Your Playgroup and Proxies

IzexD says... #2

My guys only allow proxies when we play vintage once a month and its a tournament. Other than that we just play full unproxy legacy.

October 23, 2014 9:07 p.m.

MattTheNinja says... #3

In my LGS they have proxy Legacy games on Thursdays so get more people informed about the format. The only stipulation is that you must play the same archetype for at least two weeks in a row because changing decks every week won't teach you anything. As for my casual play with my friends, proxies are allowed if you're testing a deck, but once you've tested it enough to see whether you like it or not, proxying is only allowed if you're actually going to get the deck.

I think proxies are fine as long as you plan to actually get the cards. It is a way for you to test different decks and see if its worth the money to you.

October 23, 2014 9:13 p.m.

Seraphicate says... #4

For us, proxy only if considering cards or if they're in the mail, and only if proxies are well-printed (bad proxies are an eyesore to most of us).

October 23, 2014 9:59 p.m.

xlaleclx says... #5

I can't see any valid reason not to allow proxies in casual/playtesting

October 23, 2014 10:02 p.m.

CastleSiege says... #6

My group is perfectly okay with a proxies, as long as you don't go overboard with them, have the intent to buy them, or actually have the card but don't want to put the real deal in a deck due to its value.

October 23, 2014 10:13 p.m.

smash10101 says... #7

Most playgroups that disallow or limit proxies are saying it's unfair to play a Black Lotus if you're not gonna buy one. They almost never consider the ethical and legal issues of WotC owning Magic. A lot of people also use Cockatrice to play without paying WotC their fair share.

Personally, I am fine with proxies while you are still acquiring the deck. (cards in mail or whatever) One of my playgroups uses them anyways, and I have no way to stop them. I think I am in the minority in that group.

October 23, 2014 10:24 p.m.

Hootiequack says... #8

We do proxy cards if we are play testing a new idea. We just write the names on paper and slip them in the sleeves over tokens our other cards. It helps us brew decks before we drop a bunch of money on new cards. But any even remotely competitive game, be it standard, edh, or the cube we're putting together, we use the real thing. There's just something about having the card that makes winnable games seem more realistic.

I guess it also helps that we are in similar financial situations. If somebody could afford playsets of goyfs while the rest of us were scrounging for a single snappy, it might be different. But we're all in pretty much the same level which helps.

October 23, 2014 10:34 p.m.

JonathanSamurai says... #9

My friends and I are budget players for sure. We split boxes or fat packs and usually scrap together decks a little at a time. I think proxies are fine for casual or play testing cause it's good to know investments will matter before you buy. Last thing you want to do is buy a lot of cards cause it "should" work, then find out it doesn't. Magic can get expensive with certain cards quickly becoming staples in their respective formats. Sometimes you have to compromise but sometimes you can get that key card. Tournaments are a different story. If I don't have the card I'll find something else to take that slot, close as possible functionally to that card. Usually you can find a compromise for something, some things you can't. Proxies help cause you know from playing whether you need the card or something else.

October 23, 2014 11:04 p.m.

CrazyLittleGuy says... #10

I'm with xlaleclx here; I don't see any valid reasons to not proxy. Not liking it when good cards are run against you isn't a valid reason, no matter how you phrase it.

As for your point smash10101, I don't think proxying creates any serious issues for WotC. When you buy from a secondary market, aren't you already not paying WotC their "fair share"? They have no investment in it, and any profit they gain is solely from sealed product. While it is true that they will gain or lose money based on how in demand a set is (derived from its value on the secondary market), purchasing the actual deck online in singles gives WotC a net total of $0. So how do I pay them their "fair share" then? Do I have to get all my cards from sealed product?

I like to test with many different decks, especially for fluid formats like Standard, so I frequently will proxy out an entire deck even without the intent to buy it. That's how you get better as a player or gain a better knowledge of a format; you pilot all the different decks, experiencing their intricacies and playstyles. How can you reliably beat a deck if you're not familiar with how best to pilot it? How do you attack the lines of play that you've never experienced yourself?

October 23, 2014 11:12 p.m.

miracleHat says... #11

I am okay with proxies under two conditions:
1. you have the card in another deck (my friend plays ~4 u/b/x decks)
2. you plan to Acquire the cards very quickly.

Sadly, my playgroup and I don't see Eye to Eye on this. For example, both of my friends think that it is perfectly okay to proxy Mishra's Workshop , The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale , abur duals, and god know what else.

To answer your questions directly ThisIsBullshit (what was the influence of that name?):
1. I think that proxies are subjugated to ones beliefs. If you plan to actually get the cards, then go ahead and proxy them. Please don't fully proxy out decks. I have had more than one friend quit playing tcg's because he proxied +10 decks and realized that he would never complete them entirely so he quit (he soon got arrested for blah blah blah).
2. My playgroup doesn't limit proxies at all. My friend proxied a pauper deck, then decided that he wanted to try out vintage and proxied that out.

Overall, i have mixed feelings about proxies.

October 23, 2014 11:23 p.m.

smash10101 says... #12

WotC has actually invested in the secondary market. The game they've spend over 20 years developing supports the market and they also created the tournament structure that allows the secondary market to exist. With out it, all our cards would be nearly worthless since you couldn't win money with them.

Also, when you buy singles, it lowers the number available in the open market, which means that more need to be opened. Sure, we're never running out of Gutter Skulk s, but proxying that Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker for your EDH deck means that less people will be opening Khans looking for them.

There is also the issue of art. Would you take some famous painting (that is still under copyright) and make a print of it to put up on your wall? The artist deserves to be payed for their work. If you print the cards out, you're stealing the art, among other things.

October 23, 2014 11:27 p.m.

MousatosMounatos says... #13

Lol...I have never used proxies, because i like building 50$ max decks. But what is the problem with proxies? Relax guys, you act like proxying is a crime. If you want to play magic, but you ain't got the money, you simply proxy the cards.If someone has a problem with that, he can go make out with a cactus :)It is not like you steal someone or something.At my LGS we allow poxies and always will.There are some kids that are always complaining, bu we simply don't care:):)You see, they come in store every day or so, purchasing 5-6 boosters per time(THAT IS 24-30 EUROS WE TALKING ABOUT).Another problem, is that when you constantly play with a deck, it gets BORING!!!Even if it is full official cards. If someone builds a deck and purchases the cards, only to get bored with it after 2 months or so, it just isn't worth its money. Not anyone has all the money to build the decks he wants.In a nutshell, proxies are a problem for all the butthurt spoiled persons, that feel somewhat special for owning some cards. GROW UP!

October 24, 2014 12:01 a.m.

CrazyLittleGuy says... #14

@smash10101

WotC's actions cause the secondary market to exist, correct. That doesn't mean that the secondary market dictates their profits. The fact that cards have value as a result of the tournament system sells their products; it doesn't mean that the actual purchasing and selling of those cards in the secondary market moves any money into or out of their hands, except perhaps by indirect correlation. However, they have stated publicly that they don't particularly care about the secondary market. While that may be up for debate based on their actions, it is still the position they have taken.

Yes, that's a good point, but this is in a scenario of decisions based on buying a card versus proxying a card. That is not ever the case for me. I can't speak for others with complete certainty, but I would assume that if proxying was no longer a thing, instead of having many players buying more cards you would instead just have players playing with less decks in general. Budget players are the majority, and to them, the decision is something more like proxying the card versus not ever playing with it. All because you no longer have access to the free version doesn't mean the regular one is any more attainable (in fact the opposite, since prices no longer have to be reasonable to compete with proxies). I can't be certain of this argument though, and I concede you might be right, but I don't think there's a conclusive way to figure it out. However, if you're right and stand by that opinion that would nullify the argument that "You should only proxy cards that you're getting." If you have the means to get the card, then get it, since that would affect the supply of that card. If you can't ever afford or don't have any reason to attempt to get the card, but still wish to use it, then proxy it, since you're not subtracting from a potential market anyway.

I'm not really going to go into the art argument because it seems inconsequential to me. There isn't really a comparison. Plus, the artist gets payed regardless of whether WotC sells those cards or not. That's how commissioned work goes from my experience; I don't think royalties can be payed in a scenario like this.

I actually enjoy this discussion. Thanks for making me think about it. I don't think I'll change my opinion, maybe because I'm stubborn, but this has made me reevaluate my stance in such a way as to ascertain my exact reasoning and the support I have for doing so.

October 24, 2014 12:11 a.m.

Epochalyptik says... #15

@MousatosMounatos: That's an incredibly narrow representation of the people who are opposed to proxying.

I allow people to proxy cards in one of the following situations:

They own the cards and don't feel like moving them from deck to deck. I'm an EDH player. I can understand if you don't want to move all your ABUR duals and fetch lands around between games just so you can change decks.
They don't own the cards, but playtesting is a critical factor in determining whether or not they will own the cards. I'm not going to force you to buy a deck you're not yet even sure you want to play.
They ordered the cards, but they aren't here yet.

That said, I can understand the fourth scenario, in which casual players want to be able to come up with a new deck relatively often without selling organs or orifices to do so.

BUT, if you're playing in an event (which is to say you're playing in a competitive environment that rewards you for doing well), you're going to play with real cards. Not only is it unfair to WOTC and to the players invested in the game for you to compete in an event without actually owning any of the requisite materials, it violates several DCI rules.

I would, without hesitation or reconsideration, report to the DCI any store that permitted unofficial proxies (proxies are only legal for use if they were issued by the head judge, and only if they were issued to replace a card damaged over the course of the event) in official events. Allowing proxies in casual play is one thing, but they are not to be used in sanctioned play unless they meet the defined requirements.

October 24, 2014 12:17 a.m.

Lordofevolution says... #16

My group does full proxy legacy deck my friend and I are 16, ones paying for college and the oldest has to worry about medical and buying new baby stuff none of us are going to buy full playsets of underground sea and goyfs I have two my friend has 3 and change one prints a new one off every week without proxied I wouldn't nearly be the player I am now.

October 24, 2014 12:20 a.m.

Scytec says... #17

@MousatosMounatos - Have you ever heard of Copyright laws? It IS illegal to proxy cards. While I am not necessarily opposed to it, and I have done it once or twice myself to see how a deck plays out, that does not change the fact that it is illegal, ESPECIALLY if you sell those copies for any reason and turn a profit. Do I think WotC is going to hunt you down for printing out that last Bloodsoaked Champion you need to complete your deck? No. But they are within their legal rights to do so if they wished. Out group only allows proxies to test an idea, or try a new format. We do NOT condone the use of them in any form of comoetetive play. If you don't have the card, trade up, or build around it.

October 24, 2014 12:25 a.m.

Rabid_Wombat says... #18

As someone who was buying MTG Alpha boosters and starters twenty years ago I'm cool with proxies as it evens out the playing field. Except when I play against someone who has 4x Squadron Hawk proxies in his deck, it's a common for flips sake- go spend four bucks and get back to me. Or even worse was the emo guy running 4x proxy Garruk, Apex Predator by having "Garruk Apex" scrawled with a sharpie on a Revised Swamp- no stats/text , nada- he plays the card and asks the store "How many loyalty tokens does Garruk, Apex Predator enter play with?" First time I ever wanted to rage quit a game that I was winning.

October 24, 2014 12:47 a.m.

xlaleclx says... #19

Very casual players seem to have an issue with proxies for some reason :/
Proxies are VERY necessary for playtesting

October 24, 2014 12:49 a.m.

smash10101 says... #20

@Rabid_Wombat: I was playtesting standard a week or two ago, and my deck was still missing 4 Springleaf Drum s (which a friend was getting to me at FNM that week) so I asked the people I was with if they had any random cards I could just throw in backwards to represent them, and a friend pulled out 4 basic forests with "Splinter Twin" written on them in gold marker. This totally falls under the "cards are in the mail" category, but they are just about the douchiest proxies imaginable. I also got a judge call one time because a player didn't know if his korean Searing Blood was an instant or sorcery.

I am totally fine with people using placeholders in their EDH decks (or even modern or legacy or whatever) if they don't want to switch out 10 cards to change decks (so long as it's just casual). I don't do it, but I also only play one U/B/? deck that wants my Underground Sea (sorry Karona, no duals for you) and I hate switching around my cards.

October 24, 2014 1:17 a.m.

nayrash5 says... #21

I am willing to accept proxies in casual formats like EDH and Cube, but I refuse to allow them in tournament formats like Modern and Standard.

October 24, 2014 1:55 a.m.

TelleoStar says... #22

My group mostly plays EDH. When we occasionally play legacy, we use completely proxies decks, because it's not worth spending the money on decks we don't use frequently. In EDH, we let newer player proxy more, on the assumption that they don't have the value to trade for what they need yet. Older players can proxy up to five cards worth no more than fifty dollars.

October 24, 2014 2:38 a.m.

MagicalHacker says... #23

In tournaments, no, proxies are unfair and illegal.

However, since I'm a poor college kid, I couldn't play magic if it weren't for playgroups that allowed proxying.

For a playgroup to basically tell me that I'm not allowed to play magic with them because I'm too poor seems really REALLY stupid.

October 24, 2014 8:05 a.m.

TelleoStar says... #24

I agree with the sentiment, MagicalHacker, but there should be some limit. There are cards that are really not very fun to okay against that are also very expensive, so limits to proxies prevents people from just stuffing their decks with eldrazi and such.

October 24, 2014 8:15 a.m.

Epochalyptik says... #25

@MagicalHacker: The counterargument is that playing with proxies isn't really playing Magic. Playgroups are well within their rights to tell you that you can't use proxies if they feel that the use of proxies is contradictory to the environment they want.

October 24, 2014 9:25 a.m.

Rhadamanthus says... #26

Any Tournament Organizer who allows proxies for use in actual sanctioned events needs to be reported to the DCI.

Among my personal casual playgroup, we've pretty much never used proxies. They appear from time to time when one of us is brewing a new deck and needs to sort out some ideas, but are never used for a "final" deck. The only exceptions I can think of are when some cards were literally in the mail or "I'm running out of basics somehow, so pretend all these Forest s are Swamp s."

For proxy supplies when I do happen to be brewing a deck and don't have everything I need, I save the advertisement cards I get from booster packs and just write on them in permanent marker. The card stock isn't exactly the same as a regular Magic card, but once they're sleeved up they don't feel unusual.

October 24, 2014 11:19 a.m.

MagicalHacker says... #27

TelleoStar, I think that the limit should be decided by each person proxying cards. For example, I don't proxy JTMS in my control deck because it's unfair to proxy. I put a limit to the ABUR duals and any nonland that costs more than 25. Because of that, goodstuff strategies don't appeal to me, so I wouldn't build a 1500 dollar deck to play with cards that have mediocre synergy with each other. I'd love to be able to even include Snapcaster Mage in my control deck, but I have my rules and I will abide by them.

What I honestly wish I could find is a playgroup that plays primarily proxied cards. That way, money isn't a factor in deck building, and each card choice is about our mental decision of whether it would help the deck or not. (I play commander primarily so each card slot would be hand picked off all the possibilities.) These decks would be more along the lines of the vision for its builder and would be more fun honestly.

If you know someone who does a lot of proxying of extremely expensive cards, there are two ways to deal with that person: proxy expensive cards as well to possibly show him what he is doing wrong or to even the playing field, or let him verbally know that the expensive cards he has proxied are unfair to the rest of the group. If he is not a douche, he will respond in a way that makes the metagame more fun for everyone.

Epochalyptik, Is listening to a song that was pirated "not really listening to that song"? I see proxying and pirating both as non official forms of entertainment, so in the same way a player wouldn't play in a profession video game tournament with a pirated version of the game, proxied shouldn't be allowed professionally, but when it comes to a social gathering of players, I have never met a group of nice people ever say that they don't allow proxies in their games. Honestly, if I ever met a group who outright said no proxied during casual games, I would gladly not be a part of their social group because saying that you must own or soon own the cards to play with them is actually saying "we only play with people rich enough to play with the cards they want to play with". In fact, I would recommend other players to play with proxies because I don't want other people to be limited by what cards they have or don't have.

October 24, 2014 12:18 p.m.

ThisIsBullshit says... #28

miracleHat I decided on this name because one of the decks my friend plays is kinda bullshit, and I've been told that things I do with my decks are bullshit so it was just the first thing I thought of when asked for a username lol.

Of course we don't use proxies for sanctioned events, but for tournaments within the group (without legit judges and such), we'll allow a max of ten.

October 24, 2014 12:21 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #29

@MagicalHacker: First, by advocating that people produce proxies, you're now straying into reprehensible territory because you are, in essence, encouraging people to pirate the game rather than support the companies that make it possible.

Second, a playgroup is well, well within its rights to tell you that you can't proxy. Playgroups that do this tend to view proxying as an act of disinvestment--both financial and ideological--from the game. Maybe they understand proxying one or two cards that are in the mail or that might not make it into the deck, but think that a player who shows up every week with a new deck and none (or even half) of its cards is clearly someone who's not interested in actually playing the game properly.

Magic is not free to play. It's a collectible game. Arguably, it's the collectible game. While it might be nice for every player to have access to the materials to build whatever decks they want, that's not how the game works. If you want to play, you buy in. You support WOTC and their work. Working around availability issues is just as much a part of being a player as the rest of the deck building process is. It's not a "rich kids only" club, but you do have to demonstrate respect for the game and its mechanisms.

October 24, 2014 12:50 p.m.

MagicalHacker says... #30

Epochalyptik, one piece of information that I forgot to mention is that I eventually trade cards that I do have to get the cards in my decks and I give that advice to anyone I recommend proxying to.

One thing I'm a bit confused about is the part where you say that proxying isn't the "proper" way to play magic. Does a proxied Moat have a different effect than a real one? Of course not!

I've been playing magic for more than three years now, and I've always played with proxies. I don't think proxying a deck is an ideological disinvestment at all. In fact, I would say it makes someone MORE ideologically invested in the game.

Financially, it's more drawn out since I eventually get the cards through trades, but ideologically, I have to be aware of all cards in magics history, not just the ones that I have.

October 24, 2014 1:23 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #31

@MagicalHacker: You're missing the point. They're not ideologically disinvested because they're less active as a player or deck builder. That's obviously not true. They're disinvested because they may demonstrate little interest or intent to acquire the cards they "use." Sure, part of that comes from the inability to financially invest in the game, but what's the point of investing when you can just print all the cards you want?

Although it may not seem like it to you, it's not the same game when you play like that. It's like going to the park and playing baseball with a stick and a whiffle ball you wrapped in duct tape. It's not the same. And asking to join a real game with your makeshift gear is a slap in the face when everyone else is playing with real equipment. Yes, proxies can be fun in their own right, and they're cute in the facsimilian same sense of a kid playing with his Tonka next to the family Toyota, but don't bring it to my game and expect to get in.

October 24, 2014 2:02 p.m.

Rabid_Wombat says... #32

Epochalyptik you need to lighten up man, it's only a card game and metaphysically one piece of cardboard is exactly the same as another- it's only your perception of value that's the problem here. We had a new group come into the LGS with proxies that they'd made up from cutting up magazines that were really quite funny, they were all college students and the chicks were hot yo so I was like let's do this- bring it to my game. We all had a blast...and they wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for the proxies.

October 24, 2014 6:04 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #33

@Rabid_Wombat: First, I gave several instances in which I either understood or supported the use of proxies. Second, I'm not attempting to deny everyone the use of proxies. Each group and player does what they want, and they are within their rights to do so provided they're in a certain context. Third, to dismiss the idea of value and go to comparing cards on the level that you do is a poor representation of the actual argument.

If you reread my posts, you'll note that I defend the use of proxies in certain scenarios, but I oppose them for obvious reasons when it comes to competitive. Further, posts 2:8 and 2:10 represent the perspective of the invested player who wants to play the game using the game materials, not proxied materials.

Furthermore, I personally adopt the perspective represented in those last few posts when a player tries to join my playgroup without having the requisite materials and without having any intention of acquiring them. Sorry, but I'm a competitive player looking for a by-the-rules, legitimate experience. If you aren't playing with Magic cards, you aren't playing in my games. You're welcome to go find your own; I won't stop you.

October 24, 2014 6:22 p.m.

MagicalHacker says... #34

Epochalyptik, out of curiosity, how would you react to a player like me, who has a lot of proxies, but is in the process of trading cards to get those specific cards?

October 24, 2014 6:30 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #35

If you intend to get the cards and are actively acquiring them, then you're fine.

October 24, 2014 7:09 p.m.

Hallowed_Titan says... #36

Pretty much what EPOCHS 3 points are is what my group allows.

October 25, 2014 10:17 a.m.

Named_Tawyny says... #37

I'll be honest, Epochalyptik, I really don't see a distinction between proxying because you don't own the card vs proxying because you don't want to use the card (because it's in another deck, under glass, etc...); that just makes casual magic into a game of 'who has more money' (obviously we're talking casual magic, because tournament magic has specific rules against proxying) - you either have the actual card in your deck, or you don't.

(Not to mention that I have no way of knowing if player X actually owns a Black Lotus , or is just telling me that they do, but it's in a different deck that they don't have with them right now.)

October 26, 2014 12:49 a.m.

Named_Tawyny says... #38

@TelleoStar

Did I read your post correctly? Your group has an UPPER limit on the value of proxies?

Having a lower value limit (eg 'no proxies worth less than $5') makes sense to me, because there's a relatively low barrier to acquiring inexpensive cards. I really don't get the point of having an upper value limit though; kinda seems backwards.

October 26, 2014 12:52 a.m.

VampireArmy says... #39

Judges can print a proxy of a card like a lotus if you present proof that you own one...Just thought I'd throw it out there

October 26, 2014 12:53 a.m.

xlaleclx says... #40

No they can't. Judge proxies can be given out if a card was damaged during play and needs to be replaced.

October 26, 2014 1:22 a.m.

Epochalyptik says... #41

@Named_Tawyny: There's a very large difference.

Proxying a card that's in another deck is not the same as not wanting to use the card. If you own a Mana Crypt and set of ABUR duals and they're all in decks, I'll allow you to proxy them for use in another deck because you already own the cards, use them, and they're not the easiest things to get multiples of. That's entirely different from proxying all of those cards because you don't feel like acquiring any copies.

Also, I'm very well aware of what the people in my playgroup own or don't own. The friend who codesigned my BUG deck, for example, has at least one of every ABUR, fetch, and shock land, plus all the mana rocks. How do I know this? I play in the same pod. I've seen the cards. But I'm not about to let someone else sit down at my table and assure me that his optimized mana base is in his other deckbox at home. The burden of proof is on you.

And maybe the concern for some people is that this system does indeed reward those who spend money (or trade; don't discount the power of a good trader) for the cards they want. If you have an issue with that, then I advise you not to use this system. I play competitively, and if you want to be competitive in a TCG, you're going to need to spend some amount of money. It's just a fact. My playgroup isn't going to let anyone in it escape that reality because we care about how the game is ultimately going to be played at the event table. And when it comes time to play in an event, we can all take the proxies out of our entered decks and put the real cards in. What we can't do is replace them with cards we don't have.

October 26, 2014 1:41 a.m.

TheAnnihilator says... #42

My view on proxies is that all Magic cards are just cardboard. I mean, I know why real, printed cards are worth more, supply-and-demand, yadayada. But in essence, I have no place to force ANYONE, especially my friends, to pay for anything (especially a card game). I don't care one bit if they use proxies. At sanctioned events, duh, no proxies. If you're able to pay to enter tournaments, you should be able to pay for your deck too. But in any other case, I don't care what your cards are made out of (paper, or basic lands, or real cards).

October 26, 2014 3:12 p.m.

CrazyLittleGuy says... #43

Hey Epochalyptik, I would like to present another point of view on proxying for competitive play though. I play Magic to win, my playgroup plays to win, we build decks to win, but completely allow proxies; in fact, we encourage each other to proxy entire decks to test with and against. The only thing that matters for us, is that when we get to the tournament table, we've got the real deal in front of us (obviously). Until that point, it's all about testing and preparing, which can run you upwards of $fucktons if you actually want to build all of the tier 1-1.5 decks in any given meta, which is honestly the best way to test for something like Standard. I understand there's a bit of a difference in EDH for a few reasons, but for playgroups that prepare for events like PTQs and SCGOs/IQs, proxying cards that you don't own or even intend to get is the only reasonable way to get the best testing possible.

October 26, 2014 5:45 p.m.

MousatosMounatos says... #44

CrazyLittleGuy AMEN BRO!!!! Finally someone that understands me...

October 26, 2014 5:53 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #45

@CrazyLittleGuy: Is that not covered by point two of post 1:14?

October 26, 2014 6:34 p.m.

TheAnnihilator says... #46

@Epochalyptik
"My playgroup isn't going to let anyone in it escape that reality because we care about how the game is ultimately going to be played at the event table."

When you say that playing with proxies bypasses the reality of magic, and that is the environment you intend to play in, I respond with this: Proxies only remove the pay-to-win aspect of the game, and, by what you said, you simply prefer to play with an environment of players who pay to win, not an environment dependent on the competitive nature of the players.

To elaborate, having proxies does not remove the competitive environment from the game. In what way is a proxied Splinter Twin deck any different from the deck in its whole (as in, no proxies)? For example, if you were to give a pro player an exact, but proxied, list of his current deck, it only changes the physical nature of the cards with which he is playing. In this case, the proxies make the cards the pro is playing no less effective or synergic, the tuned numbers of copies of cards in his list do not change, the proxies do not affect how skilled or experienced the pro is, and they also do not change the nature of his opponents or their decks when he goes to the PTQ. So, what about the environment has changed? I answer: The pro did not pay money for the proxied cards, but he did pay for the actual cards. Thus, your viewpoint of proxies excludes the poor from being truly competitive in casual games. A truly competitive deck is, by nature, expensive.

Furthermore, testing the playability of a card, proxied or not, is not the same as playing competitively. In fact, the goal of playing a game in which you are testing out a card with a proxy, or real card otherwise, is NOT to win. The goal is to understand the functionality of that card in the deck as a whole. This may lead to a win, but a loss actually illustrates more about the deck or the proxied card by revealing its weaknesses. A win does not prove a cards or decks effectiveness; a lack of evidence of weakness is not proof that the tested card is effective. A series of competitive wins may prove the cards to be effective circumstantially, but in the case of games of testing, they are not definitive because testing is intended to gauge the effectiveness of the card, and is not a true representation of tournament play. As proof of this, there is a reason why machinery is tested in the field, as it may perform under laboratory settings, but not always in genuine settings.

This indicates that the goal is preferably to lose, so as to determine the cards weakness in the deck. Comparing this to a casual game, the goal is similarly not necessarily to win, but rather for recreation. Comparing this to proxies, since neither testing a card in a deck nor playing casually are played competitively --- that is, solely played to win --- a proxy allowed in one case (as you have advocated, in testing cards) must logically be allowed in another (the general casual game).

The proof of this can be seen in the case when a card has been proxied for testing and does not perform, as you have no intention of actually purchasing the card and completing the deck, which is not allowed under your definition of proxies in casual play. As I have proven that testing and casual play are comparable, the same basic rules must be applied to both cases. This is not to state that an entire deck should be proxied, but rather proxies should be allowed in casual play.

October 26, 2014 7:18 p.m.

TheAnnihilator says... #47

@Epochalyptik
Understand that this is meant as a logical analysis of the argument, and not meant to offend.

October 26, 2014 7:26 p.m.

TelleoStar says... #48

Named_Tawyny: The goal for my group is to allow players who are new to the game to get into it, since they do not have the collections to trade around, and would therefore need to spend a lot of money to build their decks entirely. Telling them they can have fifty dollars of proxies means they can get most of their mana base, and many very decent cards into the deck, and therefore reduces the overall number of cards they need to buy. At the same time, it prevents them from going "Cool, here's one each of all the Eldrazi and a Blightsteel Collossus." Those cards are expensive because they are good in almost every deck ever, and it takes very little deck building talent to use them to devastating effect. As I said, however, that limitation is placed in heavier effect on players with higher collections/experience. True beginners can proxy more, but again, the idea is for them to proxy more cards, not more expensive cards.

October 26, 2014 7:42 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #49

@TheAnnihilator

First, proxies do not only remove the pay-to-win aspect of the game. To make that claim is to miss many of the significant purposes of proxying, many of which I've already addressed in my posts. For example, proxies allow players to determine whether a deck is practical (as defined by the players themselves; practicality could refer to function or cost) enough to buy or trade for. That's in no way escaping the cost of assembling the final list, although it does make it a bit easier to test the stages of the deck leading up to that final list.

Second, I reject the idea that the game is "pay-to-win" because such a proposition implies that the most expensive decks will always (or even usually) win. This is not the case. When I say that Magic requires investment, I do mean that. But that statement should not be perverted to imply that Magic is a game that only rewards investment, or that Magic games can be won only by the player who invests the most. Truly competitive decks are not expensive by nature. A good many of them are, but there are also inexpensive competitive decks that can hold their own in tournament environments.

Third, nowhere did I make the argument that a proxied deck is less competitive than a deck comprised of real cards, except perhaps in the context that proxies cannot be used in official events. The in-game functionality is the same if you accept the premise that proxies may be used as though they were the cards they represent regardless of the reason the proxies were created.

Fourth, and related to the last two points, I can accept proxies in very certain circumstances, which I defined in post 1:14 in this thread. I do not accept proxies for any other reason. Further, the only reason I accept proxies in an official event is for their explicitly defined game purpose (to replace cards damaged during that event). I'm not excluding people on the basis of how wealthy or poor they are. I'm excluding proxies on the basis that proxies are not cards, and I am excluding those who wish to use them indefinitely as cards on the basis that these players have no intention of investing properly in the game. If you're testing a card to determine whether it will be included in a deck, or if you're proxying a card that you've purchased but don't yet physically have, I'll accept that on the grounds that you're determining how to invest or that you've already invested rather than that you've refused to invest. And no, I'm not discriminating between (1) conscious refusal to invest despite capability and (2) situational refusal to invest because of incapability.

In response to your fourth paragraph: I've already addressed this point, and I now have to consider the possibility that people are just not reading what I'm writing. I've made it explicitly clear that proxying for the purposes of testing a deck is acceptable.

And the idea that the goal of testing is to lose is simple nonsense. The goal of testing is to gauge the characteristics of your deck and its cards. You'll achieve this goal by both winning and losing because each experience will show you something different about your deck, but there's no transitive property of objectives that implies that the goal of testing is to win or to lose.

In fact, the entirety of your fifth paragraph succeeds in both using many words and conveying little meaning. You don't demonstrate any clear, logical reason why allowing proxies for testing must extend into allowing proxies for casual play. Testing applies to both competitive and casual decks and competitive and casual environments. You can't, therefore, make the analogy that testing is to competitive play as playing is to casual play. The analogy itself sounds ridiculous when put in that form, but that's precisely the basic form you propose (and indeed later claim to have proven).

In a show of consistency, your sixth paragraph is also predicated on such false dichotomies. A player choosing not to purchase a card that performs poorly in testing is in no way an indication that that player has chosen not to complete the deck. It's an indication that the deck in its current form is not acceptable to the player, and the player will then either modify the deck or abandon it for a different idea. That's how the testing process works. You make tweaks to the list until it works the way you want it to work.

And lastly, it seems your entire post was motivated by an urge to persuade me of something that I already accept. If you'll notice, post 1:14 (again, I must wonder whether people have been reading what I write before taking issue with my argument) states, "That said, I can understand the fourth scenario, in which casual players want to be able to come up with a new deck relatively often without selling organs or orifices to do so." This is approximately your closing remark, which is, "This is not to state that an entire deck should be proxied, but rather proxies should be allowed in casual play."

It seems you're conflating what I find acceptable in my playgroup with what I find acceptable or can otherwise sympathize with at large. My playgroup is not casual. Perspectives about the permissibility of proxies in casual environments don't apply to us, so we don't bother defining opportunities in which the members of our playgroup, while playing within our playgroup, may casually use proxies.