Tolarian Academy Threshold?

  • Thread starter James, Wizard Naive
  • Start date
J

James, Wizard Naive

Guest
How many artifacts must a mono-blue multiplayer deck contain to make the inclusion of Tolarian Academy over an Island or some other land a smart move?
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
I would say five or six, minimum. That way, you're likely to draw at least one semi-early, making your Academy actually DO something.
 
T

train

Guest
Bunches and run 4 of the academy... along with card drawing x-spells and counters - you're on your way now buddy!!!
 
J

James, Wizard Naive

Guest
Thank you for your guess, Istambul - I am beginning to agree. I am testing a decklist posted on the Casual Decks forum, under the title something like "MP Donate". I have six artifacts in that deck and I can tell that if there were any fewer, the Academy would be a liability. I am just on the edge of keeping it or not as it is - maybe I will replace it with Soldevi Excavations. Train: thanks for the reply, but I already know that "bunches" of artifacts are good with the Academy; I wanted to sample people's opinions, hopefully based on experience or sound judgement, on how many artifacts were required to justify its inclusion. Also, it is restricted, so I cannot "run 4".
 
T

train

Guest
You didn't mention this would be sanctioned play... I was guessing it was casual. Sorry...:rolleyes:
 
J

James, Wizard Naive

Guest
Train: Alright. But where I am from, "casual" does not mean loading up on restricted power cards. We are casual with our intentions for play, but not with the rules (Type I).
 
J

Jigglypuff

Guest
Wow. I must be playing at the most liberal gaming store in the entire world. We as a group have never even thought about enforcing the restricted lists in "casual" play. People can pull out their old-school decks with 4 Demonic Tutors and 4 Sol Rings and no one even bats an eye.

(- Steve -)
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
My group also adheres to the Banned/Restricted List despite playing "casual". I got some funny looks when I played with two Demonic Tutors...
 
T

train

Guest
Casual is defined by the group playing it, so you're right... it may not be the same where you play it as where I do...

If that's the case I'd recommend using something to help you fetch the land so you see it more often... Like tutors or draw cards.;)
 
J

James, Wizard Naive

Guest
To me using cards beyond the Type I banned and restricted list is the opposite of casual. It is an impolite, deliberate power grab that doe not belong in a casual group seeking fun. If "casual" to some people means ignoring rules like the banned/restricted list, then why not ignore other rules like four card maximum, minimum deck size, tapping to attack, etc.? You would really have a casual game then.
 
T

train

Guest
Garfield's design was never meant to have restrictions... All cards were used, none banned or restricted... rules were established so everyone could play in a set manner, and to discourage cheating... but also to make sure it stayed a game...

Chess has rules, but in tournaments, you have time limits, and the 3-repetition draw, and en passant, limited castling rules, etc... those are rarely played in a casual game...

As for the 4 cards... what you didn't want happening, and this could be often... was someone running only 3 different cards in their deck - Black Lotus, Channel, and Fireball. Garfield knew the game needed a base, but also wanted it to be full of choices and capability... Ante was involved up until some stores got shut down because it was considered gambling...

The rules you mention are game rules meant for "fun" play, it is a game. DCI sanction restrictions, please note the DCI is not part of Garfield's original plan, neither is serious tournament play, were instituted for tournament play!!!... This includes the Banned/Restricted Lists... So I don't really view those as casual rules...

How could they be??? - they were made for tournament...
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
He didn't design it for restrictions, but neither did he envision people buying whole boxes of cards. He thought they'd buy one or two starters and a couple of boosters - 100 cards. In that kind of environment, there wouldn't be a need for 4 of a card or a banned/restricted list (which is why Plague Rats were in Alpha).

But I believe he has said now that the early sets were grossly overpowered with today's expectations and the Magic team has done a great job in preventing "broken" cards from coming through en masse again.
 
T

train

Guest
The early sets weren't grossly overpowered per card... The print run, and the lack of "rules testing", which wasn't needed at the time, made the cards powerful when everyone had to find how to win tournaments, or go perpetual, then came the combination of cards...

Casual play didn't delve into combos... you laid a Shivan on the table and dared your opponent to kill you before they died...

Not one Power nine card, or dual lands, or Arabian Nights power cards can win any tournament or game on their own... Even with the power 9 together you still can't go perpetual... A Shivan however can win the game on his own... and he's not restricted or banned...

I understand how things have softened up, but casual play following tournament established rules doesn't seem casual enough...
 
J

James, Wizard Naive

Guest
Good points train, but really, whatever "Garfield's original plan" was is irrelavent to how people play Magic today. The game of Magic, and I like that you stress that it is a game, contains cards that, when present in numbers greater than one, give one player an unfair advantage - like playing craps with loaded dice or chess with bishops replaced by queens. You compromise the value of fair play to acheive the lesser values of power over your opponents and winning.

The real question is: towards what are we casual? Are we casual towards the lower value of winning and serious about fair play (which I consider nearly equal to fun)? If so, then we enforce the restricted list and other rules. Or, are we casual towards fair play and serious about winning? If so, then we don't enforce the restricted list - a list only refering to cards that help you win.

Because a rule was motivated by tournament play does not mean that it is does not work well in casual play. Casual play (for me) and tournament play are the same in that fairness is stressed. The differences are the fromat and in the differing emphasis on winning.

The four card rule that you refer to and support essentially places all cards on a universal restricted list of four maximum. The Type I restricted list simply goes one step further by saying that, for the sake of fair play, recognizing that all cards are not created equal, a small number of cards need to be restricted further to one per deck. Adherance to these rules HELPS keep Magic casual.
 
T

train

Guest
In casual play would you not want to see your card more often... odds are 1 in 59 you don't see it...

I want my card to come up and a 1 in 14 odd is much more favorable to that extent... change that to a 2:13 odds with search cards...

Casual is about the group... or individuals, and should be that way...
 
J

Jigglypuff

Guest
If the difference between "casual" and "tournament" play is really nothing more than the format and the differing emphasis on winning, then the Type I banned/restricted lists shouldn't even apply to casual. Why can't we just have "Type Casual" and throw the b/r lists out the window? Besides, if you continually build your broken decks with your 4 Lotuses, 4 Demonic Tutors, etc., people will eventually stop playing with you. It's all balanced out.

(- Steve -)
 
J

James, Wizard Naive

Guest
train: You have just described yourself as not being causal about the cards. You are casual about the rules, but not the cards. You seem to value the appearance of certain cards, which are probably power cards to help you win, as being more important than restricting cards designed to help keep the play of the game fair and what I would call casual.

You are right to say that casual is about the group or individuals, but at least it should be clear what it is you are casual about, and what you are not. You apparently are not casual about certain cards, and those certain cards are on the restricted list, and those cards that are on the restricted list are the cards that help you win in particular. On the other hand, you may not be casual about the rules, and know that will help keep the feel of the game casual when actually played.
 
J

Jigglypuff

Guest
To me using cards beyond the Type I banned and restricted list is the opposite of casual. It is an impolite, deliberate power grab that doe not belong in a casual group seeking fun. If "casual" to some people means ignoring rules like the banned/restricted list, then why not ignore other rules like four card maximum, minimum deck size, tapping to attack, etc.? You would really have a casual game then.
Why do people ignore the b/r lists and not ignore the other rules? Because those other rules you mentioned appear in the Comp. Rules. They are a larger part of the game. The Tournament Rules, on the other hand, are just that. The Tournament Rules. Besides, nobody ever said that you have to play with these people who do these things, like I mentioned in my previous post.

You have just described yourself as not being causal about the cards. You are casual about the rules, but not the cards. You seem to value the appearance of certain cards, which are probably power cards to help you win, as being more important than restricting cards designed to help keep the play of the game fair and what I would call casual.
You hit the nail on the head. "What you would call casual". People shouldn't have to defend their choice of "casual" or their definition of "casual". And as I said before, you don't have to play with those people.

Can we please lay this issue to bed?

(- Steve -)
 
J

James, Wizard Naive

Guest
Jigglypuff: "if you continually build your broken decks . . . . people will eventually stop playing with you." That is fine in a tight group where everyone knows each other and has been playing a long time together, but it does not work in a more open or public sense.

More importantly, notice how your solution implies that the group has a set of unspoken rules and unspoken limits. Sure, you might say that there is no restricted list, but if someone actually plays decks that abuse power cards, then you just will not play with them anymore. Therefore, you DO effectively have a set of rules and a restricted list. You just do not say so before hand. To make things easier and to prevent a fuss, I suggest that you just admit that you are not totally casual about the rules, and to make things easier, universal, and standardized, why not just adopt the DCI list? Then go out and have fun playing casually!
 
J

James, Wizard Naive

Guest
Jigglypuff: "People shouldn't have to defend their choice of "casual" or their definition of "casual".

It was train (It is all his fault!), in the fifth post of the tread who assumed that because I was following the restricted lists I was not playing casul magic.

And why shouldn't you "defend [your] choice of casual"? If you cannot defend your postions then what are they worth? If we thought that all choices were uneccesary to defend because they were unassailable and that all of our opinions were as strong as facts, and everybody elses are only relavent to them, then why are there even discussion boards at all?
 
Top