Renewing the Debate about Crucible

[jpmeyer]

I think that list looks artificially small, because in addition to those decks you listed, you also have Crucible decks themselves and combo, which makes the field look a lot larger.  That then raises the question if a field with 10 decks isn't good enough, just how many decks do you need to have in order to have a "good" variety of decks?

[dicemanx]

Sure, you also have decks packing CoW that can counter the effects of your opponent's CoW.

And sure you have combo.

But no one said that just because you run CoW that you will never be CoW locked. Having your own CoW doesn't make CoW any less retarded. Hell, why not just start packing 2-4 Sacred Grounds and completely shut down your opponent's non-basic hate/Titan/Smokestack.  

And combo decks *do* have a mid-game. They don't just "combo off" in response to CoW as many people like to think. That's too simplistic. Combo can get CoW locked too.

[CHA1N5]

And for those people that like to lump in cards like Mana Drain, Force of Will, etc to the distortion issue: you're missing the key point. Trinisphere and CoW often lead to those "oops I win" game ending plays.

Force of Will absolutely leads to "oops" wins, just like CoW.  If your opponent dumps their hand for Bargain on turn 1 and you have FoW:  OOPS, YOU WON!

For every win that CoW gives you because your opponent had no play for their first land, FoW will give you a win because your opponent put all of their eggs in 1 counterable basket.

Mana Drain is the same way:  Drain a Mind Twist for 5?  Drain a Roar?  Drain Bargain?  Drain Smokestack?  Next turn:  OOPS!


The point is:  having to take a card into account and change how your deck is built/played is not inherently a bad thing; even if that card is in several decks/archetypes, and even if it influences nearly all other decks/archetypes.  The problem starts when the card still dominates the metagame despite everyone's best effort, which is clearly not the case with CoW.

1) Lack of combo
2) Half the people play idiotic hate-decks with no clear plan in mind

Wow.  Sorry Canada, but Your Metagame Sucks.  

All kidding aside:  you have the right to be upset about the power of Crucible in your metagame.  I suppose I would, too.  Just don't expect others to support its restriction when it's balanced in balanced metas.

[Smmenen]

Well put Razvan.

And for those people that like to lump in cards like Mana Drain, Force of Will, etc to the distortion issue: you're missing the key point. Trinisphere and CoW often lead to those "oops I win" game ending plays. I do enjoy the brokenness of the T1 format, but there are some cards I could do without, because they simply can get too ridiculous and make it far too random to my liking.

s the issue even relevant anymore given that recent Control decks run 4-5 basics?

Well, the choices are then limited to mono-U, Oath, and maybe Control Slaver (which can barely pull off running so many basics, but it has Blood Moon to assist). That's two, maybe three decks out of something like 20+ decks in the environment which could be considered viable. I must say though, my choice of decks would *not* be based on the susceptibility to CoW. CoW is the tip of the iceberg - there are far more dangerous threats to prepare for in the local meta, so I'm willing to sacrifice some games to the random mindless CoW/Trini assisted win.

@ Diceman and Razvan

I want to engage this issue far more vigorously when my article on the issue goes up this week.  So keep talking but at that point I'll really dig in my heels.  But to shore up what has been said so far in this thread - I don't agree that Tog is out because of Crucible.  Tog is out becuase of Fish - that's it and that's it alone.  Playing 4 colors is just not feasible.  And I ask: is that really a bad thing?  This is where we were before Fetchlands were printed in a way - but now decks are more mana stable.  
At gencon I said that decks would run more basics and you guys laughed at me - but I really think that this trend will continue to grow as more control decks enter the format.  Not just 3 Color Tog, Control Slaver, Oath, and mono blue - but others.  I think it is very healthy.  Basics are good in another way too: they help alot against Fish (which is actually more important reason Control Slaver and Tog need so many basics) and make Titan worse.  The problem is that control decks simply can't go: island, mox and then NON ISLAND on turn two becuase Fish can Waste you at a critical juncture.  Running 4 Islands is a must NOT because of Crucible, but becuase of Fish.

[Ric_Flair]

One of the things that this thread seems to have become transfixed with is this idea of distorting the metagame.  To paraphrase what was said above: every good card in the T1 metagame INFLUENCES the metagame.  Only problematic, and restriction worthy, cards DISTORT it.  There is really no way to define these terms other than example.  We need to reason by analogy when we are applying Steve's restriction tests.  We need to show why X is more like Y, where Y is already on the list.  These arguments that try to show definitively that a card is too good for purely theoretical reasons, like most people try to do with Workshop (i.e. in theory it is a permanent lotus for artifacts therefore it MUST restricted), are baseless.  Use real data, real tournament results.

I will synopsize my remarks in the first version of this thread.  Crucible is not worthy of restriction for the following reasons.  Of the tests that apply to Crucible the only one that fits is the distortion of the metagame test.  However, cards that warranted restriction because of metagame distortion had much greater impact than Crucible has.  The ideal example of metagame distortion, to me, occurred in Standard right after the formats split and Vintage was created.  Black Vise had yet to be restricted and the incohate Pro Tour players were wrestling with the Beast that is Vise.  They loaded their U/W control decks with 8 cantrip spells that cost 1 or less (4 Barbed Sextants and 4 Urza's Bauble), in hopes that they could drop their hand to get out of Vise range on the first turn without a loss of cards.  Even with this ingenious solution, the format was dominated by Black Vise decks.  Crucible of the Worlds meanwhile has caused people to up the basic land count to some degree, but the changes were no where near as drastic as those that occurred in response to Vise, and even more important, said changes worked to limit Crucible's power.  

A few people have expressed Crucible's wing potential or combo potential with Workshop and Strip Mine respectively.  First, in combination with Workshop Crucible is a great card but it does not qualify as an early game swing as I defined in my StarCity piece.  In a format with Force of Will, a card has to nearly win the game on the first turn to be too good.  And a combo on the first turn...well that will never be too broken too early without a kill.  Second, we play a format where two card kill combos are not played (see Illusions/Donate with tutor help even), and 1 card combos like Charblecher and Tendrils are the standard.  A two card combo that locks out an opponent without killing them, no matter how light on the color commitment it is, is not too good.  

Crucible is not distorting, it is merely influencing the metagame.  I think it is a positive that new cards are doing that.  It is not as warping as the cards on the restricted list are.  Also it is not too good too early, even with Workshop.  Finally, it is not too powerful in combination with Strip Mine.  

For the above reasons, Crucible is not worthy of restriction.  The fact that it is its own silver bullet cannot be overlooked either.

[dicemanx]

Force of Will absolutely leads to "oops" wins, just like CoW. If your opponent dumps their hand for Bargain on turn 1 and you have FoW: OOPS, YOU WON!

For every win that CoW gives you because your opponent had no play for their first land, FoW will give you a win because your opponent put all of their eggs in 1 counterable basket.

Mana Drain is the same way: Drain a Mind Twist for 5? Drain a Roar? Drain Bargain? Drain Smokestack? Next turn: OOPS!

What we are comparing here differs by orders of magnitude. I could also argue that Mountain Goat leads to "oops I win" situations, but that would clearly be at an extreme (and inane). I'm just curious if you are just playing devil's advocate with me or if you're really buying into what you are saying. There is a considerable difference between getting steamrolled by early Trinispheres and CoWs versus making a decision to put all the "eggs in one basket" and running headlong into FoW or Mana Drain. If there wasn't such a considerable difference, I wouldn't be stating my case in the first place.  

Crucible is not distorting, it is merely influencing the metagame. I think it is a positive that new cards are doing that. It is not as warping as the cards on the restricted list are. Also it is not too good too early, even with Workshop. Finally, it is not too powerful in combination with Strip Mine.

And you're basing these conclusions on what? Because we have ample evidence from tournaments that suggest otherwise. Maybe the problem is that you simply don't see CoWs *enough*, and hence make the false assumption that since they are not played they must not be problematic. In fact, your whole post, particularly to a reader who is not well versed with T1, comes off as some sort of statement of fact, and that Steve's criteria for restriction are some sort of canon that either is, or must be, adopted by all.

All kidding aside: you have the right to be upset about the power of Crucible in your metagame. I suppose I would, too. Just don't expect others to support its restriction when it's balanced in balanced metas.

But where does this notion of "balance" come from. Was CoW actually tried in significant numbers, and then discarded because it ended up lacking somehow? Perhaps the American metagames are the deciding factor when it comes to selecting a metagame that best reflects what should be restricted and what can be deemed OK? But then again, we look to our neighbors to the South and see stuff like only 3 Trinispheres in Workshop decks, no Lotus in Fish, or folks being "taken by surprise" by Oath knowing a full month in advance that Orchard+Oath was coming  .

[Smmenen]

Kevin played Crucibles into Gencon Top 8 - I think he's seen alot of Crucible

[Shock Wave]

*yawn* ... Are we back on this again? Why, may I ask? It became clear some time ago that this discussion redefines futility. This argument will never have a conclusion until there is a defined standard for restriction. Right now, we are all just babbling together about our own meandering idea of the concept of "brokenness".

I think Crucible is broken. Can I prove it? Nope. Can any of you disprove it? Nope. Honestly, where are we going with this?

To claim that something is broken enough to warrant restriction without being able to prove it seems like a rather silly idea, especially considering that there is no standard for "brokenness" nor is there a standard for restriction.

I retract my statement about Crucible needing restriction provided that everyone else retract their statements that it does not. When we have a standard for restriction that is approved and agreed on, maybe we'll see some progress with this issue.

In the meantime, I'll stick to my own fictional concept of brokenness and keep Crucible in that category.

[Smmenen]

It's not the definition of futility.  Just because we can't agree doesn't mean its futile.  It's the reasoning behind the views that is important.  Even if we have irreconcilable premises, I raised this question becuase I wanted to see if views have shifted at all given the new information that has come in.

The emergence of Oath and reaffimration about 5 Island Control Slaver seems to suggest that the metagame in American has adjusted as I suggested it would at Gencon - basics.  This is new information and isn't just "rehashing old stuff."  This new information migth lead you and Peter - who had quite a hard stance two months ago, to soften your stances - which it appears you may have done.  The rhetoric you display is a bit more conilatory and less stringent or vitrolic.

[Shock Wave]

It's not the definition of futility.  Just because we can't agree doesn't mean its futile.  It's the reasoning behind the views that is important.  Even if we have irreconcilable premises, I raised this question becuase I wanted to see if views have shifted at all given the new information that has come in.

The emergence of Oath and reaffimration about 5 Island Control Slaver seems to suggest that the metagame in American has adjusted as I suggested it would at Gencon - basics.  This is new information and isn't just "rehashing old stuff."  This new information migth lead you and Peter - who had quite a hard stance two months ago, to soften your stances - which it appears you may have done.  The rhetoric you display is a bit more conilatory and less stringent or vitrolic.

It *IS* futile because there is no restriction standard upon which our arguments can be based. I'm simply abstaining from this argument because you seem to expect me to be able to *prove* that Crucible is worthy of restriction. I can't do that. You on the other hand, cannot prove to me that it is unworthy of restriction.

Sure, now that control seems to have "evolved" (I would prefer the term degenerated) into combo/control, Crucible may no longer be an issue. That still remains to be seen.

[dicemanx]

Crucible of Worlds is not the problem; the deck and card choices of those whining about it is the problem. This is why people playing 4C Control and BUG and 4C Tog are getting fucked up; their unwillingness to think about playing better solutions.

This is not true.

First of all, no one is "whining" about anything here. People use that term to try to give themselves some sort of superiority in the argument, but that is a very weak ploy. There is no need to sneak in such jabs into posts.

Secondly, don't automatically assume that people playing with primarily non-basics haven't given an ounce of thought or are stubbornly unwilling to "think about better solutions" to CoW. Give us a bit more credit than that. For example, our meta here in the Greater Toronto Area is *rife* with non basic hate, and yet we continue to be successful with 3-4 color builds. I play 4CC with quite a bit of success, and I'm well aware of my options. I could very easily switch to a control deck that runs more basics, or I could just start running Sacred Grounds, etc.

The point is though that no matter what I do (apart from flat out playing mono-U), I can still get CoW locked or Trini locked in the most random, retarded of ways. Does this mean that I lose to CoW or Trini on a regular basis? Quite clearly no, because I deem them not worthy to hedge against. So what am I annoyed about then? The fact that CoW and Trinisphere (and don't get me going about Belcher, because why that card/deck is still in the environment is beyond me) push the balance past acceptable limits for randomness. T1 is already random enough, and the argument that "this is T1, broken things happen" is a cop out. I'd like to retain as much skill as possible in this format, despite that T1 is based predominantly more on luck than skill already. Why make things even worse.

Death to Belcher, Trinisphere, and CoW.

[Saucemaster]

It *IS* futile because there is no restriction standard upon which our arguments can be based. I'm simply abstaining from this argument because you seem to expect me to be able to *prove* that Crucible is worthy of restriction. I can't do that. You on the other hand, cannot prove to me that it is unworthy of restriction.

While I certainly agree that the two sides in this debate aren't operating from the same set of principles regarding restriction, I'd like to point out that this statement is basically an argument for Crucible's remaining unrestricted.  If you cannot prove that something is worthy of restriction, then you can't restrict it.  There's no burden of proof for UNRESTRICTION unless a card is already restricted.  You need an argument to change a card's status, not to keep it as is.

I think what would keep this thread from actually becoming futile (I don't think it's quite there yet) would be an actual discussion of the restriction criteria that Smmenen has laid out and Ric_Flair has elaborated.  Because so far, they're the only ones I see actually offering restriction criteria, and my personal opinion is that they've pretty much got it wired.  However, I would be very interested to hear which of those criteria those supporting CoW's restriction think should be added, subtracted, or otherwise amended.  Or do you propose an entirely new set of criteria?

Lastly, as a minor point, we should probably define what kind of "CoW lock" we're talking about.  If we're talking a CoW/Waste lock, then honestly I sympathize with those who've been saying "just stop relying solely on nonbasics already".  If we're talking about CoW/Strip, that really *IS* a dumb and random lock (assuming it's turn 1 or 2, and not turn 3+ when your opponent has Intuitioned for it, etc), but in my experience it happens so seldom that it's within the acceptable bounds of T1 brokenness.

[dicemanx]

Because so far, they're the only ones I see actually offering restriction criteria, and my personal opinion is that they've pretty much got it wired. However, I would be very interested to hear which of those criteria those supporting CoW's restriction think should be added, subtracted, or otherwise amended.

You are assuming that clear criteria can exist and that we are capable of setting some sort of arbitrary cut off that can tell us when its appropriate to restrict and when it is not. By not proposing our own criteria, we are in fact making such a point. How do you define "randomness"? How do you assess when it becomes "problematic"? What constitutes "proof"? We have ample "proof" that CoW is a problem card, but that seems to be a function of the metagame, doesn't it?

Your proposed solution of "adapting" needs to be examined as well. Is that a sufficient approach to handling CoW? Can we extend the argument to pre-Wish/LED restriction Long, and point out that not only was it not played in sufficient numbers (hence it was NOT dominating in the meta), but it also just died quite frequently at the hands of less skilled players who were shut down by Null Rods, Chalices, or FoW. So why did they axe Wish and LED? Why don't they axe Charbelcher (or some component of the deck) right now using the same kind of "pre-emptive" criteria? If the idea is to pre-emptively axe first-turn kill decks, then why can't we view Trinisphere packing decks as "first turn kill decks"? Or CoW? Depending on your choice of decks, a quick CoW can likewise be equated to a "first turn kill".

Am I to take it that there's some sort of difference between adapting by "running more basics" (in quotes, because this isn't necessarily an adequate solution), and just restricting yourself to decks with FoWs and maybe Chalices/Null Rods so that you can "adapt" to fast combo decks? Maybe we should all start running mono-U with Chalices and 16 counters just to show how "easy" it is to adapt?

I suppose duals should be banned then, since they suceed despite such overwhelming hate.[/sarcasm] (This is not a meaninless post. Through satire I am illustrating the weakness of a particular argument, that being that people still get crucible locked despite the fact that the meta now "hates" crucible, or that they have adpated to it and it still continues to "dominate".)

You know, you keep posting in this thread, but I'm not exactly sure why.

[Saucemaster]

You are assuming that clear criteria can exist and that we are capable of setting some sort of arbitrary cut off that can tell us when its appropriate to restrict and when it is not. By not proposing our own criteria, we are in fact making such a point. How do you define "randomness"? How do you assess when it becomes "problematic"? What constitutes "proof"?

It's not immediately obvious to me why we can't have clear criteria.  And the cutoff wouldn't be "arbitrary", it would be the result of reasoned discussion between intelligent people here on TMD.  If you believe that we're incapable of finding such a clear criteria, I disagree; if you think that it's actually impossible to find clear criteria, that's an argument that needs to be made.  I'm not arguing that the criteria that have already been laid out already ARE perfectly clear and well-defined--that's part of what this whole discussion is about.  In fact, I think that we should be constantly reevaluating our criteria and changing them if we come to a consensus opinion that something in them needs fixing.

I assume you'd agree with me that saying "I don't like playing against card X, therefore it should be restricted" would be pointless, and no argument for restriction.  Obviously we need some standards here, and obviously we need to be able to debate the issue.  So instead of saying "well there can't be any clear criteria", why don't we try to elucidate them?  Just because we try to define "randomness" doesn't mean that definition is forever set in stone--reevaluating those definitions is precisely what threads like this are for.  If we need to debate what constitutes "sufficiently random", I don't see why we shouldn't.  The worst thing that happens is that we discover in more detail what degree of randomness other players are or aren't willing to accept in Type 1.  The best result would be moving towards some form of consensus, which while unlikely, it at least possible.

So again, why don't we actually talk about it?  Both you and Shock Wave have amply demonstrated in the past that you are intelligent people, with good ideas and the ability to express them.  I'm not being facetious when I say that I'd like to hear what you think is wrong with the criteria that Smmenen and Ric_Flair have discussed.

We have ample "proof" that CoW is a problem card, but that seems to be a function of the metagame, doesn't it?

I would argue that we do not, since a great number of people, myself included, seem to find CoW unproblematic.  I would say that we have ample proof that CoW is a powerful card that must be considered when designing a deck, but that in itself isn't enough to make it problematic.
 

Your proposed solution of "adapting" needs to be examined as well. Is that a sufficient approach to handling CoW?

So far, it seems to be--in fact, for the past couple of months, in all my testing, I've almost started ignoring CoW, excepting Strip locks.  And most of those locks were not "lucky" turn-1 or turn-2 draws, they were the result of a specific and disruptable game plan on the part of my opponent, e.g. Intuition with Welder on the table.  I had a discussion with someone a couple weeks ago about whether CoW "was even good anymore", and a number of the decks we've been working on recently started out running Crucible, then eventually cut them because they just weren't good enough.

If the idea is to pre-emptively axe first-turn kill decks, then why can't we view Trinisphere packing decks as "first turn kill decks"? Or CoW? Depending on your choice of decks, a quick CoW can likewise be equated to a "first turn kill".

The key phrase there is "depending on your choice of decks".  There are many, many matchups in Type 1 that are auto-losses "depending on your choice of decks."  Turn ZERO kills, in other words.  If I play FCG, I know I'm losing to MeanDeath/DeathLong/etc., unless my opponent is completely horrible or incredibly unlucky.  A first-turn Oath is game against Fish, except in very unlikely circumstances.  A first-turn Blood Moon is even MORE unbeatable than a first-turn CoW against all the same decks that CoW truly punishes, but no one (except Rakso) ever stumped for its restriction.

Trinisphere is a separate matter, and outside the scope of this thread, but I'm much more on the fence on that one.  I don't think Trinisphere is restrictable, but I am definitely aware that there are arguments to be made there, and to me it seems much more "oops, I win!" than Crucible.

[Saucemaster]

If we were to come up with set Standards for restriction a card, there would have to be multiple categories for restriction, since different cards violate different areas of brokenness.  Black Lotus and Black Vice were restricted for two separate reasons.

Under the criteria we're discussing, there ARE multiple categories for restriction.  You need to actually read Smmenen's article and Ric_Flair's many posts on the subject here.  Start with this, then go to the original Crucible thread for Ric_Flair's many collected links to his and Smmenen's subsequent fleshing-out of of the criteria.  

Another difficult thing about this is that the restriction of cards is very subjective.  Its hard to give concrete evidence oftentimes as to why a card should be restricted, many times leaving it to more of a gut instinct.

I don't agree.  The restriction of cards shouldn't be subjective in the least, hence the attempt to define a number of criteria for restriction.  If it's hard to give concrete evidence, you need to either a) try harder, or b) realize that you shouldn't be calling for a card's restriction in the first place.  

With CoW I at first felt strongly that it should be restricted after watching too many games and thinking, “my god this is stupid.â€?  Should that kind of reaction to a card be criteria for restriction???

No.

The metagame has shifted in many areas, yet there is still an outcry, so the card deserves being looked at.

Agreed.  But one thing that dicemanx, Shock Wave, and I all agree on here is that "looking at" the question should consist of more than one side saying "That card needs to be restricted!" and the other side saying "No, it doesn't!".  Which is what I'm trying to do here.

On another note, if you want to look at reasons why cards were restricted and see if they apply to CoW you can look no further than the issue of card advantage.  Anyone playing CoW is obviously playing with Strips and Fetchlands.  In the course of one game you might strip 3 of there lands and reuse a fetch land 3 or 4 times.  You have just netted 7 cards for yourself.  That’s the equivalent of drawing an extra hand during the game.

Your argument for restricting CoW is that a 3-mana artifact that, over the course of more than 7 turns will "net" you 7 cards, given that you start your hand with a Strip and a Fetchland, is too good?  That's not going to cut it.  A better argument, which I think could be attributed here to dicemanx and Shock Wave, is that CoW leads to unrecoverable early game swings and that it's far too random in doing so.  I think that they have also implied, though I may be misreading here, that by forcing other decks to entirely rethink their manabases and punishing non-combo 4/5-color decks, it has distorted the metagame.  So the real arguments right now, as I see them, are where to draw the line between a powerful card to which the metagame simply adapts, and an over-powerful card that distorts the metagame; and how much of an unrecoverable early-game swing Crucible constitutes, and whether it adds too much to the "randomness" element that is already so large in Type 1.

[Shock Wave]

While I certainly agree that the two sides in this debate aren't operating from the same set of principles regarding restriction, I'd like to point out that this statement is basically an argument for Crucible's remaining unrestricted.  If you cannot prove that something is worthy of restriction, then you can't restrict it.  There's no burden of proof for UNRESTRICTION unless a card is already restricted.  You need an argument to change a card's status, not to keep it as is.

Actually, it is not an argument for leaving Crucible unrestricted. It is a concession to allow this discussion to continue as you please. I have no intention of influencing your decision because we're clearly not relating here. We can argue back and forth until Steve runs out of bandwidth, but we're not going to reach any conclusion.

Before Long's inception, nobody was calling for LED's restriction. When Long rolled around though, it became clear that it was necessary. Now, I play a deck that runs 4 CoW. I've played in a hell of a lot of events at Gencon and since Gencon. I've won or placed in almost ALL those events. The number of early, devastating Crucible locks I've resolved has been absolutely ridiculous. It happens regularly and the effects are almost always immediate and game deciding.

LED on its own is a hunk of shit, but coupled with certain cards, it is excessively powerful. Crucible and Trinisphere are not awesome on their own, but coupled with several unrestricted cards in the format, they are also excessively powerful. I'm sorry, the burden of proof isn't on me. Here are some numbers for you:

Gencon (4 events)

Main: 5-2-1
$250: 1st place
Friday event: 2nd place
Post main-event: 6th place? I dunno, T8 of some sort.

Post-Gencon:

Ontario Vintage Championships (appx. 50 players, sanctioned): 2nd place
Toronto 401 (appx. 50 players, sanctioned): 1st/2nd split
Ottawa 5-Proxy (appx. 50 players): 2nd place

The best part about my losses in the finals is that they were all a result of my opponent resolving their own CoW. Hmmmm ....

Anyways, if I can consistently T8 with a deck that runs 4 CoW and hose people so early and to the point where the game is out of their reach, often by Turn 3, I'd say that's a substantial amount of proof. The funny thing is, it doesn't even have to be by turn 3. The point is that when I resolve the damn card, the effects are crippling. That is, of course, unless my opponent has their own CoW. How retarded is that?

I don't feel the need to articulate why Crucible is broken. I can recognize a broken mechanic after using it to crush opponents in almost 10 events, consistently. Of course, you can resort to calling the Canadian metagame inferior, but I claimed a lot of American heads at Gencon, so arguing that it is "metagame specific" doesn't work. Certain mechanics are broken regardless of the metagame.

If you don't agree or you're not convinced, that's cool. I really couldn't care less. You've asked for my reasoning, and I've given it to you in the form of play experience and results, which is far more valuable than a lot of the theoretical hogwash in this thread. Some of the theory in this is thread is well articulated (a lot of it is not), but very little of it relates to my experiences as a player.

Lastly, as a minor point, we should probably define what kind of "CoW lock" we're talking about.  If we're talking a CoW/Waste lock, then honestly I sympathize with those who've been saying "just stop relying solely on nonbasics already".  If we're talking about CoW/Strip, that really *IS* a dumb and random lock (assuming it's turn 1 or 2, and not turn 3+ when your opponent has Intuitioned for it, etc), but in my experience it happens so seldom that it's within the acceptable bounds of T1 brokenness.

The fact that you can "adapt" to Crucible has absolutely no bearing on the power of the mechanic. Great, you can run more basics. If we unrestricted Yawgmoth's Will, every deck could run 4 maindeck Tormod's Crypt in reprisal. Does that mean that Will is any less "broken" of a card? The notion that players can "adapt" in order to circumvent CoW detracts absolute nothing from the power of the card.

[dicemanx]

It's not immediately obvious to me why we can't have clear criteria. And the cutoff wouldn't be "arbitrary", it would be the result of reasoned discussion between intelligent people here on TMD. If you believe that we're incapable of finding such a clear criteria, I disagree; if you think that it's actually impossible to find clear criteria, that's an argument that needs to be made. I'm not arguing that the criteria that have already been laid out already ARE perfectly clear and well-defined--that's part of what this whole discussion is about. In fact, I think that we should be constantly reevaluating our criteria and changing them if we come to a consensus opinion that something in them needs fixing.

OK, lets do it this way. Let's work with a specific example, and see if we can formulate a set of clear criteria for restriction, and see what snags we come up with. We'll have to agree that we would have to come to some sort of an agreement as far as arbitrary cut-offs are concerned.

The card in question is Charbelcher (or critical component X of Belcher, the restriction of which would be deemed sufficient to neuter the deck). Now, we can start considering based on dominance and/or distortion. An alternate approach is to automatically neuter any deck that can win on turn 1 an "appreciable" amount of time. Now clearly Charbelcher (played in low numbers), is incapable of dominating the environment, or so the evidence would suggest up to now. Of course the question of dominance is dependent on three factors - player skill, the *number* of Charbelcher decks playing in an event, and the level or competency of the oppostion (both in terms of play skill and deck selection/metagaming).

Now, if the question of dominance is called into question, what would our established cut offs lie? If the deck is piloted by 50% of the players (like GAT was back in the day) at an event, doesn't that skew the analysis? Does the dominance stem from the power of the deck, or from the sheer numbers and the resultant increase in the probability of a top finish? If its the latter, could it be due to the "flavor of the week" effect? We could deal with such a case quite readily by deciding that if a scenario arises where most people are playing deck X, then we can just neuter the deck. Notice that we could do this to any top tier deck though - the moment every second person decides to play mono-U, than it wouldn't be inconceivable to see mono-U dominating horribly and something like Mana Drain or Ophidian (or B2B?) could get the axe. So how do we distinguish true dominance from sheer numbers/flavor of the week effects? Do we need to? If we need to make that distinction, how could we ever do it? It would seem like an arbitrary decision, because the meta could shift on the spot, or it could be localized in the first place and it would be impossible to analyze every set of data from different regions and come to some sort of unanimous agreement. Instead, it might turn out that card X is deemed restriction worthy in region X based on arbitrarily determined cut-offs (look at CoW now for example), while in region Y it's not much of a problem. At the height of GAT, we had NO problems with the deck in the Greater Toronto Area, so we could likewise criticize the Americans for overreacting and restricting Gush too soon based on their local metagames which became infested with the deck archetype.

OK, it seems like analysis of dominance could get very problematic. Well if that was so troublesome, you can imagine that basing restrictions on distortion is going to be one hundred times worse. As would basing restrictions on pre-emptive neutering of decks that can go off on turn one an "appreciable" number of times. Notice that "appreciable" is in quotes, because I have no idea how one would measure such a characteristic. Furthermore, should we factor in what the opponent is playing? If the entire field is sporting FoWs with Chalices for back-up, are probability of a first turn kill drops off dramatically. Now you might argue that this is distortion, because the opponent was forced to run hate to contend with a first turn kill. Well, how would that differ from adapting (nay, more like compromising your color consistency) your mana base to deal with CoW. The cases are incomparable you might argue? Well, I would take issue with that because I feel differently about what constitutes a "turn 1 kill" and what the acceptable boundaries are for the "forced adaptation".

Anyways, I've rambled on for far too long. The point is that it is very intuitive to me that no clear set of criteria can be reached, because every sinngle point can be debated, from recognition of what the key variables are, how measurements are to be made, what the definitions are set to be, and which data is to be analyzed or in what fashion.

If you don't agree or you're not convinced, that's cool. I really couldn't care less. You've asked for my reasoning, and I've given it to you in the form of play experience and results, which is far more valuable than a lot of the theoretical hogwash in this thread.

This sums it nicely actually. Lets just use anecdotal evidence, as opposed to trying to arrive at some sort of agreement as far as criteria are concerned.

[dicemanx]

Maybe instead of discussing rules for restriction, we should discuss rules for debate in this thread.

If you are tempted to use the word "adapt" or "adaptation" don't bother posting in this thread.

If you are tempted to tell us that CoW doesn't dominate "the meta" don't bother posting in this thread.

If you are tempted to tell us that T1 is filled with broken combos, don't bother posting in this thread.

If you do post point #3, at least refrain from giving us yet ANOTHER example  of your "broken" FoW/Drain fueled/YawgWill/Mountain Goat broken play.

[Saucemaster]

The point is that it is very intuitive to me that no clear set of criteria can be reached, because every sinngle point can be debated, from recognition of what the key variables are, how measurements are to be made, what the definitions are set to be, and which data is to be analyzed or in what fashion.

Are you offering an argument against the set of criteria, or against our ability to measure whether a card satisfies that criteria?  There's a difference, and it sounds to me like your objection is actually the latter.

If we can at least agree on the criteria, then we can debate specifics.  If we decide there IS no set of criteria, then there's no point in having the debate in the first place.

The solution to most of the "problems" you raise, by the way, is simply more metagame coherence.  That's another debate that we've all been through a million times, but I think your response is a great example of why metagame coherence and the disappearance of the purely "local" metagame are good and necessary things for Type 1.  Most of the rest of your objections are relatively easy to decide, though.  If a deck is a "flavor of the moment", for example, it's not hard to determine that.  And testing and further tournament results will tell whether the deck is dominating simply because it's showing up, or whether its performance is out of line with its representation in the metagame.  Just because an analysis is complex doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.

Anyway, the fact that every point can be debated doesn't necessarily mean that every point can be reasonably debated.  I think that the question of when the metagame is being distorted vs. when it's simply adapting is a reasonable debate.  I think that we can all agree that "Deck X is dominating my 8-person FNM Type 1 tournaments, it must be stopped" is out of bounds.

I'll ignore the "rules for debate" you posted, but if you're tired of answering those points, I think it's because most of us believe you haven't sufficiently addressed all of them.  C'mon, *some* of them are valid points of argument (like adapt vs. distort).

I'm sorry, the burden of proof isn't on me.

Respectfully, I still maintain that it is.  While I agree that we aren't going to all come to a common conclusion in this thread, I don't see how it's possible to say that a card should *by default* be restricted, and then have to justify its continued unrestriction.  The card exists, and is unrestricted.  If you want to change the card's status, you need to provide a reason--the burden of proof is on you.  Whether that's restricting a card that's unrestricted, or unrestricting a card that's already restricted.

And, in fact, you have (begun) to do so.  It takes alot more than one person's results with a deck to justify the restriction of a card, though, without some other set of supporting arguments.  I'd note that you also did quite well at Gencon last year.  It could just as easily be that the deck is good--but not necessarily excessively so--and that you're obviously a very skilled player.

The fact that you can "adapt" to Crucible has absolutely no bearing on the power of the mechanic. Great, you can run more basics. If we unrestricted Yawgmoth's Will, every deck could run 4 maindeck Tormod's Crypt in reprisal. Does that mean that Will is any less "broken" of a card? The notion that players can "adapt" in order to circumvent CoW detracts absolute nothing from the power of the card.

The question, for me, is one of "what happens to decks once they 'adapt?'".  In the case of adapting to Long, they had to run a whole set of hate cards, and THEN win the coin flip.  In the case of Crucible, decks simply have to either accept that a Crucible/Waste lock will take out their 4- or 5-color deck, or they have to play fewer colors.  In this sense I don't see how it's any different than Back to Basics or Blood Moon, except that it requires a combination of cards to work, rather than simply doing it all on its own like Blood Moon.  With the tradeoff that it's easier to cast early.  And it's also obvious that there are MEANT to be tradeoffs you have to make for color consistency in a 4-color deck in this game; the vast number of non-basic hosers and unrestriction of Wasteland, as opposed to Strip Mine, are ample evidence of this, even if Wizards hadn't already told us as much outright.  Which they have.  Crucible makes that tradeoff even rougher, possibly to the point where it's not worth running a 4-color non-combo deck anymore.

Fundamentally, of course, adaptation and distortion are the same thing: the rest of the decks in the format reacting to the presence of a card (or set of cards) powerful enough to disrupt or invalidate their own strategies.  The difference is one of degree.  If a card is powerful enough to see play in Type 1 at all, decks will have to adapt.  In this case, I think it stays at "adapt" because all Crucible does is exacerbate an ALREADY EXISTING design limitation of the game.  Whereas, for example, having to devote 8 slots in every single deck in the format to simply not losing before you even get a second turn would cross the line into distortion, precisely because the design limitation is not responding to an intended limitation.  You're supposed to have multiple turns in this game.  You're not supposed to be able to play 5 colors with no appreciable drawback.  I don't think it's out of line to have a format where playing 5 colors is possible, but means you lose to a two-card unrestricted combo if it drops early enough.

EDIT: Now that the thread's been cleaned and moved, some of my post needed deleting.  Also rephrased something that came off harsher than I intended.

[dicemanx]

Are you offering an argument against the set of criteria, or against our ability to measure whether a card satisfies that criteria? There's a difference, and it sounds to me like your objection is actually the latter.

Indeed, although not having the capability to determine if a card satisfies criteria is not completely independent of setting the criteria in the first place.

The solution to most of the "problems" you raise, by the way, is simply more metagame coherence. That's another debate that we've all been through a million times, but I think your response is a great example of why metagame coherence and the disappearance of the purely "local" metagame are good and necessary things for Type 1.

OK, now were getting somewhere. I am vehemently opposed to any kind of progression towards "metagame coherence", because it would destroy my vision of what an ideal T1 environment would look like. I do not share Smennens idea of what the ultimate form of T1 should be. Perhaps he calls it "evolution", but as Rich put it, perhaps its a "de-evolution" or progression towards some sort of bland degeneracy or uniformity. I like secrecy, I like chaotic environments, I like the element of surprise in this format.  

Also, the last thing I would ever consider is the need for "coherence" just so we could better develop criteria for bannings/restrictions.

More later, gotta go to class .

[jpmeyer]

OK, now were getting somewhere. I am vehemently opposed to any kind of progression towards "metagame coherence", because it would destroy my vision of what an ideal T1 environment would look like. I do not share Smennens idea of what the ultimate form of T1 should be. Perhaps he calls it "evolution", but as Rich put it, perhaps its a "de-evolution" or progression towards some sort of bland degeneracy or uniformity. I like secrecy, I like chaotic environments, I like the element of surprise in this format.  

In that case, is the problem with Crucible that it in a way enforces a "coherence" of sorts by placing a restriction (>4 colors, no heavy dependence on lands) on the format and thus pushing it away from chaos?  To me, this seems like more of what the problem might be, as if people are unaware of or choose not to take into account the "rules" of a format, then the decks that are placing those rules upon the format gain a heavy advantage.

Another point to think about is what exactly the "metagame" consists of.  If the metagame consists of Oath, mono-blue, Control Slaver, and then a couple combo and a couple Workshop decks, Crucible is only being played in those couple Workshop decks and MAYBE Control Slaver.

Or, is the question of whether or not Crucible *should* be used more (due to its artifact status, low CC, etc.) and thus then would be perfectly restrictable?

[Smmenen]

My article this week is precisely on this topic.   I hope we can cool it until it comes out so that I can take my shot at this difficult issue.  As a teaser, the title of my article is: Crucible of Worlds is the New Library of Alexandria.

[Zherbus]

Re-opened. Shock Wave and Ric Flair, this is a warning to both of you. Regardless of who is right and who started it, bickering doesn't belong here.

[Shock Wave]

Saucemaster wrote:
Respectfully, I still maintain that it is. While I agree that we aren't going to all come to a common conclusion in this thread, I don't see how it's possible to say that a card should *by default* be restricted, and then have to justify its continued unrestriction. The card exists, and is unrestricted. If you want to change the card's status, you need to provide a reason--the burden of proof is on you. Whether that's restricting a card that's unrestricted, or unrestricting a card that's already restricted.

Shock Wave wrote:
I respect your opinion, yet I think you're misunderstanding my stance here. I'm not trying to convince you that Crucible needs restriction, however I personally believe it needs restriction. I didn't wake up one morning and decide that Crucible needed the axe. I've played, I've tested, and I'm still playing and testing. The results I've arrived at are enough to convince me that it requires restriction, based on my own restriction criteria.

It is not up to me to change the card's status, I frankly don't care what happens to it and it is not my responsibility. That doesn't mean that I should abstain from having an opinion as to what category the card belongs in. My opinion has nothing to do with your set of guidelines, or Ric Flair's, or Smmenen's. That is essentially the issue here. We all have our opinions as to what are the appropriate restriction criteria.

As for the burden of proof, I doesn't lie with me because I am not trying to "prove" anything, as I've clearly stated. Again, my opinion was asked for, and I've explained it as best I can. If it doesn't suit you, that's perfectly fine with me.

Saucemaster wrote:
And, in fact, you have (begun) to do so. It takes alot more than one person's results with a deck to justify the restriction of a card, though, without some other set of supporting arguments. I'd note that you also did quite well at Gencon last year. It could just as easily be that the deck is good--but not necessarily excessively so--and that you're obviously a very skilled player.

Shock Wave wrote:
Well thanks for the compliment, but one of the contributing factors towards my position on this issue is that I don't feel like I am making these wonderfully crafted plays when I win. Sure, the nature of the format is that your deck sometimes just poops out a win and there's nothing your opponent can do to stop you. However, more often than not, you should be relying on your game plan and your skills in setting up your kill in order to win. A lot of players can tell you that they can feel the moment where the game is won; I know I do. Sometimes my judgement is off but most of the time, when I feel that I've won, I end up winning. I get that feeling a little too often when I resolve a Crucible. There's simply no other way to explain it. I'm relying on my intuition as a player to influence my position on this issue.

Saucemaster wrote:
That makes sense, actually, and yes, I misunderstood you. I still think this discussion is more interesting if we all actually debate what the criteria for restriction should be. Intuition (not the card... though actually, the more I think about it...) is a good *starting place* for identifying cards potentially in need of restriction, but to go beyond that to actual restriction, I think we need fully-formed criteria in order to at least have a fundamental agreement on the basics. Before we start arguing endlessly over whether a card fulfills them or not.  If you don't want to participate in that part of the debate, obviously that's your decision, but I'd welcome as many voices as we can get.

I had to rescue this excerpt because I think an important point has been made here regarding the influence of a player's intuition on restricting cards. The criteria we currently use for restricting cards has undoubtedly been useful up until this point. However, new cards that are worthy of restriction may escape this criteria. If a card comes under the scrutiny of the community as Crucible clearly has, then perhaps we need to look past the criteria for a moment and really take a look at the card in question again. As JP mentioned pointed out earlier (and this isn't the first time we've heard this):

Or, is the question of whether or not Crucible *should* be used more (due to its artifact status, low CC, etc.) and thus then would be perfectly restrictable?

Perhaps this is exactly the matter at hand and I would not be surprised if this were true. Have we really been doing our homework with Crucible? Have we explored sufficiently enough to say that it is not worthy of restriction? It took a while before someone found a way to break LED, but eventually it happened. Considering how long we've had CoW in the card pool, it is almost certain that possibilities have been overlooked.

Instead of looking for current criteria to prove Crucibles worthiness of restriction, it may be necessary to work in reverse in some circumstances. What I mean is that an amendment to the criteria may be necessary in order for Crucible to fit in to the restricted card pool.

@Saucemaster:

You're absolutely right, intuition is a good starting point, but it is not sufficient enough to warrant a restriction. However, given that Crucible keeps coming back to the restriction debate table, I think it is an indication that we need to start digging beyond intuition for concrete evidence that it is restriction worthy. Unfortunately, because Crucible is a new, different beast, it's difficult to isolate exactly why.

I think Steve's upcoming article will shed some light on the issue and provide an updated framework on how to attack this issue. I'm looking forward to it.

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=8382

I have tried to give a fair shake to both sides of the argument.  I realize that this is an exhaustive article on the subject and covers restricted policy in detail - but what better way to present the issue!?

[Shock Wave]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=8382

I have tried to give a fair shake to both sides of the argument.  I realize that this is an exhaustive article on the subject and covers restricted policy in detail - but what better way to present the issue!?

That's an excellent piece of work. It may seem dry and iterative to some but as far as I can see, it addresses all the issues from both sides of the argument.

Here's a very strong point that I was pleased to read:

In my mind, this is the most serious problem with Crucible - it effectively distorts what will happen in the control mirror.

The control mirror salvages the notion that vintage magic is a skill based format. There are other decks that require skillful play in order to be effective, but the control mirror is probably the most reliant on skill than any other. Combo poops out wins and that is fine, but Crucible of Worlds adds an element of randomness to the control mirror that is not healthy. T1 is a broken format, we all know this. However, we need to acknowledge that further design and implementation of cards that have immediate game-ending implications and are playable in the early game is going to ruin this format.

What we don't want to see is T1 "evolve" into blackjack. This format allows for an exceptional mix of broken plays and plays that occur based on the skill of the players. It is important that we maintain this balance. Crucible is the latest threat to the harmony of the format. The next few months will prove exactly how strong of a threat it is. I am sure that the evolution of control, in whichever direction, is ultimately going to be the deciding factor.

[dicemanx]

Indeed, the article was a good read, but for me the points of contention are the following:

The aim of any restricted list is to do what is best for the format it affects - and by extension, the game. But what is best for the format? Do we tow the line at keeping the format fun and fair, or where there is a dynamic, balanced and competitive environment, even if it isn't quite "fair"?

Ultimately, there is only one way to come down. The foundational principle of Type One is that you get to play with all of your cards. Restriction is something which is unnatural to the purpose for which Vintage exists. The format is inherently broken and maintaining a dynamic, balanced and competitive environment is really the best you can hope for, and what should be sought.

and you ended by saying:

Restriction is much easier to do than undo. It is best to be absolutely certain that what is being done is correct. I empathize with people who say that they are unhappy with how Crucible has affected Type One - it may have ruined some pet decks and made some matches a little more silly, but restricting a card is something we do when it is absolutely necessary.

For one thing, you are correct in your assertion that for the most part the T1 community wishes to maintain a "dynamic, balanced and competitive environment". We also like the fact that we get to play with all of our cards, although this statement is quite deceiving (our card pool is paradoxically far more severely limited based on what *isn't* restricted). However, the idea of achieving "balance" according to your definition doesn't examine precisely how that balance is maintained. We could flip a coin to determine the winner of each match and retain perfect balance in doing so; however, what we should strive for above else, even above the notion that you should minimize the b/r list and allow players to play with as many cards as possible, is the maximization of skill in this format. T1 is indeed a very broken format where luck plays a very significant role already. This problem will be further exacerbated with 10+ proxy events becoming more of a standard and the player pool slowly increasing their awareness and understanding of what it takes to be successful in T1 magic. Deck design has almost ground to a standstill as decks are published and optimal strategies or card choices are made known; its therefore conceivable that, unless the new sets coming out will sufficently shake up the format or there will be some blockbuster b/r changes, we will eventually slip into a tedious format where everything will be predictable as everyone will play the top tier decks, and decks themselves will play out almost on autopilot. Skill will still be the deciding factor in many games, perhaps enough to differentiate between the really talented players versus the more average ones more often than not, but that gap will get smaller and smaller. This is not my idea of an exciting format.


So I present a wildly different notion of handling the B/R list. I do not think we have to be remotely careful in our decisions to ban or restrict cards, or accept the idea that it is something that we do "only when neccessary". We also do not have to strictly accept your current criteria and their cut-offs for banning/restriction.  Those criteria are for the most part intuitively obvious anyways, but you were the first to verbalize them - if the environment is getting rocked by a prevalent or over-popular archetype, or causes severe distortion, then by all means restrictions are called for. What interests us more are the cases where cards are "on the bubble", like CoW, Trinisphere, Mishra's Workshop, perhaps even Bazaar or Mana Drain to some extent. We currently have no established way of handling such cases as evidenced by the large split in the T1 population as far as how to go about dealing with some of these "problem" cards. Instead, we have to make intuitive, sometimes arbitrary judgement calls. This was clearly the case for cards like LED, Burning Wish, or Entomb, which got the axe due to potential rather than any sort of dominance or distortion. Deathlong in particular was the sort of deck that has serious potential to wreck the environment, but it seemed that playskill was significant limiting factor, as well as the hate present in the environment to a lesser extent. Nevertheless, the DCI's decision to restrict pre-emptively was in my opinion a good one. The deck had an unacceptably fast goldfish rate, so it had the potential to massively warp the environment. The environment *would* have responded by upping the hate to keep everything in "balance" if the deck would have been played in significant numbers, but that is a classic case of distortion. Entomb was a card that could have potentially caused significant problems due to the blazing fast goldfish speed of Dragon decks packing 4 copies of the card, so the axing of the card (and not unrestricting it recently to show that it *wasn't eliminated due to 1.5) was another wise decision.

What I would like to highlight is the fact that such restrictions did *not* detract from the environment even if they were done more or less in an arbitrary fashion. The DCI saw, through goldfishing in a vacuum if you will, that decks like 4 Entomb Dragon or Long.dec introduce too much randomness into the environment and make things more of a coinflip (hate vs combo, who will get lucky?). In any case, once a card is restricted and the whining about it dies down, players move on and adapt to a new environment. The idea of maintaining the environment in flux, always forcing people to adapt, is far, far more important in my opinion than reaching an eventual balance and worst of all, a "predictable" metagame. You learn to roll with the punches and accept the DCI's decisions even if they are not done in accordance with some sort of perscribed B/R policies. This is why I mentioned on several occasions that T1 is most interesting to me when it is chaotic and in a state of flux, where people have to fend for themselves as far as deck design is concerned. People that are the most flexible and creative will have a natural advantage, which to me is the primary goal for a game that was initially *designed* with those two things in mind. Lets not try to turn Magic into Chess. Magic is very attractive because it is uniquely customizable and very unpredictable, which is a far cry from a strategic game like chess where skill plays a more considerable factor and the learning curve is far steeper than Magic's curve will ever dream to be.

So back to Crucible (and by extension cards like Trinisphere, Belcher etc).:

Let's not concern ourselves with trying to determine a precise set of criteria and cut offs, and lets not be overly worried about keeping the B/R list "elegantly" short and theoretically maxmize our access to four copies of as many cards in the environment as possible. Let's acknowledge the fact that, even if cards like CoW are not currently format distorting or dominating, they certainly can be problematic in certain metas (like the one in Toronto), but more importantly they do push acceptable limits as far as the randomness in the format is concerned. The format "balance", as Steve described, is not part of the equation here because whether CoW stays or gets the axe won't make one shred of difference. We also don't have to concern ourselves with making decisions based on analogy - whether CoW is more like Black Vice or Library of Alexandria or Mountain Goat is irrelevant when following my proposal.

So the "pros" to axing a card like CoW:

1. Randomness is decreased
2. The card is not any sort of "glue" in the format, so it won't be missed; life will go on, the format will still retain its balance (Steve's definition), and people will adapt


The "cons":

1. We might be restricting a card where restriction is not warranted based on criteria and their associated cut-offs (which are unambiguous only at the extreme cases, and are otherwise set to "not restrict" in the interests of maintaining a short restricted list).

[Saucemaster]

You know what I find very interesting?  This debate is highly analogous to certain debates in political theory.  I think we're forming up in two sides: the classically "conservative" side who thinks that restriction is sometimes necessary, but that the default position of the format should be "four of any card you want to play", with restriction only being applied when a card is distorting or dominating the format to such an extent that it manifestly hurts the environment.  On the other side, we have a more classically "liberal" point of view, which, while accepting that restriction shouldn't be commonplace (because that would greatly mar the environment as well), starts from an idea of what the format should look like, and sees restriction as a relatively unproblematic tool to achieve that ideal.

Of course, the two have very little to actually do with each other, but I found the analogy vaguely interesting.

Anyway, analogy aside, dicemanx's reply (nice reply, btw) raised two issues for me.  One thing that I find troubling, and one I find fascinating.

I find the idea that we can pseudo-casually (compared to following something like Steve's criteria) restrict cards like CoW problematic because of the classic slippery-slope argument.  So far we all seem to be agreeing that restricting CoW isn't an outlandish or strange position.  Steve describes it as "on the bubble" and most of the reasonable voices in this debate have agreed that there are at least reasons to consider the restriction.  And I even agree that the restriction criteria will probably never be as precise as we want them to be, as Shock Wave and dicemanx have both suggested in the past.  But in part BECAUSE the criteria, however much we flesh them out, will never be entirely precise, I think that we should be exceedingly careful about "expanding the bubble" to include cards like CoW.  Because unless we have a strong understanding of where the lines are drawn--which I think can only be achieved with a well-defined set of restriction criteria--we are in constant danger of overstepping the bounds and simply restricting any card that is powerful.  Obviously we'd all agree that that's unacceptable, so what I'm interested in hearing is, without "strictly accepting" a clear set of criteria we can apply (and, of course, argue how to apply), how do we avoid an ever-increasing wave of restrictions whenever a small subset of decks is threatened by a new (or old) card?

The other point of note, to me, was something in your post, dicemanx, that I'd thought of but never really forumulated: the second "pro" to axing CoW:

2. The card is not any sort of "glue" in the format, so it won't be missed; life will go on, the format will still retain its balance (Steve's definition), and people will adapt

I think that implies a certain "restriction-exempt" status for some cards.  The "glue" test AGAINST restriction.  The idea would be that, say some card like... FORCE OF WILL was analyzed as "distorting" the environment.  Certainly, for example, combo decks wouldn't be nearly as concerned with running Duress, or their own Forces, or Xantids, etc. if the best counterspell in the environment was UU, or even Mana Leak's U1.  They might still run them for things like Trinisphere or Null Rod, but then they could just run Hurkyl's and focus on winning faster to beat the hate if necessary.

The counterargument, if you except the "glue" anti-criteria for restriction, wouldn't even have to get into questions like "what constitutes distortion vs. adaptation?"  You could simply argue that, even if this card is distorting the environment, it's distorting it towards a net positive end.  In a format of uber-brokenness, we need to have a card available, unrestricted, that can counteract that brokenness and at least have a shot at seeing us through to a mid-game when more effective counter-strategies or hosers can pick up the slack.

Force of Will is the most obvious card covered by this "anti-criteria", but I think very similar arguments could be made for Null Rod being covered here, and maybe even Mana Drain.  This post is long and dry enough as it is, so I won't make those arguments here, but I think it could pretty easily be done.  I'm not sure how far this can be taken.

[MuzzonoAmi]

Up until this week, I would've been 100% against restricting Crucible. But after alot of testing with The Fringe, I think that restricting Crucible has to be a consideration, if nothing else. The ease of dumping the 4-of into an easily accessable zone is so great, and the card is gamebreaking in and against tons of decks when it hits.  For example, we had been testing a deck with 0 strip effects, but when I added Crucible and 2-3 strip effects, the deck (which was performing well to begin with) began performing much better. This new strength was exacerbated by Zuran Orb, which has amzing synergy with Crucible. And this says nothing of cards like City of Traitors. I think we need to wait and observe right now, but by March we may have a restriction candidate on our hands.

[Thug]

Another question has to be what does get hurt by restricting Crucible. Blue-based Control decks rarely run more than 2 Crucibles, and a single copy also pops up quite often.
The only commonly played decks running more Crucibles are Prison decks, and these are the decks that will get hurt it Crucible gets the axe.
People complain about control mirror being decided by who gets Crucible first, but this mainly is about 4cc.
Most other blue-based control decks have adapted to Crucible, these wont auto-lose to a resolved Crucible, and you still need brains to play these decks so why don't people switch instead of complaining?.
Is it just because people wan't to continue playing 4cc *cough* Keeper *cough*

Koen