I don't understand why people feel there's a moral dilemma at all here. Every result negatively impacts someone else regardless, that's the nature of tournament play and by entering an event you are accepting to be a part of that (and no I'm not going to argue degrees on this, it's a game). I've scooped people into top 8s before, even people I don't like. I'm sure in the past it may have impacted friends and my thought to that is "so what?" I have no obligation to them in this regard, if my decision is to concede to my opponent then that's that. Conceding isn't cheating, it's not breaking any rules or otherwise violating some sort of social contract, it's an established part of tournament Magic. This thread is honestly just a thinly-veiled attempt at shaming people for behavior they should have no such feelings about, and I hope @Brass-Man notices this and puts it out of its misery.
Shops was half the daily cashes last night. Rich Shay, who spent the better part of the last year using his celebrity to moan about Gush homogenizing blue decks, played Stax.
No one made the argument that restricting Gush would hurt Workshops more vocally than Mr Shay, and yet a day after the announcement, he is playing Workshops. The gross hypocrisy aside, this once again illustrates how idiotic the argument against Gush was. It took the very person saying restricting Gush would hurt Workshops a full 24 hours before registering Workshops. Just amazing...
Or... it's entirely possible two days into the new meta that he, like the vast majority of us, isn't sure what the best approach is yet so he's testing different types of decks? He played Punishing Oath the first day of restrictions, so no he really didn't immediately jump to Shops, he's feeling things out like everyone else, and because he championed getting rid of Gush doesn't mean he was somehow obligated to immediately present us with a new blue deck that solves the format. "Shops being hurt" is a predicted outcome of a meta that has had time to adjust and sort itself out, which hasn't yet been the case.
@Brass-Man I don't think it's completely worthless either, as I said from the start I think the value it has is simply it's face value: people in these limited places feel X about it. It is, however, worthless for the purpose Steve and others seem to want to use it for, because it's not broad enough to extrapolate from in a meaningful way.
@BobbyVictory As @The-Atog-Lord said, concessions are explicitly allowed in the rules and there's no dishonesty involved in doing it. There's no moral grey area in playing by the rules. Period. If there was, there would be a rule about it. Those people being "screwed" could have done themselves a favor by being more successful in their earlier matches to not be in that position. It's not @ChubbyRain or anyone else's obligation to do anything other than play out a match the way they wish to play it out, be it via the games themselves or a concession from either side.
With an 8 player minimum and increased price structure I fail to see how this is anything other than a huge net positive for the format. It offers increased incentive for new players to look into Vintage without dealing with the uncertainties of dailies. As far as live event attendance goes, it's not as if this is a fluctuating schedule so stores can just run events on Sundays if they are worried about this impacting attendance, and considering the differences in attending a live event versus an online one I imagine people who ultimately chose to skip the live event for the online one likely weren't going to attend the live event anyways.
@enderfall THANK YOU. The fact that this poll of a small but vocal portion of the community is being brought up at all as having any sort of value behind its face value of "this is what some players gathered in one place think" is honestly quite silly. It's exactly the kind of data that the DCI should be ignoring when making such decisions and any argument relying on that data is likewise something that probably doesn't deserve serious consideration.
@KingLeovold I didn't call anyone's opinion stupid, and if you took it as such then perhaps you are taking this discussion in general too personal. Tournament magic is like any other competitive endeavor in that morals don't apply other than the rules themselves, and my opinion that I was expressing is that applying other morals is an irrelevant (not stupid) activity. In sports teams with nothing to play for will rest players and take losses, as well as do the same to try to manipulate who they may face in the future. That's built into competition, an accepted aspect of the game, these are events where millions can be at stake, and yet there's no huge outcry on the morals of it. Tell me, what makes Magic different? Is it your own personal involvement, or do you feel that way across the board on these things?
@Smmenen That's where I'm at with it too, I definitely feel like it can do work, but where and how is kind of the tricky bit. Being able to pick up land to either re-use or filter away is definitely something that has proven useful in the past so it'll likely remain on my radar far longer than most draw does for potential.
I also find it ironic that the card also synergizes well with Kefnet himself, which while probably not good enough in the Mentor world tempts me as a big evasive guy for cheap that blocks most any creature Shops or Eldrazi will throw at you. I know Brian Kelly tested him briefly but the Gush restriction made turning him on unreliable. Maybe this fixes that.
@hierarchnoble said in Cards to unrestrict:
If I had access to 4 Flash I'd brew some awful Oops! deck that either cast Flash to trigger Balustrade Spy or to trigger Protean Hulk to find Balustrade Spy and Grand Abolisher.
If your goal is to brew some jank with Flash then what you should do is Flash Gamekeeper to find Emrakul, with Cabal Therapy to sacrifice Gamekeepers to keep the chain going if need be.