Subject: Banning the processor? [issues]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:22:26 -0800 (PST)
From: The Black Dog <dnitka@willamette.edu>
To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com

This is a reply to the post by Chad Ellis. He puts forth an argument to
ban Phyrexian processor in limited. I think this assertion is absurd. Mr.
Ellis's post only shows that upon encountering an unusually strong card or
combo of cards that people will cry "ban this" rather than want to deal
with said card or card combo. Since the release of US I have seen posts on
the Dojo demanding that WotC ban: The Academy Cards(Tolarian Academy,
Stroke, Spiral), Persecute, and now Phyrexian Processor. I think this shows
a general laziness on the part of the players. Rather than trying to find
a way to beat these cards, a player is willing to throw up their hands and
demand the DCI fix things. I would hope the DCI not ban things in standard
and say to players, "Be creative, learn to deal with this." In the case of
Academy, several options exist to deal with this deck and as the state
championships, Academy is beatable. Granted it has won a majority of
championships but certainly that fact that it has note won every state is a
sign that Academy decks can lose and some players have found cards to beat
Academy. When it comes down to it the demand on the part of players to ban
a card after less than 20 days of tournament play only proves that people
are unwilling to examine the entire card pool. If we look at the release
of Exodus, recur decks did not hit the scene with force until worlds which
was several months after the release of Exodus. Saga is larger than Exodus
and I think that it may just take time for people to uncover ways of
dealing with Academy. If the DCI is going to step in and ban Academy, it
will be doing a great disservice to the dynamics of the game.

As for banning processor in limited, I find this ridiculous. In a limited
format saying one card in 40 is going to take a player to the top is
wrong. First, player competence and skill is a very important thing to
consider read Ted Vessenes' article outlining the importance of player
skill. I was a counselor at the WotC gamecamp over the summer and was
able to attend every Rath sealed PTQ in Seattle. I watched time and again,
average players do well because of key cards early on. However, later
rounds tested a players mettle and that is where the wheat was separated
from the chaff because all the Living Deaths and Scrolls in the game will
not win the games. A player must survive long enough to draw and cast
their power cards. The same is true of the processor where a bad player
who can fail to use processor properly and lose as a result. Perhaps
paying to much life? not attacking and blocking at the right time?
choosing to cast instead of making a token or the opposite. Furthermore
banning in limited goes against the concept of limited play where, you
must use your card pool to build a good deck. If the TO is to say all
people with processor come up and get your Brand as a replacement rare,
are we doing justice to the player who happened upon a processor? I should
think not and what is a suitable replacement, all rares are inherently
broken that is why they are rare because too many in limited/constructed
play would ruin the environment.

David Nitka
dnitka@willamette.edu
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
-Sir Francis Bacon