A Poll on the Black Vise/Mind Twist Deal
Daniel Walls
Hello, I will be taking a poll to see what people think about
the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
cast.
1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
Thanks, Daniel
RXK...@PRODIGY.COM
P.S.
My Votes:
1.) YES, ONLY IN TYPE II
2.) NO
3.) NO
Barrett W. Nuzum
:
: Hello, I will be taking a poll to see what people think about
: the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
: Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
: questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
: cast.
: 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
Yes. It was degenerate in Type II play. I've -never- lost in a Type II
game to a deck that didn't contain the Vise.
: 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
Personally I don't think it was degenerate in Type II, however,
with the Alternative of Mind Warp, it becomes a rather unbalanced card.
Mind Warp is a much more "fair" card by virtue of those cards which have
been removed from the basic set (Sinkhole replaced with Icequake, etc).
I even have and use a Mind Twist frequently, but I'm in no way upset
that it has been banned. I play mostly Type 1.5 anyways, which already
had it banned.
: 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
: way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
I think that by DC rules, if they made =JUST 1= card with the same
name but a different casting cost, that card's wording/cost would
affect all the previously published cards. The rules state that
"The most current wording of the card is the authoritative one."
I think that Black Vise could have been made a balanced card by
raising it's casting cost to 4, and that Mind Twist should remain
on the restricted list.
Therefore, No.
But as long as I see 20 posts a day of people whining about what
the DC does rather than just attend non-sanctioned tournaments,
I'll support WOTC/DC's decision.
--
Barrett W. Nuzum | personal - http://www.mv.com/users/hogarth
hog...@mv.mv.com | marillion - http://www.mv.com/users/hogarth/Marillion
MV Communications, Inc. | magic: tg - http://www.mv.com/users/hogarth/mtg
Jay Elmore
Donais Jeff <don...@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
>No, they should have let it been phased out with the next expansion for
>Type II and kept it in for Type I where there are much more powerful cards.
Well, since Mind Twist is _not_ an expansion card -- it's in the basic
set, remember? -- it can't be "phased out" with the next expansion
addition. Also, since WotC has no plans at this point to revise the basic
set in 1996, we're stuck with Mind Twists in Type II for at least another
year. Unless you do what the DC did, and ban it.
>> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
>> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
>In general, I think it's a bad idea, type II can be controlled by phasin
>out of cards in the next rotation,
But rotations of the basic sets only happen at least every 15-18 months or
so, it seems. If they want to remove Mind Twist and Channel from 5th
Edition, that's fine. But until then, they are legal for play in Type II
tournaments -- again, unless you do what the DC did and ban the cards.
>and type I doesn't really need to be controlled.
If that means that you are of the opinion that Type I tournaments are
broken and need to be done away with, then I agree. :)
>I also agreed with
>Channel, because it was just plain stupid to be able to win a duel as
>soon as you had more life than your opponent (basically anyway).
Well, there are still cards where that is the case. Hurricane and
Earthquake, for example. I've built green decks that whittle my opponent
down with green weenies until I can cast a big enough Hurricane to kill my
opponent. You can do the same for red flyers and Earthquake. Does this
mean that Earthquake and Hurricane are in danger of becoming banned?
Jay (=
--
--
"This isn't one of those revamps where Everything You Knew Before Was Wrong.
This is one of those revamps where Everything You Knew Before isn't quite so
interesting as What's Happening Now." --Warren Ellis, on THOR
John Vowell
>
> Hello, I will be taking a poll to see what people think about
> the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
> Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
> questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
> cast.
> 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
>
Sure......the card never really bothered me one way or the
other
>
2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
no, simply because it is in 4th edition, as stated earlier,
they should have phased it out with the next rotation.
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
Hell no.
Slayre
N2O O2
2. Yes
3. Sort of. Not so much decreasing the power of strong cards, but
decreasing the power of unfair cards. Mind Twist was unfair and too
strong, because it one blow you can rid your opponent of his hand, a very
powerful move that can easily decide a game. Black Vise was just stupid.
As my friend put it, Black Vise is a "Chimpanzee" card. By this, he means
that a chimpanzee has the intelligence to inflict damage using a Vise.
I'll tap one, play a vise. You take 3. He he he.
WotC, thank you for these two additions.
-Evan
-----------------------------------------------------------
On October 21st
The biggest battle of the fall
Ohio handed Akron the title
Yikkiest team of all.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Benveniste
> 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
Only in type II. In type I, Black Vise is no more powerful today
than a year ago. It's pretty clear, however, that the DC is making
its choices based on type II and applying them to type I without
further consideration.
> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
No. If Mind Twist was that unbalanced, they should have removed
it from 4th edition. I'm opposed to banning non-ante cards while
they are in print. (P.S. Send a SASE for a free Channel!)
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
Not the way it's being done now. The best way to handle out-
of-balance cards is not to release them. Once released, the
best way to handle them is not to reprint them and let them
pass into type I. The current use of black vise and mind
twist shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.
Michael Benveniste
do...@netcom.com
: the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
: Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
: questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
: cast.
: 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
Type I: NO
Type II: I don't care.
: 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
YES
: 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
: way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
YES. But only if they really get to be a problem. I wish the DC would
be a bit more careful about what they're trying to do, maybe even post
their set of guidelines if such a formal document exists, just so we can
have intelligent discussion out here as well.
--
Check out my Magic Tournament Calendar at
http://www.music.uiowa.edu/~jezebel/dolor.html
RICHARD KENAN
: >I also agreed with
: >Channel, because it was just plain stupid to be able to win a duel as
: >soon as you had more life than your opponent (basically anyway).
: Well, there are still cards where that is the case. Hurricane and
: Earthquake, for example. I've built green decks that whittle my opponent
: down with green weenies until I can cast a big enough Hurricane to kill my
: opponent. You can do the same for red flyers and Earthquake. Does this
: mean that Earthquake and Hurricane are in danger of becoming banned?
OK, turn two, you attack me with a Llanowar Elf, and Giant Growth it.
You now have more life than me. How will you kill me with Earthquake
or Hurricane? Next turn, a Channelball kills me, Earthquake and
Hurricane don't, unless you have a *VERY* strange combo going. They
let you kill me and live if you have more life than me, but you also
need more mana, and mana progression at that level is pretty slow.
With Channel in hand, if the caster has more life and (G)(G)(R) to
tap, he wins. Even in a fairly slow deck otherwise, this is a turn
three kill. Failure to block a Llanowar Elf on turn two shouldn't
mean losing the game due to two cards on turn three.
Just me.
--
Richard Kenan
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu
Donais Jeff
> decreasing the power of unfair cards. Mind Twist was unfair and too
> strong, because it one blow you can rid your opponent of his hand, a very
> powerful move that can easily decide a game. Black Vise was just stupid.
> As my friend put it, Black Vise is a "Chimpanzee" card. By this, he means
> that a chimpanzee has the intelligence to inflict damage using a Vise.
> I'll tap one, play a vise. You take 3. He he he.
>
> WotC, thank you for these two additions.
>
> -Evan
I'll tap one, bolt you. You take 3. He he he.
Turn 2: Detonate your Vice. He he he.
Turn 3: Chain/Incinerate/Bolt/Grenade/Ball you for blah. blah. blah. blah.
Cards are supposed to do damage, otherwise we'ed all just cast Freyalise
Winds and sit there.
Jeff
--------
Gamemaster: But why did you kill the kobold women and children?
Player: Because they aren't worth any experience points to us alive.
--------
Donais Jeff
Ritual, Giant Growth, and Disenchant are good cards, but is not so
drastically overbalanced that it needs to be restricted.
> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
No, they should have let it been phased out with the next expansion for
Type II and kept it in for Type I where there are much more powerful cards.
>
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
In general, I think it's a bad idea, type II can be controlled by phasin
out of cards in the next rotation, and type I doesn't really need to be
controlled. There can be very limited exceptions, I agree with the Chaos
Orb/Falling Star rulings because those cards really duel the available
table space more than they duel the opponent. I also agreed with
Channel, because it was just plain stupid to be able to win a duel as
soon as you had more life than your opponent (basically anyway).
Take Care,
Paul Michael Novosad
Yes. First turn Vises too often make games cheesy and boring.
: 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
Well... no. It makes the game alot more difficult for the
opponent, but it doesn't ruin it.
: 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
: way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
In some cases yes, in some no. Cards that can win a game 75% of
the time they are used (ie. Channel) should be banned, but its
hardly necessary for cards with non-directly destructive
effects. Channels in a direct damage deck can almost guarantee
victory, but Mind Twists require a lot of other support, and are
hardly a guarantee.
Charles T. Schwope
> 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
No. The main reason being the reasoning the Sparky has passed on to
us is morronic. "All decks are including 4 vises just for the 1st
turn vise." 1st off this is a false statement, secondly if a player
wants to include a card that is _useless_ after about the 4th turn,
feel free.
> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
No, but I could have seen it in Type II under the reasoning of "WotC
was stupid to reprint it, and we need to ban it before its pulled from
the card set." In Type I I see it as just another spoiler, but its a
spoiler I have access to.
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
No. Banning a card does not limit its power, it just removes it from
the real play set. Restricting it doesn't really limit its power,
just changes the chance of getting it.
-CT
--
Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the
aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a
sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured
c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.
vva...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu
> the recent banning of Mind Twist and restriction of Black Vise.
> Please state any extra comments following the answers to these
> questions. Results will be posted after enough votes have been
> cast.
>
Yes, Black Vise is an overpowered card that overly encoureged fast decks
and penalized slower decks thus reducing the average number of deck's in
a tournement, it also added too much luck in the form of a first turn
vise etc...
> 2.) Should Mind Twist have been Banned? (Yes/No)
Probably, it was a spoiler found in nearly every black deck, much as
demonic tutor used to be
> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
I beleive that making cards that counteract a card is better than banning
them for example I beleive Blood Moon and Primal order are a better
solution to the dual land problem than banning or restricting dual lands
( though those two cards due overly hurt painlands and slowlands )
for example:
Torturer's Justice
Color: Blue
Cost: 0
Take control of any black vice in play ( and maybe rack too )
draw a card during the next upkeep
Curse of the Raveler
Color: Black
Cost: 0
Change the target of any mind twist directed at you too an opponent
draw a card during your next upkeep
( This one isn't really necessary all WoTC needs to due is repring
psychic purge )
Similar cards could be added for other spoilers such as Moxes, Timewalk (
lose a turn instead of gain one ) Black Lotus, Library of Alexandria,
Ancestral Recall ( Discard 3 instead of draw ), Regrowth, Demonic Tutor,
and other's
These cards would add an element of risk to using spoilers, instead of
removing them from the playing field.
Cards like these could be added to a new expansion as commons...
-Mossad
"All things considered insanity may be the only reasonable alternative"
"Hail Eris"
Donais Jeff
> >Channel, because it was just plain stupid to be able to win a duel as
> >soon as you had more life than your opponent (basically anyway).
>
> Earthquake, for example. I've built green decks that whittle my opponent
> down with green weenies until I can cast a big enough Hurricane to kill my
> opponent. You can do the same for red flyers and Earthquake. Does this
> mean that Earthquake and Hurricane are in danger of becoming banned?
>
>
Though Earthquake and Hurricane tiptoe on the border of channel - cheese,
at least you are required to tap the mana for these spells, and cannot
use your life for mana, which means there will be no first turn Hurricane
kills - unlike a Channel-Ball which is a defintely possible first turn
kill in type 1, or second turn kill in type 2 w/Lumberjack. Fireball is
still far cheesier than Hurricane and Earthquake will ever be, but cheese
is a part of magic, and I have no qualms about someone Fireballing me, as
long as they have no qualms about me Deflecting it, or Reverse Damaging
the damage.
Charles T. Schwope
>c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote:
>> No. The main reason being the reasoning the Sparky has passed on to
>> us is morronic. "All decks are including 4 vises just for the 1st
>> turn vise." 1st off this is a false statement, secondly if a player
>> wants to include a card that is _useless_ after about the 4th turn,
>> feel free.
>You're right, it *is* a false statement. Good thing I never said it.
>If you're not going to use the words I did, PLEASE don't treat it as a
>quotation. I never made the statement you include here. I believe that
>the exact quote is, "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that
>*many* [emphasis added] tournament players were willing to include it
>in their decks regardless of what the decks theme or purpose was. The
>damage it could potentially inflict if played on the first turn was too
>attractive to ignore. In some cases players would keep their Vices
>sideboarded out if they knew they weren't going first."
My apologies on that. I over exagerated. The direct quote is exactly
what you put in.
My quotations in my 1st post weren't ment to be a direct quote... only
the impression that I got from your message.
And I still think the statement is false. What qualifies as "many"?
20%, 50%, 80%? I have only seen one player doing that, and I beat him
(at least in part) because of it. When he pulled the 10th turn (or
so) black vise, and played it, I just about cried I was laughing so
hard. (I also believe he pulled another the next turn.) Through the
1st game I was wondering why the vises were in the deck... b/c there
was no support. And the reason is, he was a poor deck designer. If
he had pulled a critter instead of the vise... I might have lost, but
he didn't.
>Your assertions that I made false statements are completely off-base,
>a construct of your own inaccurate reading of my message. While I
>don't expect everyone to agree that these are good reasons, I don't
>think anyone can call it a 'false statement.'
Well, I think it is. Or if it isn't then there are a lot of poor
deckdesigners out there. Since the Twist seems to have been banned
b/c people percieved as the "best" players complained loudly about it,
I wonder is any of the "best" players use the vise in the manner
described above.
>True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
>players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
>decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
>played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
>have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
Ok... then I've missed the posts saying this. Or rather, I've missed
seeing the top tier decks do this. If people really found the vise
that good, they would take it to the next step and build decks around
it. That way... a late game vise wouldn't be a bad draw. Having a
card in you deck that will be just about worthless in 50% of your
games just doesn't make any sense.
>True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
>they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
>this in tournaments.
Then the DC should do something about not allowing sideboarding b4 the
1st game. If someone wants to have the vises in their main deck, I
have no problem with it, b/c the card will be at best useful in 50% of
our games. If he wasted 4 slots in his SB to put them in when he
knows he's going 1st, I have no problem with it. I do have a problem
with people sideboarding b4 the 1st game, b/c it opens up a lot of
options for scouting.
>I have no problem with disagreement, but I do have one with
>misrepresentation.
And again, I'm sorry I f*&ked up on that, but I still feel even that
the decision was based a false statement, or on decks that just don't
matter in the long run (aka non-1st tier decks).
Brent Burkholder
>> 3.) Do you think Banning and Restricting Cards is a good
>> way of decreasing the power of strong cards? (Yes/No)
>
>I beleive that making cards that counteract a card is better than banning
>them for example I beleive Blood Moon and Primal order are a better
>solution to the dual land problem than banning or restricting dual lands
>( though those two cards due overly hurt painlands and slowlands )
>
Ok, but alot of people use alot of dual lands... it's a card that is almost
certainly of use.
>for example:
>Torturer's Justice
>Color: Blue
>Cost: 0
>Take control of any black vice in play ( and maybe rack too )
>draw a card during the next upkeep
>
>Curse of the Raveler
>Color: Black
>Cost: 0
>Change the target of any mind twist directed at you too an opponent
>draw a card during your next upkeep
>( This one isn't really necessary all WoTC needs to due is repring
>psychic purge )
>
These cards are WAY too narrow for anyone to seriously consider using
in even their sideboard. It takes up slots better used for something
constructive. The most effective hoser cards are general-purpose... either
their hosing can be used most of the time or they have an alternate purpose.
Now, if torturer's justice was like this:
Artifact Bane 2
--------------------
All damage you recieve
from artifact sources
is halved, rounding down.
then you'd see it show up in decks because if a deck didn't include
vices, then it may include racks, or possibly artifact creatures.
--
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Brent Burkholder < < "To coerce God is to coerce reality and answer
br...@beast.amd.com > > your own prayers." - Diamond Mask, Julian May
----------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Sparky!!
> > 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
> No. The main reason being the reasoning the Sparky has passed on to
> us is morronic. "All decks are including 4 vises just for the 1st
> turn vise." 1st off this is a false statement, secondly if a player
> wants to include a card that is _useless_ after about the 4th turn,
> feel free.
You're right, it *is* a false statement. Good thing I never said it.
If you're not going to use the words I did, PLEASE don't treat it as a
quotation. I never made the statement you include here. I believe that
the exact quote is, "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that
*many* [emphasis added] tournament players were willing to include it
in their decks regardless of what the decks theme or purpose was. The
damage it could potentially inflict if played on the first turn was too
attractive to ignore. In some cases players would keep their Vices
sideboarded out if they knew they weren't going first."
Your assertions that I made false statements are completely off-base,
a construct of your own inaccurate reading of my message. While I
don't expect everyone to agree that these are good reasons, I don't
think anyone can call it a 'false statement.'
True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
this in tournaments.
I have no problem with disagreement, but I do have one with
misrepresentation.
--
Marc Schmalz, aka Sparky!!
Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Team
spa...@castle.wizards.com
morrie....@ssc.msu.edu
<big snip>
>True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
>players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
>decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
>played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
>have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
Sparky!!, I'm just going to have to take your word for it. I've played in
every tournament I could find in my area, and the only Vise decks I've seen
have been ones constructed to use the Vise at any point in the game, with
support cards. I have yet to run across an effective deck that (a) didn't
use support cards or (b) wasn't a straight burn deck that would get hosed
by the first white deck it faced--and I've only seen these posted on the
'Net, never actually played.
I will take your word for this, since my experience is limited to this
geographical area, but I had to voice the facts as I see them from way up
north. Well, Michigan. Whatever.:-)
>True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
>they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
>this in tournaments.
Wasn't the change in the rules (no pre-game-one sideboarding) designed to
take care of problems like this? I think that something which is now
illegal in tournaments is kind of a weak reason for the restriction. It's
the cheating that's problematic, not the card itself, at least in this
case. It's like keeping 4 BEB's sideboarded out if you know prior to game
one that your opponent isn't playing red...
Morrie
morrie....@ssc.msu.edu
This message not intended to flame, insult, or defame anyone other than
myself...
Barbara Haddad
WOTC instead to get the quality control back on their cards. (Homelands
are the worst yet -- flimsy things).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad - mel...@shakala.com
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289
Brian T. Tickler
>>True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
>>they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
>>this in tournaments.
>
>Wasn't the change in the rules (no pre-game-one sideboarding) designed to
>take care of problems like this? I think that something which is now
>illegal in tournaments is kind of a weak reason for the restriction. It's
>the cheating that's problematic, not the card itself, at least in this
>case. It's like keeping 4 BEB's sideboarded out if you know prior to game
>one that your opponent isn't playing red...
I believe what Sparky was getting at is that players were sideboarding in
and out their 4 Vises in games 2 & 3 based on whether they were going to
go first or not. Examples:
Lost game 1, going first game 2 = Vises stay in or are sideboarded in
Won game 1, opponent goes first game 2 = Vises sideboarded out
--
Brian T. Tickler E-Mail: tic...@netcom.com
Daniel C Robbins
I dont post here much, but when I saw that Wizards had restricted
black vise I had to say something. That SUCKS. It seems to me that WOC
doesnt want anyone to be able to play a speed deck in tournaments. First they
make the Zuran Orb, where everybody now has around 60 life in their deck, and now
this. I understand Ice Age gave quick decks the tinder wall, which is a great
card, but it is not as powerful as the orb.
Back to the vise. With Ivory tower now being equal in number to the
vise, nobody will worry about being able to get under 5 cards quickly. Every game
will take forever, you know, I counter your power sink of my spell blast, blah blah
blah, boring, boring, boring. With out the vises, a deck without
countering ability will not be able to compete in type 1 play. Restricting the
vise doesnt help magic players be more creative, in fact it destroys many deck
types. This is going to hurt the game. There should be some luck involved, it
keeps it interesting.
RIP
Stasis
Land Destruction
Winter Orb/Relic Barrier
My new type I deck will be pure blue w/ ivory tower and z orb and maybe a millstone
or 2. Just try to kill me. Snooze.
Just my opinion,
DCR
Jeff Sternal
Daniel C Robbins <rob...@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
>Hello I dont post here much, but when I saw that Wizards had restricted
>black vise I had to say something. That SUCKS. It seems to me that WOC
>doesnt want anyone to be able to play a speed deck in tournaments.
> RIP
> Stasis - add creatures
> Land Destruction - add creatures
> Winter Orb/Relic Barrier - add creatures
Anyway, *these* are speed decks?
In any case, Un-RIP. I'm sorry - I'm not a creature fanatic,
but these decks are not dead.
Jeff
Frederick Scott
>Sparky - I generally respect your opinion. Your posts are generally correct.
>I realize that the statements below are from the DC (at least I think that's
>what you said in the original post), but I have to question the accuracy of
>the statements.
>
>Sparky!! (spa...@castle.wizards.com) wrote:
>: True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
>: players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
>: decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
>: played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
>: have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
>
>FALSE. I do not know, nor have I see, a *single* successful Type I player
>include four vises in every deck. Type II may be a different story, but that
>is just more reason to split the banned/restricted lists.
Apparently the problem is that you don't read Sparky's statements very well.
Note that your statement does NOT contradict his. It could be true and his
statement could be true as well. He said "...many tournament players were
willing to include it in their decks regardless...". You're talking about
whether a so-called "successful" player, which is a subjective and/or
ancedotal description of a person, would be willing to do so. In short,
"the smart guys don't do it". Perhaps (actually, I personally agree), but
Sparky wasn't talking about that. The observations he was reporting clearly
were more concerned with raw numbers of players.
Fred
mark balabon
: c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote:
: > Daniel Walls <RXK...@PRODIGY.COM> wrote:
: > > 1.) Should Black Vise have been Restricted? (Yes/No)
: > No. The main reason being the reasoning the Sparky has passed on to
: > us is morronic. "All decks are including 4 vises just for the 1st
: > turn vise." 1st off this is a false statement, secondly if a player
: > wants to include a card that is _useless_ after about the 4th turn,
: > feel free.
: You're right, it *is* a false statement. Good thing I never said it.
: If you're not going to use the words I did, PLEASE don't treat it as a
: quotation. I never made the statement you include here. I believe that
: the exact quote is, "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that
: *many* [emphasis added] tournament players were willing to include it
: in their decks regardless of what the decks theme or purpose was. The
: damage it could potentially inflict if played on the first turn was too
: attractive to ignore. In some cases players would keep their Vices
: sideboarded out if they knew they weren't going first."
: Your assertions that I made false statements are completely off-base,
: a construct of your own inaccurate reading of my message. While I
: don't expect everyone to agree that these are good reasons, I don't
: think anyone can call it a 'false statement.'
Sparky - I generally respect your opinion. Your posts are generally correct.
I realize that the statements below are from the DC (at least I think that's
what you said in the original post), but I have to question the accuracy of
the statements.
: True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
: players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
: decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
: played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
: have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
FALSE. I do not know, nor have I see, a *single* successful Type I player
include four vises in every deck. Type II may be a different story, but that
is just more reason to split the banned/restricted lists.
: True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
: they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
: this in tournaments.
I question this. Did you actually ask the players why they were sideboarding
the vises out? My current deck does have vices, and they are on the
sideboard. The main reason the vises go in the deck is for those times when I
play against U/W counter decks - and even then, it has very little to do with
the damage. It has more to do with forcing them to play cards rather than
holding them.
Bally
: I have no problem with disagreement, but I do have one with
Sparky!!
> Then the DC should do something about not allowing sideboarding
> b4 the 1st game.
They do. You have to return your deck to its original composition before
each new opponent you face. So you go first on the second or third round
of the match and sideboard it in.
Sccerby
no
no
Brian T. Tickler
>: > b4 the 1st game.
>
>: They do. You have to return your deck to its original composition before
>: of the match and sideboard it in.
>
>
>I don't recall ever seeing that in print. Tom?
It is there, in paragraph 3 of the new Standard Floor Rules. I'm not
sure why they didn't make more of an announcement about this change,
which went in at the same time as the Zuran Orb restriction. Our local
store has been requiring all tourney players to write down their
sideboard contents prior to registration, and has been since Nov. 1,
1995.
A very good rule change, BTW.
J. H.
>I, myself agree with this. I have played M:TG with my friend once and he
>beat me flawless because of that combo!
That's some funny shit!
Even better is the Braingeyser your opponent for as many cards
as your lands can muster then play a Rack combo!
You cunning guy!
Vince
Die Specter!
uche...@usa.pipeline.com
William Thomas III Schipper
:bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) wrote:
:>Actually, I read Sparky!!'s post more than once. It was fairly obvious from
:>some of the statements that he was talking about Type II - thus the point of
:>my post was restrict Vise in Type II, not Type I (where it is not a real
:>problem). And I realize that my statement did not contradict what was said
:>in *this* post, but unless I am mistaken, his earlier posts did infer that
:>he was talking about winning players. For the first time in my life, I
:>find that I have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based
:>not on balance but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made
:>by a majority of players.
: Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
: example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
: with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
: last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
: chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
If he knew that the typical deck in the tournament would be like this, his
chances of winning would be excellent. Even if he didn't, they would
probably be far better than that of anyone else in the tournament. I'm not
sure if this is what you meant or not...you may think your question has
an obvious answer, but I'm not so sure. In that many rounds there is
a good chance the deck would have to beat stripmine/vice two games in
a row a couple of times. (Of course, if it were a Swiss the good deck would
almost certainly win)
Black Vice is annoying on the first turn and a very effective damage dealer
in the right deck. However, to use it well the whole deck has to be built
around it. I don't think it is really powerful enough to need restricting,
but now that it has you can bet that I will be playing more Control Magic
and other cards that are card efficient but can be too slow with vices.
Tom Schipper
Brian T. Tickler
>: Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
>: example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
>: with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
>: last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
>: chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
>
>If he knew that the typical deck in the tournament would be like this, his
>chances of winning would be excellent. Even if he didn't, they would
>probably be far better than that of anyone else in the tournament. I'm not
>sure if this is what you meant or not...you may think your question has
>an obvious answer, but I'm not so sure. In that many rounds there is
>a good chance the deck would have to beat stripmine/vice two games in
>a row a couple of times. (Of course, if it were a Swiss the good deck would
>almost certainly win)
I was envisioning a single elimination tourney...my point is, the real
deck should have a 99.9% of winning any tourney where all the other
participants are playing such an absurd mix of cards, i.e. 4 Artifacts,
52 Land, and 4 Cantrips. Yet because of Black Vise, the deck would be
lucky to get through the entire tourney without meeting someone who drew
multiple Vises and Strip Mines two games in row...
>Black Vice is annoying on the first turn and a very effective damage dealer
>in the right deck. However, to use it well the whole deck has to be built
>around it. I don't think it is really powerful enough to need restricting,
>but now that it has you can bet that I will be playing more Control Magic
>and other cards that are card efficient but can be too slow with vices.
--
Brian T. Tickler
>Actually, I read Sparky!!'s post more than once. It was fairly obvious from
>some of the statements that he was talking about Type II - thus the point of
>my post was restrict Vise in Type II, not Type I (where it is not a real
>problem). And I realize that my statement did not contradict what was said in
>*this* post, but unless I am mistaken, his earlier posts did infer that he was
>talking about winning players. For the first time in my life, I find that I
>have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
>but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made by a majority of
>players.
Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
--
Craig Sivils
>example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
>with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
>last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
>chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
If the decks were something like
4 Necropotence
4 Lands Edge
4 Demonic Consultation
4 Black Vices
4 Forgotten Lore
4 Dark Rituals
4 Tinder Walls
2 Ishan's shades
(maybe couple reb's or glooms or death grips depending on tourney
expectations)
4 Strips
Rest Cob/ice age poke lands, etc.
A strategy completely based upon the luck of the draw.
Craig
mark balabon
: bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) writes:
: >Sparky - I generally respect your opinion. Your posts are generally correct.
: >I realize that the statements below are from the DC (at least I think that's
: >what you said in the original post), but I have to question the accuracy of
: >the statements.
: >
: >Sparky!! (spa...@castle.wizards.com) wrote:
: >: True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
: >: players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
: >: decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
: >: played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
: >: have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
: >
: >FALSE. I do not know, nor have I see, a *single* successful Type I player
: >include four vises in every deck. Type II may be a different story, but that
: >is just more reason to split the banned/restricted lists.
: Apparently the problem is that you don't read Sparky's statements very well.
: Note that your statement does NOT contradict his. It could be true and his
: statement could be true as well. He said "...many tournament players were
: willing to include it in their decks regardless...". You're talking about
: whether a so-called "successful" player, which is a subjective and/or
: ancedotal description of a person, would be willing to do so. In short,
: "the smart guys don't do it". Perhaps (actually, I personally agree), but
: Sparky wasn't talking about that. The observations he was reporting clearly
: were more concerned with raw numbers of players.
: Fred
Actually, I read Sparky!!'s post more than once. It was fairly obvious from
some of the statements that he was talking about Type II - thus the point of
my post was restrict Vise in Type II, not Type I (where it is not a real
problem). And I realize that my statement did not contradict what was said in
*this* post, but unless I am mistaken, his earlier posts did infer that he was
talking about winning players. For the first time in my life, I find that I
have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made by a majority of
players.
Bally
Landing
> Sparky!! (spa...@castle.wizards.com) wrote:
> : c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote:
>
> : > Then the DC should do something about not allowing sideboarding
> : > b4 the 1st game.
>
> : They do. You have to return your deck to its original composition before
> : each new opponent you face. So you go first on the second or third round
> : of the match and sideboard it in.
>
>
> Woah there fella. This is a new one on me, and a lot of other players.
> I don't recall ever seeing that in print. Tom?
>
> : Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Team
> : spa...@castle.wizards.com
>
> do...@netcom.com
>
> Check out my Magic Tournament Calendar at
> http://www.music.uiowa.edu/~jezebel/dolor.html
>
>>>>
Since when are you not allowed to sideboard on the first game. Type II tournament rules at the Ledgewood Mall, NJ,
say, "If you put it in your deck live with it." Nothing in the rules where I come from says anything about
sideboarding.
Dennis F. Hefferman
|True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
|players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
|decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
|played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
|have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
No, false. Insert "perceived to be" before "so" in the first sentence
to make it true. It is not in fact so effective.
|True: "In some cases players would keep their Vices sideboarded out if
|they knew they weren't going first." Our R&D staffers have witnessed
|this in tournaments.
Ah, so what?
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: Macavity heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
inner child and kick its little ass!" -- Don Henley/Glenn Fry, "Get Over It"
Dennis F. Hefferman
|talking about winning players. For the first time in my life, I find that I
|have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
You'll get used to it.
Paul van Gool
>bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) wrote:
>>For the first time in my life, I find that I
>>have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
>>but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made by a majority of
>>players.
>Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
>example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
>with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
>last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
>chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
Almost 100%
The only change he has to lose the tournament is to have 2 very bad
draws against the same opponent.
If it is a Swiss type tournament I think this will be exactly 100%
With 4 BV in a 60 card deck you have about 44% change of getting at
least 1 BV in your openinghand + first draw (8 cards). Any well
constructed deck handled by any decent player won't be impressed by
it.
I am not saying that a first time BV is a lot of fun to get played
against you. But just putting 4 BV in every deck will not help you.
IMHO BV's are only of real help in a deck specialised to use them
(like laand destruction, or decks that are based on killing on turn 3
or 4 in which a first turn BV will just help to accomplish this).
Peter M White
>bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) writes:
>>Sparky!! (spa...@castle.wizards.com) wrote:
>>: True: "Black Vice is a card so generally effective that many tournament
>>: players were willing to include it in their decks regardless of what the
>>: decks theme or purpose was. The damage it could potentially inflict if
>>: played on the first turn was too attractive to ignore." Many posters here
>>: have admitted to this, and I've done it myself.
>>
>>FALSE. I do not know, nor have I see, a *single* successful Type I player
>>include four vises in every deck. Type II may be a different story, but that
>>is just more reason to split the banned/restricted lists.
>Apparently the problem is that you don't read Sparky's statements very well.
>Note that your statement does NOT contradict his. It could be true and his
>statement could be true as well. He said "...many tournament players were
>willing to include it in their decks regardless...". You're talking about
>whether a so-called "successful" player, which is a subjective and/or
>ancedotal description of a person, would be willing to do so. In short,
>"the smart guys don't do it". Perhaps (actually, I personally agree), but
>Sparky wasn't talking about that. The observations he was reporting clearly
>were more concerned with raw numbers of players.
Nor would this be the first time that the DC bowed to the vague perceptions
of the majority of players over the perceptions of experienced players
who have carefully considered the problem and possible solutions. Even
though I put it caustically, it is hardly a riduculous response on their
part; but it is certainly annoying when one believes a more considered,
moderate position loses out.
--Peter "who doesn't play in tournaments
because his good decks are in plastic sleeves"
p-w...@uiuc.edu
Cathy Nicoloff
: Nor would this be the first time that the DC bowed to the vague perceptions
: of the majority of players over the perceptions of experienced players
: who have carefully considered the problem and possible solutions. Even
Here's where I ask the tough question. Define "experienced player". I'd
say I was pretty experienced - I win just over half the games I play in
my local area, which amount to about 10 a week. I traveled outside of my
area to just across the state, and lost every game I played. It seems
every area has their own best players, who teach everyone else, and
everyone learns the game just a little differently.
The guys who compete in trounaments almost _always_ have the same mindset
- kill, kill quickly, and use the cheapest card for the effect you can find.
This has boiled the tournament scene into about 4-5 different deck themes
which are "tournament viable" - meaning that all the expansions they can
use offer them many powerful cards toward achieving that end.
Yet and still, each local area's tournament scene looks different! I can
do well at my local type II tournament with a simple black/green speed
deck, simply because everyone else is so enamoured with blue denial
decks, blue millstone decks, and blue stasis decks. Those who aren't
playing blue are playing land destroyers and hand destroyers - speed
trounces on them! But aside from that, the basic point remains clear -
each area has a different batch of "successful" players who have learned
basically a different game. Some people, like me, learn that speedand
brute force win you games. Some people learn that careful bluffs and
denial win games. Some people learn that card superiority or creature
superiority win games. For _anyone_ to come through and say that no
self-respecting tournament player would do <X> because _they_ have never
seen it done in their area... well, the point is moot.
The Black Vise has become a no-brainer somewhere. It's even better than
a lightning bolt - it's a bolt that keeps on giving for about three
rounds, maybe more. Not only that, you can use _any_ color to activate
it, not just red. That's what makes it easy to drop into any deck. I
dropped one into my black/red deck, because it pisses people off when I
get it in my first hand. What's better than a bolt? A Black Vise on
your first turn.
It's a debate that can keep going around and around...
-Cathy
MagicRZA
sideboard, then if Opp. suspects you of cheating...they check up on you.
-The RZA
"I'm the RZARECTOR, be my sacrifice, commit suicide and I
bring you back to life"-RZARECTOR"
Craig Sivils
Although the vice deck presented stinks, it isn't 100% by far. Since
there are 256 players (and there ain't going to be 256 rounds, more
like 5), There are decent odds are that there will be several with
perfect records. So if the player even looses ONE game, he's out. If
one player manages a cheese draw and gets say two strips and two
vices, its all over for the good deck. Say THANK YOU swiss!
Craig
Peter M White
>Peter M White (p-w...@meibm19.cen.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: Nor would this be the first time that the DC bowed to the vague perceptions
>: of the majority of players over the perceptions of experienced players
>: who have carefully considered the problem and possible solutions. Even
>Here's where I ask the tough question. Define "experienced player". I'd
>say I was pretty experienced - I win just over half the games I play in
>my local area, which amount to about 10 a week. I traveled outside of my
>area to just across the state, and lost every game I played. It seems
>every area has their own best players, who teach everyone else, and
>everyone learns the game just a little differently.
I worded that poorly. I did not mean to imply that the "majority"
only included inexperienced players, as you might read my comments
to imply. But I do mean that the less thoughtful players disproportionately
are among the big crowd. My perspective is different than most; I
learned against 40 card decks with 5-6 BVs that if a _single_ first
round BV was causing me serious problems, I must be doing something wrong.
--Peter
p-w...@uiuc.edu
Stimpy1982
is a good form of banning. Therefor my response to the poll is...
Yes.
No.
Sort of.
Stimpy
Brian T. Tickler
>pvg...@iaehv.nl (Paul van Gool) wrote:
>
>>"Brian T. Tickler" <tic...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>bala...@bu.edu (mark balabon) wrote:
>>>>For the first time in my life, I find that I
>>>>have to agree with Dennis H - the DC made this decision based not on balance
>>>>but on a bad decision (including vises in every deck) made by a majority of
>>>>players.
>
>>>Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
>>>example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
>>>with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
>>>last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
>>>chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
>
>>Almost 100%
>>The only change he has to lose the tournament is to have 2 very bad
>>draws against the same opponent.
Key word here: almost. It should 100%, given the mix of the deck I
posted, i.e. 48 basic land, 4 artifacts, 4 special land, and 4 cantrips.
Only the fact that those 4 artifacts happen to be Vises gives this mix
any chance at all. The Strip Mines and Urza's Buables just improve the
chances of dealing Vise damage.
>>If it is a Swiss type tournament I think this will be exactly 100%
>>With 4 BV in a 60 card deck you have about 44% change of getting at
>>least 1 BV in your openinghand + first draw (8 cards). Any well
>>constructed deck handled by any decent player won't be impressed by
>>it.
>>I am not saying that a first time BV is a lot of fun to get played
>>against you. But just putting 4 BV in every deck will not help you.
>>IMHO BV's are only of real help in a deck specialised to use them
>>(like laand destruction, or decks that are based on killing on turn 3
>>or 4 in which a first turn BV will just help to accomplish this).
>Although the vice deck presented stinks, it isn't 100% by far. Since
>there are 256 players (and there ain't going to be 256 rounds, more
>like 5), There are decent odds are that there will be several with
>perfect records. So if the player even looses ONE game, he's out. If
>one player manages a cheese draw and gets say two strips and two
>vices, its all over for the good deck. Say THANK YOU swiss!
Thanks Craig, that was my point: the deck posted stinks. It has no
right to win a single tourney game. Yet it can, because of the Vise.
William Thomas III Schipper
: >>>with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
: >>>last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
: >>>chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
: >
: >>Almost 100%
: >>The only change he has to lose the tournament is to have 2 very bad
: >>draws against the same opponent.
: Key word here: almost. It should 100%, given the mix of the deck I
: posted, i.e. 48 basic land, 4 artifacts, 4 special land, and 4 cantrips.
: Only the fact that those 4 artifacts happen to be Vises gives this mix
: any chance at all. The Strip Mines and Urza's Buables just improve the
: chances of dealing Vise damage.
It will NEVER be quite 100%, but I think it would be close enough that
it shouldn't bother anyone. The probability wouldn't be 100% against
decks that were 52 Swamp, 4 DR, 4 Hypno (or Vampire) either...nor would
it be against 30 Mountains, 30 Goblins (I'm not sure if that's tournament
legal, but has to be close).
A well constructed deck that knew most people in the area liked vices
would VERY rarely die to them.
: >>I am not saying that a first time BV is a lot of fun to get played
: >>against you. But just putting 4 BV in every deck will not help you.
: >>IMHO BV's are only of real help in a deck specialised to use them
: >>(like laand destruction, or decks that are based on killing on turn 3
: >>or 4 in which a first turn BV will just help to accomplish this).
: >Although the vice deck presented stinks, it isn't 100% by far. Since
: >there are 256 players (and there ain't going to be 256 rounds, more
: >like 5), There are decent odds are that there will be several with
: >perfect records. So if the player even looses ONE game, he's out. If
: >one player manages a cheese draw and gets say two strips and two
: >vices, its all over for the good deck. Say THANK YOU swiss!
Lets take a better look at this. The odds of one of the vice deck
players winning each of his games would be .50. Since each would play
15 games (5 rounds of 3 games) the odds of winning all of them would
be .50^15 = .000030518, which is 1 out of 32768. (Actually a bit lower
since the ones against the good deck would almost certainly loose).
This makes the expected number that will have a perfect record
255/32768 = .00778.
The odds that even one will have a perfect record would be
1 - P(none of them). P(none of them) = (1 - .000030518)^255
= .999969482^255
= .9922481
1 - .9922481 = .007751899
So, there is a .775% chance that ANY of the vice deck players would have
a perfect record. It's much more difficult to evaluate the odds of the
player of the good deck winning...especially since we haven't specified
exactly what is in the good deck. However, if he won all his games,
he would be better than 99.22% likely to be the sole winner of the tournament.
: Thanks Craig, that was my point: the deck posted stinks. It has no
: right to win a single tourney game. Yet it can, because of the Vise.
It has no right to, and it is very unlikely to.
Tom Schipper
Brian T. Tickler
Of course it is unlikely to, that's why I said "let's take an admittedly
absurd example".
I'll say this again: my example was for a regular "elimination" tourney,
not a Swiss. So, all your statistical work aside, in an elimination
tournament, the example Vise decks do have an inordinately large chance
of victory.
In any case, my point has been made. This is why too many people were
using Vises, and why, according to the DC, it was restricted.
Brian T. Tickler
>different decks...even different tournament quality decks...in very
>different ways. Some decks will barely notice them while others could
>potentially be slaughtered by them. This isn't a problem with the vice,
>but a problem with the deck...it did not prepare for something that it
>should have. One deck may die to a vice, another may die to a COP:Red...
>I don't think there is that much of a difference.
Well, apparently some people do. Luckily, they happen to be DC members.
There's not much point in arguing further, the card is restricted. Let's
wait a while and see what effect this has. IMO, all that will happen is
that Vise Age drones will have to break down their formula decks and find
someone else's concept to ride to victory. Land Destruction will use an
alternate damage source. Cursed Racks might actually see the light of
day. Blue will get a very slight boost in Type II, which it needed. Not
that world-ending, if you ask me. Except for people who rely on the
Vise.
Maybe in a future expansion they'll come out with a balanced Vise that
costs 2 colorless, or comes into play tapped.
William Thomas III Schipper
: >Brian T. Tickler (tic...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >: csi...@blkbox.com (Craig Sivils) wrote:
: >: >pvg...@iaehv.nl (Paul van Gool) wrote:
: >: >>>Why is this supposedly a bad thing? Let's take an admittedly absurd
: >: >>>example: 256 players enter a tourney. 255 of them are playing decks
: >: >>>with 4 Black Vise, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Urza's Bauble, and 48 Plains. The
: >: >>>last player is playing a well-contructed tourney deck. What are the
: >: >>>chances of the one player actually winning this tournament?
(loads of deletions--look at the rest of the thread)
: I'll say this again: my example was for a regular "elimination" tourney,
: not a Swiss. So, all your statistical work aside, in an elimination
: tournament, the example Vise decks do have an inordinately large chance
: of victory.
My statistics there were primarily in response to Craigs post which seemed
to suggest that the problem would actually be worse in a Swiss. As they
showed, if the player could win his 15 games in a 5 round Swiss, he would
win more than 99 out of 100 tournaments given that all other decks were
equal. (and of course would tie in the other 1 time)
In fact, the statistics address the tournament style and not vices at all.
To find the probability of the vices you would need to know the specific
deck they were being played against...a deck made of all 0 cost cards
(including Kobolds and Ornithopters), 4 Swamps, and 4 Unholy Strength
would ALWAYS beat the deck you put out earlier...but would also usually
lose to most decks.
: In any case, my point has been made. This is why too many people were
: using Vises, and why, according to the DC, it was restricted.
I don't think it has been made a all. The problem is that vices affect
different decks...even different tournament quality decks...in very
different ways. Some decks will barely notice them while others could
potentially be slaughtered by them. This isn't a problem with the vice,
but a problem with the deck...it did not prepare for something that it
should have. One deck may die to a vice, another may die to a COP:Red...
I don't think there is that much of a difference.
Tom Schipper
Jamie Wakefield
and black vises do not go together, think again.
I play an all black discard deck and it includes four vices.
First turn - vice
their turn, land I fireball you for 0
players will discard their own cards to get under the
vice. Don't post that vie and mind twist don't go together.
played that exact same situation in a tourney.
guy sacrificed some great cards to get under the vice, then
when we was down to four, I twisted him for four.
And for those who say they have never seen this or that at a
tournament I say this. The woel is bigger than your backyard.
when the DC restricts something, they are taking the nation
and the world under consideration.
later
Daniel Brickwell
>
(a lot edited)
>
>Do the math. The odds of getting a black vise exactly
>when you want it makes the bolt superior. Plus the
>bolt is an instant that can also target creatures.
>
>Real tournament decks that don't have a supporting use
>for the vise are too tight to include it as a no-brainer.
>The problem is that most of the people that the DC is paying
>attention to do not know how to build real decks.
>
You can build decks which are relatively immune to Black Vise.
The point is that when everybody has to change their deck to
defend himself against one card, because it's so abundant, then
maybe that card is too powerful.
A point with the math. Drawing a Black Vise or more in your opening hand
is exactly 45% likely with 4 Vises. Thats means that you are doing
6 points of damage or more with a 45% chance. Giving you about
the damage utility of a Lightning Bolt. But, you can also carry Bolts
and if you do so the game might only last 10-12 rounds tops. In that
time you will have drawn a third of your deck. So you will only
draw 1.33 vises in the whole game. This means the other vises are not wasted
card slot space, unless your in for a long game and that is unlikely with such
a deck and means that you are probably losing. Now add the utility
that your opponent has to play with a smaller hand size and you can
work out why it is a boderline spoiler. The Rack isn't, because no experienced
player will want to play with an empty hand.
Friendly Greetings,
Daniel
>>
>> It's a debate that can keep going around and around...
>
>Considering the current situation, it seems there ought
>to be some more debate.
>
>
>
>-Jon Newton
Peter M White
>A point with the math. Drawing a Black Vise or more in your opening hand
>is exactly 45% likely with 4 Vises. Thats means that you are doing
>6 points of damage or more with a 45% chance. Giving you about
>the damage utility of a Lightning Bolt. But, you can also carry Bolts
>and if you do so the game might only last 10-12 rounds tops. In that
>time you will have drawn a third of your deck. So you will only
>draw 1.33 vises in the whole game. This means the other vises are not wasted
>card slot space, unless your in for a long game and that is unlikely with such
>a deck and means that you are probably losing. Now add the utility
>that your opponent has to play with a smaller hand size and you can
>work out why it is a boderline spoiler. The Rack isn't, because no experienced
>player will want to play with an empty hand.
Let's make some rough estimates of average Black Vise Damage. Suppose
the average first turn BV does 7 points of damage (a bit high) and the
average later turn BV does zero points of damage (a little low). If
a first turn BV appears 45% of the time, then the average Vise damage
will be 7 * 9 / 20 = 63/20 = 3.15 points of damage. Looks about as
good as a LB, doesn't it? Well, it looks definitely worse to me. Part
of the art of making a genuinely good deck is making it reliable. If
I think I am a better deck builder, I will let my opponent take the
desperate gambles.
Black Vise is a spoiler? Than Lightning Bolt must be a spoiler, too.
--Peter
p-w...@uiuc.edu
James W Sager
A Poll on the Black Vis.. by Quik...@aol.com
>strategy thats being taken from the game, not just a card. The result for
>me is - fear. What is next? Somebody else mentioned lightning bolt.
Just a note I have a deck built around - fear
PLEASE oh PLEASE don't BAN fear.
"Target creature can't be blocked exept
by black and artifact creatures."
Yeah I know its a powerful spoiler
but pealeaaassse don't ban it.
Bill Stripp
>First, like many others, it just fould up some of my better decks. That I
>will (evantually) be able to live with.
Good, I would hate to see someone die because of the loss of one of their
decks ;)
>Vises, you can and many do - it's an entire
>strategy thats being taken from the game, not just a card. The result for
>me is - fear. What is next? Somebody else mentioned lightning bolt.
>What about all the red direct damage spells? What about Crusade? What
>about The Abyss? If the DC starts to restrict and/or ban cards that form
>the backbone to decks, they take a step beyond just going after
>"spoilers." And that is a step too far, in my opinion.
Well I think that you are a bit paranoid about their motives. Also,
being afraid of the DC is a bit silly as well. If you don't like the
DC, don't play it. Play your own rules. Just adhere to it in tourney
play, or skip going to tournies. The DC has never had an effect on the
game of magic, it is still played the way it allways was. If you want
to use black vice, then do so, just don't use it in DC sanctioned
tournies.
The black vice was a cheese card plain and simple. I used them along
with just about any other sane player. It was just too much of an advatage
not to. I mean when White Weenie decks had four vices in them... come on.
Also if a deck is built around a cheese card, odds are it is a spoiler
so as far as I'm concerned go for it. Have you ever played a time deck?
They were absolutely riddiculous to play, so hence DC bans them and
they dissappear. Life goes on, so does the game.
>Too bad we can't go back and just play black vises with a higher casting
>cost, like 3 for instance. Then they would be an interesting strategy
>card, without all the fuss about them being spoilers, etc.
Now that would be a cool idea. I wonder if we'll see one in a new set.
They have had the tendancy to re-release cards with restrictions on them.
QuikSand
I am ticked off about the Vise restriction for a couple of reasons.
First, like many others, it just fould up some of my better decks. That I
will (evantually) be able to live with.
However, the trend that it sets does seem disturbing. Black Vise isn't
the only card that gives you a real value for the mana. Most of the list
of restricted cards are cards which didn't have a particular "synergy"
when working together - four demonic tutors would be nice, but you dont
build a deck around them. Vises, you can and many do - it's an entire
strategy thats being taken from the game, not just a card. The result for
me is - fear. What is next? Somebody else mentioned lightning bolt.
What about all the red direct damage spells? What about Crusade? What
about The Abyss? If the DC starts to restrict and/or ban cards that form
the backbone to decks, they take a step beyond just going after
"spoilers." And that is a step too far, in my opinion.
Too bad we can't go back and just play black vises with a higher casting
cost, like 3 for instance. Then they would be an interesting strategy
card, without all the fuss about them being spoilers, etc.
QuikSand
StarBolt
all participants. Instant "I-win" combinations make the game less enjoyable. While I
like Chaos Orb & Falling Star as novelty cards for the game, I supported their banning
as well, because of the sheer number of rules & errata that had to be explained before
every turn regarding their use.
Having said that, I need to have a definitive explanation on how Black Vise & Mind
Twist are broken.
Speed wins. That is a truism that many believe. IF decks are built around speed,
then the Black Vise would not be especially effective. Yes, the Vise can win a game
against a mana-hosed opponent, but fault his deck-construction rather than the card.
Mana Clash can win the game on the first turn, too. Likewise, a rack on an opponent
with no cards is even more potent, since the need to use drawn cards vs that hypnotic
spectre that is keeping you at 0 cards is overwhelming.
The only reason that Mind Twist is banned, is whining by upper echelon players that
someone can be competitive with a deck valued under $1000. Mind Twist is merely the
final touch on a discard deck. It is rarely effective in the early turns, as it takes
too many cards to give a distinct advantage to its user (It's simply annoying). Its
real effectiveness is in the later rounds, when you can reduce your opponent to 0 cards
with 1 card alone. If cards that are effective late in the game are spoilers, then DC
has no business allowing Shivans, Force of Nature, or any other big creature.
As far as being too cost effective, I think you'll agree that the Hymn to Tourach is
a much more massive card in the early turns.
If we're going to restrict/ban useful cards, then ban the lightning bolt that killed
the beastie that I ritualed for (killing 2 cards). *heavy sarcasm*
In closing, I think DC has its head up its ass in making decrees of this nature and I
think they should focus on their role in sanctioning tournaments, rather than splitting
hairs on marginal spoilers. Let them play!
Frederick Scott
>As a tournament director,...
>The only reason that Mind Twist is banned, is whining by upper echelon
>players that someone can be competitive with a deck valued under $1000.
This is the kind of comment that annoys the hell out of me. I'll have to
admit that I'm probably happier with the game having Mind Twist banned than
without, though I could live with it either way. But what irks me is to
hear people say, "So-and-so only wants X card banned/restricted because it
that card hurts their deck" or "So-and-so only wants to prevent X card from
being banned/restricted because they use that card to win unfairly". To
hear this, you'd think no one cared about play-balance in the game at all
(except, of course, the speaker...).
Saying something like that only shows how little you know about the upper
echelon tournament scene, tournament director or not. One of the first
people to suggest Mind Twist should be banned in this forum was Henry Stern,
National Runner-up and World semi-finalist. The national and world
championships, as you know, are run with Type 2 and Sealed Deck, no Type 1.
Another one was Brian Weissman, inventor of the Weissman deck of which Mind
Twist was one of the major components. Now why would Weissman WANT Mind Twist
banned if he uses it so effectively in his own deck?
This point was not very well thought out.
Fred
Ed Willis
>
> bri...@gold.tc.umn.edu (StarBolt) writes:
>
> >As a tournament director,...
> >The only reason that Mind Twist is banned, is whining by upper echelon
> >players that someone can be competitive with a deck valued under $1000.
> echelon tournament scene, tournament director or not. One of the first
> people to suggest Mind Twist should be banned in this forum was Henry Stern,
> National Runner-up and World semi-finalist. The national and world
> championships, as you know, are run with Type 2 and Sealed Deck, no Type 1.
> Another one was Brian Weissman, inventor of the Weissman deck of which Mind
> Twist was one of the major components. Now why would Weissman WANT Mind Twist
> banned if he uses it so effectively in his own deck?
>
> This point was not very well thought out.
>
> Fred
Very good point Fred. Both of these cards early in a game are unbalancing unless of course your
deck is tailored to fight them and then your deck becomes limited. Every player I talked to on
the tournament scene looks on this change as one that was for the better.
Ed Willis
Chris Mattern
: The most crucial sentence in the game is
: "If a card contradicts the rules, the rules take precedence."
Oops. I think you got that backwards...
Chris Mattern
Carsten Husek
: the average first turn BV does 7 points of damage (a bit high) and the
: average later turn BV does zero points of damage (a little low). If
: a first turn BV appears 45% of the time, then the average Vise damage
: will be 7 * 9 / 20 = 63/20 = 3.15 points of damage. Looks about as
: good as a LB, doesn't it? Well, it looks definitely worse to me. Part
: of the art of making a genuinely good deck is making it reliable. If
: I think I am a better deck builder, I will let my opponent take the
: desperate gambles.
: Black Vise is a spoiler? Than Lightning Bolt must be a spoiler, too.
: --Peter
: p-w...@uiuc.edu
I can't belive this. First you compute down the Black vise damage, but you
don't do this for Lightning Bolt.
You are comparing absolute lighting Bolt damage to average BV damage.
Which falsifies your conclusion.
Now lets compute average LB damage: 3 * .45 = 1.35.
So BV does more absolute damage and more average damage. Now it looks like
a fist Turn BV is more than twice as good as a first turn LB.
How about that?
--
Mancer,
Transexplorer of Beyond, Techo-Shaman, C-Zen Master
mspa...@forest.drew.edu
> As a tournament director, I applaud attempts by DC to make the game more playable for
> all participants. Instant "I-win" combinations make the game less enjoyable. While I
> like Chaos Orb & Falling Star as novelty cards for the game, I supported their banning
> as well, because of the sheer number of rules & errata that had to be explained before
> every turn regarding their use.
>
> Having said that, I need to have a definitive explanation on how Black Vise & Mind
> Twist are broken.
[snip]
> The only reason that Mind Twist is banned, is whining by upper echelon players that
> someone can be competitive with a deck valued under $1000. Mind Twist is merely the
> final touch on a discard deck. It is rarely effective in the early turns, as it takes
> too many cards to give a distinct advantage to its user (It's simply annoying). Its
> real effectiveness is in the later rounds, when you can reduce your opponent to 0 cards
> with 1 card alone. If cards that are effective late in the game are spoilers, then DC
> has no business allowing Shivans, Force of Nature, or any other big creature.
> As far as being too cost effective, I think you'll agree that the Hymn to Tourach is
> a much more massive card in the early turns.
If you have two Dark Rituals in your hand, and you're playing a Black
Discard deck with Mind Twist, you can empty your opponent's hand by turn
3. You don't think that's too cost-effective?
Besides, there's an IA card called Mind Warp that does essentially the
same thing for 3 more mana... casting cost of X3B as opposed to XB (where
X is the number of cards forced out of the hand). And Mind Warp is more
common than Mind Twist, so it's not like you no longer have access to that
effect.
Matt Spaulding
(who, personally, would like to put the whole controversy in a warp)
mspa...@daniel.drew.edu
http://daniel.drew.edu/~mspauldi
The Nomad
>>Vises, you can and many do - it's an entire
>>strategy thats being taken from the game, not just a card. The result for
>>me is - fear. What is next? Somebody else mentioned lightning bolt.
>>What about all the red direct damage spells? What about Crusade? What
>>about The Abyss? If the DC starts to restrict and/or ban cards that form
>>the backbone to decks, they take a step beyond just going after
>>"spoilers." And that is a step too far, in my opinion.
Precisement. The Vise is a powerful card in the right circumstances,
but engineering those right circumstances is the entire point of the
game: you are attempting to alter the playing field so that you will
win. In essence( and boy is this going to piss the "T2=fair tourney
play" types off...), the entire art of magic is fooling with aspects
of the rules so that you "break" the game.
The most crucial sentence in the game is
"If a card contradicts the rules, the rules take precedence."
>Well I think that you are a bit paranoid about their motives. Also,
>being afraid of the DC is a bit silly as well. If you don't like the
>DC, don't play it. Play your own rules. Just adhere to it in tourney
>play, or skip going to tournies. The DC has never had an effect on the
>game of magic, it is still played the way it allways was. If you want
>to use black vice, then do so, just don't use it in DC sanctioned
>tournies.
Oh, shit, I`m going to write an FAQ for this debate. Pardon the
shouting, but THE DC RULES ARE THE DE FACTO STANDARD FOR, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, NEARLY ALL TOURNAMENTS, ALL THE BIG TOURNEYS, MOST FRIENDLY
GROUP PLAY AND ALL OR MOST DISCUSSION ON THE NET. Thus, it will affect
most people if they fuck up.
Still played the way it always was? OK, I`ll play you with my 27
Lightening Bolt/14 Mountain deck. Fair? How about a deck with 8
Fireballs, 8 Channels, 8 Sol Rings, 8 mountains, 8 forests? Face it,
without the DC rules, Magic is crap.
>The black vice was a cheese card plain and simple. I used them along
>with just about any other sane player. It was just too much of an advatage
>not to. I mean when White Weenie decks had four vices in them... come on.
Fair. Here`s hoping they bring out a 2 casting cost version in the
next supplement.
>Also if a deck is built around a cheese card, odds are it is a spoiler
>so as far as I'm concerned go for it. Have you ever played a time deck?
>They were absolutely riddiculous to play, so hence DC bans them and
>they dissappear. Life goes on, so does the game.
Have you ever played a permission deck? OK, let`s ban Counterspell.
>>Too bad we can't go back and just play black vises with a higher casting
>>cost, like 3 for instance. Then they would be an interesting strategy
>>card, without all the fuss about them being spoilers, etc.
Fingers crossed...
The Nomad
"my name was Mike. His name was Bob."
James DeBruicker
> (Snip)
> If you have two Dark Rituals in your hand, and you're playing a Black
> Discard deck with Mind Twist, you can empty your opponent's hand by turn
> 3. You don't think that's too cost-effective?
>
> Besides, there's an IA card called Mind Warp that does essentially the
> same thing for 3 more mana... casting cost of X3B as opposed to XB (where
> X is the number of cards forced out of the hand). And Mind Warp is more
> common than Mind Twist, so it's not like you no longer have access to that
> effect.
>
Well, what makes Twist such a bad-ass card is that it doesnt cost the extra 3.
Mind Warp will NOT be the next Twist, as with the twists, decks could get by
with 4 Dark Rituals. However you would need 2 just to pull a first turn 1 card
Warp. Thus, the Warp is nothing more than a grossly watered-down Twist, or an
extremely pumped Mind Ravel. The Twist was a staple of discard. I am sad to
see it go *sniffle* :) Note: I played a discard deck for quite a while. Was
not that good, as it was just that, a B/U straight discard deck. It lost many
a game, especially in multi-player games, which quickly degenerated into "Beat
on the Discard Deck!". However, maybe this is not such a good indicator of
anything, as *EVERY* multi-player, non-team game (and some Emperor) that I play
in degenerates into who can beat me first. I have experienced a couple games
where, after severely whumping on me, the other players concede. So, maybe
Twist deserved to be banned, or just REALLY restricted (Sorry, you may only have
1/2 of a Mind Twist in your deck....:) ), as it was a really annoying card. OTOH,
it has never won me a game, or any other game that I have seen. There, have I
switched opinions enough for you :)?
Frederick Scott
>In <1996Jan30.095144.134934@forest> mspa...@forest.drew.edu writes:
>
>>In article <DLyEL...@news.cis.umn.edu>, bri...@gold.tc.umn.edu (StarBolt) writes:
>
>>If you have two Dark Rituals in your hand, and you're playing a Black
>>Discard deck with Mind Twist, you can empty your opponent's hand by turn
>>3. You don't think that's too cost-effective?
>
>But is this any more devastating than say a first turn Segnir Vampire?
A first turn Sengir Vampire may easily be countered by one-mana-cost Swords-
to-Plowshares. Tell me about the one-mana-cost single card answer to a
seven card Mind Twist, please.
Fred
Travis Youman
>In article <DLyEL...@news.cis.umn.edu>, bri...@gold.tc.umn.edu (StarBolt) writes:
>If you have two Dark Rituals in your hand, and you're playing a Black
>Discard deck with Mind Twist, you can empty your opponent's hand by turn
>3. You don't think that's too cost-effective?
But is this any more devastating than say a first turn Segnir Vampire? I
mean, unless you have several small creatures or a will-o-wisp or a STP, by
turn three you'll be down to 12 life. Especially against a weenie deck,
where by turn three you'll be down to 2 or 3 cards (ie fireball), I think a
first turn vamp is better than a 3rd turn mt. Just my opinion...
T.
mspa...@forest.drew.edu
> In <1996Jan30.095144.134934@forest> mspa...@forest.drew.edu writes:
>
>
>>If you have two Dark Rituals in your hand, and you're playing a Black
>>Discard deck with Mind Twist, you can empty your opponent's hand by turn
>>3. You don't think that's too cost-effective?
>
> But is this any more devastating than say a first turn Segnir Vampire? I
> mean, unless you have several small creatures or a will-o-wisp or a STP, by
> turn three you'll be down to 12 life. Especially against a weenie deck,
> where by turn three you'll be down to 2 or 3 cards (ie fireball), I think a
> first turn vamp is better than a 3rd turn mt. Just my opinion...
Of course, the idea with the weenie deck is to have several small
creatures out by turn 3. If that hasn't happened, then something's wrong
with that deck. In that respect, my answer to your question is yes, the
3rd turn Twist is a worse fate than the 1st turn Sengir if for no other
reason than you can _block_ the Sengir. (It's practically impossible to
counter its summoning... blue is really the only color that can do it, and
it's not fast enough.) A pumped-up Twist leaves you with nothing.
Matt Spaulding
mspa...@daniel.drew.edu
http://daniel.drew.edu/~mspauldi
Eric Taylor
: Another one was Brian Weissman, inventor of the Weissman deck of which Mind
: Twist was one of the major components. Now why would Weissman WANT Mind Twist
: banned if he uses it so effectively in his own deck?
Because Weissman lost one too many times to a discard deck that cost
only $100 to build, maybe? And maybe Weissman wanted the channel
banned because he was getting beat by the $25 channel fireball decks?
Now the only way to win in type I is to have a $1,500 deck.
Coincidence that all the great spoilers left are blue and cost over
$50? Channel, $1, twist, $5, black vise $1, banned. Time walk, $100,
ancestral recall $100, mox, mox, mox $100, $100, $100. What's wrong
with this picture?
There's two things can be done.
1) ban the time walk, ancestral recall, black lotus, mox, mox, mox.
These crazy power $100 cards have no business being around if something
as lame as the black vise has to get restricted.
2) Bring back twist, channel, chaos orb, vise. Make two separate
restricted lists. One crazy power list for type I. A different and
more balanced one for type II.
It's very clear to me that the wizards wish that the type I environment
would go away.
They hate it because so many cards are broken. They regret creating
the mox. They feel that the mind twist was wrong. Ditto all the other
power cards. And if it would just disappear for ever they couldn't be
happier.
The players on the other hand love type I, and dislike seeing the
wizards ruin it by trying to make it "balanced". Type I is unbalanced,
and to try to make it a fair playing environment is to ruining the type
I game.
It is also very clear to me that there are special interests which have
much more say in terms of duelist rulings than others. These people
play certain types of decks. Very expensive blue decks notably. Cards
which hurt the blue control decks are being systematically targetted
and eliminated.
I wish they would just let type I be. Sure it's wrong to have a card
like the chaos orb or channel. It's equally wrong to have ancestral
recall and the lotus. And that's part of the fun of type I.
LONG LIVE TYPE I. BRING BACK THE ORB.
--- edt
Frederick Scott
>Frederick Scott (fre...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Another one was Brian Weissman, inventor of the Weissman deck of which Mind
>: Twist was one of the major components. Now why would Weissman WANT Mind
>: Twist banned if he uses it so effectively in his own deck?
>
>Because Weissman lost one too many times to a discard deck that cost
>only $100 to build, maybe? And maybe Weissman wanted the channel
>banned because he was getting beat by the $25 channel fireball decks?
Why do you say that? To my knowledge Weissman hasn't said a thing about
Channel. As getting beat by "decks that cost less than $100 to build", don't
you actually mean, "decks that took no brains to build"? In any case, I
believe that's what Weissman meant. Claims to the contrary amount to
unwarranted cynicism.
>Now the only way to win in type I is to have a $1,500 deck.
>Coincidence that all the great spoilers left are blue and cost over
>$50? Channel, $1, twist, $5, black vise $1, banned. Time walk, $100,
>ancestral recall $100, mox, mox, mox $100, $100, $100. What's wrong
>with this picture?
There's a solution to this problem. But it isn't to add cheap spoilers
to the game. Mind Twist was going to go out of print soon enough and
would subsequently become an out-of-print overpriced card like the rest.
It would just have a taken a bit longer.
>There's two things can be done.
>
>1) ban the time walk, ancestral recall, black lotus, mox, mox, mox.
>These crazy power $100 cards have no business being around if something
>as lame as the black vise has to get restricted.
I agree, personally. How the real power players feel about this isn't clear
because they've never said anything about this, to my knowledge. I only
hear morons putting words in their mouths.
>2) Bring back twist, channel, chaos orb, vise. Make two separate
>restricted lists. One crazy power list for type I. A different and
>more balanced one for type II.
Ugh. Fortunately, WotC has thoroughly disavowed this route, so it's pointless
to speculate about.
>The players on the other hand love type I, and dislike seeing the
>wizards ruin it by trying to make it "balanced". Type I is unbalanced,
>and to try to make it a fair playing environment is to ruining the type
>I game.
Which players are those? Some do clearly enough, though why I'll never
fathom. Maybe they like games which amount to who-draws-the-power-card-first.
But many of us most emphatically do not. We've been driven to type 2
unwillingly because type 2 is the only interesting game in town. Type 2,
however, will ultimately obsolete most of our collections of cards. This
point has been delayed, what with hardly anything needing to be rotated out
of 4E (since almost all the "rotate-in" cards replaced basic lands on the
common and uncommon rarity sheets) and Chronicles adding back in some old
stuff and FE not being eliminated. Sooner or later, though, Type 2 is going
to go through some major card rotations and a bunch of cards we own will get
eliminated from it. When that happens, you'll see the heat turned up on
WotC to play-balance Type 1 or to create a truly play-balanced Type 1.5 (in
which case Type 1 will probably die).
>I wish they would just let type I be. Sure it's wrong to have a card
>like the chaos orb or channel. It's equally wrong to have ancestral
>recall and the lotus. And that's part of the fun of type I.
Sheesh. If that's what you like, why don't just get a bunch of players
together and draw lots? Then, you can hand a 1st prize trophy to the winner.
Makes about as much sense... (oops - I forgot, you have give more chances to
win to the people who own the power cards.)
Fred
nathand@mainelink.net@mainelink.net
Okay, Mr. C-Zen Master, lets do a little figuring. The original poster's point was
that if you put four vices in your deck, you would do an average of 3.15 points of
damage per game from the vices. This was based on the assumption that if you
pulled a first turn vise, it would do seven points of damage, and if you pulled one
later in the game, it wouldn't do any damage. Still keeping up? I'd hate to lose
you. Now, each lightning bolt does *three* points of damage. Lets assume I'm
playing with four in my deck. Since my decks tend to go through 30-40 cards a
game, I'd see on average better than two lightning bolts per game. So, I do on
average better than 6 points of damage with the bolts (for my deck, almost seven
points per game). Seems quite a bit better than the vise, now doesn't it.
BTW, "Transexplorer of Beyond", a first turn lightning bolt is generally a waste of
a card. Sure, you do three points of damage to me, but my first turn hypnotic
spectre, or my early ball lightning, or my mishra's factory lives. I just love it when
my opponents waste a lightning bolt on me on the first turn.
Nathan Dunning
Cthulhu for President. Why settle for the lesser evil?
DEEP SPAWN
> >The only reason that Mind Twist is banned, is whining by upper echelon
> >players that someone can be competitive with a deck valued under $1000.
>
> admit that I'm probably happier with the game having Mind Twist banned than
> without, though I could live with it either way. But what irks me is to
> hear people say, "So-and-so only wants X card banned/restricted because it
> that card hurts their deck" or "So-and-so only wants to prevent X card from
> being banned/restricted because they use that card to win unfairly". To
> hear this, you'd think no one cared about play-balance in the game at all
> (except, of course, the speaker...).
>
> echelon tournament scene, tournament director or not. One of the first
> people to suggest Mind Twist should be banned in this forum was Henry Stern,
> National Runner-up and World semi-finalist. The national and world
> championships, as you know, are run with Type 2 and Sealed Deck, no Type 1.
> Twist was one of the major components. Now why would Weissman WANT Mind Twist
> banned if he uses it so effectively in his own deck?
>
>
> Fred
Way off. Way way way way way off the point. I am a type I
player, type II does not interest me, because the best decks
cannot be built in the type II environment. I say this
despite not owning ANY power cards for the longest time, and
the power cards I own now, I WON in tournaments against
decks that had powercards in them. The fun of type one for
me is to beat the "unbalancing" cards without them. I own
no moxes currently and have never played in a tournment with
them. ditto for the lotus. The beauty of this game is that
with a little thought, almost ANYTHING can be unbalancing.
Unbalancing the duel is how you win the game. If you dont
want to play with these "terrible" cards, get out of the
kitchen and go play type II with the rest of the unimaginative
masses. The winning decks in most tournaments are never the
same from month to month. Watch how quickly the current
weisman school dissapears after someone figures out a way
to neutralizing it. THAT process of neutralizing the best
decks is what makes the game fun for me. I fear nothing, and
as long as I get one turn, I dont feel as if Ive been cheated.
BTW-- I was mindtwisted for 6 cards turn one in the
quarterfinals of a 104 person tournament this past weekend,
and I won the game and advanced. See, he had to use all of
HIS resources to drain mine and we were equal. how does that
unbalance the game?
As for black vises, How is a black vise anymore unbalancing
than a rack? the rack unbalances the game late, while the
black vise does it early.
this illustrates my basic point, that EVERY card can be an
unbalancing card (well, save gray ogre and a couple other
wastes of cardboard). Part of the game of magic IS luck,
like it or not, and sometimes the best players DONT win, but
that fact is inherent in the randomness of the game. Instead
of whining to the DC and banning the cards that beat you, why
not adjust your deck so that it doesent beat you anymore?
Daniel Brickwell
>
>ty0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Travis Youman) writes:
>
>>In <1996Jan30.095144.134934@forest> mspa...@forest.drew.edu writes:
>>
>>
>>>If you have two Dark Rituals in your hand, and you're playing a Black
>>>Discard deck with Mind Twist, you can empty your opponent's hand by turn
>>>3. You don't think that's too cost-effective?
>>
>>But is this any more devastating than say a first turn Segnir Vampire?
>
>to-Plowshares. Tell me about the one-mana-cost single card answer to a
>seven card Mind Twist, please.
>
>Fred
Just because you asked: Force Spike.
You are right though, Mind Twist is much more powerful than a first turn sengir,
which you can also Paralyze, Unsummon, Meekstone.
Friendly Greetings,
Daniel
Cathy Nicoloff
: Frederick Scott (fre...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Another one was Brian Weissman, inventor of the Weissman deck of which Mind
: : Twist was one of the major components. Now why would Weissman WANT Mind Twist
: : banned if he uses it so effectively in his own deck?
: Because Weissman lost one too many times to a discard deck that cost
: only $100 to build, maybe? And maybe Weissman wanted the channel
It is my understanding (which isn't much) that Weissman built his Mind
Twist deck specifically to show everyone what a horrible spoiler Mind
Twist was. Of course, that could be wrong.
: banned because he was getting beat by the $25 channel fireball decks?
: Now the only way to win in type I is to have a $1,500 deck.
Word from WotC states that Channel was banned when 95% of top-ranked
players had one in their decks. They did a cross-section of the
tournament winning decks at the highest tournaments, and found a
channel-ball in nearly every one. So I was told. Again, I could be wrong.
: 2) Bring back twist, channel, chaos orb, vise. Make two separate
: restricted lists. One crazy power list for type I. A different and
: more balanced one for type II.
Spoken like a person who truly hasn't got a clue why these things were
taken out in thr first place.
: much more say in terms of duelist rulings than others. These people
: play certain types of decks. Very expensive blue decks notably. Cards
: which hurt the blue control decks are being systematically targetted
: and eliminated.
Well, why on earth do you think I play red? For red's anti-blue ability
and fast damage! Perfect foil for every blue-laden $2000 type I deck - a
deck that costs $45.
-Cathy
Dennis F. Hefferman
|But is this any more devastating than say a first turn Segnir Vampire? I
Yes, because you most likely have lots of ways to foil a creature
attack, given that that is what the game is supposedly centered upon
(pathological designs notwithstanding), but recovering from a loss of cards is
much more difficult.
|mean, unless you have several small creatures or a will-o-wisp or a STP, by
|turn three you'll be down to 12 life. Especially against a weenie deck,
Losing a few life points isn't as bad as losing cards. Remeber:
everything is a resource, including your life points, and resources exist to be
spent to obtain victory. I'd rather spend a few life points in unchecked
attacks than lose the cards I'll need to develop my strategy.
Note that you can replace all those life points with one card -- Stream
of Life, Alabaster Potion, Fountain of Youth if you have enough time -- but
it's a lot tougher to get six or seven cards back.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: Macavity heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
inner child and kick its little ass!" -- Don Henley/Glenn Fry, "Get Over It"
mark balabon
: Frederick Scott (fre...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Another one was Brian Weissman, inventor of the Weissman deck of which Mind
: : Twist was one of the major components. Now why would Weissman WANT Mind Twist
: : banned if he uses it so effectively in his own deck?
: Because Weissman lost one too many times to a discard deck that cost
: only $100 to build, maybe? And maybe Weissman wanted the channel
: banned because he was getting beat by the $25 channel fireball decks?
: Now the only way to win in type I is to have a $1,500 deck.
: Coincidence that all the great spoilers left are blue and cost over
: $50? Channel, $1, twist, $5, black vise $1, banned. Time walk, $100,
: ancestral recall $100, mox, mox, mox $100, $100, $100. What's wrong
: with this picture?
I'm sorry, but get a clue. The problem with channel and twist is that they
are both overpowerful, broken cards. Noone with a serious, power Type I deck
is going to have any problem with someone that has MT or channel as their only
spoiler. The reason Weissman argued for the banning wasn't because he got
beat by MT - it was because MT was a card that allowed him to get a lock on
the game for a relatively low cost. MT destroys options, but unless backed
up, is not going to win the game. Having seen Weissman's deck on the net, I
seriously doubt he had any problem beating either discard or channelball.
(Just for your information, I opposed banning both - I'm simply posting this
because the "banning the only spoilers still available argument is one of the
worst arguments I've ever heard).
: There's two things can be done.
: 1) ban the time walk, ancestral recall, black lotus, mox, mox, mox.
: These crazy power $100 cards have no business being around if something
: as lame as the black vise has to get restricted.
In effect, ban Type I. Right? Banning these cards is unnecessary, as was the
ban of MT and channel.
: 2) Bring back twist, channel, chaos orb, vise. Make two separate
: restricted lists. One crazy power list for type I. A different and
: more balanced one for type II.
Good idea - one I've been arguing for over the last few months.
: It's very clear to me that the wizards wish that the type I environment
: would go away.
: They hate it because so many cards are broken. They regret creating
: the mox. They feel that the mind twist was wrong. Ditto all the other
: power cards. And if it would just disappear for ever they couldn't be
: happier.
: The players on the other hand love type I, and dislike seeing the
: wizards ruin it by trying to make it "balanced". Type I is unbalanced,
: and to try to make it a fair playing environment is to ruining the type
: I game.
: It is also very clear to me that there are special interests which have
: much more say in terms of duelist rulings than others. These people
: play certain types of decks. Very expensive blue decks notably. Cards
: which hurt the blue control decks are being systematically targetted
: and eliminated.
Not true. In either Type I or II, a good player wouldn't have any problem
with vises and would know to hold a counter for the MT. Especially in Type I.
: I wish they would just let type I be. Sure it's wrong to have a card
: like the chaos orb or channel. It's equally wrong to have ancestral
: recall and the lotus. And that's part of the fun of type I.
: LONG LIVE TYPE I. BRING BACK THE ORB.
Well said.
Bally
: --- edt
the Muse
hau...@augsburg.edu (Michael Haukaas) wrote:
>In article <fred_sDM...@netcom.com>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick
>
>> A first turn Sengir Vampire may easily be countered by one-mana-cost
Swords-
>> to-Plowshares. Tell me about the one-mana-cost single card answer to a
>> seven card Mind Twist, please.
>>
>> Fred
>
>
> Mike the Malroth
Sure. Now give me a 1 card solution to the seven card Twist if you went
second... :)
Kent
Ian Michael Bell
If you dont
>want to play with these "terrible" cards, get out of the
>kitchen and go play type II with the rest of the unimaginative
>masses.
Frankly, I think Type I is where most of the "unimaginative masses" reside.
Type I decks, in general, (your deck may be an exception, but that doesn't
change the general tendencies) have many more cards in common with each other
than Type II decks. At my last Type II tournament, there was an incredible
variety of different decks. I saw creative uses of cards that would never have
occurred to me as tournament viable. In a Type II deck, you are forced to be
creative, as you can't just pack your deck with the Type I spoilers and be
competitive. You may have won Type I without the spoilers, but you're the
exception, not the rule.
Ian Bell
ia...@uclink.berkeley.edu
Frederick Scott
>On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
>> >>In article <DLyEL...@news.cis.umn.edu>, bri...@gold.tc.umn.edu
>> >>(StarBolt) writes:
>> >
>> >>If you have two Dark Rituals in your hand, and you're playing a Black
>> >>Discard deck with Mind Twist, you can empty your opponent's hand by turn
>> >>3. You don't think that's too cost-effective?
>> >
>> >But is this any more devastating than say a first turn Segnir Vampire?
>>
>> A first turn Sengir Vampire may easily be countered by one-mana-cost Swords-
>> to-Plowshares. Tell me about the one-mana-cost single card answer to a
>> seven card Mind Twist, please.
>
>Single-Card: Force Spike: Interrupt Cost: U Target spell is countered
> unless its caster spends an additional 1.
All right, Force Spike will counter it. Force Spike will counter anything
in the right situation, including the Vampire, of course. But, as other folks
frequently point out, resorting to countering spells to answer this sort of
question is completely lame.
Countering spells typically work equally well against absolutely anything so
will obviously stop the most effective over-powered spell just as they will
equally well stop the dumbest under-powered spell. That doesn't really make
the over- and under- powered spells that much more equal, it just says they're
equal in this sense. And Countering spells have their own set of
vulnerabilities and limitations. In this case, the Force Spikes
vulnerability - that it's usually fairly worthless except in extremely
limited situations - is so costly that few people willingly use them in their
decks, or if they do they seldom use more than one. So Force Spike is
technically but not practically a correct annswer to my question.
>I'm not saying MT shouldn't be banned, but there were ways to stop both
>it and early Channel/Red DD.
I'm sorry, I missed something. All the responses you gave were sufficiently
lame that I would hardly call them "answers". Swords to plowshares, my
answer to the Sengir Vampire, OTOH, is absolutely useful staple that anyone
would be well-advised to stock four of in almost every white or part white
deck they play. And you don't have to draw it at just the perfect time or be
ready with just the right mana available to use it. The problem with Mind
Twist that I keep pointing out is that if it's successfully set off, there's
almost nothing you can do about it later.
>And just as easily done as a STP on a first to third turn big nastie.
Obviously, I _strongly_ disagree...I don't think you're being very practical
to suggest this.
Fred
Andre D. Gironda
John Immordino
Swords-
>> to-Plowshares. Tell me about the one-mana-cost single card answer
to a
>> seven card Mind Twist, please.
>>
>
>I believe it's called "Force Spike". :)
>
> Mike the Malroth
Excuse me? Force spike is an extremely lame card because it is only
good to have in the fist few rounds or vs. stupid opponents. Plus it is
not allowed in the type two enviornment. There is no real way to
recover from a big fat mindtwist on round two when your opponent
follows with something powerful. Mindtwist is unquestionably the most
abusive card that after the limited list was created. It creates a
huge advantage. I'm glad its gone.
Colin
Andre D. Gironda
Ian Michael Bell
>Actually, my fellow gamers and I came up with a card that may solve this
>problem. Here's the idea: 0 casting cost instant that provides coloured
>mana. A little too powerful to be made an actual card prbly, and useless
>now that MT and Channel are banned, but those were our thoughts months
>ago. Of course, banning those cards was the ideal solution. Comments?
>
>Andre
>
Hmmm... It seems to me that said instant would be the cause of more
channelballs that it would prevent, as it means that they can cast the Channel
sooner, as the right color mana will be avaliable for no cost in addition to
land, lumberjacks, etc...
Ian Bell
ia...@uclink.berkeley.edu
Brian Hauber
: On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Frederick Scott wrote:
:
: Double-Card: Tinder Wall + Fork
: First-turn Ruins of Trokair + Balance (draw)
Cancel that second one... too bad Ruins of Trokair come into play tapped and
There is a tap symbol next to the sacrafice symbol meaning you need to be
able to tap it. Since it comes into play, that does not count.
Brian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hauber bha...@prismnet.com
College Station, TX http://prismnet.com/~bhauber
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is just a candle and your dreams must give it flame" - Neil Peart
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nomad
>In article <4eth2f$q...@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, lu...@ix.netcom.com(John
>Immordino ) wrote:
>2) It didn't need to be banned. In Type I it was slightly more abusive
>than in Type II (Moxen, Lotus, etc.). Type II, using a 1st turn Twist
>brought the two players involved down to about the same level. How can you
>get fast mana in Type II? Dark Rituals and Mana Vaults.
Choppity chop...
>Is Mind Twist an abusive card? Possibly, but not really in Type II. In
>Type I, more so, but possible to recover from. The restriction was enough.
Why are you only dealing with a 1st turn MT? That`s not the point: the
point is that it allows you to gain a huge card advantage over your
opponent mid-game, usually enough to kill him. In T1, it is
demonstrable that if a player manages to cast a 6-point MT in the 6th
or 7th turn, he wins on card advantage ( the raison d`etre of T1; life
is actually less important). In T2, I haven`t been hit with it much,
but it has a similar effect: it reduces your options to zero in the
mid-game. This is where it kills, not at the start of a game.
Will everybody please lose the obsession with 1st turn kills? They
happen with extreme rarity, and are hardly a useful basis for a
discussion. The mid-game( around turn 8-12 in my book) is the area we
should be concerned with with reference to the Twist, and the area
where it`s as abusive as a Channelball, at least.
The Nomad
"my name was Mike. His name is Bob."
Adam Conover
> >don't do this for Lightning Bolt.
> >You are comparing absolute lighting Bolt damage to average BV damage.
> >Which falsifies your conclusion.
> >
> >Now lets compute average LB damage: 3 * .45 = 1.35.
> >
> >So BV does more absolute damage and more average damage. Now it looks like
> >a fist Turn BV is more than twice as good as a first turn LB.
> >How about that?
Wrong! Black Vises do an AVERAGE of 3.5, depending on how MANY cards your
opponent has in his hand!
1 Lightning Bolt ALWAYS does 3. ALWAYS. No ifs, ands, or buts, unless he
has a COP:Red or somesuch, but that's gettting a BIT too complicated,
don't you think?
So, actually, neither one of you are correct. I don't know exactly what
IS... but...
--
####################
########********************########
#####********++++++++++++++++++++********#####
##*****++++++++@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@++++++++*****##
#**+++++@@@@@@@@--------------------@@@@@@@@+++++**#
#*++++@@@@@------BBB---OO---OO--M---M------@@@@@++++*#
#*++@@@@@--------B--B-O--O-O--O-MM-MM--------@@@@@++*#
#*+@@-------------B--B-O--O-O--O-M-M-M-------------@@+*#
#*+@--------------BBB--O--O-O--O-M-M-M--------------@+*#
#*+@@-------------B--B-O--O-O--O-M---M-------------@@+*#
#*++@@@@@--------B--B-O--O-O--O-M---M--------@@@@@++*#
#*++++@@@@@------BBB---OO---OO--M---M------@@@@@++++*#
#**+++++@@@@@@@@--------------------@@@@@@@@+++++**#
##*****++++++++@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@++++++++*****##
#####********++++++++++++++++++++********#####
########********************########
####################
############
##########
##############
########################
##############################################
##############################################################################
This message brought to you by the Former USSR.
Carsten Husek
: In <4elcjf$6...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>, 2hu...@rzdspc133.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Carsten Husek) writes:
: >: Let's make some rough estimates of average Black Vise Damage. Suppose
: >: the average first turn BV does 7 points of damage (a bit high) and the
: >: average later turn BV does zero points of damage (a little low). If
: >: a first turn BV appears 45% of the time, then the average Vise damage
: >: will be 7 * 9 / 20 = 63/20 = 3.15 points of damage. Looks about as
: >: good as a LB, doesn't it? Well, it looks definitely worse to me. Part
: >: of the art of making a genuinely good deck is making it reliable. If
: >: I think I am a better deck builder, I will let my opponent take the
: >: desperate gambles.
: >: Black Vise is a spoiler? Than Lightning Bolt must be a spoiler, too.
: >don't do this for Lightning Bolt.
: >You are comparing absolute lighting Bolt damage to average BV damage.
: >Which falsifies your conclusion.
: >
: >Now lets compute average LB damage: 3 * .45 = 1.35.
: >
: >So BV does more absolute damage and more average damage. Now it looks like
: >a fist Turn BV is more than twice as good as a first turn LB.
: >How about that?
: Okay, Mr. C-Zen Master, lets do a little figuring.
Yes, a liitle personal attack in the beginnig is always fine.
: The original poster's point was
: that if you put four vices in your deck, you would do an average of
: 3.15 points of
: damage per game from the vices. This was based on the assumption that if you
: pulled a first turn vise, it would do seven points of damage, and if you
: pulled one later in the game, it wouldn't do any damage.
Well, I think his point was that a first turn BV does an average 3.15 pts
of Damage and a First turn LB does three and LB must be spoiler as much as
the BV is.
: Still keeping up? I'd hate to lose you.
Implying idiocy is always good if you want flame someone without being to
blunt, eh?
: Now, each lightning bolt does *three* points of damage. Lets assume I'm
: playing with four in my deck. Since my decks tend to go through 30-40 cards
: a game, I'd see on average better than two lightning bolts per game. So, I
: do on average better than 6 points of damage with the bolts (for my deck,
: almost seven points per game). Seems quite a bit better than the vise, now
: doesn't it.
No.
When playing through 30-40 cards, I will have the chance to play that COP:
Red. See, no damage at all. Furthermore, you will have to play red.
And you are talking about 6-7 points over the course of many rounds,
during which I will have the chance to prevent them, regain them or
deal more damage to you.
Now the first turn BV does about 5-7 damage (depending on fast the opponent's
deck is), and my opponent does not have the chance do do anything about it. A
BV costs colorless mana, which mean it can go in any deck, its damage is
very unlikely do be prevented.
All I can do against it is playing four BVs, too. That is certainly what we
all want for Magic: a game of who draws that first turn BV, all playing
the same weenie/discard strategy to win.
: BTW, "Transexplorer of Beyond",
Sure feels good to bash on people, neh?
: a first turn lightning bolt is generally a waste of a card.
While a first turn BV is never. Thanks for the arguement.
: Sure, you do three points of damage to me, but my first turn hypnotic
: spectre, or my early ball lightning, or my mishra's factory lives.
: I just love it when my opponents waste a lightning bolt on me on the first
: turn.
No, no. I cannot be. We actually agree.
We just disagree on the conclusuion.
If you think doing 7 pts of damage and the opponent does not have a chance
to avoid it is next to nothing all we can do is agree to disagree.
And I just love wining one quater of the game or more for one colorless mana
on the first turn. Even two or three LBs over the course of 30-40
cards fail to achive the same effect in my experience.
Two LBs cost even the double amount of mana in COLORED mana.
: Cthulhu for President. Why settle for the lesser evil?
Flames for the Mancer. Why settle for lesser fun?
Wayne J. Rasmussen
: Frederick Scott (fre...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Another one was Brian Weissman, inventor of the Weissman deck of which Mind
: : Twist was one of the major components. Now why would Weissman WANT Mind Twist
: : banned if he uses it so effectively in his own deck?
: Because Weissman lost one too many times to a discard deck that cost
: only $100 to build, maybe? And maybe Weissman wanted the channel
: banned because he was getting beat by the $25 channel fireball decks?
: Now the only way to win in type I is to have a $1,500 deck.
: Coincidence that all the great spoilers left are blue and cost over
: $50? Channel, $1, twist, $5, black vise $1, banned. Time walk, $100,
: ancestral recall $100, mox, mox, mox $100, $100, $100. What's wrong
: with this picture?
: There's two things can be done.
: 1) ban the time walk, ancestral recall, black lotus, mox, mox, mox.
: These crazy power $100 cards have no business being around if something
: as lame as the black vise has to get restricted.
This makes sense to me. I think there is too much catering to the
expensive decks here!!! Ban these cards ASAP!!!!
Larimar
the cost of a winning deck and start practicing what they preach, ie a
level playing field for people who can't afford (or aren't crazy enough to
buy) $100+ cards.
nat...@mainelink.net
[Arguement you obviously didn't understand deleted]
>
>: Okay, Mr. C-Zen Master, lets do a little figuring.
>
>Yes, a liitle personal attack in the beginnig is always fine.
Hey, its your stupid name, not mine.
>
>: The original poster's point was
>: that if you put four vices in your deck, you would do an average of
>: 3.15 points of
>: damage per game from the vices. This was based on the assumption that if you
>: pulled a first turn vise, it would do seven points of damage, and if you
>: pulled one later in the game, it wouldn't do any damage.
>
>Well, I think his point was that a first turn BV does an average 3.15 pts
>of Damage and a First turn LB does three and LB must be spoiler as much as
>the BV is.
Actually, his point was that the black vise isn't nearly as good as a lightning bolt.
>
>: Still keeping up? I'd hate to lose you.
>
>Implying idiocy is always good if you want flame someone without being to
>blunt, eh?
>
>: Now, each lightning bolt does *three* points of damage. Lets assume I'm
>: playing with four in my deck. Since my decks tend to go through 30-40 cards
>: a game, I'd see on average better than two lightning bolts per game. So, I
>: do on average better than 6 points of damage with the bolts (for my deck,
>: almost seven points per game). Seems quite a bit better than the vise, now
>: doesn't it.
>
>No.
>When playing through 30-40 cards, I will have the chance to play that COP:
>Red. See, no damage at all. Furthermore, you will have to play red.
>And you are talking about 6-7 points over the course of many rounds,
>during which I will have the chance to prevent them, regain them or
>deal more damage to you.
I never said I'd bolt you. I might hit creatures, freeing mine to do more damage. I
might wait until you tap out to hit you if you have a COP. If you gain life, so what?
You're still six or seven points lower than you would have been without the bolts.
>Now the first turn BV does about 5-7 damage (depending on fast the opponent's
>deck is), and my opponent does not have the chance do do anything about it. A
>BV costs colorless mana, which mean it can go in any deck, its damage is
>very unlikely do be prevented.
>All I can do against it is playing four BVs, too. That is certainly what we
>all want for Magic: a game of who draws that first turn BV, all playing
>the same weenie/discard strategy to win.
You should always have the ability to do something about a first turn vise.
Crumble, shatter, disenchant, boomerang, etc. Any speed deck should be under
it in two turns.
>: BTW, "Transexplorer of Beyond",
>
>Sure feels good to bash on people, neh?
Again, your name, not mine.
>: a first turn lightning bolt is generally a waste of a card.
>
>While a first turn BV is never. Thanks for the arguement.
However, a sixth turn vise in a deck not designed for it is a waste of a card. You
still seem to miss this essential point. A lightning bolt is almost always useful, a vise
is only useful very early, or in certain specialized decks.
>
>: Sure, you do three points of damage to me, but my first turn hypnotic
>: spectre, or my early ball lightning, or my mishra's factory lives.
>: I just love it when my opponents waste a lightning bolt on me on the first
>: turn.
>
>No, no. I cannot be. We actually agree.
>We just disagree on the conclusuion.
>If you think doing 7 pts of damage and the opponent does not have a chance
>to avoid it is next to nothing all we can do is agree to disagree.
>
>And I just love wining one quater of the game or more for one colorless mana
>on the first turn. Even two or three LBs over the course of 30-40
>cards fail to achive the same effect in my experience.
>Two LBs cost even the double amount of mana in COLORED mana.
But cards are more important than life in the game. The person who draws more,
or can use more cards, generally will win the game. Why play with cards that
serve no purpose late in the game?
HntrRos
IMHO, it would be far better of them to simply keep all of these cards
restricted and revoke the pox of abjurement placed upon those cheaper
cards which(IMHO) really weren't quite so unbalancing to the game at
large.
Doug Curry
<I couldn't bring myself to actually quote any of the crap, so I
deleted it all. So sue me.>
The argument was about a single first-turn Black Vise. Which is still
very possible, since BV was only restricted, not banned.
But one BV on turn one isn't why it was restricted. Two or three on
turn one was why it was restricted. Check out this opening hand
(theoretical):
Swamp, Dark Ritual, Sol Ring, Vise x4.
Draw anything, doesn't matter. Play Swamp, tap for B, cast DR. For
1, cast Sol Ring, tap it for 2, cast all 4 Vises. Opponent takes 12
damage turn one, and must drop at least 3 cards or die next upkeep.
Conversely, a hand holding 4 Lightning Bolts cannot hope to do that
much damage so quickly. Best case: Lotus, Mountain, 4x LB, non-ruby
Mox, Wheel; cast them all except Wheel, 12 damage. Opponent is under
no onus to rid his hand of cards, so plays normally, assuming you have
nothing else up your sleeve. Turn 2, Draw Mountain, play it & tap
everything to play Wheel, draw Ruby Mox, another Mox, 4 Mana Vault and
Fireball. Play both Moxen, tap non-ruby to cast mana Vault, tap mana
Vault to play other 3 Mana Vaults, tap all Mana Vaults (9 colorless)
plus Ruby for a red, cast 8-point Fireball, saving one colorless to
pay off a possible Force Spike.
Well, I was figuring this out as I wrote it, so I guess I might have
been wrong about not hopeing to do that much damage as quickly, but
even though I was able to figure a way to win on turn two by using 4
LB's on turn one, it took a *lot* more than 4 LB's and the means to
cast them. Trade a second Dark Ritual for the Sol Ring in the BV
example above, and it was type II legal until the BV was restricted.
Sure, you take one point of mana burn, but who cares?
While it's possible for a burn deck to win in two turns with 4 LB's on
turn 1, it requires a lot more cards, and many type I cards that are
not very easy to get if you don't have them. Dark Rituals and Black
Vises come pretty easily.
Another point in favor of the restriction (although I don't like it)
is the fact that the Ivory Tower is restricted, so should be the Black
Vise. They are complementary, and should be equally restricted or not
as the case may be. I think I have figured out the reason for the
IT's restriction, though. It comes from the same pool as Shaharazad,
that is, it serves to lengthen games excessively. I put together a
Land's Edge deck recently, and played it some last night and today.
When the Land Tax / Library of Leng / Land's edge came out, it was
pretty fast. When the Ivory Tower / Library of Leng / Land Tax came
out with *no* Land's Edge, I started gaining so much life, it wasn't
funny, at least to me. My pile of life counters was impressive (by my
standards) and I even stopped adding new ones after I passed 50 or so.
Doug Curry Houston, Texas
All opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily
those of Logica, Synercom, or Paranet.
Daniel Feyer
I don't think Black Vise was restricted because of the threat of
3 or 4 first turn Vises. It is difficult to even get 2 in your opening
hand; about as difficult as playing a Game of Chaos and winning the game
from that alone. So why isn't Game of Chaos restricted? Because this
isn't the reason the Vise was.
Just my thoughts on this point.
--
|~~\ __Stephen Feyer - dfe...@cello.gina.calstate.edu__ /~~\
| |\__/
| "Success is like failure/It's how you perceive it/ |
/~~\| It's what you do with it/Not how you achieve it" | \
\__/ Stephen Sondheim, MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG |__/
Craig Sivils
although I didn't have library of leng in it. I do think that the
vice restriction changed the game, but I'm not sure its for the worse.
I still won one of my games with a turn 1 vice, protect it and disrupt
the opponent. Even if its restricted, you still have to account for
it.
Craig
Mason Peatross
>nat...@mainelink.net wrote:
>
><I couldn't bring myself to actually quote any of the crap, so I
>deleted it all. So sue me.>
>
>The argument was about a single first-turn Black Vise. Which is still
>very possible, since BV was only restricted, not banned.
>
>But one BV on turn one isn't why it was restricted. Two or three on
>turn one was why it was restricted. Check out this opening hand
>(theoretical):
> Swamp, Dark Ritual, Sol Ring, Vise x4.
>Draw anything, doesn't matter. Play Swamp, tap for B, cast DR. For
>1, cast Sol Ring, tap it for 2, cast all 4 Vises. Opponent takes 12
>damage turn one, and must drop at least 3 cards or die next upkeep.
>
>Conversely, a hand holding 4 Lightning Bolts cannot hope to do that
>much damage so quickly. Best case: Lotus, Mountain, 4x LB, non-ruby
>Mox, Wheel; cast them all except Wheel, 12 damage. Opponent is under
>no onus to rid his hand of cards, so plays normally, assuming you have
>nothing else up your sleeve. Turn 2, Draw Mountain, play it & tap
>everything to play Wheel, draw Ruby Mox, another Mox, 4 Mana Vault and
>Fireball. Play both Moxen, tap non-ruby to cast mana Vault, tap mana
>Vault to play other 3 Mana Vaults, tap all Mana Vaults (9 colorless)
>plus Ruby for a red, cast 8-point Fireball, saving one colorless to
>pay off a possible Force Spike.
>
Couldn't you instead play a feldon's cane, then wheel on the second turn
and get all four LBs and the lotus back?
its not probable, but it could happen.
yeah, and kird apes might fly out of my butt.
Mason