To me, your last statment says the most.  "For YOU at this point, it is not" really is indicative of the way vintage has evolved.  I'm one of those players that used to play back in the day and only picked up the game again in the past few years.  As such, the level of "brokeness" available to me when i originally played *stopped after the Urza block* was dramatically less.  Even within the few years that i've been playing people are claiming that the fundamental turn has shifted down to turn 1.5.  Because of this, whenever I try to get my friends to play (the ones I used to play before i stopped) they force me to use older style decks; otherwise they don't have fun.

The point i'm making is that the criteria for "fun" really is subjective and truly falls under the category of the 3 things i listed earlier:

1.  People think of vintage as the format where you can play anything you want, which, as a whole, is kept in check by the restricted list.  This happens regardless of the truth of this statement.
2.  Some cards have become staples to the format and so people don't like changing things which they grew up w/ and have come to love *regardless of the impact it has on the format as a whole.*
3.  People accept that broken things happen.  So as long as they get to play with their foils then they are happy.  Thus, when Will becomes a 4th turn combo that is nearly impossible to stop *exaggeration noted* then people will keep on grinning and go on their merry way.

Because of these 3 things, I think people, like Smmenen, are asking people to take a closer look at what Yawgmoth's Will actually does.  Granted, we have become VERY accustomed to it, and are willing to accept losing to it, but for people who are deck designers, like Steve, who are tired of using Will in EVERY deck b/c it is THE card to use, in addition to the reality that it keeps certain cards restricted ultimately decreasing card choices/deck designs, then Will becomes very trite.  I'm not saying that vintage loses all of its flavor as one discovers new ways to abuse the format, only that the format does become stale.

Does this necessarily mean that Will is impacting the level of play significantly to point of being "unfun"?  probably not, and this will probably never occur as WOTC tries to keep combo in check b/c that style of deck really isn't fun to lose to *as was described by my third point*.  Does this mean that Will doesn't necessarily meet the banned criteria?  no.  Its all a matter of perspective, and as Smmenen pointed out, He's looking at it from a deckbuilder's perspective rather than just a player's.

So as long as people are having "fun" playing cards even though they are almost assured of losing on turn 4 (exaggeration) and as long as people are merely looking to replay older cards b/c it has been in their binder for decades and have always enjoyed playing with it *even though now it is 5 times more powerful* then i guess Will shall be fun.  If you look at vintage more wholistically, and the impact it has on the format as being indicative of fun *the way Smmenen seems to percieve it* then Will isn't nearly as fun as it once was.

So I guess all i can do is ask you nay sayers to take a moment to stop and reflect upon this and try to determine what is so "fun" about Will yourself.  couple this with knowledge that other staples may be unrestricted and will hopefully lead to a more diverse format.   

right... that may be true... I'm still wondering where we draw the line.  Like you have to have a set standard that merits restriction/banning.  In addition issues such as *Will is too powerful as a 4 of, restriction didn't lessen its power, therefore new course of action must be taken* etc... are still viable.

Not to mention, this goes back to my point earlier in the thread where i discuss the three reasons why Will really isn't up for contention by the general public... aka...

1.  People think of vintage as the format where you can play anything you want, which, as a whole, is kept in check by the restricted list.  This happens regardless of the truth of this statement.
2.  Some cards have become staples to the format and so people don't like changing things which they grew up w/ and have come to love *regardless of the impact it has on the format as a whole.*
3.  People accept that broken things happen.  So as long as they get to play with their foils then they are happy.  Thus, when Will becomes a 4th turn combo that is nearly impossible to stop *exaggeration noted* then people will keep on grinning and go on their merry way.

So again, please state a standard, with reasons as to why this fits vintage specifically, that can be agreed upon banning.  EVEN IF Will DOESN'T meet that standard, that really is the next step that needs to happen for discussion to continue.

As a side note... can people please stop using the "Will is broken, other cards are broken, so what's the big deal" argument.  Like Smmenen has pointed out plenty of reasons why Will is unique.  Other people on this thread have done the same.  Not only is it unique in the way it bypasses the general rules, it is also relegated as one of the MOST broken cards if not the most.  So if 4 tinker's are too much to play with b/c of the manner in which it executes its strategy... then why is 1 yawgmoth's will NOT too many when it is as powerful if not more so and still is able to carry out its strategy as effectively as if there were 4 in the deck.

So please stop using that line... it is too ambiguous, doesn't address any of the analysis on this thread and in the article, and doesn't really move things forward.  Not to mention it is completely arbitrary as to the acceptance of such a statement and is one of the reasons why there ARE complaints.

To summit...  again all of your arguments are based upon the assumption that Will isn't "unfun" enough to be banned.  The only example you note is ravager and you try to correlate banning with something that is THAT extreme.  However, considering vintage, due to its large card base/ability, can hate out any deck shouldn't we really use a different criteria?  I mean I really doubt that the majority of recent restrictions occurred due to the majority of people playing with that card to SUCH a degree that it couldn't be hated out.

But further more, like Smmenen keeps saying that the standard for banning should be different than restriction.  But since everyone keeps missing this point, we will just go around in circles saying *i agree with you on everything but the conclusion* and nothing will happen.

So my challenge still stands to all of you Nay Sayers...  Can you give a set criteria for banning Will with specific reasons why this fits vintage rather than merely saying *it works for standard* b/c the two really don't correlate.

The only one who truly attempted this was Matt when he said:

My response is:

Do you honestly believe that there could POSSIBLY be any one card that cannot be hated out in vintage?  People say that this is the format where "buh-roken" things happen, so why do we create a restricted list in the first place since THOSE cards could be hated out?  *maybe not in mass, but individually*.

This leads me to the conclusion that it's not about hating out a card, but based upon the way the card interacts with the format.  So we're trying to figure out what that other standard could be... 

As for
I'm just a little confused about this...  Why a strategy being complicated make it NOT restriction/ban worthy?  You could mess up with old Long.dec due to the order of set-ups and so on just like you explain but it lead to MASS restrictions. 

In addition, the reality that you have to "always factor in Will" when it is a singleton seems a little over the top.  How often do you figure in *is this hand keepable if my opponent gets a turn 1 tinker*  or *what do I do if my opponent top decks lotus on turn 3*.  The reality that you DO always have to factor in Will, but rarely seem to have to do that to other cards to the same degree, gives credence to two things:
A.  Will's strategy is completely unhampered by restriction *which the majority of people agree with*.
B.  Decks really are built around Will

So why does this not merit banning

Fair enough...  all I was asking was that my ideas be treated in a fair manner rather than dismissing ideas simply b/c of the title next to a name (something that causes a lot of commotion on other threads and is the reason several people truly dislike posting on TMD).  In addition, I'd be willing to try and spout out some interesting decks based upon the set criteria if you'd be willing to give that to me.  Ie... are we working off the assumption that Will is unrestricted but Lotus, ancestral recall, and LED or if Will were unrestricted and nothing else changes?


First off i'd like to point out that your analysis as to the purpose of Will i whole heartedly agree with and attempted to express much earlier in this thread and is the reason why I use the Mox example with correlation to Will.  I didn't mean to sound as if Will was PURELY about card advantage because its not.  This is one of the main reasons I tried to say it is closer to a tutor than a draw spell and should be used accordingly.

As to my summation, I'd say that my position is really an extension of Smmenen's where I agree with his position and add that, due to the degree of non-interaction that Will creates, it is deserves banning b/c that seems to be the heart of what leads to restriction in vintage.

And about my last post, I would like to apologize.  Kl0wn really didn't add anything and neither did I.  It was more of a personal thing between the two of us started by a misunderstanding i'm sure that just spiraled out of control.  Like we were still discussing SOME things of relevance, but they were so minute that, were he to have replied again, I was actually going to either just dismiss them or point out how pointless that discussion was.

A word out of your own book eh   I couldn't help but notice that that's all that you do.


Sarcasm noted... but again, Spoils of the Vault for dark ritual or cabal ritual when you have threshold isn't a bad play...  Its one of the reasons meandeck tendrils was able to work goldfishing first turn kills 60% of the time *do i need to do independant testing or can we take their word on it?*

as for me misreading your post... You stated that
at which point i replied saying that those cards aren't the enablers that got all of those "juicy Willbreakers in the graveyard and hand".  The cards you just mentioned are the cards we are searching for... aka the willbreakers... not the enablers...



If you knew anything about masonry work you would know that you use specific hammers along with chisels to work the stone... a bigger hammer correlates with a bigger chisel meant for mass removal...  The point i was making is that your arguments are stupid and very crude.


IDK why any combo is able to win turn one then...  Please sir, tell me in your infinite wisdom do decks who will rarely see LED, Lotus, or Ancestral recall can win turn one?  I just don't get it... how do they do it since you say its impossible!!!  cough cough meandeck tendrils.

Also i didn't say that disruption isn't nice, but said if anything, substitute duress for Force of Will since it would provide you more information and do practically the same thing in terms of protecting the combo when going off turn 1.  Please answer why duress doesn't fill in that slot for faster combo and i'll drop the point... especially since a lot of faster decks didn't/don't run FoW.

As to your challenge, I do believe you are asking for a little much...  You want me to go through, goldfish hundreds of rounds, all on a scenario that we both know will never happen *Will being unrestricted* just to prove to you something that almost anyone should know...  Besides, the point behind your argument was to say that "i don't have enough experience to make this call" hence why i referred you to the quote by Machinus who has posted even more than you... Why should we take your advice on this? how many top 8's have you made using combo that tried to go off turn 1 or 2? 


Granted, meandeck tendril's isn't the deck to play... but it does prove my point about the ability to get lots of cheap mana acceleration in the graveyard which helps further the game plan *which is what we were discussing*.


Again you don't truly reply to what i said *which seems to happen a lot... sorry for the condescension but its true*.    And i've already addressed why i'm not going to build the deck to prove a point on a thread on TMD when all it would be is a waste of time.  Just think about it... deathlong was willing to get a 6 CC yawgmoth's Will and that was still sufficient to win games.  Imagine what 3 3CC Yawgmoth's Will and 4 6CC yawgmoth's Will could do in a deck... Especially since you have other tutors to help find the 3 3CC ones.  *i'm not saying that 3 Will's in this deck and 1 sideboard is optimal, I'm just trying to make a point.*  Also, as a sidenote, Deathlong didn't run FoW.  The reason Smmenen gave is that its not worth decreasing threat density.  This combined with Duress's ability to give you knowledge about a player's hand and the ability to snag hate pre-emptively makes this a perfectly viable solution.

Check out his meandeath primers on starcitygames.com... it'll give you some insight... Hopefully you'll take his word and won't ask his credentials *though you were questioning mine even though i said the same thing and gave very similar analysis.*  Next time actually reply to what i say rather than making me look for it in old posts/articles... This is very time consuming and ultimately doesn't do much to prove a point... the smartest person in the world can be wrong and the dumbest one be right once in a while...  seperate yourself from credentials b/c they do nothing but get past the firewall of hate that is established against new ideas...

Well i do cover a lot of issues and i am one of the few supporters of banning Will on this thread still posting.  Meaning, either i can be very concise, have MANY posts which will get me in trouble, and fulfill your wish... OR i can not respond to everything, have people complain about THAT and essentially the thread will keep moving backwards b/c someone will say *oh but you didn't respond to this... OR i can attempt to answer a lot, put out my viewpoints, and have something for someone to actually respond to rather than just... "you're wrong".

Remember, the side that wants something to change tends to have the burden of proof so they can't just rely on arguments that say *that's not the way its done, better luck next time* or *it doesn't meet 50% rule, why have this thread at all* while ignoring the logic of everything that has been said.

Finally, i'd like to mention that i do relatively well at reading comprehension from the standpoint that i understand for the most part what someone else has said wholistically which is a lot more than most of the people who are replying on here... namley they take one line, respond, and don't truly comprehend how that fits into the big picture...  So rather than criticizing try to put it into perspective yourself... for example you state:


Well vegeta I did mention that I didn't think it would Kill gifts very much... only weaken it.  I also did mention that it would be impossible to determine the shift in EVERY way and so it was obviously conjecture.  But I do think that if Will were banned, then gifts would resort to severence/belcher which is shut down by pithing needles.  Now, pithing needles doesn't have a lot to do, but for a stax deck, It would help shut down vial, jitte, AND belcher as well as random things in other decks making it worth playing more...  But of course that isn't represented in our current meta b/c needle to handle just fish really doesn't seem like the most effective plan.

Of course, if the belcher version became popular, then you could use needle.  Since crucible lock is effective, but possibly not the MOST effective lock compent against the majority of decks out there other than mana drain decks, which take a huge hit from needle, then another lock piece could take its place... Again, all conjecture b/c it depends on what changes are made to which decks so that hate decks can determine the best cards to use in response...  As i said earlier, and was expressed vehemently by summit, it is impossible to know exactly what the change will be.  Look at trinisphere's restriction... it took months to stabalize and who would have guessed in february that fish would have made a come back?  So unless your "extensive testing" someone is able to read future meta's i don't think it really is all THAT effective for the same reasons i don't think the Waterbury 2nd day thing will be truly indicative of what would actually occur

AND as for the diversity issue... I didn't necessarily mean having more diverse meta.  I meant, as was indicated by the previous clause (reading comprehension skills needed here) where i am specifying cards, that we would have more cards to choose from.  For instance someone earlier in this thread mentioned the portal tutors etc... 

As for killing every "normal" combo deck out there... i assume you mean tendril's based combo and yes, it would kill many decks in that archetype.  Hence why cards probably would become unrestricted opening up the card pool once again   That really isn't conjecture, that is almost an assurance since Will really does keep a lot of cards restricted.  Who knows, this may even make combo viable once again b/c hate against one combo deck may not work against another making them actually resilient against the meta.

Clearly some of this is conjecture and isn't the reason to ban WILL... like you don't say *banning Will -> more diverse combo decks making it viable again.  We like combo decks. Thus, Banning Will is good.*  But we can make some pretty clear assurances that if a card is on the restricted list, for example, b/c it is overpowered in a tendril's combo deck... and tendril's combo dies... then that card can be unrestricted and we hope that it will happen.  From this standpoint, who knows what will result... this may lead to more decks trying to abuse fastbond in animal farmesque decks... or to someone trying to break Crop Rotation *though it probably still will be restricted* or frantic search in ways we havent seen yet.  Mind over Matter may even find a home in a deck considering future sight is being used and has the same casting cost... again it all depends on what changes actually happen, and only time would be able to tell... hence why SOME conjecture is necessary.  Of course it really isn't conjecture if you make broad statements that are assured to be true such as *trinisphere's restriction will lead to changes* or something more specific such as *trinishpere's restriction will decrease the popularity of stax decks...*

Yea... Sorry steve if you thought i had completely ignored this point...  I addressed it earlier on and hate repeating myself as much if not more than i'm sure you do.  In addition I didn't go into as much detail as you did by detailing all of the restricted cards and the impact of restriction on them.  

I also want to say that I agree with Machinus about how people are only looking at aspects of playing with cards and not building decks around them...  This is another aspect that I tried expressing earlier *though probably incoherently* and have realized that few people actually read entire posts/articles and don't truly want to think TOO hard about any particular issue.  Like what you are asking for is something that is abstract in a crowd of people who are calling for statistics and other tangible "arguments."

Now onto my replies:


Wow, i really like how you read the entirety of my last post... I don't even want to get into how wrong this is.  Just remember Smmenen's article about how to defeat CS... not through graveyard hate, but through denying their draw.  In addition, i went into pretty decent analysis as to why extract and other narrow cards, which would have to be used in multiples, to hate out a singleton really is inefficient with today's decks.  seriously just read what i said next... ALL OF IT... rather than just picking up one line and saying "wow this is wrong" when it is incomplete.


You're right, aggro has always ran disruption.  The difference is the fundamental strategy of the decks.  FCG is aggro because it doesn't really look to disrupt your opponent first and then kill with small beats.  It hopes to overwhelm the opponent with a TON of goblins very quickly and, if disruption happens, great.  Fish on the other hand, has a completely different purpose.  It hopes to see null rod/chalice in its oppening hand.  It uses utility creatures such as meddling mage specifically designed to dirsupt the opponent. etc... In other words, Fish's gameplan is designed around disrupt your opponent for a while and in the meantime you kill them with 1/1's and 2/2's.  That is why we have hybrid archetypes *not just the traditional 3* where this would be relegated to aggro-control b/c its strategy is apply beats with LOTS of disruption.  aka w/o disruption fish would lose majority of rounds.  w/o disruption fcg would still be decent.


Again... seriously... read my post further down where i address why this isn't the best way to hate out Will.  In addition, when you talk about the redundancy of will have you seriously ever played against Goth Slaver?  or any other good mana drain deck?  When a deck has the ability to cycle through like half of its deck in a game, don't you think it will either have drawn Will or found a tutor that can?  IDK, i think if the player really needs Will then they will find it.  How else do these decks win when they only have like 2 cards designated to win?

The thing is, however, again as i addressed in my post, that mana drain decks which rely on card advantage to win *aka that is their strategy* don't always need Will to win b/c they already have enough CA based upon game-state.  This does not mean Will isn't central to the strategy b/c Will really is one of the best CA cards ever printed for mid-late game.  Even look to your buddy Klown's post to see why Will gives you card advantage over concentrate which is a draw spell.  All this means is that these decks pack a ton of redundancy which helps create a form of resilience.  

*onto a quick tangent*  Since we are so bent on trying to determine if this really makes this a Will deck or not look at it this way.  Ancestral Recall is the best draw spell in the game and, as such, gains u the most CA for the buck...  Yet, except in recent Gift decks, is finding and resolving Ancestral Recall the primary purpose of these decks?  no... simply b/c it doesn't provide as much CA as Will...

Will provides more CA b/c it can replay AK 3 and 4, bring back destroyed moxes, etc... all of which basically null-n-voids your opponents card/s which were used to disrupt your plan.  This means not only are you drawing cards in the case of AK, but you also wasted one of your opponent's counterspells in the bargain which puts you that much more ahead b/c they have less hate and you have more threats to deal with.


Again, I answered this relatively well on like page 3/4 or something... please read all of this thread before just posting erroneous crap.  I'm not saying that it is wrong to answer something w/o reading everything, I'm just saying that you are spouting old arguments.  My honest answer is this:

No card really deserves restriction unless it makes combo too good.  Otherwise, the format really is able to deal with any other card adequately.

 Â *since this is not the case*  I would venture to assume that your initial standard is flawed.  Namely that just because the risk factor of X is high does not mean that the game cannot handle it AS IT HAS.  Again... look to trinisphere and how people were adapting.  Cron wasn't even using 4 trinisphere's, and other decks had spouted up to contest trinistax.  Not to mention, the odds of having a FoW in hand as opposed to a workshop + trinisphere meant that it should have easily been hated out.

 Â  This leads me to assume that the format really doesn't ban cards b/c no one can deal with it.  Rather, I believe, it is based upon the non-interaction that occurs as a result of the particular card.  This is why people dislike combo.  This is why people really hate trinisphere.  Now the line becomes blurry when we begin discussing other cards such as mana drain and Yawgmoth's will.  In the case of mana drain, people for a while were calling for its restriction b/c it wasn't about what card it countered *though that was a plus* it really was about the mana it generated.  This meant that you were on auto-pilot ready to counter anything with a high casting cost just to get the mana to go broken.  However, mana drain is a classic and people are willing to deal with that lvl of non-interaction simply b/c we are desinsitized to it.

 Â   With Will, this line is even harder to see.  The reason is because it is a mid-late game card *except in combo which i guess the mid-late game could techinically be determined in just minutes rather than turns*  As such people feel that it is acceptable to lose to it b/c, hey, they had a chance to play all of their pretty little foils.  But, as I described earlier, Will really does give a CA deck, such as mana drain decks, the ability to simply goldfish *while dealing with particular hate in due time* using their life totals as a buffer until they have overwhelming CA and just win.  The reason Will is so central to this is b/c it allows a player to replay cards that have been countered *thinning hate.dec of hate* and to replay any essential card that was destoryed etc...  This not only means that your goldfish was disrupted for only a turn or two, but means that the opponent now has less cards to effectively deal with your threats making it MORE like a goldfish trial.

 Â   From this perspective, I think Will creates one of the largest non-interactivity gaps of any card currently developed.  It helps by-pass hate, it replays cards designed around CA which inevitably leads to more CA *which more than doubles your CA which is better than just playing draw spells constantly from the deck*  AND it can be used, as was the case in old style keeper, to merely replay one or two cards which pushes a controllish deck over the top *even if that is only to replay mox jet* making the game from that point on over.


Lol, who needs to work on their reading skills?  YOu even quoted me when i gave you a plethora of other mana producers that are currently being abused.  and remember, i did say that the tutors would also find these which, you so conveniently, decided to cut out of the quote b/c i guess you only read selectively...  As for me "misreading" your post... remember you did reply saying that that was just a hoax and, since you weren't serious, then that does make black lotus, ancestral recall, and led restricted/available for comment...  Thank you for understanding the finer details in life... next time you want to formulate an idea, let me know and i'll buy you a sledge hammer so you can chisel it out.

Did I not list plenty of cards that would provide mana and/or the ability to draw into mana while fixing your mana base *chromatic sphere and darkwater egg*.  I'm so glad that you've been teaching mtg for a LONG time... but you don't seem to understand combo at all.  Combo doesn't win turn one b/c they always find Black Lotus, LED, or Ancestral Recall.  IN fact, the majority of the time they don't have these cards though, when they do, it generally means auto-win b/c this breaks the tight mana curve that these decks focus upon.  You know what else breaks that mana curve?  Yawgmoth's will which is why most people claim that once u draw that card in a combo deck you pretty much just win.  

As for coming up with the mana, with 4 dark ritual, 4 cabal ritual, 4 chromatic sphere and darkwater eggs, a slew of artifact mana etc... probably land grant and some dual land, you'd easily have the mana necessary to combo off as was discovered by mean deck tendril's.  Heck, you can even count other silly cards such as crop rotation and the like if you want since that finds tolarian academy and, when replayed, is practically free storm.  The hardest part comes from drawing into more mana producers hence why chromatic sphere and darkwater egg are nice since they give u both... Will also gives you both by replaying your mana producers, a tutor if necessary/able, and any draw that you've accumulated making your storm count soar and giving you all the needed mana you desire.  Even if you only play Dark ritual, yawgmoth's will, you still get 2 storm count for the price of 2 black which is pretty decent.


take his word for it if you don't like mine.  Unrestricted Will EVEN in a world with banned black lotus, LED, and Ancestral recall wouldn't be so bad... Its not like we focus combo decks around finding those cards anyways the way we do Will...  These are more "oops i win" cards than strategies.  Will is the strategy and as such should be looked at more carefully.


all that you've said here is a bunch of fluff.  This goes back to what Dozer was blaiming me for earlier... namely this is like saying that the wind is blowing when it is windy.  People will always complain and have always come up with ridiculous stuff.  Heck, people thought of banning morphling or FoW at one time.  But if you'd notice, people are not complaining about Will being the "MOST BROKEN OF ALL TIME".  We are saying that because of certain interractions with the environment that it deserves to be banned.  Hence why Steve goes on and explains why this would not lead to a slippery slope... Namely no other card fits the precise criteria for banning the way Will does.


AS to your particulars summit... to address your 3 big questions:

1.    Sorry but i think the only way to explain it is by proving which decks are the most powerful.  Like its not a fun place to take it, and I agree... but you yourself already said that the meta shifts constantly.  The only way to really figure out where we are headed *barring some insane new tech in future sets* is to figure out what the best strategy is.  Right now the best strategy in a void IS combo.  The second best IS combo control simply b/c it is more resilient than combo and it forces hate.dec to play against it... Hence the reason why few people use tangle wire in stax in today's meta.  hate.dec which includes fish, stax, and keeper.  Am i saying that this will ALWAYS be the best strategy?  not really... but unless hate decks get new tech that doesn't hose everything *the way trinisphere did* then I think combo-control really will be the most powerful deck.  

2.  
 Â No.  Yawgmoth's Will doesn't create a stagnant vintage metagame.  We constantly find new ways to break old cards such as merchant scroll for ancestral recall etc...  Not to mention, with the addition of new sets/cards, clearly there will be ways to break other cards.  The argument wasn't to say that Vintage will create a stagnant meta... b/c that really is more representative of standard when you have few cards to use/abuse... but to realize that yawgmoth's Will is a single card strategy and these new cards/developments should work toward abusing Will to the max.  I mean, look at Ancestral recall and merchant scroll... UU and 1 colorless for 3 cards really isn't all THAT great.  However, this does ensure you get ancestral recall in the graveyard which turns it into 6 cards, for UUU and 1 colorless spread out most likely over two turns which isn't bad.  Or look how gifts has really shifted from a way to abuse belcher to abusing yawgmoth's will...

3.      Obviously it is impossible to determine the effect of banning Will shall have on the meta.  After the restriction of trinisphere it took months for the meta to finally stabalize.  Like it simply takes time to reconfigure all sorts of decks that were previously unusable b/c it clashed with a particular strategy, to test them, and then compare them with other unforseen threats.  To this end i really do commend your efforts with trying to make a Will free day at waterbury b/c it gives you the opportunity to start to think of the game w/o Will.  However, I still think that the results will be FAR from conclusive simply b/c people shouldn't be spending all of their time formulating Will free decks and most likely will simply cut Will and throw in some other random card.  But who knows... i wish you the best of luck with it...


I completely agree with this statement in that i think the Banning of Will would have a devestating impact on Vintage for a Long time.  The reason is b/c Will has become so ingrained in how we develop decks and to which decks are aimed at stopping those decks *such as Tog and now Gifts*.  In other words, I still believe firmly that Combo-Control has been the best deck for a long time now and, although diminished for times b/c of hate, has maintained that status.  To do this, it of course has to evolve hence why gifts is better than tog and why some argued that CS took Tog's spot.  

But this is like looking at an archetype and seeing how it evolves.  Combo evolves with every restriction/unrestriction and every new set.  Even when we restrict certain cards, such as Gush making it almost unplayable and killing GAT, the format evolves.  The point i'm making is that b/c the meta is so centered on Will currently, were we to ban it *ie making it unplayable* it would have a similar effect to restricting/unrestricting other cards.  It will have a big aftershock, things will crack, and then people will rebuild... and overall we would have more playable cards, stop future restrictions, and have even more diversity than before.... WHY? b/c Will really does restrict a lot of cards and gives combo-control the edge to maintain dominance for such a long time that decks have to become so focused against it that hate.dec is easily hated out making something else "the best deck" at the time until it is quickly squashed by combo-control again...


as to
I would venture to say that mana drain wouldn't be restricted nor would dark ritual since those two cards are used in Will decks.  Workshop may become "too" powerful, though i've heard that fish has a really good game against it.  Like what I see happening is that instaed of combo-control being the most powerful deck out there, it lessens its power a little *decrease resiliency and have a worse win condition in gifts for ex. which still makes it a GOOD deck*.  This means workshop decks have a better game against it making them more powerful and likely to be used... Since fish decks have a good game against workshop, and poor game against Gifts, they would take up the slack and help keep shop in control.  Like i said, the problem i see now is that combo-control is so strong that hate.dec really has to focus too much on stopping it leaving it too vulnerable to other decks... meaning combo-control gets hated out but has a quick resurgence


As an additional note to all of you NAY SAYERS.  You want us to go through and give you reasons why Will should be banned...  We do and then you spout off reasons why it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard.  I'm not saying that those standards are wrong, but could you give some specific reasons as to why THOSE standards apply specifically to vintage?  After all, Vintage is a completely different beast and is capable of handling a lot more abuse than any other format.  Once we can come to SOME agreement on this i think we can become to actually resolve a lot of issues

Sorry in advance... this is a long post but I hope it helps clarify the points i made earlier...


Idk... you tell me.  With dark rituals, cabal rituals, chromatic sphere's and darkwater egg's running around *granted the last two don't really net you mana but they still provide cheap draw which decks such as meandeck tendril's abuse to overcome your "only have 7 card in hand" scenario* it would seem to me that there are plenty of viable options out there.  Not to mention the inclusions of spoils of the vault, demonic consultation, demonic tutor, etc... all turn into black lotus, LED, ancestral recall, or the previously mentioned mana enhancers.  For someone so familiar with combo as you poignantly claim, I would think that the answer to your question was self-evident.  Thats the entire reason why decks such as Death long, meandeck tendril's and gang are able to survive... having these plentiful fast mana sources available.  Not to mention, you can also rebuild, will, then rebuild again if necessary on all of the moxes, mana crypts, and so on that are still in play if you are needing the extra mana *though most likely this would just be over-kill*.

As to the question of force of will...

I think you highly overestimate the need for force of will in your opening hand to succeed.  First off, I would probably end up playing duress in a deck that consistently won on turn one b/c it is cheap, does essentially the same thing, and has less of a draw back.  Not to mention it always guarantees me one storm count rather than holding FoW just in case they can counter something major AND it gives me the information needed to know if i WILL be able to succeed or need to hold off for a few turns.

Secondly, the amount of times you will have a FoW in your hand will be negligable to the amount of times that your opponent has FoW in their hand.  In a 60 card deck, you will only get FoW once every 15 cards which is about once every 3 hands *assuming you play first*.  Now, on top of that, you have to figure in how many times you and your opponent will have FoW together rather than just you having it while they don't *meaning yours is a dead draw*.  This on average will be about 1:6 times in which FoW will pair up against each other.  Now of course the numbers vary due to how many cards you draw or they draw on turn 1 via brainstorm and the likes, but still gives you a starting point.

Third, the fact that a combo deck has multiple Will's to choose from *as was the scenario we were speaking of* means that the timing for a FoW becoms MUCH more difficult to judge.  That a combo player can now float multiple black mana, play a Will, and then come back and play another one means that it has natural consistency in pure numbers to over-rule the hate.  Now decisions must be made as to whether or not one must counter the early mana and hope that the deck stalls out only to play Will next turn and pick up from where it left off, or to FoW the 'Will' and have that player play another one and or still just go off.


Clearly you misunderstood what i was going for right here.  What i meant was that when you play a draw spell you are playing the odds.  For instance, when you play brainstorm, you are guessing that w/in the next three cards you see that you will *hopefully* see the card necessary for play.  Hence you don't hesitate to play draw when resources are available b/c it opens up your deck by showing you more cards and increasing your chance of seeing specific ones.  this interaction is one-sided b/c you KNOW what the fundamental purpose of a draw spell is... play it whenever possible as soon as possible and cross your fingers that you get something good.

In contrast, Will is more like a tutor.  You know what card pool you have to choose from and you hold the card until the timing is right.  In other words, you have to do the math and figure if this is the time to break it and get the necessary tempo boost to win as was the case given with the fetchland, stp, and brainstorm or if you must hold the card in hopes that you will draw something else that will need to be replayed to help you win.  From this perspective, you KNOW that you won't always play WILL as soon as you draw it AND WILL serves a different function depending upon the needs of that particular game.  For instance one game you may need to get mana so replaying those destoryed moxes will be sufficient.  Another game it may be to replay draw. etc...  This is why will is not as one sided as draw.

As to your specific example highlighting concentrate against Will:  obviously if a draw spell were to get the same cards that will would have, then it may be considered on-par with Will.  But so would any other tutor that got three cards randomly pulled throughout the deck 100% of the time...  Personally i'd rather have Will knowing what I have access to even if it is limited rather than concentrate with 53 other cards to choose from hoping that i'll get 1.


Right.  We could look to restricting all of the enablers which
     1. Is what Smmenen addresses by saying that Will will lead to future restrictions.
     2. Is my point earlier in the thread *if you bothered to read it all* about how Will is one of the few restricted cards if not the only one that is constantly causing unrestricted cards to become restricted because of the interaction with it.  In other words, if a restricted card is so powerful that 1 copy in a deck is enough to abuse and win to such a ground shaking level that we have restrict more cards it seems that that proves that Will is creating an unhealthy environment.
     3.  Most of the unrestricted "enablers that get all of those juicy Willbreakers in the graveyard and hand" tend to be draw cards.  Currently the unrestricted draw by itself tend not to be over-powered to the point of restriction since they take a lot of mana to use *aka... TFK, Intuition -> AK* or don't give you TONS of card advantage *brainstorm since it only trades 1 card for 1 card. although it is one of the most broken draw cards in the format and does give card quality etc...*.  This means either you are going to significantly lower your standard for what is "broken" and restrict a bunch of these enablers OR you are going to talk more about tutors in the form of spoils of the vault which does have a pretty nasty draw back and doesn't truly put cards in the graveyard to abuse.

       Instead, it seems to me that you need to specify what enablers specifically would need to be restricted.  Now if you are talking about the cards that specifically break 'Will' such as dark ritual etc... that's different, but that's not what you initially posted. 


     I'd say that is is asinine to suggest that I must specify which hate cards are used against Will decks.  Will has multiple functions NOT just mana recurious.  In tog it is to replay draw spells and other essentials.  In keeper it was to re-play w/e bomb was needed to give the necessary boost to maintain control.  and YES in combo it is for mana recursion.  The reality that ALL decks are hurt by mana denial *to varying degrees* is one of the reasons why that is such a good strategy in stax as a lock component.  1rst turn workshop, crucible, followed up by wasteland will even wreck fish barring Vial. 

    In addition, i'd like to note that you are also asking me to specify what cards in today's meta are used to target Will decks.  One thing to note about Will decks is that they DO tend to be mana intensive and I'll cover this later when addressing why the meta is Will vs. Anti-will decks.


What are most Mana Drain Decks if not Yawgmoth Will decks?  You even give the answer yourself when you say:  In other words, mana drain became a cheap way to gain lots of mana quickly.  This was then used to play draw spells.  These draw spells lead to more card advantage, and more draw, and so on.  Now once all of this was done, what do you think would fuel another nice big Yawgmoth's will?  probably another mana drain...

Now i'm not saying that this was the only strategy of these decks.  Some people will even argue that mana drain decks don't need Will as is the case between CS and Gothslaver.  This is why i stated earlier in the thread, if you had read it all, that in general any deck that relies on card advantage as a win condition probably doesn't need Will for its kill because it relies on consistency and, as such, has multiple routes to victory. However, its like saying TPS isn't a Tendril's deck just because it casts tinker first turn and wins. But this doesn't mean that Will isn't essential to fulfilling that deck's strategy and is, as many players will attest, one of the benefits of so much draw (aka find will, replay all draw or w/e essentials are needed, and have so much advantage that you just win).

As to why people call these decks mana drain decks over Will decks?  i would probably conclude that the reason is because Drain overcame that obstical that you addressed: needing more mana.  Can someone win w/o a mana drain? of course... can someone win w/o Will? of course...  but both cards essential to the strategy.  Its sort of like Draw 7.  Draw 7's didn't win... it was just essential to finding and playing enough cards to go lethal with tendril's and as such we still classify it as part of the tendril's archetype.


First off i'd like to start by thanking you for actually taking the heart of my argument and trying to answer it.  In addition I would like to say that i whole-heartedly agree with you that I did not explain this theory very well and hope that i can clarify it now.

When i say that decks in today's meta are either Will or Anti-will I am basing this upon which deck is the best deck to play period.  Not based upon what another person is playing, but which deck has the most power associated with it.  From this standpoint Combo really comes to mind as it consistantly has the fastest goldfish.  Since the majority of good combo decks out there use Will as a major boost, I think it is fair that we can assume that these are Will decks. 

however, combo really doesn't define the format because it is either A. too hard to play over 8 grueling rounds *not including out rounds* or B. it is WAY too easy to disrupt making it NOT the most powerful deck in the format.  This leads us to conclude that another deck probably is the most powerful deck in the format...

This tends to lead to Combo-control since this archetype still has an exceedingly fast clock but carries with it the resiliency necessary to withstand some hate. 

Now one can argue why stax and fish aren't that deck... why do we assume combo-control?  The main reason i'd argue is that these two decks really aren't the "most powerful" decks in the format.  If every deck were fcg then stax wouldn't be so hot since it can rely on few lands *meaning crucible lock isn't as hurtful* has lots of permenants *thus smokestack isn't as potent* is unaffected by ITEOC and is relatively unaffected by null rod and COTV considering it has lackey and diverse castings costs.  While FCG might have problems with fish *since fish has vial and Jitte*, another deck would arise to hate out fish... *i'm not specifying because we haven't figured out the best way to beat fish though MeanGifts does promise good results or so i hear*. 

In other words, decks that are specifically designed to hate out combo-control decks through resource denial would be totally annihalated by decks designed to do the same to them.  In contrast, Combo-control still is spouting out incredibly good results and is expected to make a decent showing at the upcoming tournament.  This leads me to the conclusion that combo-control is the most powerful deck out there.

Not to mention, when you say
This just doesn't work.  Stax is a hate deck no matter how you look at it.  If aggro were popular then tangle wire would make a huge showing rather than CoW or some other lock piece.  The reality that Stax decks are designed to target combo control currently means that that is the most powerful deck out there which comes with innate resiliency b/c Will is really built for any combo deck out there regardless if it is designed to win slowly or quickly *besides dragon which is just an abomination;)*

As to your other question:
I would say that if this were true then practically NO card would ever need be restricted.  Or rather that a lot of cards on the current restriction list would not be there.  For example, why put gush on there?  surely we could find other ways to hate out GAT... I mean we have plenty of cards to choose from that hate out creatrues and/or the ability to play lots of spells.  pyrostatic pillar, stp, wrath of god, even terror and dark banishing if need be *tho that doesn't solve for the tog annoyance*.  What about dream halls?  or mind over matter?  And, namely any other card that does't help first turn combo decks succeed with more consistency through hate.  If a deck has time to errect a defense, then with the large pool to choose from ANY deck can be hated out no matter how solid it is.  So why did trinisphere become restricted?  especially since first turn FoW was more likely to occur than first turn trinisphere?

In other words, I think that vintage players need to realize that this all or nothing situation that they place themselves in really doesn't apply.  They are using a lot of the same rules that apply to standard and, to a lesser extent, extended where card pools are limited and a particular deck has the potential to become TOO good.  In vintage, however, the standard is shifted to reflect what is currently popular.  Namley tog was spouted as the best deck to play... then fish became popular b/c it hates combo-control...  As a result, stax and its variants became to make a showing b/c dropping a 7/10 body or even a jugg at the time was sufficient to stop fish... Since stax was popular for a LONG time due to trinisphere combo control took a step back, though it was still under development and made big showings with CS and so on.  *this was actually the time that combo should have made a showing b/c stax is one of tps's best matchups and is what the europeans did to help combat trinistax.  We americans just like to play decks that are more secure and as such didn't capitalize*

Now that stax has lost one of its key components and gifts was tuned, this has become the new "best deck" beginning the cycle all over again...  With this in mind i would say that since combo-control decks really are Will decks that add in resiliency and as such have lest reliance upon any single card which diminishes the correlation in many people's mind, and since combo-control is consistently the "best deck" it may merit some revision.  The only difference between this and trinisphere *which if i remember correctly wasn't even a 4 of toward the end of its career* is that people complain about trinisphere b/c it was percieved to create more non-interaction than Will.  Which if you look at my previous posts i do not believe is necessarily true.


Since when is Fish an aggro deck?  isn't it closer to control-aggro in that it tries to control the player through denial while trying to win? *not sure how true this is anymore due to jitte and beefier creature additions from green*.  But with cards such as chalice, wasteland/strip, rootwater thief, etc... it seems that many of the cards, even the creatures which serve dual purpose, are designed to control the game while the creatures go the distance.  The reason this is necessary is b/c Fish really doesn't have the means to beat many of the tier 1 decks w/o disruption so that becomes one if its primary goals... ie gifts would just goldfish otherwise and win etc...

As to vial being included to avoid drain and FoW? WTF... who would trade a FoW for a cloud of fairies?  MAYBE for meddling mage... but that is primarily to stop the disruption it creates.  And if a Fish deck really is using vial ONLY to stop mana drain decks from countering a 1/1 so that it creates a massive 20 turn clock then something is wrong with that aggro strategy of yours... instead it seems vial is able to pump out creatures faster, free up mana to cast jitte and/or seal of cleansing/standstill etc...  namely other threats which provide mana drain mana just as efficiently *the main reason for countering anything with mana drain against fish*.


If you had read my previous posts... the fact that direct hate doesn't really work would be answered...  But to reiterate, direct hate doesn't work since a combo-control deck tends to cycle through a TON of cards where, a deck like fish, cycles through relatively few.  This means that you have to run multiple hate cards against Will for them to be seen with any efficiency.  However, since combo-control are used over straight control due to resiliency, that means that combo-control can win even w/o Will and, b/c it sees half of its deck through its massive draw engine, it will most likely see one of the other threats as well.  This means you waste at least 4 cards to hate out 1.  Since vintage is really all about playing the odds this gives the combo-control player a HUGE advantage in the long term and leads to them winning.

In contrast, if you run hate cards that target the purpose of Will... ie mana acceleration or preventing mana so that Will can only have minimal effect, then you stop multiple cards with only 1 of yours which puts the odds in your favor.  Its the same reason Smmenen told people to stop the draw engine in CS rather than just stopping the Mindslaver.  ALSO as an additional bonus, since there are multiple decks being run *as i described earlier in this post* running cards that affect many decks is a good thing as it makes YOUR deck more resilient.

Rather than going into detail about all of these arguments, I'd like to point out the truly devestating impact that Long.dec was as it was proclaiming a turn 1 win ration of upwards of 60%.  AND that was with Will be restricted AND one of the primary targets of burning wish WAS 'will'.  With Will being unrestricted we would all go nuts for combo as it saves BB 1 colorless mana in the form of death wishing for will unless absolutely necessary *assuming you had 3 will main 1 board*  AND even if you didn't particularly need Will for that game, that just means you'd win turn one anyways. 

As to the other argument about Will being only as powerful as LED and Black Lotus and Ancestral recall... i do believe that this has already been discussed in this thread.  but, even beyond the idea that will turns your graveyard into win conditions it also can give you the boost necessary to win *for example yawgmoth's will for a mox or two that was destoryed to get the mana boost necessary to go off next turn, or even to just replay stp's and some basic draw as in old style keeper to merely get card advantage over the opponent*.  In reality, the purpose of will is truly dependant upon the focus of your deck and trying to compare it to thirst for knowledge and other cards with similar casting costs is unfair b/c Will generally has a different purpose than those cards b/c it isn't 1 sided.  Its like trying to say that thirst for knowledge should be used in death long for card advantage purposes to help it go off turn one...  it just doesn't work.


I don't think it has to go that far.  In fact, I don't think ANY deck could ever go that far unless it were some amazing combo deck that won 75% of the time turn 1 *not even sure then b/c you don't get to go first 50% of the time and it would depend on how well the deck dealt with hate at that point*  I think that the format really is Will decks v.s. anti-will decks.  We just happen to be in a swing currently as the meta-game is shifting rapidly.  When you look at it, Will decks tend to be the most powerful decks in the format *based upon pure power*... look at gifts and friends.  Then we have anti-will decks that attempt to disrupt that plan aka... fish, stax, and so on.  with enough hate, any card in vintage can be destroyed.  If we all started running 4 crypts, 4 planar voids, etc... and 1 win condition, then will would pretty much be shut down.  but that leaves that deck open to other decks *such as FCG* to come in and steal a victory.  The reason is because everyone starts playing the anti-will deck, and then decks that beat the anti-will deck *aka the anti-anti-will deck* becomes popular.  Once that becomes the main choice then the will deck comes back into play.  In other words, Will decks really are shaping the format it just depends on how much so based upon current meta-game shifts.

This implies that the environment can never become unhealthy unless in the form of extreme combo.  Even 4 gush gat could have been effectively hated out, but it would become the deck to go back to rather than gifts.dec or w/e other deck is presumed to be dominant in today's format.  This puts into question y restrict ANY card that doesn't impact combo directly? cards such as trinisphere even, gush, etc... all CAN be hated out, but ultimately the question is do we LIKE those decks being number one. 

Right... but as i continue to say, if u had read the rest of my post, was that this is arbitrary and thus people establish rules such as the 50% rule etc... to help set a more universal standard.  This, however, isn't necessarily true as we saw with trinisphere and, even as you suggest, vintage tends to be about "fun".  This brings up the last point that i make regarding how vintage is truly about traditions.  How cards such as mana drain, dark ritual and other unnecessarily powerful cards that would, if they were recently printed be restricted, will most likely never be so due to vintage tradition.  That they hold a special place in our hearts and that that will never change.  Thus, just like a grumpy old man, vintage holds stringently onto these core cards and deems them "fun" just b/c we are used to them...

Onto a more serious note... can we all STOP TALKING ABOUT YAGMOTH'S WILL AS ACTUALLY BEING RESTRICTED.  Whether or not Will actually shall get banned is a matter for WOTC to deside and takes into the collectability, trust, and over-all some whimsical desire which previously has been expressed as unkowable variables that lead to bannings... Rather than trying to read the future and see if WOTC will do something, can we get back to the power level of the card which has been greatly neglected and is the most reasonable test for banning.  Not only will this give us a mark to determine if it SHOULD be banned *whether it will happen or not* but it can give insight for future deck builds, ways to abuse/set up certain decks, etc...  Smmenen talks about trying to design decks around yawgmoth's will and look at his success... shouldn't we all be catching on and trying to figure out if he is right or if he has missed something?

Everyone on this forum keeps talking about how Vintage holds a lovely place in all of our hearts b/c it is broken and allows players to do broken things.  However, if that were solely the case, then why do we have a restriction list in the first place?  Wouldn't having no restriction list provide the most broken plays ever?!?  Yet, people would complain and we'd be back to square one... 

In response to this, people say that cards should ONLY be limited when it can no longer be effectively hated out and/or 50% of the players use the card.  However, just recently the forums were plagued with people complaining about trinisphere *which is a broken card and thus SHOULD be liked* simply b/c it wasn't "fun".  Yet, many players testify that they loved it when they played against workshop decks b/c it was their best matchup and could play around trinisphere with relative ease *barring that the deck got the nuts.* 

So if brokeness isn't the reason, and the 50% rule isn't the reason, it seems to me that people are just complaining over arbitrary concerns that don't really make anything concrete.  Instead, the only criteria given, it would seem, is that vintage has become based upon upholding traditions in the best and newest ways possible.  It is the oldest format and like any old man, it gets very grumpy whenever something new comes along to ruin its day.  Does this make it right?  no... does this make any sense? not really... its just a fact that seems to be occuring which is why cards such as mana drain and dark ritual which are staples to the vintage community and EXCEPTIONALLY over powered seem to elude the restriction list.

So, since I don't think that this particular post was about whether or not people would like Will to be banned, but rather about the actual reasoning behind why cards should be banned and how Will met those standards, can we please stop these type of comments and focus rather on the important aspects?  For instance I'm still curious if anyone has any response to Will -> more non-interactive game play than any other card and non-interactive play -> players having no fun and restrictions.  Since restriction doesn't truly stop Will, Will should be banned *look to last post made on page 3 for more details*.

No offense but it seems to me that Steve's argument wasn't based upon the random top-decked will, but rather to the over-all power of the card and the way that decks tend to try and abuse it or should... Moreover, all of the scenarios you state explain that you and your opponent are pretty much even and so ANY restricted card, or even an additional counter could tip the balance in your facor.  You even state that other cards such as a top-decked tinker, ancestral recall, etc... would all have the potential to win you the match.

Its not that yawgmoth's will doesn't take skill to use b/c it certainly does take SOME skill in realizing when it will be most effective, but in terms of an evenly matched top-deck mode... it doesn't seem that recieving an extra bomb which tips the scales *regardless if it is yawgwin or ancestral etc...* really requires much skill to use and earn a victory.

p.s.  Can we get back on topic here... instead of talking about starcitygames premium etc can we actually look into the worthiness of banning yawgmoth's will?  My last post on page three describes why i think Will should be banned due to the degree of non-interactivity that it creates and, since non-interactivity tends to be severely disliked amongst the vintage community and is worthy of restriction, shouldn't that also be justification for banning if a card continues to be central in creating so much non-interactive play even restricted?  I may be wrong but I am curious as to what people as a whole have to say on the subject especially since that provides an alternative solution to the "but 50% of people don't use it* and *we need a new criteria for determining bannings* issues.

I meant that people have truly realized the full potential of the card.  Ie... that, like JP said, people are thinking of Will as another card in a 60 card deck rather than thinking of Will as 1 card and then searching for the other 59 cards. 


Well it can be two fast for two reasons... either the deck can win on the first turn... or it takes too long to find the card considering it is going to be 1 in every 15 cards thus, you may have to mulligan quite a bit to find the card *and even then there are no guarantees*.


It has the potential to be a win-more card... yes... which is why whenever looking for cards to find with a tutor you must determine whether or not Will is the fastest way to win at that particular moment... look to the Slaver example i gave earlier about how Slaver's primary kill is Slaver but sometimes one may tinker for pentavus instead...  However, just because certain aspects of a deck are null-n-void that does not mean that Yawgmoth's will isn't a primary win condition nor does it mean that it is merely a "win more" card. 

Think of a deck that is resilient as having multiple win conditions (Gifts) or plenty of hate removal (Oath)...  In the former, the Will kill is the primary kill, however if someone puts up a lot of graveyard hate the deck may opt out to find tinker in another manner and then get colossus for the win.  OR if it draws tinker, land, mox, mox, it may just tinker it up first turn and not even have to use Gifts in order to win.  Does that make tinker a win-more card?  or Will a win-more card?  no... 

As to the latter, all it says is that Will probably isn't the primary win condition, but rather augments the deck so that it can further its own strategy and make up lost ground the way it did in old style keeper and Tog allowing the deck to have inevitability.  In that scenario Will, to me, takes on the form of another Hate removal card in that it helps the deck bypass what the opponent has already done to your deck and continue with your strategy unhindered.  In this way, Will becomes necessary as the most succesful method of doing this, and since the deck is built upon hate removal and a win condition, Will becomes essential to the deck rather than a "win more" card.

It seems to me that THAT is one of the biggest problems... namely that this card is powerful enough to try and find a way to abuse it when you have access to at least 3 less copies of the card.  It is MUCH easier to find an unrestricted card than a restricted one and this is the only restricted card that people seem to be bent on finding in order to abuse (by means of massive draw specifically for this purpose or lots of tutors). 


Even if Will's popularity is low, that doesn't mean that the card isn't worth banning.  It just means that enough people have not been looking at the card in the right way.  Remember, Long.dec was one of the best decks ever and its not like EVERYONE was playing that before things became restricted.

As for the hate cards... realize that its not efficient to put in hate cards that specifically target Yawgmoth's will b/c the decks that abuse it the most either are too fast *in general* for that to be effective or are too resilient meaning they have ways to kill you w/o Will or have answers to your hate.  Not to mention, it would require several crypts to deal with a singleton giving the Will player an advantage b/c you void 1 card out of 60 whilst the opponent is left with only 57 *1 crypt having been used on the Will* useable cards at most.  This is why graveyard hate tends not to be the most helpful strategy against decks like Slaver, and, rather, using Red Elemental Blast, or counters, etc... to help deny their draw is much more beneficial.  You kill one card and still let the deck perform unhindered with executing their initial strategy.

I think that this is the core of what i was trying to say earlier *just not written at 5 a.m. and thus more concise/coherent*... what people should really be focusing on is not OMG THIS IS A CRAZY FORMAT, DO W/E YOU WANT and BROKEN THINGS HAPPEN SO DEAL WITH IT... Obviously there is some point where these statements really fall by the wayside hence why we have a restricted list in the first place...  Our format likes broken things to happen, but we are also accustomed to a certain degree of brokeness that we find to be "acceptable".  Thus, we need to find out central aspects to why this is true rather than merely complaining about "omg i don't like this." 

This acceptance usually is founded upon the relative balance of interactivity that exists.  Cards such as 3sphere when they go workshop, mox, mox, sphere go leads to almost no interactivity and so it hits the restricted list.  While still broken, the card is very one dimensional and thus doesn't create the same kind of stir that it once did.  And, although tinker and black lotus both are also insanely powerful, they, too, are one dimensional in that they both are 1 card which creates 1 effect which *unless its lotus -> will* for the most part only needs 1 answer.  This still may create some interactivity problems when someone goes land, mox, mox, tinker, coloussus as its hard to find an answer in that time period, but isn't the same non-interactivity that 'will' can generate.

The difference tends to be that Will creates such a boost that it makes your deck non-interactive from the point that it is cast.  Whether it is in old style keeper and is used only to replay a few necessary spells to maintain control, or to merely replay a few mox's, lotus, or tons of draw.  Remember, Will tends to be played in decks that are already powerful, but, depending upon draws (b/c vintage is really about playing the numbers), that deck may find itself behind due to excessive counters, hate, etc...  Will helps you counteract that by making those counters useless which means that, since they were countering things, they weren't spending time advancing their strategy and thus you are so far ahead based upon card advantage now that you should win *aka* non-interactive.  In the case of keeper, it maintained control as long as possible, got behind slightly, and then would play Will to replay its bombs, destroying hand size, cards in play, etc... so that all of your spells were exhausted leaving Keeper uncontested as it wins with morphling...

In other words, Will creates two types of non-interactivity.  Either it is in a deck such as long.dec where it wins before the opponent gets to play anything *the reason why combo is so disliked when it is effective* or in decks such as slaver where the opponent gets to play a few cards, but, from the moment that yawgmoth's will is played almost everything that the opponent did is ineffective.  The latter is generally regarded as being just "broken".  However, I'd argue that this makes the game, in many ways, just as non-interactive as fast combo.  The only difference is that the deck trades speed for resiliency and thus doesn't NEED Will to win...  This is why i believe that JP is right when he says that   Namely, because a deck is more resilient, it has more options.  And based upon your draw, a particular choice might be more ideal than another.  however, this does not detract from the reality that the deck likes to be as non-interactive as possible making Will one of its primary objectives.  *example is one might tinker for pentavus rather than slaver in CS.  Although your primary focus is to slaver the opponent, in this particular instance, pentavus is the right choice and will let you win.*


Maybe... but the reality that every deck now seems to either be set up to abuse Will (which is based upon either winning insanely fast or is set up to abuse will the way slaver and tog do) or is an anti-will deck (fish, stax, etc... which try and deny the resources to abuse Will by denying the ability to find it or cutting its mana with COV and so on).  While this may be extreme, this does cover the majority of "good" decks at most tournaments.

Even if you dont' want to look at it that way, look at the two types of decks that run Will... either decks that are Combo and try to win fast, or slower decks that use will for inevitability.  Hate cards against the former work better when not directed at will because that tends to be too slow.  As for the latter, the deck either should be able to find an answer to crypt if need be OR, because it is resilient and thus no longer NEEDS Will, can play around the graveyard hate.  Thus, to maindeck, or even to board in cards against will, takes up slots that could be used more effectively because they don't effect the actual win condition... So either you annoy the Will deck with hate while decreasing your % of good cards *which is bad b/c vintage is all about the numbers* or you leave it alone and hate out other cards which lets Will be used to gain back the lost advantage which significantly lessens the impact of that hate *again decreasing the number of useful cards in a deck*.


Probably... but that goes back to the whole whining argument... namely people are so bent against banning cards that they would have to ban ritual, and therefore mana drain, and so on in order to keep 1 card off that list...  So in order to save a format that you love, b/c Will is such a classic, you'd get rid of other cards that are even more at the heart of vintage than Will?  In other words, to save 1 card, you have to drastically restructure the format and make it closer to the way legacy looks *just with 1 ofs rather than none at all of the good cards*. 

Moreover, the reality that a restricted card is forcing other cards that interact with it, not just cards that find the card allowing it to be abused, to become restricted seems to show that that card is a little overpowered even as restricted.
 

I never claimed to have a specific criteria set out in this argument... all i did was try and establish that the 50% rule doesn't work very effectively in vintage meaning you have to look to other criterions... something isn't flawed just b/c it is incomplete   and as for it being a bomb and not played in hate decks that just doesn't make sense... you don't play yawgmoth's will in a deck designed to destroy graveyards would u?  or with lots of pyrostatic pillars? hate decks generally use less powerful cards to take advantage of and try to win through slow accumulation where i was saying yawgmoth's will attempts to give u lots of goldfish turns based upon the power of your deck... the two concepts are antithetical... besides, the 50% is flawed innately b/c, as we discovered, you don't have to have 50% people using the card... just complaining about it;)

If you're right then that means that playskill is automatically a limiting factor on the brokenness of Yawgmoth's Will, giving more credibility to the people that argue against a ban.  However, you're taking quotes about DeathLong out of context.  Goth Slaver is not nearly as intense as DeathLong in the similar situations, and Goth Slaver is, by all accounts, a Yawgmoth's Will deck.  (Explanation: Goth Slaver takes the necessarily playskill to play properly, but lets you split it out over several turns, and some of your plays are no-brainers anyway).

No, i was strictly talking about combo... and primarily the faster combo's like deathlong...  Goth Slaver is not combo, its still combo control to a degree though it does like to see yawgmoth's will... like it does not RELY on yawgmoth's will to the same degree a true yawgmoth's will deck does... in other words i would probably label goth slaver as a hybrid if nothing else b/c it does try to abuse 'will', just not to the same degree that death long does...

First off, Timetwister doesn't go well together with Yawgmoth's Will.  Your argument here seems to be, "Only powered players can play with Yawgmoth's Will for full effectiveness."  This is mitigated by proxy tournaments, but regardless, take WTF.  People like Kowal have already established the viability of a splash in order to improve the deck (JOrlove splashed white in the board for Ray, Kowal splashed white maindeck for Meddling Mages).  That deck runs Brainstorm, Ancestral, Walk and Brainstorm.  It could easily splash black for Yawgmoth's Will, but it doesn't.[/color]

look lets not turn this into another proxy debate, but in all honesty, full power, plus 4 mana drains, and a card or two you may happen to be missing does add up to more than the usual 10 proxies... 8 power and then 4 drains = 12...  and my argument wasn't to say that every deck that is powered uses yawgmoth's will... remember my point about vintage being diverse? sometimes a strong card isn't the best choice like cron not playing goblin welder which people thought u HAD TO HAVE and is still considered a strong card...  not to mention i already said that wtf doesn't really use yawgmoth's will to full potential b/c it is a conflict of game plan...

Yes, we all know Yawgmoth's Will is a bomb; Smmenen's argument is that Yawgmoth's Will is so powerful, the inevitable best strategy is the one that abuses Yawgmoth's Will the best, and Vintage decks are trying to achieve this.  Decks like Fish and some builds of Stax, for example, prove this inevitably false.  It's more true that the strength of Yawgmoth's Will is only the strength of cards you are replaying.  This is why it's such a bomb in a deck like Gifts, where the entire deck is broken.  It's why Intuition + Yawgmoth's Will is the central strategy of Goth Slaver.  At best, you're at odds with arguments Smmene is making, at worst you're simply just saying "Yawgmoth's Will is good".

I'm still saying smmenen is right... that yawgmoth's will is so powerful that the best strategy is to abuse it the most.  Just b/c there are decks out there, such as fish or stax that don't use a particular card doesn't make it wrong...  Inherently the most powerful decks in the format use or generally have the potential to use yawgmoth's will... think of it this way... combo decks that are really fast are good b/c of their ability to goldfish.  goth slaver, gifts, etc... also are incredibly powerful and have good goldfishes... the strategies to these type of decks is to merely where down the opponent with your spells whilst mostly ignoring them *except for must counters etc...*  like you have a sense of inevitability on your side b/c you are goldfishing... just looking for the right cards and hoping that w/e the opponent does won't interfere with you too much or else you'll have to answer it.  In contrast, hate decks like fish tend to have the opposite game plan.  they want to mess with the opponent as much as possible to screw up their goldfish while widdling away at their life...  now decks like fish have a set time in which all of this can occur b/c only so many threats can be laid down, or found in a given time *tho the clock has become much faster*  to combat this, decks like goth slaver can find yawgmoth's will and essentially get a few "free" goldfish turns which should put them far enough ahead that they win.  to say that yawgmoth's will, thus, is only as good as the cards its playing with isn't entirely true.  its based upon the type of strategy you are using it for which, currently, this is it... and if you want to use that negatively then all cards are worthless b/c in a deck full of land ancestral recall is horrible too... that card is only good b/c we ASSUME that you have something good in your deck that you MAY draw into... or at least thin in order to get closer to the necessary cards.  so in retrospect, whats better? a card that draws you 3 cards and thus giving you 3 "free" goldfish turns or a card that gives you back 2 moxen, that ancestral recall, and a brainstorm which, lets say is 6 goldfish turns of draw go?  So yes, yawgmoth's will is a bomb, but its the context in which u put it that compares it... like having those same 2 moxen, ancestral recall, and brainstorm would be far less usefull in a deck that plays to play creatures from hand w/o vial or lackey for instance *though it would help*


Your arguments here actually manage to make negative sense.  You say, "Statistics apply and are good when they help me, but they're incomplete when they work against me."  Yes, CS uses Yawgmoth's Will and abuses it with Thirst and Deep/AK + Intuition.  It's also nasty with 4 maindeck tutors, plus like 3 tutors to find those tutors.  The viability or unviability of those decks have less to do with Yawgmoth's Will, than the strategy used to find and abuse Yawg Will.

My point wasn't to focus upon yawgmoth's will based decks, but the concept of stats as a whole... namely that statistics work exceedingly well when determining the impact of a card that is easily abused due to the ease at which its found.  I'm not saying that there aren't decks that do this with yawgmoth's will, but a deck such as oath which has MANY free slots to play with to come up with an optimal build definately leaves more flexibility which, as i said previously, is good for any deck due to the variances in the metagame... a deck that has the option of switching 1 or 2 slots b/c it needs EVERY card to find just 1 really doesn't seem to be flexible and thus easily hated out...  That's why goth slaver doesn't NEED yawgmoth's will to win... it just helps it along.  *not saying it shouldn't try to find yawgmoth's will, but remember your deck DOES have to be somewhat resilient* Not to mention... i don't think smmenen was talking about running yawgmoth's will side with 4 death wish and 4 spoils etc... in every deck sothat it would be accesible.  Rather, whatever deck you do decide to use it with still must use yawgmoth's will in its own fashion rather it is through purely drawing 30 cards a game, gifts, intuition, or tutors.  Yawgmoth's will is a card that rewards a deck's strengths whether it be abusing lots of acclerants put into graveyard first turn or replaying lots of draw 4th turn


I didn't say tinker wasn't good as a tutor, nor that it wasn't an insanely good card... i am merely saying that i think that tinker/colosus isn't the strongest play except in a few decks... namely fish b/c of its strat and gifts b/c of the time walk renewal which makes it an instant kill.  So, let me see if i'm getting this right tho... tinker can bring out lots of good things? hmmm.... so its only as good as what it brings out in that situation?  wait, doesn't that mean tinker is only as good as what's in your deck and the particular situation?  sounds familiar to yawgmoth's will...  only as good as what's in your deck... and the situation so that you can abuse it most... interesting...  btw i didn't say that tinker for jar was the best play right now... thats like someone saying fish was the best deck back in january... and now its viable agian b/c of a major shift in the metagame, new tech, etc...  just saying the tinker/jar is more powerful than tinker/colossus but, then again, that's my opinion.

So Tinker is a win condition and Yawgmoth's Will is a win condition?  You say Tinker is easier to hate out, but there is an overwhelming trend to play Phyrexian Furnaces main, while the majority of decks are becoming increasingly unable to deal with Darksteel Colossus.  Don't forget that Tinker can also win right away with Goblin Charbelcher in a way that is virtually immune to the current hate being used.  Tinker is a two-card combo, but the second piece is played in like a 10-of with cards that are good on their own (SoLoMoxCrypt).
Getting a Yawgmoth's Will countered is much worse than getting a Tinker countered, especially seeing as how Smmenen argues that YawgWill is quickly becoming the de facto win condition of most decks.

Well i've already discussed my thoughts on hate.dec... hate cards kill anything... if we all ran as much artifact hate as type 2 did when ravager and skullclamp dominated then anyone playing tinker would get laughed at... namely furnaces may be popular, but they are slowly fading in lieu of other cards that seem to be less conditional while, b/c of the recent rise of colossus then people will soon find answers to that the way oath found ways to deal with platz etc... and just b/c something is a de facto win doesn't mean it necessarily hurts your deck to have it countered... like i could counter your tinker *for colossus* only to win next turn off 'will' with gifts.dec and vice-versus.  also as to SoLoMoxCrypt being great... its harder to use now due to chalice... see if you want to look at cards that are recently popular rather than as vintage as a whole too then tinker isn't all that great...

This is assuming that you're just randomly throwing in Tinker + DSC.  However, look at decks that are aiming to set up powerful artifacts (CS) or winning with your Tinker targets anyway (Gifts/SSB).  However, even so, if you can randomly throw in two cards that are un-synergistic with your deck AND WIN WITH IT, doesn't that say something about the power of that combination (WTF throwing in Tinker/Colossus can work).  Especially because Tinker is on-color for all the good decks in the format.

Yea, i'd say that yawgmoth's will being black is its biggest drawback...  and i did say that gifts and wtf were using tinker correctly as in that was the right play... that's like saying that death long did the right thing using yawgmoth's will...  or putting brainstorm and force of will together in the same deck tends to be pretty good...  There are definately decks that can abuse certain cards more than other decks.  not to mention i still believe that tinker is one of the most broken cards in the format.  However, tinker is merely a tutor.  The problem with ALL tutors is that if you answer their threat, then its over.  if i demonic and you duress during your turn then that demonic was wasted and nothing good came out of it.  That's not true with yawgmoth's will.  Yawgmoth's will either gives you multiple targets to deal with, or gives you goldfish turns that are more permenant... ie you laying down trinisphere as i rack and ruin didn't do you much good...  One strategy deals with putting bombs into play and forcing the opponent to answer... its an all in move.  The other either wins right there or builds you up as far as you can go relying on the hope that your deck contains lots of bombs that it will now have access to due to will allowing you to play/find multiple threats.  While you definately can use both cards in conjunction with one another, i'd still contend that yawgmoth's will is the more powerful of the two simply b/c of its versatility, the amount of slots it frees up, and its resilience.

ok... although i do not have premium and am not smmenen i will try to answer a lot of the questions floating around there...

1.  First off... a lot of people are complaining that 50% of the decks don't carry yawgwin and as such the card does not warrant banning.  However, this is wrong for several reasons.
  A.  The format is too diverse.  It's not about finding THE card or THE BEST deck.  With the large card pool to draw from utilizing such a diverse array of abilities, decks tend to find ways to break different cards.  Whiles this does inherently lead to a few decks that are inherently more powerful than outhers, it does in no ways mean that there is a "best deck".  Instead, whenever prepping for a tournament people look for ways to beat the most popular deck or to make that deck more resilient.  At some point what ends up resulting are decks that hate out deck a, which hate out deck b, which hate out deck c, which ironically hates out deck a.  All of these decks will probably be represented at a tournament, but vintage is about playing the numbers... ie playing the deck that is most likely to see hate and that hates out the most popular decks which, a lot of the time, use yawgwin.  Thus, hate decks such as fish often don't use yawgwin b/c it is anti-thetical to their strategy.
  B.  It is too hard to run a yawgwin deck at a major tournament for THAT long of a time period IF yawgwin is the primary strategy.  I don't feel like pulling up all of the posts/articles about it, but remember that even some of the most avid combo players say that decks such as deathlong take too much energy to effectively play during 8 rounds *not counting elims*...  thus, yawgwin tends to be used more as an enhancer rather than the primary strategy *more on this later*
  C.  As was noted earlier, yawgwin is useless in a void... it requires OTHER cards to make it useful.  This generally means fast mana acceleration (such as moxes and black lotus) and/or cheap draw spells (such as ancestral recall, brainstorm, and for some, timetwister and time walk)  Because of this, yawgwin really becomes a card that is best utilized when people have multiple $300+ cards which most people cannot afford.  This is why yawgwin didn't make such a splash in urza block etc...

2.  As to the post by Liam-K from about his "knee Jerkin reaction" where issues as to yawgwin strategy came into question...
  A.  Sorry if i misinterpreted something but... it seems to me... that if you are having to ban enablers, on a consistent basis b/c combo decks designed around yawgwin keep on breaking them... then maybe yawgwin is the most powerful card out there since even tolarian academy kinda cooled down after all of the restrictions it led to... idk just a thought...
  B.  More importantly, however, you miss the part about Yawgwin being its own strategy.  You discuss how cards such as LED can and should be banned to stop powerful decks such as Long.dec.  However, you miss the reality that even w/o a deck being focused upon it the way deathlong.dec does yawgwin is still insanely powerful.  Let me put it this way... technically in a void, every card, by itself, is useless... black lotus is only good if you can use its mana... time walk only good if that extra turn will do something worthwhile, etc...  All cards technically need supporting cards, and in vintage, the "good" decks besides fish tend to use the most broken cards available.    So instead of looking at a cards power ability singularly, you must think of it more wholistically... To illustrate this, think of ancestral recall...  for U you get 3 cards and, even if they are just land (assuming you don't need them), you still count yourself ahead b/c you no longer have to draw those cards *ie the reason why fetchlands are nice*...  Because of this, your goldfishishing is increased by 3 turns for that particular game b/c you ignore three useless cards.  Now in any single game, this happens on both sides with players either casting lots of draw to rifle through their deck for a single bomb to hose the opponent or casting lots of fishie's to be annoying or any number of game strategies...  Decks that tend to use yawgwin are the former (unless specifically designed to break the card) in which decks tend to have gameplans focused upon executing a few particular cards for the win. these decks attempt to gain a ton of card advantage.  Because these are specifically the elements that yawgwin take advantage of... ie the ability to access lots of draw, huge bombs, or lots of mana acceleration, yawgwin drastically incerases the goldfish of that deck by reusing all of the spent cards.
  C.  Finally, onto the gifts speil and how gifts would be restricted over yawgwin... First of all NO KIDDING... currently WOC isn't banning cards so that is the obvious answer.  Second, gifts is an inherently powerful card that is broken in other decks, like tps, and restructed a few such as Belcher.  Even if yawgwin was banned, gifts still may get restricted due to the power of tinker/colossus and belcher/severance which only lessons its power by a bit...

3.  As to all of you who are saying that statistics are necessary for determining restrictions *not just % of usage, but the actual concept behind stats*
  A.  Irrelevant... look at trinisphere... WOC seems to find metagame health to be a driving factor and whether it looks to statistics or to public opinion as in the case of trinisphere it is solely about the distortion factor which i believe smmenen clearly addresses in his article.
  B.  This is a unique situation.  Statistics apply for restriction because of the accessibility of the card beforehand.  With 4 ofs as well as all of the tutors, the metagame can see the true impact of a card upon the environment as decks are more easily created around specific cards.  However, when looking at cards such as yawgwin, which does have decks like deathlong, realize that it requires 4 ofs aka death wish to make it viable.  This stated, look to other decks which merely use yawgwin such as CS...  this deck still uses yawgwin, but in a much different way which makes it very distorting.  Remember, vintage is very much about playing the numbers.  Therefore, decks, such as CS which tend to try and gain huge card advantage, increase their goldfish and win % dramatically by using yawgwin b/c they are likely to see yawgwin due to all of their draw which, then amplifies the goldfish rate by replaying everything...  as such the distortion is still seen and felt...  This applied to all of the decks that do include yawgin give reason as to why stats are incomplete when analyzing the need for a banning.

4.  Tinker more ban-worthy
  A.  Just as a caveat i don't think tinker is being used to its full potential... personally i think that tinker/colossus *which is the most common play* is very weak except for the reality that vintage doesn't care about the combat step b/c youf deck tries to goldfish faster than aggro is is aggro.  while i do feel that it is the correct play in certain decks such as gifts or fish, tinker/jar is much more devastating once people catch on.  anyways...
  B.  Tinker is a worse card.  First, tinker is a two card combo whilst yawgwin is one.  Second, Tinker easier to hate out... while everyone can name a ton of graveyard hate that will DESTROY yawgwin, look at fundamental purposes first and you'll see what i mean... Most decks pack multiple ways to win or ways to deal with hate in order to make them resilient.  Tinker often is that multiple win condition becoming the second out with colossus when needed.  In this way, tinker is alone to absorb any stp's etc... that are headed its way... in contrast, yawgwin is merely an amplifier.  It takes w/e strategy that a particular deck is using and has all of the resiliency of that deck to either replay *b/c it was initially countered* or to further that strategy.  Thus yawgwin has an entire deck's support whilst tinker tends to be on its own most of the time except for a few counters in hand.  third, tinker is card disadvantage whilst yawgwin isn't.  While this usually doesn't matter b/c w/e card you get tends to be outweigh that, in the off-chance that tinker is countered etc... you are out of luck.
  C.  Tinker's strat is worse.  Decks that often work the best are the ones with a ton of synergy.  In this way the entire deck is utilized toward one goal and nothing is wasted.  Tinker breaks that synergy by piling in another card that has no relevance and forcing the deck to form around that card for a few turns.  In contrast, yawgwin just reinforces a mechanism that is meant to work together and fulfill the fundamental purpose which you found to be so powerful in the first place meriting the deck's use.

p.s. I'm apologize to anyone if i referenced your argument and didn't put a post link etc but i'm new to this forum and still have to figure it out...