Card/Deck Single Card Spotlight

[Grillo_Parlante]

Lets imagine that you take your mulligan to 6, keep, and your opponent t1 thoughtseizes you.

1. They've now forced you to effectively mulligan down to 5 cards.
2. Statistically, your win percentages at 5 cards are "you're going to lose", regardless of hand configuration.
3. On top of that they've given you the worst configuration of those 5 cards possible.
4. They've also gained complete knowledge of your opening hand.

It also creates an incentive for players to not use the new mulligan mechanic that we introduced to make players more willing to mulligan hands, which we stated we wanted them to do to prevent non-games. None of this makes any sense to me to actively want to allow in a format.

If you want to have targeted discard for other applications, its not like you can't up the mana cost, or at least add conditions. That way you avoid randomly boning someone for having the nerve to mulligan (which we're supposed to want them to do).

 

[ahadabans]

You are ignoring the fact that in playing Thoughtseize, they mulligan'd to 6, shocked themselves in the face, and gave you a partial time walk.

If you already mulligan'd to 6 your odds of winning were already not great. Did they shrink? Probably. Would they have anyway? Probably. That's sort of what a disruption deck does well (ruin your hand). This is like the equivalent of a T1 Goblin Guide. Did your odds of winning drop? Yup. Are you going to remove every single one mana card that increases your odds of winning the match?

 

[RavebornMuse]

You are ignoring the fact that in playing Thoughtseize, they mulligan'd to 6, shocked themselves in the face, and gave you a partial time walk.

If you already mulligan'd to 6 your odds of winning were already not great. Did they shrink? Probably. Would they have anyway? Probably. That's sort of what a disruption deck does well (ruin your hand). This is like the equivalent of a T1 Goblin Guide. Did your odds of winning drop? Yup. Are you going to remove every single one mana card that increases your odds of winning the match?

If every match I was offered the chance to discard a card, play a land, tap it for no mana, take a Shock to the face, and then see my opponent's hand and make them discard 1 nonland of my choosing, I would happily take that exchange. I would not allow it to my opponent.

If every match I was offered the chance to discard a card, play a land, tap it for no mana, and put a 2/2 with haste on the battlefield that reveals the top card of Villain's deck and puts it into their hand if it's a land when it attacks, then I would consider taking that exchange, deck depending. I would also allow my opponent to take that same exchange.

I think you're severely underestimating the value of Thoughtseize, which is likely a result of your playgroup more than anything else. It's not a matter of "odds of winning" being manipulated by Thoughtseize in some small way; it's the fact that some number of games, it will not just jiggle the odds of winning, but it will place the odds of winning squarely into one player's favour by means of perfect hand information and the removal of the card in Villain's hand most capable of disrupting your own plan. That cost to a format is not worth the "fun factor".

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

You are ignoring the fact that in playing Thoughtseize, they mulligan'd to 6, shocked themselves in the face, and gave you a partial time walk.

If you already mulligan'd to 6 your odds of winning were already not great. Did they shrink? Probably. Would they have anyway? Probably. That's sort of what a disruption deck does well (ruin your hand). This is like the equivalent of a T1 Goblin Guide. Did your odds of winning drop? Yup. Are you going to remove every single one mana card that increases your odds of winning the match?

Thats not really how it tends to play out. What they did was force both players to mulligan, but they structured the mulligan in the manner most favorable to them, and in doing so punished the opponent for taking an action intended to reduce non-games. There is a reason its a $20 card while its equivalents go for peanuts, and thats because its a 1 mana investment that can drastically increase your odds of winning a game, by exploiting the worst elements of magic's randomness, and punishing you for taking the action intended to partially address them.

Like I said, there are plenty of conditional or higher CC targeted discard cards you can run that don't create that potential play pattern.

 

[Salmo2]

TBF duress goes for peanuts because it's a multi-printed common and in legacy/vintage there are a lot of decks that prefer duress to thoughtseize. Thoughtseize really should've been uncommon.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

IOK is the most similar equivalent card at uncommon, and that was $10 card before being reprinted.

It fills much the same function.

 

[Salmo2]

IOK was an appropriate card at uncommon--it was good, but it wasn't like back-breakingly oppressive in the limited format. Thoughtseize played out the same way typically in Theros limited since the two life matters there a decent amount more than it may in cube (never played lorwyn) except that it showed up less. Dismantling their plans was strong when it was strong, but when you're picking one of a lot of similar cards out of their hand it had less impact. As cube is typically a silver-bullet format of a *much* higher power level than Theros limited was, so taking out a random creature or bestow card carries a lot less weight than taking out Jace or Liliana or Channel or etc.

I really think the only reason it wasn't reprinted at uncommon was the cost of it on the secondary market and how much it would plummet its price.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

This is a corner case though, with 1/450 cards being Thoughtseize, how many games will be destroyed in this way by a t1 Thoughtseize on a mulliganed opponent? For me it's still worth the slot, as it leads to good games of Magic more than it leads to bad games.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

This is a corner case though, with 1/450 cards being Thoughtseize, how many games will be destroyed in this way by a t1 Thoughtseize on a mulliganed opponent? For me it's still worth the slot, as it leads to good games of Magic more than it leads to bad games.

And for a kitchen table that might be fine; but we're (or at least we were) talking about a hypothetical competitive format.

Also, the logic that allows thoughtseize also allows other similar cards: IOK, wasteland etc. Either we're commited to reducing this type of negative variance or we're not. This whole discussion (while good) is a good example of the problems of trying to port over any contemporary cube design into a competitive format. We end up shrugging our shoulders on a negative variance enhancer that we shouldn't be shrugging out shoulders over.

And its especially weird with this card, because there are lots of servicable alternatives that do the same thing without randomly ruining games.

 

[ahadabans]

IMO, you guys are blowing the value of Thoughtseize in cube way out of proportion. Same discussion we had about Treasure Cruise in fact, another card that is stupidly good in constructed and just regular good in cube. Not sure how many ways to say this, but running a single copy of one really strong card is not breaking anyone's meta. It just isn't. What it can do though is incentive people to commit to a color or archetype.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Not sure how many ways to say this, but running a single copy of one really strong card is not breaking anyone's meta. It just isn't.

I dare you

 

[Salmo2]

I dare you

apples/oranges, and we're going down the semantics route now

 

[Salmo2]

thoughtseize is really strong, sol ring is broken every turn it stays in play

 

[RavebornMuse]

No one said Thoughtseize was "breaking a meta".

The allegation was that it can lead to non-games, which it can. In the same way that Wasteland can lead to non-games. In the same way that Armageddon can lead to non-games. This is an empirical fact; there are always going to be some number of matches which are decided by a T1 Thoughtseize. Nothing you say can undo this fact. Format decisions can decrease the number of times this is true, but not to zero. This is a fact.

Let me be perfectly clear: run the card if you want to. As has been suggested numerous times, yes, I concede; it's one card among many. You're right; it can be "fun" to play with. No one was saying that these arguments don't hold merit or are incorrect in any way.

But the matter comes down to a format decision.

If you want a format where there are large spikes in the power band, or where "fun" cards occasionally carry away a win in a manner that can't be contended against with the tools you've provided to your drafters, then so be it - no one is arguing you on those terms. Feel free to pile in as many copies of Thoughtseize, Opposition, Armageddon, and Mana Drain as you please. Really; I'm not going to stop you. I don't really care what you want to put in your cube; that's between you and your play group. Do what you like! I am a firm advocate of building towards your play group.

But if your goal is to push the competitiveness of your format? If your goal is to orient a format towards synergy-driven decks over piles of good cards? If your goal is to reduce negative variance and the number of non-games? If any of these are the masters you are committed to, then making a concession for Thoughtseize isn't serving your interests.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I dare you

While a fun and valid example of a card that would ruin game balance even as a one of, Thoughtseize is hardly on the same power level as Sol Ring. Nor does it "ruin" games in the same way.

 

[ahadabans]

Ugh... we need to define a "non-game". Because Magic is full of "non-game" situations, some just are more obvious than others. Again, T1 Goblin Guide is good game verses a lot of decks and/or draws. You often play them out hoping to rip the miracle card to keep you alive, but it's all just false hope. Thoughtseize against a slow/shaky hand is not any different. Welcome to Magic. That's how the game plays.

You want to try and eliminate that from the game itself? Good luck. This whole argument started over people arguing that you can't design a cube to be good enough for a competitive format, which I think is categorically false. And I'll even go so far as to say you could make one that ran Thoughtseize. Because the card isn't broken. And there's an opportunity cost in playing in in a deck (you have to run lots of swamps for one, which locks you into just a handful of archetypes).

Are you guys trying to tell me that the professional circuit in whatever format they are playing has no non-games because the meta is awesome? I suppose I could be that painfully out of touch with the competitive scene, but this sounds like pure fantasy to me. I'm incredibly confident someone could build a cube that professionals could play that would eclipse whatever the best competitive format is today. And it wouldn't even be close.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

No one said Thoughtseize was "breaking a meta".

The allegation was that it can lead to non-games, which it can. In the same way that Wasteland can lead to non-games. In the same way that Armageddon can lead to non-games. This is an empirical fact; there are always going to be some number of matches which are decided by a T1 Thoughtseize. Nothing you say can undo this fact. Format decisions can decrease the number of times this is true, but not to zero. This is a fact.

Let me be perfectly clear: run the card if you want to. As has been suggested numerous times, yes, I concede; it's one card among many. You're right; it can be "fun" to play with. No one was saying that these arguments don't hold merit or are incorrect in any way.

But the matter comes down to a format decision.

If you want a format where there are large spikes in the power band, or where "fun" cards occasionally carry away a win in a manner that can't be contended against with the tools you've provided to your drafters, then so be it - no one is arguing you on those terms. Feel free to pile in as many copies of Thoughtseize, Opposition, Armageddon, and Mana Drain as you please. Really; I'm not going to stop you. I don't really care what you want to put in your cube; that's between you and your play group. Do what you like! I am a firm advocate of building towards your play group.

But if your goal is to push the competitiveness of your format? If your goal is to orient a format towards synergy-driven decks over piles of good cards? If your goal is to reduce negative variance and the number of non-games? If any of these are the masters you are committed to, then making a concession for Thoughtseize isn't serving your interests.

Yes, thank you. If we're trying to get non-games down to or as close to 0 as se can, we aren't running thoughtseize. Period.

 

[NimbusToad]

So, if you want hand disruption to be a part of Black's identity, what cards SHOULD you play? I quite like Blackmail as it gives a fair amount of choice to both players, but I understand it belongs in essentially the same camp as Thoughtseize. Stupor? I tend to not really get much of a kick out of playing later game card advantage discard outside of a control mirror as it just feels so much worse than drawing a card.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

If you want a format where there are large spikes in the power band, or where "fun" cards occasionally carry away a win in a manner that can't be contended against with the tools you've provided to your drafters, then so be it - no one is arguing you on those terms. Feel free to pile in as many copies of Thoughtseize, Opposition, Armageddon, and Mana Drain as you please. Really; I'm not going to stop you. I don't really care what you want to put in your cube; that's between you and your play group. Do what you like! I am a firm advocate of building towards your play group.

But if your goal is to push the competitiveness of your format? If your goal is to orient a format towards synergy-driven decks over piles of good cards? If your goal is to reduce negative variance and the number of non-games? If any of these are the masters you are committed to, then making a concession for Thoughtseize isn't serving your interests.

See, this is why people are bothered by this discussion. Yes, Thoughtseize may lead to a nongame every once in a while. The three cards you put in the same sentence though, those will lead to nongames much, much more often. Even in the worst scenarios, Thoughtseize isn't the direct cause of negative variance, it merely compounds the negative variance inherently present in a game where your fate is decided by a shuffled pile of one-offs.

 

[RavebornMuse]

See, this is why people are triggered by this discussion. Yes, Thoughtseize may lead to a nongame every once in a while. The three cards you put in the same sentence though, those will lead to nongames much, much more often. Even in the worst scenarios, Thoughtseize isn't the direct cause of negative variance, it merely compounds the negative variance inherently present in a game where your fate is decided by a shuffled pile of one-offs.

I legitimately can't tell if you're actually trying to argue against the quoted text or agree with it, because you seem to be restating my points. (I will say that you're using "triggered" awfully loosely here, and you'd be better served just saying "bothered".)

 

[ahadabans]

Again, what you guys are calling non-games with Thougtseize exists with other cards. You're all just hyper focusing on it because it's targeted discard.

Seriously, go do this experiment.

Take some decks you built and pit them against one another. Draw your starting hand for both and look at those hands. Think about how the decks play and how you'd sequence what is in your hand and tell me if half the matches aren't immediately decided before the first card hits the table. It's the core mechanics of the game guys. Either you can go under what your opponent is doing or you have answers or draw answers for what they do. Or you lose the game. That's just how Magic works.

 

[RavebornMuse]

Again, what you guys are calling non-games with Thougtseize exists with other cards. You're all just hyper focusing on it because it's targeted discard.

Seriously, go do this experiment.

Take some decks you built and pit them against one another. Draw your starting hand for both and look at those hands. Think about how the decks play and how you'd sequence what is in your hand and tell me if half the matches aren't immediately decided before the first card hits the table. It's the core mechanics of the game guys. Either you can go under what your opponent is doing or you have answers or draw answers for what they do. Or you lose the game. That's just how Magic works.

If your format easily plays out as solitaire, you've got bigger problems than dying on this hill for Thoughtseize.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Okay, but how about say, duress?
Does the likely hood of missing or not getting the best card make this a fun idea?

 

[ahadabans]

Again, you have only the illusion of choice a lot of times in this game. I'm not saying games aren't won and lost by play choices. Of course they are. But a lot of games are not even if they seem like they are.

My argument is that the number of true non-games (where choices don't truly matter) does not go up (in any meaningful way) due to one single copy of Thoughtseize.

 

[ahadabans]

Duress is a good card but whiffing on it feels really bad. Blackmail is a sweet card but it's also not super great T1 where I think this effect is really needed (I do like Blackmail though). While discard as a mechanic rates pretty low on the casual fun meter, I think black really needs good disruption because outside combo it's sort of a weak color in cube. It does aggro worse than red/white. It's removal is worse too. Blue is the better control base (better draw and has counters) and it does combo well too. Green has better dudes and ramp. What exactly is black truly good at besides wrecking hands? It can't just be a one trick pony right (graveyard)?