@vaughnbros said in Cards to unrestrict:

@Smmenen

Yet you still find a way to completely ignore my point, and focus on arguing semantics which I have actual no interest in. Good day to you.

There is a difference between requesting clarification and arguing semantics.

I specifically said I'm not ignoring your point -- and will respond -- but before I address it I want to understand your position. Because what you're saying right now doesn't make much sense.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen

I've made my position clear that I do not think that a format that is more coin flip dependent is good. I do not see how me not defining eras as precisely as you is anything more than semantics.

@vaughnbros said in Cards to unrestrict:

@Smmenen

I've made my position clear that I do not think that a format that is more coin flip dependent is good. I do not see how me not defining eras as precisely as you is anything more than semantics.

Because the concept of "coin-flippiness in magic" is inherently imprecise (you already said it's hyperbole), either as a descriptor or metaphor. Rather than engage you in a semantic debate over what you mean by that term, it's faster and easier to simply ask you to point to particular periods you believe embody that dynamic. Especially since you refered to it as a "time." Aside from the period where chalice & golem were simultaneously unrestricted, you've been unable to identify a particular period that might plausibly be described as such. That suggests a deeper flaw in your thinking.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen

I thought that the coin flip having an impact on the outcome of games was a pretty well established concept. Here I am having to explain it to someone who considers themselves an expert on magic theory though.

There are some articles designed for beginners like yourself on this topic: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/level-one/play-or-draw-2015-03-16
https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/play-or-draw/

What you also seem to not understand is that the history of the coin flip in Vintage and the specific time or times when it was impact has very little to do with my overall point.

People just want library unrestricted so they can cash in hard on the copies they are sitting on or to create speculation to drive sales. It's all malarky.

My suggestions are as follows: Unrestrict brainstorm, restrict preordain, restrict mental misstep, unrestrict chalice. Unrestrict fastbond/bargain because I don't think it matters. flash/rector is not a thing anymore and if wotc is smart, they will keep it that way.

Miracles would become vintage playable. Miracles is the "feel at home" control deck that vintage needs. Blue players wouldn't feel that duress/thoughtseize are oppressive with misstep gone as they can sometimes brainstorm whatever cards they want to hide away from the thoughtseize/duress.

TPS/DPS would make a comeback with misstep restricted.

Shops would be combat other decks a bit better and there would also be more diversity is shops deck building. It will also be able to do the shop jobs is supposed to do, keep combo in check.

last edited by Guest

@vaughnbros said in Cards to unrestrict:

@Smmenen

I thought that the coin flip having an impact on the outcome of games was a pretty well established concept.

No, it's a commonly used term, but that doesn't mean it's meaning is well-defined or it's conceptualization is well established. People use all kinds of idiotic aphorisms, metaphors, or allusions on a daily basis in common parlance or vernacular, that, upon close inspection, either have no meaning at all or are proven flawed in concept.

Here I am having to explain it to someone who considers themselves an expert on magic theory though.

There are some articles designed for beginners like yourself on this topic: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/level-one/play-or-draw-2015-03-16
https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/play-or-draw/

Both of those articles are about the difference between being on the play or draw. Since you cite both of those pieces in support of your conception of what you mean by "coin flippiness," it's clear that you use that term to refer to who gets to play first, and, more specifically, whether a player gets a turn or not as determining who wins.

Already, it's clear how incoherent your understanding of this idea is. To put a fine point on it, if coin flippiness is literally defined, as you suggest, by whether a player gets a turn or not based upon winning the coin flip, then a game cannot be said to be "coin flippy" if a player gets a turn.

Yet, you specifically identified Worldgorger Dragon (and Dredge) as decks that exhibit or express your idea. Yet, as you should know, Dredge doesn't win on the first turn, and it is virtually impossible for Worldgorger Dragon (WGD) combo to win on the first turn. That's because the WGD pilot needs both a draw and discard outlet in play, such as Bazaar (or Compulsion), AND a (generally blue and black) mana source, in order to generate infinite mana. That's because each loop of the Dragon combo requires a mana in play to tap and float through each iteration. In general, Moxen will not suffice, as you need a black mana to cast an Animate effect, and usually a blue mana for Ambassador Laquatus or Cunning Wish at the end of the loop. Generally, the only way for WGD combo to win on "Turn 1" is to play a first turn Time Walk (or the opponent kills themselves). That means an opponent will almost always have an opportunity to play mana to cast Coffin Purge or Tormod's Crypt, etc.

If I've misread your meaning of the term, based upon the sources you provided, then it simply underscores the need, as I've said before now, for you to clarify your meaning of the term, rather than simply link to external articles to do it for you, with all of the ambiguity and indeterminacy that comes with it. You could have saved a step by simply doing that first.

What you also seem to not understand is that the history of the coin flip in Vintage and the specific time or times when it was impact has very little to do with my overall point.

What you seem not to understand is the structure of logic: the concept of coin flippiness is a premise that undergirds your conclusion (your overall point), and the strength or frailty of your conceptualization of that premise ultimately determines the validity and soundness of that conclusion.

But enough trying to understand your thinking. It's fairly clear, based upon your posts so far, that your thinking is muddled and perhaps just under-cooked as it relates to the issues in this thread. The fact that you gesture wildly to broad eras as "time of coin flip magic" without precision, specifying the boundaries of those eras clearly, while displaying ignorance of those eras and the strategies in them already underscores the lack of clarity in your thinking.

So, I'll turn now, in earnest, to your questions:

@vaughnbros said in Cards to unrestrict:

@Smmenen

You haven't answered my initial question about how unrestricting combo decks helps with strategical diversity.

First of all, you don't "unrestrict combo decks," you unrestrict cards, not decks. But I take your point.

I already answered this question in my first post. The format right now is strategically narrow, throttled at the top by Mentor and Thorn decks, followed by PO decks, a bit of Dredge, and a bit of Oath.

The vast majority of the PO decks that appear in Vintage Top 8s or daily results are Mentor, Drain Tendrils, Mana Drain decks, etc. Aside from Reid Duke, almost no one in the format right now is playing PO as a straight combo deck, ala Dark Ritual Storm, with Necro, etc.

I believe that unrestricting combo cards, like Windfall, Bargain and Flash, have the potential to increase the strategic diversity of the format by increasing the viability of strategies that are currently unviable or extremely marginal. DPS was really hurt by the restriction of Probe. I would like to see the return of Dark Ritual-type decks to the format - that is, decks that use Wheel of Fortune, Necropotence, etc. and win with Tendrils. The format, currently, has, as I said, almost no viable deck that does this, or some that are extremely fringe/marginal.

Unrestricting Windfall or Bargain could increase the strategic diversity in the format by making those decks better. Similarly, unrestricting Flash would bring a whole new archetype into the format, and therefore increase the format's strategic diversity.

Do you feel that decks like Flash, Dragon, and numerous storm variants of that time period were slower than the current iterations of PO?

Dragon and Flash didn't really exist in the same time period, so the premise to your question if flawed.

Flash was a very fast deck, especially after the printing of Future Sight, which happened just after GP Flash and not long after the Flash errata. Summoner's Pact provided a reliable way to find Protean Hulk for free.

Yet, in the full year that Flash was legal with all of that nonsense, it never really did well. If you go back and look at the 2007 Vintage Championship results, a tournament I won, all of the best performing Flash decks were relegated below the Top 8, like Chapin, who made Top 16. Flash got a bit better in 2008, but still never really performed better than the Gush decks, in general; not even close. It won a few big tournaments, but it's performance, given the speed and ease of the combo, was always disappointing. The reason was that it was so easy to hate out with Extirpate and/or Leyline of the Void. And, by Spring 2008, people were playing maindeck Red Blasts (as they do now!), making it even worse.

With Leyline in play, Flash is a 3 card combo, and hardly a turn 1 win.

So, it's not really a matter of whether Flash was faster or slower than PO or anything else. It's pre-board and post-board games were radically different. It could goldfish faster than anything, but that doesn't mean it was really that fast. It wasn't.

As for Dragon, as I've pointed out many times, Dragon had essentially 0% Turn 1 kills. Although it could win on Turn 2, it was mostly a Turn 3/4 deck at best, and often slower. The reason the deck was so good was because it's draw engine was essentially uncounterable (squee/Bazaar), so it could generate more card advantage than the blue decks, and it could also win at instant speed, with Necromancy. But you needed lots of turns to dig up multiple Squees or simply make use of them with Bazaar to overwhelm your opponent with card advantage.

And, as for Storm, the Storm decks of the 2000s were all radically different speeds. The fastest was Long, with 4 LEDs. That deck was absurd, and Long v. Stax (which I have articles on SCG about), is probably the closest thing I've ever experienced to an actual "coin flip" in the format. But that only existed for about 3-5 months before it was restricted out of existence.

The Perfect Storm deck that won the 2008 Vintage Champs or the Pitch Long deck that got 2nd place in 2006 was much slower. That was more like a Turn 2.5 deck, at best. Still faster than PO decks today, but not as fast as Burning Long.

Do you feel we should have faster decks than PO now?

I think you and I have different understandings of where PO decks are now. I view PO decks that are currently doing well in this format as fairly slow decks. The Reid Duke style PO deck is certainly more geared towards Turn 1-3, but the PO decks that are best performing at the moment are significantly slower, despite the possibility of Turn 1 wins, they aren't designed to do that. If they were, they'd be playing more Mox Opals, etc. Instead, they trade off speed for resilience.

So, I think you are suffering from the incorrect premise that PO decks are actually pretty fast, when they really aren't.

So, yes, I do feel we should have decks faster than the average PO deck right now. Not because that should be a goal, but because achieving that would be the byproduct of a larger goal: making DPS/TPS or even Belcher style decks viable again.

How would such a deck help the format exactly?

Increase the strategic diversity of the format.

Let me present two simple principles that probably everyone would agree with:

  1. In general, having more viable deck choices in Vintage is a good thing.

  2. In general, being able to play games of Magic where both players get to play spells and make meaningful in-game decisions is a good thing.

The problem arises when these two ideas come into tension. In general, I give greater priority to strategic diversity than in-game decision making. And, in a format that is really strategically narrow right now, like Vintage, this preference has even greater weight.

In summary, I would gladly accept the trade-off of having more strategic options in this mundane and predictable format at the expense of having a slight increase in games won before a player can make a meaningful in-game decision.

Since the frequency of Turn 1 kills is so absurdly tiny in this format of late (I think someone pointed out that there was like one Turn 1 kill on the VSL for every 50 games), the format can afford to give up a little in-game interactivity in the interests of improved and broader strategic options.

And here's my last point:

I think it's quite revealing that the period you identified with the most specificity as exhibiting the dynamic of "coin flippiness" was the Golem/Chalice era. It would not be unreasonable to add the Trinisphere era (the one year Trinisphere was legal) as well.

Accepting for the moment the concept of "coin flippiness" (which I think is still ill-defined thus far, at least from you), the most coin flippy periods in Vintage history, in my opinion, are those dominated or defined by Workshop decks.

Far more than combo decks, Workshop decks really make the coin flip, and going first, most important. The presence of cards like Mindbreak Trap, Mental Misstep, etc. and the reduction in the importance of Mana Drain as a counterspell (and therefore getting UU up first) because of the printings of cards like Spell Pierce, Flusterstorm, etc, renders the importance of going first against Combo less significant than ever.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen

I think the bottom half of this post has some really important ideas, and I want to reply in more depth later. But I want to place a marker on a few points

Your position in a nutshell is:
-Right now there are 2 main decks and 2 significantly worse decks and we get to fringe decks fairly quickly.

-At other times in history there have been more decks, and more differing angles decks attacked from, different win comditions, and lower metagame shares of the most popular decks.

-Those time periods tended to have some faster combo or reanimate decks, and decks with different engines.

-You would be willing to accept a slight acceleration in how quickly the fastest actualy viable deck could kill or close out a game to get more diversity

-You are interested in if the above can be achieved by unrestriction of a card currently on the list.


In view of that, the restricted list has lots of pieces that support different kinds of decks that are no longer prevalent.

It may make sense to structure the discussion by what kinds of decks a person wants to promote and then let that lead to cards rather than starting with a discussion of cards and seeing what would happen.

I'll make one other point, which is that unrestriction may or may not be the smallest or least impactful change that could be made to promote a deck. How much of a precautionary principle you want to follow would guide what makes sense there.

@walking.dude said in Cards to unrestrict:

It may make sense to structure the discussion by what kinds of decks a person wants to promote and then let that lead to cards rather than starting with a discussion of cards and seeing what would happen.

I think part of the challenge with developing that kind of abstracted discussion is that the format is so throttled right now by Mentor and Shops, that large swaths of the restricted list just don't matter. Either those swaths would be immediately assimilated into either Shops or Mentor, or they would disappear into the ether.

One of the reasons I didn't want to inject my specific cards ideas yet, but was compelled to do so in order to make my point, was because I wanted to hear what other people thought first. I've already formed my views on what cards are most unrestrictable or the best candidates for unrestriction, but your OP was prompted by the podcast.

And really, I think Shops, probably more than anything, is the greatest constraint on the possibilities in the format. A Belcher deck has almost no chance to win a tournament in Vintage in a format where there are common decks with 10+ Sphere effects. It's exceptionally difficult for Dark Ritual decks, for the same reason, although it's not quite as extreme of a case. So, as long as the format is structured that way, and I doubt the restriction of Workshop itself would change that (since White Eldrazi also has 10 Spheres), you can probably unrestrict lots of Speed combo school cards and make little actual difference in terms of metagame outcomes. Not that I would, but it couldn't hurt to start at the margins, and see what happens, if there is a compelling need, as I believe there is, to use the B&R list to try to enhance the diversity of the format. The alternative is more restrictions, which I think is a worse path to take.

I'll make one other point, which is that unrestriction may or may not be the smallest or least impactful change that could be made to promote a deck. How much of a precautionary principle you want to follow would guide what makes sense there.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but if the restriction was truly warranted in the first place (and that's always a dubious premise), then unrestriction is probably the best policy tool the DCI has to try to boost or enhance a marginalized archetype. That's because restriction cuts to the heart of the format, and unrestriction reintroduces a card that was once format defining, by definition.

@Smmenen

"Coin flippiness" is not a measure of a prolonged time period in Vintage as defined by your "eras" as you've clearly noted a lot of the problem decks have fairly quickly been restricted. Its short periods of time in which a singular problem deck arises that is simultaneously powerful and finishes the game in the first 2/3 turns of the game. I initially highlight decks because of this, and latter highlighted the entire time period of 2000's as that is the time period in which many of these cards found their way onto the restricted list for this very reason. Yes this is a very broad time period, in which I highlighted decks that were of "different eras" as you call it, but a lot of this transition was caused by changes in the restricted list (and some new printings / erratas).

The Chalice+Lodestone Workshop deck was the only coin flip deck that saw a long period of dominance due to Wizards inaction during the time period. I feel this was much more of a result of Wizards not really caring about the format at that time, more so than Workshops being less of a problem than the combo decks. Shops of course also gave players the illusion that they had a chance to get out of their mana lock. Countless arguments by people talking about playing Spirit Guides + Ancient Tombs to break their mana lock...

You bring up Misstep, Mindbreak trap, and the other ways to interact turn 0 with a storm deck, but arguing for these cards is really not that different from players that expected people to play Spirit Guides + Ancient Tombs to beat Shops. The number of cards that interact meaningfully on turn 0 are very few and far between. This creates a tremendous burden on the deck builder to constantly be cognizant of those archetypes.

In our current metagame, PO is on the slower end when you compare to these historic decks. However, it is still very capable of a turn 2 kill and seems geared to go off around turn 3/4. That puts it on the same speed as a game 1 dredge deck. These are the types of combo decks that are good for the format. They keep opponents "honest" so to speak, but don't necessarily force your opponent to play a short list of cards if their deck is fast or controlling enough.

You boil it down to two competing ideas:

  1. In general, having more viable deck choices in Vintage is a good thing.

  2. In general, being able to play games of Magic where both players get to play spells and make meaningful in-game decisions is a good thing.

One involves a greater number of choices in the deck building process, while the other concerns itself with a greater number of choices during the actual game. However, unrestricting these cards that incentivize turn 1 kills are bad for both points. I think we are in agreement that it affects (2) in the sense that the game is over quicker and therefore there are less decisions. It also affects (1) in the ways I just highlighted above. Forcing a player into playing Force of Will, Mental Misstep, and Mindbreak Trap to interact is not a good for deck building. In the same way that forcing a player to play Ingot Chewer, Ancient Tombs, and Spirit Guides to interact with the dominant Workshop decks was not good.

On a separate note, I pointed you to the articles on general magic because they highlight that this is a problem throughout magic. Not just in Vintage. The problem is just exacerbated by a format where turn 1 is more crucial than in other formats. The article on the Mothership discusses the disadvantages of being on the draw for turn 4/5. A point in time which the difference that they boil down to 10 vs 12 mana. In Vintage though we are talking about a difference that is more like one player actually playing cards, while the other player is just sitting there. More than any other format, we should be wary of cards that are pushing us towards these games where one player literally does not get to play a single card from their hand.

last edited by vaughnbros

@vaughnbros said in Cards to unrestrict:

You boil it down to two competing ideas:

  1. In general, having more viable deck choices in Vintage is a good thing.

  2. In general, being able to play games of Magic where both players get to play spells and make meaningful in-game decisions is a good thing.

Point of clarification: these aren't competing ideas. These are two general principles that most people think are ideals or aspirations for any healthy format.

My point is that there are instances in which these principles may come into tension. Not always, not often, but occasionally. Thus, they aren't competing, but they may be in tension from time to time. A choice to unrestrict Flash, for example, illustrate the tension.

You can introduce a new deck option into the format (serving principle 1), but potentially reduced the % of games defined by meaningful choice (principle 2).

This is simply a simplified explication of a longer article I wrote a long time ago on "Fun" in Magic, which I defined as "meaningful choice." Players want meaningful choices in deck selection, in-game decision-making, sideboarding, and so on. There are times, however, when each of these sub principles come into conflict. This is why, in my first post in this thread, I said:

This is a complicated issue because it's really three separate issues that become quickly conflated:

  1. There is the normative issue of what the speed of the format should, as a general matter. This used to be a common debate in Vintage, but hasn't been in recent years because, during the Gush era, Vintage has been so slow.
  1. There is the descriptive issue, of how fast this vintage format is relative to other iterations of the format. On this point, I don't think there is any doubt or question that this format is generally slower, on average, than formats of past decades.
  1. Then, there is the balancing issue, perhaps the most complicated of all, as to whether concerns over speed should be/or are subordinate to other concerns, such as diversity.

The third point in post 6 already set out that tension, and suggested my answer to it. From a neutral perspective, it's not unreasonable to resolve the tension by examining what is more important to the format at that moment: that it be slowed down or that there are more deck playing options?

That's why I asked you, way back in post 6, "Why" you don't think the format needs any faster decks? If the format is already super slow by historical standards, which everyone seems to agree, then it has room to give in the interests of strategic diversity. I'd start by unrestricting Windfall and Bargain, and seriously consider Flash as well.

There are other merits to unrestricting Flash beyond simple strategic diversity. As I've said in other threads, combating Flash will take up further SB space, and make SB construction more difficult in this format - something I always see as a good thing. It means that blue decks will have less space for "silver bullets" for other strategies, and lower their win % margin against other strategies, or make other painful trade offs.

The article on the Mothership discusses the disadvantages of being on the draw for turn 4/5.

This kind of logic has no limit, and is also invisibly biased.

Let's say that we prefer a format in general, where both players get 15 turns per game compared to a format where both players only get 7 turns per game.

A preference for a longer game is naturally biased against combo decks and aggro decks, and towards prison decks and control decks.

More than any other format, we should be wary of cards that are pushing us towards these games where one player literally does not get to play a single card from their hand.

I could not disagree more. Vintage, more than any other format, has the tools to handle cards that enable faster decks. Other formats are where Magic players should be most wary of those kinds of strategies. Additionally, Vintage players are more tolerant of that kind of variance, because it's baked into the format, where the possibility of Turn 1 wins are actually real, as opposed to mythical, like Standard. So, the tolerance or pain threshold in Vintage is higher for that sort of thing, making us less wary than policy makers should be in managing other formats.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen said in Cards to unrestrict:

That's why I asked you, way back in post 6, "Why" you don't think the format needs any faster decks? If the format is already super slow by historical standards, which everyone seems to agree, then it has room to give in the interests of strategic diversity. I'd start by unrestricting Windfall and Bargain, and seriously consider Flash as well.

I feel the format being slower than many of the historic metagames is a good thing. That was in my first post to you.

There is no room "to give". A deck that can consistently go off on turn 1 is not good for the format as you never give the other player a chance to meaningfully interact without them having a handful of cards in all of magic.

I've just elaborated on this in my last post.

@vaughnbros said in Cards to unrestrict:

@Smmenen said in Cards to unrestrict:

That's why I asked you, way back in post 6, "Why" you don't think the format needs any faster decks? If the format is already super slow by historical standards, which everyone seems to agree, then it has room to give in the interests of strategic diversity. I'd start by unrestricting Windfall and Bargain, and seriously consider Flash as well.

I feel the format being slower than many of the historic metagames is a good thing. That was in my first post to you.

I got your answer, but I was explaining why I asked, not re-proposing the question.

There is no room "to give". A deck that can consistently go off on turn 1 is not good for the format as you never give the other player a chance to meaningfully interact without them having a handful of cards in all of magic.

Except that's a straw man. No one is proposing a deck that can "consistently" go off Turn 1. There has never even been such a thing in the format in terms of viable decks, top tier decks. The closest thing may have been some Academy deck or the 4 LED deck, and neither was actually "consistent" turn 1 wins, even as a goldfish, let alone through Forces, and other resistance.

It's an absurd straw man too. History has shown that decks designed to win on Turn 1 or as fast as possible are bad anyway.

We are talking, about, however, a deck that has a small % chance increase over existing decks of winning on Turn 1 (like from 2% to 4%). Take a TPS deck and add Windfall or Bargain, or hell, even Lotus Petal. That doesn't suddenly take TPS/DPS from a Turn 2-4 deck, or whatever, and turn it into a consistent Turn 1 deck.

There is plenty of room to give. This is a historically slow format. Slightly increasing the speed of the format by boosting a unviable deck or marginal, fringe deck that has a relatively small, but modestly higher % of Turn 1 or Turn 2 kills than decks in the current format, but giving people another deck option in an extremely constricted format, is a good thing.

If combo decks got closer to as fast as they were circa 2006-2008, where they were about 10-15% of the metagame, and roughly a Turn 2.5 deck, I would consider that a good thing for the format. This would be healthier format in terms of strategic diversity.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen

Lets first ask this: Does turn 1 Necro count as a "turn 1" kill? Because I feel like you are going to be counting semantics in terms of the actual game end too.

Windfall is pretty clearly a turn 1 card. I'm not sure there is anything to be gained if you are going to be stumping for cards that are clearly turn 1 cards, while simultaneously trying to tell me that you don't want a turn 1 format.

@vaughnbros said in Cards to unrestrict:

@Smmenen
Windfall is pretty clearly a turn 1 card. I'm not sure there is anything to be gained if you are going to be stumping for cards that are clearly turn 1 cards, while simultaneously trying to tell me that you don't want a turn 1 format.

Just because a card can be played on Turn 1 doesn't mean that the deck is a "consistently" Turn 1 deck, or that it turns the format into a Turn 1 format. That's a pretty absurd chain of logic.

Again, there has never been a successful deck in the entire history of the format that recorded a more than 50% Turn one kill, especially in real match play.

As I said before, there is a tremendous gulf between a slightly faster format and a Turn 1 format. I don't understand why this distinction is too subtle for you to grasp.

Even if we use your silly logic of turning Necro into a Turn 1 kill (which it often is not against Shops), the 4 Necro decks like Necro Trix didn't have consistent Turn 1 Necro.

My point: This is a slow enough format that it can afford to be sped up very slightly, closer to historical norms, in order to increase strategic diversity. No one is talking about consistent Turn 1 kills. That's a straw man.

last edited by Smmenen

No one is talking about consistent Turn 1 kills. That's a straw man.

Consistently does not mean above 50%. Not once did I say that, nor is it even a reasonable assumption to make given the whole context of the situation.

Why are you pining for cards that are clearly designed to increase your turn 1 kill and do nearly nothing else if you goal is not to have more turn 1 kills? Why not just come out and admit that's what you want?

@vaughnbros said in Cards to unrestrict:

No one is talking about consistent Turn 1 kills. That's a straw man.

Consistently does not mean above 50%. Not once did I say that, nor is it even a reasonable assumption to make given the whole context of the situation.

LOL, Ok. Then please give a % for "consistently." What % of the time, in YOUR mind, is "consistent."?

If I say: "I consistently floss when I brush my teeth," what % of the time does that imply? It suggests most of the time.

I'd peg consistently at well over 50%, and probably over 60%. But fine, let's assume "consistently" means some % less than 50.1% of the time. Please tell me what that number, for you, is.

Why are you pining for cards that are clearly designed to increase your turn 1 kill and do nearly nothing else if you goal is not to have more turn 1 kills? Why not just come out and admit that's what you want?

Wow, it's like you really aren't reading/comprehending what I've been saying since post 6. That "nearly nothing else" is introducing two or more viable decks into the metagame."

As I've said for literally the 10th time in this thread, slightly increasing the % of Turn 1 or Turn 2 kills is a byproduct, not a goal. The goal is to increase the diversity of the format.

If you take an antibiotic, the goal is to wipe out an infection, but the byproduct might be some stomach sickness, not to mention killing your intestinal biome. The goal isn't to give you a stomach ache or indigestion or kill your natural biome. The goal is to kill the infection.

I'm not pining for cards that give us more Turn 1 kills. I'm looking at the format and trying to find a solution to the current mess that does not involve more restrictions. The only alternative I see is some unrestrictions to try to increase strategic diversity. A byproduct of that might be a slight increase in Turn 1 kills.

Again: This is a slow enough format that it can afford to be sped up very slightly, closer to historical norms, in order to increase strategic diversity.

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen

Your inability to ever use context ceases to amaze me. Its like everything has to be written out like a formal legal document.

Consistently as in MORE consistent. We are talking about unrestricting a singular card, no? One component of a large structure.

A biproduct of adding a deck that kills on turn 1 is that there are more turn 1 kills. Yeah, I got it. Thats not necessarily adding strategic diversity.

Anything added comes at the cost of something else. What decks do you suppose a Storm deck cuts into? What decks does it make better? How is this altering the current distribution? Or is it simply changing the cards in each decklist?

@vaughnbros said in Cards to unrestrict:

@Smmenen

Your inability to ever use context ceases to amaze me. Its like everything has to be written out like a formal legal document.

And your failure to grasp simple ideas (such as the distinction between a goal and byproduct, or the difference between competition and tension, to take but two examples) results circular argumentation and repetition of ideas.

I would actually very much appreciate it if you treated communication here like a formal, professional document. That would improve your writing and enhance communication.

Consistently as in MORE consistent. We are talking about unrestricting a singular card, no? One component of a large structure.

Please. You said:

"A deck that can consistently go off on turn 1 is not good for the format."

And:

"Windfall is pretty clearly a turn 1 card. I'm not sure there is anything to be gained if you are going to be stumping for cards that are clearly turn 1 cards, while simultaneously trying to tell me that you don't want a turn 1 format."

No one reading your words would interpret you to mean, say, a 5% Turn 1 kill rate, which would be an increase from current levels for those decks and the format as a whole.

If you don't want to be misunderstood, please use more care in presenting your ideas. That's why, to avoid exactly what's happened anyway, I've sought clarity first. Your consistently sloppy and lackadaisical presentation makes it very difficult to understand your ideas, even when they make sense.

A biproduct of adding a deck that kills on turn 1 is that there are more turn 1 kills. > Yeah, I got it. Thats not necessarily adding strategic diversity.

So, you didn't understand anything I just wrote about the difference between a bYproduct (not biproduct) and a goal, did you? Re-read my analogy to taking an antibiotic until you understand it, and maybe you wouldn't have made that statement.

If Flash and TPS/DPS become viable decks again, that increases the strategic diversity of a format that is primarily defined by Mentor/Thorn, and by PO to lesser extent, with Oath and Dredge a bit further behind.

It introduces NEW decks to the metagame that either don't currently exist OR are extremely marginal right now. I don't get how you don't see this.

Anything added comes at the cost of something else. What decks do you suppose a Storm deck cuts into?

That's actually a reasonable question, and a good one.

We don't have the NYSE breakdown yet, but let's take the breakdown from the last Vintage challenge:

30% Shops
24% Mentor
11% PO
9% Oath
7-8% Dredge
6% Big Blue
And the rest is under 5%

A goal, in my view, is to get more decks above 5% of the metagame, and into Top 8s. That gives people more viable deck options. I think unrestricting Flash could definitely do that, and unrestricting Bargain and/or Windfall have the potential to do that as well.

If both Flash and TPS were viable again, we would have a much more diverse metagame, and that's the kind of metagame we should be working towards.

My guess is that Pyroblast decks that can sideboard Leyline would have the best Flash matchup, and Workshops would have among the weakest. So, I'd guess that unrestricted Flash would probably reduce the % of Shops in the metagame a bit over time.

On the other hand, unrestricted Windfall, even if it made TPS viable, would not likely make it good enough to be what TPS used to be, but it could make it more than 5%. My guess is that it would be strongest against Control decks, so it might take a few points out of the various control decks, and a little bit (1-3% points) out of Oath and Dredge in the long run.

So, my best guess is that, if you could unrestrict enough cards to engineer TPS/DPS and Flash to above 5% of the metagame, you could do it in a manner that would not take any existing deck already above 5% below it. Instead, you'd likely shave a few %ages off of the decks already above it, and a bit from the smattering of decks below it.

But, if an unrestriction has no effect on the metagame, then that card doesn't deserve to be restricted anyway.

Or is it simply changing the cards in each decklist?

This is a good example of how your posts could benefit from a bit more care. What the heck does this mean?

last edited by Smmenen

@Smmenen

I would very much appreciate if you could show some respect for other posters. I am done here. This is absurd the number of insults you've heaved in what Ive tried to keep civil.

@Smmenen

You have without a doubt the worst reading comprehension of any adult Ive ever encountered. Your consistent ability to miss a persons point while focusing on some minute detail of their post is baffling. Your constant desire to always be "right" in what others are viewing as a casual discussion blinds you to what is really happening. This thread us now 20+ posts deep of you just arguing some semantical bs with me while belittling everything I say.

You seem to get in these arguements every time there is a theorectical discussion happening. You are a complete and total cancer to this format and this board.

Is that clear enough for you?

  • 150
    Posts
  • 71078
    Views