View Full Version : (Article) Format Problems and Solutions by Shaheen Soorani
Shaheen Soorani, hot off a 2nd place finish at the recent SCG Legacy Open, recently posted an article on Starcitygames discussing some proposals for various formats with regard to bannings and unbannings and improvements that could be made:
http://www.starcitygames.com/article/31352_Format-Problems-And-Solutions.html
His solution for Legacy? Ban Sensei's Divining Top and Punishing Fire. His rationale is basically that Lands and Miracles cause a ton of problems for Legacy tournaments in terms of time wasted and confusion caused, and removing these two cards would alleviate the bulk of the issues that cause these decks to drag out matches.
I, for one, am fully on board with these suggestions. Other pros such as Luis Scott Vargas have echoed these sentiments. What does the Legacy community as a whole think about these suggestions, and this article in particular? Discuss.
supremePINEAPPLE
08-10-2015, 12:25 PM
I think the argument that Lands needs something banned out of it is laughable. I'll be the first to admit I'm biased because I'm a player of the deck but if you honestly think Lands is what is wrong with legacy right now then you just aren't paying attention.
Him not even mentioning Dig Through Time is just as big of a bias as my own in favor of Lands and shows that this article really isn't about thinking critically about what is good for legacy and more about his own personal pet peeves with the format.
Meekrab
08-10-2015, 12:27 PM
Haven't read the article but "wotc pls ban teh durdles" is a horrible thesis.
KobeBryan
08-10-2015, 12:27 PM
Ban nothing.
The format is fine and will adjust.
Megadeus
08-10-2015, 12:47 PM
Top has a somewhat reasonable argument. Punishing Fire? Laughable. His argument is that because it is sometimes a secondary win condition in a tier 1 deck that it should be banned? You are more than welcome to scoop if you feel like time is becoming an issue.
maharis
08-10-2015, 12:47 PM
In before lock.
Banning SDT and not Brainstorm is a joke. If you want to kneecap Miracles ban CB or Terminus.
Banning Punishing Fire is high comedy, how is 1R shock a threat when 2U I win is in the format?
One thing is for sure, Wizards needs to do something to this format at the next BnR update, plenty of people who prefer all kinds of styles see the stagnation.
I guess I should have expected 90% of the replies to this article to be along the lines of "Wait, I play Punishing Fire/Sensei's Divining Top.dec! What a dumb idea, lolz!"
Just try to take yourself out of your own personal situation and look at the format and Legacy tournaments as a whole. Wouldn't the game be better with less draws and faster rounds? How much value are Miracles and Lands *actually* adding to the format as a whole? I think, along with Shaheen and others, that the loss of being able to play Miracles or Lands is outweighed by the benefit of kneecapping these decks to allow for more efficiently run tournaments and less slow, drawn-out control matches.
Just ask yourself: before Survival was banned, there were alot of Survival afficianados that played the deck for a long time, before it even got out of hand. Were these people losing something when Survival as an archetype was axed by the banning? Sure, their #1 deck that they've played for a long time was sacrificed for the sins of Vengevine. But in the end, the format as a whole was better, and those people just moved on. The same would happen if Top was banned, or any critical piece of the Lands deck was banned.
A show of hands for actually reading articles, please. The man was not even wading into the mess of Brainstorm debates (didn't stop us from turning it into that in less than 30 minutes though). He is discussing length of rounds only.
Nielsie
08-10-2015, 01:00 PM
If he wants a solution for slow play, why not introduce a chess clock or something? Banning Punishing Fire, Loam or Dark Depths would be beyond insane. It kills two perfectly viable non-blue strategies in Lands and 4C (Aggro) Loam, not what we need right now!
If he wants a solution for slow play, why not introduce a chess clock or something? Banning Punishing Fire, Loam or Dark Depths would be beyond insane. It kills two perfectly viable non-blue strategies in Lands and 4C (Aggro) Loam, not what we need right now!
Chess clock is completely unviable in tournament Magic play. The game uses so many priority changes that the logistics involved in using clocks to manage each player's time would be completely, utterly, impossible.
Banning a card or two is infinitely simpler, and has a similar effect. I personally don't think that banning Punishing Fire or Loam is completely necessary, but the banning of Sensei's Divining Top would be a GREAT move.
Meekrab
08-10-2015, 01:03 PM
In before lock.
Banning SDT and not Brainstorm is a joke. If you want to kneecap Miracles ban CB or Terminus.
Banning Punishing Fire is high comedy, how is 1R shock a threat when 2U I win is in the format?
One thing is for sure, Wizards needs to do something to this format at the next BnR update, plenty of people who prefer all kinds of styles see the stagnation.
You misunderstand the author's objective.
SDT causes players to make Brainstorm-like decisions every turn, sometimes multiple times, forever, slowing the game down.
Punishing Fire allows players to durdle with their graveyard and attempt to win over 18 turns as relatively common backup plan.
In his view, these things lead to long rounds and unintentional draws. Soorani isn't going after the power level of the decks (because Life from the Loam is the obvious target in Lands, and instant speed Wrath for W is clearly the most powerful thing Miracles is doing) he was trying to remove cards that enable excessively slow games.
And like I originally said, I disagree with that approach.
Bosque
08-10-2015, 01:06 PM
Banning things just because it can be time consuming is not the solution. Legacy is complex, sometime that many of us appreciate about the format. Removing that complexity just to make rounds happen faster is pretty lame.
maharis
08-10-2015, 01:12 PM
You misunderstand the author's objective.
SDT causes players to make Brainstorm-like decisions every turn, sometimes multiple times, forever, slowing the game down.
Punishing Fire allows players to durdle with their graveyard and attempt to win over 18 turns as relatively common backup plan.
In his view, these things lead to long rounds and unintentional draws. Soorani isn't going after the power level of the decks (because Life from the Loam is the obvious target in Lands, and instant speed Wrath for W is clearly the most powerful thing Miracles is doing) he was trying to remove cards that enable excessively slow games.
Right, but banning Top nukes Miracles anyway, and the card is really only problematic in concert with Counterbalance and Miracle cards where players have to tank on their order to make sure they stack the triggers right and/or activate multiple times per turn. So why take a key tool away from other decks because this one deck encourages slow play? It's why they got rid of Land Tax and not Scroll Rack initially too.
He did say PF is probably fine and he's biased from how much he loathes the card. But why even write that? I really hate Tarmogoyf but I know it's not bannable in Legacy. I would've liked to read an article from a guy who just finished second about his deck selection and matchups.
Banning things just because it can be time consuming is not the solution. Legacy is complex, sometime that many of us appreciate about the format. Removing that complexity just to make rounds happen faster is pretty lame.
There's still plenty of room for complexity if we just ban Top. There is a line between "intellectually complex" and "excessively durdly". Top probably falls more into the latter category on that spectrum than in the former.
Right, but banning Top nukes Miracles anyway, and the card is really only problematic in concert with Counterbalance and Miracle cards where players have to tank on their order to make sure they stack the triggers right and/or activate multiple times per turn. So why take a key tool away from other decks because this one deck encourages slow play? It's why they got rid of Land Tax and not Scroll Rack initially too.
There is this persistent myth that banning Top would be a huge loss for so many non-blue strategies. Where is this coming from? Top is the centerpiece of one and only one deck in Legacy: Miracles. It occasionally will see play as a 1-of or 2-of in random BGx decks, Storm decks, Cloudpost decks, but never as the centerpiece of those decks or even an essential component in their strategies. There is basically no deck that is truly hurt by an SDT ban other than Miracles.
And the problem with leaving Top in Legacy is that it promotes slow, durdly play as a fundamental aspect of its design. It's a badly designed Magic card that shouldn't really be in any format. We don't want to see slow-play-promoting cards in formats if we can help it. This isn't about just knocking Miracles down a peg, it's about removing toxic cards that promote slow play.
Megadeus
08-10-2015, 01:18 PM
The problem with top is that it is played in what is commonly known as one of the best decks in the format. So that is when you get less experienced players picking up the deck and slowing down the tournament because they are unfamiliar with the decision tree that is presented to them at various situations in a given game. There's nothing that you can really do to change that other than simply hoping something gets created that can nerf miracles a bit. As for lands, like I have said, you are definitely more than welcome to scoop at any time if you feel that winning in the set 50 minutes isn't going to be possible. I played 4 color loam where it was fairly common to do a large amount of your damage via punishing fire, and sometimes win the game like that and I don't think I ever went to time with that deck. Players just need to play faster.
The problem with top is that it is played in what is commonly known as one of the best decks in the format. So that is when you get less experienced players picking up the deck and slowing down the tournament because they are unfamiliar with the decision tree that is presented to them at various situations in a given game. There's nothing that you can really do to change that other than simply hoping something gets created that can nerf miracles a bit. As for lands, like I have said, you are definitely more than welcome to scoop at any time if you feel that winning in the set 50 minutes isn't going to be possible. I played 4 color loam where it was fairly common to do a large amount of your damage via punishing fire, and sometimes win the game like that and I don't think I ever went to time with that deck. Players just need to play faster.
There's something you can do that is simple and completely solves the problem: ban Sensei's Divining Top. No more problems with newbies picking up Miracles and playing slowly, because they're either not picking up Miracles or they're picking up a version without Top that will naturally be faster.
Megadeus
08-10-2015, 01:27 PM
Sure, except there really isn't too much a reason to ban Top with other certain cards in the format. WOTC doesn't give two shits about legacy and its inability to finish rounds quickly. Modern was one thing because it is their new go to eternal format, but legacy has 3 events a year that WOTC truly cares about. And this is coming from someone who hates Miracles. I don't find top to be an overpowered card in any way
Malakai
08-10-2015, 01:28 PM
Banning Brainstorm decimates the blue decks. Have fun playing green dudes against Belcher twice a tournament.
If you want to weaken blue, the best card to ban is Ponder. You weaken miracles, you weaken delver, and you weaken combo, but all the decks continue to function.
maharis
08-10-2015, 01:30 PM
There is this persistent myth that banning Top would be a huge loss for so many non-blue strategies. Where is this coming from? Top is the centerpiece of one and only one deck in Legacy: Miracles. It occasionally will see play as a 1-of or 2-of in random BGx decks, Storm decks, Cloudpost decks, but never as the centerpiece of those decks or even an essential component in their strategies. There is basically no deck that is truly hurt by an SDT ban other than Miracles.
Other than Cloudpost, many decks that would play Top are held back by Miracles' presence in the format. You would probably see more proactive BGx decks that play top (Nic Fit especially) if Miracles weren't omnipresent and overpowered.
Admiral_Arzar
08-10-2015, 01:33 PM
There is this persistent myth that banning Top would be a huge loss for so many non-blue strategies. Where is this coming from? Top is the centerpiece of one and only one deck in Legacy: Miracles. It occasionally will see play as a 1-of or 2-of in random BGx decks, Storm decks, Cloudpost decks, but never as the centerpiece of those decks or even an essential component in their strategies. There is basically no deck that is truly hurt by an SDT ban other than Miracles.
This is an outright lie. Imperial Painter, which was a strong contender until the printing of Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time, usually plays 3-4 Top as it is the only reasonable card selection tool and has strong synergy with some specific cards in the deck (Welder, Bridge). I won't even bother discussing other decks because the mere existence of Painter completely invalidates your argument.
Meekrab
08-10-2015, 01:36 PM
I would've liked to read an article from a guy who just finished second about his deck selection and matchups.
He's changed 6 cards in his 75 since 2012 (http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=51262), how much can he really have to say?
rufus
08-10-2015, 01:40 PM
Are legacy matches - or matches with miracles and lands in particular running to time particularly frequently?
nedleeds
08-10-2015, 01:42 PM
Most of the apes debating this don't even know what Null Rod does.
Crimhead
08-10-2015, 01:47 PM
Most of the apes debating this don't even know what Null Rod does.
It does nothing.
alaska
08-10-2015, 01:47 PM
So assuming top is banned, what happens to Miracles? IE what becomes the best control deck? Does counterbalance strictly for value become a thing?
This is not an argument for or against banning Top, just curious what a good UWx control deck would look like without it.
Also, maybe a better argument Shaheen could make would be banning something like counterbalance or terminus. That way other decks can still play top, but not so many people would play top that it would gum up the works too much?
Really doesn't seem fair to the actually good Miracles players out there though. And this is from someone who plays combo pretty much exclusively, so I ought to be drooling at the thought of all this nerfing Miracles talk.
iamajellydonut
08-10-2015, 01:54 PM
just curious what a ... UWx control deck would look like without it.
It would look like an enormous piece of shit. Otherwise known as Stoneblade.
Tammit67
08-10-2015, 02:07 PM
SCG DC this weekend didn't progress at that slow of a pace. Player meeting started at 10 pm and day 1 ended at 8:15 pm for 9 rounds of magic. Of the ~600 minutes it took to complete the event, 450 of it were spent in the 50 minute rounds themselves, leaving an average of ~18 minutes for players in turns, extentions, and pairings/reseating. That sounds fine to me when handling 500+ people.
Megadeus
08-10-2015, 02:13 PM
Banning Brainstorm decimates the blue decks. Have fun playing green dudes against Belcher twice a tournament.
If you want to weaken blue, the best card to ban is Ponder. You weaken miracles, you weaken delver, and you weaken combo, but all the decks continue to function.
This myth has already been debunked several times so I won't even go into the math involved to your argument that really has no basis at all.
This is an outright lie. Imperial Painter, which was a strong contender until the printing of Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time, usually plays 3-4 Top as it is the only reasonable card selection tool and has strong synergy with some specific cards in the deck (Welder, Bridge). I won't even bother discussing other decks because the mere existence of Painter completely invalidates your argument.
That's one fringe tier 2 archetype that rarely places top-8 in any significant tournaments. And ask any Painter player if an SDT ban would make the deck unplayable - they'd probably tell you that as long as the Painter/Grindstone combo is in the format, and Imperial Recruiter and Pyroblasts are as well, then the deck is still playable as much as any fringe tier 2 deck is playable.
SCG DC this weekend didn't progress at that slow of a pace. Player meeting started at 10 pm and day 1 ended at 8:15 pm for 9 rounds of magic. Of the ~600 minutes it took to complete the event, 450 of it were spent in the 50 minute rounds themselves, leaving an average of ~18 minutes for players in turns, extentions, and pairings/reseating. That sounds fine to me when handling 500+ people.
Using a small sample size of anecdotal evidence from one event is really not going to add much to the discussion of slow play philosophy and potential bannings based on long-term tournament trends.
Tammit67
08-10-2015, 02:44 PM
Using a small sample size of anecdotal evidence from one event is really not going to add much to the discussion of slow play philosophy and potential bannings based on long-term tournament trends.
That's not what anecdotal means. Those were the actual start and end times for round 1 and round 9. Anecdotal is the defined as what the author is doing in this article
I have no mined data, full breakdowns of the mtgo/paper metagame at each IQ, GP, and Open, nor do I have the time to acquire that said information. I just played hundreds of matches, either online, or live in testing or at the GP/Open level, and what I wrote was my experience.
This is an opinion piece that is written with a jovial tone about my feelings (biased control mage feelings) about each of the competitive formats. That's all smile emoticon
This isn't about slow play, activating top each turn isn't slow play. Failing to resolve the activation reasonably is. Dying to increments of 1 damage via punishing fire is not slow play.
Megadeus
08-10-2015, 02:46 PM
That's not what anecdotal means. Those were the actual start and end times for round 1 and round 9. Anecdotal is the defined as what the author is doing in this article
This isn't about slow play, activating top each turn isn't slow play. Failing to resolve the activation reasonably is. Dying to increments of 1 damage via punishing fire is not slow play.
Basically this
Barook
08-10-2015, 02:46 PM
Banning SDT would be fine. It was always questionable why it was banned for time reasons in other formats (Extended to be exact, Modern was a a preemptive ban at the beginning of the format), but not in Legacy, because that makes no fucking sense. Power level is a different topic, but that doesn't remove the time-consuming aspect.
Banning anything from Lands sounds incredibly biased and ludacrious.
Banning Brainstorm decimates the blue decks. Have fun playing green dudes against Belcher twice a tournament.
If you want to weaken blue, the best card to ban is Ponder. You weaken miracles, you weaken delver, and you weaken combo, but all the decks continue to function.
At what point of blue meta penetration do you consider Belcher viable? Because it wasn't even a tier deck when blue was at 52% meta penetration.
Chatto
08-10-2015, 02:59 PM
A show of hands for actually reading articles, please. The man was not even wading into the mess of Brainstorm debates (didn't stop us from turning it into that in less than 30 minutes though). He is discussing length of rounds only.
... And then goes to argue to ban both Top and PF. The former I can understand, but the latter... Yes, I am biased, but come on! Suggesting banning non-U cards sound a bit... Oh, I don't know: trying really hard pointing towards someone else in the room, while farting, all the while stating 'it wasn't me' (Shaggy voice). It would only kill the format, and leaving the real problem unadressed: Legacy slowly turns into Vintage, part deux.
Slowplay, a important point in his article, is annoying and must be dealt with, yes, but what he is suggesting isn't really helping. It would only mean the end of Legacy to those not willing to play Blue. Some would say 'good riddance', others (like me) would be sad...
iatee
08-10-2015, 03:06 PM
Banning Brainstorm decimates the blue decks. Have fun playing green dudes against Belcher twice a tournament.
If you want to weaken blue, the best card to ban is Ponder. You weaken miracles, you weaken delver, and you weaken combo, but all the decks continue to function.
wizards also can ban t1 gimmicky combo decks if they ever become a problem. in fact this might even be a better situation than the one we're in now, where belcher is policed by the few, proud, diligent brainstorming blue mages but still just shows up and ruins a few peoples' days.
LeoCop 90
08-10-2015, 03:14 PM
Painter plays top and it is quite important for the deck. Banning one of the only real card selection tools not in blue will never be a move i approve, despite it being time consuming
Tammit67
08-10-2015, 03:21 PM
Banning SDT would be fine. It was always questionable why it was banned for time reasons in other formats (Extended to be exact, Modern was a a preemptive ban at the beginning of the format), but not in Legacy, because that makes no fucking sense. Power level is a different topic, but that doesn't remove the time-consuming aspect
Well, Top was banned in those formats and not legacy because those formats are PTQ/Pro-tour formats. Meaning with a lot more players/events, especially when you factor in newer folks, top activations will eat up a significant amount of the clock. As long as Legacy remains in the hands of enthusiasts and not in the grinders hands, there was deemed little reason to change.
While I don't agree that the original SDT ban was acceptable (slow play people gonna slow play w/e decision you hand them, punish them not the card), that was the reason outlined if I recall correctly. Along those lines, SDT has to go if Legacy becomes a PTQ/pro-tour format or the philosophy leading to the decision has to be revisited.
Jamaican Zombie Legend
08-10-2015, 03:22 PM
Even though I can understand that SDT causes a lot of problems (and is generally a terribly-designed card across all formats due to it's durdliness), the rationale for banning in this article seems kinda weak. Some decks pass a certain, unacceptable "slowness" threshold and thus key cards should be banned from them to banish them from competitive play? Not a great argument, especially when the author goes after prison decks like Lands. In most cases, no the cards in your deck aren't good enough to escape from an established prison/lock and conceding early is the correct move given time constraints.
I can understand an argument for axing SDT (even if I'm not really in favor of it, despite my distaste for the card) simply because that's a card that has and will cause problems across Magic formats, but coming up with some sort of "deck speed" rule seems silly.
That's not what anecdotal means. Those were the actual start and end times for round 1 and round 9. Anecdotal is the defined as what the author is doing in this article
From dictionary.com:
anecdote
noun, plural anecdotes or for 2, anecdota [an-ik-doh-tuh] (Show IPA)
1.
a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2.
a short, obscure historical or biographical account.
You are giving a short account of a particular event (Washington DC SCG Open) with the imputation that your account of the event will bolster the counter-argument that implies that, in fact, Miracles and Lands may not be the problem after all, because, well: <anecdotal evidence of one event>.
This isn't about slow play, activating top each turn isn't slow play. Failing to resolve the activation reasonably is. Dying to increments of 1 damage via punishing fire is not slow play.
Both of these cards promote longer rounds and slower play. Activating top each turn inevitably increases the amount of time expended in any given game of Magic, whether or not the player is intentionally "slow playing". The issue is tournament logistics as a whole, and not identifying a particular game action by the exact definition preferred the judging community.
I agree with banning SDT.
I've also been playing UWR Mentor Miracles lately, so I am *not* an unfairly biased 'outsider'.
Top drags games down, and even though I consider myself a quick/efficient player, optimal utilization of the card still adds far too much time to games, especially thanks to its broken interaction with shuffle effects, counterbalance and the miracle mechanic. Add to that players who are new to the deck or the format or are just naturally slow/ponderous, and you've got a recipe for major problems.
Also, UWR miracles isn't just a corner-case deck played in small numbers. This is a Tier 1 deck that is perhaps the most popular/common deck at the moment, and it's been dominating tournaments for a considerable length of time. I think it's time to retire the deck -- it is arguably as oppressive as Survival was in it's heyday.
Banning Top would destroy the Miracles deck as it currently exists, but Control as a legacy archetype would continue to exist. In fact, there'd be *more* viable options to consider playing -- decks could once again utilize Standstill, Pernicious Deed, Ancestral Vision... White would not be the default secondary control color, as Black, Red, and even Green would offer compelling options to dip into those colors.
Also, please don't argue that 'without Counter Top, combo would run amok and dominate the format!' This simply isn't true. Tempo decks would continue to crush these matchups, whether it be via Stifle and/or Hymn to Tourach. Control could still fight them even without counterbalance; Flusterstorm and Snapcaster Mage are still cards. Sure, Elves would be better in this environment; it just means you'd have to sideboard more than just 2 copies of Rough//Tumble.
Sure, a few non-blue decks would suffer (e.g. Painter Stone), but any deck that could reasonably splash for Green could use Sylvan Library instead -- a much less time consuming replacement.
The other side effect of banning SDT beyond more viable control deck archetypes would be more viable Aggro decks. Terminus and CB lock put a huge damper on decks like zoo, goblins, and maverick. As if they didn't already have a dismal combo matchup, these decks suddenly became complete dogs to control decks running Terminus. Control decks would still be capable of fighting these decks; it'd just be on a more fair axis: actually paying 3-4 mana at sorcery speed for their Wrath effect is much more fair to Aggro than being able to threaten a Wrath for a single White mana at Instant speed.
And THEN, midrange decks that aren't running Abrupt Decay for CB could come back. I can sort of imagine that old Zombardment deck coming back against a format without access to CB, Terminus, and also without Rest in Peace being as ubiquitous. Other decks like Nic Fit would be legit options due to Tempo decks becoming more popular.
And finally... If a player REALLY still wanted to play Counterbalance and Miracles, she still could concoct a reasonably powerful deck with Scroll Rack replacing Top as the abusive enabler. I think most people would agree that Scroll Rack is a much more fair replacement: it costs more, is slower, isn't as easily abusable, doesn't 'dodge' removal, etc. It'd be far less frustrating to play against, and perhaps less likely to force games to go to time.
So yeah. There are a myriad of reasons to justify banning SDT, and I say all of this as a current pilot of Miracles. It's been a stain on legacy for years now (has anyone ever commented on how SDT is close to sounding like STD?), and I'd love to see it go. If for no other reason than for time concerns, the exact reason used to justify its banning in the days of Extended.
My apologies for fanning flames...
Miracles would not be a deck without Brainstorm. The right card would be banned. Rounds would not routinely go past time anymore. Problem solved.
Ellomdian
08-10-2015, 04:06 PM
It does nothing.
I wish we could upvote posts...
This isn't about slow play, activating top each turn isn't slow play. Failing to resolve the activation reasonably is. Dying to increments of 1 damage via punishing fire is not slow play.
Time to trot out the documents again...
All players have the responsibility to play quickly enough so that their opponents are not at a significant disadvantage because of the time limit.
This statement is both beautiful in it's simplicity, and incredibly misunderstood.
If you can't activate and resolve Top fast enough to not cause a 'significant disadvantage' to your opponent, you are committing slow play. If you are doing so intentionally, you are Stalling, and Cheating.
Want to know what good, clean, efficient, fast play looks like? Watch Feline sometime - I've shown videos of her Branstorms to other judges to show what actually knowing what you are doing / being physically capable of doing it looks like.
Miracles players have a bad rap (rightfully so) because like every bad, slow, don't know what they are doing control player since The Deck, if you don't know what you are doing before you do it, you are going to be glacially slow.
As a Judge, Slow Play is like Pornography - I'll know it when I see it. We don't need clocks, and we for sure as hell don't need OP stepping in and banning another card to try to avoid correcting bad player behavior.
RIP Shahrazad.
My apologies for fanning flames...
Miracles would not be a deck without Brainstorm. The right card would be banned. Rounds would not routinely go past time anymore. Problem solved.
If you ban Brainstorm, there is a distinct possibility that Miracles continues to dominate as the only deck in the format that truly maximizes card selection by using Top in addition to Ponder and 1 Brainstorm. The other blue decks like Delver would not play Top, or at least not as effectively, because they do not maximize its power with 4 Counterbalance and 4 Terminus. Without 4 copies of Brainstorm, every other blue deck in the format would be weakened in their ability to skimp on lands and keep light hands, and Miracles might just be even more dominant than now.
The problem with banning Brainstorm is that it's the equivalent of detonating a thermonuclear bomb in a crowded city. Sure, it will take out that terrorist enclave in the trade district, but it will also turn the entire city into a smoldering heap. Banning SDT is like using a strike force of SEAL operatives to assassinate those terrorists instead. It will only really hurt one deck and one deck only, and we don't need to upset the entire apple cart to make a positive change in the format.
I wish we could upvote posts...
Time to trot out the documents again...
This statement is both beautiful in it's simplicity, and incredibly misunderstood.
If you can't activate and resolve Top fast enough to not cause a 'significant disadvantage' to your opponent, you are committing slow play. If you are doing so intentionally, you are Stalling, and Cheating.
Want to know what good, clean, efficient, fast play looks like? Watch Feline sometime - I've shown videos of her Branstorms to other judges to show what actually knowing what you are doing / being physically capable of doing it looks like.
Miracles players have a bad rap (rightfully so) because like every bad, slow, don't know what they are doing control player since The Deck, if you don't know what you are doing before you do it, you are going to be glacially slow.
As a Judge, Slow Play is like Pornography - I'll know it when I see it. We don't need clocks, and we for sure as hell don't need OP stepping in and banning another card to try to avoid correcting bad player behavior.
RIP Shahrazad.
It's just not realistic to expect everyone who plays with Top to play efficiently and quickly. Not only is it unrealistic to do so, but it puts a tremendous strain on judging resources to tell people to "call Miracles players on slow play if you suspect it". How many Miracles pilots are in your average Legacy tournament? Too many to take this approach.
Banning Top is a neat, clean, and simple solution to the problem instead. You simply have to weight the positives with the negatives. What is Top actively *GIVING* to the format? How much are we actually *LOSING* if we ban Top? In the end, we are basically just making the Tier 1 control deck weaker and diminishing a few 2-ofs/3-ofs in random Tier 2 archetypes (the few that occasionally play Tops like Painter, Cloudpost, BGx Rock). That is not a very great price to pay for all the important *GAINS* we get from getting rid of Top.
Barook
08-10-2015, 04:14 PM
Well, Top was banned in those formats and not legacy because those formats are PTQ/Pro-tour formats. Meaning with a lot more players/events, especially when you factor in newer folks, top activations will eat up a significant amount of the clock. As long as Legacy remains in the hands of enthusiasts and not in the grinders hands, there was deemed little reason to change.
While I don't agree that the original SDT ban was acceptable (slow play people gonna slow play w/e decision you hand them, punish them not the card), that was the reason outlined if I recall correctly. Along those lines, SDT has to go if Legacy becomes a PTQ/pro-tour format or the philosophy leading to the decision has to be revisited.
Letting it ruin other formats' tournaments just because it isn't a PT format would be pretty bad.
Here's the reasoning behind the SDT ban. Basically, time, combined with power level, was the kicker:
For many readers, the biggest surprise to come out of the recent announcement was the decision to ban Sensei’s Divining Top in Extended. Making the decision to remove a card from an environment completely is never something taken lightly, and this time was no exception. Sensei's Divining Top caught the eye of Organized Play as being a potential problem during the Qualifier season for Pro Tour–Hollywood, but ultimately the decision was to monitor Top’s performance through the season and reconvene on the matter later in the year.
Sensei's Divining Top
Ultimately Top 8s throughout the season were littered with the one-cost artifact either in conjunction with Counterbalance to lock opponents out of games, Trinket Mage to be found reliably, or (and usually in addition to) Onslaught’s sac-lands to allow players to shuffle away cards they didn’t wish to draw while peeking at a fresh set of three cards. Such a pervasive performance during a single season created a different problem as well: it made tournaments take too much time.
The constant activating of Divining Top bogs games down, which ultimately leads to an increase in the number of matches that go to time and beyond, which in turn leads to tournaments running much longer than they have historically. Furthermore, the Top encourages players to maximize the number of shuffle effects they play in a deck and the constant shuffling, cutting, presenting to an opponent to repeat the process, and then continuation of a turn exacerbated the situation. In the past the DCI has banned such cards on those grounds alone (Shahrazad is a good example of this, with Land Tax and Thawing Glaciers also having been banned for similar reasons) but in conjunction with the Top’s popularity during the last Extended PTQ season, the decision was to ban the card from the format it was harming.
Richard Cheese
08-10-2015, 04:17 PM
Terrible article is terrible. Legacy is too slow, ban things! Modern is too fast, unban things! Burn is not allowed to be a real deck!
Ok Goldilocks.
Lord Seth
08-10-2015, 04:29 PM
There is this persistent myth that banning Top would be a huge loss for so many non-blue strategies. Where is this coming from? Top is the centerpiece of one and only one deck in Legacy: Miracles. It occasionally will see play as a 1-of or 2-of in random BGx decks, Storm decks, Cloudpost decks, but never as the centerpiece of those decks or even an essential component in their strategies. There is basically no deck that is truly hurt by an SDT ban other than Miracles.Cloudpst decks generally play the full 4 copies of Top, not the 1-2 of as you claim.
Meekrab
08-10-2015, 04:35 PM
Modern is too fast, unban things!
I actually agree with him there, if I can play an 8/6 hasty vigilant trampling Titan on Turn 2 and tutor up even more lands by attacking, or drop a 15/15 Trampler with haste that leaves behind 3 5/5 tokens on Turn 3, or swing with a googleplex Cleric Twins on T4, what's the big deal about BBE into (maybe) Ancestral Visions? Sword of the Meek is banned (lol)? Cmon. The power level of combo decks is way out of proportion to anything else in the format. Even Siege Rhino isn't good and that's a better BBE that always hits Lightning Helix.
lordofthepit
08-10-2015, 04:36 PM
I'm sure his suggestions have nothing to do with the fact that Punishing Fire and Sensei's Divining Top almost single-handedly destroy the one Legacy deck he has played exclusively since 2012.
While Shaheen is a very fast pilot with Stoneblade, his deck of choice is much more prone to going to time than Lands is, and is probably comparable to Miracles in that regard. It's got the grindy elements of both decks without the ability to present a fast clock that Lands and Miracles do.
Tammit67
08-10-2015, 04:37 PM
From dictionary.com:
anecdote
noun, plural anecdotes or for 2, anecdota [an-ik-doh-tuh] (Show IPA)
1.
a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2.
a short, obscure historical or biographical account.
You are giving a short account of a particular event (Washington DC SCG Open) with the imputation that your account of the event will bolster the counter-argument that implies that, in fact, Miracles and Lands may not be the problem after all, because, well: <anecdotal evidence of one event>.
Giving the average turn around time of a round is not anecdotal evidence. Saying "The rounds took too long, I was there!" is anecdotal evidence: One has indisputable observations, the other have opinions. You are correct that all I have is 1 event's worth of data and that in itself is reason to take t with a grain of salt.
Both of these cards promote longer rounds and slower play. Activating top each turn inevitably increases the amount of time expended in any given game of Magic, whether or not the player is intentionally "slow playing". The issue is tournament logistics as a whole, and not identifying a particular game action by the exact definition preferred the judging community.
Intentionally slow playing is called cheating- stalling and got Saito DQ'd those years ago. Slow play by its nature is unintentionally failing to advance the game state. I agree that while the decisions with top can lead to slow play from inexperienced pilots, that's a problem inherent with the players themselves, not the card.
I really don't understand why punishing fire is on anyone's radar. If I want to win a game of magic through my 1 of [cards]suntail hawk[cards], that's my prerogative to do so. I've accepted the risk of being unable to finish games because my win condition is slow. Taking additional turns to finish out a game with a wincon has minimal impact on tournament round length. It is the extremely long turns after time that has been called that really extend the clock.
Ellomdian
08-10-2015, 04:39 PM
It's just not realistic to expect everyone who plays with Top to play efficiently and quickly.
Why is it unrealistic to expect people in higher-level organized play to be able to follow the rules?
The issue is that people have spent years justifying the behavior in their own minds. I have spent years giving out escalated game losses.
I could go into how players misinterpret complexity of the gamestate, or how the take too long performing mechanical actions like looking at cards and shuffling, or how much time is wasted staring at a board that hasn't changed with a look of desperate confusion that leaks out of their soul through their eyes, but it's a lot simpler to just say "I need you to make a play, now."
Lord Seth
08-10-2015, 04:45 PM
I actually agree with him there, if I can play an 8/6 hasty vigilant trampling Titan on Turn 2 and tutor up even more lands by attacking, or drop a 15/15 Trampler with haste that leaves behind 3 5/5 tokens on Turn 3, or swing with a googleplex Cleric Twins on T4, what's the big deal about BBE into (maybe) Ancestral Visions?While Bloodbraid Elf's banning was it taking the fall for the actual problem card (Deathrite Shaman) and Ancestral Vision's rationale for banning was poor ("it sees a lot of play in Legacy!" Yeah, because MENTAL MISSTEP WAS LEGAL), I do question the unbanning of Bloodbraid Elf considering Jund is one of the best decks right now. Ancestral Vision may go into Twin, which seems potentially dangerous considering it's one of the top decks, but the bigger concern right now is Grixis Control, a huge deck at the moment, which Ancestral Vision seems like it'd fit very well into. Basically, they're unbans that would slot straight into what are some of the top decks in the format right now, so they seem dubious for unbanning.
Sword of the Meek is banned (lol)? Cmon.Sword of the Meek being banned, however, is a bit silly. It's generally considered a fairly safe unban by the playerbase, but Wizards of the Coast has made it abundantly clear they will only unban cards in Modern before a Pro Tour.
Giving the average turn around time of a round is not anecdotal evidence. Saying "The rounds took too long, I was there!" is anecdotal evidence: One has indisputable observations, the other have opinions. You are correct that all I have is 1 event's worth of data and that in itself is reason to take t with a grain of salt.
You can't expect to just throw these observations into this thread and claim innocence regarding your actual motive for proffering such data. Unless you make a habit of randomly providing data in threads that just happens to coincide with an issue at hand, with no intention of bolstering a given point or counterpoint in that thread, then we have to assume your intention was, in fact, to use the data from one event to provide the insubstantial body of a counterpoint to the argument in the article.
Intentionally slow playing is called cheating- stalling and got Saito DQ'd those years ago. Slow play by its nature is unintentionally failing to advance the game state. I agree that while the decisions with top can lead to slow play from inexperienced pilots, that's a problem inherent with the players themselves, not the card.
The problem with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is that, yes, while technically true, the fact of the matter is that there is a significant portion of people in the general populace who cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions consistently. Unless you are wholly trusting of everyone, then you have to acknowledge that some kind of oversight or control is usually necessary when people are given the power to affect their community.
In Magic terms, giving everyone the power to play Sensei's Divining Top and negatively affect the length and time of their Legacy tournament is an error, because the majority of people playing SDT cannot make correct decisions as quickly as necessary to expediently finish their match. The threshold for this skill level is simply too high to clear for most people. It is unrealistic and foolhardy to expect the majority of Miracles pilots to be experienced and skilled enough to play as efficiently as is necessary for this not to be a problem. Thus, we have to use regulatory powers to curtial the effects of the actual card in question.
And again, we have to come back to the weighing of the positives and negatives:
What does the presence of SDT offer the format and its players? (Miracles is a great deck. A few tier 2 archetypes can play a 2-of/3-of.)
What does the banning of SDT give in terms of an enhanced experience? (Much more expedient play in tournaments, more diverse control strategies, more diverse aggro, etc)
If you weigh the positives of SDT and the negatives of SDT, it's clear that banning SDT offers more for Legacy tournaments than keeping SDT does.
Admiral_Arzar
08-10-2015, 04:48 PM
I'm sure his suggestions have nothing to do with the fact that Punishing Fire and Sensei's Divining Top almost single-handedly destroy the one Legacy deck he has played exclusively since 2012.
While Shaheen is a very fast pilot with Stoneblade, his deck of choice is much more prone to going to time than Lands is, and is probably comparable to Miracles in that regard. It's got the grindy elements of both decks without the ability to present a fast clock that Lands and Miracles do.
LOL I didn't know he played Stoneblade. It all makes sense now. He has TNN now - that guy is hard for Lands to deal with, pre-TNN Blade was a bye.
Why is it unrealistic to expect people in higher-level organized play to be able to follow the rules?
The issue is that people have spent years justifying the behavior in their own minds. I have spent years giving out escalated game losses.
I could go into how players misinterpret complexity of the gamestate, or how the take too long performing mechanical actions like looking at cards and shuffling, or how much time is wasted staring at a board that hasn't changed with a look of desperate confusion that leaks out of their soul through their eyes, but it's a lot simpler to just say "I need you to make a play, now."
I've never had issues playing Top, Brainstorm, or any of the other cards people constantly cite for "slow play." Heck I combo'd off with 4 Horseman in a reasonable amount of time before the rules change nuked that deck. Perhaps, if people are unable to play these cards in a reasonable amount of time, they should (a) practice outside a tournament setting or (b) play another deck. I also find that enforcement for slow play is very lax, but that is probably more the fault of players who don't call a judge than the judges themselves.
lordofthepit
08-10-2015, 04:51 PM
LOL I didn't know he played Stoneblade. It all makes sense now. He has TNN now - that guy is hard for Lands to deal with, pre-TNN Blade was a bye.
He doesn't play TNN. He's still jamming Lingering Souls like it's 2012. If he were playing TNN, I doubt he'd be complaining about Punishing Fire.
Admiral_Arzar
08-10-2015, 05:08 PM
He doesn't play TNN. He's still jamming Lingering Souls like it's 2012. If he were playing TNN, I doubt he'd be complaining about Punishing Fire.
That would explain his problem then I guess.
Doishy
08-10-2015, 05:10 PM
Personally I think both suggestions for the hammer are a bit extreme. As people have pointed put Top is played in a fair few fringe decks (Including my personal choice of DDFT) and does represent one of the few excellent non blue card selection suites. I do think miracles is over abundant as an archetype and would advocate a banning of something from it but no top. Possibly either counterbalance or terminus (I would prefer the former but either would do).
As for the time problem, also as has been pointed out, the right players play fast and well. Legacy is a fast format in one respect but a very well considered one in another and I feel like taking out this time for consideration would be a negative to it.
Merely my musings.
iatee
08-10-2015, 05:25 PM
As for the time problem, also as has been pointed out, the right players play fast and well.
very strong players go to time with miracles *all the time*, to the extent that it affects basically every large legacy tournament result.
both top and brainstorm should be banned, it doesn't need to be an either or. I don't think top is broken as a card in legacy, but it's broken as a tournament card.
Tammit67
08-10-2015, 06:14 PM
You can't expect to just throw these observations into this thread and claim innocence regarding your actual motive for proffering such data. Unless you make a habit of randomly providing data in threads that just happens to coincide with an issue at hand, with no intention of bolstering a given point or counterpoint in that thread, then we have to assume your intention was, in fact, to use the data from one event to provide the insubstantial body of a counterpoint to the argument in the article.
My innocence? My motive was to counteract the author's point that "legacy events have huge logistical concerns that warrant bannings because of the cards available to the format" by providing the context average turnaround time of the event he claims had really shitty turnaround time (check the Thomas Whitman comment and response chain). Whether you think the SCG DC observation is insubstantial is your interpretation, for me it is an example of how events are run in Legacy.
The problem with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is that, yes, while technically true, the fact of the matter is that there is a significant portion of people in the general populace who cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions consistently. Unless you are wholly trusting of everyone, then you have to acknowledge that some kind of oversight or control is usually necessary when people are given the power to affect their community.
In Magic terms, giving everyone the power to play Sensei's Divining Top and negatively affect the length and time of their Legacy tournament is an error, because the majority of people playing SDT cannot make correct decisions as quickly as necessary to expediently finish their match. The threshold for this skill level is simply too high to clear for most people. It is unrealistic and foolhardy to expect the majority of Miracles pilots to be experienced and skilled enough to play as efficiently as is necessary for this not to be a problem. Thus, we have to use regulatory powers to curtial the effects of the actual card in question.
We do have oversight for those unable to handle the responsibilities of playing at a reasonable pace: the entire judge community and tournament structure. If someone is taking too long, they get warnings and/or they get draws and drop from the event for being unable to cash and switch decks. I'm willing to keep my faith in the judges on staff to progress the event and for the players to assist with that.
You know what cards take up more tournament time than top? Fetchlands. But we aren't looking to ban them right?
And again, we have to come back to the weighing of the positives and negatives:
What does the presence of SDT offer the format and its players? (Miracles is a great deck. A few tier 2 archetypes can play a 2-of/3-of.)
What does the banning of SDT give in terms of an enhanced experience? (Much more expedient play in tournaments, more diverse control strategies, more diverse aggro, etc)
If you weigh the positives of SDT and the negatives of SDT, it's clear that banning SDT offers more for Legacy tournaments than keeping SDT does.
But it is nothing unique to top that banning it would change the format, hell banning stoneforge would change how decks interact with each other and what would be considered viable. "Hey if we ban show and tell, other combo decks get to play the game and decks bad against omnishow get to see the light of day". Well no kidding, but show and tell isn't crushing tournaments. Top isn't doing that either, it is simply a tier 1 deck that the author has decided to hate on in his opinion piece because it wins very slowly.
I hold no ill will towards you or the author, I just don't agree with his points. I haven't attended a legacy event where I thought time was an issue outside of GP NJ last year with its 4500 people. I'd rather keep the ban list as small as possible rather than ban a fantastic card that is not putting up egregiously dominant results.
Lemnear
08-10-2015, 06:42 PM
Top has a somewhat reasonable argument. Punishing Fire? Laughable. His argument is that because it is sometimes a secondary win condition in a tier 1 deck that it should be banned? You are more than welcome to scoop if you feel like time is becoming an issue.
In all Fairness, the SDT/Terminus/Entreat camp puts the same middlefinger into the face of aggro decks like PunishingFire/Tabernacle/MazeOfIth and both decks can't finish three games in a reasonable time which was seen in the SCG Washington Quarterfinals as the Lands players scooped after losing game 1 to his own wrong priorities (of not killing opponents Jace).
I guess Lands and Miracles have the same stifling effect on a certain potion of the metagame and cause the same logistic issues (if I dare to call each match going to time that way)
Barook
08-10-2015, 07:27 PM
In all Fairness, the SDT/Terminus/Entreat camp puts the same middlefinger into the face of aggro decks like PunishingFire/Tabernacle/MazeOfIth and both decks can't finish three games in a reasonable time which was seen in the SCG Washington Quarterfinals as the Lands players scooped after losing game 1 to his own wrong priorities (of not killing opponents Jace).
I guess Lands and Miracles have the same stifling effect on a certain potion of the metagame and cause the same logistic issues (if I dare to call each match going to time that way)
Yes, he misplayed by not killing the Jace and spamming Marit Lage tokens to run him out of StPs, but I wouldn't read too much into his concede (https://twitter.com/Daryl_Ayers/status/630478953397010432).
Lemnear
08-10-2015, 07:44 PM
Yes, he misplayed by not killing the Jace and spamming Marit Lage tokens to run him out of StPs, but I wouldn't read too much into his concede (https://twitter.com/Daryl_Ayers/status/630478953397010432).
Then maybe I shouldn't put too much thoughts into why both players misplayed through the whole match either. #FatesealYourselfWithJaceForCardQualityAndWin
RokiLothbard
08-10-2015, 08:02 PM
I think Show and Tell makes games too fast. I'd prefer to ban it and just get rid of the clock all together for Legacy. Slow play just for the sake of being a dick could still be penalizable.
Yes, I'm kind of trolling. But I am also stating an honest preference. I'd rather just play 2 hour rounds than nerf the only real control deck.
Lemnear
08-10-2015, 08:18 PM
I think Show and Tell makes games too fast. I'd prefer to ban it and just get rid of the clock all together for Legacy. Slow play just for the sake of being a dick could still be penalizable.
Yes, I'm kind of trolling. But I am also stating an honest preference. I'd rather just play 2 hour rounds than nerf the only real control deck.
That stuff can really only come from a casual player, who's simply not used to play 7+ rounds per event. The last SCG Open had 15 rounds and you want to tell me that 2h rounds are fine? Who said "control" would die without Miracles?
Lord Seth
08-10-2015, 09:13 PM
That stuff can really only come from a casual player, who's simply not used to play 7+ rounds per event. The last SCG Open had 15 rounds and you want to tell me that 2h rounds are fine? Who said "control" would die without Miracles?Well, considering Soorani was advocating a ban on not just Miracles, but also Lands... that leaves Death & Taxes as the only major control deck left, and Death & Taxes isn't what one typically thinks of when they think "control deck."
DragoFireheart
08-10-2015, 09:48 PM
Ban nothing.
The format is fine and will adjust.
Is this why people have sold off their Legacy cards?
emidln
08-10-2015, 11:43 PM
Is this why people have sold off their Legacy cards?
Pretty sure the reason people sold off their cards is current buylist prices. Legacy is nice and all, but so is having a down payment on a house.
Dice_Box
08-10-2015, 11:58 PM
The idea that new people are picking up Lands without testing it is laughable. You don't drop a grand on a card on a whim.
Stevestamopz
08-11-2015, 12:08 AM
I'm sure his suggestions have nothing to do with the fact that Punishing Fire and Sensei's Divining Top almost single-handedly destroy the one Legacy deck he has played exclusively since 2012.
/thread
Jo11ygrnreefer
08-11-2015, 12:15 AM
I think the article completely misses the point of the current problems. If people are complaing about the long hours of an Open, try comparing it to the World Series of Poker. Your talking 4 actual playing days each lasting 12+ hours. You sit to play cards, time is not a factor, the goal is to declare a champion and time is not a factor. You see older pros who choose to not participate, because they cannot physically endure the grind. What makes this a successful tournament are the accomodations, the prize pool, which Legacy lacks. So, complaing about a 15 round tourney is a joke, everybody should be more upset about the organization and crappy conditions which everyone has to tolerate.
Secondly, SDT is not the issue, and I feel its a fair card. If we are calling for a banning, I nominate Terminus. Board wipe for 1 is OP.
phonics
08-11-2015, 12:52 AM
If time is an issue then why wouldn't you just lower the round times rather than ban cards?
Amon Amarth
08-11-2015, 02:08 AM
The idea that new people are picking up Lands without testing it is laughable. You don't drop a grand on a card on a whim.
Pretty much this. Who the hell is letting their friends pick up Legacy decks like Lands without an extensive amount of practice? That's absurd, as is the idea that we need to ban cards so we can fix a problem that is fundamentally an issue with players. Legacy is an extremely complex format and you need a lot of time to figure out interactions that are and have been absent from current Magic formats for over a decade. New players should stick with something simple like Delver.
GundamGuy
08-11-2015, 08:42 AM
If time is an issue then why wouldn't you just lower the round times rather than ban cards?
So instead of 2-3 draws a round you'd have 6-10...
No.
New players should stick with something simple like Delver.
Maybe they should... but that doesn't mean they do that. Now I'm not saying new players pile onto the Lands Bandwagon... I think new players picking up Miracles is way more common.
nevilshute
08-11-2015, 09:58 AM
His article really irked me in that it's an "opinion piece" (his quote from one of his replies) and not based on actual facts... it's just one dudes feelings which are totally subjective and not backed up by facts.
If I'm wrong about this, then please correct me, but does Shaheen Soorani play much legacy outside of the handful of Opens there are every year? It's easy to suspect that he doesn't with his 2012 decklist and if that's the case then I think it's a somewhat irrelavent article tbh.
It's seems, however, that the OP wants to discuss the possible banning of Sensei's Divining Top. I think that's what the B&R thread is for.
If you ban Brainstorm, there is a distinct possibility that Miracles continues to dominate as the only deck in the format that truly maximizes card selection by using Top in addition to Ponder and 1 Brainstorm. The other blue decks like Delver would not play Top, or at least not as effectively, because they do not maximize its power with 4 Counterbalance and 4 Terminus. Without 4 copies of Brainstorm, every other blue deck in the format would be weakened in their ability to skimp on lands and keep light hands, and Miracles might just be even more dominant than now.
The problem with banning Brainstorm is that it's the equivalent of detonating a thermonuclear bomb in a crowded city. Sure, it will take out that terrorist enclave in the trade district, but it will also turn the entire city into a smoldering heap. Banning SDT is like using a strike force of SEAL operatives to assassinate those terrorists instead. It will only really hurt one deck and one deck only, and we don't need to upset the entire apple cart to make a positive change in the format.
You ban Brainstorm - Miracles ceases to exist. That is not hyperbole; the deck is too unstable without it. Don't believe me? Deal yourself a few hands with any other cantrip in its place. Bomb in a city? Fine. Some will fold. Still fine. When your deck can only exist with a completely OP card, it is not actually a real deck. It is merely an extension of the effects of the card. Whatever. My position on this is clearly hardening over time.
They have been so pusilanimous about this for so long that it has gotten to this point that the format is in a Brainstorm cloud. Folks like yourself think the place can't run without it. Vinta...whatever. A single example does not a pattern make, especially when there are dozens of counterexamples. That is - stuff gets banned. The game goes on.
Legacy has been handed its hat, people. Allowing it a slow and painful death at the hands of tards who can't see past their noses is just the proverbial frog in the slow-boiling pot. There is a clear and obvious fix to this decay. We can all see it. Even the folks who are afraid of the consequences have to acknowledge that it would set the boat straight. Painful as it may seem, that is precisely what leaders are for. If you are one of those people who would kiss Legacy goodbye without Brainstorm in it, honestly, we don't need you either. It is the format we are talking about, and not any of our personal feelings, right? There is no room for both. Fucking do something worth the bother. If they ban anything other than Brainstorm at this point they are just kicking the can down the road like politicians, and delaying the inevitable.
Quasim0ff
08-11-2015, 10:35 AM
You ban Brainstorm - Miracles ceases to exist. That is not hyperbole; the deck is too unstable without it. Don't believe me? Deal yourself a few hands with any other cantrip in its place. Bomb in a city? Fine. Some will fold. Still fine. When your deck can only exist with a completely OP card, it is not actually a real deck. It is merely an extension of the effects of the card. Whatever. My position on this is clearly hardening over time.
They have been so pusilanimous about this for so long that it has gotten to this point that the format is in a Brainstorm cloud. Folks like yourself think the place can't run without it. Vinta...whatever. A single example does not a pattern make, especially when there are dozens of counterexamples. That is - stuff gets banned. The game goes on.
Legacy has been handed its hat, people. Allowing it a slow and painful death at the hands of tards who can't see past their noses is just the proverbial frog in the slow-boiling pot. There is a clear and obvious fix to this decay. We can all see it. Even the folks who are afraid of the consequences have to acknowledge that it would set the boat straight. Painful as it may seem, that is precisely what leaders are for. If you are one of those people who would kiss Legacy goodbye without Brainstorm in it, honestly, we don't need you either. It is the format we are talking about, and not any of our personal feelings, right? There is no room for both. Fucking do something worth the bother. If they ban anything other than Brainstorm at this point they are just kicking the can down the road like politicians, and delaying the inevitable.
Doesn't it get boring?
Besides: every single deck in the format exists because of 1 card being inherently strong (Be it wasteland, Aether Vial, Deathrite Shaman, Show and Tell, Thalia). This is NOT only applicable to brainstorm decks.
Pilhas
08-11-2015, 10:35 AM
Can we please leave the B&R discussion in the B&R Discussion Thread?
Some people like to wander through the forums without being constantly reminded that some people don't like some cards.
ban Brainstorm, Miracles is no longer a deck
I am not entirely sure that Miracles would cease to exist. SDT is still the primary method of abusing the Miracle mechanic and establishing a Counterbalance lock. While I agree that there is no equivalently powerful 1-mana cantrip, the deck would adapt to the absence of Brainstorm, perhaps playing some combination of Portent, Scroll Rack, increasing the copies of Jace, the Mind Sculptor, etc.
I agree that Brainstorm puts Blue on a whole other tier of competition in comparison to other colors. But what's to say that a different color wouldn't simply step into the power void left behind and become the ubiquitous option? I could imagine Black being played much more frequently due to the increased power/reliability of Discard in a format without Brainstorm. Would we then eventually call for a banning of Thoughtseize / Cabal Therapy since the top 8 has 7/8 decks packing 4 copies of Discard? Would we still call such a scenario a 56-card format?
It's an unfortunate coincidence that Brainstorm is Blue, seeing as the other powerful elements (counterspells, cantrips, etc.) are also Blue. But had Brainstorm been Black or Green or White or Red, Legacy decks likely would be starting with those colors.
Point is, in an eternal format, the cream is going to rise to the top.
Brainstorm enables multiple archetypes, many of which *aren't* mono-Blue, and does not typically react negatively with tournament structure due to time constraints. The same can not be said of SDT.
Stevestamopz
08-11-2015, 11:06 AM
You ban Brainstorm - Miracles ceases to exist. That is not hyperbole; the deck is too unstable without it. Don't believe me? Deal yourself a few hands with any other cantrip in its place. Bomb in a city? Fine. Some will fold. Still fine. When your deck can only exist with a completely OP card, it is not actually a real deck. It is merely an extension of the effects of the card. Whatever. My position on this is clearly hardening over time.
They have been so pusilanimous about this for so long that it has gotten to this point that the format is in a Brainstorm cloud. Folks like yourself think the place can't run without it. Vinta...whatever. A single example does not a pattern make, especially when there are dozens of counterexamples. That is - stuff gets banned. The game goes on.
Legacy has been handed its hat, people. Allowing it a slow and painful death at the hands of tards who can't see past their noses is just the proverbial frog in the slow-boiling pot. There is a clear and obvious fix to this decay. We can all see it. Even the folks who are afraid of the consequences have to acknowledge that it would set the boat straight. Painful as it may seem, that is precisely what leaders are for. If you are one of those people who would kiss Legacy goodbye without Brainstorm in it, honestly, we don't need you either. It is the format we are talking about, and not any of our personal feelings, right? There is no room for both. Fucking do something worth the bother. If they ban anything other than Brainstorm at this point they are just kicking the can down the road like politicians, and delaying the inevitable.
citizenkanedudeclapping.gif
MaximumC
08-11-2015, 11:14 AM
Meh, you could ban Top, Brainstorm, and Punishing fire and it would STILL be a better format than Modern. So.
theillest
08-11-2015, 11:21 AM
I'm sure his suggestions have nothing to do with the fact that Punishing Fire and Sensei's Divining Top almost single-handedly destroy the one Legacy deck he has played exclusively since 2012.
While Shaheen is a very fast pilot with Stoneblade, his deck of choice is much more prone to going to time than Lands is, and is probably comparable to Miracles in that regard. It's got the grindy elements of both decks without the ability to present a fast clock that Lands and Miracles do.
LOL this. /thread.
All of you launching into a debate on the merits of bans while overlooking this got fleeced.
Slow play is a problem with the pilot, not the vehicle. Noobs can jam burn or some other more linear strategy until they get enough rounds under their belts to top in a reasonable amount of time. Inexperienced players picking up a netdeck and sucking with it is not a reason to unsheathe the ban hammer.
iostream
08-11-2015, 11:26 AM
I suspect I'm in the silent majority here when I say that Brainstorm as a card is just a lot of fun to play, and I don't care about balancing the colors at all. I would be happy playing 15 rounds of Delver mirrors at an SCG Open just because that's the kind of Magic I personally enjoy the most. Sensei's Top is also fine, and rounds going over time does not substantially impact my enjoyment of an event; I've always just played casual games in between rounds. No, I'm not a new player. I've been playing the format competitively almost since the banned list got split off from Vintage.
I can totally understand why people might want to ban the cards, though. I get that Brainstorm mirrors aren't everyone's cup of tea. but what I don't get is all this talk about the format dying or whatever. They just seem like orthogonal issues. WotC and SCG are not scaling back their legacy support because of Brainstorm. They're doing it because it distracts attention from their cash cows: Standard and Limited, where players must continually buy new product in order to compete.
If you want to argue that they should be banned, the question is not "are they oppressive/killing the format/etc", the question is "would the majority of the Legacy community enjoy the format more without those cards?" I think the answer is likely no, and that's why we're in the situation we're in, and that's perfect for players like me.
Whitefaces
08-11-2015, 11:28 AM
What does the presence of SDT offer the format and its players? (Miracles is a great deck. A few tier 2 archetypes can play a 2-of/3-of.)
What does the banning of SDT give in terms of an enhanced experience? (Much more expedient play in tournaments, more diverse control strategies, more diverse aggro, etc)
Has it ever occurred to you that people enjoy playing with SDT?
iatee
08-11-2015, 12:13 PM
it seems pretty likely that there are way more people who dislike having to play against top (in every format, ever) than there are people who enjoy playing w/ top and having it in the game
davelin
08-11-2015, 01:07 PM
it seems pretty likely that there are way more people who dislike having to play against top (in every format, ever) than there are people who enjoy playing w/ top and having it in the game
One point in favor of unprovable conjectures.
Kathal
08-11-2015, 01:21 PM
Disclaimer: Modern stuff
While Bloodbraid Elf's banning was it taking the fall for the actual problem card (Deathrite Shaman) and Ancestral Vision's rationale for banning was poor ("it sees a lot of play in Legacy!" Yeah, because MENTAL MISSTEP WAS LEGAL), I do question the unbanning of Bloodbraid Elf considering Jund is one of the best decks right now. Ancestral Vision may go into Twin, which seems potentially dangerous considering it's one of the top decks, but the bigger concern right now is Grixis Control, a huge deck at the moment, which Ancestral Vision seems like it'd fit very well into. Basically, they're unbans that would slot straight into what are some of the top decks in the format right now, so they seem dubious for unbanning.
Sword of the Meek being banned, however, is a bit silly. It's generally considered a fairly safe unban by the playerbase, but Wizards of the Coast has made it abundantly clear they will only unban cards in Modern before a Pro Tour.
FYI, Ancestral Visions and BBE would be busted in the CURRENT Modern format. I made some tests with an unbanned AV/BBE and it wasn't even nice what happened. When Twin suddenly has a really good match-up against BGx you start to wonder, what is wrong (and yeah, AV is that good in the deck). Twin is the main reason, why AV will never get unbanned (or at least, as long as it is a T1 deck).
BBE is a similar card. Pre Kolaghan's it would have been no problem to unban it, but in the current meta and deck builds it would push Jund back to an unhealthy metagame share (so more than 15% (this is around the value, where WOTC bans cards from a deck just because of the metagame share)).
In the end, the format would evolve to a point, where you either play Twin, Jund or a hyper aggressive Aggro/Combo deck (Griselbranned, Affinity, Infect,...). Nearly every other deck wouldn't have the raw powerlevel to compete with Twin and Jund.
However, other cards, such as Jace, Sword of the Meek, Seething Song and Dig would be fine. As for the first 2, those are perfectly fine in the current format, whereas the other 2 cards would boost several different decks (especially fringe ones).
@All, I have not much experience with big Legacy tournaments, so I can't make a statement on this case (and furthermore, I'm biased in both cases, since I play DDFT and Jund).
Greetings,
Kathal
hotlikedimes
08-11-2015, 01:27 PM
I commented on the article, and I'll echo my thoughts here on a hopefully more informed forum. I don't think they should be banned, plenty of good players can play miracles and lands at a decent pace. The issue is with people who take forever to make their decisions. counter-top should take 5 seconds to resolve. a good player will know the 3 cards on top, know how to order them in the case of a counterbalance trigger, and be able to order them properly if need be. The lines of play leading up to the countertop 'lock' aren't crazy. The deck has an answer to everything, and manipulation to get the cards you need. It just requires a lot of goldfishing and watching players play the deck at an efficient pace.
I feel like the 'stop slow play by banning slow decks' argument is the lazy way to go about this. It leads to animosity between veterans and newer legacy players with the 'this is why we can't have nice things' result. I think it's up to veteran players to educate newer players about these things and help them get better at the deck before entering these larger tournaments. In tournaments if the opponent is playing extremely slow, I think it's fair to ask them to play a bit faster or you'll be forced to call a judge.
it seems pretty likely that there are way more people who dislike having to play against top (in every format, ever) than there are people who enjoy playing w/ top and having it in the game
And the majority of Spikes who play Miracles in Legacy because it's a Tier 1 deck would just move on if SDT was banned and play another powerful deck, and not even care about losing SDT.
iatee
08-11-2015, 02:14 PM
Again - good players go to time with miracles all the time and not because they're playing slowly. Control decks are slow across formats and this is not a miracles-only problem, but top is what pushes it over the edge. It's simply not a well-designed magic card, especially not for tournament play.
I agree w/ Finn that banning brainstorm would have the extra benefit of nerfing the deck, probably to the point where the miracles mechanic becomes unplayable, but top deserves to be banned for non-power level reasons.
iatee
08-11-2015, 02:19 PM
One point in favor of unprovable conjectures.
It earned a majority of the votes in the banworthy poll 6 years ago:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?14662-All-B-R-update-speculation
and it's hard to imagine that people have grown more fond of it since then. I'm not gonna waste space w/ a stupid poll to prove a point, but it's far from 'unprovable'.
Anarky87
08-11-2015, 02:25 PM
Both cards are fine. Play the format or move on. Bad article is bad.
ahg113
08-11-2015, 02:35 PM
Crap article (Legacy portion) is crap because reasons.
This player, with an invested personal bias, writing for an employer that makes influential decisions about the frequency of events, picks random and poor targets for ire. But beyond the hate for Lands and Miracles, he's complaining that he (and superficially others) can't win fast enough. That's a 'you' problem, and not a 'me' problem. It'd be great if all the decks would fold under pressure and capitulate to the designed game plan. Just as there are dichotomies of fair vs. unfair & interactive vs. uninteractive, this fast vs. slow argument is hollow. Magic is great because players have options on playstyle. Eliminating said play style is bunk. A step further would imply game-time should be lessened to burn vs. Belcher match-ups, because time, over game play, is so important.
Eliminating portions of the deck makes sense, but the targets he chose don't.
Alternatives to impede Miracles and Lands-
Miracles: Terminus, Counterbalance
Lands: Thespian Stage
Both of these decks are new due to printings and rule changes. If the Legend Rule hadn't been modified, Lands would still be packing Vampire Hexmage in order to cheat in Mariat Lage. Miracles is a dick to play because there's no effort needed in making your opponent 'not play spells'. Spinning top to control the top of library in order for the correct CB trigger could be eradicated by keeping top, and losing CB.
That the position was taken, "these are hard decks to play against, or even with" is sanctimonious rubbish. If that's the case, storm should be axed too, let's ban cards with the storm trigger.
This isn't too mention that if Wizards thought this was a problem (not the false line about reduced number of events, again SCG could up that number tomorrow if they so chose, WotC has had a low number historically), they could just hate out either of these strategies the way they've printed so much gy hate that has pushed Dredge to fringe status.
Crap article is crap, and self-serving. Buy the line these are the reasons Legacy isn't as great, watch nothing get done, and justify sales decisions by unscientific evidence a problem with the format leads to less exposure leads to less sales, justified.
Crimhead
08-11-2015, 03:53 PM
Maybe a better "solution" would be to add twenty or thirty minutes to each round. Does it make sense that a Legacy mastch has the same time limit as a Standard or Sealed match?
What does the presence of SDT offer the format and its players? (Miracles is a great deck. A few tier 2 archetypes can play a 2-of/3-of.)
It offers us the only pure stack-based control deck in the format. Without Miracles the only options for control are aggressive midrangy decks or the one viable prison deck (Lands).
Lemnear
08-11-2015, 04:31 PM
Maybe a better "solution" would be to add twenty or thirty minutes to each round. Does it make sense that a Legacy mastch has the same time limit as a Standard or Sealed match?
It offers us the only pure stack-based control deck in the format. Without Miracles the only options for control are aggressive midrangy decks or the one viable prison deck (Lands).
Legacy has earlier critical turns than Standard or Sealed, so why should it get MORE time? We also don't know if a stack-based control like Golddigger would replace Miracles in that Department as there is no development done in that section as Miracles is the undoubtful better deck with the current B&R list
Crimhead
08-11-2015, 05:41 PM
Legacy has earlier critical turns than Standard or Sealed, so why should it get MORE time? Because Legacy has always had far more ways to slow the game down. If it's at the point where people (be they reasonable or otherwise) are talking about banning prison and grindy control decks altogether, maybe it's the structure that's flawed.
We also don't know if a stack-based control like Golddigger would replace Miracles in that Department as there is no development done in that section as Miracles is the undoubtful better deck with the current B&R listI guess. All I know is that leading up to AVR pure control was missing and presumed dead. Maybe stack-based control decks need a cheap (and reliable) wrath to keep up with today's power-creeped creatures?
Crap article (Legacy portion) is crap because reasons.
This player, with an invested personal bias, writing for an employer that makes influential decisions about the frequency of events, picks random and poor targets for ire. But beyond the hate for Lands and Miracles, he's complaining that he (and superficially others) can't win fast enough. That's a 'you' problem, and not a 'me' problem. It'd be great if all the decks would fold under pressure and capitulate to the designed game plan. Just as there are dichotomies of fair vs. unfair & interactive vs. uninteractive, this fast vs. slow argument is hollow. Magic is great because players have options on playstyle. Eliminating said play style is bunk. A step further would imply game-time should be lessened to burn vs. Belcher match-ups, because time, over game play, is so important.
Eliminating portions of the deck makes sense, but the targets he chose don't.
Alternatives to impede Miracles and Lands-
Miracles: Terminus, Counterbalance
Lands: Thespian Stage
Both of these decks are new due to printings and rule changes. If the Legend Rule hadn't been modified, Lands would still be packing Vampire Hexmage in order to cheat in Mariat Lage. Miracles is a dick to play because there's no effort needed in making your opponent 'not play spells'. Spinning top to control the top of library in order for the correct CB trigger could be eradicated by keeping top, and losing CB.
That the position was taken, "these are hard decks to play against, or even with" is sanctimonious rubbish. If that's the case, storm should be axed too, let's ban cards with the storm trigger.
This isn't too mention that if Wizards thought this was a problem (not the false line about reduced number of events, again SCG could up that number tomorrow if they so chose, WotC has had a low number historically), they could just hate out either of these strategies the way they've printed so much gy hate that has pushed Dredge to fringe status.
Crap article is crap, and self-serving. Buy the line these are the reasons Legacy isn't as great, watch nothing get done, and justify sales decisions by unscientific evidence a problem with the format leads to less exposure leads to less sales, justified.
Sigh...
The man at no point indicates that he advocates nerfing either deck because they are too powerful. Shaheen's only beef with the deck is the time it takes to complete a round. He mentions that banning Divining Top would solve this issue only because it is the culprit and therefor the obvious card to kill. Note that he does not even go into detail about what to ban from Lands to solve its analogous problem because that is not the point of this piece. This is an article about the health of the format. As he sees it, rounds run long too often (which is a major problem), and he holds these decks responsible.
Is he wrong about this in your view? Yes? Let's hear about how Lands and Miracles are not causing rounds to go too long. As it stands, none of your words call into question either his declaration of the problem or the solution he proposes. Either you are belittling the article and author because you did not understand it (and you are now brandishing it for all to see) or you are just complaining about some minutia that he did not focus on because...well...I can say a lot about that behavior, but any of my observations will get this post deleted.
-------
Also,
Besides: every single deck in the format exists because of 1 card being inherently strong (Be it wasteland, Aether Vial, Deathrite Shaman, Show and Tell, Thalia). This is NOT only applicable to brainstorm decks.
This is a very good point, and too bad for me because I thought I sounded so profound saying what I said. Thanks a bunch for bringing that up actually. I have a response, but I am going to delay in writing it because it opens up a whole topic. Wrong forum.
Crimhead
08-11-2015, 05:49 PM
I'm sure his suggestions have nothing to do with the fact that Punishing Fire and Sensei's Divining Top almost single-handedly destroy the one Legacy deck he has played exclusively since 2012.
While Shaheen is a very fast pilot with Stoneblade, his deck of choice is much more prone to going to time than Lands is, and is probably comparable to Miracles in that regard. It's got the grindy elements of both decks without the ability to present a fast clock that Lands and Miracles do.
The more a player competes and succeeds in high level events, the bigger the conflict of interest between what's good for the game vs what's good for them.
OP seems to think that an opinion on format health or the banned list carries more weight if it comes from a pro. I think the opposite is true most of the time.
Lord Seth
08-11-2015, 05:52 PM
Alternatives to impede Miracles and Lands-
Miracles: Terminus, Counterbalance
Lands: Thespian Stage
Both of these decks are new due to printings and rule changes. If the Legend Rule hadn't been modified, Lands would still be packing Vampire Hexmage in order to cheat in Mariat Lage.You use the phrase that Lands "would still be packing Vampire Hexmage" as if Lands was ever using that card. Lands didn't play Vampire Hexmage in order to cheat in Marit Lage because the deck never bothered to try to do that until Thespian's Stage. Originally its land-based win condition was Creeping Tar Pit. Taking out Thespian's Stage isn't any different for Lands than Dark Depths because without Thespian's Stage it has no use for Dark Depths.
Not to mention, if the problem is that Lands is too slow, then Thespian's Stage being banned is just as stupid as a Dark Depths ban. After all, the Thespian's Stage+Dark Depths combo actually makes Lands significantly faster.
Crimhead
08-11-2015, 05:59 PM
Is he wrong about this in your view? Yes? Let's hear about how Lands and Miracles are not causing rounds to go too long. No round goes longer that the allotted time. Really the problem is rounds going to short, because matches aren't always finished.
The problem with this article is that it proposes sacrificing the diversity that comes with the only two creatureless control decks Legacy has seen in a long time (one of those decks being blue-less, for those who care). This cost associated with his solution isn't even acknowledged, indicative of the bias perspective from which he writes.
You use the phrase that Lands "would still be packing Vampire Hexmage" as if Lands was ever using that card. Lands didn't play Vampire Hexmage in order to cheat in Marit Lage because the deck never bothered to try to do that until Thespian's Stage. Originally its land-based win condition was Creeping Tar Pit.Mishra's Factory before that, but originally it was Nantuko Monastery!
lordofthepit
08-11-2015, 06:03 PM
The man at no point indicates that he advocates nerfing either deck because they are too powerful. Shaheen's only beef with the deck is the time it takes to complete a round.
It would be hypocritical for him to single out Miracles and Lands for those reasons, because his deck of choice probably takes as much time as Miracles and certainly more than Lands, even if he's a pretty fast player.
glowparty
08-12-2015, 03:12 AM
so if sdt extends rounds, how much time are we talking here? it can't be significant if players go to turns at 45 minutes.
in regards to a sdt ban only effecting miracles, it's already been said that builds of painter and 12-post use the full four copies. not two. not three. and the number doesnt really matter, a single card in a deck can be a very important slot. Since we do have the luxury of handicapping miracles in a way that doesn't handicap any other decks, i think that would be preferable.
edit: and the whole argument that 'people move on' doesn't have any meaning since that's what people necessarily do when a change happens that they don't have control over.
phonics
08-12-2015, 03:36 AM
So instead of 2-3 draws a round you'd have 6-10...
No.
Maybe they should... but that doesn't mean they do that. Now I'm not saying new players pile onto the Lands Bandwagon... I think new players picking up Miracles is way more common.
Did you just make up numbers or do you have any source? Draws may increase, but the change would also influence deck choices. Banning cards would only have a negligible effect on tournament lengths.
iatee
08-12-2015, 09:31 AM
No round goes longer that the allotted time. Really the problem is rounds going to short, because matches aren't always finished.
The problem with this article is that it proposes sacrificing the diversity that comes with the only two creatureless control decks Legacy has seen in a long time (one of those decks being blue-less, for those who care). This cost associated with his solution isn't even acknowledged, indicative of the bias perspective from which he writes.
Mishra's Factory before that, but originally it was Nantuko Monastery!
Making 90% of the tournament sit around waiting for an extra 20 minutes each round is pretty obviously a terrible idea, especially when 'large magic tournaments take too long' is already an issue.
Dice_Box
08-12-2015, 09:37 AM
If you have a large enough event, every round will go to time anyway. Because that's just the way the dice fall.
Seen a Dredge mirror go to time because they both dropped a Leyline on each other. Some decks do it more, but everyone does it at some point.
bruizar
08-12-2015, 10:36 AM
Haven't read the article but "wotc pls ban teh durdles" is a horrible thesis.
I still miss my playset of Shahrazad
iostream
08-12-2015, 10:52 AM
Making 90% of the tournament sit around waiting for an extra 20 minutes each round is pretty obviously a terrible idea, especially when 'large magic tournaments take too long' is already an issue.Rounds are going to go to time at any large tournament for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with deck choice. Sometimes rounds will be extended even longer than the typical five turns due to complicated judge calls. Rounds taking 90 minutes or whatever is just how large-scale, competitive tournament Magic works. The solution to "large magic tournaments take too long" is "if you don't like it, don't come to the tournament," not "ban a card".
bruizar
08-12-2015, 11:31 AM
Even if everybody is playing fast, there is still the issue of deck checks that require significantly more shuffling time after it has been performed. Deck checks are also performed when the round has already started and a few minutes of valuable shuffling time are done.
iatee
08-12-2015, 11:33 AM
Rounds are going to go to time at any large tournament for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with deck choice. Sometimes rounds will be extended even longer than the typical five turns due to complicated judge calls. Rounds taking 90 minutes or whatever is just how large-scale, competitive tournament Magic works. The solution to "large magic tournaments take too long" is "if you don't like it, don't come to the tournament," not "ban a card".
I was arguing against extending the time even further, because yes, no matter what the time limit is, matches will go that long.
SDT is just a really unpleasant card to play against from a game play perspective. It's not more broken than many other legacy cards, it disrupts the rhythm of the game and is super tedious for your opponent. (And while it doesn't inherently make large tournaments take longer, it does make small legacy tournaments take longer all the time.)
Sturtzilla
08-12-2015, 11:36 AM
My local legacy play group goes through a discussion like this maybe once or twice a year. There are many points to consider when calling for the banning of a card. Some may include:
-Is X too powerful for the format in question?
-Is X seeing a statistically disproportionate amount of play?
-Is X seeing a statistically disproportionate amount of play in the decks with the best records?
-Is X a burden on the physical operations of a tournament?
-Does X lead to non-interactive Magic?
-How do these affect overall customer service?
As for points one though three, I think it is a very powerful card. I think it sees a lot of play... this could be confirmed by GP Lille statistics and SCG PIQ data. Does it see a "disproportionate" amount of play? This is a hard question to answer as you would have to define "disproportionate." That is not something that I think is productive to discuss, as we have no real say in the metric.
As for Sensei's Divining Top is concerned, I personally believe it egregiously violates the fourth question. I can personally attest to as both an avid Legacy player and a Level 2 Judge (with SCG Opens and GPs under my belt), is that at nearly every event after time is called, there will be active matches involving SDT. I am not saying that it is impossible to play fast with SDT and get matches finished on time. What I am saying is that most players who believe that they can do this, in fact, cannot. SDT is a difficult card to master. It can be hard to remember your top three cards. This leads to the average player unnecessarily spinning a Top to double check. This takes a few seconds to do each time and if it happens a few times over the course of the game/match this player is simply burning valuable play time.
One could make the argument that this leads to uninteresting/non-interactive games of Magic. As an opponent waiting on an SDT trigger to be resolved, you get to do just that... wait. You watch precious seconds slip away as the controller of the ability agonizes over what to draw second and third. This is something you have to put up with unless you call a judge to watch for slow play. Most players feel like this is a rude thing to do and therefore don't do it. I can't even begin to count the number of players who have bemoaned how they should have called me (or another judge) over to watch for slow play due to an SDT.
These two points factor into the last point which is overall customer service. If round times consistently hit 65+ minutes, we as players will complain that the round times are too long. For a medium to large sized event, you will be there all day. When you have cards like SDT in a given format this is going to happen. There are always going to be other slower decks and inexperienced players that will cause rounds go to time. However, this is not acceptable logic to allow problem cards to remain legal. If WotC were to ban SDT, many of these slower decks would be cut from the field. Due to this there would be fewer matches live at the end of a given round. Fewer matches means better judge coverage, which translates to faster turnarounds and a faster event. Typically both players and judges agree that faster round turnarounds equal better customer service.
I think that there is logical ground to ban SDT. The same could be said for Punishing Fire; however, I find this a bit of a stretch as there are far fewer decks that play it. If it were played in the same or similar numbers as SDT, then I would likely agree that it should also go. Anyway, both of these cards have been legal for years and there has been no movement on banning them, so I doubt it will occur.
Chatto
08-12-2015, 12:34 PM
The same cannot be said about PF. Either you burn and recover it from your GY, or not. SDT let's you set up certain lines of play, thus giving you more to think about.
bruizar
08-12-2015, 12:37 PM
My local legacy play group goes through a discussion like this maybe once or twice a year. There are many points to consider when calling for the banning of a card. Some may include:
-Is X too powerful for the format in question?
-Is X seeing a statistically disproportionate amount of play?
-Is X seeing a statistically disproportionate amount of play in the decks with the best records?
-Is X a burden on the physical operations of a tournament?
-Does X lead to non-interactive Magic?
-How do these affect overall customer service?
As for points one though three, I think it is a very powerful card. I think it sees a lot of play... this could be confirmed by GP Lille statistics and SCG PIQ data. Does it see a "disproportionate" amount of play? This is a hard question to answer as you would have to define "disproportionate." That is not something that I think is productive to discuss, as we have no real say in the metric.
As for Sensei's Divining Top is concerned, I personally believe it egregiously violates the fourth question. I can personally attest to as both an avid Legacy player and a Level 2 Judge (with SCG Opens and GPs under my belt), is that at nearly every event after time is called, there will be active matches involving SDT. I am not saying that it is impossible to play fast with SDT and get matches finished on time. What I am saying is that most players who believe that they can do this, in fact, cannot. SDT is a difficult card to master. It can be hard to remember your top three cards. This leads to the average player unnecessarily spinning a Top to double check. This takes a few seconds to do each time and if it happens a few times over the course of the game/match this player is simply burning valuable play time.
One could make the argument that this leads to uninteresting/non-interactive games of Magic. As an opponent waiting on an SDT trigger to be resolved, you get to do just that... wait. You watch precious seconds slip away as the controller of the ability agonizes over what to draw second and third. This is something you have to put up with unless you call a judge to watch for slow play. Most players feel like this is a rude thing to do and therefore don't do it. I can't even begin to count the number of players who have bemoaned how they should have called me (or another judge) over to watch for slow play due to an SDT.
These two points factor into the last point which is overall customer service. If round times consistently hit 65+ minutes, we as players will complain that the round times are too long. For a medium to large sized event, you will be there all day. When you have cards like SDT in a given format this is going to happen. There are always going to be other slower decks and inexperienced players that will cause rounds go to time. However, this is not acceptable logic to allow problem cards to remain legal. If WotC were to ban SDT, many of these slower decks would be cut from the field. Due to this there would be fewer matches live at the end of a given round. Fewer matches means better judge coverage, which translates to faster turnarounds and a faster event. Typically both players and judges agree that faster round turnarounds equal better customer service.
I think that there is logical ground to ban SDT. The same could be said for Punishing Fire; however, I find this a bit of a stretch as there are far fewer decks that play it. If it were played in the same or similar numbers as SDT, then I would likely agree that it should also go. Anyway, both of these cards have been legal for years and there has been no movement on banning them, so I doubt it will occur.
I agree with your post besides on punishing fire. There is no agonizing/pondering that takes place when playing punishing fire. Either you burn something that is burnable, or you burn face. Welder-beat down has been a plan for more than 10 years. Just because you don't play fast win conditions like Emrakul, doesn't mean you can't play prison type decks.
ahg113
08-12-2015, 04:24 PM
Sigh...
The man at no point indicates that he advocates nerfing either deck because they are too powerful. Shaheen's only beef with the deck is the time it takes to complete a round. He mentions that banning Divining Top would solve this issue only because it is the culprit and therefor the obvious card to kill. Note that he does not even go into detail about what to ban from Lands to solve its analogous problem because that is not the point of this piece. This is an article about the health of the format. As he sees it, rounds run long too often (which is a major problem), and he holds these decks responsible.
Is he wrong about this in your view? Yes? Let's hear about how Lands and Miracles are not causing rounds to go too long. As it stands, none of your words call into question either his declaration of the problem or the solution he proposes.
he's complaining that he (and superficially others) can't win fast enough. That's a 'you' problem, and not a 'me' problem. It'd be great if all the decks would fold under pressure and capitulate to the designed game plan. Just as there are dichotomies of fair vs. unfair & interactive vs. uninteractive, this fast vs. slow argument is hollow. Magic is great because players have options on playstyle. Eliminating said play style is bunk. A step further would imply game-time should be lessened to burn vs. Belcher match-ups, because time, over game play, is so important.
Either you are belittling the article and author because you did not understand it (and you are now brandishing it for all to see) or you are just complaining about some minutia that he did not focus on because...well...I can say a lot about that behavior, but any of my observations will get this post deleted.
Opening Salvo-
This is the format where slow play and card interaction difficulty are at their highest point. I'm sure many of you just threw your hands up the first time you played against Dredge, not understanding or caring how your opponent's cards worked. That problem still exists in Legacy today.
Regarding Lands (emphasis mine)-
"The card interactions that exist in the deck can be confusing to newer players..."
"The deck is difficult to pilot for new users. This isn't an excuse that I typically take into consideration, because the opponent can easily call a judge to speed up the play of the new Lands player."
"Lands, like Dredge, has a lot of cards that just aren't used in any other deck. For that reason, odd interactions occur and “careful” play takes place in order to make optimal decisions. "
"Take all of these reasons and tack on the biggest flaw, which is the length of time required to win the game."
"It probably sounds hypocritical for me to call out the length of time a deck requires to defeat an opponent..."
"High Tide suffers from a similar problem, but the difference will always be in the amount a deck is played. I'd be shocked if we have more than one person playing Time Spiral at an Invitational, due to the general weakness of the deck the and time difficulties involved in playing it. The biggest issue with Lands is that it's also very good, which draws more and more people to the cause. The deck has always been around, and now we're taking note as it continues to place well in big tournaments and get picked up by talented mages."
Regarding Miracles (emphasis mine)-
"Miracles has been the best control deck in Legacy for years now... It's a control deck that has all of the most powerful card draw and removal spells alongside a free combo."
"Sensei's Divining Top allows a player to set up draws and find answers with very little drawback. When we combine it with Counterbalance, any opponent on the other side of the table wants nothing more than to concede and move to the next game... but they don't. I wouldn't either, and that creates the biggest time issue that this fantastic game can experience."
"...so the typical win condition is a one- or two-of Miracle that can take ages to find. The win will happen eventually, as we saw with Lands, but the opponent is under no obligation to scoop up their cards because things aren't going his or her way. "
"Miracles may be the toughest deck in Legacy to play, and that goes for the most experienced player down to one that is just getting into competitive Legacy. Brainstorm is tough enough to figure out once, but then you throw in four artifacts that can Brainstorm whenever you want and now we have a problem."
Closing Salvo (emphasis mine)-
"Break out the banhammer my friends and cut the legs off of both these decks."
"...it's important to ban the right card to only affect the decks that deserve it. Sensei's Divining Top is a great Magic card, and luckily it's only played heavily in one deck."
"...card I'd select to get banned from Lands is much trickier to determine. We could destroy their ability to win through burn by removing Punishing Fire, but that hurts Jund and other Tier Three decks that may enjoy the fair removal combo with Grove of the Burnwillows. I'm afraid that removing Dark Depths may not slay the beast completely, but that land is at least only used in the deck in question here. If I was a member of Wizards of the Coast tasked with nominating a card for removal I would vote for Punishing Fire, but that is purely based on my hatred for the card with a complete acknowledgement of my personal bias. The more logical removal would be between Dark Depths and Life from the Loam, which are rarely used outside of the Lands strategy."
So where was I off? I'm literate, pretty sure, that's what the guy I'm paying to type this is telling me. (I told him to dictate this whole soliloquy.) He identifies High Tide as being a slow control deck that can take forever to win, but it's ok because it shows up so infrequently, why bother. He specifically targets these two decks because they're good. You don't need to knee cap them, and ancillary others, by removing SDT & either/or DDepths and LftL, as he proposed. He makes a notion that players deserve to play blah blah blah because they paid money, but that exclusive thought discredits the opponent that also paid money bringing the Lands/Miracle deck (wait, do these guys get to play for free, entry fees waived?), to whom a draw may be preferable. Goose, gander, etc.
Yeah, not sure where the static is coming from, but whateve's. You be a dick, I'll be ignorant, and the world will continue to spin.
@Lord Seth - I agree that a Thespian Stage ban is stupid, I thought I was clear that any ban of these cards was stupid. I posit that Thespian Stage is a less stupid ban than Dark Depths however. As for V.Hexmage- well, I didn't say it was a good cheat, but it is a cheat. And while a deck packing such probably didn't make it very far to upper tables where the elite (I presume) like you inhabit, it's a thing, it's happened before. [/Cheers]
Sturtzilla
08-12-2015, 04:43 PM
I agree with your post besides on punishing fire. There is no agonizing/pondering that takes place when playing punishing fire. Either you burn something that is burnable, or you burn face. Welder-beat down has been a plan for more than 10 years. Just because you don't play fast win conditions like Emrakul, doesn't mean you can't play prison type decks.
I am firmly pro-banning on SDT. Do I think that it will happen, probably not. On a completely separate topic, if Punishing Fire style decks were being played in similar numbers to say Miracles, then maybe we should think about its impact on tournament operations. Like I posted, many players will complain about opponents taking too long with SDT. I don't think that I have really heard anything like this with PFire. I don't think it is anywhere near deserving a ban, but I would reserve judgement on it and really any card that makes matches go to time.
Tammit67
08-12-2015, 04:48 PM
My local legacy play group goes through a discussion like this maybe once or twice a year. There are many points to consider when calling for the banning of a card. Some may include:
-Is X too powerful for the format in question?
-Is X seeing a statistically disproportionate amount of play?
-Is X seeing a statistically disproportionate amount of play in the decks with the best records?
-Is X a burden on the physical operations of a tournament?
-Does X lead to non-interactive Magic?
-How do these affect overall customer service?
As for points one though three, I think it is a very powerful card. I think it sees a lot of play... this could be confirmed by GP Lille statistics and SCG PIQ data. Does it see a "disproportionate" amount of play? This is a hard question to answer as you would have to define "disproportionate." That is not something that I think is productive to discuss, as we have no real say in the metric.
As for Sensei's Divining Top is concerned, I personally believe it egregiously violates the fourth question. I can personally attest to as both an avid Legacy player and a Level 2 Judge (with SCG Opens and GPs under my belt), is that at nearly every event after time is called, there will be active matches involving SDT. I am not saying that it is impossible to play fast with SDT and get matches finished on time. What I am saying is that most players who believe that they can do this, in fact, cannot. SDT is a difficult card to master. It can be hard to remember your top three cards. This leads to the average player unnecessarily spinning a Top to double check. This takes a few seconds to do each time and if it happens a few times over the course of the game/match this player is simply burning valuable play time.
Why are we blaming the card for that? We as judges should push more for slow play warnings. Their are more widespread/played cards that are a burden on physical operations but top is under scrutiny because the decks that run it really want to make the game go late. See: Fetchlands, ponder, brainstorm, Dig for examples of physically intensive operations.
One could make the argument that this leads to uninteresting/non-interactive games of Magic. As an opponent waiting on an SDT trigger to be resolved, you get to do just that... wait. You watch precious seconds slip away as the controller of the ability agonizes over what to draw second and third. This is something you have to put up with unless you call a judge to watch for slow play. Most players feel like this is a rude thing to do and therefore don't do it. I can't even begin to count the number of players who have bemoaned how they should have called me (or another judge) over to watch for slow play due to an SDT.
These two points factor into the last point which is overall customer service. If round times consistently hit 65+ minutes, we as players will complain that the round times are too long. For a medium to large sized event, you will be there all day. When you have cards like SDT in a given format this is going to happen. There are always going to be other slower decks and inexperienced players that will cause rounds go to time. However, this is not acceptable logic to allow problem cards to remain legal. If WotC were to ban SDT, many of these slower decks would be cut from the field. Due to this there would be fewer matches live at the end of a given round. Fewer matches means better judge coverage, which translates to faster turnarounds and a faster event. Typically both players and judges agree that faster round turnarounds equal better customer service.
I don't think anything beyond your first 3 bullets should be used as banning criteria.
Non-interaction is something kitchen table players scream when they get introduced to combo for the first time. Belcher- the poster child of non-interactivity, completely safe to keep legal. If a deck forces the format into non-interactive matches, we've hit one of your first three points and we can ban from there. Non-interactivity itself isn't bad and by banning solely on that, you alienate the combo players of the format who get shit on by WotC's philosophy for their newer formats.
The only card that hits physical limitations to me is shaharazad and it is an extreme case. No other card comes close to eating up as much time as the first cast of that sorcery does. Top doesn't have that, it instead has bad players who aren't planning before they spin the top. These players should be punished with slow play warnings not with bannings. They will also get more draws and be out of the running for tournament prizes so the next event they've either practiced more with top or switch to a deck that runs more win conditions.
Also players need to learn to just scoop sometimes.
Over all customer service is subjective- player hates playing against show and tell, we should ban it. Invigorate too becomes the outcry... hell just look at the poll from the B&R thread stickied at the top. People are going to complain and unwarrantedly so.
Opening Salvo-
Regarding Lands (emphasis mine)-
Regarding Miracles (emphasis mine)-
Closing Salvo (emphasis mine)-
So where was I off? I'm literate, pretty sure, that's what the guy I'm paying to type this is telling me. (I told him to dictate this whole soliloquy.) He identifies High Tide as being a slow control deck that can take forever to win, but it's ok because it shows up so infrequently, why bother. He specifically targets these two decks because they're good. You don't need to knee cap them, and ancillary others, by removing SDT & either/or DDepths and LftL, as he proposed. He makes a notion that players deserve to play blah blah blah because they paid money, but that exclusive thought discredits the opponent that also paid money bringing the Lands/Miracle deck (wait, do these guys get to play for free, entry fees waived?), to whom a draw may be preferable. Goose, gander, etc.
Yeah, not sure where the static is coming from, but whateve's.............................................
@Lord Seth - I agree that a Thespian Stage ban is stupid, I thought I was clear that any ban of these cards was stupid. I posit that Thespian Stage is a less stupid ban than Dark Depths however. As for V.Hexmage- well, I didn't say it was a good cheat, but it is a cheat. And while a deck packing such probably didn't make it very far to upper tables where the elite (I presume) like you inhabit, it's a thing, it's happened before. [/Cheers]
@Mods: This is not a response to flames. I am ignoring the personal attack and I have even removed it from this quote.
Shaheen marked those decks as responsible for causing excessively long rounds. And he is correct. They are. The details of all those quotes you bothered with are just a discussion of what causes this. He goes on to back up his plan for taking out Divining T...
Ah, I don't feel like explaining this again. Think what you want.
ahg113
08-12-2015, 05:47 PM
@Mods: This is not a response to flames. I am ignoring the personal attack and I have even removed it from this quote.
Shaheen marked those decks as responsible for causing excessively long rounds. And he is correct. They are. The details of all those quotes you bothered with are just a discussion of what causes this. He goes on to back up his plan for taking out Divining T...
Ah, I don't feel like explaining this again. Think what you want.
Without either of us insulting the other-
He's described a problem, slow play, and picked two decks that are notorious for slow play. But that's a player problem, not a deck problem. He wants to nerf these two decks, because that will magically solve the problem, I disagree. In the article he mentions something about calling judge five minutes into a rd because the opponent is displaying slow tendencies. Then he rebutes himself in saying that's not a probable solution.
Either make rounds longer, or solve the problem with your deck choice and play. Removing cards from these decks is an assault meant to make them unpopular, thus leaving only "time-considerate" decks left viable (unless one felt like durdling with a tier three deck).
Long story short, his beef is a glorified hit job on two decks he doesn't like solving a problem that didn't need a solution. Player habits is the culprit, not SDT nor LftL/DD. Tabernacle, Chasm and CBalance are all more responsible for the 'this is taking too long' than the cards he spot lighted. It's a bad article because it identifies and excuses the base problem. Not having a similar play style as him, his bias is found offensive, or mayhap inciting. Creative solutions were found for the legend rule, mulligans, noticing triggers, a similar non-ban could be discovered for time of game play as well. But ultimately, between one and their opponent, both are taskedwith ending the game in the alloted time. This sounds like people complaining they couldn't win. Caveat, cause there's always an exception, go to turns, ends at five, one player has a probable kill on table on turn 6-8, ok I sympathize. If one's deck doesn't have answers or runs out of gas, too bad.
So, it's agreed everyone is allowed to think what they think. Historical agreement made, much rejoicing in my household.
iatee
08-12-2015, 05:54 PM
Non-interaction is something kitchen table players scream when they get introduced to combo for the first time. Belcher- the poster child of non-interactivity, completely safe to keep legal. If a deck forces the format into non-interactive matches, we've hit one of your first three points and we can ban from there. Non-interactivity itself isn't bad and by banning solely on that, you alienate the combo players of the format who get shit on by WotC's philosophy for their newer formats.
Belcher is completely safe to keep legal because it's inconsistent enough that it won't succeed in a large tournament by nature. It's safe to keep legal, but there's no particular good reason for it to be legal. It doesn't actually bring anything positive to the format, it's just a disease that ruins a few peoples' days at an event - sorry to 'alienate any combo players'.
Sturtzilla
08-12-2015, 06:11 PM
Why are we blaming the card for that?
It is a constant decision point that allows players the opportunity to waste time knowingly or unknowingly.
We as judges should push more for slow play warnings.
Totally agree. We should give them out more frequently and for shorter durations of inaction. I give them out like candy... :cool:
Their are more widespread/played cards that are a burden on physical operations but top is under scrutiny because the decks that run it really want to make the game go late. See: Fetchlands, ponder, brainstorm, Dig for examples of physically intensive operations.
Apples and oranges. When you activate a fetchland or cast any of the above spells, you have to complete one action or one series of actions. SDT presents this same type of decision every single time it is activated. When you say Brainstorm or Ponder is like SDT you are making a logically flawed argument that only considers the casting and first SDT activation. The fact that it sticks around and will be activated multiple more times over the course of the game are not counted. The time players spend carrying these out can be the problem.
I don't think anything beyond your first 3 bullets should be used as banning criteria.
That's like your opinion, man. I disagree.
Non-interaction is something kitchen table players scream when they get introduced to combo for the first time. Belcher- the poster child of non-interactivity, completely safe to keep legal. If a deck forces the format into non-interactive matches, we've hit one of your first three points and we can ban from there. Non-interactivity itself isn't bad and by banning solely on that, you alienate the combo players of the format who get shit on by WotC's philosophy for their newer formats.
I agree that Belcher is in a lot of ways non-interactive. I also agree that it is safe to keep in the format. Force of Will typically keeps it in check. There are other types of non-interaction as well. The kind I am more concerned with for the sake of this thread/posts is the constant activations of SDT. As an opponent you basically sit and let it happen. For newer players this is confusing. For more experienced players it is frustrating as you just have to wait for your opponent to finish. This can sometimes take awhile. Sometimes you have to wait multiple times due to fetchlands or Ponders in between activations.
The only card that hits physical limitations to me is shaharazad and it is an extreme case. No other card comes close to eating up as much time as the first cast of that sorcery does. Top doesn't have that, it instead has bad players who aren't planning before they spin the top. These players should be punished with slow play warnings not with bannings. They will also get more draws and be out of the running for tournament prizes so the next event they've either practiced more with top or switch to a deck that runs more win conditions.
Shahrazad is a fine precedent. Again I agree with giving more Slow Play Warnings. Sure slow SDT players will draw themselves out of contention. Still it has an impact on all of the other players, judges, and staff in terms of round times and overall event times.
He's described a problem, slow play, and picked two decks that are notorious for slow play. But that's a player problem, not a deck problem. He wants to nerf these two decks, because that will magically solve the problem, I disagree. In the article he mentions something about calling judge five minutes into a rd because the opponent is displaying slow tendencies. Then he rebutes himself in saying that's not a probable solution.
Calling for a judge to watch for Slow Play/Stalling (these are two different infractions but as an opponent may look very similar) is great. We are happy to do it. However if we were to try to cover every SDT in the room, floor coverage for other players would drop. This would be bad. Therefore it isnt' really a solid answer to the problem. It is unlikely that you are going to be able to get a judge to monitor your match for very long unless there is something very bad happening.
Either make rounds longer, or solve the problem with your deck choice and play. Removing cards from these decks is an assault meant to make them unpopular, thus leaving only "time-considerate" decks left viable (unless one felt like durdling with a tier three deck).
This is a poorly constructed argument as you are asking two groups of people to do two things that may or may not solve the problem. Making round times longer is a WotC and Judge Community question. Would it help? Probably not. We would still have players durdling at the end of 60 or 70 minute rounds due to inexperience, stalled game states, and/or SDT. Moreover the events would take longer, possibly needing to be split over two days. Solving the problem with your deck choice and play is a consideration for your opponents. You cannot bank on your opponent playing fast or well. Saying it on this forum will not change that. Therefore I believe it is a cultural question and/or a banning question. Players need to alert judges to slow players so we can act. If this doesn't help, problem cards should meet their ill fate.
Whitefaces
08-12-2015, 07:14 PM
Can't believe people are actually humouring the notion of banning Punishing Fire.
bruizar
08-13-2015, 03:30 AM
Watch feline longmore play time spiral. That's the pace I hope people aspire to be able to play at.
nevilshute
08-13-2015, 04:58 AM
I think the question of slow play is a "cultural" problem, or rather an issue of attittude amongst players. It feels uncomfortable to some (maybe a majority of) players to ask their opponent to play faster / make a decision and possibly even worse to call a judge on them. It probably stems from the fact that most magic players have started out by being casual players where time limits is a non-issue and where "we're all just friends" so something like calling a judge on your opponent feels cutthroaty in comparison.
I imagine that there is a clear correlation between how far up the ladder of professional play you have climbed and how much of a non-issue it is for you to call a judge on your opponent and still feel okay.
If you can somehow wade through this stuff in your mind and set aside the "uncomfortability" and realize that when someone is guilty of slowplay they are actually stealing from you. They are stealing time from you where you could be making decisions. They are warping your match into their favor. If out of the 50 minutes, they have held priority for 35 and you 15 then that is a pretty big issue potentially. They might not be doing it on purpose but some people seriously just get into their "zone" and aren't really aware that it is a problem. We need people to feel better about calling out opponents for slow, simple as.
If we were able to address this issue it would lessen the pressure on single cards like SDT and we possibly wouldn't even need to be having this discussion about banning cards from slow play concerns.
Dice_Box
08-13-2015, 05:39 AM
I just watched the semis match he played against Lands, time wise he used far more than Ayers did.
HdH_Cthulhu
08-13-2015, 07:43 AM
Isnt loam the time consuming card?
#banLoam lolol joke
hotlikedimes
08-13-2015, 08:10 AM
I just watched the semis match he played against Lands, time wise he used far more than Ayers did.
Also the tom ross v james rynkiewicz infect mirror went to time.
There's definitely a distinction between 'slow play' and 'methodical play', and he kinda missed the boat on it.
As far as I'm concerned, every Miracles player is guilty of "slow play" at least part of the time.
ahg113
08-13-2015, 09:34 AM
This is a poorly constructed argument as you are asking two groups of people to do two things that may or may not solve the problem. Making round times longer is a WotC and Judge Community question. Would it help? Probably not. We would still have players durdling at the end of 60 or 70 minute rounds due to inexperience, stalled game states, and/or SDT. Moreover the events would take longer, possibly needing to be split over two days. Solving the problem with your deck choice and play is a consideration for your opponents. You cannot bank on your opponent playing fast or well. Saying it on this forum will not change that. Therefore I believe it is a cultural question and/or a banning question. Players need to alert judges to slow players so we can act. If this doesn't help, problem cards should meet their ill fate.
I am guilty of not articulating. The ideas were two different, unrelated solutions to the perceived problem.
1st idea- make the rounds longer. If 50 is the usual number, making it go to 60 or 70 gives the game more time to play out. Whether that's the slow player finally achieving victory, or the other player conceding (in this worst case scenario of slow player wins). Personally, I've never had a problem with the length of events. I'm unsure why a player shouldn't be able to play for a draw, or stalled game. The point system in Magic rewards better for a draw instead of a loss. Eliminating stalled board states, or drawn games doesn't seem a net positive. The optionality of the game would decrease, and that would be a bad thing. If an opponent is losing, or more accurately, cannot win, then that is the opponents cross to bear.
2nd idea- make players more considerate. This is probably the crux of the situation. Either players need to move faster, or choose decks that don't dilly dally (early comments on Burn and Belcher). This is unlikely, but the solution shouldn't be cutting the legs off of two slow decks. Someone could take just as much time to make plays, etc. with another pile of 60 cards. There is seldom a tournament that will finish early. Finishing late is a known probability, and part of the price to participate.
In a weird nutshell, and this is unexpected for me, complaining about slow play in this manner and proposed solution, is similar to the ban brainstorm argument. There's a perceived problem, that does not have a universal agreement that it is a problem. Detractors wish that the offending card(s) be banned, while the supporters say- deal with it in your 75. This is an ouroboros type situation.
I think the question of slow play is a "cultural" problem, or rather an issue of attittude amongst players. It feels uncomfortable to some (maybe a majority of) players to ask their opponent to play faster / make a decision and possibly even worse to call a judge on them. It probably stems from the fact that most magic players have started out by being casual players where time limits is a non-issue and where "we're all just friends" so something like calling a judge on your opponent feels cutthroaty in comparison.
I imagine that there is a clear correlation between how far up the ladder of professional play you have climbed and how much of a non-issue it is for you to call a judge on your opponent and still feel okay.
If you can somehow wade through this stuff in your mind and set aside the "uncomfortability" and realize that when someone is guilty of slowplay they are actually stealing from you. They are stealing time from you where you could be making decisions. They are warping your match into their favor. If out of the 50 minutes, they have held priority for 35 and you 15 then that is a pretty big issue potentially. They might not be doing it on purpose but some people seriously just get into their "zone" and aren't really aware that it is a problem. We need people to feel better about calling out opponents for slow, simple as.
If we were able to address this issue it would lessen the pressure on single cards like SDT and we possibly wouldn't even need to be having this discussion about banning cards from slow play concerns.
I agree with everything you just said. I can see slow play when I watch my friends play to their detriment, but I've never called a judge on my own behalf.
btm10
08-13-2015, 10:51 AM
I don't think anything beyond your first 3 bullets should be used as banning criteria.
Non-interaction is something kitchen table players scream when they get introduced to combo for the first time. Belcher- the poster child of non-interactivity, completely safe to keep legal. If a deck forces the format into non-interactive matches, we've hit one of your first three points and we can ban from there. Non-interactivity itself isn't bad and by banning solely on that, you alienate the combo players of the format who get shit on by WotC's philosophy for their newer formats.
I don't think that non-interactivity is a sufficient reason for banworthiness but it's definitely something that contributes to the discussion. Belcher is fine precisely because almost everyone can interact with it on turn 0 or turn 1. Similarly, Lands (and to a lesser extent, Death and Taxes) wouldn't exist if they were easy for most competitive Legacy decks to interact with.
Whitefaces
08-13-2015, 11:17 AM
'As far as I'm concerned'
Nailed it.
jrsthethird
08-13-2015, 01:20 PM
I've fallen into the camp of "too nice to call a judge" before. Since I picked the game back up though, I haven't played a game of paper Legacy so I don't know if I would feel the same way. I've adopted a more IDGAF attitude as I've grown older, so I don't think I'd be as passive about this in a serious tournament environment.
Tammit67
08-13-2015, 04:42 PM
I don't think that non-interactivity is a sufficient reason for banworthiness but it's definitely something that contributes to the discussion.
Does it though? What card promotes a non-interactive deck that is deserving of a ban that doesn't hit
-Is X too powerful for the format in question?
-Is X seeing a statistically disproportionate amount of play?
-Is X seeing a statistically disproportionate amount of play in the decks with the best records?
It is quite irrelevant since none of us write policy but I for one can't see noninteractivity people a problem without hitting the above criteria. It's not healthy gameplay but since it happens very rarely I'd personally rather have the cards available than take a more heavy handed approach. I might be alone on this.
Death and taxes is non-interactive? It seeks to maximally interact with you from turn 2 onwards, that's how it wins. This isn't vintage where the deck can jam multiple spheres on you before you take a turn (lol shops). No, non-interactivity is more about one person goldfishing against the other, a player who's experience is unchanged regardless if their is a physical opponent there or no one at all. Yeah, some games of legacy are like that, but without 1 of the above criteria does it matter?
Aside: Because vintage shops is consistent and strong enough to promote non-games of magic once every other match, I do think that deck is too powerful for the format in question and that some integral piece should probably be restricted. I'm biased as fuck though, since mind's desire encompasses what I want to cast in the format.
Killane
08-13-2015, 07:31 PM
I am (unfortunately) currently exclusively a spectator of the Legacy format. I played legacy for many years, right up until Jace, The Mindsculptor started seeing extensive play. Card values by that point were high enough that I could no longer justify to myself owning them, so I sold out (a fairly stupid decision from a current valuation standpoint, unfortunately, since I'd been playing more or less since the release of Unlimited and purchased packs of Beta at MSRP back in the day).
As a spectator, I am keenly aware of he issue facing MTG coverage - namely, that despite being The Best Game Ever, coverage viewership lags far behind other games supported on Twitch. People often blame long matches for this.
I am not one of them.
I love watching matches with Miracles. I love watching matches where each player stops and thinks for a period of time. It's incredibly compelling to put yourself in their shoes and consider lines of play. If commentators were better (although I personally think SCG comentary is far superior to WoTC commentary, it could still use some work), and Hand Cams were the norm (seriously, why isn't this a thing yet?), I think most viewers would come around on this as well. The Delver mirror - bORRRRING. Most lines are extremely obvious (from an outside PoV at least) and the nature of the deck makes the outcome a forgone conclusion less than halfway through the majority of matches.
The Miracle matches that get boring are the ones (thankfully comparatively rare on camera) in which the Miracles player isn't all that comfortable with the deck and is playing at a poor pace. When you've already figured out the correct line (at least occaisionally yelling at the screen since the commentators have not), and have to wait 2 minutes for the play, THAT's what gets boring.
This would suggest to me that Slow Play (either from lack of experience, lack of ability, or a combination of both) is the true culprit here, not SDT or the Miracles deck themselves. If a hard control deck can be enjoyable to watch, I doubt it's a real issue.
Banning Punishing Fire is laughable. If you're seriously going to loose to it, the game is so far gone that you really ought to be able to anticipate that fact AT LEAST 5 turns in advance, and conceed. Yes, there's the corner case where you're waiting to draw a one-outer, but reallistically if you're getting pinged to death 1-2 points at a time by an on-board engine, you know you've lost far before you do. I get that people are playing for serious money, but sometimes you really have to measure the time-value vs. possible outs and make the choice to fold.
TLDR: This article is silly. These cards do not need a banning.
Phoenix Ignition
08-13-2015, 09:47 PM
What kills watching Magic for me is the extremely long downtime between matches. Watch any other tournament sport or esport ever and you'll see game after game onscreen. Logistics for giant tournaments may not allow this, but if a match is over in 15 minutes and I have to watch reruns for the next 45 I'm going to watch something else or just go do something else entirely.
I think over 50% of magic streams is waiting for something to happen. It doesn't help that some people play slowly, but usually I'm still entertained as long as the two players are at least advancing the game in some manner. I prefer looking up every minute or so to see what has changed more than watching the matches with 100% of my attention anyway (especially if it's with decks I don't care about).
What they need to do to make watching Legacy, and all magic formats, interesting is to just do something better in the down time between matches. Plenty of people would love to see 2 pros on retainer with 2 up and coming decks (okay, no such thing in Legacy, but maybe 2 lesser played decks) actually just playing each other. Like, if they got Jon Finkel vs. LSV on retainer (or any good players) to play a match against each other in between down time of real matches, and then put the game on hold while we go back to regularly scheduled programming, it would be so much easier to watch.
Also, yeah, hand cams. WTF magic broadcasters, Poker had these like 15 years ago.
bruizar
08-14-2015, 03:11 AM
oh god please no LSV. I don't like to watch people fart on camera
Whitefaces
08-14-2015, 05:38 AM
I am (unfortunately) currently exclusively a spectator of the Legacy format. I played legacy for many years, right up until Jace, The Mindsculptor started seeing extensive play. Card values by that point were high enough that I could no longer justify to myself owning them, so I sold out (a fairly stupid decision from a current valuation standpoint, unfortunately, since I'd been playing more or less since the release of Unlimited and purchased packs of Beta at MSRP back in the day).
As a spectator, I am keenly aware of he issue facing MTG coverage - namely, that despite being The Best Game Ever, coverage viewership lags far behind other games supported on Twitch. People often blame long matches for this.
I am not one of them.
I love watching matches with Miracles. I love watching matches where each player stops and thinks for a period of time. It's incredibly compelling to put yourself in their shoes and consider lines of play. If commentators were better (although I personally think SCG comentary is far superior to WoTC commentary, it could still use some work), and Hand Cams were the norm (seriously, why isn't this a thing yet?), I think most viewers would come around on this as well. The Delver mirror - bORRRRING. Most lines are extremely obvious (from an outside PoV at least) and the nature of the deck makes the outcome a forgone conclusion less than halfway through the majority of matches.
The Miracle matches that get boring are the ones (thankfully comparatively rare on camera) in which the Miracles player isn't all that comfortable with the deck and is playing at a poor pace. When you've already figured out the correct line (at least occaisionally yelling at the screen since the commentators have not), and have to wait 2 minutes for the play, THAT's what gets boring.
This would suggest to me that Slow Play (either from lack of experience, lack of ability, or a combination of both) is the true culprit here, not SDT or the Miracles deck themselves. If a hard control deck can be enjoyable to watch, I doubt it's a real issue.
Banning Punishing Fire is laughable. If you're seriously going to loose to it, the game is so far gone that you really ought to be able to anticipate that fact AT LEAST 5 turns in advance, and conceed. Yes, there's the corner case where you're waiting to draw a one-outer, but reallistically if you're getting pinged to death 1-2 points at a time by an on-board engine, you know you've lost far before you do. I get that people are playing for serious money, but sometimes you really have to measure the time-value vs. possible outs and make the choice to fold.
TLDR: This article is silly. These cards do not need a banning.
Couldn't agree more, I love playing and watching Miracles too. Delver mirrors are snoozefests.
Here's a nice quote from an article posted yesterday by BBD.
'More than that, I also love Miracles. I'm going to make a statement that very few people are going to agree with. Miracles is a fun deck. Miracles is like playing chess. I love the thrill of trying to sequence my spells in such a way to shut down every avenue my opponent is trying to beat me on. I love the thrill of getting inside my opponent's mind and their deck and figuring out exactly what their plan for winning is... and then crush that plan into the ground.
Every game feels like a puzzle, and I love trying to solve that puzzle. To be successful with Miracles you have to not only play around what your opponent is doing, you also have to play around what your opponent will be doing. Miracles played properly is the best deck in the format, and every time I miss Top Eight with Miracles the conclusion I generally draw is that I simply didn't play it well enough to make Top Eight. It's refreshing to have your fate in your own hands.'
It really boils down to people having bias for the deck and getting tunnel vision, TOP HAS TO GO NOTHING ELSE WILL DO.
Crimhead
08-14-2015, 06:40 AM
...every time I miss Top Eight with Miracles the conclusion I generally draw is that I simply didn't play it well enough to make Top Eight. It's refreshing to have your fate in your own hands.'
That's an illusion. While skill is relevant and certainly a factor (moreso with an interactive deck), Miracles has its share of unfavourable matches and is by no means immune to bad luck in any given game or match.
The difference with scdrck like Miracles (vs something like MUD) is that when you get unlucky with MUD you know you got unlucky. But with Miracles you are àways that a slight variation in play would have changed everything for you. It's also nearly impossible to determine with certainty the optimal play 100% of the time (no matter how skilled you are).
So when you make the "correct" play based on the information you have but it doesn't get the results, it's easy to convince yourself you made the wrong play and should have been able to win.
Whitefaces
08-14-2015, 06:51 AM
That's an illusion. While skill is relevant and certainly a factor (moreso with an interactive deck), Miracles has its share of unfavourable matches and is by no means immune to bad luck in any given game or match.
The difference with scdrck like Miracles (vs something like MUD) is that when you get unlucky with MUD you know you got unlucky. But with Miracles you are àways that a slight variation in play would have changed everything for you. It's also nearly impossible to determine with certainty the optimal play 100% of the time (no matter how skilled you are).
So when you make the "correct" play based on the information you have but it doesn't get the results, it's easy to convince yourself you made the wrong play and should have been able to win.
Sure, I agree. He did say 'the conclusion I generally draw' though, it's not an automatically formed conclusion. Reactive decks like Miracles offer enough options throughout the game to be able to pinpoint a mistake or two, if they happened, that lead to a loss.
Crimhead
08-14-2015, 07:01 AM
Reactive decks like Miracles offer enough options throughout the game to be able to pinpoint a mistake or two, if they happened, that lead to a loss.
I agree for the most part. Sometimes it's obvious you made a costly mistake (which you can blame your loss on) but not as obvious that you might have lost regardless. Your opponent might have had outs/answers you never saw because the way you played they didn't need them.
What I'm objecting to is the notion that with solid play you can generally expect to make top8 - especially in larger events.
Whitefaces
08-14-2015, 07:42 AM
I agree for the most part. Sometimes it's obvious you made a costly mistake (which you can blame your loss on) but not as obvious that you might have lost regardless. Your opponent might have had outs/answers you never saw because the way you played they didn't need them.
What I'm objecting to is the notion that with solid play you can generally expect to make top8 - especially in larger events.
Agreed too. I think the bluntness of his notion (play bad, do bad) has something to do with the writing style for SCG articles. A lot of the dribble on that site is bordering on motivational self-help pieces. I imagine the readership is made up by a lot of wannabe grinders who get excited about being told if they play at their best, they win. And if they lose, they should chop their dick off because it's all their fault.
Could be reading into it a little too much, though :tongue:
Killane
08-14-2015, 04:49 PM
What kills watching Magic for me is the extremely long downtime between matches. Watch any other tournament sport or esport ever and you'll see game after game onscreen. Logistics for giant tournaments may not allow this, but if a match is over in 15 minutes and I have to watch reruns for the next 45 I'm going to watch something else or just go do something else entirely.
I think over 50% of magic streams is waiting for something to happen. It doesn't help that some people play slowly, but usually I'm still entertained as long as the two players are at least advancing the game in some manner. I prefer looking up every minute or so to see what has changed more than watching the matches with 100% of my attention anyway (especially if it's with decks I don't care about).
What they need to do to make watching Legacy, and all magic formats, interesting is to just do something better in the down time between matches. Plenty of people would love to see 2 pros on retainer with 2 up and coming decks (okay, no such thing in Legacy, but maybe 2 lesser played decks) actually just playing each other. Like, if they got Jon Finkel vs. LSV on retainer (or any good players) to play a match against each other in between down time of real matches, and then put the game on hold while we go back to regularly scheduled programming, it would be so much easier to watch.
Also, yeah, hand cams. WTF magic broadcasters, Poker had these like 15 years ago.
This is absolutely right. there is no reason why the feature match area should not have 8 matches, all recorded, one watched live and then move on to another live-to-tape until the round is over so the waiting is reduced.
Rivfader
08-16-2015, 06:45 AM
It is not correct to put Miracles and Lands in the same category regarding slow play. RG Lands is pretty combofocussed in 4x Depths/Stage/croprotation/gamble (especially most recent builds maindecking 4 Depths) to make a 20/20 game-ending token. Often (in Swords-lacking fair matchups) this comboplan will characterize a match more than the manadenial- or PunishingFire-plan, ending the game much sooner, and usually not going to time.
Matches will become slow the more answers a deck has to a returning Marit Lage, such as Swords, Snapcaster (returning Swords), Jace, chumpblocking Lingering Souls, postboard RIP or extraction. Esper Stoneblade is a pretty slowplay matchup in this regard. You cannot blame the slowplay on Lands for Esper maindecking many answers to Marit Lage. Same for the slowplay caused by PunishingFiring an opponent to death. That's usually due to an impossible comboplan, caused by hatecards like Pithing Needle, Extraction, Ensnaring Bridge ... Again, you cannot blame Lands for having it's comboplan being hated out by sideboardcards.
So my take on the matter is that Lands' slowplaying is matchupdependant (as it's both a combodeck and a prisonstrategy), and not an inherent characteristic of Lands. And because the slowplay is pretty much due to the Esper-matchup (and is more caused by Esper than Lands), I find the call for banning cards pretty absurd.
bruizar
08-16-2015, 07:28 AM
If chump blocking really becomes a problem there is always kessig wolf run to give marit lage trample.
Dice_Box
08-16-2015, 07:38 AM
That's something, but as an answer it's so small and narrow I would think it just taking up space for something stronger. If you balance all the times Wolf Run would be good and sit it next to another card like Bojuka Bog, Karakas, Urborg or even another Depths and it's just not worth it. You might see the deck lose a game here and there that Run would have won, but you will win more games with Karakas in its place over the long run.
Crimhead
08-16-2015, 08:08 AM
It is not correct to put Miracles and Lands in the same category regarding slow play.The slow-play complaint is a facade - This article is about bad match-ups for buddy's deck of choice (which is much slower and grindier than Lands).
If chump blocking really becomes a problem there is always kessig wolf run to give marit lage trample.Kessig Wolf Run is an all-star in Lands.dec, provided you are playing EDH.
If bannings do need to take place, should it really be to stop the few tables that end up playing the LEGALLY ALLOTTED ROUND TIME (oh noes... round didn't end 20 mins early so we have to be patient... time to get food/trade?) or to stop the decks that drop turn 2 fatties with 21 cards in hand and 3 FoW backup...
Author seems to have an unspoken bias that Legacy should be more explosive combo and Modern should be less combo and more control.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.