[Article]Eternal Europe: Fair // Unfair

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

Some observations about the nature of the format this time:

http://www.starcitygames.com/article/27393_Fair-Unfair.html

Would you agree?

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Some observations about the nature of the format this time:

http://www.starcitygames.com/article/27393_Fair-Unfair.html

Would you agree?

I was interested what you'll write about RUG. And I wasn't disappointed!
Brilliant read.

[ESG]

Carsten, I know you love to play combo and control. Do you like the Legacy of today more than the Legacy of two years ago? Three years ago? And if so, what parts specifically do you find more satisfying? That's what I most want to know after reading this article and comparing it in my mind to some of your other pieces.

I'll give you my take. To me, the "fair" and "unfair" designations are less important than overall fun factor. I played in a Vintage tournament earlier this month and had a great time. I played Dredge and my opponents played lots of grave hate. The majority of the games proved to be extremely skill-testing and there was a lot of interaction between us. The day before that tournament, I played in a Legacy event and had a miserable time. This was surprising and disheartening to me, because Legacy has always been really fun for me, with the Mental Misstep era being the only period of diminished enjoyment. I played a Deathblade variant. My Legacy matches revolved around my opponents resolving True-Name Nemesis and then me peeling cards that may as well as have been Uno or Gin Rummy cards. Both of my TNN opponents said, "This card is really dumb," and remarked at how unfun and uninteractive the game was. I beat all non-TNN decks that day and lost to all TNN decks. I didn't have fun, and my TNN opponents didn't have fun. The games involved interactions until a TNN resolved, and then there was only minimal interaction after that, and the whole affair was more like a death march than a two-person game. In Legacy tournaments after that one, TNN has been more well-represented in the field, so more people have had the chance to play with it and play against it. My view is that TNN makes the format as a whole less fun and less interesting because the card itself is highly played and unfun; thus, more unfun cards getting played equals less fun being had. I have not found one person yet who felt the card was fun. Some players have said it's "not broken," but no one found it fun.

To my eyes, Legacy is entering a woeful period defined by facets of the game that I view to be harmful to the format's fun factor. Obviously, fun factor is always a subjective thing, but a lot of people who I play with and against have a similarly downcast view of what the consequences of True-Name Nemesis are. I don't like how your article seems to imply that everything in Legacy is unfair and therefore TNN is OK. I especially dislike the closing: "if it's broken, don't fix it." I think this runs counter to your previous statements about balance in Legacy, especially your article suggesting cards that could be printed to fill holes in the format (can't find the title of that piece) or "Get Back Into The Helvault Already," when you argued that Griselbrand should be banned.

I see TNN further shrinking the format, polarizing it into 1) combo decks, 2) TNN decks, 3) and hard-control decks (which basically means Miracles). My primary objection to TNN is that it continues pushing the format down the path of having to play combo or Force of Will (or combo with Force of Will) in order to be a real contender. Iona, Jin-Gitaxias, Emrakul, Griselbrand, Omniscence, True-Name Nemesis -- there comes a point where players have to shift to playing Force of Will decks or combo decks in order to compete at the highest level because WOTC continues to print cards that are best interacted with on the stack. TNN is especially egregious since there are so few playable answers if it resolves. To me it is easily the least fun card ever printed in all of Magic, beating out even Stasis (which I played against in PTQs back in the day. Fun fact: If you draw, you get paired against Stasis again next round).

I don't have a lot of confidence in WOTC to turn things around, given how long it has been since the last banning and given the steady stream of dumb, win-now permanents we've seen printed. Why does Omniscience exist? Why would WOTC print Enter the Infinite knowing that Omniscience was fresh out of the box? Why would WOTC attach lifelink and a huge body to an already banned card? There doesn't seem to be any indication that Griselbrand will be banned even though it's a hugely problematic card, and the same applies to Show and Tell. In this case, we're not getting the enabler banned OR the busted fatty banned, and, meanwhile, WOTC decides to create a whole new problem. What I really want at this point are either bannings or new tools to deal with broken strategies. I definitely don't want more "unfair" things. I view "unfair" things as the problem, and those things are reaching critical mass. BTW, TNN happens to fit most of your arguments for banning Griselbrand (no skill cap, non-interactive games, unhappy players). I have played dozens of Legacy decks over the past five years, and I can build almost anything, so don't think that I'm stubbornly pushing along some Tier 4 deck and harboring unrealistic expectations.

[wcm8]

Carsten, I enjoyed the article, and agree with the premise. I think had I played Hymn to Tourach instead of Thoughtseize in my BUG Delver list, I would have done much better on Day 2 of the Grand Prix. Hymn does something incredibly UNfair, whereas Thoughtseize (while certainly powerful), is decidedly fair. Hell, you even lose 2 life! The BUG Delver lists that performed well at the GP were piloted by some amazing players, but ALSO happened to be running 4 Hymn instead of 4 Thoughtseize.

Going forward, I think every deck should consider what it is about the list makes it unfair, and if the answer is "not enough", clearly something else needs to get added (perhaps the singleton Temporal Mastery?)

Great post above ESG, and I agree with a lot of the sentiments therein.

There are certain Tier 1 cards that I find to be abhorrent:
-Show and Tell
-Sensei's Divining Top

If these cards were removed from the Legacy pool, I think the metagame would become much wider and the format as a whole would be a lot more fun to play in.

Show and Tell has had a multitude of arguments against it. Simply put, it's unfun. It's a turn 2/3 (sometimes turn 1!) card that says: Answer me or your lose. As the "best" combo deck, it pushes out OTHER combo decks from the format. Why the hell would a competitive player resort to needing to *think* and play Storm? Or why would he play a slightly slower, slightly more disruptable combo deck such as Aluren? Not only do other previously valid combo deck choices become much worse, the incentive to 'Play Blue or Go Home' also goes way up. It warps the format towards decks that can run cards like Spell Pierce, Daze, etc. Combo in general can be frustrating to play against, but personally I *like* playing against some sort of near-janky Rube Goldberg machine combo deck as opposed to a 'herp derp got Fow?" deck like SnT.

As for Sensei's Divining Top, my issue with it has less to do with power and more to do with time considerations. Every tournament seems to go to time, and without fail it tends to be because of some sort of UWx derpy control deck maximizing every single end-of-turn and shuffle effect with an activation of Top. Even an efficient player is still adding about 10-15~ seconds to every turn once a Top is in play. The other thing it does is combine with decidedly UNFUN cards like Counterbalance and Miracles. These cards push out the various tribal strategies from the format, and makes for an overall less diverse metagame.

If Wizards continues to not give a damn about Legacy as a format, I think they should give the reigns of the B&R list over to a committee who DOES care, similar to what they've done with Commander.

[Tormod]

Good Article Carsten.

re: True-Name Nemesis. Over-hyped right now, wait for players to adapt and find the answers in the history of magic.

There's always a new bad guy. Who says Legacy doesn't change. Love it!

[nedleeds]

Everything is fun when you are winning, everything sucks when you are losing. </topic>

[wcm8]

Everything is fun when you are winning, everything sucks when you are losing. </topic>

That's a myopic way of looking at the format.

I generally play decks that have a positive or even matchup against SnT decks; however I still think it's a crappy card to have in the format and does more harm than good. Telling people to 'suck it up and just sideboard for it' doesn't really help out the non-blue players out there.

In my opinion:

variety = fun
interaction = fun

limited choice in tier 1 combo option = not fun
decks based on limiting meaningful interaction = not fun

Then again, Wizards has never presented a definitive, singular reason for banning or not banning cards. 'Fun' is often an important factor, but it's not the only one.

[Amon Amarth]

I really dislike the terms "fair" and "unfair" because of how nebulous and vague they are. It's a useful shorthand way to identify archetypes but it still puts a bad taste in my mouth because, as Carsten's article demonstrates pretty well, fairness is relative. Even decks like Jund can kill every creature you play and and empty your hand of gas.

But seriously though, fuck True-Name Nemesis.

[nedleeds]

In my opinion:

variety = fun
interaction = fun

limited choice in tier 1 combo option = not fun
decks based on limiting meaningful interaction = not fun

Then again, Wizards has never presented a definitive, singular reason for banning or not banning cards. 'Fun' is often an important factor, but it's not the only one.

They have cited ubiquity in other formats, not sure why it doesn't apply here.

You want variety then ban brainstorm. 13 of 16 top 16 decks ran the same 4 of Brainstorm, you'll never have variety until it is banned. The Show and Tell decks, other combo decks, control decks and their one mana insta wrath, 6 colored land broken manabase tempo decks all get level set and you'll have some variety. You'll force people to make real mana bases, and actually think about keeping hands that don't just get auto un-mulliganed by Brainstorm.

Does Chalice 1 or Blood Moon or Trinisphere "limit meaningful interaction"? I don't even know what you mean there. Do you mean creatures fighting? Some colors can't interact on the stack much at all, do you mean interact on the stack?

[Esper3k]

They have cited ubiquity in other formats, not sure why it doesn't apply here.

You want variety then ban brainstorm. 13 of 16 top 16 decks ran the same 4 of Brainstorm, you'll never have variety until it is banned. The Show and Tell decks, other combo decks, control decks and their one mana insta wrath, 6 colored land broken manabase tempo decks all get level set and you'll have some variety. You'll force people to make real mana bases, and actually think about keeping hands that don't just get auto un-mulliganed by Brainstorm.

Does Chalice 1 or Blood Moon or Trinisphere "limit meaningful interaction"? I don't even know what you mean there. Do you mean creatures fighting? Some colors can't interact on the stack much at all, do you mean interact on the stack?

Look, man - cearly, everyone knows exactly what "fun" and "unfun" mean and anyone who doesn't agree is just an "unfun" person!

It's only fun when I get to do the things I want to do and not when my opponent gets to do the things they want to do!

[ESG]

Everything is fun when you are winning, everything sucks when you are losing. </topic>

This isn't true, and it's why more people aren't running Show and Tell strategies. A lot of players want to feel that they played an actual game of Magic. I personally know a player who had success with Sneak and Show and tabled the deck because it wasn't fun for him despite his wins. Also, nedleeds, when was the last time you decided to play Sneak and Show or Omni-Tell at an event? Don't you loathe that strategy? Why would you run that at an event when you could run Moat Stompy?

[JBlaze]

Great article really good read.

Different people have different definitions of fun I guess. Fun in tournament Magic is somewhat of a zero sum game. To me fun=winning. If I have a Batterskull and a Jitte on my True-Name and im going to town I guaran-damn-tee you I'm having a blast your probably not, but I sure am. Is TNN a stupid card? Most definitely but it is a reality for the time being and I plan to be casting it a lot.
.
A big part the draw of legacy for me is taking the best of the best from 20 years of Magic and just seeing what happens. The fact that so many powerful "unfair" strategies, strategies that can and have broken multiple formats in the past can exist and create an equilibrium. If any one deck starts to get out of hand the tools generally exist to counteract it. Legacy is much more fun when you just embrace the nature of the format. Figure out what broken thing sounds the most fun to you and run with it.

[Barook]

I see TNN further shrinking the format, polarizing it into 1) combo decks, 2) TNN decks, 3) and hard-control decks (which basically means Miracles).
Great post, ESG.

More recently, Wizards introduced alot of unfun stuff into the format.

1) I don't think all combo decks are unfun. While I don't play Storm, it's okay to lose to it if a player can pull a win by sheer skill. S&T? Fuck that, there's zero skill involved in paying :2::u: and having a certain overcosted, stupid card in hand.
2) TNN has already been discussed to death. Broken or not, it's stupid and unfun.
3) Who right in their mind thought that a Super-Wrath of God for :w: was a good idea? As a creature deck, you either have a) counters or b) Teeg in a pillow fort with his buddy Olle Rade and his Mom. Everything else is boned. WoG was balanced back in its days due to the "racing before they can cast mass removal"-aspect which is completely gone with Terminus. Even taxing with Thalia sucks.

I agree with wcm8 here. I don't think many people would complain if S&T was gone. SDT is a bit more iffy since the hardcore control crowd would complain that their "24 Lands + 34 cards to annoy your opponent + 2 wincons" archetype isn't viable again, but I think that's an outdated archetype anyway which only came back by the sheer brokeness of library manipulation + miracles.

[Lord Seth]

There doesn't seem to be any indication that Griselbrand will be banned even though it's a hugely problematic card, and the same applies to Show and Tell.
How is Griselbrand or Show and Tell a "hugely problematic" card? Their decks are strong, but they're not dominant. As I've seen people point out, if you want to actually argue that Show and Tell is too dominant a deck, then there's several decks that are more "dominant" that would need bans first.

I don't like Show and Tell, but there's really not much of an argument for banning it outside of "I don't like the deck."

[davelin]

How is Griselbrand or Show and Tell a "hugely problematic" card? Their decks are strong, but they're not dominant. As I've seen people point out, if you want to actually argue that Show and Tell is too dominant a deck, then there's several decks that are more "dominant" that would need bans first.

I don't like Show and Tell, but there's really not much of an argument for banning it outside of "I don't like the deck."

Other arguments besides deck or dominance -

1) Reduces virtual card pool (i.e. constains choices)
2) Results in less interactiveness (i.e. less "fun")

I'm not saying these arguments apply here, just giving alternative reasons that have been stated before.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Good post, ESG.

[lavafrogg]

To chime in on the fair vs unfair, the way I feel is a deck is unfair if you can change 4 cards in your sideboard and completely flip the matchup percentage. Dredge wins most of its game ones but struggles to win one of the next two games against a prepared opponent. Storm stream rolls game one and then has to dance around a hatebear to win.the same can be said for all of the unfair decks. The unfair decks operate on an angle that is too narrow to attack normally and is going to get hit super hard when a hoser comes around.

This also explains why side boarding against other fair decks is so hard.

[Lemnear]

To chime in on the fair vs unfair, the way I feel is a deck is unfair if you can change 4 cards in your sideboard and completely flip the matchup percentage. Dredge wins most of its game ones but struggles to win one of the next two games against a prepared opponent. Storm stream rolls game one and then has to dance around a hatebear to win.the same can be said for all of the unfair decks. The unfair decks operate on an angle that is too narrow to attack normally and is going to get hit super hard when a hoser comes around.

This also explains why side boarding against other fair decks is so hard.

No, it's because most combo decks don't Dance around the creature Type and therefore don't have so many dead slots to replace with sideboarding.

It's pointless to whine about combo decks while dedicating 1/2 of your MD spells for the creature subtype and damage races. This has nothing to do with fair or unfair, but how Legacy is defined as a format and how disturbingly efficient it is to sidestep that part of the game.

Calling anything that doesn't drop creatures right into your removal-overload "unfair" is laughable



Edit: In case it isn't obvious, this speach isn't directed to you pal.

[nedleeds]

Also, nedleeds, when was the last time you decided to play Sneak and Show or Omni-Tell at an event? Don't you loathe that strategy? Why would you run that at an event when you could run Moat Stompy?

Fair point. I swear the internet SnT "players" think they are having fun, sometimes they even say "Good game" after a turn 2 Emrakul. It's staggering. But everything sucks from the perspective of the person getting rammed, my TES opponents are miserable and just think of the goblin player who runs into a turn 2 moat? You think he's having fun? I mean I am ... but.

[Finn]

Carsten, that was my favorite article of yours by a wide margin. You really have a knack for seeing the underbelly of the format.

[ntropy]

I'm not sure why we can't adjust to TNN. It's not like there aren't a huge number of cards that kill it. Sure, the cards previously determined to be the most efficient (Bolt, Swords, Pyroclasm) fall short. I hear Smallpox and Liliana of the Veil do a good job. If you're upset because you have to change your decklist or even the deck you are playing to combat a new threat, I think you are playing the wrong game. I hear decklists in Go have been stable for quite awhile. No new threats in Chess lately either. Great article Carsten, and I agree. If it's broken, don't fix it!

[Lord Seth]

Other arguments besides deck or dominance -

1) Reduces virtual card pool (i.e. constains choices)
2) Results in less interactiveness (i.e. less "fun")

I'm not saying these arguments apply here, just giving alternative reasons that have been stated before.
Which are just alternate ways of saying "I don't like the deck." Which seems a very poor reason for a ban in my view.

[ESG]

Which are just alternate ways of saying "I don't like the deck." Which seems a very poor reason for a ban in my view.

No, reducing the card pool is a metric that we can more or less track. It's objective, not subjective. For example, Befoul is not considered a playable card in this format. Even though it's Legacy-legal, you won't play against it, so it basically doesn't exist. I suppose some people would welcome a format with fewer playable cards. In general, I'm opposed to cards that demand interaction on the stack because that pushes more decks into a blue shell (essentially always with Brainstorm and Force of Will), which significantly reduces choice in deck building. Force of Will requires 20-some blue cards, so a lot of your decisions are already predetermined. Your choice is blue or ... blue. Get it? I'm not saying we're there now, but that is the path WOTC is pointing the format toward. And, honestly, some posters on these boards would love that format, but that's not the way the format has always been, and so it's important to note that this is a deviation.

This is how it breaks down:
1) WOTC prints a card that is most effectively combated on the stack or prints yet another game-ending card that can be cheated into play via a spell (Show and Tell, Reanimate, etc.).
2) More people play Force of Will because it is the cheapest (free) and most flexible (counters anything) answer that isn't dead in other matchups.
3) More decks are forced into homogenous blue shells in order to support Force of Will (and by extension Brainstorm).
4) WOTC looks at the format and declares that the new card is safe because it's kept in check by Force of Will.
5) Repeat Step 1.

As I said, some people don't think this is a problem. They would be delighted if the format was 300 playable cards or less.

Instead of bans, WOTC could get around this issue by giving other colors countermagic or conditionally cheap or free answers that answer a variety of threats. Mindbreak Trap was a well-designed card. The Trap template could be tweaked further, or WOTC could come up with something else.

[Esper3k]

I'm not sure why we can't adjust to TNN. It's not like there aren't a huge number of cards that kill it. Sure, the cards previously determined to be the most efficient (Bolt, Swords, Pyroclasm) fall short. I hear Smallpox and Liliana of the Veil do a good job. If you're upset because you have to change your decklist or even the deck you are playing to combat a new threat, I think you are playing the wrong game. I hear decklists in Go have been stable for quite awhile. No new threats in Chess lately either. Great article Carsten, and I agree. If it's broken, don't fix it!

Shush, you!

Playing "other" cards to deal with new threats... that's just crazy and unfun.

Easier to just complain than adapt.

[ESG]

I await this list promising "a huge number of cards that kill it." I will be impressed if anyone covers ground I have not. I will be even more impressed if these are actually playable against other top-tier decks. Esper3k, since you compared True-Name Nemesis to lowly Norin the Wary, you must be pretty confident. Why don't you start us off?

[Hopo]

I await this list promising "a huge number of cards that kill it." I will be impressed if anyone covers ground I have not. I will be even more impressed if these are actually playable against other top-tier decks. Esper3k, since you compared True-Name Nemesis to lowly Norin the Wary, you must be pretty confident. Why don't you start us off?

The format has for example all the counters, sweepers and combos . What in particular you want to hear? Sure, it's an unblockable 7 turn clock that is immune to spot removal. Definitely sounds like something the format can't handle.

[joretapo]

Shush, you! Playing "other" cards to deal with new threats... that's just crazy and unfun. Easier to just complain than adapt.
+1 for both posts lol

By the way Carsten great article as always

[Quasim0ff]

The format has for example all the counters, sweepers and combos . What in particular you want to hear? Sure, it's an unblockable 7 turn clock that is immune to spot removal. Definitely sounds like something the format can't handle.

Its not really about the clock, it's more about the function it has on some match ups, which just fucks over other match ups because TNN is so insanely powerful.

[Finn]

Best article you have written. I really like how your analysis goes beyond the paradigms.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

Thanks for the props and comments everybody, sorry about getting back to you so belatedly. Real life is being a bitch right now.

@ESG: Very well thought out post, as you've seen in the follow up article, I with most things you said. The whole "If it's broken don't fix it" was addressed to players (as in, if your deck's broken, you're doing it right). I just couldn't resist playing with the expression :p

@wcm8: You got the idea of the article very well. I disagree with lumping SDT and S&T in the same boat as far as format disrupting cards are concerned, though. Top is good and eats some time but it doesn't just random you out like S&T->Grisel does. Even CB-Top is more beatable than it has ever been, so I really don't see the huge problem with the child's toy that could.


@Barook: Just one comment towards "control is an outdated archetype anyway" (seeing as I'm part of that "hardcore control crowd" ;) ). I don't see how "this viable archetype is outdated in my opinion so we might as well ban things to make it not viable again as we aren't losing anything anyway" is a valid argument. SDT and Miracles aren't oppressive in the slightest as long as people are ready for them and the number of archetypes truly pushed out by it existing is actually fairly small (all decks push out some others). Fast combo decks are special in that regard as they have a tendency to Force blue into decks (excuse the pun) as long as there aren't truly effective hatebears out there. There are a number of other cards leaving the format that would do more to open it up than getting rid of SDT would. I think there're some old scars involved here ;)

@Finn: Thanks for the praise. I know you won't hold back criticism when you think it's deserved so I particularly appreciate getting praise from your side!

I'll stay out of any other B/R related arguments as there is a thread for those already - thanks again for reading and all the interest to everybody!

[jimmythegreek]

Tnn sucks for sure, but its stoneforge that makes it" unfair". Never liked mystic or felt like cramming four of her into a deck surrounded with counter spells......boring. I blame stoneforge for the lack of viable creature decks in magic today, she's like the white demonic tutor against "fair" creature based decks.

[Echelon]

Dear Carsten,

Let me start off by letting you know I quite enjoy your articles and often consider them a much better read then the premium articles on SCG (which often seem to contain a lot of I-I-I-me-me-me). Be that as it may, I tend to disagree with the premise that anything played in Legacy can be considered unfair, enough so to make my first posting here on The Source. This mostly because the cardpool in Legacy is big enough to deal with anything unfair thrown at it. I think you have to consider what's fair or unfair in the context of it's respective meta. I mean, of course, anything we do in Legacy might be unfair when compared with the Standard or even Modern meta, yet seems underwhelming when compared to Vintage's meta. I tend to gravitate more towards the opinion that everything is fair game in Legacy, given that an answer to any unfair thing played can be found in the giant cardpool available to us. If you really want to beat something, you can, and therefor makes the thing you aim to beat a fair thing to play. We've seen it happen with Sneak & Show and it'll happen to TNN :)