said, Flash pushes much of the Tier 2 decks outside of the scope of viability. Consider that part of the argument for restricting Flash is that it will randomly nuke you regardless of what you're playing (Tier 1, Tier 2, etc.).

It also seems that some of the best players are running Flash at these small (15 people?) tournaments. Mastriano / DeMars have a great Vintage track record, seems like they would have ruined peoples' days regardless. I would definitely like to see what happens at the next SCG.

Flash dominated our small tournament placing its 2 players in the top 4. I think the general consensus was not to hold another type 1 tournament until Flash is gone. If we want brokeness in South Carolina, it's going to have to be cube drafting. Honestly, I wouldn't care about the format either if it weren't for the double P9 in May.

It's actually relevant to talk about the impact of Flash on small tournaments, primarily because these tournaments are becoming smaller as a result. In the past, if I was ever free to attend a Vintage event, I would be there without question, especially to support my favourite TOs. Next weekend, there is an event about an hour away from me that will gather around 25 players, give or take a few. The TO is a great guy and I really want to support this event, but I'm having a hard time justifying my attendance because it is already clear that the field will be comprised of Flash and Flash hate and I just won't have fun. So if I don't want to go, then I should just shut up and stay home right? Well, it just so happens that if I don't go, neither will my teammates, and vice-versa. If my teammates don't go whoever is tagging along with them won't end up going either. Several other people are also counting on me for a ride, so they won't be able to attend either. If I don't go, I nip about five-seven people off the attendance and I won't feel good about that. So what's my point? Well, I'm die hard for Vintage, but most people are not. I want to stay home, but most players in my position would stay home, and I really can't blame them. If Flash continues to alienate the Vintage player base, expect a lot of smaller events in the future.

[hauntedechos]

I guess I'm going to chime in here, based on the last offering above me.  I am in a situation where I can drive close to two hours away for a decent tourney.  I don't know the meta as I've never played there before.  I've PM'd a resident to find out the meta, strictly to find out if Flash will be there in any numbers, because if it is IM NOT GOING and neither is my friend, as I'm the driver.  I don't see the point in attending a tourney if I KNOW I'm going to get blown out of the water from a deck that requires almost nothing of it's pilot short of reading on the combo and memorizing the steps.

Haunted.

[dicemanx]

I suggested to diopter that he post his rebuttal in this thread; his original reply was in a SCG thread. I think he makes some interesting arguments against Flash restriction that are worthy of addressing. I disagreed with some points in the SCG thread, but I welcome any other opinions on the arguments.

The arguments are pretty poor. They're too fixated on the notion that "Flash reduces interactivity if it can somehow pull off getting 4 pieces of a combo and free protection spell on turn 1, on the play". Which is great and all, but that doesn't happen very often. How it actually works in practice - and you can verify this by analyzing top 8 decklists at morphling.de, but you didn't bother - is that Flash keeps metagames constantly in flux. The cycle goes like this:
1.) Players don't prepare for Flash. Thus they can design their decks to have good games against the entire field, except for Flash. GAT is especially guilty of this. Flash players take advantage and enjoy success.
2.) Players over-compensate for Flash. They weaken their decks against other decks in the field in the process. Flash stands no chance, and an under-the-radar deck like Workshop wins.
3.) Players balance their sideboards as Flash starts to diminish in numbers. Many decks enjoy equal success in this stage.

The fact that Flash is a bad matchup for top-tier decks is a good thing. The fact that Flash distorts sideboards is a good thing. Vintage has always had this problem of having a very small tier of decks that can give themselves good matchups against almost the entire field, at least over the span of a few months. The metagame evolves, but slowly.

Think back to the pre-Gush metagame, and the Stax to Slaver to Gifts to Pitch Long metagame shifts - they which took about 6 months to 1 year to happen, and there was a clear "best deck". There is no clear best deck now - GAT had its run and Oath is looking like a contender but Flash is keeping these decks honest (with help from Ichorid). As fun as GAT is to play, I don't want to have to play it 6 months in a row before I get to play, say, Deez Noughts. No thanks.

---

As to the article, its logic was deeply flawed, in many many places:

-The focus was way too much on the "non-interactivity" of Flash in game and doesn't even touch on the fact that Flash in the metagame keeps GAT from dominating and makes it possible for lower-tier decks like say, Storm, to actually have success because GAT couldn't build itself to crush them.

- The comparison to Legacy was flawed. I thought Legacy cound handle Flash with its abundance of good answers to contain that archetype, a point on which the DCI disagreed. That's fine. However, there are strategies in Vintage that are comparable in power level to Flash (which you can't say about Legacy), AND we have all the good answers too. The Legacy Flash and Vintage Flash situations are completely different.

- The "analysis" of Flash's tournament success was flawed. R/G Beats won an SCG too, and GAT has won countless 40-mans. All Shockwave proved was that Flash wasn't terrible. In fact he is proving MY point in that Flash wins in unprepared metagames -> thus forcing decks to prepare against it and weaken themselves against other decks -> thus preventing a clear "best deck" from emerging.

- Shockwave's "feelings" on the high turn 1 win percentage of Flash are nice and all, but they have about zero statistical significance given that they were based on his own personal testing (which is likely biased - do you want to deny this?) and a single tournament event. Other players have had different experiences.

- The "warping of the metagame" that Shockwave talks about is not happening in the maindeck. No decks are running Leyline maindeck except for Ichorid (and Goblins). What Flash is doing is distorting sideboards, which is a GOOD thing. That's what a sideboard is for, gentlemen - addressing bad matchups. The fact that Flash is a bad matchup for decks threatening to take over the top tier of Vintage doesn't bother me in the least.

- This line: "I am demonstrating that the capability to play a wider range of solutions becomes available when you actually have a turn to lay a mana source and cast something. This is a privilege that Flash strips from its opponents with a highly degenerate frequency." No. Just no. Walk through the statistics - 13 lands, 7 zero-cost mana sources, 4 Flash, at most 8 Hulk. You need all four of those in hand AND for your opponent not to have FoW or for you to have your own FoW or Pact AND for your opponent not to have a Leyline in post-board games, for you to "strip your opponent of the privilege of laying a mana source".

- The author criticizes Flash for being able to transform into other strategies. Nothing is stopping Flash opponents from changing their sideboard strategies either. Transformational sideboards are nothing new in Vintage and they can backfire - the opponent is prone to calling your bluff and not sideboarding hate against you, or your transformational strategy is outclassed by your opponent's main strategy. As a Dragon player, dicemanx, you should know this.

- Maybe in the 5% (don't know the exact %) of games that Flash wins without the opponent having a turn OR a FoW OR a Leyline, Flash is "un-fun" to play against. In the tourney that I can beat GAT with Shop Aggro because they couldn't devote half their sideboard to defeating me, and then in the next tourney where I can choose to bring Oath to foil Shop Aggro, and then in the subsequent tourney where I can bring Flash to wreck the complacent players who didn't prepare for me, I'll be happy that Flash exists and is providing this awesome metagame cycle for me.

- Reaction of the community: Ok the community is pretty split on this issue. But Shockwave completely misrepresents this: he makes it appear (through his survey of the 10 players and his commentary in general) that the majority of the Vintage community is against Flash. No. I went over to the "Is Flash Really Good" thread on TMD and counted up the replies: 13 users did not want Flash restricted, 11 users wanted it restricted. I eliminated repeat replies and tried to be as fair as possible in my characterization of people's opinions. The outcry is only coming from half of the community, which frankly happens pretty much every 3 months for about every card or archetype du jour.

- The MWS game example was completely irrelevant. One game means nothing. I could have replicated that game's results with Gush Tendrils or GAT if I wanted to. What's I found really interesting is that the opponent acknowledged that only Ichorid and Goblins play maindeck Leyline. Some metagame warping effect Flash has, what with all of its dominating success in this totally unprepared field (not), that a whole two archetypes, one of which marginal, maindecks the hate card that Shockwave seems to think is indicative of Vintage's doom.

- The "second turn" point completely mischaracterizes how Flash actually operates. If you can accumulate Flash + Hulk + requisite mana + 2 protection spells + pitch fodder for those spells (I'll be generous and say you always get a Pact so that you only need another blue card) on a regular basis on turn 2, congrats, you got there (and got there, and got there, and got there...). I and other players don't enjoy the same success that you do. Oh and by the way, many decks can realistically support Extirpate and Leyline of the Void, and these are very feasible options for many decks post-board.

- I don't think a discussion of 0.01%-probability god hands is relevant to any discussion of the restriction of any card. This was just a blatant but feeble attempt to stir some sort of emotion from the reader.

- Re: Flash makes Vintage appear like a luck-based format. No it doesn't, not any more than any pre-existing stereotype of Vintage already does. This argument is the most offensive to me. Shockwave talks about a "50% of players" that will walk away from Vintage because nothing is being done about Flash. Are these players playing Flash every other round in tourneys or something? Are they being stopped from enjoying Top 8 successes with any number of archetypes from Oath to GAT to Stax to Workshop Aggro to Gush Tendrils to Deez Noughts to Landstill to Control Slaver? If the answers to the above questions are no (which they are) and if those players walk away from Vintage anyway... then they were probably not interested enough in our format to begin with. It took Standard players months upon months before they started walking away because of Affinity, and that deck was so much more prevalent, dominant, metagame warping (not just sideboard warping) and nearly impossible to win against than Flash ever was.

You can find my response and further discussion here:

http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=308637&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50

[Toad]

It would be great to hear the opinions of some of the great players, from different parts of the globe (Shay, Scott-Vargas, Beduzzi, Kotter, etc.)

I've talked a lot with Carsten Kotter during our latest Paris tournament, where I played Flash. While he was surprised to see me play Flash (I'm usually playing Mana Drains or Mishra's Workshop), he recognized that the deck was dumb. What he added afterwards, right before the tournament, was something close to "Nevertheless, be ready to be bored to death for the entiere tournament, and to make your opponents want to quit Vintage". I laughed a bit, and in the end it turned out to be true. None of my opponent was happy to play against Flash, because playing against Flash is not "playing".

This feeling is actually a running one on french Vintage boards (which are the most active Vintage boards after TheManaDrain) : Flash makes Vintage boring. A lot of players refuse to play Vintage while Flash is around in its current incarnation. I can't remember seeing this feeling when Trinisphere was legal. It's really stricking.

Oh, and I've tested the DeezNaught matchup quite a bit. I don't really understand how ICBM got their "DeezNaught destroys Flash", and I find this completely untrue. Extirpate and Tormod's Crypt are cool, but DeezNaught still scoops to Gigadrowse.

The "players don't prepare for Flash" argument is a wrong one. I've faced prepared players all day long during my last tournament. All of them had at least 4 Leylines of the Void in their SB. The MUD player I faced in Quarterfinals actually had 4 Leylines of the Void, 4 Pithing Needle and 3 Tormod's Crypt in his SB along with the 8 Spheres and 4 Chalice of the Void MD. I couldn't care less about most of their plays, because Merchant Scroll would foil these regardless. Preparing properly against Flash is very hard since the deck is very compact, runs a lot of powerful cards, and can switch strategies at will. Graveyard hate is nice against Body Double, but quite atrocious against Poisonous Slivers, Tinker or Oath of Druids coming from the SB.

[Polynomial P]

Given my affinity for non-tier decks, I've tested the heck out of TK deez noughts with and without spell snares in some of the metagame spots. While it does theoretically have a great game against flash, I have found the matchup to be tenuous at best. I do think it has a favorable flash matchup, but it is far from 'never loses to flash ever'. The most puzzling thing is that in matchups where i did not know what my opponent is playing I would play what I would consider to be suboptimally in order to not lose in case they were playing flash. Even in post SB matches, where again TK deez goyfs is good against flash, I never felt secure in the matchup. Part of the problem that I have against flash is that when I play against it, i try not to lose instead of trying to win. Sometimes that is the surest path to victory, but it is not what I would consider fun.

[AngryPheldagrif]

We talk about Deez Naughts destroying Flash because our pilots are experienced in doing just such. I hate to have to bring it up, but I'd strongly question whether your testing is running either correct lists or honestly if it's being competently piloted. Deez Naughts is not an easy deck to run, let alone in a matchup as intensive as Flash. If your theory doesn't match your results, generally there's some human error involved on one side of it. First of all, Deez Naughts is a great deck against Flash. That certainly doesn't mean it never loses to Flash, just respectably less often than it beats Flash. Deez is uniquely equipped with a frightening assortment of 1-mana answers that are good against all forms of Flash. It runs a major complement of Duress-effects, ever the bane of Flash, as well as a single card that is absolutely devastating: Stifle. The problem is, too many people view Stifle in the matchup as 'U: counter Flash.' In reality your line of offensive attack is aimed at their mana base. Flash is not a mana intensive deck, but due to the high number of potential dead cards it is forced to run a smaller and rather fetchland-reliant manabase. Merchant Scroll for an answer is all well and good, but without U1 it becomes a lot harder. Obviously you can use Pacts against this as well as the regular counters, but then you hit the additional threat of Strip-effects, the anvil to Stifle's hammer in the attack.

Sideboarded games are a whole other issue. I am seriously baffled as to how Gigadrowse is supposed to be relevant. First off, it can easily get Duressed, especially since it usually has to be tutored up, preventing it from being cast in the same turn. Additionally, it requires a breadth of blue mana. If you assemble that many against a Strip and Stifle-heavy deck, Deez Naughts is already losing. Lastly, Merchant Scroll as a catch-all indicates that, quite, frankly, either your opponents are terrible or their draws are bad enough to pull them down to the equivalent. Sure it's not that hard to tutor up an answer and leisurely combo out. . . but what if hypothetically your opponent does anything relevant during that time? What if they promptly Duress the answer you tutor up? Sure you have Pacts and Forces to defend, but it isn't like they're just sitting on their hands in the meantime. You're giving them time. They're supposed to be winning during that time. If they've neither accumulated more answers nor progressed to their own endgame, they're losing anyways and the entire argument is irrelevant.

Part of the problem that I have against flash is that when I play against it, i try not to lose instead of trying to win. Sometimes that is the surest path to victory, but it is not what I would consider fun.

No offense, but playing control is the other necessary half of Magic. You can't always be the beatdown. There's a reason Keeper was popular for many years. I never heard Zherbus complaining that he had to try not to lose for the twenty turns it took his Gorilla Shaman to beat them to death and that was unfun.

[Smmenen]

I have a few brief thoughts that I hope won't suck me into this discussion.

First of all, it isn't at all clear that from the perspective of new/outside players that Flash is a "bad thing."   There is alot of evidence (although not overwhelming) to suggest that Flash actually has the potential or actually is bringing in new players.      Some reasons: first of all, Flash is very easy to build and pilot compared to long established and difficult to play archetypes like GAT, Shops, or Long combo.   Secondly, in Legacy Flash actually increased the player base in a Grand Prix from where it was expected to exist.   That's partly because Flash is such an accessible deck to build and play.   If it is driving players from Vintage, I suspect it is established players more than new players.

Secondly, while it is important to engage in these discussions, it is also important to remember that calls for restrictions should always be viewed critically.   The author of this article (and Diceman) emphatically called for the restriction of Crucible of Worlds in 2004.   There were many other calls for restrictions in the past that have now passed. Take a look at this chart:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/5980.html

  We are currently in the heat of the "Flash" moment because of the discovery of the Morningtide Reveillark combo.   It has always been that once the heat of the moment passes, the calls for restriction fall away.   

This was even true of Trinisphere which was not restricted at the 6 month mark, when most people thought it might be, or even the 9 month mark, but was restricted 12 months after Darksteel when few expected it.  Similarly, the calls to restrict Gifts seemed to have receded when it actually happened.  But the calls to restrict: Illusionary Mask, Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, Dark Ritual, Goblin Welder, Academy Rector, Intuiton, Cunning Wish, and even, yes, Psychatog. 

Third, I take seriously the argument that Flash could drive players from Vintage.  While I don't think that Trinisphere deserved restriction from a metagame point of view, I now concede that Trinisphere was unfun in ways that made Vintage less played.  If Flash creates a similar impact, which I think it is now simply too early to tell, then it probably does deserve restriction.   

But if it does, I'll be the first to join the fray.  Until then, I'd caution patience.  Let's see what happens in the next few months.

[hauntedechos]

I'm not trying to suck you into the conversation Steve, however I would like to have one thing clarified.  Understanding that you feel there is evidence that there are new players being drawn into Vintage via this deck, while also acknowledging your statement that it is more, the established players leaving Vintage:  is that to say you feel that the trade off is fine?  Certainly I am not assuming anything, one way or another, I would simply like clarification.

If the two statements exist, I would still feel badly to have players that I respect leave, being offset by a marginal gain of new players who play auto pilot decks.


Haunted.