[Free Podcast] SMIP #25: Bazaar of Moxen Analysis

[CHA1N5]

There's little reason to play Vial (except perhaps as an offbeat sideboard tactic v. Landstill) when you can't rely on your first turn Vial resolving and doing what it needs to do. 

To be clear: I believe you're saying that you can't rely on Vial resolving due to Mental Misstep and you can't rely on it functioning due to Revoker.  Correct?

If so, I don't agree on the severity of the issue, as you state it.  As I said in the show: Metal Misstep and Revoker are contributing factors.  Yes, we went on to joke about how easy it would be to adapt to those things, and I maintain that you can. In fact, people are.

The second thing about the Vial discussion that was pretty ignorant was the idea of "running your own Missteps" and ways of dealing with a 2/1 artifact creature (presumably a Swords or Bolt).  Newsflash: you can't Vial an instant into play.  If you're playing a substantial concentration utility spells, you're not going to want AEther Vial. 

I don't know what your threshold for "substantial concentration of utility spells" is, but it's pretty clear that you can run Vial and Missteps in a successful deck.

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1724&highlight=Aether_Vial
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1684&highlight=Aether_Vial

This is so obvious that I couldn't believe even Kevin who's generally pretty perceptive and reasonable just continued cackling at the idea that Mental Misstep and Phyrexian Revoker might have something to do with AEther Vial's reliability in today's environment. 

"something to do with"?  Would you say that's similar to their being "contributing factors"?  Because I would.

And did.

Again, the discussion of Library of Alexandria misses the larger picture because it's confined to this arbitrarily segregated realm of the abstract where the only relevant metric is tournament dominance.  There are other and more important considerations that you routinely neglect.  The facts that responses are available, that adaptations are possible, that it could be held in check (by Lotus -> Magus of the Moon!), and that there are opportunity costs miss the point completely.  No one seriously disputes that.  The problem is it's un-fun, prices more people out of a shrinking format, pretty much no one wants it unrestricted, and no one will experience any benefit from unrestricting it that comes close to offsetting its nuisance factor. 

You presume to speak for an awful lot (read: all) of people, here. The evidence present in the exceedingly few contributors on the topic here on TMD certainly doesn't support your assertions about what "people" think.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=45256.msg624688#msg624688


Your objection appears to be (reading several posts on the topic) more of an objection to our method of quantifying B/R decisions, rather than an operational assessment of a hypothetical library unrestriction:
- Un-fun: a matter of opinion.  I suggest not speaking for the entire community on this front.
- Cost: legitimate concern, but the significance of this concern is dramatically different to different people.  We touched on this issue in our initial discussion. Even if Library were to double in price, it would come in at the 9th most expensive card on the Restricted List.  Clearly, adding expense is no kind of goal for any unrestriction, but it's within the scope of price stress that the environment clearly already bears.  Also, it is not the sort of change that would lead to a slippery slope. 
- No benefit vis-a-vis the "nuisance": clearly your faux-quantification is tied to the subjective "un-fun", making it not a quantification at all.  If one were to disagree with the "un-fun" assessment (which I do), it follows that this assertion is invalidated.


Broadly speaking, I object to the notion that we present tournament dominance as the only relevant metric.  We do believe that it's the most important, but we also touched on the price of Library as a negative and talked at length about player's preference for different styles of play and/or patterns of how games play out.  I would hate for someone who hasn't yet listened to the show to assume your assessment to be completely accurate.

It is never a good idea to put Missteps into a Vial deck to protect Vials.

LOL "never".

[brianpk80]

To be clear: I believe you're saying that you can't rely on Vial resolving due to Mental Misstep and you can't rely on it functioning due to Revoker.  Correct?

For the most part, yes, but I didn't say they were the only two problems.  They are the most conspicuous.  Vial's strength was that it skirted countermagic and the prison strategy because it was a first turn play that was almost never interrupted.  Removal was very limited in the dominant blue decks of the day, usually just a singleton Chain of Vapor or Echoing Truth and/or Hurkyl's Recall/Rebuild.  Shops wanted to run activated artifacts of their own (ie Karn, Trisk) and Null Rod went on the decline there.  A lot of things work against Vial right now, Mental Misstep and Phyrexian Revoker being among the most salient contributing factors.  That seems to be a point of agreement.  The rise of Shops increasing artifact removal like Ancient Grudge & Nature's Claim is another factor as is the prevalence of Engineered Explosives.  The re-re-re-re-re-re-re-errata of Time Vault also tipped scales in favor of Null Rod in the previously more balanced Rod v. Vial comparisons.  

If so, I don't agree on the severity of the issue, as you state it.  As I said in the show: Metal Misstep and Revoker are contributing factors.  Yes, we went on to joke about how easy it would be to adapt to those things, and I maintain that you can.
In fact, people are.

You really can't though.  You both seemed to think playing AEther Vials, utility removal spells for Revoker, and countermagic is viable recipe.  It's not.  There is no spot removal in either of the decks you cited.  The links to Merfolk also undercut what you're trying to demonstrate here, because that deck T8ed with Vials and then when it switched to Null Rods, it began getting first place.

You presume to speak for an awful lot (read: all) of people, here. The evidence present in the exceedingly few contributors on the topic here on TMD certainly doesn't support your assertions about what "people" think.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=45256.msg624688#msg624688

I don't see a groundswell of support for unrestricting Library of Alexandria in that thread.  If anything, I see the opposite.  Maybe you pasted the wrong link.  *shrug*

- Un-fun: a matter of opinion.  I suggest not speaking for the entire community on this front.

I said "it's un-fun."  I did not say "every single person who plays Vintage thinks it's un-fun."  

No benefit vis-a-vis the "nuisance": clearly your faux-quantification is tied to the subjective "un-fun", making it not a quantification at all.  If one were to disagree with the "un-fun" assessment (which I do), it follows that this assertion is invalidated.

No, the nuisance factor includes the price issue and sudden need for adapting to a card that I and most people I know who play consider to be pretty gruesomely un-fun to play against.  I guess I have to stress here that I'm not pretending to "speak for the entire community" or every single Magic player on earth or whatever.  More importantly, the point there is not "it's a nuisance"; the point is that no commensurate benefit arising from LoA's unrestriction has been demonstrated that would offset what thus far would be a net negative effect, even if the only factor taken into consideration were price.  Where is the benefit?  The question has never been answered.

I would hate for someone who hasn't yet listened to the show to assume your assessment to be completely accurate.

Why?  I thought my response was generous and pointed out a lot of positive things despite the fact that the episode degenerated into a sour segment at the end where you randomly selected quotes from your regular listeners and unconvincingly tried to make them sound like idiots.  That's not inaccurate.

I do see that you're reading some degree of pretentiousness into what I wrote, which isn't my style or intent.  The facts are I've been having a blast since getting more into Vintage this year and was listening to your podcast the night before a tournament, laughing along and then from out of nowhere your co-host randomly brings up my name from some quick response a while ago and tried to make it sound uninformed, which it wasn't.  Someone could have easily said, "this guy's been following the Fish/creature pillar exclusively for about a decade--he might know something about this."  You also could have said "I see that these cards are problems for Vial but maybe he's overestimating the impact because X and Y and Z."  But instead it was a straight up "lolxxxorrss isn't he stuuuuupid, lol."  And now you're misquoting me to make it look like I'm styling myself as the all-knowing voice of the Vintage community, which is ridiculous.  That's not my aspiration.  

On a final note, I hate to sound like an infomercial life coach but it is okay to be wrong about things and it's fine to be less than omniscient--healthier even to admit that.  That segment was out of line; nothing I wrote about AEther Vial was moronic and it would reflect well on the show to just admit that rather than contorting into defensive postures trying to justify the unjustifiable.  You guys are often wrong about a lot of things, but it's still a great show and a fun listen overall.  Maybe a little less random attacks on listeners would help. Looking forward to the M14 review/NYSE episode.  

[Smmenen]

You really can't though.  You both seemed to think playing AEther Vials, utility removal spells for Revoker, and countermagic is viable recipe.  It's not.  There is no spot removal in either of the decks you cited.  The links to Merfolk also undercut what you're trying to demonstrate here, because that deck T8ed with Vials and then when it switched to Null Rods, it began getting first place.

Revoker is far more marginal than MM bc the only decks, besides Beats, that use Revoker are shops, and not all Shop decks use Revoker.  And, in any case, you can deal with Revoker with post-board cards.

It's very easy to to build a Fish deck with 4 Vial, 2-3 Mental Misstep, and plenty of creatures -- so stop pretending otherwise.  They only have MM 40% of the time at most, assuming they have 4, and if you run even a couple of MM, that compensates for a huge chunk of their percentage.   I've built, goldfished and played white trash decks built that way, and they have enough creatures to reliably use Vial.
  
The idea that the presence of MM invalidates Vial *is* ridiculous.  

- No benefit vis-a-vis the "nuisance": clearly your faux-quantification is tied to the subjective "un-fun", making it not a quantification at all.  If one were to disagree with the "un-fun" assessment (which I do), it follows that this assertion is invalidated.

Agreed.  The assertion on behalf of so many players is clearly predicated on questionable assumptions about what other players think, their willingness to engage these debates, and the degree to which they even care.

To Kevin's point, I, too, think it would be fun.  I think having a 4 LoA slow control deck is very likely to be fine for a format stereotyped as being about turn one wins.   

[brianpk80]

It's very easy to to build a Fish deck with 4 Vial, 2-3 Mental Misstep, and plenty of creatures -- so stop pretending otherwise.  

I can't tell if that's an order, a threat, or a promise.  

Stephen, I said you could not run Vials, counterspells, and a substantial concentration of utility instants that would handle something like a Revoker.  You do not play 12-14 instants in a Vial deck.  It is possible to play Vial with counters, but not with counters and a comprehensive instant utility suite.  "Stop pretending otherwise" has no application here because I never said Vial couldn't be played with Mental Misstep.  You're simply grasping at straws to avoid having to admit making a mistake in being so disrespectful to a regular listener while simultaneously being incorrect.  I don't have energy for a bad-faith debate today so there is no need to respond.  Thank you and have a good day.  

[Guli]

lol...

I am surprised Vial is being discussed. But I sure do like it. And on top, all 3 of you seem to agree on 1 (important) point, it is possible to make a competetive Vial deck!

My formula to make Vial work is to run the 7 cats, you don't need a lot removal in the form of instants, you just run 4 Qasali Pridemage and 3 Leonin Relic Warder. This is how I won the invitational TMD last year. I used Vials to completely ignore any Workshop spheres and wires, and if they tried to shut Vial off with Revoker, I usually had a window to hardcast a cat. If they don't deal with Vial, they would lose in any scenario.

My main reason not to run Vial is truly Cavern of Souls and mox power. I prefer to use moxes to gain some board presence. And because I am using moxes, I am not using Vial or Null Rod effects. I think the Vintage scene changed a lot, and I prefer to build up a steady stream of mana, generate card advantage while doing so and make sure there is always something happening with the mana you have. I find it important to stick at least 1 creature on turn 1, this can be a Noble, or this can be one of the 2cc creatures thanks to a mox in the opening 7. It would be awkward to play Vial in this kind of deck, you would never really want to have it in your hand if your plan is to stick in early threats and ride with them.

[CHA1N5]

@Brian: It's not our goal to personally attack you. It appears we simply disagree about the relative impact of factors on Vial's place in the metagame.  Keep in mind that we were responding specifically to your assertion that Misstep and Revoker were THE reasons; an assertion that you've since elaborated on to allow for additional factors.

Regarding Library: some benefits of unrestriction include, but are not limited to:
- reinvigorate the use of a historic card
- new deckbuilding options to explore
- new challenges in the metagame to identify and tackle
- new gameplay scenarios that haven't ever existed in sanctioned Magic
- reducing the size of the Restricted list
- people that own Libraries make money

[Smmenen]

@Brian: It's not our goal to personally attack you. It appears we simply disagree about the relative impact of factors on Vial's place in the metagame.  Keep in mind that we were responding specifically to your assertion that Misstep and Revoker were THE reasons;

What Kevin said. And this: my point is that neither factor is persuasive alone, since Misstep is answered by running your own Misstep, and Revoker is only basically played in one archetype, MUD, and can be answered with further artifact removal (Abolish, Nature's Claim, etc).  Your answer was that neither one of my points could be true because running artifact removal and Mental Misstep dilutes the threat density too much.  That counter argument was a straw man, since I didn't say you run both maindeck -- just a few Mental Missteps, and worry about Revokers post-board.  If Vial isn't viable, it isn't because of MM or Revokers.  Those may be contributory causes, but not proximate.

[vaughnbros]

Regarding Library: some benefits of unrestriction include, but are not limited to:
- reinvigorate the use of a historic card
- new deckbuilding options to explore
- new challenges in the metagame to identify and tackle
- new gameplay scenarios that haven't ever existed in sanctioned Magic
- reducing the size of the Restricted list
- people that own Libraries make money

These points are incredibly broad and as a result could be used to argue for the unrestriction of almost every card, including power.

I'm going to try and make this as simple as possible as to why library should no be restricted.
What decks does library improve?
Pure Blue control

What decks have been performing extremely well as of the last year? Last 3 months?  Last month?
Pure Blue Control and Workshops.

So what currently struggling deck will library improve?
None.  It only improves an already powerful deck.

If decks like landstill and UW bomberman start to wane in their power level then and only then should library be considered for unrestriction.  Right now I think there's too great of a possibility that it creates a dominant and/or oppressive deck, which would require its rerestriction.

[MaximumCDawg]

Something I mentioned awhile ago, but no one has addressed either on these forums or in the podcast, is that the unrestriction of Library makes sense to Steven and Kevin because (I think) they're focused on Blue and Workshops as the most relevant decks in Vintage.  If you only had those two decks, everything they say is true; Library is good in the mirror but bad in the Shop match, so it's a safe unrestrict.

What about the collateral damage to other fish decks?  What about decks that play Vintage on the back of dense and useful disruption rather than being incredibly fast?  A first turn library against Noble Fish, for example, asks the Fish player if they have a Wasteland.  If not, you're probably going get an Ancestral Recall out of the deal before the Fish player does anything too threatening. 

Basically, first turn libraries are ENORMOUSLY POWERFUL against reactive opponents.  If giving up your first land drop in exchange for 3 - 5 cards doesn't cause you to lose or get locked out, it's potentially more broken than Ancestral Recall.  Since it generates mana too, it helps free up space in your sideboard while hating hard on reactive decks.  There is a level where condensing your hate in this way is bad because it lets Big Blue board amazingly against everyone.

With Library restricted, the first turn Library is rare.  It also means you'll have a waste or strip for five times more often than you see Library.  When you're almost just as likely see Library as Wasteland first turn, those miserable games where the blue player shifts into 5th gear and never looks back will be way more prevalent.

[vaughnbros]

Something I mentioned awhile ago, but no one has addressed either on these forums or in the podcast, is that the unrestriction of Library makes sense to Steven and Kevin because (I think) they're focused on Blue and Workshops as the most relevant decks in Vintage.  If you only had those two decks, everything they say is true; Library is good in the mirror but bad in the Shop match, so it's a safe unrestrict.

Except that this isn't true.  

Traditional blue decks (i.e. with tinker, tutors, vault, ect.) and workshops would both be worse off with libraries unrestriction.

Library is still a land so I'd much rather have library in my main deck over flusterstorms/missteps against workshops.  Also against lock out workshop hands seeing more cards instead of doing nothing with the mana is an extremely nice feature of the card.

In the blue versus blue match ups landstill, and other control variants, are already superior to traditional blue.  They then gain a larger advantage by having library unrestricted, not only becuase of strip effects, but also because the deck is reactive and can keep 7 cards in hand longer.

Library is not a bad card in any match up as long as its in the right deck.  Worst case scenario it forces your opponent to play extremely aggressive to prevent you from getting it online.

[davelin]

Something I mentioned awhile ago, but no one has addressed either on these forums or in the podcast, is that the unrestriction of Library makes sense to Steven and Kevin because (I think) they're focused on Blue and Workshops as the most relevant decks in Vintage.  If you only had those two decks, everything they say is true; Library is good in the mirror but bad in the Shop match, so it's a safe unrestrict.

Except that this isn't true.  

Traditional blue decks (i.e. with tinker, tutors, vault, ect.) and workshops would both be worse off with libraries unrestriction.

Library is still a land so I'd much rather have library in my main deck over flusterstorms/missteps against workshops.  Also against lock out workshop hands seeing more cards instead of doing nothing with the mana is an extremely nice feature of the card.

In the blue versus blue match ups landstill, and other control variants, are already superior to traditional blue.  They then gain a larger advantage by having library unrestricted, not only becuase of strip effects, but also because the deck is reactive and can keep 7 cards in hand longer.

Library is not a bad card in any match up as long as its in the right deck.  Worst case scenario it forces your opponent to play extremely aggressive to prevent you from getting it online.

The landstill deck from the BoM top 8 didnt even run one LoA so not sure why unrestriction makes them better.

[MaximumCDawg]

Except that this isn't true.  

Traditional blue decks (i.e. with tinker, tutors, vault, ect.) and workshops would both be worse off with libraries unrestriction.

See, at least here I think the Menedian Bros. have the better argument.  If you're playing Big Blue, the last thing you want to do against Shops is drop 1 colorless mana turn 1 and then hold your moxen back to make sure you have seven cards to draw with.  That cedes the critical first turn to Shops.

The landstill deck from the BoM top 8 didnt even run one LoA so not sure why unrestriction makes them better.

Running one Library makes it unlikely you see it until late in the game.  Unlike Standstill, Library is pretty crappy later in the game unless you're firmly in control with your full grip anyway.  If you get to run all four, then you have, what, a 45% chance of having it in your opening hand?  That changes the calculation of your card advantage engine pretty dramatically.

[vaughnbros]

The landstill deck from the BoM top 8 didnt even run one LoA so not sure why unrestriction makes them better.

BoM also had a workshops deck with Karn the liberated.  I know its a big event and all, but I don't think that makes every list there optimal.  Especially since its a no proxy event.  It is very well possible that the person just didn't have a library.

Except that this isn't true.  

Traditional blue decks (i.e. with tinker, tutors, vault, ect.) and workshops would both be worse off with libraries unrestriction.

See, at least here I think the Menedian Bros. have the better argument.  If you're playing Big Blue, the last thing you want to do against Shops is drop 1 colorless mana turn 1 and then hold your moxen back to make sure you have seven cards to draw with.  That cedes the critical first turn to Shops.

I guess you can ignore half of my post... a land that taps for mana > a do nothing blue spell.  I know its hard to not draw a card when you have 7 in hand, but nothing is forcing me to use my library to draw cards if I don't think its adventagious.

[MaximumCDawg]

I guess you can ignore half of my post... a land that taps for mana > a do nothing blue spell.  I know its hard to not draw a card when you have 7 in hand, but nothing is forcing me to use my library to draw cards if I don't think its adventagious.

All that you're saying is that Library is not as bad against shops as Flusterstorm.  And, that's true.  But they're both bad.  Let's assume you only cut Flusterstorms for Libraries under the theory that they both target the mirror so you can keep the rest of your land.  Here, you're no worse off; you probably mulligan a hand with no other land whether the card you draw is Fluster or Library.  I suppose there is the corner case where you have no Force of Will, moxen + Library which is better than no Force of Will, moxen + Flusterstorm... but we're really stretching to find an advantage here, and you're gonna board out the dead cards game two no matter what they are anyway.

The Menedian Bros.'s point is that Library is bad against shops, not that it's worse than every other card you could conceivably run.  And here, I think they're right.  It's bad enough that it would give a blue player pause to run them in a heavy shop environment.

Except for my other point, which is that Library potentially rules all other matchups except shops.  Flusterstorm doesn't.

[Samoht]

Library is better than any other non-basic land against Shops save for a Fetch as long as it's not intended to be a mana producer for you deck. IE you have 14+ lands and 8+ artifact sources. Laying down something like Underground Sea or Volcanic Island is so terrible on the draw it's not even funny. Library still protects you from 1 Sphere if needed, and is a long term investment. Obviously I'd prefer to lay Fetches every turn against Shops until I can get to whatever my game plan is, but that's not always the case. Library is a fine alternative as long as you understand that if they were going to Waste your land you're winning anyway as you replaced it.

[brianpk80]

@Brian: It's not our goal to personally attack you. It appears we simply disagree about the relative impact of factors on Vial's place in the metagame.  Keep in mind that we were responding specifically to your assertion that Misstep and Revoker were THE reasons; an assertion that you've since elaborated on to allow for additional factors.

Well, I appreciate that.  I wasn't offended just surprised to hear an offhand comment from so far back dredged up and tossed around like Beavis & Butthead after an otherwise good show. 

As for Library, I don't understand why this would be chosen as the cause du jour when there are so many better issues around which to rally.  Even if you were able to precisely replicate the DCI's reasoning process and determine that perhaps it would be an "acceptable" unrestrict using only their coldest metrics, it doesn't follow that the result can be substituted as a community objective especially when so many extrinsic factors work against it. 

Maybe focus on unrestricting Gift Ungiven instead?  The metagame is so far removed from the environment that accommodated that deck, I wouldn't be surprised if it barely made a splash, much like Fact or Fiction.  Brainstorm is restricted, Shops are even more oppressive, the counter suite is exceptionally hostile to it, and it has trouble functioning when grave hate is rampant, which it now is. 

The other thing that irked me during the show was the exclamation that the DCI has done a superlative job managing the B&R list, worthy of the highest accolades.  The truth is, and we all know it, the DCI barely looks at Vintage and the fact that this disregard for the format has allowed certain \archetypes to benefit from an annual unrestriction here and there is not a monumental achievement worthy of unmitigated hero-worship.  Some realism and moderation could help. 

Also Stephen, I'm behind on the History of Vintage series but I will get to them eventually.  I think they are your best work. 

[vaughnbros]

I guess you can ignore half of my post... a land that taps for mana > a do nothing blue spell.  I know its hard to not draw a card when you have 7 in hand, but nothing is forcing me to use my library to draw cards if I don't think its adventagious.

All that you're saying is that Library is not as bad against shops as Flusterstorm.  And, that's true.  But they're both bad.  Let's assume you only cut Flusterstorms for Libraries under the theory that they both target the mirror so you can keep the rest of your land.  Here, you're no worse off; you probably mulligan a hand with no other land whether the card you draw is Fluster or Library.  I suppose there is the corner case where you have no Force of Will, moxen + Library which is better than no Force of Will, moxen + Flusterstorm... but we're really stretching to find an advantage here, and you're gonna board out the dead cards game two no matter what they are anyway.

I'm not really seeing the corner case here in LoA versus flusterstorm in the shops match up. In my experience a land is never bad against workshops, on the draw its almost always better than off color moxen because it evades the highly likely sphere effect and/or chalice.  Flusterstorm isn't just bad against shops its awful, a leviathan has more value to me in that match up.

The Menedian Bros.'s point is that Library is bad against shops, not that it's worse than every other card you could conceivably run.  And here, I think they're right.  It's bad enough that it would give a blue player pause to run them in a heavy shop environment.

Perhaps my point wasn't clear enough.  Flusterstorm and mental misstep see main deck play in a currently shop heavy enviroment.  So if you let people play a card that is marginally better than them against shops and significantly better than them against blue where is the pause?  The card is clearly superior.

I'll give you a little bit different comparison.  Library isn't that much different from Jace in the matches that it impacts.  Dominant against blue, good against fish, and sub par against shops/dredge.  Does this stop people from packing 2, 3, or 4 of them into decks?  Absolutely not.  

@CHA1AN5
Gifts ungiven is a card whose unrestriction I could support.  There isn't a deck that consistantly performs well that can gain a huge benefit from the card.  Similar to the unrestriction of burning wish, it will have to create a whole new player in the metagame to exist.

[Smmenen]

Also Stephen, I'm behind on the History of Vintage series but I will get to them eventually.  I think they are your best work.  

I'll take that as a complement, but I'm definitely proud of at least a few of the 350 + articles I've written outside of that series

The next chapter, 2000, which is completed, but being edited right now, is actually my favorite (tied with 1997) so far in terms of analysis.

Here's an excerpt:

Bdominia was not sold, billed, or deliberately organized as a network hub for for Type I players, but became so through reputation and networked communities of interest. While not the only hub for niche Magic formats on the internet, the importance of Beyond Dominia cannot be overstated for the Type I format.

Beyond Dominia entailed more than community of shared interest in Type I, it was a platform of influence, and thereby power. The organization of the dispersed Type I community of players through the asynchronous digital Internet created a presence for Type I that had not previously existed anywhere. Although The Dojo allowed Magic players to filter the USENET, Beyond Dominia was already self-selected content; the filter was interest in Type I. The mere existence of this community and its daily digests of decklists, advice, and discussion put to lie the claim that Type I was a dead format. Quality content and careful and active moderation undermined the idea that Type I players were “bad” Magic players. 

More importantly, the community of dedicated Type I players in one accessible digital location became a locus of power. Generative consensus through overlapping, although not uniformly shared, visions and understandings of the format served a single focal point of engagement with tournament organizers and the DCI.  For a community light on numbers but deep in passion, this was of paramount importance.

Beyond Dominia may have been originally envisioned as a fanzine for the customary visitors to Dominaria, the fictive universe of Magic, but soon lived up to its name as a haven for those at the fringes of the Magic universe. Its legacy endures today.

[data]

Library is better than any other non-basic land against Shops save for a Fetch as long as it's not intended to be a mana producer for you deck.

So it's pretty bad then?  This argument is self-defeating, because the most important lands against shops are mana producers (and fetchlands are, indirectly, mana-producing.  I'm not even sure the statement is true, because wasteland is pretty great against shops if you're playing landstill.

[Smmenen]

We recorded a pretty sick podcast last night with a very special guest

[Cruel Ultimatum]

We recorded a pretty sick podcast last night with a very special guest

Is it going up tonight?

[Smmenen]

It's up now