[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays - The Trouble with Shahrazad

[BigBarn]

Why is everyone talking about all of these possible scenarios, sub-games, removed cards etc.?

Player A: Cast Shahrazad.
Player B: Ok, I don't have a counter, it resolves.
Player A: Okay, sub-game?
Player B: Sub-game, that would be stupid, I concede and lose X life.

You're assuming that player B is (1) piloting a tier 1 deck and (2) intelligent.  If player B brings his homebrew Channel-Fireball deck, he or she has no out other than to play the sub-game.  And that's even if they think things through all the way.

[Smmenen]

Why is everyone talking about all of these possible scenarios, sub-games, removed cards etc.?

Player A: Cast Shahrazad.
Player B: Ok, I don't have a counter, it resolves.
Player A: Okay, sub-game?
Player B: Sub-game, that would be stupid, I concede and lose X life.

You're assuming that player B is (1) piloting a tier 1 deck and (2) intelligent.  If player B brings his homebrew Channel-Fireball deck, he or she has no out other than to play the sub-game.  And that's even if they think things through all the way.

Yes.  Bannings should never cater to the lowest common denominator.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Right...  But unbanning shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator either.

[orgcandman]

Why is everyone talking about all of these possible scenarios, sub-games, removed cards etc.?

I was under the impression that this was in the context of having a deck which could cast an arbitrary amount of shahrazad through some kind of recursion engine. Since you lose half your life rounded up, there's a tipping point at which you can't simply decide to concede, since you'd lose game 1.

I see the issue being that because shahrazad allows players to break the best 2 of 3, and instead play best x of y, it is detrimental to tournament integrity. Does this mean it should be banned? I dunno. I'm not a format whiz. Hell, I barely play. It does pose "interesting" (used loosely) challenges for a tournament setting; challenges which are unique in MtG. Ante & dexterity cards were removed because they also presented "interesting" challenges (ie: how does a person with no arms flip a card, or can I go to jail for running demonic attorney), so it's not like there isn't precedent for banning cards in vintage anyway.

In fact, I even remember an article a while back by Steve where he says that Yawgmoth's Will should be banned. When people brought up the point of its being a slippery slope banning, I believe Steve's response was something along the lines of that not being a concern. Why is it with Shahrazad?

[Purple Hat]

for those wondering about the 50minute + 5 turns thing I think it goes like this: we have 50 minutes to complete the round on turn 1 of game 1 I create some subgames.  we spend 50 minutes playing them out.  time is called, we're still in a sub-game.  Turn 0 is, in actuality my turn 1 of game 1 in the main game.  so infinite turns can be played within our infinite subgames as long as the main game is not advanced.  That's the theory anyway.

I don't think this infinite loop stuff makes much sense though.  I can't imagine a way to create an involuntary infinite loop involving shaharzad, in which case you would be required by the floor rules to announce the number of itterations once you demonstrate the loop.  You can't just play out every itteration very slowly, that's stalling.

Ultimately the card is irrelevant.  there's no good play with shaharzad I see no reason to ban it but I also see no reason to unban it for tournament play.  for those who use shaharzad for casual play I think there's an argument to unban it because people tend to use the vintage B&R list. 

[Smmenen]

for those wondering about the 50minute + 5 turns thing I think it goes like this: we have 50 minutes to complete the round on turn 1 of game 1 I create some subgames.  we spend 50 minutes playing them out.  time is called, we're still in a sub-game.  Turn 0 is, in actuality my turn 1 of game 1 in the main game.  so infinite turns can be played within our infinite subgames as long as the main game is not advanced.  That's the theory anyway.

116.   End-of-Match Procedure
If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the active player (as defined in the Magic game rules) finishes his or her turn and five total additional turns are played. For example, time is called on player A’s turn. Player A finishes his or her turn. Player B takes extra turn #1, Player A takes extra turn #2, Player B takes extra turn #3, player A takes extra turn #4, and player B takes extra turn #5.

Players take any extra turns granted to them by effects as they normally would during the course of the game, but any extra turn counts as one of the five end-of-match turns. Once five extra turns are completed, the game finishes regardless of any remaining effect-generated extra turns.

If the game finishes before the fifth turn is completed, the match is over and no new game begins.

If a judge assigned a time or turn extension (because of a long ruling, deck check, or other reason), the end-of-match procedure does not begin until the end of the time or turn extension.

A game that is not completed when the match ends is considered a draw. Any games that have not been played when the match ends are not counted in the final match score.

I have NO IDEA why the head judge would rule that Shahrazad sub-game has to be played to completion.  That judge is a moron/idiot.

Based upon magic floor rule 116 above, they should not have allowed that to happen.  Five turns is five turns.

[BigBarn]

Why is everyone talking about all of these possible scenarios, sub-games, removed cards etc.?

Player A: Cast Shahrazad.
Player B: Ok, I don't have a counter, it resolves.
Player A: Okay, sub-game?
Player B: Sub-game, that would be stupid, I concede and lose X life.

You're assuming that player B is (1) piloting a tier 1 deck and (2) intelligent.  If player B brings his homebrew Channel-Fireball deck, he or she has no out other than to play the sub-game.  And that's even if they think things through all the way.

Yes.  Bannings should never cater to the lowest common denominator.

What makes an unintelligent person piloting a non-tier 1 deck the lowest common denominator?

[Smmenen]

Why is everyone talking about all of these possible scenarios, sub-games, removed cards etc.?

Player A: Cast Shahrazad.
Player B: Ok, I don't have a counter, it resolves.
Player A: Okay, sub-game?
Player B: Sub-game, that would be stupid, I concede and lose X life.

You're assuming that player B is (1) piloting a tier 1 deck and (2) intelligent.  If player B brings his homebrew Channel-Fireball deck, he or she has no out other than to play the sub-game.  And that's even if they think things through all the way.

Yes.  Bannings should never cater to the lowest common denominator.

What makes an unintelligent person piloting a non-tier 1 deck the lowest common denominator?

The fact that that's what we mean by that statement.   

Rephased, bannings should never serve bad players playing bad decks. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

Right...so by unbanning the card thereby allowing players with clearly suboptimal decks to disrupt organized play, we will somehow *not* be serving their interests? As far as I can tell, the current ban serves everyone who doesn't want disrupted organized play.

Also, let's look for an example of a banning that would somehow serve bad players playing bad decks...

-Singing Tree: unnoticed, doesn't harm or help anyone.
-Duress + Thoughtseize: significantly decreases interactivity, and the format trends toward combo.  Serves good decks.
-Yawg Will: some decks get better and some get worse...but bad decks and bad players don't somehow gain an advantage.
-Force of Will: significantly decreases interactivity, and the format trends toward combo.  Serves good decks, helps bad players since the die roll matters more.
-The color blue: this helps many decks currently deemed bad, doesn't help bad players.
-Every card not printed in mirage: helps many bad decks, doesn't help bad players.
-Every card other than mountain and red instant and sorcery spells costed at R: finally, we find something that helps bad decks and bad players.  The sheer dependence on luck and the draw can prevail in the burn vs. burn matchup and the low quality of these decks compared to even block decks finally ends our search.

[Harlequin]

for those wondering about the 50minute + 5 turns thing I think it goes like this: we have 50 minutes to complete the round on turn 1 of game 1 I create some subgames.  we spend 50 minutes playing them out.  time is called, we're still in a sub-game.  Turn 0 is, in actuality my turn 1 of game 1 in the main game.  so infinite turns can be played within our infinite subgames as long as the main game is not advanced.  That's the theory anyway.

116.   End-of-Match Procedure
...

I have NO IDEA why the head judge would rule that Shahrazad sub-game has to be played to completion.  That judge is a moron/idiot.
Based upon magic floor rule 116 above, they should not have allowed that to happen.  Five turns is five turns.

What if its turn 1 of 5 after time has been called, and I play Shahrazad, and you say "F-That I take 10 dmg" after Shahrazad is done, what turn is it? its it now suddenly turn 2?  Does your answer change if we shuffle up, I win the roll, keep my hand, play a land then concede before passing priority?  What about if I lose the die roll and concede because I lost the roll?

The point is that there are right now no clear rules to define turns in the context of a game-subgame relationship. 

Time limit asside, what about the best of X games?  Would you consider it collution if your opponent sat down and said "Hey lets play first to 5 games instead of first to 2 and just record it as 1-0 for whoever wins."  And as a follow up, what if a card permitted colussion... for example: ""the terms of this match may be re-negotiated between you and your opponent." Would you want that card to be permitted? 

Again I can't stress enough that everything that I have suggested so far requires the concent of BOTH players.  But my arguement is that it's easier than you think to set up a legal 'negotiable' gamestate where the tournement rules no longer apply (50 min rounds aside but still up to debate). 

More to come on the list, but I do have one where you can set this up.  And its even MORE deviously negotiable than before.

[Norm4eva]

Here's a radical idea;

Imagine that Shah.dec is actually a deck you'd expect to see at your next tourney, it's just part of the metagame and you know it's coming.

How do you deal?  And none of that face-punching, damn-the-DQ nonsense, I want your Magic player's answer.  Where's your tech?

You guys are all treating this like if one Shahrazad resolves we assume we're plummeting into a mess of subgames that go nine deep and the only way to stop the insanity is to concede, draw, or beat the hell out of your opponent in the Denny's parking lot after the tournament.

Seriously guys, since when did Shah.dec start winning through Thoughtseize/Force/other REALLY GOOD CARDS that see play ALL THE TIME?  Since when did subgame.dec start warping the metagame this badly?  Some people in this thread are flying off the handle based on evidence that's anecdotal or putative at best.

[Mr. Nightmare]

Here's a radical idea;

Imagine that Shah.dec is actually a deck you'd expect to see at your next tourney, it's just part of the metagame and you know it's coming.

How do you deal?  And none of that face-punching, damn-the-DQ nonsense, I want your Magic player's answer.  Where's your tech?

Win round one?

[Smmenen]

for those wondering about the 50minute + 5 turns thing I think it goes like this: we have 50 minutes to complete the round on turn 1 of game 1 I create some subgames.  we spend 50 minutes playing them out.  time is called, we're still in a sub-game.  Turn 0 is, in actuality my turn 1 of game 1 in the main game.  so infinite turns can be played within our infinite subgames as long as the main game is not advanced.  That's the theory anyway.

116.   End-of-Match Procedure
...

I have NO IDEA why the head judge would rule that Shahrazad sub-game has to be played to completion.  That judge is a moron/idiot.
Based upon magic floor rule 116 above, they should not have allowed that to happen.  Five turns is five turns.

What if its turn 1 of 5 after time has been called, and I play Shahrazad, and you say "F-That I take 10 dmg" after Shahrazad is done, what turn is it? its it now suddenly turn 2?  Does your answer change if we shuffle up, I win the roll, keep my hand, play a land then concede before passing priority?  What about if I lose the die roll and concede because I lost the roll?

The point is that there are right now no clear rules to define turns in the context of a game-subgame relationship. 

These are not difficult questions, and can easily be answered by a rules manager.   My answer would be: a turn is a turn period.   If you play one turn of the subgame, defined as beginning with the first players upkeep having occured (think the effect of Time Stop), that counts as a turn towards the conclusion of five turns.  Pretty easy.



Even assuming the absolute worst case scenario with Shahrazad - where someone is able to obnoxiously set up infinite nested or consecutive sub-games, who cares?

Unintentional draws happen all the time in Magic.   You get 1 point for the round and move onto the next.  No additional time is taken in the tournament whatsoever.   Each round is 50 minutes + 5 turns, and that doesn't change one bit.   

Nothing is broken whatsoever.  It's nothing the DCI reporter can't handle.   It's no worse than Dragon setting up a bunch of draws or someone pulling off multiple Divine Interventions.

[arctic79]

I think Steve has answered the issues regarding shahrazad pretty good. 
Norm4eva is right as well, the chances of resolving a shahrazad in the current meta are slim to none preboard and even slimmer post board (assuming boarding in more control).  I fail to see how a deck based on Doomsday and Shahrazad can even support cards to force through a shahrazad outside of Duress/Thoughtseize which can be played around.

I agree with the banning for tournament settings, if you want to play with it you always have the kitchen table.

[Purple Hat]

steve, that may be your opinion, but there's nothing in the floor rules that contemplates there being multiple turns going on at the same time as there would be with subgames.  you say "a turn is a turn" but if we return to the main game we're still in the middle of another turn, so what does that turn count as?  is that turn 0, then turn 1 is the one in the subgame and when you return you're suddenly in turn 1.5?

regardless shah.dec is terrible.  it's completely unplayable in a tournament format so who cares if it's banned or not?

[Harlequin]

I can concede dodging the 50 min part - but I stand firm on the ability to change the structure of your games. 

Also as to the "This doesn't matter because the deck that would run it would be easily beaten and/or the card is bad."  That arguement holds no water unless you think that Rebirth, or some other terrible anti card has a place in vintage.  You could argue that Chaos or can easily be answered by null rod or pithing needle.  The quality, answerability, and competativiness of card has nothing to do with the ban list (as of today).  They fit criteria for what cards belong in a tournement. 

As to the Deck, I finally typed up the stack to illustrate my point.  Also I'd point out that the deck is roughly as playable as doomsday is today - because it only uses sideboard slots.  I'm not saying it would break the format, but its much less of a stretch to 'include' this option into your existing DD Deck.

Starting with a typical Desire->Research Shell...
-- Cards needed Board (or maindeck) --
Reitterate
Shahrazad
Research x2 (one MD, one board)
Orims Chant
Tidespout Tyrant
Aggonizing Memories
Energy Bolt

-----
Doomsday into: Recall, Lotus, Crypt, Desire, Research
Desire into research for: Tidespout, Sapphire, Yawg
Cast Yawg, Lotus, Tidespout, Sapphire -> lotus = infinite
Sac Lotus cast Research + Desire
* At this point you have infinte blue, so if you run out of permenants to bounce with tryrant you can always return him to your hand then play spells.  You have no graveyard (outside of the doomsday) and all cards get RFGed to yawg.
Desire in: Research2, Orims Chant, Ruby, FOw or Pact
Now desire is still on the stack, reveal those 4 cards but the card Desire will be on thes stack along with many copies.  Now with those on the stack, counter the card Mind's Desire (it gets RFGed), Chant your opponent, And play Research 2.  Putting back Research1, Desire, Counterspell. Flip those and clear the stack. 
Cast research for Research, Brainstorm, counterspell
Cast Desire and reveal those 3 with desire on the sack - counter desire.
Cast Research for research, Claws of Gix, Energy Bolt
Cast Brainstorm, keeping Energy Bolt in hand. 
cast Reseach putting back research, counterspell, desire.
* Ok, so researching back the other research, Desire, Counterspell, and X gives you basically infinite ability to keep Desireing for Desire + other cards.  Now you have Energy bolt in hand.  You also have all the moxen you need to get infinite of any color.
Now get reitterate in your hand, and desire in Shahrazad, Orims Chant, and Agonizing Memories, and two counterspells.
Use the Bolt twice (loop it to hand twice) to set the life totals to the desired square of 2.  So for example 16 for a best of 9, or 32 for a best of 11...
Now cast Shahrazad
With plenty of mana floating, use the Tyrant to return all cards in play to thier owners hands.
Cast Agonizing Memories and retirrate it enough to put both players hands on top of thier decks (leaving room for the 1 reitterate in your own hand).
Cast Shahrazad, and Reitterate it 9 times before it resolves. Then counter the original card.
Cast research in response, reitterate it 15 times then counter the original card. But do not pay buyback on the last cast.
Now cast Orims Targeting yourself.

So the stack is:

Orims Chant (the card)
Research x15 (all copies)
Shahrazad x9 (all copies)

Both players have a set life total.

At this moment all your actual cards are RFGed or Agonized to the top of your deck.  You get a chance to build a 60 card out of any cards you play (even the orims because it will resolve first). 

Then both players will play 9 sub-games to deturmine the outcome of game1.



Here is the particularly interesting part.  You have the ability to negotiate the terms of the subgames.  Using Energy Bolt, you can adjust the number of games each player needs to win.  Using research, you can manipulate the number of cards in your deck and even sideboard!  So from the * above, you can have a real negotiation between you and your opponent about the terms of the sub-games.  Giving you the option to say something like: lets play were I have to win only 3 games and you have to win 5 games - but I will leave out Lotus, Recall, and a Timewalk. 

The great thing is that neither player needs to "trust" the other to act within the negotiated terms.  The doomsday player has nothing to risk because worst case your opponent concedes and you are up one game of 3.  The other player has nothing to risk, because the orims chant has leveled the field; if the DD-player is not true to thier word, just scoop all of game 1 and go to game 3.  If you can't finish the games, and the ruling is that 5-rounds are counted from any game or sub-game the WORST case scenario is that the match as a whole is a draw.

The DD player will not always make this offer to thier opponent - and thier opponent will likely not accept.  But that's not ~really~ my point.  MY point is that the Shahrazad player now has a completely card allowed means to negotiate the terms of the game that are CLEARLY against the spirit of the tournement.  This is why I think the card should be banned.  The concept of Anti goes against the spirit of tournement play (in that you risk much more than your $25 in entry fee).  So too does Shahrazad.

[Smmenen]

steve, that may be your opinion, but there's nothing in the floor rules that contemplates there being multiple turns going on at the same time as there would be with subgames.  you say "a turn is a turn" but if we return to the main game we're still in the middle of another turn, so what does that turn count as?  is that turn 0, then turn 1 is the one in the subgame and when you return you're suddenly in turn 1.5?

This is why I cited Time Stop.  Whatever the rule is for Time Stop, use the same one.

These aren't difficult questions.  They are easily answered by a rules manager providing clarification or by a head judge interpreting the rules.

regardless shah.dec is terrible.  it's completely unplayable in a tournament format so who cares if it's banned or not?

It should be obvious.    Read my article for a full explanation.   

The short answer is that the reason for the existence of Vintage is to have a format where you get to play with every card ever printed in so far as possible.  As a corollary to that, we have the highest possible standards for banning, since a card is then removed from Magic entirely.  We only ban if it is absolutely necessary.   

In contrast, we ban cards in legacy for trivial reasons, such as expense or annoyance.   

I can concede dodging the 50 min part - but I stand firm on the ability to change the structure of your games. 
...
The DD player will not always make this offer to thier opponent - and thier opponent will likely not accept.  But that's not ~really~ my point.  MY point is that the Shahrazad player now has a completely card allowed means to negotiate the terms of the game that are CLEARLY against the spirit of the tournement.  This is why I think the card should be banned.  The concept of Anti goes against the spirit of tournement play (in that you risk much more than your $25 in entry fee).  So too does Shahrazad.

Wow, so your argument is that Shahrazad should be banned because it "changes the structure of your games?"  Since when does that justify a banning?  On what grounds?   Who cares?

As I said, if a player gets an unintentional draw, it's really not that big of a deal.   

 Even if it is true that Shahrazad POTENTIALLY allows a player to "negotiate the terms of the game in a way that is against the spirit of the tournament structure," so what?     That's not a ground for banning.  That's a ground for being annoyed.  But we don't ban cards in Vintage for being annoying.  See Trinisphere.   

That is such a ridiculously vague, amorphous assertion it does not actually withstand logical scrutiny.  What is "the spirit of the tournament"?What does that mean, how do you define it, and how do you know if its true?    I don't see or believe in "spirits." 
What do you mean by "negotiate" the terms of the game?  Negotiate implies choice.  Divine Intervention gives no choice.  How is Shahrazad banned but not Divine Intervention? 

 Ante is not banned because it is against the spirit of the tournament strutures, it's banned because each and every single ante card specifically instructs the deck pilot to remove it from your deck before playing a game if you are not playing for ante.

Imagine they made a card that said: remove this from your deck if you are playing in a tournament.

Well, Ante cards say the same thing by inference.

Premise 1: Tournaments Prohibit Ante.

Premise 2: Ante Cards Instruct the pilot to remove the card from your deck if you are not playing for ante.

Conclusion: Ante Cards instruct the pilot to remove the card from your deck if you are playing in a tournament.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the "spirit" of the game, whatever the hell that means, and

Your comparison to Ante is completely false.   Ante is banned because it specifically instructs itself to be banned.   

We only ban cards in Vintage if there is absolutely necessary.   


EDIT:
Your example is utterly silly, since if you acheive godlike status with Doomsday/Mind's Desire, and can build your deck in whatever manner you see fit, you should be able to do whatever you want within the rules of the game anyway.

In any case, bannings require solid evidence of a problem, not speculation.  And that evidence has to be more than just some podunk, crap tournament somewhere with one annoying person.  It has to be format wide. 

[Norm4eva]

I see decklists, I don't see tournament results.

Please, please, show me the actual happenings of a tourney where some dicknose pulled out Shahrazad Combo and the tourney went to hell.

Until one can do this, posting decklists really doesn't do anything except show your capacity to imagine a situation where everything goes right for the pilot and no disruption occurs, no shenanigans take place in any of the subgames and no one loses or concedes when they shouldn't.  Isn't this why we demand more substance out of primers beyond a 60 card list and what it *might* do when left unattended?  Every deck achieves its built function when you're goldfishing.

[Harlequin]

What do you mean by "negotiate" the terms of the game?  Negotiate implies choice.  Divine Intervention gives no choice.  How is Shahrazad banned but not Divine Intervention?  

This is exactly what happens.  You make an agreement with your opponent to what the new structure of the game is going to be.  They accept your offer by playing out the subgames, or reject the offer by conceding game 1 and going to game 2 (with plenty of time).  

Divine intervention has no choice involved.  It happens.

Let's take two situations that can get you Disqualified:
#1) Betting on the game.  example: "Hey, lets make this game interesting, I'll put a Mox Emerald (from my collection) on this game if you put something of equal value on it."  Even if your opponent agrees to this I'm reasonably sure that if the TO finds out you can get DQed.
#2) Changing the structure of the match.  example: "Hey, our breakers arn't that great, and I don't like randomness.  Lets play 5 games instead of 3 and whoever we'll just report 2-0."

#1 is support for Ante cards being banned.  If ante cards were allowed, presumably the rules would be changed to actually ALLOW you to play for Ante.
#2 can be achieved via Shahrazad.  You can offer the current win in exchange for a differant game structure.  Its the only card that can achieve this because it instructs you to play more games to determine the result of the game that is about to get reported.

I see decklists, I don't see tournament results.

Are you arguing that Rebirth is so broken it should be banned?

[Smmenen]

I see decklists, I don't see tournament results.

Please, please, show me the actual happenings of a tourney where some dicknose pulled out Shahrazad Combo and the tourney went to hell.

Until one can do this, posting decklists really doesn't do anything except show your capacity to imagine a situation where everything goes right for the pilot and no disruption occurs, no shenanigans take place in any of the subgames and no one loses or concedes when they shouldn't.  Isn't this why we demand more substance out of primers beyond a 60 card list and what it *might* do when left unattended?  Every deck achieves its built function when you're goldfishing.

Exactly.

All that Harlequin has shown (and I haven't even scrutinized his combo to see if it works), is that if you go infinite with Doomsday and Mind's Desire, you can set up a bunch of Shahrazads to force your opponent to play the game you want to play.

Well, no kidding.

So.  What. 

In no sense does that "break" a tournament.   

The DCI report will not self-destruct.   The tournament will go on as normal.  Players will get either 0, 1 or 3 points and move onto the next round.

Case closed. 

#1 is support for Ante cards being banned.  If ante cards were allowed, presumably the rules would be changed to actually ALLOW you to play for Ante. .

You seem to have trouble reading, and that explains the earlier inanity on Page 1 of this thread (i.e., not answering my questions). 

 Ante is not banned because it is against the spirit of the tournament strutures, it's banned because each and every single ante card specifically instructs the deck pilot to remove it from your deck before playing a game if you are not playing for ante.

Imagine they made a card that said: remove this from your deck if you are playing in a tournament.

Well, Ante cards say the same thing by inference.

[Harlequin]

So Ante cards are banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow players to play for Ante??

By that logic... I change my arguement.

Shahrazad should be banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow for subgames.

[Troy_Costisick]

So Ante cards are banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow players to play for Ante??

By that logic... I change my arguement.

Shahrazad should be banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow for subgames.

The thing is they have allowed for subgames in the past, but don't now because some judges complained about... space or something like that.  Ante has never been been allowed as part of DCI floor rules.

[Syvanis]

I think this debate is silly. Obviously, if Shaharazad was unbanned it the ruling would be:

Time

5 turns

Game and subgames over.

Fill out your match slip.

[BigBarn]

The simple fact that they banned Shahrazad instead of restricting it should clue people in that it wasn't a power issue.  No one's claiming this card is broken-good.  No one's whining that they can't win a tournament with their insanely awesome Shahrazad deck.  Wizards doesn't ban really good cards in type 1, they restrict or errata them.  Since Shahrazad is banned it seems like powers that be do not want subgames to be a part of magic.  This isn't a complex issue.  If you don't want subgames to be a part of magic, then you ban the card and remove it from sanctioned magic.

[IndykidVago]

I personally would like to thank Steve for this article, Shahrazad is one of those cards that I fondly remember being thrown around the kitchen table during my first years as a player.

In my opinion, the rally for this card to become Vintage legal again would neither add anything or take away from our current Vintage meta. I fail to see how even this Stall.DD.dec could in fact change how we play in tourneys.

So what if the other player goes through some ridiculous and long winded combo to win.
So what if the method to the madness is to win a long game 1.

The short answer is that the reason for the existence of Vintage is to have a format where you get to play with every card ever printed in so far as possible.  As a corollary to that, we have the highest possible standards for banning, since a card is then removed from Magic entirely.  We only ban if it is absolutely necessary.   

If this is in fact our reasoning for adding a card to the banned list then I believe that if a player wishes to make the choice to play Shahrazad.dec at a tournament then that player should be able to exercise the free will to do so. Since (as already elaborated in the full article) Shahrazad is currently banned for completely different reasons then every other card on the list.

@ Harlequin, This is just my person preference, but if the DCI Gods told us we would have to put up a random card from our deck to play every single game at an event I'd stop playing Vintage events. If the DCI gods told us we COULD play with Shahrazad, and I was beaten savagely in a long LONG game 1 by a Shahrazad player and lost the entire round then I'd secretly be happy. It's the evolutionary progress of Vintage that made come back in the first place.

[Smmenen]

So Ante cards are banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow players to play for Ante??

By that logic... I change my arguement.

Shahrazad should be banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow for subgames.

That's just untrue, though.

Shahrazad was tournament legal from 1999 to 2007, for EIGHT years. 

Ante is gambling and illegal in many states (as I described in my article).   Gambling is not permitted under Magic's tournament rules.   There is absolutely nothing inherent in subgames that makes it impermissible under Magic's floor rules.

The simple fact that they banned Shahrazad instead of restricting it should clue people in that it wasn't a power issue.  No one's claiming this card is broken-good.  No one's whining that they can't win a tournament with their insanely awesome Shahrazad deck.  Wizards doesn't ban really good cards in type 1, they restrict or errata them.  Since Shahrazad is banned it seems like powers that be do not want subgames to be a part of magic.  This isn't a complex issue.  If you don't want subgames to be a part of magic, then you ban the card and remove it from sanctioned magic.

You raised the same silly points in the SCG forum.

As I said there, the DCI not "wanting" subgames to be a part of tournament magic  is not enough to justify a complete banning from Magic, period.

As I said, we have this principle in Vintage, since it is, to quote Aaron Forsythe, the final "bastion of playability" that you get to play with all of your cards (the reason for the existence of Vintage).

The corollary to that is that we don't ban cards in Vintage unless we absolutely have to.

No one is arguing that the DCI banned Shahrazad for power reasons.     It's a straw man to suggest otherwise.

You are right about one thing: this isn't a complex issue.   The DCI  or OP, or whoever, not wanting Shahrazad in tournaments is not enough.   It has to actually be absolutely necessary to ban before it can be.   

[Harlequin]

So Ante cards are banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow players to play for Ante??
By that logic... I change my arguement.
Shahrazad should be banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow for subgames.

That's just untrue, though.
Shahrazad was tournament legal from 1999 to 2007, for EIGHT years. 

Ante is gambling and illegal in many states (as I described in my article).   Gambling is not permitted under Magic's tournament rules.   There is absolutely nothing inherent in subgames that makes it impermissible under Magic's floor rules.

This is like playing the shell game... It seems like all you're doing is astablishing what points you're not making....

The analogy my arguements are based on is:   Gambling is to Ante as Collusion* is to Subgame (Shahrazad).
* Collusion in the form of attempting to throw away the "first to 2" rules and re-negotiate with your opponent about what terms will decide this match.  Which while it may not be illegal according to Uncle Sam - is still a Disqualification Worthy act. 

Taking a step back, hypothetically in never-going-to-happen-because-of-gambling-law** land, Lets say they could change the tournement rules to say that at the start of a game, players must agree to play Ante or Non-Ante.  If the agreement is Non-Ante remove all cards that instruct you to do so.  (and rules were in place so that after the game players could re-adjust thier decks to make them legal again).  Then, naturally, the Ante cards would be unbanned and some would be powerlevel restricted (im looking at you contract). 
This would, as the poster above showed, cause tournements to be Less Fun.   People would be generally bummed and not want to play. Attendance would drop.

I think this had a lot to do with why today the Ante Rules are not allowed.  Which in turn led to the banning of Ante cards.

** I also think that if they ~really~ wanted to, I'm sure they could find some legal loopholes that would allow Ante rules to be played.  Off the top of my head they could state that all cards legally have no redeamable value and therefor nothing is lost or gained.  After all the whole Entry fee -> prize system is by all acounts on ground Gambling... its just the law doesn't see it that way.


One last thing - I'm completely baffled that people keep seeing this as some sort of "forced" system.  I have repeatedly stated that, in order for it to work - both players agree.  And if you look back to my earlier probably posts I outline ~why~ both players may see this re-negotiated structure as beneficial to themselve.

[Troy_Costisick]

Lets say they could change the tournement rules to say that at the start of a game, players must agree to play Ante or Non-Ante.

Now you're just talking in hypotheticals.  There's no way to respond to something that does not and will not exist.  Sha existed in Vintage tournaments under DCI rules for many years.  Ante never has.  Those are facts.  "What would you say if they allowed Ante someday..." is just cloud talk.

[Smmenen]

So Ante cards are banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow players to play for Ante??
By that logic... I change my arguement.
Shahrazad should be banned because the DCI floor rules don't allow for subgames.

That's just untrue, though.
Shahrazad was tournament legal from 1999 to 2007, for EIGHT years. 

Ante is gambling and illegal in many states (as I described in my article).   Gambling is not permitted under Magic's tournament rules.   There is absolutely nothing inherent in subgames that makes it impermissible under Magic's floor rules.

This is like playing the shell game... It seems like all you're doing is astablishing what points you're not making....

I actually wonder if you understand the words you are using, or if you just speak in big paragraphs and pretend to make sense.

"All I'm doing is establishing the points I'm not making"?  ===> That neither makes sense as a matter of logic or syntax.   

In any case, this is nothing like a shell game.  In a shell game, the person playing the game tricks the audience through sleight of hand.   No such fraud is being used here.   It's a very, very simple case.   The fact that you don't seem to 'grok' it is revealed by your incredibly non-sequitur responses.   

This would, as the poster above showed, cause tournements to be Less Fun.   People would be generally bummed and not want to play. Attendance would drop.

Those are INCREDIBLE Leaps of logic.   

I am not going to bother to deconstruct them, because they are obviously gigantic assumptions with no basis in reality.

I think this had a lot to do with why today the Ante Rules are not allowed.  Which in turn led to the banning of Ante cards.

** I also think that if they ~really~ wanted to, I'm sure they could find some legal loopholes that would allow Ante rules to be played.  Off the top of my head they could state that all cards legally have no redeamable value and therefor nothing is lost or gained.  After all the whole Entry fee -> prize system is by all acounts on ground Gambling... its just the law doesn't see it that way.

You are ignoring other problems.

Tournament decks have minimum size requirements and no proxy rules (with very very exceptional exceptions).   

Playing for ante and using Ante cards, naturally, would change the size and composition of your deck during the course of a tournament, which would violate other tournament rules.


In any case, your example is just ridiculous anyway because it has no bearing whatsoever on the ultimate question: is Shahrazad impossible to use under the tournament rules?  No.

8 years of experience (and common sense) proves it.

Is Ante?  Yes.   It's been banned since the inception of tournament play.

One last thing - I'm completely baffled that people keep seeing this as some sort of "forced" system.  I have repeatedly stated that, in order for it to work - both players agree.  And if you look back to my earlier probably posts I outline ~why~ both players may see this re-negotiated structure as beneficial to themselve.

Which just supports my ultimate point: so what?

I'll tell you what baffles me.

Given the flimsy arguments and tenuous evidence, it seems difficult to imagine that anyone would take the DCI's arguments regarding Shahrazad seriously after they've been exposed.   I know that most of you are happy about the change to Time Vault and unrestrictions, so why the opposition here?  It seems like most of you, and Harlequin in particular, are going out of your way to justify a silly decision.

I have to wonder if some of you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

[Harlequin]

Crazy Doomsday aside.  Speaking from my gut... I know the first time someone was telling me about Shahrazad I was shocked that it wasn't banned from tournement play.  Something about the card doesn't sit right with me.  It falls into a unique class of cards that bends the definition of a match. 

I have gone on record in the past that the reason WHY the DCI and/or WOTC make decissions is somewhere between: irrelevant and "I can't even believe that's the reason they are giving!!"  But a bad reason doesn't make the decission wrong. 

I think most of us would agree that when it comes to Banned cards there are certainly classes:
Cards that Reward physical capabilites: ei Chaos Orb
Cards that exist as a result of the dated Ante system
And I would agrue a third class of cards:  Cards that change the "First to 2" match structure.

I think that 3rd group belongs banned, and I think the reason is much closer to the reson the Ante cards are banned than other people realize.