Article: How Should We Restrict Cards in Vintage

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=5636

HERE

At GenCon, reported conversations with R&D's Randy Buehler concerning future Banned and Restricted list changes swiftly circulated through the Type One community. Here is the substance of one of these dialogues, as reported by a member of the Mana Drain:

Check it out. I have massively revised the rough draft I posted two weeks ago.  I imaginet his should generate a bit of discussion.  Thoughts, Comments, Spare Change?

Stephen Menendian

PS: Since I failed to do it in the Article, I wanted to Thank Eastman for helping accumulate some data for me.  Great work!\n\n

[MoreFling]

I thought it was very good.

I could've filled in just about all the blanks you have in the t8 data, but I guess you got the point across anyway.

[Akuma (gio)]

Reading these articles is always interesting. The only thing I hate seeing over and over again is the "Gush needed to go" and "Wizards did the right thing restricting Gush" blah, blah, blah. We should just drop that already. The only reason Gush was restricted was AVAILABILITY. You want to know why there were so many GAT decks in the Top 8 of those tournaments you list, because it is a lot easier to build than a Rector Trix deck or a Stax deck, PERIOD. You don't need a full set of Power 9 and / or Workshops.

On one paragraph you say that GAT was being hated out and the metagame was shifting at the time, but the right decision was still to restrict Gush, then you go on to say that Rector based decks are being hated out so it's okay for the card to remain. I give you the Fact or Fiction paragraph:

Quote In retrospect, this was probably caused, in no small part, by the lack of innovation in Type One in the United States at the time. Most of the top American Type One players were fervent adherents to Keeper. There was little incentive to change and most Keeper player essentially took the myopic view that it "Is the best deck, and the best deck that will ever be."

Guess what, it was these same people that are responsible for axing Gush. I think everyone has their opinion on the matter and that is fine, but don't kid yourselves, the only reason some things don't get restricted is availability. The environment was fine with the presence of GAT and it's still fine, it's just been deprived of a couple of good archetypes. Collateral damage, please, Turbonevyn had been abusing Gush FOREVER, and that was fine.

I hope the environment stays as diverse as it is now. If a set of Workshops was as easy to come by as a set of Gushes, I can guarantee we would all be playing with only ONE Workshop by now. END RANT.

Otherwise, I think it was an excellent article  

[Smmenen]

There is definately truth to what you say.  But even looking at the largest tournaments with players who have access to the largest card pools, GAT was still dominant.  Remember, it won The Mana Drain Invitational against JP.  It also dominated HUGE Duelmens, month after month.

Steve

[Akuma (gio)]

I think that the sheer number of GAT decks being played skewed the numbers somewhat. Dulmen is, IMO, one of the best sources for Type 1 information / innovation. The only problem with Dulmen tournament results is that there is an AWFUL lot of luck involved in who wins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they don't play out the Top 8. This is huge. Many of the BEST Dulmen players would run GAT, and who would win among the BEST players would all come down to pairings (not entirely, but to a certain degree).

A good example of what should have happened is what took place in Origins. First couple of days, GAT stomped some unprepared opponents, then we have these good players adapting and we got results in which GAT made it to the Top 8, but in the hands of competent players. It did not dominate. Contrary to popular belief, it's okay for an archetype to take 2 or 3 places of a Top 8.

I'm not saying these things in an effort to change the B/R List or out of personal preference, I just want to make it clear that many of the decisions concerning the B/R List use a flawed logic.

[carl]

Quote (Akuma (gio) @ Aug. 27 2003,00:15)I think that the sheer number of GAT decks being played skewed the numbers somewhat. Dulmen is, IMO, one of the best sources for Type 1 information / innovation. The only problem with Dulmen tournament results is that there is an AWFUL lot of luck involved in who wins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they don't play out the Top 8.

It is the first time I read that swiss + top 8 has more significance than pure swiss.

The problem with Duelmen is not that there is no top 8, it's that there are too few swiss rounds. for a 65-127 players tourney (as it is always the case in Duelmen), there should be 9 rounds. There are seven only in Duelmen.

Top 8 is all about luck (matchup and topdeck/mana screw).

[Akuma (gio)]

Quote It is the first time I read that swiss + top 8 has more significance than pure swiss.

That was not my intention, I don't want to discredit any of the Dulmen players' victories. Like you said, there aren't enough Swiss rounds. I like the idea of a top 8, because that way no one can win just by virtue of pairings. It is entirely possible that the person who takes the tournament is a good player who also managed to avoid playing the other good players.

[Milton]

Nice article.  I get no props, though, for my lenghty quote at the begining of your article?  

[jntemp777]

Quote (Akuma (gio) @ Aug. 26 2003,10:31)I hope the environment stays as diverse as it is now. If a set of Workshops was as easy to come by as a set of Gushes, I can guarantee we would all be playing with only ONE Workshop by now. END RANT.

Amen.  This is exactly the way I feel about Workshop restriction and Akuma took the words right outta my mouth

[Smmenen]

Quote (Milton @ Aug. 26 2003,17:24)Nice article.  I get no props, though, for my lenghty quote at the begining of your article?  

I never reveal my sources.  

I hereby dub thee "Deep Throat."

Steve

[Smmenen]

Quote (Akuma (gio) @ Aug. 26 2003,15:15)I think that the sheer number of GAT decks being played skewed the numbers somewhat. Dulmen is, IMO, one of the best sources for Type 1 information / innovation. The only problem with Dulmen tournament results is that there is an AWFUL lot of luck involved in who wins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they don't play out the Top 8. This is huge. Many of the BEST Dulmen players would run GAT, and who would win among the BEST players would all come down to pairings (not entirely, but to a certain degree).

A good example of what should have happened is what took place in Origins. First couple of days, GAT stomped some unprepared opponents, then we have these good players adapting and we got results in which GAT made it to the Top 8, but in the hands of competent players. It did not dominate. Contrary to popular belief, it's okay for an archetype to take 2 or 3 places of a Top 8.

I'm not saying these things in an effort to change the B/R List or out of personal preference, I just want to make it clear that many of the decisions concerning the B/R List use a flawed logic.

You weren't at Origins.  I was.  I also compiled the data.  

My data isn't logically flawed.  In fact, your assumption is flawed.  Out of the months for which I collected data, at the majority of those tournaments there were Not Enough Gat to fill the top 8s.  ESPECIALLY at Origins.  At Origins, there was a maximum of three Gat players each day (maybe four one day).  That means that the best it could do is 3 of 8.  Automatically that lowers its percentage in terms of filling the top 8.  I had similar problems with all the other data with a very few exceptions of a few Duelmens where there was just about enough GAT to fill a top 8.  

And so the fact that the statistics still came out to approximately 40% of the top 8s was a bloody miracle.

Steve

[Magimaster]

Quote (Smmenen @ Aug. 27 2003,07:50)I hereby dub thee "Deep Throat."

bwahahahahaha

[Eastman]

Quote This issue touches a raw nerve. Depending on how it is decided, Wizards may be ruling on a wider issue than whether Rector is distorting the environment

I like that line, paricularly used early on.. it sets a tone for the article that was somewhat missing in the original draft.

All in all I appreciate the sentiment. I hope that Wizards reads the article, as I hope they are reading this forum. You've done your best to do us some good Smmenen and I appreciate it. I agree completely with the proposed terms for restriction.