[Article] Culling the Weak

[Dr. Sylvan]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7317

I've been receiving much skepticism about Mind Over Matter in particular, so I'd be interested to hear what others thought about it.

[Matt]

I want Key in 1.5!

[walkingdude]

I think in general the article is quite on the ball. The only thing where I think you might be off is in underrating the value of consistency.
There are some cards that can be played 4 of or zero of but not one of. If a card is an engine card that works with most of the other cards in your deck you NEED to be able to find it otherwise the rest of your cards suck. So a card like that isn’t worth playing if its restricted, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be overpowered as a 4 of.
I don’t know if any of your 6 fall into that category, but I would have liked a notice to the community and a few weeks for people to test to see if anything obviously broken emerged before coming out and saying they are safe. Fact is, you are probably right, but I tend to be cautious about these things.

[Rico Suave]

Your reasonings for unrestricting Mind over Matter only referenced Tendrils-combo as decks that would include it, but then later on you went on to name Charbelcher as a reason for Channel.

If you're going to recommend Mind over Matter for unrestriction, don't you think it would be wise to examine it's use in Belcher too?  Or what about the rise of a new combo deck that doesn't kill with either of those?

That part seems to be a little incomplete.

[Dr. Sylvan]

walkingdude: I did my best to avoid the "if one copy isn't in, four wouldn't be" fallacy, and I did remember to cross off Dream Halls, which is the biggest exception to the rule. However, this fallacy has become less true over time. Look at Smmenen's Draw7, and you can see how if it wasn't for the potential of removing one with Returns, he might not have more than one win condition in the deck. Certainly the Earthcraft deck would play four and wouldn't exist at one copy, but I felt the design constraints of that deck (using basic land, making it produce either extra mana or a creature infinitely) set it firmly in the "we already have better decks, and they're not dangerous to the format" category. For MOM, I was once again swayed by the weakness of two-card combos. The question that my head kept running into when trying to think how MOM would be good in multiples was "If anyone is going to the trouble to get this into play, why aren't they winning instead of futzing around?" And I couldn't think of any reasons.

About notifying the community: after so many discussions about this over the past few months, the only card I argued for which wasn't a routine, consensus choice was MOM. I need to go to work, but later I can dig up some links to those threads for you if you weren't online at the time.

Rico: I didn't see any real potential in Belcher to abuse it, because of similar resource investment questions to Tendrils. Especially since Charbelcher itself is an unrestricted, colorless, seven-mana "Game Over" card, I just can't see anyone feeling the need to set up MOM either for cards or mana when they could search up a Belcher instead. My thinking on "other potential kills" was that however you abuse MOM once it's in play, Tendrils and X-spells are the one-card ways to do it, and Tendrils is the card to focus on because it's uncounterable.

[jpmeyer]

I always thought the best reason for not unrestricting Mind over Matter was the fact that it can produce more mana than pretty much any card in Magic short of Dream Halls and Mind's Desire.

And Doubling Cube!
-Matt

[Smmenen]

The problem with that Logic JP is that producing the mana to cast it effiently is basically a sunk cost.  The VAST majority of the time that Bargain or Desire are cast they usuallly involve at least one of hte following cards: Black Lotus, LED, Dark Ritual, and Mana Vault.  All of these are basically one shot cards that enable the key spell to be cast.  MOM costs an ungodly 7 and wouldn't actually be worth the resources spent to cast her, imo.

Steve

[MuzzonoAmi]

I agree with Steve. You had it right when you pointed out that if you're going to the trouble to cast/fetch MoM, why aren't you casting/fetching Baragin and just winning right there? The card is fine in the metagame, I'm more inclined to fear SquirrelCraft with 4 Earthcraft.

[waSP]

Earthcraft would yield a deck similar to MonoG land destruction, viable, but underplayed.  I'd be more afraid of a complex Enchantress deck (since I would be desigining it).  That deck rocks, I've wanted to get it back for awhile.  I'm looking forward to the day that they unrestrict my favorite green card of all time.

[Ric_Flair]

I one time proposed that Black Vise be unrestricted in a forum on the issue of unrestriction.  I said that after a litany of crazy suggestions.  My point was that once you go too far, say unrestricting Fact or Fiction or Library, the logic gets all wonky.  We can conjecture and say that Vise would balance these cards out, but that is SO FAR down the line.  It is like observing planets from millions of light years away, anything we see now is a TOTAL guess.  

The point that I want to make is two fold, first, as I just said, once we go beyond a certain point in terms of unrestrictions we have NO reliable data from which to draw on.  Second, because of this and the general stability the B&R list (ideally) creates there should be a very high burden of proof for unrestricting cards.  

I think that Phil you meet burden of proof for many of your suggestions, in part because some of these cards are just TERRIBLE on the list.  Nonetheless, I think a test for UNrestricting cards would also be helpful. Something like what Steve did in the restriction of Gush article (one of my favorite pieces of Magic policy ever, btw) would be great.  I'll think about this and see what I can come up with.

[Dr. Sylvan]

The difference is that it's much harder to test conjecture. An unrestriction is a hypothesis, a restriction is a conclusion. So here's some angles:

(1) A strictly-better version or close tweak of the restricted card is unrestricted and has been so safely for somewhere over six months. (Hurkyl's Recall probably got off because of Rebuild, Recall was superseded by bunches of things.)

(1a) A card which performs the same function in a different way at a similar cost and is safe unrestricted exists. (For instance if we have some two card infinite mana combos that are totally safe, then we might unrestrict a card that combos with another for infinite mana, provided it wasn't way lower in cost than the proven-safe ones.)

(1b) Any card requiring similar or lesser resource investment to play as compared to a restricted card, but performing a similar or better function instead, exists. ("Why aren't you just winning with Bargain instead?")

(2) A modern deck has rendered an old engine mediocre, typically by making it too slow. (This is incorporated into my Mind Over Matter and Earthcraft arguments.)

(3) A card has been shown to have little additional potency in multiples. (Example: Berserk. MOM also fits this, because I've heard many people mention how it was too clunky to clog up a deck with, in things like Neo-Academy, where iirc it's a key component of winning.)

That's what has occurred to me now, but I may think of more in the morning. Some of the above probably needs to be reworded.

[Matt]

Yeah, really. Wasn't the whole argument against Berserk that it was abusive in multiples? I remember Azhrei making a HUGE stink about how anyone who didn't understand that doubling things in a game of numbers was not fit to be ground up for meat, or something to that effect.

[Smmenen]

But he *was* wrong.  There was a fear that Berserk, unlike other cards in multiples, was exponential  In other words, a 2nd Dream Halls doesn't make the first Dream Halls better.  Not so with Berserk.  

I think the question of unrestriction requries some deep thought and perhaps even limited testing.  When I wrote letters for the unrestriction of Berserk, Recall and Fork last year I had two very large polls on this Drain and some multiple Berserk testing even.  

I will be doing a comprehensive analysis of the restricted list at some point in an effort to provide some context. (after the battle of the Banned decks).  Unfortunately, it will not be before the next announcement.

Steve

[Ric_Flair]

Phil great try.  I think some of the rules could be consolidated though.  Here is what I have thought of on the T this morning.

Rule 1: Any restricted card which is inferior or as powerful as an unrestricted card should be unrestricted.

This rule is almost a tautology.  But the idea is simple, if a card on the restricted list is worse than or equal to an unrestricted card then it should not be restricted.  There are two types of cards here, and I will use some of my old terminology, but it works.  First is what I call an openly comparable pair of cards.  For example, [card]Hornet Cobra[/card] and [card]Elvish Archer[/card].  In this case Hornet Cobra is ALWAYS worse than Elvish Archer in terms of play value (I guess it is better in an all snake deck or a specific artist dec, but those are not a play value issues).  These are VERY rare, because WotC tries to avoid such stupid cards.  But then there are another set of comparisons that show cards that are nearly openly comparable.  That is one card is better in almost every possible situation than the other.  Timetwister is almost always better than Time Spiral.  Think of this like a burden of proof in criminal law, that is, beyond reasonable doubt.  In other words if an unrestricted card is almost always better than a restricted version of a similarly function card, the restricted card should be unrestricted.  

This is a very narrow set of cards, but Timetwister/Time Spiral, Mana Crypt/Mana Vault/Grim Monolith and Yawgmoth's Will/Regrowth/Recall are examples.  If the first card in those series is unrestricted (never) then the subsequent cards MUST ALSO be unrestricted.  This will likely never happen, but if for example when they banned Burning Wish, they instead banned Cunning Wish, then I think that there was an arguable mistake.  That is, though not openly comparable or almost openly comparable, Cunning Wish is an inferior version of Burning Wish.  

Rule 2:  Restricted cards that create game swings significantly less effeciently than other unrestricted cards should be unrestricted.  

The classic example here is something like Berserk.  Yes it does win the game often, and yes it is really powerful, but when the Fundamental Turn of the format is 3, Berserk, which needs a creature in play to be useful, is not that bad.  It is too slow.  The other method in which a card can become inefficient is in terms of combos.  If a given combo wins faster, more reliably, or with few cards than a combo powered by a card on the list (EARTHCRAFT) then there is no reason for the card to be on the list. Can anyone really justify Earthcraft being restricted when the BEST COMBO CARD OF ALL TIME (Tendrils) is not?  No.

Other considerations:

1) Casting Cost:  If a card costs more than 5 then there needs to be a clear and easy to see reason why it should be restricted.  In Vintage games are so fast that a cc of 5 or 6 (unless it is colorless) is essential the same thing as 10.  

2) Purpose in a Combo:  Look, the basic truth is that if a card is part of a three card, non-Dragon combo, it should not be on the list if the sole reason it is there is its combo function.  Dragon is a special case, but really Phil is right about Key.  With Tendrils and Charbelcher multi card comobs ain't what they used to be.

3) Date of Restriction:  Given how STUPID some of the earlier restrictions were (Sword of Ages, which was on the list FOREVER, Dingus Egg, and the like) I think we should be really suspicious of cards still on the list from this era, like FORK.  Fork is not only not a broken card, I am not even sure if it is a good card.  Regrowth is another card still on the list from this era.  Things have changed.  Block decks nowadays would have CRUSHED the best Vintage decks from that era (HANDS DOWN).  It is time for us to reexamine some of the policy moves made then.  Note: Block decks like Raffinity and u/g madness would have beat old decks as they were built, not as we would built then in retrospect.  

All that being said I think that those advocating for the unrestriction of a card ABSOLUTELY must carry the burden of proof.  I also think that that burden should be substantial, something like "clear and convincing evidence" or "substantially likely not to cause harm."

That is my two cents.

[Eastman]

I've heard a lot of people under the impression that it was restricted to keep it out of Type 1.5, and I have the sneaking suspicion that a few people (who probably weren't even at the forefront of T1.5) in that relatively obscure format wrote letters detailing the peril caused by a combo with fundamental turn 3, resulting in restriction/banning. However, in light of how good and fast the Worldgorger Dragon deck is in that format, thanks in large part to Marc Perez a.k.a. Phantom Tape Worm,  think it's pretty obvious that turn 3 is not a problematic level for combo decks there. Since any case based on "too fast for Type One" got laughed out once Tendrils of Agony hit the scene, I think we can safely unrestrict.

This reasoning for Earthcraft doesn't hold up if they restrict bazaar to slow that format (which they probably will come june 1)

[Kerz]

I don't belive the possible restriction of Bazzar is strictly to slow the format down. If wizards wanted to slow the format, they would surely go after the fastest and most brutal combo deck- Belcher (or even Tendrils). It is a known fact that Dragon isn't really known for its blazing speed, but rather for its consistancy and stability- ability for a combo deck to fight the lategame and win.

The restriction of Bazzar seems totally random, seeing that Dragon hasn't had a ton of success as of late, but sure did shock the metagame before people had hate for it (see--> Bowers's Waterbury win and the month or two following). Seeing how there isn't a reason that stands out, I am betting it is because of 1.5. From what I hear, Dragon is like Long was in Type one, but in 1.5- which I belive is quite beliveable. Its unfortunate that one point five is garbage, and doesn't get played by anyone.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I am a little worried about that, but I couldn't figure out any more resilient logic for T1.5, as I have a barely-passing knowledge of it. I suppose I could have explained that in any format with Mana Drain, Force of Will, and Duress, a third-turn combo is relatively safe, but I'm sure someone knows of an exception to such a rule. This is where my not having been around as long as, say, Mike Flores, is exposing gaps in my knowledge.

Edit: Kerz: If they restricted Bazaar, it would be to slow down 1.5, where it's the fastest thing available. That's what Dave was saying.

[Eastman]

Edit: Kerz: If they restricted Bazaar, it would be to slow down 1.5, where it's the fastest thing available. That's what Dave was saying.

Absolutely right, thanks.