Legendary Rule Change 23rd May 2013

[serracollector]

On turn 1 it isnt better. After turn 1 it is. You can build decks to easily get 2 other artifacts into play by turn 2. Easily. There is no way you can convince me petal is better than an opal I can "pop" for mana and still keep one in play permanently.

[Smmenen]

I don't need to convince u the sky is blue, but it is.  It's obvious.  I don't have to convince u that Lotus Petal is better than Mox Opal.  It follows as a matter of logic that it is.  Mox Opal has two limitations that Lotus Petal doesn't.  There is no way Mox Opal is better.

[MaximumCDawg]

I don't need to convince u the sky is blue, but it is.  It's obvious.  I don't have to convince u that Lotus Petal is better than Mox Opal.  It follows as a matter of logic that it is.  Mox Opal has two limitations that Lotus Petal doesn't.  There is no way Mox Opal is better.

That's a bit of an exaggeration.  You can have more opals than petals.

Say I have two lands and an active Opal.  I have Tezzeret, the Seeker, a Petal, and another Opal in my hand.  Under new rules, I get to cast my Tezz.  Having that extra Opal and being able to use it is good.  You won't ever have two Petals in your hand to do this.

Now, I agree that when a second Opal is active, it's no better than another Petal,l and when Opal is inactive, it's obviously worse.  But it's not like "there is NO WAY in which Mox Opal is better."  There are scenarios.

[Smmenen]

"Better" as a card.  There are situations in which LED is better than Black Lotus. It's not a better card.  

I'm all about Mox Opal -- but it's not a 4-of.  The number one limitation on Mox Opal is Metalcraft.  This rules change does not affect that at all.  

The legendary restriction ensures additional Opal cannot help you achieve, and in fact make it harder to achieve Metalcraft.  While it can be reused, it's restrictions make it clearly worse than Petal.

[Guli]

"Better" as a card.  There are situations in which LED is better than Black Lotus. It's not a better card. 

I'm all about Mox Opal -- but it's not a 4-of.  The number one limitation on Mox Opal is Metalcraft.  This rules change does not affect that at all. 

I think this is very spot on, Opal creates some sort of "paradox", you want to add more, but it does not really help metalcraft, if you add only a couple then the new legend rule can not be fully exploited. Also not convenient slot wise to add 4.

[Protoaddict]

Mox Opal contributes to your artifact count for academy when it is used over multiple turns, petal does not. I think to compare them is a silly argument since they both have their own use, and really neither is "better" than the other.

Typically speaking a simian spirit guide is worse that lotus petal too, but there are plenty of not corner cases situations where it is better.

[Smmenen]

Ok, let’s do this more carefully, just so everyone is on the same page.

Comparison of Mox Opal to Lotus Petal

Similarities

1. Both are 0 Casting Cost
2. Both are artifacts
3. Both can generate 1 mana of any color.

Advantages of Lotus Petal
1. Is not inherently conditional in order to generate mana.
2. Can have more than 1 in play at a time (is not Legendary)

Advantages of Mox Opal

1. Can be reused (does not sacrifice upon use)

***
While these are the facts, if we assign them weight or value, it becomes very clear that Mox Opal is inferior to Lotus Petal.
 
While it could be argued that the reuse of Mox Opal makes Mox Opal better, I dispute that on this argument: the inherent conditionality of Metalcraft is by far the bigger limitation.  
Metalcraft essentially reads this: you need two other cards in play of a specific card type before you can even use this card.  

Imagine if a land said: you can only tap this for mana if you had two other lands in play.  

Metalcraft requires 30% of your opening hand to be non-Mox Opals and of a specific card type.  That’s a tremendous inherent weakness.
In a hand of 6, you need literally 50% of your hand to be a certain card type to use it -- making it even worse.  

While it is true that future Mox Opals can be played and used, replacing the one in play, that does not change the underlying Mox Opal Metalcraft math regarding opening hand usage, etc.  

Let's add to the "facts" the fact that Petal is restricted.  Does being permitted to have multiple Mox Opals, in some sense, make it better?  The answer is irrelevant because that is already true of Mox Opal.  I've been playing 2 Mox Opal in Burning Tendrils since its inception.  I won't be playing 3.  The reason is that the more Mox Opal you run, the less likely you are to be able to achieve Metalcraft since you increase your odds of drawing more than one in an opening hand.  

Simian Spirit Guide is a different case because there are many times -- not just a few narrow instances -- where Simian Spirit Guide is actually better than an artifact accelerant (like under a Sphere/Trinisphere).  

[vaughnbros]

Ok, let’s do this more carefully, just so everyone is on the same page.

Comparison of Mox Opal to Lotus Petal

Similarities

1. Both are 0 Casting Cost
2. Both are artifacts
3. Both can generate 1 mana of any color.

Advantages of Lotus Petal
1. Is not inherently conditional in order to generate mana.
2. Can have more than 1 in play at a time (is not Legendary)

Advantages of Mox Opal

1. Can be reused (does not sacrifice upon use)

***
While these are the facts, if we assign them weight or value, it becomes very clear that Mox Opal is inferior to Lotus Petal.

If you seriously think opal is inferior to lotus petal you severely undervalue a reusable mana source.

However, I personally don't think opal will need to be restricted.  It's condition usually prevents it from being used on turn 1 as degenerately as lotus petal can be used.

[Protoaddict]

Metalcraft essentially reads this: you need two other cards in play of a specific card type before you can even use this card.  

Lotus Petal also "requires" other cards to do anything. Most mana generators require some other card to have any effect. A hand full of moxes with no action is usually a mulligan, and no one is saying that mox sapphire is not worth playing are they? In order for Lotus petal to be worth anything, you need the proper cards in your hand (deck contingent).

[Phoenix888]

Advantages of Lotus Petal
2. Can have more than 1 in play at a time (is not Legendary)

Ridiculous statements like the one quoted above do nothing to help your argument.  All it does is hurt your arguments credibility.

I'm not convinced that one is absolutely better as the situations where one is better than the other are realistic and applicable.  Lotus Petal seems better for the early game (turn 1 and 2) while Opal seems better suited for the mid and late game.

[Guli]

Did any of you tried a deck with metalcraft before? And had success with it in any kind of event? It is damn hard to have metalcraft and still have enough actual gas in hand. You can't really expect a hand with 1 bomb and rest artifact mana to survive in this meta.

But since the discussion is about Petal vs Opal, not really about metalcraft. My guess is that Stephen is pointing out that in the decision making, real game situations and actual play you make, Petal will give you that mana you need. It would be hard to maybe 'count' on seeing metalcraft, and knowing that if you don't, you entire line of play would fail. Also, the decks were Opal and Lotus would see play, they don't really go for a long game, making the "re-usability" factor less relevant. I hope I made sense.

[psyburat]

Imagine if a land said: you can only tap this for mana if you had two other lands in play.

Temple of the False God wasn't too shabby in its day.  Is it better or worse than Crystal Vein?

The evaluation of Mox Opal vs. Lotus Petal is subjective.  They are different, one is better than the other based on scenario alone.  There is no objective winner.

[Smmenen]

Advantages of Lotus Petal
2. Can have more than 1 in play at a time (is not Legendary)

Ridiculous statements like the one quoted above do nothing to help your argument.  All it does is hurt your arguments credibility.

Since when are "factual" statements "ridiculous"?  Or when do objective facts hurt credibility?

You realize that one way in which I was talking about this is that your opponent could have one in play and you can play yours, right?

Metalcraft essentially reads this: you need two other cards in play of a specific card type before you can even use this card.  

Lotus Petal also "requires" other cards to do anything. Most mana generators require some other card to have any effect. A hand full of moxes with no action is usually a mulligan, and no one is saying that mox sapphire is not worth playing are they? In order for Lotus petal to be worth anything, you need the proper cards in your hand (deck contingent).

Absolutely.  Which just goes to show how extremely the conditionality of Mox Opal is.  It requires the same level of conditionality as Lotus Petal in that respect, but far more.

If you seriously think opal is inferior to lotus petal you severely undervalue a reusable mana source.

I do think that Mox Opal is inferior to Lotus Petal.  It's not even close.

This is an easy matter to settle objectively: count how many decks use Lotus Petal and how many use Mox Opal.  Not even close.   Lotus Petal is by far more played in both Vintage and Legacy.  

I think the vast majority of Vintage players know that Mox Opal is inferior to Lotus Petal.  If you think otherwise, as it appears you do, you are in the minority.   These rules changes will not raise Mox Opal past Lotus Petal in terms of the % of Top 8 decklists with a copy of each.  

Imagine if a land said: you can only tap this for mana if you had two other lands in play.

Temple of the False God wasn't too shabby in its day.  Is it better or worse than Crystal Vein?

The evaluation of Mox Opal vs. Lotus Petal is subjective.  They are different, one is better than the other based on scenario alone.  There is no objective winner.

Just because a card can be situationally better or worse doesn't mean there is no objective winner.  

As I said,LED can be situationally better than Black Lotus.   Lion's Eye Diamond can be better than Black Lotus when a Root Maze is in play.   I've actually used an LED in that way at a Waterbury.  

The objective winner is the card that will see more play.  Mox Opal is no Lotus Petal.  

Of all of the three limitations, Metalcraft is by far the most disadvantageous.  Not close.   I say this as one of the people in the format with probably the most experience using Mox Opal in the entire format. 

[Stormanimagus]

Ok, let’s do this more carefully, just so everyone is on the same page.

Comparison of Mox Opal to Lotus Petal

Similarities

1. Both are 0 Casting Cost
2. Both are artifacts
3. Both can generate 1 mana of any color.

Advantages of Lotus Petal
1. Is not inherently conditional in order to generate mana.
2. Can have more than 1 in play at a time (is not Legendary)

Advantages of Mox Opal

1. Can be reused (does not sacrifice upon use)

***
While these are the facts, if we assign them weight or value, it becomes very clear that Mox Opal is inferior to Lotus Petal.
 
While it could be argued that the reuse of Mox Opal makes Mox Opal better, I dispute that on this argument: the inherent conditionality of Metalcraft is by far the bigger limitation.  
Metalcraft essentially reads this: you need two other cards in play of a specific card type before you can even use this card.  

Imagine if a land said: you can only tap this for mana if you had two other lands in play.  

Metalcraft requires 30% of your opening hand to be non-Mox Opals and of a specific card type.  That’s a tremendous inherent weakness.
In a hand of 6, you need literally 50% of your hand to be a certain card type to use it -- making it even worse.  

While it is true that future Mox Opals can be played and used, replacing the one in play, that does not change the underlying Mox Opal Metalcraft math regarding opening hand usage, etc.  

Let's add to the "facts" the fact that Petal is restricted.  Does being permitted to have multiple Mox Opals, in some sense, make it better?  The answer is irrelevant because that is already true of Mox Opal.  I've been playing 2 Mox Opal in Burning Tendrils since its inception.  I won't be playing 3.  The reason is that the more Mox Opal you run, the less likely you are to be able to achieve Metalcraft since you increase your odds of drawing more than one in an opening hand.  

Simian Spirit Guide is a different case because there are many times -- not just a few narrow instances -- where Simian Spirit Guide is actually better than an artifact accelerant (like under a Sphere/Trinisphere).  

Stephen, I totally agree with you but I do want to point out a flaw in your pros list. Advantage #2 on Lotus Petal is absolutely irrelevant in Vintage as Lotus Petal is restricted. You will NEVER have 2 copies of Lotus Petal in play (aside from weird stuff like phyrexian metamorph on a lotus petal).

[DubDub]

Comparison of Mox Opal to Lotus Petal

Similarities

1. Both are 0 Casting Cost
2. Both are artifacts
3. Both can generate 1 mana of any color.

Advantages of Lotus Petal
1. Is not inherently conditional in order to generate mana.
2. Can have more than 1 in play at a time (is not Legendary) Though it is restricted, so I guess I don't understand this comment?
3. Conditional usefulness of sacrifice cost (i.e. Pre+Post Yawgmoth's Will with just one)

Advantages of Mox Opal
1. Can be reused (does not sacrifice upon use)
2. Is unrestricted.
3. Now more useful during Yawgmoth's Will (each is +1 mana)

Added a few others, for completion sake.

Fake edit: I see Storm commented on your #2 first.

[Smmenen]

Ok, let’s do this more carefully, just so everyone is on the same page.

Comparison of Mox Opal to Lotus Petal

Similarities

1. Both are 0 Casting Cost
2. Both are artifacts
3. Both can generate 1 mana of any color.

Advantages of Lotus Petal
1. Is not inherently conditional in order to generate mana.
2. Can have more than 1 in play at a time (is not Legendary)

Advantages of Mox Opal

1. Can be reused (does not sacrifice upon use)

***
While these are the facts, if we assign them weight or value, it becomes very clear that Mox Opal is inferior to Lotus Petal.
 
While it could be argued that the reuse of Mox Opal makes Mox Opal better, I dispute that on this argument: the inherent conditionality of Metalcraft is by far the bigger limitation.  
Metalcraft essentially reads this: you need two other cards in play of a specific card type before you can even use this card.  

Imagine if a land said: you can only tap this for mana if you had two other lands in play.  

Metalcraft requires 30% of your opening hand to be non-Mox Opals and of a specific card type.  That’s a tremendous inherent weakness.
In a hand of 6, you need literally 50% of your hand to be a certain card type to use it -- making it even worse.  

While it is true that future Mox Opals can be played and used, replacing the one in play, that does not change the underlying Mox Opal Metalcraft math regarding opening hand usage, etc.  

Let's add to the "facts" the fact that Petal is restricted.  Does being permitted to have multiple Mox Opals, in some sense, make it better?  The answer is irrelevant because that is already true of Mox Opal.  I've been playing 2 Mox Opal in Burning Tendrils since its inception.  I won't be playing 3.  The reason is that the more Mox Opal you run, the less likely you are to be able to achieve Metalcraft since you increase your odds of drawing more than one in an opening hand.  

Simian Spirit Guide is a different case because there are many times -- not just a few narrow instances -- where Simian Spirit Guide is actually better than an artifact accelerant (like under a Sphere/Trinisphere).  

Stephen, I totally agree with you but I do want to point out a flaw in your pros list. Advantage #2 on Lotus Petal is absolutely irrelevant in Vintage as Lotus Petal is restricted. You will NEVER have 2 copies of Lotus Petal in play (aside from weird stuff like phyrexian metamorph on a lotus petal).

It is relevant.  Your opponent might have a Lotus Petal in play.  I've played several games where my opponent in the Burning Tendrils mirror had Mox Opal in play, inhibiting me from playing mine.  

Second, I've seen people copy moxen with Metamorph, so that is certainly a real corner case as well.  

Third, we are talking about an objective comparison of the cards.  People aren't saying that Mox Opal is a Lotus Petal in just Vintage.  They are saying it is Lotus Petal period.

Relatedly, Lotus Petal is unrestricted in Legacy, where this comparison also matters, and where this discussion is also occurring.   While these is a Vintage forum, these debates are not necessarily circumscribed just to Vintage.  My list was designed to have a complete list of objective factual differences.  We can then weigh the relevance of each after they are listed.

Most importantly, the legendary status bears on the ability to achieve metalcraft.  That makes it extremely relevant.  

The bottom line is that Mox Opal is in no danger of restriction or needing to be restricted. 

[Protoaddict]

Ok, let’s do this more carefully, just so everyone is on the same page.

Comparison of Mox Opal to Lotus Petal

Similarities

1. Both are 0 Casting Cost
2. Both are artifacts
3. Both can generate 1 mana of any color.

Advantages of Lotus Petal
1. Is not inherently conditional in order to generate mana.
2. Can have more than 1 in play at a time (is not Legendary)

Advantages of Mox Opal

1. Can be reused (does not sacrifice upon use)

***
While these are the facts, if we assign them weight or value, it becomes very clear that Mox Opal is inferior to Lotus Petal.
 
While it could be argued that the reuse of Mox Opal makes Mox Opal better, I dispute that on this argument: the inherent conditionality of Metalcraft is by far the bigger limitation.  
Metalcraft essentially reads this: you need two other cards in play of a specific card type before you can even use this card.  

Imagine if a land said: you can only tap this for mana if you had two other lands in play.  

Metalcraft requires 30% of your opening hand to be non-Mox Opals and of a specific card type.  That’s a tremendous inherent weakness.
In a hand of 6, you need literally 50% of your hand to be a certain card type to use it -- making it even worse.  

While it is true that future Mox Opals can be played and used, replacing the one in play, that does not change the underlying Mox Opal Metalcraft math regarding opening hand usage, etc.  

Let's add to the "facts" the fact that Petal is restricted.  Does being permitted to have multiple Mox Opals, in some sense, make it better?  The answer is irrelevant because that is already true of Mox Opal.  I've been playing 2 Mox Opal in Burning Tendrils since its inception.  I won't be playing 3.  The reason is that the more Mox Opal you run, the less likely you are to be able to achieve Metalcraft since you increase your odds of drawing more than one in an opening hand.  

Simian Spirit Guide is a different case because there are many times -- not just a few narrow instances -- where Simian Spirit Guide is actually better than an artifact accelerant (like under a Sphere/Trinisphere).  

Stephen, I totally agree with you but I do want to point out a flaw in your pros list. Advantage #2 on Lotus Petal is absolutely irrelevant in Vintage as Lotus Petal is restricted. You will NEVER have 2 copies of Lotus Petal in play (aside from weird stuff like phyrexian metamorph on a lotus petal).

It is relevant.  Your opponent might have a Lotus Petal in play.  I've played several games where my opponent in the Burning Tendrils mirror had Mox Opal in play, inhibiting me from playing mine.  

Second, I've seen people copy moxen with Metamorph, so that is certainly a real corner case as well.  

Third, we are talking about an objective comparison of the cards.  People aren't saying that Mox Opal is a Lotus Petal in just Vintage.  They are saying it is Lotus Petal period.   The relevance of the fact that

Relatedly, Lotus Petal is unrestricted in Legacy, where this comparison also matters, and where this discussion is also occurring.   While these is a Vintage forum, these debates are not necessarily circumscribed just to Vintage.  My list was designed to have a complete list of objective factual differences.  We can then weigh the relevance of each after they are listed.

Most importantly, the legendary status bears on the ability to achieve metalcraft.  That makes it extremely relevant. 

Some of these comparisons you are making are with the old legend rule in mind, which is no longer the case.

I can also think of some decks that run at least one copy of opal if not 2 with no lotus petal, such as shops which is one of the more dominant decks in the format. Why? because Opal is better in that list.

The fact that you cannot run multiple petals does change the evaluation, in the same way that since you cannot run 4 balance, 1 balance rarely sees play.

Let's pretend that petal was unrestricted. Would you see it more often? Absolutely. Would there be decks that still ran opal before they ran Petal? Also absolutely. Because the cards, as similar as they are, fit different roles and one is not strictly better than the other.

The reality though is that decks that would run opal and petal will now probably use opals first and then petal when they maxed out on opals, because once you get an opal on board the rest of your opals function as petals, and if you are using opal your deck certanly is able to turn on metalcraft. The only corner cases I can think of is someone playing some sort of Open the Vaults list where multiple copies of something can come back at once, in which case petal is better. However since that is a deck I made up out of whole cloth, I stand by my statement that there are a non trivial amount of situations where opal is the better card for the deck you are playing over petal.

[Smmenen]

The reality though is that decks that would run opal and petal will now probably use opals first and then petal when they maxed out on opals.

I stand by my statement that there are a non trivial amount of situations where opal is the better card for the deck you are playing over petal.

Great.  Want to make a friendly bet on this?  I predict that within 3 months after the July rules changes, that Lotus Petal will appear in more top 8 decklists than Mox Opal.   It won't be that close either.  

That's because the cost of Metalcraft is far outweighs the benefit of being reusable.  It's not close.  

EDIT:

If it were true that the costs of Metalcraft were not as great as people were saying, then people would run 1 Mox Opal now over 1 Lotus Petal.  That is the logical conclusion of your assertion above.  They don't.  

The changes to the legend rule primarily affect the marginal benefits of running additional Mox Opal, but change very little the underlying calculus of including the first Mox Opal.

That's because Mox Opal is so rare in Vintage that it is a rare case that the opponent will have one in play.  

If Mox Opal were either better than Lotus Petal or as close to Lotus Petal in power as many of you suggest, it would see more play as a singleton.  

From that fact I conclude that Mox Opal is inferior to Lotus Petal, and the rule change, while improving the marginal utility of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Mox Opals, should not lead to a significant increase in the number of decks running Mox Opal in the first place. 

And, because the opportunity cost of a 3rd or 4th Mox Opal is so high given the way in which it actually interferes with Metal craft, by taking up a spot that could be dedicated to a card that could help achieve metalcraft, I feel VERY confidant in rejecting your conclusion that the 4th Mox Opal will be better than the 1st Lotus Petal in terms of design.

[MaximumCDawg]

Steve is correct in that Lotus Petal is probably better _in more situations_ just because of the tension between multiple Opals and reaching metalcraft.  However, it's certainly true there are situations where you want one or the other.  At the bottom line, though, Petal is restricted and so it's sort of a moot point.

[Guli]

Yea well, some people will try 4x and then it will happen I guess, the metalcraft goes online, they start drawing these Opal, things go great. But in other games the exact opposite will happen, I hope they keep track of how many times one happens over the other, and draw correct conclusions.

[Smmenen]

When I say that Lotus Petal is a better card that Mox Opal, I do not mean to say that it is "strictly superior."   Just wanted to be clear about that.   My point is that the hyperbole around Mox Opal under this rules change and the enthusiasm about it is greatly overstated.  

This comes from someone who is an advocate of Mox Opal.  After all, it is an integral part of my Burning Tendrils deck, and has been since I unveiled it last October.  

The claims that Mox Opal is now just as good as Lotus Petal are overblown, as are the fears that it will need restriction.    

My main point was to respond to comments like this:

Opal is easily in vintage a BETTER lotus petal.

[psyburat]

My only qualm I have is whether there is an objective winner.  I say no, you say yes, but that it hasn't been decided yet.  We will never have a world with four Lotus Petal, but I believe we could have a world with only one Mox Opal.  I'm sorry that my words are drowning in a pool of my favorite posters' walls of text.

[Smmenen]

I don't mean objectively superior in the sense of "strictly" superior, but I do mean "objectively superior" in the sense of measurable in terms of objective facts or criteria rather than subjective opinion.

As I said to you before: Just because a card can be situationally better or worse doesn't mean there is no objective winner.  

Three months after the rules change, we will be able to tell which card is outperforming the other, and that is an objective fact.  From there, we can tell which card is "objectively" , but not strictly" better performing in this format.  I predict that will be Lotus Petal.  

.  I'm sorry that my words are drowning in a pool of my favorite posters' walls of text.

Considering my last reply was 3 lines, isn't that a bit overblown:

Just because a card can be situationally better or worse doesn't mean there is no objective winner. 

As I said,LED can be situationally better than Black Lotus.   Lion's Eye Diamond can be better than Black Lotus when a Root Maze is in play.   I've actually used an LED in that way at a Waterbury. 

The objective winner is the card that will see more play.  Mox Opal is no Lotus Petal. 

[Protoaddict]

@Smmenen - I would argue that your wager proves nothing of the value of the card or it's value versus another, nor do I think such a thing as objectively superior is a realistic measurement, as there is no objective situation in the format (or any other) to measure it with. Cards come up in a variety of situations in a variety of lists against a variety of lists in a multitude of metas.

Number in top 8 is not a good measurement of how good a card is. Some cards inherently lend themselves to being used as a 4 of while something like the legend rule would sometimes keep a card from being more than a 2-3, but that 2 or 3 of would often be better than the 4 of in the same deck. Then consider decks that use their own subset of cards like dredge, and then consider card availability and how it affects deck appearances. I contend that Opal is better than petal in workshops, but since that deck is inherently limited in it's tourney appearances by availability of shops to an unmeasurable extent (unless you ask every player there if they would have played a shops list with opals and no petal if only they had the cards) then you cannot quantify one cards effectiveness over another.

[Smmenen]

@Smmenen - I would argue that your wager proves nothing of the value of the card or it's value versus another,  nor do I think such a thing as objectively superior is a realistic measurement, as there is no objective situation in the format (or any other) to measure it with.

How can you actually say that?

The % of Top 8 decklists or the # of Top 8 decklists with a certain card is the paradigmatic example of objective data/facts.   It is not opinion based at all.  It is not subjective at all.  

It is arguably the ONLY thing that is a realistic, objective measure.  A card's "value" or "worth" to the extent it has any at all -- is a function of its tournament performance, and nothing more. 

Cards come up in a variety of situations in a variety of lists against a variety of lists in a multitude of metas.

That's why I would use morphling.de data, which aggregates all tournament results report worldwide.

Number in top 8 is not a good measurement of how good a card is.

First of all, I didn't say number in a top 8.   I say number of *decklists* in a top 8 with that card.   That eliminates the disadvantage that Lotus Petal has for being restricted.    

Second, of course Top 8 appearances is a good measure of how good a card is.

The only thing that matters in any format is performance.  A card's inherent "goodness" or utility is nothing less than a direct relation to a card's tournament utility.  No other measure matters, at least in the context of a particular Magic format.  

As for your objection that certain card limitations may inhibit a card's ability to perform to its otherwise 'natural' level, I think experience has shown that this is not true for Workshops.  Workshop decks are and always have been a huge % of Top 8s, sometimes as much as 25%, even in non-proxy environments.  


***

Tournament performance is the very definition of objective.   Opinions are subjective.   Tournament results are not.  

[vaughnbros]

Just because a card can be situationally better or worse doesn't mean there is no objective winner.  

As I said,LED can be situationally better than Black Lotus.   Lion's Eye Diamond can be better than Black Lotus when a Root Maze is in play.   I've actually used an LED in that way at a Waterbury.  

The objective winner is the card that will see more play.  Mox Opal is no Lotus Petal.  

Its not just situationally better though.  Neither is LED over Lotus.  There are deck strategies where LED and opal are strictly superior to the loti.  

Lotus petal may be strictly superior to mox opal in a mean deck, but it is not the case in every deck.  Workshops, turbo tezz, neo academy, and many other decks benefit more from an opal than a lotus petal.  

I'm with psyburat on this one.  You can't just declare something is objective because you say it is.  There is subjectivity in your analysis.

Data is, by definition, objective.  The % of Top 8 decklists or the # of Top 8 decklists with a certain card is the paradigmatic example of objective data/facts.  

This is a false statement.  Data can easily be subjective.  Haven't you ever watched a tooth paste commercial?

[Archae]

Sorry to change topic away from the Petal vs. Opal discussion, but could someone explain to me the meaning of the emphasized language from the announcement:

With the new rule, your main deck is still sixty or more cards but your sideboard is now up to fifteen cards. Additionally, you are not required to swap cards between your main deck and sideboard on a one-for-one basis. For Games 2 and 3 (and so on), as long as your main deck is sixty or more cards and your sideboard is no more than fifteen cards, you're good.

Does this bolded portion mean that I can present a different 60 for Game 1 in different matches in the same tournament?

[Smmenen]

Just because a card can be situationally better or worse doesn't mean there is no objective winner.  

As I said,LED can be situationally better than Black Lotus.   Lion's Eye Diamond can be better than Black Lotus when a Root Maze is in play.   I've actually used an LED in that way at a Waterbury.  

The objective winner is the card that will see more play.  Mox Opal is no Lotus Petal.  

Its not just situationally better though.  Neither is LED over Lotus.  There are deck strategies where LED and opal are strictly superior to the loti.  

I disagree that there is a deck where Mox Opal is strictly superior to Black Lotus.    

The word "situationally" is broad enough to encompass deck strategies as well as in-game situations.  In fact, that reinforces my argument: which is that a card need not be strictly superior to be objectively superior.   LED/Lotus illustrates this point nicely.  

Few would seriously contest the claim that Black Lotus is an objective better card.    It's not strictly superior, but it's certainly a better card by any objective measure.

I'm with psyburat on this one.  You can't just declare something is objective because you say it is.  

Nor did I.  I explained that my view as to why Lotus Petal is "objectively" better is based on its tournament performance as well as an understanding of the relative costs of metalcraft.

Data is, by definition, objective.  The % of Top 8 decklists or the # of Top 8 decklists with a certain card is the paradigmatic example of objective data/facts.  

This is a false statement.  Data can easily be subjective.  Haven't you ever watched a tooth paste commercial?

Yes, when people ask poll questions that are slanted data can be manipulated.  

But this isn't a case of Morphling.de aggregating results in a biased way to help me prove my case.  This is more like a census than a brand performance test or a push poll. 

Of course data can be manipulated, but that obviously isn't the case with Morphling.de top 8 results.

The # of Mox Opals in a top 8 is not a subjective question.   Sorry.  It's an objective question as far as the word "objective" is used in the english language.  

[Smmenen]

Sorry to change topic away from the Petal vs. Opal discussion, but could someone explain to me the meaning of the emphasized language from the announcement:

With the new rule, your main deck is still sixty or more cards but your sideboard is now up to fifteen cards. Additionally, you are not required to swap cards between your main deck and sideboard on a one-for-one basis. For Games 2 and 3 (and so on), as long as your main deck is sixty or more cards and your sideboard is no more than fifteen cards, you're good.

Does this bolded portion mean that I can present a different 60 for Game 1 in different matches in the same tournament?

No.  "So on" means possible game 4s or 5s in matches that have drawn games. 

[Archae]

No.  "So on" means possible game 4s or 5s in matches that have drawn games. 

Good. Thanks for clearing that up for me.