The discussion on us Finns establishing our own Highlander format has surfaced again at vaihdetaan.net (http://vaihdetaan.kapsi.fi/forums/index.php/topic,61203.0.html). The discussion so far has been both intelligent on some people's part and outright stupid on some others'. There's been discussion about ditching the special mulligan for an EDH-style free mulligan rule and other stuff (like allowing CE cards), but in the end we're mostly happy with just about everything. The one issue that's been consistently raised up, unsurprisingly, has been the banned list, and especially the way it's maintained.
Many people here feel that the way you maintain the list is odd, and at least unpredictable. They don't generally see a problem with the format having a most-played deck unless it starts warping the format into DtB + hate decks, like happened with Affinity and several others. In their opinion, cards should be banned strictly on power level concerns, or if their banning can deliver a blow to a format-warping deck. Cards shouldn't be pre-emptively banned unless they're clearly bonkers (P9, Library of Alexandria, etc.): If they cause problems, fine.
Another more common criticism is your harshness towards combo. The format's nature itself already harshly limits strategies based on specific cards, and especially ones intending to use those cards quickly enough to race aggro. Many casual players LIKE combo decks a lot, and many of the more experienced ones feel that a good combo presence in a format helps keep it healthy. As an avid combo and control player, I can personally say that I'd support loosing the reins on combo a bit.
Third, people just can't see the sense in things like the Painter/Grindstone situation: Right now, we have an utterly useless (not to mention expensive) card in the format that nobody wants to play because it's only use is a broken combo that's been banned. Painter without Grindstone, on the other hand, has interesting but hardly broken interactions with cards like Persecute, Iona and Oona. As far as I can remember, the Painter issue is a prime example of the policy of pre-emptive banning - it could be a problem, so might as well kill it anyway. This is not liked.
With those general sentiments expressed, my own thoughts:
I'm a bit ambivalent on the issue, but would lean towards the side of Finnish criticism. Your goal of format diversity is admirable, and it's certainly true that a sufficiently diverse format helps foster interest in it. However, I feel that the "ban if it proves to be a problem/is just plain obviously broken" mentality to banning would lead to a more sensible, coherent and predictable ban list than the current philosophy of balancing archetypes does. This doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea to keep format diversity in mind: A diverse format should be more fun for more people.
Many people are irritated about Gifts, especially it's splashability. I wouldn't mind fixing the Tarmogoyf problem, but the problem is that in addition to "(blue controls)decks running Gifts" there are "Gifts (combo) decks", the latter being based around the broken piece of cardboard instead of just putting it in because it's, well, broken. Some are also annoyed at Survival and Demonic Tutor, but I haven't personally seen quite as much loathing for them. The parentheses above give away another problem: Banning Gifts would severely hurt combo, which would probably be a bad thing. How can we limit blue control without weakening combo further, while perhaps applying the new "if it's a problem" policy?
This is just one relative newcomer's suggestion, but I'd suggest the following changes to the banned list:
- = Ban
+ = Unban
- Grindstone (broken combo)
- Gifts Ungiven (very splashable and extremely powerful tutor, greatly powers up blue control)
- Library of Alexandria (breaks control mirrors in half)
- Mind Twist (very splashable, often wins the game against control on the spot.)
+ Painter's Servant (useful, but likely won't be broken without Grindstone)
+ Buried Alive (strengthens Reanimator while providing a less versatile Gifts replacement for Survival decks. If Kiki-Guide-Mite proves broken, Pestermite and Sky Hussar could perhaps get the boot: Kiki and Guide have more widespread and interesting uses.)
+ Protean Hulk (Shouldn't be so fast as to be a problem when Flash is banned, graveyard-based versions are more vulnerable to hate and require setup)
These changes have a distinct slant of pushing black graveyard strategies and weakening blue control - the latter's loss in strength should give rise to alternative board control decks to keep aggro in check (and be kept in check themselves by the strengthened combo decks). Additionally, Worldwake will bring us a land version of Tormod's Crypt, so more quality graveyard hate would be available as well.
Comments?
I've prepared a translation for Sturmgott and others in the council to see of that whole thread Dreamer linked to. The translation will be ready momentarily.
I did this because I feel there's a dire need to communicate and level with others before making any hasty decisions. I urge everyone to read it before making up their mind.
I'll notify this thread as well once the translation is ready. It boils down pretty well into the reasons why pro forking of highlander in Finland has grown popular.
One addition on the subject of Portal goodies and other ridiculously expensive and hard-to-get cards.
In my opinion this boils into a single question: Do we maintain the ban list strictly for tournaments, or as general guidelines for casual fun? If strictly tournaments, price shouldn't be a consideration, but if we steer more towards a casual-focused mindset, I wouldn't mind having a lower ban threshold for really expensive cards, especially if they're splashable and usable across multiple decks (Like Library, for example). Archetype-specific cards obviously wouldn't need as much attention IMHO.
The above is strictly my opinion and not a general sentiment expressed by a large portion of the Finnish Highlander community, as the first paragraphs of my opener were.
I don't think we are a long way away from each other...at least some of the points mentioned here reflecting my personal point of view. I will discuss your approach with Sturmgott. I'm pretty sure he will give ya a feedback of the German HL council soon.
I think one point wasn't mentioned on the forum yet. Regarding the "Library is bad vs. fast Aggro" :
Library is very good in blue-based control versus other control strategies. Blue based control has a very good matchup vs. let's say WB-WG-BG board control which in turn are natural predators for Aggro decks. So if you weaken the Anti-Aggro decks it is quite natural that they will die out. Of course this is all somewhat mitigated by the inherent randomness of our format. In my opinion buffing the Anti-Aggro decks by weakening blue-based control should be the way to go. This would also give Combo a bit more breathing room.
Quote from: coldcrow on 23-01-2010, 05:43:22 AM
I think one point wasn't mentioned on the forum yet.
http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=355.msg3288#msg3288 (http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=355.msg3288#msg3288)
Oops! I am sorry, Nastaboi. Didn't see that post at all.
One small point here:
We introduced pre-emptive banning as a result of two Highlander Grand Prix being dominated by combo decks, one by TPS, the other by Flash-Hulk. It takes alot of time and effort to prepare a GP, it takes people alot of time and effort to prepare and attend a GP. We owe them and the tournament organizers to prevent experiences like those!
Plus, I do absolutely NOT agree that "many casual players like COMBO alot" - I'm quite sure around 80% of casual players HATE combo.
I feel more and more than instead of creating 2 distinct formats we should have one unique format, that's why i suggested in another topic that the council should be an international council instead of just german players. This way our format would be stronger, more spread and could eventually make the leap to becoming an official format.
As for Dreamers/finnish highlander, i do agree with some points, one being our current mulligan and the other being P9 bannings (and probably library...) and i'm also for combo in our meta.
However
QuoteHow can we limit blue control without weakening combo further, while perhaps applying the new "if it's a problem" policy?
this for me doesn't make any sense. Is control (or blue control) dominating the meta in finnland? Because i only see an archtype or card(s) being problematic if they dominate or warp the format. Yes we see a lot of decks running gifts on the tops, but we also see a lot (if not more) of aggro decks (not running gifts). And this diversity on the top, IMO, is what makes the meta healthy.
yes, gifts can be unfun, mindtwist can ben unfun, but, specially, the later, since it was unbanned i haven't seen "problematic" decks abusing them.
Sometimes those pre-emptives bannings aren't really understood like Sturmgott said: i bet the council test a lot of decks before/after bannings/unbannings and they eventually reach a consensus. Who here would like to go to a GP just to be dominated by a single deck (like flash/hulk)?
Quote from: Dreamer on 22-01-2010, 10:36:02 PM
Do we maintain the ban list strictly for tournaments, or as general guidelines for casual fun?
There is a simple answer to this. You simply cannot create a banned list that fits casual players. I've played in many different casual rounds and the definition of "casual" is so foggy that you can never embrace that specific group. It was only yesterday that I played in a group where "Magus of the Jar" is banned. Another group I regularly played in in the past has banned Karakas, but doesn't have that much of a problem with combo decks, whereas the other group has not banned single combo pieces (they don't even know most combos because they live on their isolated island), but simply banned ANY combo (whatsoever would turn up as a gamewinning combo, you wouldn't even be allowed to play 10-card-combos).
We don't make rules for any specific player group, but for a healthy, diversified and balanced format that sees every possible archetype. Having pure combodecks in the format that can win on turn 3,5 on average (as TPS could) or even on turn 3 on average (Flash/Hulk) is definitely not healthy! That's why we're adressing pure combo. Pure combo is the opposite of what the format should be like imho - it is not at all interactive and it forces the few remaining control decks to bend too far.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 23-01-2010, 11:46:04 AM
One small point here:
We introduced pre-emptive banning as a result of two Highlander Grand Prix being dominated by combo decks, one by TPS, the other by Flash-Hulk. It takes alot of time and effort to prepare a GP, it takes people alot of time and effort to prepare and attend a GP. We owe them and the tournament organizers to prevent experiences like those!
This is a very reasonable point, but it only applies to combo decks that are hugely overpowered, like the two you mentioned. Most likely, overpowered combo decks are established archetypes from other formats, giving players an ample time to prepare for them. Most combo decks lose a huge chunk of their power once they are widely known.
Besides, it is not the duty of the banned list to prevent unprepared players losing to a combo deck. Good example of this is the dreaded buried alive - combo which can't go off against any kind of graveyard hate. If a player is not worried about graveyard as a resource, and doesn't prepare for it, he/she deserves to lose against anyone who thinks outside the box. I wasn't even aware of the buried alive - combo before Kiki-Jiki got banned. I would have gladly lost to a player who figured this out and took it to a tournament. Right after the tournament I would have added some good graveyard hate to my deck. If somebody figures a good combo out, builds the best possible build
and pilots it to a tourney win, the said somebody will obviously deserve to win it.
Now, somebody could argue and say it is not optimal to force people to play cards that are not a very good fit to their deck just so they have a chance to beat an established combo deck, but it is like saying "we don't want people to play cards like Relic of Progenitus just because recursion is a viable strategy, so we banned all cards that reference graveyard".
Also if you are not aiming to produce a banned list for the casual players, a statement which I completely agree with, then why are you concerned about 80% of casual players hating the combo decks in general?
Even though it might seem that I am completely unhappy with the current state of affairs, in my opinion about 90 percent of the current banned list is correct and the format is great fun. I just think this format hasn't reached its full potential.
We've solely banned those combos that can win the game "out of nowhere" and that costs too few mana. Buried Alive + Reanimate costs 4 mana, Buried Alive + Shallow Grave costs 5 mana. This is simply too cheap and can be resolved on an otherwise empty board! The only setup it requires is finding those two cards (of which the second part is redundantly accessible). Graveyard Removal doesn't help if your're tapped out. We don't want players to have to expect to lose in a single turn, being on almost full life, when this can happen on turn 3 or 4 and have to play accordingly. Plus, how much graveyard removal do you want to run in a Naya Zoo to be able to rely on it? Or in a White Weenie?
It is correct, we're not making a banned list specifically for casual players. Nonetheless I believe more than 50% of our player base count themselves to that group. While we're not optimizing the banned list specifically for them (which as I said is impossible anyway), we still keep in mind them having fun in our format as well. Nobody likes to watch a combo player do his 20+ spells in one turn and take 20 minutes for that. This contradicts interaction, which is what HL is all about!
One word for our mulligan: It enhances interaction alot because both players are much more able to interact from the very beginning rather than be stuck on 4 and 5 mana cards. I understand that some people say that rules changes shouldn't affect fundamental parts of the game and I do almost 100% agree, but in this case the benefits are so huge and obvious, the game becomes so much more fun to play and games where only one player could do things have become so rare that it is 110% worth deviating from that position. Besides, we're not affecting how the game is PLAYED, like for example EDH does. We're just making so it can be played to its full potential.
Sure, it enables new deck types. It allows Skies to run 23 lands. It allows Big Red to run 20+ 6cc-cards. But isn't that solely positive? Alot of cards wouldn't see the light of day otherwise. And more deck types means more variety, which can only be good!
As for the mulligan rule (although this is slipping a bit from the original topic) the fact that skies runs 23 isnt' really a positive thing IMO. RDW using different cards and the rule enabling new decks yes. However my main problem isn't that, it's the powerful/hoser cards. Things like Gifts, demonic, mind twist, LoA, BTB, survival, etc, etc, appearing in, otherwise, crappy hands, but now totaly playable hands. But i'll leave this matter to be discussed on anotehr topic.. :P
The problem isn't 1 player not expecting a combo, the problem is 1 combo breaking and completaly dominating all other decks in 3/4 turns whithout the opponent being able to to anything bout it.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 23-01-2010, 03:12:53 PM
We've solely banned those combos that can win the game "out of nowhere" and that costs too few mana. Buried Alive + Reanimate costs 4 mana, Buried Alive + Shallow Grave costs 5 mana. This is simply too cheap and can be resolved on an otherwise empty board! The only setup it requires is finding those two cards (of which the second part is redundantly accessible). Graveyard Removal doesn't help if your're tapped out. We don't want players to have to expect to lose in a single turn, being on almost full life, when this can happen on turn 3 or 4 and have to play accordingly. Plus, how much graveyard removal do you want to run in a Naya Zoo to be able to rely on it? Or in a White Weenie?
I understand the reasoning, and I agree that if it consistently delivers turn 4 or 5 wins, it should get a ban. Unless it is very fragile.
This said example is not fragile only to graveyard hate, which have gotten better and better in recent years, but also any instant removal will fizzle this combo right on the spot. This gives Naya several outs in addition of any GY hate they are packing. Even WW can steal games with well-timed path to exile of Swords to Plowshares. Also if you are not packing any GY hate, you are asking for trouble, not only because of combo decks like these, but several decks will have subtheme that revolves around graveyard tricks. And even if it turns out that WW has very few outs to the situation, decks have bad matchups and this is a bad MU to either one of those.
In game one Buried Alive most likely will win once the opponent taps out, but games two and three are much harder as your opponent knows what you have and will play accordingly. And if they don't, I don't think it is because of warped format but because of a bad player.
Again, I have no real experience of playing this combo, but on paper this looks like it can be disrupted very easily. And if that is the case, there probably will not be many players who try to exploit this combo once players are aware of it. I mean, it is a risk going off against one untapped mana and you can't at all if your opponent has like tormod's crypt in play. If this combo still proves to be too good after people prepare for it, I say ban it.
Quote from: Mythrandir on 23-01-2010, 04:00:33 PMThe problem isn't 1 player not expecting a combo, the problem is 1 combo breaking and completaly dominating all other decks in 3/4 turns whithout the opponent being able to to anything bout it.
This is exactly my point. Those kind of combos should be banned, no questions asked. But if combo is slower and easily disrupted, metagame will evolve. And if it does not, banhammer it.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 23-01-2010, 03:12:53 PMIt is correct, we're not making a banned list specifically for casual players. Nonetheless I believe more than 50% of our player base count themselves to that group. While we're not optimizing the banned list specifically for them (which as I said is impossible anyway), we still keep in mind them having fun in our format as well. Nobody likes to watch a combo player do his 20+ spells in one turn and take 20 minutes for that. This contradicts interaction, which is what HL is all about!
I kinda agree you with this one, but what comes to the discussion at hand, the cards that we would like to see unbanned are not part of combos like these.
And about the mulligan: Almost all who commented on it in the vaihdetaan.net, were in favor of it. I don't think it was ever in danger of being left out. I find it to be one of the many reasons to play this format.
Well just wanted to mention that the Ghoul Deck which won 1 GP was also played around 1 combo piece and was a straight lose to Graveyard removel and pointremovel, but anyways this deck won a GP and rushed trough the top 8 and I also played on this GP and would of say in the top 8 were no bad players. I was thinkin galso about the points to solve the problems of some combo decks by there own ... but all this 2 card combos or can jut mass solutions and counters and outplay every aggro Deck with it. just makes no sense with aggro to play 5+ graveyard hate cards because it just makes the deck alot worse about any anti aggro deck.
I like all the combo bans and I trust the concil with it. Anyways I am not sure about LoA because on the GP for example I would never play my Survival-deck just because I doesn t own a LoA and my aggro deck is nearly perfect, because there is no dought that LoA as starting land wins mirrors!
It's not only combo decks that utilize the graveyard: Loam decks make good use of it, too. And the Highlander mulligan helps as well: You can throw graveyard hate away if you know you're not playing against combo, or try to dig for more hate cards with it. As far as graveyward hate goes, we now have enchantments (Leyline, Planar Void), instants that can be played for free (Ravenous Trap), cheap and free artifact hate (Relic of Progenitus, Tormod's Crypt), cheap and free creatures that can hate the graveyard (Yixlid Jailer, Faerie Macabre), and Worldwake is even bringing us a common land that kills a graveyard when it's played. On top of that we have exiling removal like Swords, Path and Oblivion Ring. The hate is pretty easily integrated into a deck without hurting it too much, IMHO.
Quote from: Payron on 23-01-2010, 06:02:37 PMWell just wanted to mention that the Ghoul Deck which won 1 GP was also played around 1 combo piece and was a straight lose to Graveyard removel and pointremovel, but anyways this deck won a GP and rushed trough the top 8 and I also played on this GP and would of say in the top 8 were no bad players. I was thinkin galso about the points to solve the problems of some combo decks by there own ... but all this 2 card combos or can jut mass solutions and counters and outplay every aggro Deck with it. just makes no sense with aggro to play 5+ graveyard hate cards because it just makes the deck alot worse about any anti aggro deck.
I like all the combo bans and I trust the concil with it. Anyways I am not sure about LoA because on the GP for example I would never play my Survival-deck just because I doesn t own a LoA and my aggro deck is nearly perfect, because there is no dought that LoA as starting land wins mirrors!
All right. Couple of issues here. The said deck is somewhat similar to the supposed Buried Alive deck would look like. However, that deck was more like a hybrid consisting of three different combos. Not to mention each of them is way batter than Buried Alive and they are banned for a good reason. Let's have a look at these combos:
1) Hermit Druid functioned as a one man combo, one activation dumped all cards in your deck to your graveyard and then you just dread returned big sutured ghoul with haste(provided by Dragon Breath. The flashback cards that create creatures (and narcomoeba) allowed you to meet the three creature quota required to flashback dread return for a hasty, fast kill.
2) The above could also be accomplished via targeting Cephalid Illusionist with Shuko or Nomads en-Kor.
3) Painter's Servant and Grindstone provided a cheap and colorless combo to deck the opponent, or to dump your deck to the graveyard. This also ignores any possible graveyard hate you might have.
Buried Alive - combo requires you to find Buried Alive. This is important, as there are no alternative routes to take like the deck you mentioned. This clearly makes the combo much less consistent. Also drawing any of the offending creatures makes comboing impossible unless you find a way to discard them. On the bright side, you have plethora of reanimate spells to get the combo rolling and as luck would have it, the best ones are on the same color like Buried Alive. This might make the deck too powerful, but I would like it to be proven by players rather than assuming the players are unable to adapt properly.
Now, you seem to be worried about your aggro deck being weakened if you add in some GY hate. This is called metagaming and it is quite a large part of the Magic. You might need to devote cards that makes you better against your bad matchups and thus weaken your good matchups. This also might make some deck unattractive if you are expecting many of its bad matchups to be played.
QuoteNow, you seem to be worried about your aggro deck being weakened if you add in some GY hate. This is called metagaming and it is quite a large part of the Magic. You might need to devote cards that makes you better against your bad matchups and thus weaken your good matchups. This also might make some deck unattractive if you are expecting many of its bad matchups to be played.
The problem is not adding GY hate, is getting GY hate in the first couple of turns, otherwise you're dead, and this is not metagaming.
Don't take me wrong, although i'm not a combo player, combo decks should be allowed for a healthy meta and they are: we've seen quite some very interesting and good builds here in our league: alluren, heartbeat variants, etc. And they had some nice results and, IMHO, these decks aren't play as much because they are really hard to pilot as oppose to a straight painter + stone combo and sometimes unfun to play "VS" and "with".
Quote from: Mythrandir on 23-01-2010, 10:55:28 PM
QuoteNow, you seem to be worried about your aggro deck being weakened if you add in some GY hate. This is called metagaming and it is quite a large part of the Magic. You might need to devote cards that makes you better against your bad matchups and thus weaken your good matchups. This also might make some deck unattractive if you are expecting many of its bad matchups to be played.
The problem is not adding GY hate, is getting GY hate in the first couple of turns, otherwise you're dead, and this is not metagaming.
This is a valid point if you are expecting a lot of extended dredge to show up for your highlander tournament. In order to Buried Alive to win as soon as possible it pretty much needs to take an extremely aggressive approach and play every tutor it can find. This probably puts the average combo turn somewhere around 5 or 6, where turn 4 is not unheard of. This would still be a problem if only cards capable to stopping it were GY hate. This is not the case. Here is a list that mess up with the combo:
- Any instant burn spell that deals at least two damage to a creature. Even like evoking a Cloudthresher is enough. If the deck is using Pestermite over Sky Hussar, one damage is enough to delay the combo for a turn
- Any instant removal that can kill a two toughness creature
- Any bounce spell that can bounce a creature
- Any counterspell
- GY hate
- Pithing Needle, Stifle, Humility... list goes on
The only deck, that I can think of, that has only a few of the above answers is WW. And if that is a problem, you really should pick another deck. Granted, WW can still win quicker than the combo player.
Quote from: Mythrandir on 23-01-2010, 10:55:28 PMDon't take me wrong, although i'm not a combo player, combo decks should be allowed for a healthy meta and they are: we've seen quite some very interesting and good builds here in our league: alluren, heartbeat variants, etc. And they had some nice results and, IMHO, these decks aren't play as much because they are really hard to pilot as oppose to a straight painter + stone combo and sometimes unfun to play "VS" and "with".
Aluren is not deemed as a problem, and it really shouldn't. But why buried alive is? The average combo turn is probably somewhat faster with the BA -deck but Aluren is immune to GY hate and bounce. At a certain point, it is immune to instant speed removal, if you only have one.
We discussed about this a little with Nastaboi yesterday at gpt. We are under such impression that the ultimate goal of this project is to get this format an official status preferably supported by WotC. Two main goals should therefore be:
1. To follow DCI ban policy
2. To use rules that are DCI legitimate.
Banning policy change would definately lead into banhammering of several cards that are now legal (library, mind twist, demonic tutor etc.).
The second goal would include banning of CE and gold-bordered cards. This would allow highlander tournaments to be sanctioned as casual non-rated events. This would give the tournament organizers a little bit of prize support but also would make these tournaments visible in the DCI database so that they would see that this format is played a lot.
Quote from: so_not on 24-01-2010, 11:27:28 AM
We discussed about this a little with Nastaboi yesterday at gpt. We are under such impression that the ultimate goal of this project is to get this format an official status preferably supported by WotC. Two main goals should therefore be:
1. To follow DCI ban policy
2. To use rules that are DCI legitimate.
Banning policy change would definately lead into banhammering of several cards that are now legal (library, mind twist, demonic tutor etc.).
The second goal would include banning of CE and gold-bordered cards. This would allow highlander tournaments to be sanctioned as casual non-rated events. This would give the tournament organizers a little bit of prize support but also would make these tournaments visible in the DCI database so that they would see that this format is played a lot.
While I agree that it would be a great thing if WotC introduced Highlander as an official format, I see tremendous drawbacks in that. Several hundreds if not thousands of players have bought IE/CE duals for a payable access to our format. Should these cards become illegal all of a sudden, most of these players wouldn't have any or at least enough duals to continue playing their decks and thus would rather quit playing HL than invest another 500 â,¬ for whitebordered duals whose look is hard to stand in an otherwise blackbordered deck. If you want them blackbordered, we all know that only the Underground Sea will cost at least 110 â,¬. Also I cannot see why CE/IE cards in a casual tournament format like HL should be disallowed. They are still cards printed by WotC. In other formats like Vintage TOs go the other way around: They allow proxies to be played, resulting in tournaments that can no longer be sanctioned. DCI sanctioning is nothing that has a real value for most HL players, being able to play the cards they bought to be able to play it on the other side has alot of value for them!
The second downside is the mulligan. I wouldn't want to play HL with a DCI-style mulligan any more and would never agree to drop the Spoils Mulligan. While surely an official DCI-HL would attract alot of new players, it would screw most long-time-supporters who brought the format where it is right now.
Also, I do not agree with the DCIs banning policy. The primary focus of a banning policy in HL should always be to increase diversity and interaction while on the other hand keeping the list of banned cards as short as possible. If a very powerful card does not negatively affect this balance and diversity, but rather increase it, it should imho be allowed.
Another word to "I would like to see players prove a combo to be too good". This is exactly what we want to prevent. I explained the reasons for this in this thread already, I'll copy it here for easier reference:
"We introduced pre-emptive banning as a result of two Highlander Grand Prix being dominated by combo decks, one by TPS, the other by Flash-Hulk. It takes alot of time and effort to prepare a GP, it takes people alot of time and effort to prepare and attend a GP. We owe them and the tournament organizers to prevent experiences like those!"
We had 6 HL GPs in Germany so far. 3 of them were dominated or at least won by a combo deck. People travel some hundred kilometers and what they keep in memory in these cases is that HL is a combo format. We don't want that. We want combo to be a part of HL, but we don't want tier 1 pure combo decks and we're dedicated to that promise.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 24-01-2010, 03:16:12 PM
Thousands of players have bought IE/CE duals for a payable access to our format. Should these cards become illegal all of a sudden, most of these players wouldn't have any or at least enough duals to continue playing their decks (me e.g.) and thus would rather quit playing HL than invest another 500 â,¬ for whitebordered duals whose look is hard to stand in an otherwise blackbordered deck. If you want them blackbordered, we all know that only the Underground Sea will cost at least 110 â,¬.
I bet my ass off that there are not thousands of those who have CE duals for highlander use. Real duals can be used in other formats so why not invest in them? You can always get your money back. And if you really don't want to, maybe someone of those thousands can borrow you the missing real one for a tournament and you can just use your proxy other times at your kitchen table. And what the hell? You are pimping your deck with proxies because they look cool? Revised/UL duals speed up games because they can be fetched way more faster than their BB counterparts. Really the look of cards should not be an issue when you think about a format. That is just stupid.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 24-01-2010, 03:16:12 PM
Also I cannot see why CE/IE cards in a casual tournament format like HL should be disallowed. They are still cards printed by WotC. In other formats like Vintage TOs go the other way around: They allow proxies to be played, resulting in tournaments that can no longer be sanctioned.
I see you didn't quite get my point. Vintage is already a well-known format. It doesn't need WotC support. This is a growing format. To make WotC have any interest in it, they should first see that it is played by the WPN rules and that the playerbase is already large. Do you even know what is WPN or casual non-rated events? In small countries like Finland it is important that every event is recorded so that we don't lose our precious PT-slots, it affects our product prices and whatnot. Maybe we would even get another GP some year if enough tournaments were recorded.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 24-01-2010, 03:16:12 PM
DCI sanctioning is nothing that has a real value for most HL players, being able to play the cards they bought to be able to play it on the other side has alot of value for them!
WPN would give TOs prize support and I guess that would attract some players.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 24-01-2010, 03:16:12 PM
The second downside is the mulligan. I wouldn't want to play HL with a DCI-style mulligan any more and would never agree to drop the Spoils Mulligan. While surely an official DCI-HL would attract alot of new players, it would screw most long-time-supporters who brought the format where it is right now.
WPN rules doesn't affect the mulligan rule. I wouldn't like this format if the mulligan rule was changed either.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 24-01-2010, 03:16:12 PM
Also, I do not agree with the DCIs banning policy.
This is again just absurd. Other people have already commented your banning policy enough.
Everything you say or do contradicts with the facts about what should be made to have german highlander internationally recognized or WotC supported. Do you even really want it? If not then I will be glad to start promoting a new format with the mulligan rule, without proxies and without Mind Twist/LoA in Finland/rest of the world.
First and foresmot we should come to terms to fact that no matter how many different rules, no matter how many different ban lists, we will never satisfy 100% of the players. That's a fact and not an opinion.
As for things like CE allowed not allowed, until it temains a casual format i don't think this have a huge impact on our format, and if WOTC starts Highlander as an official format we can shout we can cry but they will do as whatever they pleased, so it's not very useful, IMO, to discuss these little details.
As for the ban list, again, never will we satisfy all players. I don't agree 100% with the current ban list (just as i sometimes don't agree with WOTC bannings and rules change), but i think our current list is quite satisfactory and i'm pleased with the meta diversity and outcomes, so i can't really complain.
One last thing: if the highlander community starts to split, we will all lose. That's just my opinion.
Sorry to say, but it seems like this split is unavoidable. The council fails to even concider that something they are doing could be done better. To me it sounds that they like the format the way it is and it will not be changed. They would be keeping it this way even if most of the community would like to see it changed. All your responces are just statements that you are right. Not even once I have seen you concidering you might have done something wrong. It's not healthy for Highlander. If you want to keep the format like this among friends, please don't dream on making it international or WOTC regogniced.
Quote from: imppu on 24-01-2010, 09:31:18 PM
Sorry to say, but it seems like this split is unavoidable. The council fails to even concider that something they are doing could be done better. To me it sounds that they like the format the way it is and it will not be changed. They would be keeping it this way even if most of the community would like to see it changed. All your responces are just statements that you are right. Not even once I have seen you concidering you might have done something wrong. It's not healthy for Highlander. If you want to keep the format like this among friends, please don't dream on making it international or WOTC regogniced.
First, let me clarify one thing: I'm not, nor i was i, ever in the highlander council! I'm from Portugal, so whether this format originated in germany or finland, for me it's the same. What i do think, it's despite sometimes the lack of response from the council, they have put a lot of effort in making this a better format. And yes, there are things that i don not like and things i'd change, but never the less i still appreciate their effort, a lot.
Quote from: imppu on 24-01-2010, 09:31:18 PM
Sorry to say, but it seems like this split is unavoidable. The council fails to even concider that something they are doing could be done better. To me it sounds that they like the format the way it is and it will not be changed. They would be keeping it this way even if most of the community would like to see it changed. All your responces are just statements that you are right. Not even once I have seen you concidering you might have done something wrong. It's not healthy for Highlander. If you want to keep the format like this among friends, please don't dream on making it international or WOTC regogniced.
The split is only unavoidable if some individuals invest all their energy in enforcing such a split, true. We never said we're making the best possible job, but growing player numbers, growing number of tournaments, a working and growing online league and community plus very diverse top 8's in several large-scale tournaments are in our opinion clear indicators that what we're doing is a) appreciated by alot of players and b) can't be that wrong.
For that "It's not healthy for highlander"-part: The clearly unhealthiest, if not lethal option, in my opinion is a split of the community. It simply is not large enough to survive that. It will result in Finland playing according to your rules, Germany according to ours. And every other country will be split up. We're willing to take a helpful position to avoid a split, but please understand that we cannot allow to be taken hostage this way.
As for that "please don't dream on making it internationally or WotC recognized"-part, it already is both. You cannot deny that it has become more and more international, and WotC has already twice written articles about our format. They even look at our banned list and decisions when developing Singleton.
Getting aheadWhat is true nonetheless is the fact that the formation of the council has not yet reflected that internationalization. We are working on that and will soon give an official invitation. It's up to the Finnish community now to determine a person that is a) very competent and experienced in HL matters, b) has proven several years of constant dedication and love to Highlander, and c) is willing to invest enough time and effort as that is needed to maintain the format and, sometimes more important than that, keep the community together. In your own best interest it should also be someone who has good credits in your community. As you may understand though we cannot accept someone who has insulted us and discredited our work in an offending way in the past. Furthermore, we expect to see someone that also pursues the primary aim, to have ONE worldwide, unified Highlander format and community. Please discuss this in your community and tell us the result(s).
We're open to suggestions how an internationalized council could best do its job in terms of logistics.
Currently the council consists of:
Frank Topel (me, maintainer of the format since 1996, tournament organizer of 100+ HL tournaments and of 4 Highlander GPs, webmaster of Magicplayer.org, Highlandermagic.de and Highlandermagic.info)
Timo Barwisch (supports and spreads the format since the beginning of this millenium, has organized 5 Highlander GPs, a former North-Rhein-Westfalia Champion, Moderator of most German Forum Boards)
Gerry Stahl (HL tournament organizer for more than a decade and initiator of [HLL] international highlander league, moderator in most of the international boards of this forum, helped most in internationalizing the format this way)
It is very probable that there will be another German member soon. Patrick Richter really has earned a place not only for winning most German tournaments in the past 2 years but foremost for his proven insight into, love and dedication for the format. He also helped alot to aquire new players and spread the word.
The council also has a rather diffuse expanded circle of advisors, namely and most actively Hans-Joachim Höh and Falk Bernhardt, both (former) German pro players that know the game from its first days.
Finally seems like something is happening. Thank you for that.
And Mythrandir; Never thought you were in the council.
EDIT:
Quote from: Sturmgott on 24-01-2010, 10:50:59 PM
The split is only unavoidable if some individuals invest all their energy in enforcing such a split, true.
For that "It's not healthy for highlander"-part: The clearly unhealthiest, if not lethal option, in my opinion is a split of the community.
It's funny that you still aren't taking any responsibility if the split would ever happen. It's not like anyone is doing it to "get to you". I will much rather see one good united format too. But it really started to seem you aren't willing to cooperate with anyone. But again I'm glad you are taking this step and we are getting heard now.
Some remarks:
- banned list / mulligan
I can understand people quite well moaning about the banned list. Why? I wasn’t always in the HL council. In fact I’m a member for about now 1 (?!) year. Before that time I was debating a lot with the council. I felt misunderstood and sometimes unnoticed. I’ve thought I would understand the format after playing and organizing hl events that long. And I was sure that some of the things I wanted were absolutely right and easy to discover.
But I’ve had to learn that card discussions are a complicated thing because objective criteria are hard to determine.
I was against:
• Spoils Mulligan -> why no Free Mulligan
• Unbaning Survival of the Fittest -> it was 01.04. and I was playing a HL Tournament in Ludwigsburg and thought it would be a April’s Fool joke :-D (btw. Klaus Jöns won that tourney with Oath, places 2-4 were RDW)
And I wanted:
• Gifts Ungiven to be banned (http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=271.15)
• Mind over Matters to be unbanned
• Enlightened Tutor to be banned (because there were no clear guideline for banning / unbanning C1-tutors: Mystical, Vampiric and Enlightened)
and lot more. It took me hours to write down my reflections about the banned list ;D In the end it was worth the effort, Sturmgott invited me to the inner circle although we've had some conflicting point of views.
It happens sometimes you have to recognize that not everything you firmly believe in for years is the absolute truth. Sometimes you have to recognize anyone else has been right. In retrospect i have to confess that I was wrong in my card-analytics in several cases and some of my current analysis probably wrong too.
Spoils Mulligan is a great achievement by the former hl council. I’ve playing Singleton weekly. And the biggest disadvantage is â€"apart from the banned list ::)- the mulligan. The DCI do not care about the fact that imo ~ 10-20% of the Singleton-games mostly determined by the first 7 cards rather by Mulligan. They do not improve the rules for the characteristic of Singleton â€" but the hl council did so for Highlander.
One example: Modo first 7 cards: 7 Islands â€" LOL â€" Mulligan to six: 1 Land â€" 1 Manastone â€" down to 5? I tried and game over before it begun (missed two landdrops). With new hl Mulligan that kind of games in which you can’t do absolutely nothing are reduced to maybe 3-5%.
After more than 2.500 recorded hl games in the last 2-3 years, 1.300 of them played by myself some views have changed slightly, some drastically.
I do no longer want Gifts Ungiven gets the bannhammer. I understand your point but as long as Naya is the best deck around (it was place 1 already in my statistics before pyyhttu has won German Open 2010, http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=273.30) i do not see the point why one of the key cards vs aggro should be banned actually at least when combo do not play a huge role anymore and aggro won the last two huge HL events (http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=172.15). I don't believe anti-aggro decks get such a big boost because their prime-evil becomes weakened.
Like I’ve said I play Singleton for a while now. Gifts and Demonic are banned and Control and Combo are dead. Less than 2% are combo (I’ve seen one Enduring Ideal-dec), ~ 15% are control and the rest is aggro, mainly RDW (k â€" It’s cheap and some control-cards aren’t available or too expensive in Modo â€" but the banned-list is another reason for the horde of aggros). I don’t want such a scenario; I want that complex metagame like we have actually. In former times we’ve had already a GP with 3 RDWs (excactly same build except less than 10 cards) in the top 8 â€" I do not want that times come back again.
Sometimes you are right and as you see the council do not close itself off good reasoning. You can’t have everything now and here â€" sometimes you have to be a bit patient. I’m pretty sure that the banned list will be optimized more and more in the future - hopefully with international / Finnish support!
K â€" I understand the point that the banned-list looks strange for a guy with an out-side view. It’s always hard to explain why Mystical and Enlighted are banned but Demonic is not :) And that we have overpowered cards like Survival and Gifts still in this format - but sometimes specially that overpowered cards are supporting a healthy meta. Like i've said before - every ban has two sides of a coin.
Not everyone in the council has the same point of view how to develop the banned list but is like in a good soccer team:
The discussions are left internal. Outwards we demonstrate closeness. :D
And all decisions are backed always by all council members.
- Gold cards / CE / ICE
Sorry this wouldn’t be worth a single word imo it’s just a secondary area of conflict. There are vintage tournaments with proxies and there are vintage tournaments w/o any. So if your Finnish TO do not allow gold cards in his local tournament â€" so what? The HL council won’t send him into exile ;) If we allow them on next GP in May â€" so what? I can’t see the point how people can argue about that silly thing. Don’t get me wrong â€" I do not want to be offending â€" it’s just a lack of understanding on my side. Btw. I know some regional TOs who organized HL Tournaments in the context of Gateway, CE/ICE were allowed. I’m not absolutely sure but I believe it’s already possible to have our HL-format in “DCI-clothes†;) Correct me if I’m wrong.
And now enjoy looking for weaknesses or cross-purposes in my explanations and slam me hard ;)
I finally made it into the international forum as I see a "Storm" in front us ;) Sry
I highly appreciate the work of the council/innovators/advisors of the Highlander format in the same way I sometimes doom the inflexibility and obstinacy of their actions regarding the banned list and some other minor issues.
Highlander is on the edge to become a noticeable, international accepted format.
The main advantage of this format IS the spoils mulligan which allows us to PLAY our card game and not accept a game loss because of mana and/or colour screw like in other formats. I assume that without this mulligan rule Highlander would have died long time ago.
The spoils mulligan changes the rules of this card game dramatically which leads to a complete different deck construction and game strategy. This huge difference will never be accepted from WotC at all and therefore it will be impossible to find total acceptance for this format as most of the players will only accept to play official formats/rules.
However, there is a fair amount of Highlander players in Finland and Germany and it is possible to “infect†more players in our countries to establish a noteworthy tournament scene even without being an official format. I do not mind to play an unofficial format as long as this is the most fun one for me. I have talked to players with laughed about Highlander (especially about our banned list) in the beginning and loved to play it after a couple of test games.
For example: A friend of mine, who is former MtG Team World Champion will attend some of the Iserlohn tournaments this year as he really enjoys to play Highlander now. We also played some Highlander with Jan Ruess on Worlds in Rome and he has enjoyed as well. My local community comes Standard, Legacy, Vintage and Casual; so there is no restriction of possible future Higlander players. Go out and enlighten the unbelievers!
If we can establish a bigger tournament scene we will also receive more feedback regarding the current banned list but also regarding the time limit, the CE cards and other open issues. We need to question the rules on a bigger platform to define the most suitable rules for this game.
As long as there is a local community which decides about what is right or wrong the community will stay local. This will lead to a split of the current community into German and Non-German players. I am German but I certainly also question some of the decisions of the council and question if they really care what the community wants the format to be.
By the way, I wonder how the council/advisors can make decisions without attending the “biggest†tournaments in their area (Iserlohn/Duelmen) as playing on the kitchen (or pub) table with the same guys will not be enough for a correct evaluation.
I was delighted to see a lot of Finnish players attending the tournament in Frankfurt this January and I hope to see them again on May 22nd to attend
the HLGP VII again. Perhaps there are also some players from Portugal and other countries, then. ;D
My demand to the council is to adopt and implement the requirement of the community, not on a local, not on a national but on an international basis. We need to use the tools of this forum to collect tournament data but also individual opinions in this forum to make optimal rule decisions and improve and promote this format.
Just my 20cents…
Quote from: Vazdru on 26-01-2010, 01:18:48 AM
I do no longer want Gifts Ungiven gets the bannhammer...
Neither do I demand it when there are other more blatantly overpowered and stupid cards not banned. And what comes to the aggrodominance, I can give multiple reasons why aggro decks in general tend to do well in this format:
1. Decks are more consistent by default (only having one plan isn't very hard to build around)
2. Deck are easier to play about right (including mulligan decisions and such)
3. Cards are probably little easier to get
4. Games are faster (more time to think per turn -> less mistakes) also not so many ties
(5. The legality of Mind Twist, Library etc. does not make control better against aggro but it makes control mirrors awfully luck based.)
Quote from: Vazdru on 26-01-2010, 01:18:48 AM
Sorry this wouldn’t be worth a single word imo it’s just a secondary area of conflict. There are vintage tournaments with proxies and there are vintage tournaments w/o any. So if your Finnish TO do not allow gold cards in his local tournament â€" so what? The HL council won’t send him into exile ;) If we allow them on next GP in May â€" so what? I can’t see the point how people can argue about that silly thing. Don’t get me wrong â€" I do not want to be offending â€" it’s just a lack of understanding on my side.
This is exactly what we are probably going to do. We'll encourage TOs to not allow them.
Quote from: Vazdru on 26-01-2010, 01:18:48 AM
Btw. I know some regional TOs who organized HL Tournaments in the context of Gateway, CE/ICE were allowed. I’m not absolutely sure but I believe it’s already possible to have our HL-format in “DCI-clothes†;) Correct me if I’m wrong.
Gateway doesn't exist any more. It was replaced by the WPN. By the WPN rules proxies are not allowed and CE/IE cards are considered proxies. These "DCI-clothes" are the casual non-rated events I have been talking about all the time.
QuoteI've prepared a translation for Sturmgott and others in the council to see of that whole thread Dreamer linked to. The translation will be ready momentarily.
I have to relocate these from ~/temp to somewhere soon, but in meanwhile here they are:
Page 1: http://iki.fi/~pyyhttu/temp/Finnish%20Highlander.htm
Page 2: http://iki.fi/~pyyhttu/temp/Finnish%20Highlander2.htm
Page 3 (partially, started from the middle): http://iki.fi/~pyyhttu/temp/Finnish%20Highlander3.html
Quote from: so_not on 26-01-2010, 09:47:52 PM
Quote from: Vazdru on 26-01-2010, 01:18:48 AM
Sorry this wouldn’t be worth a single word imo it’s just a secondary area of conflict. There are vintage tournaments with proxies and there are vintage tournaments w/o any. So if your Finnish TO do not allow gold cards in his local tournament â€" so what? The HL council won’t send him into exile ;) If we allow them on next GP in May â€" so what? I can’t see the point how people can argue about that silly thing. Don’t get me wrong â€" I do not want to be offending â€" it’s just a lack of understanding on my side.
This is exactly what we are probably going to do. We'll encourage TOs to not allow them.
Sure thing - I'm not angry at that at all :D
Quote from: so_not on 26-01-2010, 09:47:52 PM
Quote from: Vazdru on 26-01-2010, 01:18:48 AM
Btw. I know some regional TOs who organized HL Tournaments in the context of Gateway, CE/ICE were allowed. I’m not absolutely sure but I believe it’s already possible to have our HL-format in “DCI-clothes†;) Correct me if I’m wrong.
Gateway doesn't exist any more. It was replaced by the WPN. By the WPN rules proxies are not allowed and CE/IE cards are considered proxies. These "DCI-clothes" are the casual non-rated events I have been talking about all the time.
Ok - I wasn't up-to-date. If a TO wanna organize HL events as WPN i would encourage him even if the prize would be CE/ICE cards won't be allowed in this event. Like i've said gold cards do not affect how HL gets played - maybe only by whom. If the fan-base in Finnland do not want to have them -> cut them! The intention for this rule was to give players the chance to get older cards more easily or cheaply and to raise the attraction of highlander for new players. If the rule does excatly the opposite this intention gets lost. Maybe the rule could be verbalized a bit different so the fan-base in Germany -which want that cards- could have them and the Finns don't have to see them in tournament-play (at least as long they do not visit the next GP in May ;)). Btw. I guess there are not more than 1% of the cards played in HL CE/ICE - so really no thing to argue about.
Quote from: so_not on 26-01-2010, 09:47:52 PM
Quote from: Vazdru on 26-01-2010, 01:18:48 AM
I do no longer want Gifts Ungiven gets the bannhammer...
Neither do I demand it when there are other more blatantly overpowered and stupid cards not banned. And what comes to the aggrodominance, I can give multiple reasons why aggro decks in general tend to do well in this format:
1. Decks are more consistent by default (only having one plan isn't very hard to build around)
2. Deck are easier to play about right (including mulligan decisions and such)
3. Cards are probably little easier to get
4. Games are faster (more time to think per turn -> less mistakes) also not so many ties
(5. The legality of Mind Twist, Library etc. does not make control better against aggro but it makes control mirrors awfully luck based.)
I agree with your analysis 1-4. Point 5 is always on a watch.
My impression: I'm playing control w/o LoA but often against it, Mindtwist and Gifts Ungiven are autoincludes but far from beeing autowins when they resolve in Control-Mirror. I've seen at least as many games decided by a simple Back to Basics (yes - often after LoA made my opponent watch pitiful on my side of the board - at least before b2b resolved ::)). Btw. I play Tsabo's Web as well - nice card vs Control and Aggro (Mutavault, Factory, Treetop, Barbarian Ring usw.).
But that do not mean Mindtwist, LoA, Survival or other card won't be maybe banned in the near future. We are always discussing that most hated cards in the council and it's still possible some of them have to leave hl-scene in the near future.
Quote from: pyyhttu on 26-01-2010, 10:37:58 PM
QuoteI've prepared a translation for Sturmgott and others in the council to see of that whole thread Dreamer linked to. The translation will be ready momentarily.
I have to relocate these from ~/temp to somewhere soon, but in meanwhile here they are:
Page 1: http://iki.fi/~pyyhttu/temp/Finnish%20Highlander.htm
Page 2: http://iki.fi/~pyyhttu/temp/Finnish%20Highlander2.htm
Page 3 (partially, started from the middle): http://iki.fi/~pyyhttu/temp/Finnish%20Highlander3.html
Thx for your support!
We had some discussions and we came to conclusion that pyyhttu would be best person to join the council. I will fully support him.
Quote from: imppu on 31-01-2010, 11:37:40 PM
We had some discussions and we came to conclusion that pyyhttu would be best person to join the council. I will fully support him.
Seconded, to make it more official.
all right
at first i will ask Sturmgott for an internal board for the HL council - i think it is now (formerly face-to-face or phone) the easiest and most convienient way to communicate
imo next steps must be to clarify the statues more officially and to gather status quo of the considerations to the banned list rather next bannings /unbannings
Pyyhttu will have my full support also.
about this:
QuotePlease note that cards from the new Worldwake expansion will become tournament legal for Highlander as of 02/15/2010.
This is to ensure players have an equal opportunity to get their hands on the cards they need respectively to update their MWS and decks.
I hope this is only affects mws-play since it would be totally random to diverge from normal legality-policies.
No, it does not, and that is in no way random, but rather well-considered. WotC obviously changed its policy as of when a new set becomes legal for tournament play to push early sales and to put further pressure on the players before it becomes clear what the really needed and good cards are and thus, whether a set is worth investing in or rather buying those 5 cards you need. Giving people two weeks time to get their hands on the cards ensures that everybody has the opportunity to do so. This used to be WotC's policy in former times and that was for the better (afair they gave players at least 20 days time).
It is not our aim to support this increased pressure and WotC's commercial interest, but rather we have the player base in mind. Not everybody has the chance to participate in pre-releases, and many players take some time to evaluate a new set before deciding whether they buy boosters or rather singles. Two weeks time is in our opinion a good compromise between the interests of early adopters who are of course eager to play their new cards, and those players that are not that quick.
Remember, this is meant to be rules for Highlander as a tournament format, but it is not meant to be Highlander for tournament players only.
Sometimes it is not easy not to think that your position is that everything WotC does and says is best for all. Could that be true?
I think this is the first time anyone asked publicly *why* release dates differ in HL from the sanctioned tournament's. I don't know any other place where the reason for this is documented than http://vaihdetaan.kapsi.fi/forums/index.php/topic,60050.msg230731.html#msg230731
I had to ask this very same from Sturmgott just 6 months ago, a day prior to our HL-Nationals to be sure. It almost caused confusion back then in that thread, but didn't.
So... a constructive suggestion #1: if the 15th day is to be kept, and would indeed enable the slowest player to get the hottest new cards, then it would be worthwhile to document/link the reason for this at http://highlandermagic.info/index.php?id=hinweise with a couple of sentences.
In the end there isn't that much stake at here: standardization of legality dates (to minimize the confusion) vs. securing the availability of cards to everyone (noble cause).