Card restriction makes no sense
SGOUIN
I'm very disappointed by Wotc's policy about restrictions in type 2 .
The all craziness began when they decided to restrict zuran orb . From
that point , they were forced to restrict cards to balance the
tournament environnement . Black vise was now too powerful : restricted
. Now land tax was too powerful . restricted . Now hymn and strip were
too powerful . restricted . now stp and counterspell are considered too
powerful , and their fate is predictable .
My big question is : why all that mess ? The whole thing sucks .
Restricting a card doesn't make it less played in tournaments , but just
improves the amount of luck involved in a match . I drew my balance and
my zuran orb , i cast a first turn hymn , i play a firts turn land tax
... and you don't . Because i'm lucky , i'm gonna win and you're gonna
be frustrated .
I am a fervent believer in counterstrategy . If any deck type tries to
dominate the field , i build a deck that destroys it . By the time of
the white weenie domination , i played red/black with anarchy and gloom
in sideboard . By the time of necro , i played green/white with 10+
protfrom black creatures and 4 karmas in sideboard . By the time of
turbo stasis , i play mono-green with swarms of creatures and tsunamis
.
My point is : restriction makes no sense , it just turns the game into a
more luckier form . I would be pleased if some players respond to this
post .
Manuel BEVAND
theCorrupter
On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, SGOUIN wrote:
> I'm very disappointed by Wotc's policy about restrictions in type 2 .
As am I.
[...]
> My big question is : why all that mess ? The whole thing sucks .
> Restricting a card doesn't make it less played in tournaments , but just
> improves the amount of luck involved in a match . I drew my balance and
> my zuran orb , i cast a first turn hymn , i play a firts turn land tax
> ... and you don't . Because i'm lucky , i'm gonna win and you're gonna
> be frustrated .
Exactly. I can handle luck being a minor factor in the game. After all,
you are shuffling cards, so luck is a factor, but having luck be _the_
factor, winning out against construction skill is frustrating. Yes, for
example, a deck should have anti-artifact ability, but nothing short of a
counterspell will stop a lucky Zorb from making the game change hands.
Were it unrestricted, such a draw would not warrant unhappiness from me.
After all, they planned for their deck to have such a chance...(however
small/Large).
[...]
> My point is : restriction makes no sense , it just turns the game into a
> more luckier form . I would be pleased if some players respond to this
> post .
Certainly true. If its powerful enough to be restricted, it should have
been banned. Type II should be more construction and less luck oriented
(most would agree, Type I is all meta-game (and static meta-game at that),
mostly luck, and money).
hnt...@aol.com
theCorrupter <adr...@ducat.cs.wisc.edu> writes:
:(most would agree, Type I is all meta-game (and static meta-game at
that),
"Static" metagame? Are you completely clueless?
(About 20 entirely innovative deck designs have originated from the
last few expansions, and Mirage's own effect is not yet in its infancy-
wait until an all B Hyper-Necro wins a major tournament.)
:mostly luck,
Luck?!? First one complains about a sickening overabundance of control
decks (normally), then goes on to blither about "Luck"?! In T1?
Incredible!
"Luck" only marginally supercedes playing skill in certain inconsistent
recursive designs, whose skill-oriented counterparts are leagues ahead
by all modes of measurement.
:and money).
Not with Mirage, The Dark, FE, Alliances and Ice Age out.
(Blood Moon, Deadly Insects, Necropotence, Hymn, Tormod's Crypt,
Choking Sands, Gorilla Shaman, Mystic Remora, Burnout, Stupor,
(Mana Crypt), Autumn Willow, Incinerate, Diminishing Returns,
Grinning Totem, Jester's Cap, Helm of Obedience, Kjeldoran Outpost,
Zuran Orb, Demonic Consultation, Fellwar Stone, Bazaar of Wonders,
Browse...)
Darrell
In article <328571...@cipcinsa.insa-lyon.fr>,
SGO...@cipcinsa.insa-lyon.fr says...
>
>I'm very disappointed by Wotc's policy about restrictions in type 2 .
>that point , they were forced to restrict cards to balance the
>tournament environnement . Black vise was now too powerful : restricted
>. Now land tax was too powerful . restricted . Now hymn and strip were
>too powerful . restricted . now stp and counterspell are considered too
>powerful , and their fate is predictable .
.
.
>.
>more luckier form . I would be pleased if some players respond to this
>post .
>
>
I agree with your point "restriction makes no sense, it just turns the
game into a more luckier form".
However, if restricting a particular card turns the game into a more
luckier form, then doesn't that indicate that perhaps the card may truly
be broken, and should be banned (uh... aside from basic land)? For
example, if Mons Goblin Raiders were restricted to one, would I be the
lucky player for drawing one in my opening hand? Probably not.
I believe that there are a class of cards that are so powerful that there
is no reason not to include 4 in virtualy every deck; IMHO Zuran Orb is
one of these (aruably more powerful than a Mox or a Black Lotus), it
should have been banned.
Actually all the craziness began long before Type II; In Type I, the
restricted list huge.
IMHO if a card is too powerful to allow 4 in a deck, then it should just
be banned. This is what Type 1.5 is supposed to be about (no restricted
list); I think it is currently a little misguided with Recall and
Feldon's Cane banned, but that's another topic.
-Darrell Aldrich
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Joe Fulgham
In article <328571...@cipcinsa.insa-lyon.fr>, SGOUIN <SGO...@cipcinsa.insa-lyon.fr> wrote:
[snip]
>My point is : restriction makes no sense , it just turns the game into a
>more luckier form . I would be pleased if some players respond to this
>post .
I agree. Lucky Balance draws (hey Chris, where are you? :) ) can ruin
someone's day (World Championship final match anyone?). The same goes for
Zorb, Land Tax, and first-turn Black Vise.
I'm really looking forward to 5th edition, where hopefully all of these
cards (Zorb going on Jan. 1) will leave T2 play.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fulgham |"Things need not have happened to be true. Tales and
pu...@holycow.com | dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure when
http://www.holycow.com/ | mere facts are dust and ashes and forgot."
PGP Key available | -The Sandman # 19 "A Midsummer Night's Dream"
Prothonotar
Some cards, such as Zorbs and especially the Vise, ought to be
restricted just because they take something from the game when everyone
uses them. Back in the Vise age, everyone played with 4 Vices, and with
means to get rid of the Vises you knew your opponent was going to play
with. This makes for boring games. Zorbs just prolong the game to the
point where 4 in a deck make tournaments unviable. I feel that some of
these cards, such as the Ivory Tower and Land Tax should return in 5th
Ed., though, because they are great cards and with one of each, they are
not that powerful.
My rational for returning these cards is this:
When you have one of a card in your deck, drawing that card when you
need it is generally a matter of luck. But drawing something like a Land
Tax on your first turn 12% of the time at least gives you a chance to
come back from something like drawing 2 land in the first 5 turns.
Everybody is aware what happens when you get a crap draw, so then what's
wrong with getting a luck draw (that's why they made matches 2/3). Of
course, the Tutors screw this whole thing up and we can thank WotC for
that.
--
Aaron Gaudio
mailto:adg...@cs.rit.edu
http://www.cs.rit.edu/~adg1653/
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
The wise man finds ignorance within."
_____________
/United Ideas\
"An idiot cannot / ___ ___ \ "If you push something
hear sense, even | / \_/ \ | hard enough, it will
when a thousand | | _ | | fall over."--The Law
people speak it." | \___/ \___/ | of Wobble
--Sorine Relicbane, \ |_| |_| /
Soldevi Heretic \ V V /
\___________/
"Wherever I go, there I am."
Prothonotar
theCorrupter wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, SGOUIN wrote:
>
> [...]
> > My big question is : why all that mess ? The whole thing sucks .
> > Restricting a card doesn't make it less played in tournaments , but just
> > improves the amount of luck involved in a match . I drew my balance and
> > my zuran orb , i cast a first turn hymn , i play a firts turn land tax
> > ... and you don't . Because i'm lucky , i'm gonna win and you're gonna
> > be frustrated .
>
> Exactly. I can handle luck being a minor factor in the game. After all,
> you are shuffling cards, so luck is a factor, but having luck be _the_
> factor, winning out against construction skill is frustrating. Yes, for
> example, a deck should have anti-artifact ability, but nothing short of a
> counterspell will stop a lucky Zorb from making the game change hands.
> Were it unrestricted, such a draw would not warrant unhappiness from me.
> After all, they planned for their deck to have such a chance...(however
> small/Large).
>
There are some cards which are great cards and I think all T2 players
would hate to see them go. This not only includes Stp (and Counterspell
is not going- they reprinted it for Arena), but Balance, Ivory Tower,
Vise and Zorb. Each of these is overpowerful with 4 in a deck and makes
for static decks. Yes, it makes the deck more constructed, but when
every deck is constructed around 4 Land Tax and 4 Zorb and 4 Towers and
4 Balances, things tend to get a little boring. Restricting a card is
simply a way of reducing its effectiveness, without reducing the power
of the card. WotC has lately been steering away from this in sets like
Homelands, Alliances, Mirage and probably 5th Ed. But look at what you
get instead: a lot of crap cards with most of the good ones having an
obscene casting cost (Library of Lat-Nam), or an obscene monetary cost
(Horde), or an obscene setback (Final Fortune). Eventually, WotC will
only be producing binder cards because they are too afraid to print a
degenerate card they don't want to have to restrict.
I think that restricting needs some order, though. Rather than
constantly update the restricted list, WotC should just print on the
card that you can't have more than one (or two or three) in a deck.
Other games do this and I don't think they're worse for the effort (some
of them couldn't be worse, but that's another issue). This offers the
player consistency, along with some powerful cards that he or she can't
count on, but might be able to get just to pull off those crowd pleasing
turn-arounds, and offers WotC the ability to stop constantly severely
limiting cards' powers.
Kai Lange
> In article <328571...@cipcinsa.insa-lyon.fr>, SGOUIN <SGO...@cipcinsa.insa-lyon.fr> wrote:
> [snip]
> >My point is : restriction makes no sense , it just turns the game into a
> >more luckier form . I would be pleased if some players respond to this
> >post .
>
> I agree. Lucky Balance draws (hey Chris, where are you? :) ) can ruin
> someone's day (World Championship final match anyone?). The same goes for
> Zorb, Land Tax, and first-turn Black Vise.
There should be no restrictions, just banned cards.
That's why I like T1.5.
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Kai Lange, Balbierstr.6, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany |
| e-mail: kla...@student.uni-kl.de, voice: + 631/10768 |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
Sascha Pawlowski
SGOUIN <SGO...@cipcinsa.insa-lyon.fr> wrote:
>My point is : restriction makes no sense , it just turns the game into a
>more luckier form . I would be pleased if some players respond to this
>post .
No restrictions at all? Ok, my deck is 22x Black Lotus, 19x Fireball,
19x Channel.