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.
Wow...
Just, WOW.
So, in summary, you believe that Shahrazad should be banned because
it doesn't sit well with you and you know in your gut that it should be (and the nebulous, amorphous assertion that it 'bends' the tournament match)??
In what bizarre realm of reality do you operate in where you can substantiate an argument on the grounds that your "gut" tells you it's true? Try that one in court! In the world I live in, we have to, you know, use principles of logic and reason (including analysis of grounds of support) when discussing important matters.
But a bad reason doesn't make the decission wrong.
It is a truism that advancing bad reasons for a decision does not make a decision wrong.
If I say that I want to be the emperor of the world to enrich myself, that's a bad reason for my claim to power, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be emperor of the world, doesn't it?
It's a basic principle of logic that when people advance arguments, they have to also give the reasons for their positions. The DCI is the governing body here. If the reasons they advanced are bad, then they either have to come up with good reasons, or reverse their decision.
In the article, I not only went over each and every single reason they advanced, I
also came up with others that they did not advance. None of them justify a banning from Vintage.
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
Um, actually, I am pretty sure that most of us
would NOT agree that the banned cards fall into those classes.
While we all agree that two of the banned card types are ante and dexterity, your characterization of them leaves much to be desired. Ante is not banned because it is a "dated system." Nor is Chaos Orb banned because it rewards physical capabilities.
I mean, look, I've tried my very best to explain the reasons for the bannings for each cards, multiple times, throughout this thread, but you either don't pay attention or don't actually understand what I said.
Let me try again.
Ante cards, by their own card text, specifically instruct the pilot to remove them from the deck before playing if you are not playing for Ante. Tournaments ban ante because it is gambling. In addition, it breaks the tournament rules because players must have the same deck they registered at the beginning, and a 60 card deck. Therefore, Ante is not allowed in tournament play. It follows, logically, since Ante cards specifically instruct the pilot not to use them if they are not playing for ante, that they are not legal in tournaments. Although it is true, in a sense (sort of) that they are an 'antiquated' mechanic, that is not the reason for their banning. To continue to assert it, as you do, demonstrates that you actually fail to understand the issues involved here.
As for dexterity cards, I'll just quote my article, so you understand better:
The other exception that has been carved to the general rule of Vintage is another to which universal commendation has been extended. The problem is primarily administrative and adjudicative. In Magic, there are any number of circumstances that could arise in which players ‘fundamentally disagree about reality.’ That is to say, circumstances in which players disagree about the state of the game or some aspect of the game. When there is no evidence available that would clearly support one player’s version of reality over another, a judge must select one person’s story over another. Dexterity cards (Chaos Orb and such) open the door to fundamental disagreements over the nature of reality that do not currently exist in the game as it is played. Players are likely to dispute whether, for instance, Chaos Orb was flipped from a height of one foot, whether there was a full rotation of the card, and the placement of cards on the table, creating a need for rules to explain what happens when Chaos Orb is played (so that people don’t move cards apart), and requiring, essentially, a judge to observe every single Chaos Orb activation. While these problems do not reach the degree of difficulty as ante cards (being outright gambling or risk of going below a legal size deck in a tournament), they are nonetheless quite serious. These disputes are very likely to arise in tournament conditions and there will be no way to resolve them. There will be no evidence to support one side over the other aside from witness statements or video-taped evidence. There is simply no feasible way to permit the use of dexterity cards without having irreconcilable disputes arise that cannot be resolved without putting an enormous burden on the judging staff.
The banning of Dexterity cards has little, if anything to do, with "rewarding physical capabilities," at least, not in a direct sense. It's because of game state disputes.
I would have thought that you would have realized this.
And I would agrue a third class of cards: Cards that change the "First to 2" match structure.
Well, your argument would be flatly dismissed by any thinking person for reasons Rich Shay tersely gave. In any case, Divine Intervention could be added to his list.
There is absolutely no reason to suggest that cards that prevent a second game from being completed after the first game is won are in any way problematic to tournament magic. To assert otherwise is to make an obviously false claim.
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.
By now it should be obvious why this is false.
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.
Steve, when you call my points silly it really undermines the discussion. I don't appreciate it, and don't believe it's necessary.
When you make points that are either truisms or completely irrelevant to the discussion, as your entire post does, then it's fair to characterize it as 'silly,' whether you appreciate it or not. It's only made sillier by the fact that I already addressed those same points in the SCG forums, and you just repeated yourself here -- for whatever reason, I cannot say.
The only things you say in that paragraph are:
1) They didn't ban Shahrazad for power reasons.
Well, duh. No one said they did. I have NO idea why would you even say this.
2) They wanted to ban Shahrazad because they don't want subgames in magic, therefore they can.
Well, again, no kidding. They can do whatever they want. This discussion isn't that superficial.
It's about whether the reasons they advance make sense. Your post, in no way, addresses those reasons. Hence, it's a really silly, non-sequitur.
They COULD ban Abu Jafar, if they wanted. So what?
You also erroneously state that they errata cards that are too powerful. Another error. They no longer do this.
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).
How about another principle, also from Aaron Forsythe "Consider the list of cards banned in Vintage to now include ante cards, dexterity cards, and subgame cards. Simple."
That's not a principle, that's a bald assertion.
I mean, this
isn't new.
Many people, advancing arguments similar to yours now, believed Forsythe when he said this:
The printed text is slightly ambiguous about how untapping Time Vault is supposed to work. The key question we asked ourselves was, “When this card was made, was the intent that it be incredibly easy to skirt the drawback?” We went with “No.”
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af127That wasn't true, and his reasons for banning Shahrazad in Vintage are even flimsier.
Why are people so quick to believe what Forsythe said? If anything, MORE people believed him on the Time Vault matter than this, which just shows you how wrong this decision was.
The corollary to that is that we don't ban cards in Vintage unless we absolutely have to.
Actually, I don't think you're part of the 'we' that bans cards.
No one is arguing that the DCI banned Shahrazad for power reasons. It's a straw man to suggest otherwise.
People were creating decklists and ideas for decklists on how to use Sharazad in a somewhat competitive way, this was directed at them. It was my attempt to disban their strawmans.
Actually, you missed the entire point that Harlequin's deck experiment. He wasn't trying to build a competitive deck. He was trying to show that you could build a deck, even with restricted Shahrazad, that could fundamentally, in his view, abuse the tournament structure.
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.
Well, it seems that "The DCI or OP, or whoever" did believe it was absolutely necessary to ban it and there are two camps of people.
Yes, it does seem that they believe that.
I thought this was a debate over the validity of those grounds.
It seems like whatever the DCI says is gold, huh?
Yeah, silly me! How stupid of me to challenge the validity of an argument advanced by the DCI? Why would I ever disagree with the always-correct DCI!?
One group believes that them not wanting it is enough, and the other doesn't.
Yeah, and one group would be willing to defer to the DCI to do whatever it wants. The other believes that it should act reasonably, and the reasons it advances should support its decisions.
