Part I of this article can be found here.

Concentrations due to Color Pie shifting
There may be some overlap between the redundancy issue and the color pie shifting issue. When www.magicthegathering.com came on line, we were all taught the virtues of the color pie - that each color has things it does and things it cannot do. Over time Wizards decided to shift some mechanics around because certain colors had too many themes (Blue and Black) and others had too few (Red and White). Other abilities were shifted for thematic reasons, like artifact destruction going to Green from White. While generally this is a good idea, it results in concentrations of theme cards. These concentrations show up most easily in small cardpool formats like Block Constructed. These concentrations essentially make each color a gamble - either the new theme is good and the color is amazing in Block Constructed, or it sucks and the color is not played. This shifting and subsequent concentration is too high stakes an enterprise to be done over the span of one block.

For purposes of illustration let's compare two colors, Green and White. Let's also look at them from the point of view of Green in MirBC (Mirrodin Block Constructed) and White in OBC (Odyssey Black Constructed) and MirBC. Around the time that OnBC (Onslaught Block Constructed) was developed, Wizards decided that Green, as the color of nature, would oppose artifice in all its forms. Thus the ability to destroy artifacts became a major Green theme. Furthermore, the ability to vaporize enchantments, already a Green theme (see: Tranquility, Emerald Charm, and Creeping Mold) was pumped up a bit. As a result we got Naturalize, the Green Disenchant. Destroying an artifact or an enchantment, instead of being seen as function of magical purity (a White theme), was seen as a disdain of unnaturalness (a Green theme), and thus the ability shifted.

In MirBC this disdain of artifice continued with spells like Oxidize, Deconstruct, and Creeping Mold, and creatures like Viridian Shaman, Molder Slug, and Glissa Sunseeker. All in all, this shift resulted in a huge boon to Green, making it the ideal anti-artifact color in a Block based on artifacts. In short, this redoing of a theme and its subsequent concentration worked out well. The gamble paid off and Green is awesome in MirBC.

But a similar shift happened in OBC with White. After Swords to Plowshares and Armageddon were removed from the basic set, White has had exactly two periods in which it was good: Masques-era Block Constructed and Standard, (i.e. formats with Rebels) and OnBC Slide decks. White has been struggling for its identity. In OBC, Wizard's decided to concentrate on White's weenie theme and give it what seemed like a healthy infusion of good small creatures: Pianna, Nomad Captain, Lieutenant Kirtar, and others. But the new concentration failed to have an impact. In part because the U/G Madness decks were too good. Wild Mongrel is vastly superior to any of these creatures, as are Basking Rootwalla, Arrogant Wurm, and Wonder. The result is that White, at least until the very end when it was a splash in a Green deck, sat out OBC.

In MirBC there was yet another push to help White weenie. Wizards again produced seemingly efficient weenies: Auriok Steelshaper, Leonin Skyhunter, and Leonin Shikari along with good weenie Equipment like Bonesplitter, Empyrial Plate, and Skullclamp. Yet again, White weenie could not withstand the pressures of tournament play. Without artifact removal at a reasonable cost and no disruption whatsoever, White is again sitting out a Block Constructed format (at least thus far).

When themes are shifted from color to color, they are invariably produced in greater numbers in the block right after such a shift is endorsed by Wizards. The end result is a huge concentration of cards in theme in the new color. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It worked for Green, but this color theme shift has been disastrous for White for five of the last seven years. Again such gambles limit diversity, by giving colors either too many new good cards or too many new crappy cards. Gradual shifts of themes might result in a more balanced and well developed approach resulting in less of a good-bad dynamic in Block Constructed.

Lack of traditional card types
After PT: Venice, the OnBC Pro Tour, Wizards was trumpeting the first time use of huge creatures in a serious format. They claimed that this was due in part to the purposeful weakening of Blue. Specifically, they claimed that the format allowed for giants because there were no tempo-killing efficient counterspells. This turned out to be only partially true and the format was"ruined" by the time the qualifier season rolled around, but at least their gamble worked for a while. Gaps in traditional card types have great impact on Block Constructed formats. Sometimes they work (for a while) like in OnBC and create never before seen environments, but often times they cause big problems like the whole Thawing Glaicers debacle.

In IABC (Ice Age Block Constructed), there was one card that wrecked the format: Thawing Glaciers. Glaciers allowed players to build up huge amounts of land in play and in their hand and then cast spells like Jokulhaups, wrecking the board while having little impact on their own plans. The addition of Zuran Orb made Glaciers even better. Eventually both cards were banned in the format, but had Wastelands been present (or some other format of efficient land control like Tsabo's Web) Glaciers and Orb would not have been anywhere near the problem they were.

In Mivi Light, where Pros Bloom decks dominated, had Duress been around, the whole combo-tastic format would have been different and cool decks like Voltron (a deck based on the Chimera artifact creatures) might have been a winner. In TBC, had there been an Uktabi Orangutan type creature, something that efficiently killed artifacts and served as a blocker, Cursed Scroll might not have been out of hand. We can keep going, pointing our missing basic abilities that wrecked nearly every Block Constructed format in Magic. Some of this is hindsight, but most of it is the result of spending time with the format.

When Wizard's makes Block Constructed they need to spend lots of time with the format, because flaws here are found quickly. Gaps in basic elements: discard, counters, land kill, artifact removal, and the like might make for unique environments, but if these environments suck, fewer people will play in them. People that work at Wizards are smarter than us average players. They have virtually unlimited resources and get paid to make and play Magic. As such they should test out each of the intentional gaps they make to see if it causes more problems than it is worth, and they need to make sure there are no accidental gaps that would ruin the format. If these mistakes were rarities, we could chalk them up to accident, but nearly every Block Constructed format has had one or two cards that were vastly too powerful in large part because of some lack of a basic ability.

Well-defined tier structure
All the problems mentioned up to now have come together to result in what can only be described accurately as a moron friendly tier structure. In Block Constructed the best decks are found so rapidly and are dramatically better than other decks that few if any new or innovative, yet competitive decks appear in the course of a qualifier season. And those that do appear are often successful only as curiosities that catch the incredibly well-defined metagame resting on its ass. And then the innovators are beaten down by pure power and the metagame returns to its happy, staid, boring shape. This is not the way to run a format, let alone four formats in the last five years.

The well-defined metagame of Block Constructed can been seen in nearly every iteration of the format (excepting IBC, which, if you haven't noticed, has escaped unscathed thus far, for good reasons that will be made clear later). In TBC, Cursed Scroll Red Weenie (i.e. the Dead Guy deck), ripped through the format with not so much as a second thought. So powerful was this block deck that years later at an Invitational event where decks were auctioned off, it was accompanied by a number of stiff penalties including a lower original life total and a smaller hand. After the format was fixed, it quickly became a choice of a few incredibly regimented control decks: TradeAwakening, Dancing Gnomes, or U/R Control.

The same problem repeated any number of times in UBC, each time corrected by a series of bannings. Again, let's not speak of that awfulness. MBC also had a boring metagame of two tier one decks: Rebels and Skies (a.k.a. Anti Rebels). Late in the season, decks like Roshambo and Snuff o' Derm appeared, but only briefly until the heir to the Mono-White Rebel deck, MWC was tweaked to beat them. OBC was perhaps the worst of all time. U/G Madness and MBC dominated every event with only a few renegade decks (Pirates, Tog, and G/W) showing up in small numbers at the very end. OnBC was almost as bad, as R/W and Goblins fought it out the whole time with only brief distractions from Bad Form and U/W. In short, every Block Constructed season is almost entirely defined within a week of the first qualifier.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that Pros play first and weed out decks at a ravenous clip. With a PT before the qualifier season using the same or similar cardpool, the Pros do our work for us. The result is after the Block Constructed PT, nonstandard decks are ignored and no work is done on them. Take, for example, what happened this past year at States and then at PT: Kobe. Non-Pros got the new block cards first. We found that Affinity was good enough to be used in Standard, and the deck had little to no need for non-Block cards. In effect, we built the first block deck. Then PT: Kobe got a hold of the format and our version of Affinity was tossed aside as inferior and slow (partially because of Arcbound Ravager and partially because we built it wrong). [No, almost exclusively because of Ravager. - Knut] In the end, we had a few untouched months to try our hand and explore before the Pros did it for us and it was great.

Another part of the problem stems from obvious decks. As was mentioned in the sections on mechanics and redundancy, decks in Block virtually build themselves. The lack of unexplored room leaves little for us players to do. We simply take the best cyclers, the two best helpers, add some land and tweak. Madness, Rebels, Slide, Goblins, Beasts, Affinity, and many other decks that are the best decks in their respective formats are brainlessly simple to build. Given such obvious and overpowered decks there is little incentive to explore and hardly any profit to be gained. Freak instances like Snuff o' Derm represent the exception and not the rule. Furthermore, decks like these are only successful once, as metagame decks. After the tier one decks can be tweaked to beat them, they fall back into the pack to tier two.

The final problem is unbalanced strategies and colors, which has been alluded to throughout the entire letter. When there are ten strategies that are really good, as there are in Extended or Standard (during the best of times, anyway), having well defined tiers is not an issue, because even amongst the top tiers there is a lot of variety and choice. In block, there are not enough cards to support ten tier 1 or 1.5 decks. As a result, there are usually no more than three truly viable decks in any Block Constructed format. This is clearly not enough to support a six week qualifier season that keeps our attention. The final week of qualifiers in the Block season are routinely the most boring tournaments in Magic.

Pro exploration prior to the qualifier season and nearly premade decks make the tier structure in Block Constructed very strictly defined. Unfortunately this problem, unlike some of the other problems, is more closely tied to the inherent nature of the format. With a small cardpool, it is hard to have a diverse and complex tier structure. Nothing like Steve Menendian's Five Axis metagame would ever be possible (without explicit Wizards design) in Block. As such this is a problem that should be noted and Wizards should do its best to ameliorate it.

Missing tech
Technology, cards that act at solutions to various decks or as tools that make existing decks better, is the heart of tweaking decks. Among the great discoveries in technology, every student of the game has to include things like the Gobvantage engine and then later, the discovery of Food Chain in conjunction with this engine. These pieces of tech, spread out over literally years of sets, came together at last year's Worlds Extended event to dominate those decks they faced (Japanese Gobvantage decks had a 79% winning percentage at the event). Once the surprise of the deck was lost, it continued to win, though at a saner rate. Nonetheless, the tech was found and the format changed.

Another example of tech is the use of Lashknife Barrier in IBC. This single card helped The Solution, a metagame deck, win in a field of diverse and powerful decks. Lashknife Barrier, in comparison to, say, Stabilizer, is an infinitely more subtle (and hence more interesting) fix to powerful strategies in a Block. Domain and gold cards were the main theme in IBC and Lashknife Barrier did not address these issues implicitly or explicitly (Stabilizer).

One of the issues with that particular format was the power of Red. Having seen this or by stroke of luck, Wizards made a card to address this issue-Lashknife Barrier. Even here there was subtlety. Wizards did not make Lashknife Barrier give creatures protection from red. Instead it was a prevention effect that was broadly useful, though particularly brutal against Red. It was a card that was several times more subtle than the stupidity that is Stabilizer. Lashknife Barrier and the Gobvantage engine show that Magic innovation, especially after the metagame has been defined, best comes in the form of tech. The problem with Block Constructed is that it is often too small to support enough tech to make a difference. Instead of tech we get brainless silver bullet solutions like Stabilizer.

The problem of missing tech has a subtle but distinct impact on Block Constructed. MirBC provides a good example of the problem. MirBC is the Artifact Block, an idea that is quite interesting. However, instead of elements that subtly and surprisingly work against artifacts, we get cards like Electrostatic Bolt, Oxidize, Molder Slug, and Damping Matrix. Some of these obvious silver bullets are necessary to keep the environment healthy. However, an infusion of them creates a well known and easily exploitable set of cards to"solve" the problem of the format, namely the dominance of artifact decks like Ravager Affinity. In essence, by using silver bullets to fix the format instead of the more subtle tech cards (like Lashknife Barrier), Wizards gives Block Constructed the Spy v. Spy feel. That is, successful decks are either mechanic decks or anti-mechanic decks packing cards as obvious as Stabilizer. Many of the Pros commented on this problem during PT: Kobe.

Neil Reeves said:"I think it's really dumb and draw dependent. You either play Affinity or you try to play a deck that can beat Affinity and holds its own against the other decks. If you don't put eight to ten cards into your deck specifically for Affinity, then you can't beat it. So you either play Affinity or a deck that tries to beat Affinity, and can maybe beat other stuff. I don't like it. It doesn't seem fun."

Osyp Lebedowicz said:"This format is terrible. All the decks are awful, and I dunno. Skullclamp... it's just stupid. I hate the fact that you have to play cards like Shatter maindeck. It's just a bad format, I hate it! I don't like it! I did badly, that's why it's bad!"

Darwin Kastle said:"It's pretty silly. There isn't much diversity, and so many of my matches were just, 'Okay, you're playing something and I'm playing some version, but who can draw Skullclamp' kind of thing. And basically, your deck could be a lot different but there are twelve key cards and whoever drew the most of them wins. Like, out of Disciple, Skullclamp and Ravager. 'I drew three of them and you drew two of them, so I win.' Then there's the decks that are designed to beat that, like the Furnace Dragon decks. I guess, actually, the French guys had a Tooth and Nail deck, which was a little bit original, so credit to them. But in general, it isn't a diverse field and a lot of the matches are very luck oriented. I know a lot of people who are playing the same deck, and one of them is almost undefeated and another one is 0-4. That's happened multiple times and it's kind of frustrating. It's not even because one person is a good player and the other one isn't."

Brian Kibler said:"This is one of my least favorite formats to play in a long, long time. I think the games have far too high variance, and are too draw dependent. Overall, I think matchups come down to who draws more of a certain card. It's not that the cards are too good, it's just that some cards are far better than others. There's too much of a power gap, so in the Affinity matchups whoever gets the most Ravagers, Disciples and Skullclamps is going to win."

While some of the venom above could be attributed to poor performance, the fact remains that the Pro's critiques of the format and Block Constructed in general hold true. The lack of subtle tech, among other things, contributes to the coin flip feel of Block Constructed and as a result many players, even people who get paid to play, are turned off by Block Constructed. Wizards needs to be more crafty in their balancing of the format. We need more Lashknife Barriers and less Stabilizers or Electrostatic Bolts.

Some Solutions
So we have laid out the issue, the numbers, and the problems of Block Constructed. We have, hopefully, shown through numbers, examples, and analysis why Block Constructed has been a horrible format for the last few years. Now, we are going to try to propose some solutions. Some of them might be radical (like, ditch the format) and others will try to work inside the framework we have been given. Thus we will divide the solutions into two camps: radical solutions and reform solutions.

First the radical solutions. Many people might say that it is useless to make suggestions for such sweeping change, but this argument is without basis. In fact, there are a good number of precedents to show that if we complain loudly enough, Wizards will do something radical.

The first precedent is the split between Vintage and Standard that occurred many years ago. The power of the old cards was so great that buying new cards was sort of pointless. Why by Ice Age cards when none of them, except for Necropotence, were anywhere near as good as Ancestral Recall? Because of this huge problem, Wizards divided Constructed into two formats: Type 1 (Vintage) and Type 2 (Standard). Type 1 used every card in the game. Type 2 used only new cards. Other instances have also allowed for radical type changes: the birth of Type 1.5 and Extended, the Uzra's Block debacle (which resulted in probably the largest business side change), and the recent trend of making cards for Vintage. Radical level change is possible.

Reform changes are smaller in scope. These are best seen as tweaks, and while we think some of the radical level changes would work, we are realistic in assuming that the odds that they are adopted are slim and thus we suggest more measured changes. There is precedent for these types of changes as well. The failure to rotate out dual lands in Extended is the best example that comes to mind, but there have been dozens of such changes in Magic (the Paris rule Mulligan, the Go/Draw rule, and the like).

Radical Solutions
Insofar as radical changes are concerned we think that there are few ideas that would solve the problem. First is abandoning Block Constructed altogether in favor of a format with a larger cardpool like Standard. Second is modifying Block Constructed to the rotating format. Third, and certainly the most radical, Wizards could create a block that uses entirely new colors, with a mix of old abilities and new abilities, all of which are more evenly distributed than they are now in the present scheme, much like what was originally intended with Ice Age.

Drop Block Constructed
Some people have contended, especially on the thread that was the genesis for this letter, that Block Constructed is fatally flawed. Phil, for the most part, believes this. I, however, have yet to make up my mind. I think that formats like IBC and to a lesser extent TBC show that it is possible to have a balanced, dynamic and engaging Block Constructed format. I think that what IBC proves is that without a bit of luck (as in TBC), good planning is the only way to make sure that the Block Constructed format works. As the first set developed entirely after the Urza's debacle, IBC was much more closely scrutinized and tested. The result - what we believe to be the best block ever and the best Block Constructed format ever. It is hard to ignore the poor track record Block Constructed has, but the fact that IBC was a good format is the only thing giving me hope that the format can be saved. The fact remains, however, that we do have a format with a nice sized cardpool that contains cards that are easily accessible to everyone. It is called Standard, an ironic name given how underemphasized it is in tournament level Magic.

In Standard decks like Slide, which were dominant in Block Constructed, are tempered by the power of certain staple cards and block decks from the previous block. Slide, for instance, is hurt by the presence of Mana Leak and other efficient counterspells. Similarly decks like U/G Madness were stopped, or at least slowed down, by Wrath of God. Using Standard instead of Block for the non-Extended Constructed format solves a number of the problems mentioned above.

Concentrations in the color pie are less noticeable. White, for example, while terrible in MirBC, is much better in OnBC and Standard. Because the core set contains so many proven cards, there is less of a likelihood of the theme shifting gamble crippling an entire color. Wrath of God alone insures that White will see some play in Standard. This phenomenon also solves the problem of gaps in basic card types that allow certain cards or decks to run wild in Block Constructed. The size of Standard also usually gives rise to a multiplicity of competitive decks. Because there are always two blocks in Standard, there are usually at least four decks that are viable. Sometimes one deck is much better than others, like right now, but usually there are two or three tier 1 decks and a handful of tier 1.5 decks that are viable in Standard. So even with a well-defined tier structure there are enough decks in the top tiers to allow for a wide latitude of playstyles.

Finally, the large cardpool, essentially three independent sets of cards (Block 1, the Core set, and Block 2), is big enough to support a great deal of tech. Cards like Revive, as was used in States to bolster Green land destruction decks, or Vine Trellis in Standard versions of Twelve Post (allowing the deck to both withstand early rushes and effectively skip turn 3) are excellent examples of the type of tech missing from Block Constructed. Likewise the unexpected interaction between Fires of Yavimaya (an IBC card), Green mana creatures (two Core set cards), and Fading (an MBC mechanic) was impressive to say the least. These innovations and solutions to those innovations are more likely to occur in Standard rather than in Block Constructed.

The major problem with switching from Block Constructed to Standard is that the switch does not solve the two largest problems facing - the overly synergistic deck problem and the redundancy issue. When decks are as syngergistic as U/G Madness or Affinity, moving from Block Constructed to Standard is hardly important. The decks remain virtually untouched by the Core set or the previous block, and they are so naturally powerful that, even in a larger cardpool, they are dominant. History proves this to be true. U/G Madness dominated OBC, then Standard, then Extended, and now see play in Vintage. The deck is so tightly designed around a handful of incredible cards that, apparently format does not matter.

Affinity is largely the same thing. At States, a clearly inferior version of Affinity was by far the most successful deck in the field. Even without Ravager, hindsight shows us that the aggro version, properly built, was better than the control version we were using. Ravager Affinity completely dominated Regionals this year on a level hardly seen in recent Magic history, and has the potential to be a contender in Extended and Vintage as well. So switching formats might not solve all the problems. It will certainly exacerbate one of them. Switching from Block Constructed to Standard will only add more redundancy to decks. The Red Burn deck from PT: Kobe can now add Shock, Starstorm, and Volcanic Hammer to its already copious cache of burn spells.

While it may seem like a panacea, switching from Block Constructed to Standard without any other changes will likely not solve the problems mentioned above. If interrelated mechanics are banned or tamed down, the change might be worthwhile. That said, this solution is certainly the easiest to implement and still supports Wizards business plan of having an easily accessible Constructed format. Finally, this is the most administratively simple of the radical solutions

Modifying Block Constructed
At the Invitationals, before they were turned into commercials for Magic Online, there were creative formats that were designed to test the Pro's skills at various tasks. Two of these formats were Build Your Own Block (BYOB) and Block Party. BYOB was exactly what it sounded like - players built decks using cards from the major expansion in a block and any other two minor expansions. So a deck could be built using Mirrodin, Visions, and Exodus, or Tempest, Betrayers of Kamigawa, and Weatherlight. The idea was that decks had to use cards that were not designed together. The other format, Block Party, was much less complicated. Basically it was a challenge of Block decks. That is, the best TBC decks would face off against the best MirBC had to offer. Block Party would all solve any of the problems above, it would just diversify the choice of top decks. In the end though, many of the super decks that have emerged from Block Constructed, like U/G Madness and Affinity, would likely dominate. But these two formulations are merely examples of how Wizards could alter the format to make it more exciting.

One way they could modify Block Constructed would be to allow the basic set to be used. This would increase the size of the cardpool and add some crucial card types, but it would make the format too similar to Standard. Another idea would be to allow a set list of cards to be used in all block decks even if they were not in that block, kind of like the hold over dual lands in Extended. Another idea would be to do what Wizards did at the first Pro Tour and require that each set contribute a certain number of cards. This would certainly change things up. There are an innumerable number of options that could be experimented with here, but they all are trying to subtly alter the make up of the Block. What we think would be interesting would be something a bit different.

Instead of having a Block Constructed season, Wizards could have one season a year as a rotating season. One year it could Block Constructed, the next year it could be Standard, and the next year it could be something along the lines of Invitational formats, a Highlander format, or a Race-based format. Constantly changing the format might be logistically difficult, but it would have a number of rewards.

First, it would lessen the impact of poorly designed blocks. Because we'd be exposed to them every so often, all of their incumbent flaws would be an issue once every three years instead of once a year. Second, it would keep players on their toes, waiting with baited breath to see what the new format would be. Redundancy, tier structure, and missing tech would all be solved. If the format itself was new, none of the issues that hinder the expected Block Constructed format would surface quickly, if ever. When the format for PT: New York, the first Pro Tour, was announced, it was seen as a challenge. I can remember many people wondering what Wizards would do next, how they would screw around with the basic elements of the game next. In the end, that never happened, and PT formats became staid and somewhat boring. Finally, it would allow for some experimentation that better reveal how to fix some of the problems listed above. Different formats would emphasize different issues and this would allow Wizards to uncover design mistake and design boons, more easily. The only real drawback is the logistics of creating and implementing a new or different format every year.

Changing Magic altogether for one block
This solution is an extreme one, one that Phil does not endorse in any way. As was recounted above, Ice Age was originally conceived as a brand new beginning for Magic. In the end, it was more a reinterpretation of Magic than a new beginning. What I am proposing here is a truly new beginning: the old colors were be abandoned and five new colors would be invented.

These colors would have entirely new themes and distribute old themes in new ways. The experiment would be for one block and one block only, in an effort to give Wizards a peek at what is working and what is not. Starting from scratch would let Wizards tinker with the color pie and see why certain colors cannot be rehabilitated under the current approach. It would also help answer some basic questions that go to the heart of Magic itself. For example, if we had a new color pie (with, for example, brown, gray, purple, yellow, and teal, whatever) we would probably be able to figure out whether having one weak color is necessary. We would also see if abilities like instant speed card drawing could be brought back when paired with different abilities instead of counterspells (notice the synergy between two instant speed abilities). In essence, the re-imagined block would be a huge experiment with the entire Magic community participating.

This is, of course, tremendously problematic. This solution is the Obliterate-caliber solution offered here. It is the reset button and should not be taken lightly. Some of the more mundane problems include the following. Could the five new colors be mixed with the five old colors (sure, why not)? Would Standard be a ten color format? What about Extended and Vintage? What would the new themes be (a limited tutoring ability or mechanic has always seemed promising)? How could Wizards take so much time off of their regular product? How could they devote the appropriate resources necessary to reincarnate the game? And finally, would it be profitable?

None of these questions have any answers that are firm, but what is apparent is that Block Constructed, as it has been previously conceived, sucks. The question is: does it suck enough to start over entirely, at least for one block? I am not sure, but this is one way to guarantee that the format would be interesting. It is almost a guarantee that it would sell, but the long term impact is nearly impossible to calculate. Again, this is sort of a solution of last resort, the Magic equivalent of Carnegie's solution to blow up the train to keep rail lines moving.

Reform Solutions
All of the radical changes, except for the first one, are pretty far out there. There is little chance of the other two being implemented. But reform level changes, that is, slight corrections within the format, are far more likely to have an impact. There are, however, quite a few reform changes. First, Wizards could institute a per se ban on interrelated mechanics. They could more extensively test helper/mechanic cards, free helpers, and trigger or static helper cards. They could also make sure that the mechanics truly oppose each other, as in TBC.

Another idea is that they could simply count tournament viable cards with mechanics and force each color to have an equal share of the mechanics or themes in a Block. They could also institute shifts in color pie themes over a longer period of time, so as to alleviate the all or nothing problem. They could also balance out colors that miss a mechanic by printing good non-mechanic related cards in that color. They could also guarantee that certain cards will always be reprinted thus insuring that no one card could break loose and dominate a format. One easy solution to the staleness of Block Constructed would be to have the Block Constructed PT after the non-Pros had a crack at the format. Finally, Wizards must institute better testing policies to guard against well-defined tier structures and to uncover design space that could be filled by tech cards that would correct the given block's trouble spots, instead of opting for cheap fixes.

Creating Conflicting Mechanics and banning Interrelated Ones
"Ban" is such an awful word in Magic. Sometimes, however, it is called for. Unlike banning a card though, banning a policy can be undone quickly once the problem has been addressed. Wizards needs to take a break from the overly synergistic strategies that arise out of tightly related mechanics. They need, at least for a while, to rethink how mechanics interrelate, and at least for one block, should probably just forget about interrelated mechanics altogether.

The best idea would be to adopt an approach seen in TBC where mechanics are at odds with each other, or like IBC where the mechanic, by definition, was evenly distributed, or like OnBC, where the mechanics were unrelated. Block Constructed, as a format, and Magic players, as a community, cannot take another dose of U/G Madness or Affinity. These decks ruin formats for years at a time and even damage Vintage.

TBC's approach is probably the most interesting because it would allow players to weight fundamentally antagonistic strategies. Two equally powerful mechanics at odds with each, and their foil decks, keeping with the way Block Constructed has worked in recent years, would at least double the number of viable decks. Right now we have the Spy v. Spy metagame of mechanic decks v. anti-mechanic decks. In the TBC style environment, there would be Mechanic 1 deck v. Anti-mechanic 1 deck v. Mechanic 2 deck v. Anti-mechanic 2 deck, already a far more interesting dynamic than what we have now. The main fight, as it was in TBC, was between the two major mechanics, Shadow, which was a boon to aggro, and Buyback, a boon to control, but given the way Wizards has fixed issues in MirBC, anti-strategy decks would be good as well (see: PT: Kobe's Red Burn and MGC decks). This simple shift doubles the number of decks and multiples the interesting matchups.

IBC's approach, that of the domain theme, is probably too difficult to do again, without simply repeating the theme. I am sure that the braintrust at Wizards (we mean this literally - we both have tremendous respect for R&D), however, could think of another mechanic or theme that embraces each color equally and requires colors to work together. How that is done, we do not know. Lastly, and perhaps most easily, Wizards could do the safe thing and make unrelated mechanics. This would guarantee no U/G Madness level problems, but it might not solve any of the other problems mentioned above.

Whatever Wizards decides to do, they really need to understand only one thing from this entire letter: Prebuilding Overly Synergistic Decks Ruins Magic's Best Feature, Creative Deckbuilding, And Block Constructed Formats. This is bolded because it is the major message here. There is no way a reasonable player, examining Block Constructed and Magic as a whole over the past seven years, could avoid that conclusion. Try something else, but please no more Affinity decks or U/G Madness decks.

Correcting Helper cards
This is a more subtle point, and something that may not be apparent right away. Helper cards really make or break a mechanic, so they need to be designed with extra attention. The numbers from PT: NY and PT: Kobe make clear that cards like Lin Sivvi and Arcbound Ravager, that is cards we deemed helper/mechanic cards, are too powerful. This is what we in the law call precedent. If the most broken cards in Block Constructed are repeated the same kind of card, maybe that card is too good. That is what is happening here. Perhaps the solution involves tinkering with the mechanic or the cost of the helper/mechanic cards themselves. Whatever the solution, the numbers show that these cards are dangerous. So before Wizards decides to make a card help a mechanic and have a mechanic at the same time, they should pause and consider that card carefully.

Given these cards' dominance, it might not be out of hand to suggest a sort of fast mana rule level of scrutiny. Cards that bend the rules, help other cards bend the rules, and are on the same piece of cardboard are always potential menaces.

Free helpers or static helpers are somewhat less problematic because they necessitate the use of another card, but they remain something to be vigilant about. They represent something for nothing, an exchange that is always welcomed in a game of resource management. Imagine for a second what would happen if one player knew of the castle rule in chess and the other did not. This sort of"metaknowledge" about a free resource would have a huge impact on that player's strategy. The same happens in Magic when one deck has a free resource another deck does not. Wonder and Affinity cards show just how dangerous free stuff is - it allows the appropriate mechanic deck to play with a whole new set of rules. So again, perhaps a red flag should attach to each card in development that is a free helper or a helper with a static ability or triggered ability that aids a mechanic.

Balancing Colors with Mechanics and those without
Simple, non-mechanic cards are premium design space in Magic. There are only so many times you can remake spot artifact removal. There are only so many times you can make a new way to kill a creature. Elegant cards like Mogg Fanatic, Oxidize, and Smother represent the price guides for certain abilities. As such there are only so many times Wizards can make these types of cards.

The point here is that when there is an obvious imbalance among the colors Wizards should reprint these simple cards to correct such imbalances. If, instead of bad Flashback, Threshold, and Madness cards (for the most part) and virtually no consistent ways to discard, Wizards had simply given red some good basic cards in OBC, perhaps the format would have been a bit more diverse. How much harm could have been done by printing Pillage in OBC, which would have been an enormous help against Cabal Coffers powered MBC decks? What about reprinting Fireball? Or Mogg Fanatic? Doing so would have likely made Red somewhat useful in the face of uber-mechanic decks without tipping the scales.

To prove the point negatively, was there any reason to print Innocent Blood in a format with Faceless Butcher, Braids, Chainer's Edict, and Mutilate? Why not save this effect for a block in which Black is weak or cannot partake in the block mechanics? By using the few simple cards they have at their disposal in strategic ways, Wizards can correct for imbalances in block formats caused by a sometimes necessary unequal division of mechanics amongst the colors. The next block in which Red sucks and there is no Volcanic Hammer or Shock is a sign of laziness. The same goes for each color and a number of good elemental effects that have proven themselves as tournament viable yet not unbalancing cards. Here is a sample list:

Black: Duress, Smother, Rain of Tears

Blue: Repulse, Exclude, Mana Leak, Concentrate

Green: River Boa, Viridian Shaman, Ravenous Baloth

Red: Volcanic Hammer, Pillage, Wildfire Emissary

White: Black or Silver Knight, Honorable Passage, Armageddon

Each of these cards represents proven card types that have worked in various formats and are in theme for their respective colors. The point is not that every block should include all or some of these cards, but merely when there is a known deficiency in one color some of the"classics" should be reprinted to bring that color up to speed.

[This article is completed in Part III.]

Footnotes:
1: Note that Mivi Light, with Fireblast, Hammer of Bogardan, and Firestorm, could have supported an amazing burn deck, but by design or coincidence Honorable Passage"patched" a damage prevention gap, and the format was spared a brutal deck.

2: Note the subtle power of Natural Selection in IBC, another example of good, yet quiet tech.

3: By now I hope you have picked up on how much I HATE Stabilizer. It is one of the worst cards ever made. It essential reads:"Oh crap, we screwed up. Here have this as a fix."

4: Phil told me over email that I had to detach his name from this section. He thinks this is crazy, beyond the pale, and I sort of agree with him, but I think that at least putting this option on the table is helpful. It serves as a canary in the mine, so to speak: when people start bandying around this solution things are bad and seem to be getting worse.

5: Early in his career the steel mogul Andrew Carnegie worked for a railroad company and during the summer his boss was away on vacation. During this period a huge train wreck occurred and threatened to bottleneck the entire line's traffic. The engine was too heavy to lift and a swift thinking Carnegie figured out that the loss in profits from the stopped traffic was greater than the cost of replacing engine and gave instructions to blow up the derailed train. He received a promotion and well....you know the rest.

6: Phil disagrees with me on this point. He believes that the Pros should have a first crack at the new format because their labor at building new decks is what spurs players to buy more cards. I understand his argument but I disagree for two reasons. First, I think that drafting and Limited is what sells more packs, while the post-PT buzz merely sells singles. Wizards would likely see this merely as a small and indirect bump in revenue. The secondary market receives most of this benefit. Second, I think that allowing non-Pros to work on the format causes just as much buzz. Look at the hubbub on the web surrounding States and Regionals, the last of the major non-Pro events.