Shahrazad Banned In Vintage & Legacy. No joke.

[Vegeta2711]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af186

The September 1st Banned and Restricted List announcement will be going up tonight if it isn't up already, and the biggest news therein is that the card Shahrazad will be outright banned in both Vintage and Legacy as of the 20th. No, I am not joking.

No other b/r changes for the eternal formats; although classic FINALLY gets something restricted.

[LordHomerCat]

Guess it will be 3 more months of Gushing and Flashing.

As to Shahrazad... if the problem is people potentially creating massive numbers of subgames and running out of time, why not just concede the subgames and get on with things?  Seems like a pretty silly banning to me.

[oneofchaos]

think of all those shahrazed collectors!!!!!

I also have not heard of that card being played, has anybody else?

[nataz]

There was a big deal made over a WW deck at SCG boston that ran it. Besides that, not that I know of.

[EnialisLiadon]

What's the deal?  So much for "anything but ante and dexterity cards."

Maybe I'm weird, but I would absolutely love to play against a Shahrazad deck.  Not only because it's probably really bad, but because of all the tablespace we'd get to take up!

And woo-hoo for Scroll not getting the axe.  Gifts is one of my favorite decks of all-time, and Scroll is bascally life-support for it, nowadays...

[zeus-online]

Man this sucks, i don't give a crap about sharhazzad! Seriosly, i've seen a guy play it casually ONCE! EVER!

guess we can only hope and pray that sometime the DCI will actually care.

/Zeus

[diopter]

I'm glad the DCI decided not to restrict anything!

[FTKzak]

If they're going to make a joke banning....why not make a joke unrestriction too?

Unrestrict Dream Halls! The People have Spoken!

[Razvan]

these people live in 1994, i swear.
what's next divine intervention? or is that already banned?
it's a joke, for the 2nd straight restriction/banned time.
ffs.

[Norm4eva]

Given the nature of the ban, I'm not really surprised.
I AM a bit surprised at some of the reactions around TMD though.  Most people seem to be WTF-ing in chorus, but a lot of those people are the same crowd who despise playing to time and drawing, which is (or should be) the ultimate goal of a deck that could threaten to play Shahrazad.  It's obvious that this is a move which, however picayune, is meant to reinforce the notion that a match should optimally conclude in the span of an hour.  I'm not sure that I always agree with that notion.  It strikes me as sadly ironic that most of the cards which are generally understood to be Richard Garfield's favorites are also the ones that see the least play and/or land on the Banned List due to a functionality which doesn't fall within the acceptable competitive parameters.

[BC]

I played against a Shahrazad deck in one of the side Vintage events at Gencon.  I won game 1 (because the deck does suck), then game 2 we sat there for 45 minutes playing subgames within subgames until time ran out.  It was a very frustrating match, and the deck has no place in an eternal format, but it will never be a good deck, and only the worst, most inconsiderate, annoying players will ever play it, so why ban Shahrazad? 

[TopSecret]

A lot of stuff outside of Vintage has been changed with this announcement:
Online Classic is being given a restricted list,
InQuest is being discontinued,
and Aaron Forsythe is leaving the column and his position as Head Designer.

Also, they actually BANNED a card in Vintage.
That probably took some discussion time away.

As an indicator for Wizards,
Gencon's results pointed towards a relatively healthy Vintage format.
Researching Vintage beyond that would take more time and research of local tourney results.
Given how much Forsythe and others had on their plates for this announcement,
I'm doubtful that Vintage Restrictions were a large priority for their time usage.

Also, there's an Eternal-focused article on Wizards today, as well:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/bd295

If Wizards puts any weight on Steve's and Rich's opinions about Vintage,
or at least the ones printed in the above article,
I think they'd probably opt to wait for more information
to surface about the state of the Vintage metagame before making more changes.

All that said,
I had a some big lulz when I saw that Shahrazad was banned.

[Methuselahn]

Oh good.  I didn't think anything needed restriction this time around.  The metagame offers plenty of deck choices as-is and I personally found nothing to be unfun.  I'm glad to see Wizards didn't fold to a whiney adept thread and restrict anything.

As far as Shahrazad goes, the card belongs in a fast critter beatdown deck, and has the potential to be a fair deck in something like untimed top8s, but the issues listed for it's banning make total sense. 

Good Jorb Wiz0rds

[oneofchaos]

Well apparently shahrazed > GAT ???

[JACO]

The Shahrazad banning is just stupid. No one plays the card anyway, and cards like Stasis create similar 'long games.' This is a total crock, and one that contradicts their own statement in the same article (when talking about Flash):

Classic is the last bastion of playability online—if a card were to be banned there, it wouldn't be legal in any of the traditional 4-of-limit, 60-card-deck formats, which is not something we want to happen.

If 'Classic' or 'Vintage' has the feel of the last bastion of playability, then why would they ban a card, or even be thinking about it? It is totally irrlevant. I have seen one player, playing mono white, pilot Shahrazad in a tournament deck in my Vintage career, and he got his ass kicked. It's not something that's ever been a relevant issue.

On a different note, I am glad that nothing was restricted in Vintage, nor banned in Legacy. I would still like to see Wizards unrestrict the following though:
Dream Halls
Frantic Search
Mox Diamond
Personal Tutor
Regrowth
Voltaic Key

Once those are pulled off and we see how the environment looks after 6 months, I would then unrestrict the following (which I was against Wizards restricting to begin with):
Gifts Ungiven
Trinisphere

[TimeBeing]

I'm really annoyed by the Shahrazad banning. I know most people don't care but i do have a T1 Shahrazad that was fun to play. and on a lesser note I have 5 Shahrazad  that just died in value.

A it wasn't that big of deal it was played so rarely.
B. it was a fun deck to play (my brother played my R/W Rush Shahrazad deck at the PAX T1 tournment), using Shahrazad as a    10point or 5point lighting bolt.
C. really are T1 decks worried about Shahrazad stalling a game out? you know you can CONCEDE a sub game at any point. that was half of the Strat for my R/W deck. since if  you crypt them in a sub game they lose those cards in the main game. With luck that would get them to concede and youg et a 10point life swing, few lighting bolts later you win.
D. it sounds like Legacy need the banning not Vintage.
and E lastly "the Organized Play department requested that Shahrazad be banned from tournament play for logistical reasons" seriously other then Gen-Con has Organized play cared that much about T1? See 'Gush and Flash'

[diopter]

I'm really annoyed by the Shahrazad banning. I know most people don't care but i do have a T1 Shahrazad that was fun to play. and on a lesser note I have 5 Shahrazad  that just died in value.

A it wasn't that big of deal it was played so rarely.
B. it was a fun deck to play (my brother played my R/W Rush Shahrazad deck at the PAX T1 tournment), using Shahrazad as a   10point or 5point lighting bolt.
C. really are T1 decks worried about Shahrazad stalling a game out? you know you can CONCEDE a sub game at any point. that was half of the Strat for my R/W deck. since if  you crypt them in a sub game they lose those cards in the main game. With luck that would get them to concede and youg et a 10point life swing, few lighting bolts later you win.
D. it sounds like Legacy need the banning not Vintage.
and E lastly "the Organized Play department requested that Shahrazad be banned from tournament play for logistical reasons" seriously other then Gen-Con has Organized play cared that much about T1? See 'Gush and Flash'

The more you whine about OP not caring about T1 and how you're so annoyed about a banning that wasn't a big deal to you but was a big deal to the DCI, the less weight and credence the DCI and Wizards will lend to anything you might say.

[Yare]

On a different note, I am glad that nothing was restricted in Vintage, nor banned in Legacy. I would still like to see Wizards unrestrict the following though:
Dream Halls
Frantic Search
Mox Diamond
Personal Tutor
Regrowth
Voltaic Key

Key is already unrestricted. :/

[Norm4eva]

To be fair, it's not really worth considering most people's strategic reaction to having a card played against them as the primary reason for banning or restriction.
I mean sure, most people concede the subgame and take 10.  It's not mandatory to do so, except in the interest of speeding up the match for the sake of the Clock.  It's like saying Fact or Fiction should be banned in Legacy because the possibility of a 5 - 0 split exists, and draw 5s are broken.

[brianpk80]

FWIW, for those who didn't know, this isn't the first time Shahrazad has been banned.  It's more of a re-banning.  It has precedent. 

[Gexzilla10]

To say that Shahrazad's banning is just because it was banned back it 1994, is just wrong. In 94, there were only a hundred or so White cards in Magic and barely any of those were playable, which left Shahrazad as a last ditch choice for White decks. Back then, the banning might have mase sense because people were actually playing the card, unlike today. This banning did not make any sense. The reasons given for the banning were sketchy at best and completely bogus at worst. I agree with most of the other posters on this board: Wizards has a lot more to worry about (GAT, Flash, Gush) than some random card only a few people know about, much less played against.

[Ephraim]

To be fair, it's not really worth considering most people's strategic reaction to having a card played against them as the primary reason for banning or restriction.
I mean sure, most people concede the subgame and take 10.  It's not mandatory to do so, except in the interest of speeding up the match for the sake of the Clock.  It's like saying Fact or Fiction should be banned in Legacy because the possibility of a 5 - 0 split exists, and draw 5s are broken.

Your analogy is incorrect.  Fact or Fiction presents the opponent with entirely in-game considerations.  Because Shahrazad makes the opponent consider the clock, which should have no bearing on play decisions, it is harmful to competitive Magic.  (It is irrelevant how frequently it is played because every time it is played, the person playing against it must consider the time remaining in the round when determining how to deal with it.)  Plain and simple:  Shahrazad makes relevant something that should not be relevant.  Banned.

[TimeBeing]

To be fair, it's not really worth considering most people's strategic reaction to having a card played against them as the primary reason for banning or restriction.
I mean sure, most people concede the subgame and take 10.  It's not mandatory to do so, except in the interest of speeding up the match for the sake of the Clock.  It's like saying Fact or Fiction should be banned in Legacy because the possibility of a 5 - 0 split exists, and draw 5s are broken.

Your analogy is incorrect.  Fact or Fiction presents the opponent with entirely in-game considerations.  Because Shahrazad makes the opponent consider the clock, which should have no bearing on play decisions, it is harmful to competitive Magic.  (It is irrelevant how frequently it is played because every time it is played, the person playing against it must consider the time remaining in the round when determining how to deal with it.)  Plain and simple:  Shahrazad makes relevant something that should not be relevant.  Banned.

people concede games due to time all the time. the clock is part of tournament magic, and sharhazad isn't the first deck that has caused people to concede due to time. I guess every infinite life combo is going to get banned too. I really would like to know more about what organizers were complaining, or when this card ever became an issue?

[diopter]

To be fair, it's not really worth considering most people's strategic reaction to having a card played against them as the primary reason for banning or restriction.
I mean sure, most people concede the subgame and take 10.  It's not mandatory to do so, except in the interest of speeding up the match for the sake of the Clock.  It's like saying Fact or Fiction should be banned in Legacy because the possibility of a 5 - 0 split exists, and draw 5s are broken.

Your analogy is incorrect.  Fact or Fiction presents the opponent with entirely in-game considerations.  Because Shahrazad makes the opponent consider the clock, which should have no bearing on play decisions, it is harmful to competitive Magic.  (It is irrelevant how frequently it is played because every time it is played, the person playing against it must consider the time remaining in the round when determining how to deal with it.)  Plain and simple:  Shahrazad makes relevant something that should not be relevant.  Banned.

people concede games due to time all the time. the clock is part of tournament magic, and sharhazad isn't the first deck that has caused people to concede due to time. I guess every infinite life combo is going to get banned too. I really would like to know more about what organizers were complaining, or when this card ever became an issue?

It is unfortunate but necessary that time is a consideration when conceding regular games. But think about this - Shahrazad makes you concede games before they even begin. Moreover, Shahrazad opens up the possibility of conceding games more than twice per match due to time.