Here
Pretty much the "big" surprise is that Shazarad has been banned.
Aaron Forsythe explains some of it...
Pretty much the "big" surprise is that Shazarad has been banned.
Aaron Forsythe explains some of it...
Most of that seems at least reasonably grounded and I don't think I'll bother to refute it because it seems to be rebutting what some people on TMD said, rather than what I said (I don't think that conceding being an option is an excuse, nor do I believe that the rules as they are allowing for it means that it should necessarily be considered fair play).Ephraim said:I am reposting here the arguments that I have made on The Mana Drain regarding this issue. I fully stand behind the decision to ban Shahrazad.
I keep seeing, "But the opponent can always concede!" The opponent only has a reason to concede because there are time and space constraints created by the tournament structure and having nothing whatsoever to do with the actual game of Magic. By my estimation, the Shahrazad deck is bad and without time as a consideration, a good player with a good deck will probably prevail against nested subgames. The Shahrazad deck isn't trying to play a winning game of Magic, though. It's trying to game the tournament system. If you want to argue that the tournament system is as much a part of competitive Magic as the actual game is, I can't tell you not to have that opinion, but I will state without reservation that I find that attitude contemptible. There is a reason why it is punishable to play slowly. The rules are geared to promote good play, not to encourage the player who knows how to waste time when they're up a game.
I approve of the principle behind the banning of Shahrazad. Ante, dexterity, and now flagrant abuse of timed matches are considered unsuitable for competitive Magic. I value the integrity of the competition more than I value the principle of "every card ever printed," so I agree with the decision to ban Shahrazad.
But that's speculation. Is there any real evidence that there exists a deck that can do this? Like I said, the concept is simple enough. And that's why I can see the remote potential for a problem. But that potential doesn't seem to have been realized (which is enough, in my mind, to oppose the ban or at least strongly consider it). And Shahrazad is not the only card with such potential.Ephraim said:No, there isn't actually an authoritative "Sharazad deck." What I was trying to suggest was that any deck that would be genuinely strengthened by Shahrazad is, statistically, much weaker than competitive Vintage decks. Given enough time, the competitive deck is likely to win many of the subgames*. Because of the way that tournaments are set up, however, there is not enough time.