dutpotd said:

We are playing two different games, because none of the "costs" you listed are valid in my book.

MarcoPulleaux said:

What are valid costs to you? Difficulty and control check aren't... Neither is giving your opponent momentum... Losing any piece from the staging area - no, not a cost?

So what is a valid cost? Lose the game?

Of course they are all valid costs. Just becuase they can be mitigated doesn't mean they aren't costs. Name any of your so called valid costs and I can tell you a way to minimize the effect on the player paying it...

- dut

dutpotd said:

#1 - Means nothing. 5 difficulty = any commonly-played foundation. Seeing as how most decks run 28-36 foundations, statistically, you will pass this. Even if you fail, statistically, you will have the necessary foundations to commit it. Also, Feline Spike will only see play in Felicia; 1-checks are no longer a topic of discussion =).

#2 - Additionally means next to nothing. In my Seong Mi-Na deck, I ran 2x Feline, 3x Shadow Blade, and a whole plethora of 3 checks (Defender, Mega Spike, Plasma Beam) as well as 3 difficulties or higher (China, Program, Gorgeous, Natural Leader, Chester's), and managed to pass everything without a hitch. Sure, a 2 check is worse than a 3, but that's really never been here nor there. The amount of times you'll check Spinta are far fewer than the times you won't check Spinta.

#3 - The way I see it, From the Mouse completely makes this irrelevant. Simply enhance with FtM, enhance with Spinta, and there you go. Either they add your Mouse, and you get it back when it resolves, or you get back whatever they added from your FtM. Also, while you may have "lost" a card from the staging area, it went to your momentum, which could have greater purposes (multiple, powerful, etc) than tutoring it.

#4 - Powerful: 3? Since when did we last see Powerful since Set 12's release? I can't recall a time. Sure, we HAVE Ryu's Shin Shoryuken (which I'm assuming was your reference), but it hasn't seen play this entire season due to Set 12's, well...problems. Either way, a Spinta player ought to be smart enough to know that they are playing Spinta to remove problematic cards, not just to get rid of your staging area. That, and it ought to only take one match to discover, "Oh great, giving my opponent momentum and not killing them is bad."

I argue on the basis that the Spinta player is the smartest Spinta player around with the most suited deck for the card. No smart Spinta player would blindly throw around the attack JUST to get rid of your staging area UNLESS they knew it was part of a staging area clearance plan.

With the amount of times you will have failed a Spinta, you will have passed it 4 more times.

With the amount of times you check Spinta, you will have checked a foundation 6 or more times.

With the amount of times your opponent screws over your staging area by giving you momentum...aww who are we kidding? Only an idiot would play Spinta and then say, "Darn, you just screwed me over".

With the amount of times giving you momentum would screw me over...nah, I would've just played smarter, and would've either used Spinta as part of a lockdown strategy (just because Juni's is gone doesn't make it impossible), or to kill you for good.

You didn't answer my question. My question wasn't, why aren't these valid costs? Of course I know how to build a deck that minimizes their effect on me... Building one, i.e. having mouse out early enough to matter, or any of your other so called answers for a non-existent cost... (see the problem with your exaggerated and sweeping statements). Why did you need to list a number of ways to combat the 4 I listed if they weren't costs???

My question, it was, if these aren't valid costs, what is a valid cost? It would humor me for you to actually address my comment, if you truly are one of the few that know how to debate, you know that the arbiter would have cut you short as soon as you started to answer per your own agenda and not my question...

- dut

Further... Becuase your ways to address the obvious 'costs' of playing spinta are not all encompassing...

From the Mouse is great for air decks. But the biggest problem, or the character that naturally loops spinta uses order, and for that matter, staging area control goes hand in hand with that symbol moreso than it does with air. To this extent, spinta is not so much of a problem, granted the biggest culprit of being the 'alternate way to pay the cost of spinta' is gone - lotm...

If 2 checks mean nothing to you, please play a deck with 15 attacks, all 2 checks, instead of 3 checks. In fact, play it against me in my first round of a big tourney, I will gladly take an easy win off you... Note, Spinta often requires you run at least another playset of an attack, granted it doesn't do the big damage other 2 checks do. So how about at least 8 2 checks? Even that will burn you more often than not. How quickly will your first turn go from 3+ foundations to 2 or 1...

Powerful 3 exists in Set 12, in fact a certain character gives ANY attack powerful 3... I make a point of running at least 1 powrful card or multiple card in any and every deck I run, simply becuase having a use for momentum that does damage (wins the game) is always worth it. i.e. if it isn't powerful 3, it is at the very least powerful 2, which can still add up after 2 spinta...

What about multiple 2? That Melancholy is sure easy to play turn 2 after being spinta'd... So are a lot of things. 

The point is, these are all 'valid' costs. You are admitting that simply by stating your necessary card additions or deckbuilding strategy that mitigate the cost of playing spinta... 

- dut

Perhaps calling thoes things costs is a misnomer. Some of them arent costs so much as they are effectivley deck building restrictions. This dosent minimize what effect they can have on the game, dont get me wrong.

For instance, since ISPIN is 5 diff 2 control, when building the deck you are faced with some restrictions on what you should include. 5 difficulty means that effectivley for every card you put in your deck that isnt 5+ check (including the spin itself) you statistically run the risk of having to commit cards or even fail the check. Meaning that you are limiting your self to founcations with 5+ and precluding some of the more powerful ones available.

With a 2 control check, you have to play safer in your opening turn. A deck that only runs 3+ can usually spam 4 foundations first turn without running the risk of failing (3,2,1,0) while a deck that runs 2s has to either lower the curve and thusly get on average less foundations each game but also cannot play 3 difficutly foundations turn one unless they want to risk losing thier first check.

Also, for all the complaints about spin being a throw, Shinji you over most people, rallied to get Bitter Rivals banned. Bitter rivals was a great tool against ISpin. Regardless of if you think its broken or not, which i assure you all of New York City does not, you still exhaserbated your own situation. So you banned some cards and now some other cards are more powerful as a result. Ban thoes cards and guess what happens. Ispin keeps Good and earth from playing grey wall and tanking every game into a mill war. Get rid of ispin and suddenly now we have to look at Red Lotus. Get rid of lous and now foundation destruction goes nuts. It's a never ending cycle.

Pre-new ban list, Spinta was broken beyond hell.

It has now come down to the level of overpowered, one step below Broken.  Why?

Chun-li is gone.  That's why.

If there's one thing the previous 2 ban lists accomplished, it is that they banned most of the enablers.  Chun-li just broke the card to hell, because she could start messing with what you did on your turn with the card for much too free of a cost.  Sure, Akuma+ A New Low can do that now, but that requires having another card out, Responding and making a 4 check to pass the Response cost, responding again with a foundation, and then having to make a check of 6 for Spinta (A New Low requires you to make the check at +1 difficulty).  As supposed to Chun-li, who was all "What, two forms?  BLAM! Free response, eat that."

And one comment about damage redux and Omar's deck.  I played against the deck last night, and lost 2-1.  I only won game one because he got 0 Seals, 0 BRTs, 0 Red Cyclones, and only 1 Abelia's out to which I had an Oral Dead (to hell with the fools that thing Oral Dead is not as useful anymore.  That card won me game 1 vs. him since he couldn't do any recursion against me.)  In game 2, he had 2 BRTs, a Red Cyclone, and 2 Make a Difference out by turn 2.  I proceeded to scoop at that point.  While my deck isn't the greatest example of how awesome damage redux works (I don't attack much), the point remains. 

dutpotd

What is a valid cost...for Ira-Spinta? It should say "if this unblocked attack deals damage". Either that, or the cost shouldn't remove less; it should remove equal to or greater than the amount you get to remove.

I realize Fire isn't top tier, but From the Mouse and Ira-Spinta also share Fire dood. I realize we're so used to seeing Spinta + Lord of the Makai or Spinta + Tenacious (which, btw, is still a legit combo), but Air and Fire can and do abuse the card (Air Olexa, Fire Akuma), and both can abuse From the Mouse (which, of course, has multiple uses beyond just erradicating Spinta's cost).

It's not that 2 checks mean NOTHING to me. It's that, much like how Feline Spike's 1 check didn't ever matter, Spinta's 2 even less so. Your example is to make me run a deck with like, 8-15 2 checks, which is cute, but no competitive deck running Ira-Spinta is also running 8-10 more 2 checks; Spinta is likely their only 2 check (although if you wanna talk to a guy about running crappy checks, talk to Protoaddict and Grizzle_grom lol).

Again, if you and me are playing, and I'm running Spinta, I won't just blindly throw them your way, unless I know either A: I have you on the lockdown (series of Programs and Chinese/Experienced, etc), or B: I'm going to win and am removing threats to my victory. Furthermore, even if I did just idiot-out and blindly throw them only to be destroyed by your Powerful/Multiple/momentum-dependent cards, I'd learn not to do that for game 2.

Protoaddict I'm afraid your domino theory is but a theory, and has never been true. This game isn't quite the wall that people think it is. Just because Omar Chavez makes his All Zangief deck famous (which has lost some tools I think) doesn't mean this game is a stallfest: it means his deck is uniquely a stall-mill deck, and it does its job well. Quite frankly, we haven't quite seen stall decks since Methodical ***Rock***. Damage reduction is a poorly-implemented mechanic at this current juncture, and foundation destruction isn't nearly the prevalent force you make it out to be (I have yet to hear people complaining about Hungry for Souls ::Ibuki:: or Intimidating Presence).

I really wish Red Lotus and Ira-Spinta would have different costs/more situational effects, but whatever. The bannings helped this game tremendously, although to be fair to both myself and to you guys, we haven't truly seen these bans do anything yet since they're so brand new. Let's have some tournies, play the game, and see how they've affected us =).

That's fair Shinji, and time will surely tell that Spinta is used in a lot of decks. It is still a great card.

As stated there is a cost to playing spinta, whether it be building a deck around it that compliments the 2, or by needing to hold onto it until it is the right time to use it, there is definately a cost to playing spinta.

A card without a cost is anything with E: or R: , or for that matter F: , at least that is how I define a meaningless cost. I guess I'm trying to get you to admit that your opinion was expressed via overstatement. The truth is, the cost is worth bearing, because the benefit is so high.

I've only played one tourney post bannings and it isn't too far from expectations. Spinta is more or less one of the few things that every competitive deck still needs to run answers too (before there was defender loops, rejection, easy one hit kill, lockdown, olcadons, etc.)

I think the symbols, as a whole have balanced out a bit, there are still front runners, still some forefront characters, and there are still some very strong cards. But the game itself is further from degenerating quickly into grey wars, except for certain matchups, and of course, against mill / very strong defensive decks.

- dut

You pretty much hit the high points. Because Spinta is, and always will be an amazing card (unless it becomes Jedah-only XD), answers must still be ran. Of course, due to what all has happened, I feel Good is at the top of its game, having both answers to iSpin/ iPresence (Red Lotus) and ProMal/China/ExpComb (Torn Hero), as well as offensive output (MotBeast, Dragon's Flame, RSS, etc), and the ability to survive OHKOs (HGround, Healer).

Thanks for fixing the game.

Can anyone give me a link to to Omar's deck list please. I like the idea of mill and I would like to gain some pointers.

darklogos said:

Omar didn't post a link because he's wanting to run the deck again at Nats, and possibly worlds.

wow, that is some intersting news. anyways I wonder what will happen....

Antigoth said:

i'm surprised that no one posted what they saw him play. but there is talk about what he did. it just seems to be a bit weird.