It is probably worth noting here that "skill" incorporates both play skill and deckbuilding skill (in case someone tries to make the distinction). By getting to the later turns, skill, rather than luck, is often allowed to determine the winner of the match. So, in one respect, the B/R is about getting to turns two through five and beyond, if possible. This initial advantage persists throughout the game. Furthermore, even if a player isn't winning on turn one, the player who goes first gets additional mana, an additional set of main phases, and an additional combat phase. However, even if such a deck required an incredible amount of skill to pilot, the Vintage community would most likely still find it unacceptable if it could win on turn one consistently. This is because the player on the draw essentially gets no opportunity to win, or even play! Such wins are often attributed to luck (either by the opening seven or the roll), but they can also potentially be attributed to skill if a player comes up with an ingenious and consistent enough deck. Is not about.The first turn win is not something that is valued by the Vintage community. There are two things in this picture that Magic Even though one gives up card advantage by going first, players unanimously say "play" when posed with the question "Play or draw?" This is ultimately where the game can break down and the necessity (and, I believe, the philosophy) of the B/R becomes apparent. While in chess this advantage is relatively trifling, in Magic (and especially in Vintage), the advantage provided by going first cannot be underestimated. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of turn-based games is sometimes the fact that there are turns one player gets to go, then the other. Why? Because the light colored pieces get to go first in chess, which brings up my an important point:Įven if both players have access to a very good strategy, one player gets to use that strategy first in Magic. How can a strategy be "too good" if both players have access to it? In chess, both players have exactly the same resources at the beginning of the game: a perfectly balanced game! But this is actually not the case. Typically, though, the idea is that sometimes a strategy becomes "too good" and something needs to be done.īut wait a minute.
Why is this? Well, there are a number of reasons. In spite of this possibility, the B/R still constantly changes.
#Commander banned list free#
"Well, while my opponent may get to do incredibly broken strategy X, I get to do incredibly broken strategy Y to combat that, so it's all good." Further, if strategy X is strictly better than Y, or any other strategy, the player using strategy Y is free to change to strategy X.
After all, that's kind of the whole idea in Vintage. The importance of equal opportunity to the cardpool is absolutely crucial in examining the B/R. Each player has an equal opportunity to use any cards prescribed by the rules, namely four of any unrestricted card, one of any restricted card, no banned cards, and unlimited copies of the basic lands and Relentless Rats. While numerous criteria have been put forth in the past, I decided that I would try my own hand at this.Īs is known by probably anyone reading this, Vintage games are played with two players, one against the other. In the wake of the recently approved Banned/Restricted List discussion on TheManaDrain (a topic typically banned because it can become, well, unfriendly), I have been putting some thought into what sort of criteria should be used in making B/R decisions.
0 kommentar(er)
