A man will let a few things slide in his life. You can call his collection crap, you can question his playing skills — heck, you can even NOT read his articles — but don’t call him out on his writing.

Let’s start with a couple observations, things for you to chew on, before I shamefully have to defend my article — a thing no writer should ever have to do.

1. Put away that bag of apologies, Ferrett; if the reader didn’t understand the article then it was by no fault of your own.
2. After the posting of the article I received between twenty and twenty-five rebuttals, some of which I haven’t responded to yet, NONE of which came from people who didn’t write something nasty about me in the bdominia threads or at Star City.
3. I understand that after reading the title, most people probably didn’t bother reading into the article. This preconceived ideology would lead to a misunderstanding of the article... But we NEVER do that in life, do we? (That’s sarcasm.)
4. I’m taking it in the backside in two ways because of the article: I knew that I was going to receive mail, but I wrote the article in this style for a reason. I thought the article I wrote was done brilliantly; it’s the rebuttal article that I hate to write.

I was hoping to do a little defending, some explaining, and give a reason why my article was written the way it was. Fortunately for us, you can read Darren Di Battista’s article from Tuesday. He shares, albeit somewhat aimed towards my head, some of the myths that non-Type One players have.

I found his writing to be informative — although it should have been written in third person. Example?

"Darren Di Battista has seen the rise of at least five new decks in the last few months, two of which Darren Di Battista has created himself."

A patriot for Type One for sure, but I think this patriotism has made Battista a bit jumpy. A reader should never assume they know more than the writer does; you’re in the writer’s hands, you’ll go where he leads you.

And the bdominions, those lovely little patriots, went exactly where they were supposed to — email.

Okay, Okay, Okay... Let me explain something first, then I’ll go into the explanation of the article. As writers, we have to ways to address you — the audience. We can invoke or evoke an audience. It’s controversial to say which works best, but by becoming the other side of the audience I had hoped to get my point across — call it reverse psychology. How does it work? Let me show you:

Yeah I’m with you — Type one sucks.

But then again, maybe it doesn’t.

I’m still one of you, though.

I wonder why it doesn’t suck?

The myths that were presented in the article are exactly that: Myths. I don’t expect an avid Type One player to agree with this, and that may be why so many people just stopped reading and started responding. Lovely! I want to hear from you — in fact, I want you to fill The Ferrett’s mailbox with Type One rebuttals. Ever wonder why Bdominia is the ONLY noteworthy source of Type One information? Ever wanna change that? Are you going to do that by sitting in BDominia bitching about the stagnation of Type One? It’s easy to think that Type One is flourishing when that’s all you ever play. Do you realize that most magic players have NO idea what sets are allowed in Type One? No idea about what’s restricted, even what type of decks are out there — save that blue is in most of them. It’s hard to understand the state of an element when you live in a vacuum.

So let me say that the article was a bit satirical, and it may have seemed confusing if you’re reading it from a vacuum. I should have written it like Darren Di Battista — without the insults, of course.

I can’t argue with any of the other points in Battista’s article. I agree with most all of them (other than Channel-Fireball being a combo...of sorts — it’s definitely a combo, it’s just not used much anymore). He pretty much gives evidence to the arguments that I set out, and that’s what I was hoping for. I want the reader to look at my article and say,"He still plays Type One — I wonder if what he says is true? Maybe I’ll look at the restricted list, or maybe I’ll try and throw together a Type One deck." I suppose Battista’s article is a compliment of sorts.

Because I don’t want this article to become ugly, here are a couple of decks viable in Type One. Do you know the idea behind each of them? Know what colors are in them? Should you find out? (Yes!) MonoBlue, Keeper, Oath, Butter Knives, Pox, Fleshreaver, WW, Parfait, Zoo, 4C Sligh, Three Deuce, Counter-Burn, not to mention a number of decks that are viable after each new set comes out. If you aren’t at least familiar with Type One, then you are not a complete Magic player.

"I hope a whole bunch of people send rebuttals, I’ve already sent one in."

"I was actually discussing the idea of posting a link to this thread or another one that we start on Star City as a kind of group rebuttal to the points raised in the article. I was actually tempted to break my tagline and talk for once and post an article myself...If more events were held in the format, more people would try to play"

Those are some of the replies to my article at Beyond Dominia. I especially like the last one. I like the format fine the way it is.

Here goes my explanation for the article — intended for those who read the title and first paragraph, then skipped to the end:

The title: Type One Sucks. Let’s look at this through the reader’s eye Socrates style. Why does Type One suck? What is this guy talking about? Type One doesn’t suck! Type One? I haven’t heard about that in years.

I had originally titled the article: Type One, the most electrifying format in Magic.

The story: When I started playing, there was no such thing as Type One. We played with the cards we had and most often this equated to playing with ALL the cards we had. After a while, I learned to shave the deck down and play with certain cards that were strong. As a young Magic player, one might get confused along the way. Heck, even as old Magic players we are often confused. I believed that to play a good deck, you had to have expensive cards to support it — we all did. That’s why Mox Ruby is worth more than Camouflage. But it wasn’t until my reintroduction to the game that I noticed it wasn’t the weapons (powerful cards) that wins you games. To win the game, you really have to know the game. What factors into winning? Knowing the metagame certainly helps. How about knowing all the cards that are available to you? Knowing the rules of the tournaments, the errata on certain cards, restriction to the environment. There is certainly more to the game than just the Power Nine.

I start the story by explaining the man carries with him a fire. The fire embodies the game, Magic’s spirit. His torch goes out and he meets a group of people who light it for him. This is something I think has happened to all of us; for one reason or another, we depart Magic. When we come back, we find that rules have changed and cards we used are not as good as they once were.

After a while, playing a format where the same deck seems to always win often leads to boredom. Magic is dependent on change. One deck might be the standard now, but the field will change with the introduction of new sets. You’re in for some trouble if you’re happy with the current state of Magic — change is inevitable.

I was thinking the other day. You know it would be really awkward for my friend to start playing Magic again. When he played it was about Channel-Fireball. It was about playing with the P9 — nearly all of us owned them. I bet if he played today, he’d be in for a surprise. He’d most likely have to adapt. Change. Most people can’t fathom that Type One has changed, though. They see it as they remember it from ages ago. Why is that I wonder? How do we erase stereotypes?

Too often, Magic becomes an argument between right and wrong. My format is better than yours is; casual play is more honorable than pro play, this and that. I try to write to cross those boundaries. If you’ve read my previous articles at www.ccgprime.com, you’d recognize that I try to address issues that mean something to a few people. I challenge readers to do the same.

At the end of my story, I mention that wit is the key element and it is. The love of the game burns in all of us for different reasons. If that fire isn’t fed, we’ll lose it. I believe the best Magic players can fight with any weapon, any arena, any format, and at any time.

Was Type One Sucks a vitriolic and widely-unfounded anti-Type One article? No; it was just the opposite. I laid myself on the line, took the criticism in the hopes that I could spring new life into a format that I love. If you’re unfamiliar with my methods then, by all means, contact me. That’s why I put my email address at the end of my articles.

Viva,

--Smith
Smirk on IRC
Smirk27@hotmail.com
"Shawn Jackson: The man who never met a Magic card he didn’t like."

P.S.: I’m trying to answer all emails sent to me; if I haven’t gotten to yours yet, beware! I’ll be contacting you soon. Mwaha...Mwha...Mwhahahaaa.