to correct a misconception that has been stated numerous times in the comments:
MUC is not the dominant Classic PDC deck right now nor has it been for at least 5 seasons (the time I have been involved in PDC). Its excellent numbers are due to the high skill level of the main player that plays it. Beyond his statistics it puts up no more victories than any other high level deck. To that end, it should not be considered to be the equal of Pre-Restriction Affinity and not nearly a "dominant" deck.
As for unrestriction, i'm fine with it on a trial basis. If nothing else, it can breathe some life into Classic where largely this can stagnate from time to time.
I think the trial is a good idea since we can then see how good affinty is with the artifact lands unrestricted. I would favor the unbanning unless every deck is more or less forced to run maindeck hate and the meta turns into affinty v. anti affinty.
Your points are all valid, but I think you undervalue all of the good turn one removal out there, including Lightning Bolt, the formerly commonplace Electrostatic Bolt, the potentially strong Sunlance and Skred, and a myriad of other cards that can answer a turn one creature. This is to say nothing of the numerous cards that can nuke an Artifact on turn one. I think you are also focused too much on the TPDC metagame, where Thresher is more common than on Saturday. That being said, some new decks at CPDC also could give Affinity trouble, like Red Husk with its seemingly endless stream of blockers, and UR control with strong counters and removal. You are correct about the ability to refill, and yet there are cards to help keep Rush in check, such as the splashable Negate.
It seems that your argument takes the stance of "not playing narrow cards" such as E-Bolt, Overload, Ingot Chewer, and others. Yet, in the past and even now there are cards in decks that are designed to answer specific threats: Force Spike in MUC to answer aggro and historically Kami of Ancient Law in Wx aggro to combat Orzhov Blink. Is this your point or not?
Also, it would really be helpful to know who you are, since you have been around for a while and the veteran perspective is valuable to the community.
Having played affinity before and after the restriction I can say this is a valid idea, however i feel the result will be too dangerous. Affinity with only 6 artifact lands still has those draws that completely overwhelm non-teir 1 decks (Teir one being MUC, Cloak, and probably RG Thresh). Even those teir 1 decks are way behind and likely lose to affinity's broken start. The only thing keeping affinity in check at the moment is the inconsistency of its draws. If it hits only 1 or even 2 artifact lands it still has to play fair in casting its cards at normal points in the game. I have personally been on the recieving end of the demoarlizing multiple 2/2s and 4/4s on turn 1 and 2s of games, the most important reason to keep artifact lands banned is that those games simply aren't fun.
If we can for a minute discuss the cards proposed as hate, there are maybe 4 or 5 cards on that list that are fast enough to compete with affinity post artifact lands. 3 or 4 mana is ALOT to pay to remove 1 creature, when affinity will likely have 4-6 more power of creatures on the board at that time. Additionally, those fast enough to compete are way narrow, smash to smithereens for example just hits artifacts. Fact is that unbanning artifact lands will make it nessecary to play quick narrow artifact removal, which limits decks to being forced to play strategies that can fit that in, ultimately limiting deckbuilding room.
As for affinity's speed compared to RDW, it was never affinity's speed that made it strongest. It was its speed backed up by its resiliency. Thoughtcast and Rush of Knowledge give affinity a viable lategame plan, combined with its explosiveness make it a complete monster. Affinity can be held incheck by removal until it resolves a rush of knowledge, which is essentially game over, because the amount of removal cards, and the mana efficiency necessary to keep up with affinity means no card advantage.
Additionally, comments about removal in all decks to combat sligh/thresh are all but null due to spike's comment in point #4, the shift from terror efficency to dark banishing efficency, which is a substansial change to make, when you look at how removal comes down. turn 2, turn 3, 2 on turn 4 if its a 2 cc (blatant generalization) as opposed to turn 3, turn 4. This means affinity will have hit you atleast twice with frogmite/frogmites and probably once with a somber hoverguard or myr enforcer. I'm not saying it will be impossible to beat Affinity, it is just that it will hurt the format for so much main deck removal to be necessary, and basically make viable decks, Affinity, RG aggro,removal heavy control
There have only been a few 'big' ones that come to mind. The first is the crux of this article (affinity) and what to do. The next biggest one I recall was the Time Spiral Purple cards and how to handle them. The decision went to allow them as proxies only for other online commons. There was some discussion about PPS switching from Prismatic rules to Singleton rules so that the transmutes were still allowed as well. But by far the biggest hubbub in PDC has been Affinity and its amazing brokenness since day 1.
...
And I think more Gorilla Shamans would be a good thing for Classic PDC as well. I realized I misunderstood your comment after I posted my reply. It's a big ticket common, and that's without it hosing a major PDC deck. I'd expect higher prices if they were being run against a top deck in the format.
Thanks to everyone for commenting. I hope we can keep this dicussion going both here and at PDCmagic.com. A few points I want to respond to- First, the "trial season." Why not just have a regular season and label it something like, AE, for Affinity Era? Eric: I was in fact referring to the limited availablity of Gorilla Shaman on MTGO. This is what is most worrisome, so here I make an impassioned plea to Worth: Please please please put Mox Monkey in MED2 at a common or uncommon slot- it would make us paupers very very happy. Also, Eric, do you remember anything else from the original banning talks that I missed? Thopter vs Walker: Thopter is much better because of the presence of Arcbound Ravager in regular Affinity. In PDC Affinity, Walker helps to enable Ninja's and picks up a Bonesplitter. And yes, I want to keep Plating on the banned list- it is simply too much of an "I Win" card for the format, in my opinion.
I agree completely, but with only one caveat: we don't *know* that Affinity would be the best deck anymore. It certainly was, 14 sets ago. Is it now (with restrictions)? Would the unrestricted arti-lands push it over?
I dunno anymore. Maybe it would? Maybe it would unseat the current best control decks. Maybe it would still not have the resiliency needed to be the top deck. The only way the format will know is to try it. It's obviously a fast and powerful deck when unrestricted. But is it *that* much better that it can't be controlled? Again, IdunnO, and as I no longer play the format like I used to I can't really say that you all need to try it, but I would be very interested in hearing about the outcome if it was tried.
What Spikeboym said is that there are "more" Gorilla Shamans in the offline Pauper community. This is surely true. Last I checked, which was admittedly months ago, it cost over 3 tickets per Shaman online, given their scarce availability only in under-purchased precons of an under-purchased set. Unlike PDC staples Terminate and Armadillo Cloak, few Paupers probably own Shamans, and Shamans have no real use outside of reactive play against Affinity. Having to drop 12 tix to build the deck of your dreams is not really the same as having to drop 12 tix just to keep that deck from being abjectly crushed by Affinity every time you bring it out. Shamans' price might even go up if Pauper restrictions changed, because PDC provides what I assume to be a substantial subset of the market for an old common like Gorilla Shaman. And even if price isn't supposed to directly be an issue in PDC, it could hypothetically be a metagame issue if most Paupers are unwilling to run out and blow a chunk of change on suddenly-in-demand Gorilla Shamans, in turn leaving Affinity running that much more unchecked through Classic PDC metagames.
This doesn't change my "on the fence" position about Affinity unrestrictions in Classic (but NOT in Fut Ext/Extended), but it does support the idea that Spikeboym had a legitimate point in mentioning Gorilla Shamans as an issue.
I am getting much more "on the fence" about this issue than I used to be, and some of Spikeboym's stronger points have a fair amount to do with that fact.
I'm still not terribly comfortable with a format in which Affinity is the clear "best deck," but it certainly doesn't rub me as wrong as a format where MUC is king. Your point about the resistance to further restrictions -- which, in my view and perhaps yours, would be entirely consistent with the justifications of the restriction of the Artifact Lands -- is a strong one. Consistency is valuable, especially when lack of consistency demonstrably leads to the ascendancy of an even greater evil. If the Classic PDC population is truly unwilling to extend the logic of Affinity restrictions to MUC (say, Spire Golem, working with the exact same mechanic), and i am at this point resigned to that being the case, then consistency is only achievable by unrestriction.
Beyond that, I am finally beginning to see flashes of a power level in multiple Classic decks that could perhaps truly challenge a stagnant monster like Affinity for dominance.
Taken together, I'm basically agreeing with your points #1, 2, 3, and 7 (7 seems to be a corollary of 1, in my view). I don't find your points 4, 5, and 6 compelling. 4: Trinket decks don't need more Artifact Lands, and I don't really think any other deck does either. 5: I agree that PDC is not regular Magic, but I do believe in using Wizards' bannings as a floor (but not a ceiling) for PDC bannings. This point is a bit of a non sequitur, however, because the Artifact Lands are not banned in non-PDC Classic. On your other point in this heading, I am not really keen on a "best deck" to the level of dominance of early-PDC Affinity or modern PDC MUC. If Affinity returned to those levels, I would turn to point 3 and re-ban it. 6: I just don't find this argument terribly compelling. Paper players migrating online have to give up their Kird Apes; they can give up their Cranial Platings too (and anyway, you're not even advocating a full aligning; you seem not to argue to unban Plating).
Among my several reservations, the current "health" of the Classic PDC format (in my view due primarily to a simple lack of MUC pilots) gives me pause in considering changes. The current bugginess of several key Classic PDC staples lowering the format's power level is also an issue, and I agree that changes should await those fixes -- perhaps Affinity is best unrestricted when Tempest comes online, providing another large power boost to Affinity competitors (though also to Affinity in Lotus Petal) and presumably an environment in which the buggy cards have all been fixed.
I would be somewhat more willing to unrestrict Affinity at this point, because I feel that many decks pack more relevant disruption than they used to. The general strength of aggro in Classic PDC recently has made it necessary for everybody to pack some removal.
That said, I would not be thrilled to automatically give up 3 more sideboard slots for Ancient Grudge. There's a bit of a problem in that the best cards vs. the best enchantment are not very good vs. artifacts, and vice versa. However, if that was the biggest problem, I don't think it would be a big deal.
I'm open to convincing but am not quite convinced yet.
I don't like the arguments that PDC should have Affinity for its "best deck," and that we can always change it back if it becomes too poweful again. These seem weak somehow. I also think that Affinity is the only deck that will benefit from the unrestriction. You mention a boost for Trinket Mage decks, but most decks with him won't want to use him to grab more than that one occasional singleton artifact land. I think that wwe should keep them restricted- Affinity is still played, and does well. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Wow, I remember the original debate WAYYYY back when about Affinity, the lands, and the Plating. And, as you said, it made sense at the time to slow the deck down. There have been a lot of new cards added to MTGO since then, and it probably is time to revisit the restrictions. Affinity will gain very little as we go forward. The most recent boon for the deck is Springleaf Drum for explosive starts, but even that's not all that much. Wizards will continue to print artifact hosers at common, but not very many relevant Artifacts will be printed at common. As that trend continues Affinity gets weaker and weaker in comparison.
I'd be very interested in seeing what would happen with unrestricted lands.
Oh, and we have Gorilla Shaman now, he's in one of the Coldsnap Precons. :)
I'm not a regular to classic events, however I think that a trial period makes a lot of sense, and might even put an end to the endless discussion of the issue.
On second thoughts, the discussion will never cease, but the trial still needs to be made.
I guess you don't remember games two and three of our top four match. Game two ended when I mulliganed to a four card hand. Game three ended when I mulliganed to a three card hand. I don't think games two and three lasted more than a combined two minutes total. I conceded shortly after turn four or five in both games.
omg how origenal to bash a creature that can be killed. listen buddy everything dies. are you looking bor a card like this.
Retarted good creature 0
retarted good creature is all colors, has shroud, can not be countered, haste trample, poisoness 10, if placed in a graveyard from anywhere must be put into play, and has a swiss army knife.
6/20
is that good enough? or is the fact that you cant equip a warhammer to it make it unplayable?
If you get the chance, how about checking into the "powermatching" pair ups during the final round of PE's?
Maybe explain a bit about it?
No ID's I understand and even agree with. Along with the "if we could do it in real life too, we would" response from WOTC. However, from what I understand of the powermatching stuff, it's not working anything close to what paper tournies do.
Aren't there specific DCI rules on how match paring should work? If so, this is how MTGO should work too. This is definately NOT one of those "if we could we would in paper" situations, since DCI matching rules COULD be changed if organized play wanted it to work that way. So this seems to be just a difference for difference's sake type situation.....
to correct a misconception that has been stated numerous times in the comments:
MUC is not the dominant Classic PDC deck right now nor has it been for at least 5 seasons (the time I have been involved in PDC). Its excellent numbers are due to the high skill level of the main player that plays it. Beyond his statistics it puts up no more victories than any other high level deck. To that end, it should not be considered to be the equal of Pre-Restriction Affinity and not nearly a "dominant" deck.
As for unrestriction, i'm fine with it on a trial basis. If nothing else, it can breathe some life into Classic where largely this can stagnate from time to time.
I think the trial is a good idea since we can then see how good affinty is with the artifact lands unrestricted. I would favor the unbanning unless every deck is more or less forced to run maindeck hate and the meta turns into affinty v. anti affinty.
I meant do you remember any other arguments surrounding Affintiy in PDC, not Affinity in general. My mistake on not being clear.
Your points are all valid, but I think you undervalue all of the good turn one removal out there, including Lightning Bolt, the formerly commonplace Electrostatic Bolt, the potentially strong Sunlance and Skred, and a myriad of other cards that can answer a turn one creature. This is to say nothing of the numerous cards that can nuke an Artifact on turn one. I think you are also focused too much on the TPDC metagame, where Thresher is more common than on Saturday. That being said, some new decks at CPDC also could give Affinity trouble, like Red Husk with its seemingly endless stream of blockers, and UR control with strong counters and removal.
You are correct about the ability to refill, and yet there are cards to help keep Rush in check, such as the splashable Negate.
It seems that your argument takes the stance of "not playing narrow cards" such as E-Bolt, Overload, Ingot Chewer, and others. Yet, in the past and even now there are cards in decks that are designed to answer specific threats: Force Spike in MUC to answer aggro and historically Kami of Ancient Law in Wx aggro to combat Orzhov Blink. Is this your point or not?
Also, it would really be helpful to know who you are, since you have been around for a while and the veteran perspective is valuable to the community.
_Alex
Having played affinity before and after the restriction I can say this is a valid idea, however i feel the result will be too dangerous. Affinity with only 6 artifact lands still has those draws that completely overwhelm non-teir 1 decks (Teir one being MUC, Cloak, and probably RG Thresh). Even those teir 1 decks are way behind and likely lose to affinity's broken start. The only thing keeping affinity in check at the moment is the inconsistency of its draws. If it hits only 1 or even 2 artifact lands it still has to play fair in casting its cards at normal points in the game. I have personally been on the recieving end of the demoarlizing multiple 2/2s and 4/4s on turn 1 and 2s of games, the most important reason to keep artifact lands banned is that those games simply aren't fun.
If we can for a minute discuss the cards proposed as hate, there are maybe 4 or 5 cards on that list that are fast enough to compete with affinity post artifact lands. 3 or 4 mana is ALOT to pay to remove 1 creature, when affinity will likely have 4-6 more power of creatures on the board at that time. Additionally, those fast enough to compete are way narrow, smash to smithereens for example just hits artifacts. Fact is that unbanning artifact lands will make it nessecary to play quick narrow artifact removal, which limits decks to being forced to play strategies that can fit that in, ultimately limiting deckbuilding room.
As for affinity's speed compared to RDW, it was never affinity's speed that made it strongest. It was its speed backed up by its resiliency. Thoughtcast and Rush of Knowledge give affinity a viable lategame plan, combined with its explosiveness make it a complete monster. Affinity can be held incheck by removal until it resolves a rush of knowledge, which is essentially game over, because the amount of removal cards, and the mana efficiency necessary to keep up with affinity means no card advantage.
Additionally, comments about removal in all decks to combat sligh/thresh are all but null due to spike's comment in point #4, the shift from terror efficency to dark banishing efficency, which is a substansial change to make, when you look at how removal comes down. turn 2, turn 3, 2 on turn 4 if its a 2 cc (blatant generalization) as opposed to turn 3, turn 4. This means affinity will have hit you atleast twice with frogmite/frogmites and probably once with a somber hoverguard or myr enforcer. I'm not saying it will be impossible to beat Affinity, it is just that it will hurt the format for so much main deck removal to be necessary, and basically make viable decks, Affinity, RG aggro,removal heavy control
There have only been a few 'big' ones that come to mind. The first is the crux of this article (affinity) and what to do. The next biggest one I recall was the Time Spiral Purple cards and how to handle them. The decision went to allow them as proxies only for other online commons. There was some discussion about PPS switching from Prismatic rules to Singleton rules so that the transmutes were still allowed as well. But by far the biggest hubbub in PDC has been Affinity and its amazing brokenness since day 1.
...
And I think more Gorilla Shamans would be a good thing for Classic PDC as well. I realized I misunderstood your comment after I posted my reply. It's a big ticket common, and that's without it hosing a major PDC deck. I'd expect higher prices if they were being run against a top deck in the format.
Thanks to everyone for commenting. I hope we can keep this dicussion going both here and at PDCmagic.com.
A few points I want to respond to-
First, the "trial season." Why not just have a regular season and label it something like, AE, for Affinity Era?
Eric: I was in fact referring to the limited availablity of Gorilla Shaman on MTGO. This is what is most worrisome, so here I make an impassioned plea to Worth: Please please please put Mox Monkey in MED2 at a common or uncommon slot- it would make us paupers very very happy. Also, Eric, do you remember anything else from the original banning talks that I missed?
Thopter vs Walker: Thopter is much better because of the presence of Arcbound Ravager in regular Affinity. In PDC Affinity, Walker helps to enable Ninja's and picks up a Bonesplitter.
And yes, I want to keep Plating on the banned list- it is simply too much of an "I Win" card for the format, in my opinion.
-Alex
I agree completely, but with only one caveat: we don't *know* that Affinity would be the best deck anymore. It certainly was, 14 sets ago. Is it now (with restrictions)? Would the unrestricted arti-lands push it over?
I dunno anymore. Maybe it would? Maybe it would unseat the current best control decks. Maybe it would still not have the resiliency needed to be the top deck. The only way the format will know is to try it. It's obviously a fast and powerful deck when unrestricted. But is it *that* much better that it can't be controlled? Again, IdunnO, and as I no longer play the format like I used to I can't really say that you all need to try it, but I would be very interested in hearing about the outcome if it was tried.
What Spikeboym said is that there are "more" Gorilla Shamans in the offline Pauper community. This is surely true. Last I checked, which was admittedly months ago, it cost over 3 tickets per Shaman online, given their scarce availability only in under-purchased precons of an under-purchased set. Unlike PDC staples Terminate and Armadillo Cloak, few Paupers probably own Shamans, and Shamans have no real use outside of reactive play against Affinity. Having to drop 12 tix to build the deck of your dreams is not really the same as having to drop 12 tix just to keep that deck from being abjectly crushed by Affinity every time you bring it out. Shamans' price might even go up if Pauper restrictions changed, because PDC provides what I assume to be a substantial subset of the market for an old common like Gorilla Shaman. And even if price isn't supposed to directly be an issue in PDC, it could hypothetically be a metagame issue if most Paupers are unwilling to run out and blow a chunk of change on suddenly-in-demand Gorilla Shamans, in turn leaving Affinity running that much more unchecked through Classic PDC metagames.
This doesn't change my "on the fence" position about Affinity unrestrictions in Classic (but NOT in Fut Ext/Extended), but it does support the idea that Spikeboym had a legitimate point in mentioning Gorilla Shamans as an issue.
Sure there are 'Thopters. We just call them "Phyrexian Walker."
I am getting much more "on the fence" about this issue than I used to be, and some of Spikeboym's stronger points have a fair amount to do with that fact.
I'm still not terribly comfortable with a format in which Affinity is the clear "best deck," but it certainly doesn't rub me as wrong as a format where MUC is king. Your point about the resistance to further restrictions -- which, in my view and perhaps yours, would be entirely consistent with the justifications of the restriction of the Artifact Lands -- is a strong one. Consistency is valuable, especially when lack of consistency demonstrably leads to the ascendancy of an even greater evil. If the Classic PDC population is truly unwilling to extend the logic of Affinity restrictions to MUC (say, Spire Golem, working with the exact same mechanic), and i am at this point resigned to that being the case, then consistency is only achievable by unrestriction.
Beyond that, I am finally beginning to see flashes of a power level in multiple Classic decks that could perhaps truly challenge a stagnant monster like Affinity for dominance.
Taken together, I'm basically agreeing with your points #1, 2, 3, and 7 (7 seems to be a corollary of 1, in my view). I don't find your points 4, 5, and 6 compelling. 4: Trinket decks don't need more Artifact Lands, and I don't really think any other deck does either. 5: I agree that PDC is not regular Magic, but I do believe in using Wizards' bannings as a floor (but not a ceiling) for PDC bannings. This point is a bit of a non sequitur, however, because the Artifact Lands are not banned in non-PDC Classic. On your other point in this heading, I am not really keen on a "best deck" to the level of dominance of early-PDC Affinity or modern PDC MUC. If Affinity returned to those levels, I would turn to point 3 and re-ban it. 6: I just don't find this argument terribly compelling. Paper players migrating online have to give up their Kird Apes; they can give up their Cranial Platings too (and anyway, you're not even advocating a full aligning; you seem not to argue to unban Plating).
Among my several reservations, the current "health" of the Classic PDC format (in my view due primarily to a simple lack of MUC pilots) gives me pause in considering changes. The current bugginess of several key Classic PDC staples lowering the format's power level is also an issue, and I agree that changes should await those fixes -- perhaps Affinity is best unrestricted when Tempest comes online, providing another large power boost to Affinity competitors (though also to Affinity in Lotus Petal) and presumably an environment in which the buggy cards have all been fixed.
I would say springleaf drum isn't as good in pauper. there's no thopters
I would be somewhat more willing to unrestrict Affinity at this point, because I feel that many decks pack more relevant disruption than they used to. The general strength of aggro in Classic PDC recently has made it necessary for everybody to pack some removal.
That said, I would not be thrilled to automatically give up 3 more sideboard slots for Ancient Grudge. There's a bit of a problem in that the best cards vs. the best enchantment are not very good vs. artifacts, and vice versa. However, if that was the biggest problem, I don't think it would be a big deal.
I'm open to convincing but am not quite convinced yet.
That turn 4 "discard 4 and I get a 3/3" is a definite backbreaker.
I don't like the arguments that PDC should have Affinity for its "best deck," and that we can always change it back if it becomes too poweful again. These seem weak somehow. I also think that Affinity is the only deck that will benefit from the unrestriction. You mention a boost for Trinket Mage decks, but most decks with him won't want to use him to grab more than that one occasional singleton artifact land. I think that wwe should keep them restricted- Affinity is still played, and does well. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Haha, no problem. Even happens to the best of us.
Wow, I remember the original debate WAYYYY back when about Affinity, the lands, and the Plating. And, as you said, it made sense at the time to slow the deck down. There have been a lot of new cards added to MTGO since then, and it probably is time to revisit the restrictions. Affinity will gain very little as we go forward. The most recent boon for the deck is Springleaf Drum for explosive starts, but even that's not all that much. Wizards will continue to print artifact hosers at common, but not very many relevant Artifacts will be printed at common. As that trend continues Affinity gets weaker and weaker in comparison.
I'd be very interested in seeing what would happen with unrestricted lands.
Oh, and we have Gorilla Shaman now, he's in one of the Coldsnap Precons. :)
I'm not a regular to classic events, however I think that a trial period makes a lot of sense, and might even put an end to the endless discussion of the issue.
On second thoughts, the discussion will never cease, but the trial still needs to be made.
I forgot about that, yea. Probably a faily important detail :) Sorry about your bad luck.
I guess you don't remember games two and three of our top four match. Game two ended when I mulliganed to a four card hand. Game three ended when I mulliganed to a three card hand. I don't think games two and three lasted more than a combined two minutes total. I conceded shortly after turn four or five in both games.
omg how origenal to bash a creature that can be killed. listen buddy everything dies. are you looking bor a card like this.
Retarted good creature 0
retarted good creature is all colors, has shroud, can not be countered, haste trample, poisoness 10, if placed in a graveyard from anywhere must be put into play, and has a swiss army knife.
6/20
is that good enough? or is the fact that you cant equip a warhammer to it make it unplayable?
S'all right... turns out after the DQ, we still have enough points with the new name to be in 4th currently :)
(For anyone interested, the DQ was a joke related to how our name was spelled incorrectly).
Love the PDC recaps! Shame about your clan getting DQ'd, though...
I appreciate your support!
Ham,
If you get the chance, how about checking into the "powermatching" pair ups during the final round of PE's?
Maybe explain a bit about it?
No ID's I understand and even agree with. Along with the "if we could do it in real life too, we would" response from WOTC. However, from what I understand of the powermatching stuff, it's not working anything close to what paper tournies do.
Aren't there specific DCI rules on how match paring should work? If so, this is how MTGO should work too. This is definately NOT one of those "if we could we would in paper" situations, since DCI matching rules COULD be changed if organized play wanted it to work that way. So this seems to be just a difference for difference's sake type situation.....