PDA

View Full Version : [Article] Flash - by Anusien



frogboy
05-10-2007, 01:31 AM
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14145.html

This thread is not allowed to degenerate into a flamefest.

barron
05-10-2007, 03:25 AM
I am curious as to what math you used to arrive at those statistics. Showing your match could be a bit much, but, like, did you actually use that statistical equations with factorials? (for example)

TheInfamousBearAssassin
05-10-2007, 04:01 AM
The first response defends the DCI by basically pointing out that there is nothing they can or should do to respond. The DCI and the Rules Team are distinct teams in responsibilities if not people. The Rules Team should be ignoring power level in fixing cards to the way they should work according to the rules; this is the point of removing power-level errata. The DCI can only do two things when it comes to disruptive cards: ban or restrict it when the B/R cycle is upon us, and emergency ban or restrict it. I've already argued that they are unlikely to emergency ban it, so there is literally nothing they can do. Anti-Wizards folks like to say that un-errata'ing Flash was a horrible move at this time because it is so powerful, but the analysis already presented is that basically they should un-errata the card as soon as possible because it should always have worked that way. After all if they take how powerful the card is into consideration when deciding whether to remove power-level errata, that kind of defeats the purpose.

This argument is an appeal to protocol; they can't do other than what they did, because that's how they do things. But you simply assume that the way they do things is correct, without looking at "why".

Why do they not issue an emergency banning? Because it would be an unforeseen setback to those who had been playtesting one format and would find another. This doesn't apply to an un-errata that fundamentally changes the nature of the card. Banning the card a few days after it, for all intents and purposes, sprung into existence would have invalidated little to no testing, and certainly far less than what is equivalent to creating a new card out of nowhere, more powerful than half the banned list, and making it immediately legal.


A lot of people want Flash to be banned because it is simply that good. And yes, Flash is at a higher power level than several cards already on the banned list seem to be. This is making me reconsider my views on those cards; I do feel that leaving something unbanned requires less burden of proof or less fairness than to unban something. I do feel that it is a fine decision to leave questionable cards on the Banned list, simply because I do not think we have explored the entirety of the format. Maybe in another year when the format has actually progressed again; but calling for unbannings seems to say that we have given up on deck building.

This argument is nonsensical on multiple fronts. A card that can't be played can't "prove" it's bustedness; Regrowth was on the banned list for so long that everyone thought it was busted, but who besides me has even played even a singleton of the card in the two-and-a-half years it's been Legacy legal?


When I raised these arguments before, the criticism came back that the only decks that are performing well are combo decks, Flash decks, and blue and black disruptive decks; supposedly that is not healthy for the format. But honestly with storm cards and things like Dark Ritual, Diminishing Returns, Infernal Tutor, Ill-Gotten Gains and Goblin Charbelcher legal, did people honestly think that Elves! was going to be a defendable metagame choice?

Dismissing any deck not running heavy Blue or killing on the first turn as being equivalent to running elves is an absurd and mildly offensive argument.

Machinus
05-10-2007, 04:17 AM
This issue is complicated, and I think the important points deserve a more sophisticated treatment than they are given here. The arguments are legalistic and circular, and that is insufficient to get the attention of the format's management. If the purpose is to proselytize Legacy players themselves, then it may work just fine.

I am glad to see some more public discussion of tech, though.

Hanni
05-10-2007, 06:47 AM
This was actually one of the few articles of Anusien's that I really liked. I think he hit the nail on the head with alot of his points. I disagreed with a few things but that is to be expected with any article someone writes.

SpatulaOfTheAges
05-10-2007, 09:04 AM
I'm not sure, sometimes, why we actually care about these articles; it's basically a platform to present poor arguments that only makes it more difficult for other people to point out your logical inconsistencies.


think the trend you see is that the decks that cannot compete fall by the wayside, but all of the decks that you would expect to be good (the multi-colored disruption beatdown decks) continue to do well.

Is there any good reason that a 2 deck format is desirable?

Also, by saying anything that isn't Aggro-control or combo is the same as playing Elves, you have to consider why in your previous article you encouraged me to play Goblins, which I now know are nothing more than Elves in green leoatards. Are you trying to mislead me, sir?

blacklotus3636
05-10-2007, 09:37 AM
When they banned skullclamp from standard they did it because its power level was so high that it forced you to play with it or against it which is as wizards calls it `warping the metagame`. So the question is if its warping the metagame. Its hard to really tell since its only been legal for a few weeks and all we have is GPT results but from the testing people have done with flash and the little data we have its obvious that flash is dominating everything that doesn`t play either blue or black. Also, just from a standpoint of power level I can`t think of any other deck in my 5 years of playing magic even in vintage that could kill reliably on turns 1-2 and possibly 0 at instant speed for 2 mana with cheap tutors. I don`t think its a question anymore of if it will be banned the only question is when.

Edit: `This deck doesnt have any blue or black mana in it. This deck sucks!` (I`m not sure if anyone has said this or not but I thought it was a funny thing to say about the current flash environment)

Phantom
05-10-2007, 10:32 AM
Defending the DCI and rules team by hiding behind policy and job description is ludicrous. It is their job to give us a good format and to keep us happy. They fucked up our format, wasted our time and money, and made us angry. Thus, they did a poor fucking job.

C.P.
05-10-2007, 10:36 AM
I agree on the first part of the article about how we should react to wizards, although I'd like to see some more reaction other than random Q&A.

However, how can you call the format healthy when you cannot play anything that does not have Counter or Discard? This is Legacy, and I'd like to play five colors instead of two.

Using the example from T2 is absurd, since Legacy does not get enough large tournaments to show DCI the metagame shift, unlike type 2. If Dragonstorm was problematic, DCI could deal with it, thanks to vast amount of informations from large tournaments. How about legacy? We barely get any attention, and 3-4 tournaments are all the information they've got. If they let flash be, and sit there until it ruins every deck that does not run blue or black, degenerating the format into cheaper vintage, it will be too late. To make things worse, Flash is not going to rotate out anytime soon.

EDIT: Stating your mere opinion as 'fact' is not very nice to see, either. Who are you? god of Legacy?

Anusien
05-10-2007, 10:46 AM
I am curious as to what math you used to arrive at those statistics. Showing your match could be a bit much, but, like, did you actually use that statistical equations with factorials? (for example)
In short, it's an extension of the Force of Will math. We (me plus the guys of #scg) worked out the hands that do not win on turn 0, and then found the probability of any of those. That is:
0 Flash or 0 Caverns or 0Hulk(0Pact) or 0ESG0SSG(0Pact)

P(A or B or C or D) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C) + P(D) - P(AB) - P(AC) - P(AD) - P(BC) - P(BD) - P(CD) + P(ABC) + P(ABD) + P(ACD) + P(BCD) - P(ABCD)

Then final P(Turn 0) = 1-P(0 Flash or 0 Caverns or 0Hulk or 0SpiritGuide)


Anyway, in short, the reason why I defend this metagame is because I think it was inevitable. Even excluding Flash, the power level of the combo decks, or even things like Tog (if they can manage to dodge Goblins) and similar decks is just so high relative to the rest of the field that I think it's inevitable. If you look at the GPT Top 8 results, you see roughly the same Threshold counts, Belcher has surpassed Solidarity, and you see an approximate amount of the same Tier 2 aggro-disruption decks (even though they've become more sophisticated; BW/BR instead of Sui, Fish instead of other things). You just see less Goblins, and less Tier 3 crap. But my central point is which of the decks that can't compete in Flash.meta could compete in TES+Belcher+Iggy.meta? My contention is very few or none. If the blue and black decks are the only ones that can interact with the combo decks, then there is a reason they are the only ones playable. It's not like there's a Green Hymn to Tourach.


This argument is an appeal to protocol; they can't do other than what they did, because that's how they do things. But you simply assume that the way they do things is correct, without looking at "why".
I don't assume what they did was correct, I simply tell it how it is to explain why it WILL be legal. That's all I was trying to do there is explain the protocol. I do believe they did the right thing, simply because delaying removing power-level errata for power-level concerns seems silly to me, but that is just my opinion.


Also, by saying anything that isn't Aggro-control or combo is the same as playing Elves, you have to consider why in your previous article you encouraged me to play Goblins, which I now know are nothing more than Elves in green leoatards. Are you trying to mislead me, sir?
At the time, there were two factors going on: 1) Goblins was the absolute best deck and everyone knew it. It had the best chance against the field. 2) TES and Iggy were hardly represented at tournaments. You might run into them once, but you could afford to lose to them once and still make Top 8. They were pushed out of the meta by Tide (both because Tide >>> Iggy, and because the combo players tended to like the blue deck), and Goblins had a much better Tide matchup than Iggy. Flash is a bit more prevalent than TES. I think it's fair to say Flash is the consensus best deck. My logic was only ever to play the best deck or be able to beat the best deck.
And considering people have been advocating Goblins with maindeck Chalice (which would have been an amazing meta call three weeks ago), Rb Goblins with Therapy, or even Goblins with FoW and Daze, I hardly consider it misleading anyone, especially since Goblins is itself a combo deck.

SpatulaOfTheAges
05-10-2007, 01:02 PM
Anyway, in short, the reason why I defend this metagame is because I think it was inevitable. Even excluding Flash, the power level of the combo decks, or even things like Tog (if they can manage to dodge Goblins) and similar decks is just so high relative to the rest of the field that I think it's inevitable. If you look at the GPT Top 8 results, you see roughly the same Threshold counts, Belcher has surpassed Solidarity, and you see an approximate amount of the same Tier 2 aggro-disruption decks (even though they've become more sophisticated; BW/BR instead of Sui, Fish instead of other things). You just see less Goblins, and less Tier 3 crap. But my central point is which of the decks that can't compete in Flash.meta could compete in TES+Belcher+Iggy.meta?

Any deck can run 4x CotV, or Null Rod.

I think you're failing to understand the larger meta-game picture.

None of the previous combo decks were as effective against traditional aggro-control as Hulk is. There were reasons not to run TES; if you ran into aggro-control multiple times, you could be in trouble. With a good build of Hulk, that's not really as much of a concern.

Because there's no reason NOT to run Hulk, that means that everyone WILL play against Hulk, multiple times.

That means that you can't play a deck like, oh, GOBLINS, and bite your combo losses, while shoring up your other matches. You also can't fit in 4x CotV and up your combo match-up by a signifigant portion.

It also means, directly, there's also very little reason to play aggro-control(short of not being able to find Flashes). Whatever aggro-control plan you have, you can probably fit in the Hulk-Flash kill and make it better.

In short, this isn't at all where the meta-game was headed.


I hardly consider it misleading anyone, especially since Goblins is itself a combo deck.

I consider it a contradiction to say that one week Goblins is the best deck, and two weeks later say that it being completely pushed out of the meta-game was inevitable, because it was in reality on par with Elves in power level.

Bardo
05-10-2007, 01:23 PM
Holy shit, Kevin.

Personally, I think this is the best article you've ever written. I liked the style, it had a fine structure and I think I agree with you on every point.

That you prefaced the last section with "this is just my opinion, fwiw," strengthens the article. Re: Flash's effect on the format, I'm definitely in a "let's just wait and see" position. And we won't have to wait very long at all; another week and a half should do it.

Again, kudos on an excellent article.

Also, did you realize that the Lincoln quote that starts the article was my sig at TMD for like six months? What a weird way to get a shout-out. ;)

barron
05-10-2007, 01:30 PM
Depending on how you are actually finding the "P" I think I can see how our math is differing, especially if you are just finding the math for the hands that have the wins minus the extra cards. The only reason why I haven't calculated it in it's entirety yet is because I am pretty busy atm and the math is a bit intimidating. The math is really a series of hypergeometric distributions and not just addition and subtraction of the individual probablities. How did you find the individual probablities?

Mad Zur
05-10-2007, 01:41 PM
I do not think "Flash is not broken because Belcher was broken anyway" is a sound argument.

Finn
05-10-2007, 01:58 PM
When I raised these arguments before, the criticism came back that the only decks that are performing well are combo decks, Flash decks, and blue and black disruptive decks; supposedly that is not healthy for the format. But honestly with storm cards and things like Dark Ritual, Diminishing Returns, Infernal Tutor, Ill-Gotten Gains and Goblin Charbelcher legal, did people honestly think that Elves! was going to be a defendable metagame choice? Come on, here. An environment that dictates the very colors you play out of necessity is not healthy - It's fucking Vintage.


The singular form of "errata" is "erratum"
You are killing me, dude. Don't mention grammatical errors if you are about to make them. You have to say "an erratum" if you insist on making it singular. Or you could just go on using "errata" like everyone else.

Alright, so they removed a power-level erratum from Flash.

Older cards with a power-level erratum are being fixed when they...

Flash was already receiving an erratum, and the rules team...

Despite my complaints - I think you are dead wrong about what constitutes unhealthy for example - you made me think hard about what I "knew". gj

Tacosnape
05-10-2007, 02:01 PM
I do not think "Flash is not broken because Belcher was broken anyway" is a sound argument.

Agreed.

SpatulaOfTheAges
05-10-2007, 02:04 PM
I find it insulting that you think I would sacrifice my integrity or the community for the sake of a tournament.


I think people are complaining merely because the decks they used to play cannot beat Flash.

I think it's also a contradiction to become huffy when you think people accuse you of ulterior motives, then accuse a huge segment of the playing population of the same.

Volt
05-10-2007, 02:13 PM
I do not think "Flash is not broken because Belcher was broken anyway" is a sound argument.

I totally agree. Any deck can run Pithing Needle to stop Belcher. Goblin tokens can be dealt with in a variety of ways that are accessible around the color wheel. And if you stop Belcher's first win condition, the deck often rolls over at that point because it used up all its gas.

Well-built Hulk Flash has inevitability. It is highly redundant and resilient. It runs almost as much disruption as the decks that are designed to beat it. And there is very little that can be done about it. It cannot be compared to any of the previously existing archetypes. When a Legacy combo deck is being favorably compared to Vintage combo decks, you know you have a problem.

But enough of that. I will compliment Kevin for his clear, concise writing style, and thank him for once again contributing to the Legacy following.

TheAardvark
05-10-2007, 02:18 PM
So, far, this is the only article Kevin has written that I have truly enjoyed. I am not trying to flame...there's just something about his writing style that has always bugged me. I thought this was one Perfectly Acceptable and raised a few interesting points, some of which I even agreed with, to an extent.

However, I must echo some of the others in saying that being forced to play 2 colors isn't the sign of a healthy meta in any way, shape, or form. Yes, playing Duress is a good idea, but it should not be a requirement, which is basically what you are endorsing. I find that to be a very obtuse and dangerous argument to make. It's possible that with Belcher/TES/IGGy, we were heading down that road, but not for a certainty, and to simply say "eh, play Duress and blue" seems to, in my mind, ignore the problem entirely. We are not ostriches, after all.

Bardo
05-10-2007, 02:49 PM
However, I must echo some of the others in saying that being forced to play 2 colors isn't the sign of a healthy meta in any way, shape, or form.

At face value, I certainly agree with this. And while it keeps getting mentioned, over and over, is there any real truth to this assertion? That is, Legacy has become a two-color format?

TheInfamousBearAssassin
05-10-2007, 02:57 PM
At face value, I certainly agree with this. And while it keeps getting mentioned, over and over, is there any real truth to this assertion? That is, Legacy has become a two-color format?


Of the 35 decks we know of that Top 8'd at the GPTs this weekend, over 2/3 were running Force of Will. Only four total decks didn't either

1) Have the ability to win on turn 1.
2) Play heavy Blue disruption.
3) Play heavy Black disruption.


Which were 2 Goblins and 2 Life from the Loam decks, respectively. And I believe at least one of those Goblins builds was running Therapy and Leylines.

Bardo
05-10-2007, 03:01 PM
Of the 35 decks we know of that Top 8'd at the GPTs this weekend, over 2/3 were running Force of Will. Only four total decks didn't either

1) Have the ability to win on turn 1.
2) Play heavy Blue disruption.
3) Play heavy Black disruption.


Which were 2 Goblins and 2 Life from the Loam decks, respectively. And I believe at least one of those Goblins builds was running Therapy and Leylines.

Ah, okay. I'd like to see more data when it becomes available, but this is the kind of answer I was looking for.

tivadar
05-10-2007, 03:36 PM
I enjoyed the article, and I can agree with the "wait and see" at this point. But I also agree that appealing to protocol is silly. It's WOTC's job to make money, that's it. Un-Errataing Flash with the timing they did was, in my opinion, an oversight, as it will make a lot of people unhappy, and it's causing us to lose months of preparation in many cases.

As for flash being overpowered, I think it's a combination of a few things:

Flash decks can pack up to 16 forms of control of their own (see Jack Flash), even Solidarity can't do this.

Flash requires 1 cast spell and 1 card in hand to go off. This means that a lot of hate no longer applies to them (glowrider, chant...). It also means they don't "commit" to the combo at any point like most decks.

Even controllish versions of flash tend to win around T3. The non-control ones can win T2 in most cases. This beats anything in the format. We essentially see balls to the wall combo without control winning on average T2-3, and controllish combo winning T4. A turn may not seem like much, but it's huge in this format.

Finally, Flash requires only 1-2 lands to win. This makes any land disruption impossible.

Flash wins at instant speed (even worse!).

While I won't argue that any individual reason here matters, when you combine them, I really do think Flash is ban-worthy.

tivadar
05-10-2007, 03:58 PM
I am curious as to what math you used to arrive at those statistics. Showing your match could be a bit much, but, like, did you actually use that statistical equations with factorials? (for example)

So yeah, Discrete Math is good:

((4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (8 choose 1) * (56 choose 3)) / (60 choose 7) = 0.0367487978

That assumes 4 gemstones, 4 hulks, 4 flashes, and 8 ssg/esg. That is also pre-mulligan. Post-mulligan it becomes:

card7 = ((4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (8 choose 1) * (56 choose 3)) / (60 choose 7) = 0.0367487978
card6 = ((1 - 0.0367487978) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (8 choose 1) * (56 choose 2)) / (60 choose 6) = 0.0151707101
card5 = ((1 - 0.0367487978 - 0.0151707101) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (8 choose 1) * (56 choose 1)) / (60 choose 5) = 0.00497725975
total = card7 + card6 + card5 = 0.0568967676

This ignores the chance of drawing double gemstones, which would allow you to brainstorm into more possible combo pieces. I'm assuming this % is small enough where it won't matter however, as having double gemstones + bs + most of your combo pieces is rare... Also, you can change the number of SSG/ESG you have in an obvious way to fix this math if you'd like.

I'll work on doing post FS build, this shouldn't be very much harder...

Tacosnape
05-10-2007, 03:59 PM
It's also worth pointing out that just because a card can be stopped doesn't mean it's not too strong for balanced gameplay. This is an argument that everyone who has tried to defend Flash has made and it's not a correct one.

For example, let's make up a card called "Disco Inferno."

Disco Inferno
R
Sorcery
You can't play spells or abilities while Disco Inferno is on the stack.
You win the game.

This card's not broken in the slightest, right? In fact, it's perfectly fair. I doubt it would even be a rare if not for that ridiculous WOTC principle to make all game-ending cards rare.

I mean, on the play, you can Duress or Therapy it out, Tomb/Chalice for 1, Drop a Mox and Meddling Mage for Disco Inferno, or pass the turn and be ready with the Hydroblasts and Blue Elemental Blasts that you maindeck. Everyone should maindeck them, in fact. Good deck design mandates you run the Blasts maindeck in a Disco Inferno metagame. You should never ever ever lose to this card on the play. If you did, it was the fault of your deck design and bad mulliganing on your part.

On the draw, it's still not that bad. They can go Mountain, Disco Inferno. So what? If you didn't suck at Legacy, you'd be running Force of Will and Foil, as well as Gemstone Caverns to power out Angel's Grace or the Blast. And they can't even counter back! No sweat! In fact, if you can't handle Mountain / Disco Inferno, you have no business playing in a competitive Legacy format. Learn to Mulligan for those Forces and Gemstone Caverns.

What, you may ask, do you do if they have something like Swamp/Duress or Plains/Chant, followed by Petal/Inferno? Well, that's a four card combination, and the odds of them having anything that are slim. You've just got to take your occasional beating and learn to construct your decks better, mulligan correctly, and maximize your chances for victory.

Furthermore, no tournament results exist for Saturday Night Fever, which is the main build of Disco Inferno combo. Therefore it hasn't proven itself in any real competition. And since most of you haven't even tested the card yet, you can't make any real claims about its power level, as we've all been reminded oh so many times throughout every thread on this site. And it can't even win any faster than Belcher without Gemstone Caverns/Quicken/Simian Spirit Guide/Disco Inferno, which is a rare four-card combo and still vulnerable to Force of Will and Foil!

What Jank! When you lose to Disco Inferno, it's your own fault for losing to the deck by not adequately preparing your deck with Force, Foil, BEB, Hydroblast, Duress, and Therapy, and learning to mulligan accordingly. And you'll be shamed by society to such a degree that you'll never be able to show your face in the local skating rink again.

Volt
05-10-2007, 04:09 PM
Thank you, Tacosnape, for articulating what I've been thinking. To put it even more succinctly, I don't need to eat poo to know it don't taste good.

Btw, somebody needs to get cracking on making that "Disco Inferno" card! Let's see it!

Tacosnape
05-10-2007, 04:18 PM
I don't need to eat poo to know it don't taste good.

Of course you do. In fact, you have to conduct extensive culinary research with this, swishing it around your palette, making sure you sample enough different kinds to support your stance, and you better make sure you've eaten it in just about every situation you can imagine before you try to make any claims.:cool:

TeenieBopper
05-10-2007, 04:29 PM
Mmmm. I love the taste of "Savage Pwnage by Satire" Pie.

TheInfamousBearAssassin
05-10-2007, 04:37 PM
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9615/discoinfernowk7.jpg


Seriously, though, I don't know what you guys are complaining about. They even snuck a sneaky hoser to the card into the same set:


http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5475/stayinalivepu7.jpg


Just fit four into your sideboard and quit whining. God, it even cycles against other decks.



Edit:


Unfortunately, since Wizards is a bunch of sneaky bastards, they removed the power level Errata from "Stayin' Alive" that changed "Opponet" into "Opponent," so now it's dead other than the 7 mana hardcast cantrip part.

Hey...


Shut up.

Tacosnape
05-10-2007, 04:45 PM
Unfortunately, since Wizards is a bunch of sneaky bastards, they removed the power level Errata from "Stayin' Alive" that changed "Opponet" into "Opponent," so now it's dead other than the 7 mana hardcast cantrip part.

EDIT: Damn you, IBA, now I can't quit singing "Visquo Returno." It's going to be stuck in my head all night now. :)

clight
05-10-2007, 04:47 PM
I, for one, want to print out those cards and start doing some serious deck building...

Volt
05-10-2007, 04:51 PM
LMFAO. IBA wins another thread.

Awesomator
05-10-2007, 04:53 PM
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9615/discoinfernowk7.jpg


Seriously, though, I don't know what you guys are complaining about. They even snuck a sneaky hoser to the card into the same set:


http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/3962/alivenv5.jpg


Just fit four into your sideboard and quit whining. God, it even cycles against other decks.

LOL funniest cards.. period.

Phantom
05-10-2007, 05:05 PM
Guys, guys. These cards aren't legal in Legacy. They are RED AND WHITE. And the good one's a sorcery. They banned that nonsense weeks ago.

Peter_Rotten
05-10-2007, 05:34 PM
Nothing like Unicorn Cards to ruin a perfectly good thread. I must regretfully point our attention away from hilarity and back at the topic at hand. Let's try to move on.

/scans back up at cards

Yup, they're still fucking funny. But let's try to focus.

Anusien
05-10-2007, 06:01 PM
Depending on how you are actually finding the "P" I think I can see how our math is differing, especially if you are just finding the math for the hands that have the wins minus the extra cards. The only reason why I haven't calculated it in it's entirety yet is because I am pretty busy atm and the math is a bit intimidating. The math is really a series of hypergeometric distributions and not just addition and subtraction of the individual probablities. How did you find the individual probablities?
Please read the rest of the thread before you critique my math or ask for an explanation. I already explained it on this thread: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=130720&postcount=10. More descriptively, since I'm finding the hands that DON'T win on turn 0, there are four ways to do that: 0 Flash, 0 Caverns, 0Hulk0Pact, 0SpiritGuide0Pact. P = (Deck Size - Cards to Avoid choose Hand Size)/(Deck Size choose Hand Size). The number of cards to avoid is what is in Column B in the spreadsheet. The trick is to make sure Pact count doesn't overlap for CD, ACD, BCD, and ABCD.


So yeah, Discrete Math is good:

((4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (8 choose 1) * (56 choose 3)) / (60 choose 7) = 0.0367487978

That's not quite right; that was the initial approach I tried. According to that method, the Probability of turn 1 FoW = (4 choose 1)(59 choose 6)/(60 choose 7)=37%. We know that's wrong, so let's look at why:
Problem #1) The total pool of cards you're choosing from is more than 60. This is wrong
Problem #2) You're only finding the probability of one of each, not multiples. You have two options:
A) Find P(1), then increase (this is untenable), or
B) Find P(0 of each) then subtract. This method for FoW is 1-(4 choose 0)(56 choose 7)/(60 choose 7) = 39.9% or what we expect.


That assumes 4 gemstones, 4 hulks, 4 flashes, and 8 ssg/esg. That is also pre-mulligan. Post-mulligan it becomes:

card7 = ((4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (8 choose 1) * (56 choose 3)) / (60 choose 7) = 0.0367487978
card6 = ((1 - 0.0367487978) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (8 choose 1) * (56 choose 2)) / (60 choose 6) = 0.0151707101
card5 = ((1 - 0.0367487978 - 0.0151707101) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (4 choose 1) * (8 choose 1) * (56 choose 1)) / (60 choose 5) = 0.00497725975
total = card7 + card6 + card5 = 0.0568967676

This ignores the chance of drawing double gemstones, which would allow you to brainstorm into more possible combo pieces. I'm assuming this % is small enough where it won't matter however, as having double gemstones + bs + most of your combo pieces is rare... Also, you can change the number of SSG/ESG you have in an obvious way to fix this math if you'd like.

I'll work on doing post FS build, this shouldn't be very much harder...
Gemstone Cavern is Legendary, so drawing multiples is actually pretty bad. For reference, to get the mulligan percentages I checked the same statistics by decreasing the hand size in my table, then found the hypergeometric probabiltiy. As in:
P(Mull to 5) = P(7)+P(!7)*P(6)+P(!7)P(!6)*P(5)

Anyway, the spreadsheet I included in my article does all this math for you. I spent a lot of time on it, so I'm relatively sure it's correct (had Seer, Niton, Draconis and Pokerface from #scg and David Kleppinger from #TheManaDrain checking my math and logic).


More topically, I don't really construe my argument as "Belcher is broken so Flash isn't". I don't consider Belcher, TES, or IGGy broken in the sense of being ban-worthy. My argument is that we can't really point to a card and say, "This card is broken in the abstract" or "This card is ban-worthy in the abstract" (Desire much?). We use barometers or indicators of how good or bad or broken or ban-worthy it is. The indicator most people are using to determine that Flash is OMGWTFBBQ is that the pool of deck choices is radically shrinking. My counter-argument was to draw upon tournament results and demonstrate that the deck choices people were complaining about weren't actually good to begin with.

Let's look at the Top 8s from the last Duel for Duals:
4x Vial Goblins: pushed out of the metagame by Flash.
Mantle Affinity: can possibly compensate by going to FoW or Chalice or Cabal Therapy as has been already suggested
Iggy: Can compete
Gro: Can compete
43 Land: Pushed out of the metagame by Flash
RGBSA: Can't compete
2x Threshold: Can compete
Solidarity: May or may not be able to compete
BBS: Can't compete (but pushed out of the metagame by GOBLINS)
BW Confidant: Can compete
Landstill: Can compete

Let's assume this is the entire pool of decks that were worth playing at the time for simplicity's sake (and it's not a bad list, with a few oddballs). BBS and 43Land can't compete with existing metagame elements (Goblins, combo). I mean, the 43Land guy got lucky and beat Parallax playing Tide to begin with. Mantle Affinity was already going through an upheaval to be able to beat combo. And Goblins may or may not be able to compete with the new combo decks, but it was already having problems with TES and Belcher.

My points is that while Flash may be very very good, the decks that it is theoretically pushing out of the metagame were already on their out. If those people that played Flash all played IGGy or TES or Belcher, would the Top 8 results have been any different? I maintain Flash being so prevalent makes it as much a metagame factor as being difficult to beat.

Machinus
05-10-2007, 06:11 PM
Flash is broken, bad for the format, and is going to get banned June 1st. It will be impossible to make any sense out of your position after this happens.

Mad Zur
05-10-2007, 06:31 PM
Notice that all the decks you say can compete are based in either blue or black. Also, you say that Iggy and Solidarity can compete but they are both almost strictly worse than Flash.

You say that this state of affairs was inevitable based on Belcher and possibly TES. You may be correct. However, the logical conclusion is not that Flash is not bad for the format, but that Belcher and possibly TES are. Whether or not the metagame was already heading in this direction is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is good for the format.

Furthermore, you oversimplify the situation greatly. When we say Threshold can compete in a Belcher metagame, we mean it is extremely good against Belcher and has respectable matchups elsewhere. When we say Threshold can compete in a Flash metagame, we mean that it may be able to post slightly favorable results against Flash after serious alterations that prevent it from competing against any other deck. Flash, being much better than Belcher, is also far more popular, and therefore playing a deck that loses to Flash is almost surely incorrect while playing a deck that loses to Belcher may be the right choice. Goblins is quite able to compete despite Belcher because blue decks will beat Belcher out and Goblins can get wins against the rest of the field. Goblins is much worse in a Flash environment, however, because the blue decks may still lose and the pool of decks Goblins can beat is much smaller. Goblins can even beat Belcher on occasion by sideboarding hate, but this is much less likely with Flash. So even if the format was moving in the same direction, it is unlikely that the effects would have been as drastic.

To summarize, your premise is arguable but even if accepted it has no relevance to the health of the format.

tivadar
05-10-2007, 08:57 PM
PThat's not quite right; that was the initial approach I tried. According to that method, the Probability of turn 1 FoW = (4 choose 1)(59 choose 6)/(60 choose 7)=37%. We know that's wrong, so let's look at why:
Problem #1) The total pool of cards you're choosing from is more than 60. This is wrong
Problem #2) You're only finding the probability of one of each, not multiples. You have two options:
A) Find P(1), then increase (this is untenable), or
B) Find P(0 of each) then subtract. This method for FoW is 1-(4 choose 0)(56 choose 7)/(60 choose 7) = 39.9% or what we expect.


Sorry, you're completely correct here. Though i loved combinatorics, it's been a good 8 years since I've done it, so I'm a bit rusty. I may yet try to do this just to verify that I still CAN do it, but I'll trust your math. Besides, I don't think it's turn 0 wins that makes flash broken.

Just wanted to acknowledge my mistake

Weekend Daddy
05-10-2007, 08:57 PM
I think my biggest fear is that the metagame is starting to look like Yugioh. Where whoever gets the better starting hand wins. And this is on top of letting ridiculous cards seep through the cracks and then realizing 'oh wait, maybe that card isn't healthy for the format after all'.
I don't play anymore, but UDE has banned and unbanned Graceful Charity enough to lose a LOT of face.

If Flash, Belcher and TES are the wave of the future. They might as well change the rules and have everyone make 40 card decks and all creatures haste just to make the environment look more appro-po.

In conclusion, some serious work needs to be done, come June 1. starting with Flash. I'm a little bit wary on what to do with Belcher, even though it takes 1 more card than Flash to make the combo go off turn 1.

Anarky87
05-10-2007, 09:08 PM
I'm a little bit wary on what to do with Belcher, even though it takes 1 more card than Flash to make the combo go off turn 1.

I don't mind Belcher as much as I do Flash. You can still have a chance with Belcher and they don't pack 12 control and disruption pieces. I can live with the occassional turn 1 "Oops, GG sauce all over your face there...Let me grab you a towel."

Tacosnape
05-10-2007, 11:02 PM
I think Mad Zur pretty much summarized everything rather nicely.

Also, absurdity with the cards aside, the point Disco Inferno was designed to make is still valid. You can stop broken cards. But that doesn't mean they're not still too broken for the format. This is the difference to me between Flash and Belcher. Belcher is right on the edge between really good and actually being overpowered. Flash has jumped over that edge and swum halfway across the English Channel of Utter Brokenness.

And I'm very tempted to show up at the GP with four Disco Infernos in my deck just to make a point. Hey IBA, will you sign them for me?

TheInfamousBearAssassin
05-10-2007, 11:09 PM
Always happy to serve my public.

URABAHN
05-11-2007, 05:58 AM
I've been very critical of the Thursday SCG Articles lately, but I gotta hand it to Kevin, this one was exactly the kind of shit I want to see more of. Instead of suggesting some kooky homebrew, Kevin goes right for the freakin' jugular and takes a hard look at Hulk Flash. In Michael Crichton-esque fashion, Kevin gets all technical and dispels the rumor of the Turn 0 win. I don't know how it compares to Nick Easel's article, but I enjoyed it.

Anusien
05-11-2007, 12:03 PM
My only regret with this article was that I had a fair amount I wanted to say about Grand Prix preparation and proper operations and logistics, but writing about Flash was simply more important than all of that.

Also, Flash being unrestricted pushed out a tremendously awesome article I had planned where I'd interview a bunch of normal pros and ask them about Legacy. After Future Sight, it was obvious they'd all just say "Derf Flash" so I scrapped it. Maybe later.

Nihil Credo
05-11-2007, 08:28 PM
If for any reason (which I pray to the Seven Lost Gods does not involve Legacy permanently turning into a Flash-based format) you don't put those pro interviews into an article, will you mind posting them in the Community Board?
I think there are quite a few people who would be interested in them. I have often wondered if older pros or semi-pros - guys like Flores or Sullivan - could get some serious interest in Legacy, due to the chance of playing with updates of basically every old archetype that ever existed.