[Premium Article] Fine, Just Ban it Already

[glacial-blue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Dozer]

glacial-blue, you may have some points in your posts, but they are god-awful to read. Try more line-breaks, less triple punctuation and the like and we will be able to follow along far better.

I'm still saying smmenen is right... that yawgmoth's will is so powerful that the best strategy is to abuse it the most.

But still you concur that there are a lot of decks that have a different game plan than resolving Yawgmoth's Will, and those decks do quite well. I understand your goldfish metaphor (more cards = more turns), which in other terms could just be called card advantage. If that is so, then what you are basically saying is that Yawgmoth's Will is insane card advantage, so insane that whole decks are centered on that card, and because of that power it needs to be banned. If that is Will's only offence (and according to Steve, it isn't), then I don't see a banning even distantly on the horizon. As you say yourself, the decks that are entirely centered on Will are inflexible:

a deck that has the option of switching 1 or 2 slots b/c it needs EVERY card to find just 1 really doesn't seem to be flexible and thus easily hated out

If the decks that use this all-powerful card exclusively are easily hated out, why should that card be banned? I think you are contradicting yourself here.

Dr. Sylvan says that about 50% of decks play Yawgmoth's Will.  If that means that 50% of deck strategies are effective without Yawg Win, you don't drop the ban-hammer.

To this I might add that even of the 50% decks that use Will, almost everyone can win without it.

In fact, I challenge everybody to show me a current deck that really abuses Yawgmoth's Will. By that I mean abuses it as much as DeathLong, far more than Gifts ever will. Show me the deck that relies on Will so much that anything it does culminates on resolving Will, a deck which cannot win without Will and tears the metagame in half. Gifts in any form, even Meandeck Gifts, is not that deck. It is the one deck that currently makes most of Yawgmoth's Will, but it has weaknesses and it does not necessarily need Will to win unless it goes for the Tendrils kill. In that deck, preparation is crucial and if you set up a Will, so much energy and resources go into it that you are virtually guaranteed the win if you resolve it. If you don't, you are dead in the water. Will is strong and maybe even the best card ever, but since DeathLong, no deck has actually broken it beyond the inherent brokenness of the card.

Dozer

[dandan]

God help Vintage if we start banning cards because they are broken.

[Bram]

I think what Steve is trying to say is that he doesn't want to see it banned because it's broken, but rather, simply put, because it's stupid.

If Vintage boils down exclusively (or even mostly) to finding the most efficient way to win through Yawgmoth's Will, something is wrong. It's true that we could simply restrict parts of each specific 'Will engine' , but alternatively we could go straight to the source of the percieved problem. My biggest concern is that, with Will gone, another card will simply take its place as the new 'card to build up to.' This card will likely be Tinker.

I feel the need to say that none of this actually makes me want to see Will restricted. Not because I think that cards should only be restricted if they're ante cards or require some physical skill, but because I like Will. I enjoy combo in general, broken plays in particular, absurd situations, 'unfair' plays and gameswinging topdecks. That's what T1 is to me. If it's not, however, and you would want a more balanced, ' real' format, then I can totally see why you think Will should get the definitive axe.

[normalbrains]

I would rather see the DCI unrestrict cards like Regrowth, Fact or Fiction, and Entomb one at a time for a period of 90 days to see if they are still restriction worthy than to see the DCI permanently kill more cards. If the DCI took on a policy that rotated in a restricted card every 90 days to test if it is still worthy of the title, I would be much more willing to restrict or ban certain offenders because I would at least feel that there would be a chance that the card could come off that list at a later date. Not to mention this would shake the format up and create a vintage rotation, which in itself would be kinda cool.

now thats an idea id like to see an article about. they only unrestricted fork years after it became weak because they knew twincast was coming out and it's restriction couldnt be justified. id love to see what would happen if wheel of fortune became unrestricted. nobody is using wheel of fortune these days except for some crazy euro-tps deck. you know what would happen? new decks would spring up. people would draw seven cards. fun would be had by all. it really would be like a rotation. would anybody even use 4x regrowth? i bet a new deck would spring up. i bet it wouldnt be tier 1. we should push for this.

[Nantuko Rice]

i dont' get to read premium and i skimmed this thread for the word "tinker" and didn't find what i want to say, so i get a chance to say it:

"Turn one tinker wins game, turn one will doesn't"

I like Yawg Will. Yawg will usually wins late game when you're already in the winning position to "seal the deal" or it can come off a lucky topdeck (tutor or actual card) when you and your opponent are both spent and win you the game. In either case, this is happening later in the game (unless it's a wacky combo deck, but combo decks already get alot of hate so even turn one will can be stopped). When someone plays yawg will and wins, I say to myself "ahh, that's what I love about magic, the broken plays." Broken things happen in vintage, people may take long turns, I respect that aspect of vintage, this is why  I play the format.

But when someone plays "Mox, Mox, Island, Tinker, Colossus, Force backup" I sit in frustration against the inevitable two turn clock. This also counts as a "broken play" in vintage as well, but it feels so much more different from a yawg will broken play.

Yawg Will gets played in very few decks, while it seems like every deck plays tinker, even fish.

If i wanted to ban a card, tinker is the one.

edit: whoops had to fix a quoting code error

[Yare]

I don't want to hijack this thread by taking it in a completely different direction; if another discussion starts regarding this, perhaps the mods could break up the posts to another thread.

First, I haven't read the article: I don't have premium.  I have, however, read most of the posts in this thread.

That beaing said, I feel like this comes back to the "critical mass" idea.  I'm not suggesting that we are there right this second necesarily, but everybody seems to have that feeling that the format is getting closer and closer to this "critical mass," whatever that might be.  So, in essence, we're trying to find a solution to this problem.  In my eyes, we really have four choices:

1. Do nothing and keep the "restriction standard" - type 1 is broken and we'll restrict cards as necessary, either because they are new and need to be restricted for obvious reasons (Mind's Desire) or we find some way to uber break an older card that is possibly ruining the format (Gush).

2. Have a more aggressive restriction strategy - this has been discussed at length by many people.  This means the restriction of all the t1 favorites like Mana Drain, Dark Ritual, and so on.  I would possibly suggest that you could be super aggressive in that you might restrict numerous cards that have been discussed about restricting but never really felt you should (like Mishra's Workshop, Crucible of Worlds, etc.).  I'm not saying we should do this tomorrow, but at the same time we shouldn't exclude this possiblity because we don't like it on its face.

3. Ban cards - the whole point of this thread.  Personally, I don't like the idea, because I feel like the slippery slope will get compelling.  This will especially piss of people when some really valuable card ($100+) gets smashed by the banhammer.  This could potentially hurt the value of other valuable cards, causing people to be wary to hold on to the expensive cards, thereby hurting the format further.  Just a suggestion.

4. Increase the minimum deck size - Nobody has really suggested this, but I feel that it is a viable solution.  One of the purposes of restriction is to llimit the probability of drawing a card at any one moment.  By raising the minimum deck size, you could create a reverse engineered form of restriction by decreasing the probability of getting any one card.  This obviously hurts combo the most who want the probabilities as high as possible.  This might be really out there, and I wish I could post more, but I have to go to lunch.  I may post more later if anybody thinks this idea is even worth discussing.

[Smmenen]

I think what Steve is trying to say is that he doesn't want to see it banned because it's broken, but rather, simply put, because it's stupid.

If Vintage boils down exclusively (or even mostly) to finding the most efficient way to win through Yawgmoth's Will, something is wrong. It's true that we could simply restrict parts of each specific 'Will engine' , but alternatively we could go straight to the source of the percieved problem.

I couldn't have said it better. 

[Whatever Works]

Regardless of how broken Yawgmoth's will is does it really matter? Banning a card in vintage breaks the entire purpose of the format! Type 1 is broken and just because Smennen doesnt want to have gifts ungiven restricted (thats a joke... kinda) is not justifacation for the destruction of everything that is great in type 1.

OK, So several decks are based around Yawgmoth's Will. Entire deck strategies are centered on playing the card, and abusing the most broken card in type. Smennen, How can you argue this as a bad thing??? If anything I would think that you would be glorifying this as a sign of progress! Decks that are now more powerful, efficient, and focused centered around a specific card, but still viable without ever seeing it hit play.

My question is how is having a deck focused around 1 card a bad thing (especially when there is no true best deck in the format)??? Its not like a deck hasnt ever focused around a single card before. It has happened several times in history in several different games beyond just magic. What is wrong with a deck focusing on 1 card if it doesnt dominate the format? Thats like asking for the restriction of a draw engine of a deck that isnt even tier 1.

The biggest problem is that if it oneday does get banned (and type 1 then dies in my eyes) what will happen to the format? You said it would be more interesting... That is a complete utter lie...It turns a format that is essentially 2 colors, and makes it a 1 color format. Black will no longer be as viable as before... Combo will be officially dead umm.. forever... and mana drain will dominate the format and be restricted, and then tinker will be banned too. I guess thats more exciting... oh boy, I cant wait...

Kyle L

P.S.    Oh, and if your going to talk about banning... If Black Lotus was banned then Yawgmoth's will wouldnt be nearly as good, because most of the most broken plays involve saccing lotus to cast will to replay lotus and go broken...Or lotus is in the graveyard. However, Nobody is willing to touch power for banning because it is such a sacred grail to players. That being said I have been playing for 8 years, and Yawgmoth's will is a card that definds magic, and is a very important part of magic, and its sad that people who picked up magic around the mirrodin block are unable to appreciate the tradition of type 1... If you honestly think type 1 is to broken with yawgmoth's will go get a tissue, and play legacy.

[PucktheCat]

mana drain will dominate the format and be restricted

That doesn't seem inevitable to me.  What was the last Drain deck that didn't have Yawgmoth's Will as a key part of its end game?  The Franchise?

Re: T1 is diverse so it is healthy.
Type 1's "diversity" is an illusion, and it has been for a while.  There are only two deck type in the format: Mana Denial and Combo.  The fact that there is more than one way to build each deck type is simply a consequence of a deep card pool that lets a player do the same thing a few different ways without much of a power gap.

Leo

[jazzykat]

I am a firm believer that vintage is the format where you should be able to play as many cards as possible. Restrictions should be a last resort but banning a card that isn't ante or requires physical interaction(and thus aiming something like chaos orb) is unacceptable. I know every will go but  (insert your excuse here) however I must point out the obvious fact "this is type 1, and broken things happen". This is the swingiest and most broken format if someone doesn't like that then they can go make up their own format but I would rather they don't try to neuter mine.

[thorme]

Type 1's "diversity" is an illusion, and it has been for a while.  There are only two deck type in the format: Mana Denial and Combo.  The fact that there is more than one way to build each deck type is simply a consequence of a deep card pool that lets a player do the same thing a few different ways without much of a power gap.

Leo

I completely disagree.  Saying Dragon = Tog = Belcher = XYZ is silly.  You know, I've noticed that Type 1 is really stagnant since there are really only 2 deck types, those that seek to reduce the opponent to zero life, and those that seek to remove the opponent's library.  Derf. 

What you're talking about is a lack of diversity in broad strategies, but that is a function of the game mechanics themselves, not the format or card pool.

[PucktheCat]

Well, my statement was a bit reductive, but it is hardly accurate to say that those two strategies are a product of game mechanics.  Mana denial and combo are both much less common strategies in less powerful formats.  The rules don't dictate these strategies, the cards do.  And one key card that dictates that any deck that doesn't win in an explosive manner must deny its opponent mana is Yawgmoth's Will.

Leo

[onelovemachine]

but alternatively we could go straight to the source of the percieved problem.  

In my opinion the source of the percieved problem isn't will, it is everything will is capable of doing in a format with the dumbest cards evar.  Perhaps blaming and banning will could temporarily alleviate type one's stagnancy but realisitically, every deck would still be structured the same.  Type one decks don't seek to abuse yawgmoth's will.  As it has already been said will doesn't even appear in many of the top contending decklists.  Type one decks seek to abuse the power 8 (not counting twister because many decks don't play it) and other free mana excellerants in order to abuse the other broken bombs i.e bargain, tinker etc turns faster and that is really the source of the problem.

[Elric]

4. Increase the minimum deck size - Nobody has really suggested this, but I feel that it is a viable solution.  One of the purposes of restriction is to limit the probability of drawing a card at any one moment.  By raising the minimum deck size, you could create a reverse engineered form of restriction by decreasing the probability of getting any one card.  This obviously hurts combo the most who want the probabilities as high as possible.  This might be really out there, and I wish I could post more, but I have to go to lunch.  I may post more later if anybody thinks this idea is even worth discussing.

I don't know if the idea would work out in practice, but the logic is spot on.  I remember building Belcher: I couldn't decide on the last 5-6 cards so I decided I'd play the deck as is and then figure out what they should be.  As you can imagine, the deck was incredibly good. 

That is how I would define a 'combo' deck- how much better would this deck be if it got to run less than 60 cards (and how much worse would it be if the deck had to run more than 60 cards)?  Combo as we know it would probably cease to exist if decks had to have 70 cards.

[Khahan]

Except, that would be what Steve already addressed in his article (counterpoint #2 IIRC).  There is no slippery slope becasue currently no other card behaves the same way when restricted.  Restricting Yawg Will doesn't significantly reduce it's power -- but every other card restriced does behave that way.

How is it not a slippery slope just because nothing else is at the power of will right now? That is a somewhat narrow perspective.
Will is gone, so X% of decks have a new card slot. Maybe they decide to throw tinker into that slot to change to a beat down (assuming tinker isn't already there).  Now, suddenly, everybody is resolving Tinker with the new broken-artifact-of-the-month-club-president.

Well, Tinker is no in nearly every deck. If we get rid of it, we are opening card slots for other cards. Without tinker, many cards can come off the restricted list for a test run. So lets ban tinker.

And using tinker is a pretty realistic example. No, I'm not saying that will happen. Just that it is within the realm of reason. It is no stretch at all to see that happening.

[dandan]

I think what Steve is trying to say is that he doesn't want to see it banned because it's broken, but rather, simply put, because it's stupid.
If Vintage boils down exclusively (or even mostly) to finding the most efficient way to win through Yawgmoth's Will, something is wrong. It's true that we could simply restrict parts of each specific 'Will engine' , but alternatively we could go straight to the source of the percieved problem.

I couldn't have said it better. 

How is Will stupid? Stupidly powerful? As opposed to merely broken? The aim of playing competitive Magic is to win. You win by utilising the most viable method of winning and you claim that Will is that method. Surely that means that Will is the best fit to your vision of the development of competitive Vintage. If you banned the best method, the next best method then becomes the best method. In a format with such brokenness, the most efficient kill card is always going to be at the top end of broken unless you ban many of the broken cards. Since you refute the slippery slope but believe that deck efficiency is determined by setting up the preconditions to resolving the most broken win method, the most broken win method will still be broken. Would banning Will (and if I interprete your logic correctly, unrestricting cards restricted as a byproduct of Will's 'dominance') mean the fundamental turn would come later? I doubt it.

Why are you asking such difficult questions when we have yet to answer some easy ones

Fact or Fiction is restricted and there is no significant discussion about unrestricting it. In the context of Vintage, which card is more powerful Fact or Fiction or Gifts Ungiven?

Another easy one

Would Yawgmoth's Will be less of a problem if Dark Ritual were restricted?

and its natural companion question

If Dark Ritual were restricted, would that increase the pressure on restricting Mana Drain?

and finally

Would some players give up the idea of Vintage being the format where you can use all your cards (bar ante and dexterity cards) rather than let the sacred cows of the format be slain?

[Yare]

I don't know if the idea would work out in practice, but the logic is spot on. I remember building Belcher: I couldn't decide on the last 5-6 cards so I decided I'd play the deck as is and then figure out what they should be. As you can imagine, the deck was incredibly good.

That is how I would define a 'combo' deck- how much better would this deck be if it got to run less than 60 cards (and how much worse would it be if the deck had to run more than 60 cards)? Combo as we know it would probably cease to exist if decks had to have 70 cards.

This is what I wanted to say about combo, but didn't have the time and mental capacity at that moment. 

As I was walking to the parking lot pondering the idea of how increasing the minimum deck would adversely affect decks, I decided that control decks would be damaged slightly more than their aggressive counterparts as well.  Cheap fat is relatively easy to find, whereas cheap, efficient counters are not.  Essentially, upping the minimum deck size tips the scale in aggro's favor, which is probably not that dangerous in that there are so many ways to hate creatures in this format.

[Matt]

Well, I've been saying Will should be banned for a long time now...but right now it seems like people are the least upset over Will as they've been in the past three years. So this is kind of a weird article, but finding out you've had it in the works for six months somewhat explains that.

The same could be said of a million other carsd that have been restricted.  LED and Burning Wish should not have been restricted becuase of FOW and Chalice of hte void - both free.  Trinisphere shouldn't have been restricted becuase of Rack and Ruin, etc. etc.  That argument doesn't work people.

Isn't the answer to this one of your main points in the article? All those cards had answers, but you have to have them right away, and to do that you have to fill your deck with them in order to have the answer by turn one or two. Whereas with Will, BECAUSE it is a late-game card, you have turn after turn to find your Tormod's Crypt/Trinisphere/whatever. It's actually possible to throw in just one or two Will-hate cards and have them be effective at stopping Will - you couldn't do that against Long.dec or Trinisphere.dec.

If I may suggest one criterion for the Banning Rules, I say we should only ban cards when not only restriction but the hate against them is also ineffective. This isn't part of the normal banning/restriction criteria - if a card or deck is turning the format into deck vs. anti-deck, then even though the offender is savagely warping the metagame (think T2 Affinity's last days) that is a situation where the hate is effective (otherwise there wouldn't even be an anti-deck). And that's a situation the DCI doesn't find acceptable for any format - in most formats that will get something banned, in T1 that will get something restricted. But if restriction won't fix that then mostly type one will just learn to deal with that bipolar format of Deck vs Anti-Deck. If and when it becomes just plain Deck, and no anti-deck can be made, then it would be time for the first Vintage Banning.

[jpmeyer]

The problem with this article was that by saying "...and that's why you should ban Yawgmoth's Will", nobody has paid the least bit of attention to the important point of the article, which is to look at the adverse effects that the presence of Will imposes on deckbuilding.

It's also the reason why this thread is so cluttered with posts from people who haven't read the article but still feel that they just HAVE to contribute because of ZOMG RESTRICTED LIST! despite how most of what they will say is totally unrelated to the arguments that they will never read.

[Methuselahn]

The problem with this article was that by saying "...and that's why you should ban Yawgmoth's Will", nobody has paid the least bit of attention to the important point of the article, which is to look at the adverse effects that the presence of Will imposes on deckbuilding.

It's also the reason why this thread is so cluttered with posts from people who haven't read the article but still feel that they just HAVE to contribute because of ZOMG RESTRICTED LIST! despite how most of what they will say is totally unrelated to the arguments that they will never read.

Well, alot of people obviously don't have Starcitygames Premium access.  Nor are they required to in order to post on this website.  So, of course posters will not read the article, yet respond to the topic.  People will always flock to the banned/restricted threads by nature and throw in their random two cents, which is why there are rules set in place against posting banned/restricted threads.  I thought we had learned that lesson already.  That's the problem with the article here, not it's specific message.

[xrizzo]

The problem with this article was that by saying "...and that's why you should ban Yawgmoth's Will", nobody has paid the least bit of attention to the important point of the article, which is to look at the adverse effects that the presence of Will imposes on deckbuilding.

It's also the reason why this thread is so cluttered with posts from people who haven't read the article but still feel that they just HAVE to contribute because of ZOMG RESTRICTED LIST! despite how most of what they will say is totally unrelated to the arguments that they will never read.

*note, I have read the article*

Un-restrict FoF, deckbuilding changes.  Ban Lotus, deckbuilding changes.  I think it is widely acknowledged that Tinker, Lotus, and Will are the three best cards ever printed.  Removing any one of them will alter current decklists. 

What would you say Will does to oppress current deckbuilding strategy?  Why are they so bad?

[Whatever Works]

The most bland question hasnt been answered... Why would you ever change a format that is perfectly balanced... and why would you even bring up this topic when NOBODY was complaining about it AT ALL in the last 6 months...

What bandwagon are people going to jump on next... Oh, thats right! Legacy! Because, thats what the format will become... Why? Oh, I dont know... Maybe because combo decks would be unplayable... Black would be a weakened color... and the format would essentially be a mix of drain decks, workshop aggro, and fish (though unlikely because of workshop aggro)... That format sounds like sooo much fun! If that happens I might as well go play a more broken format called kamigawa block constructed...

[jpmeyer]

The problem with this article was that by saying "...and that's why you should ban Yawgmoth's Will", nobody has paid the least bit of attention to the important point of the article, which is to look at the adverse effects that the presence of Will imposes on deckbuilding.

It's also the reason why this thread is so cluttered with posts from people who haven't read the article but still feel that they just HAVE to contribute because of ZOMG RESTRICTED LIST! despite how most of what they will say is totally unrelated to the arguments that they will never read.

*note, I have read the article*

Un-restrict FoF, deckbuilding changes.  Ban Lotus, deckbuilding changes.  I think it is widely acknowledged that Tinker, Lotus, and Will are the three best cards ever printed.  Removing any one of them will alter current decklists. 

What would you say Will does to oppress current deckbuilding strategy?  Why are they so bad?

This is the sort of thing that will prompt ad hominem statements like "ur just mad that you lost to will lol", but there is a sort of non-interactivity that Will grants to decks that can really take advantage of it.  The Long and GAT examples (where Will lets you do a whole lot of nothing, but that nothing forwards the decks' strategies) were given earlier, but I think that Slaver and Tog are more in line with the sentinments that I got from this article.  The presence of Yawgmoth's Will in those decks can make a lot of what the opponent does irrelevent because even if the opponent "does stuff to them" (yes, I know that that's very vague), the fact that they have Will means that they can still do their thing of drawing infinity cards or playing Goblin Welder and infinity artifacts.  These also show examples of how flexible Will is with letting you execute strategies through it.  I also think that in a way, Will can trick you into thinking that there is more variety than there is in deckbuilding as people look at the Will as a single card in a deck rather looking at the other 59 cards.

(note: While I more or less agree with his observations regarding Will, I do think that Type 1 has a great, diverse format right now and doesn't need a thing changed.  I've also found that when I think about any kind of issues like B/R changes, I usually end up looking at them like an experiment and thus end up making up crazy ideas like "OK OK OK, what if we figure out a way to eradicate combo and then see what happens if we restrict Force of Will" or "So what exactly WOULD unrestricted Ancestral do?"  So personally, I wouldn't want Tinker banned just because that doesn't give me an interesting mental puzzle to deal with like getting rid of Will does.  But that's independent of whether or not any change should happen, which right now it shouldn't.)

[glacial-blue]

This is the sort of thing that will prompt ad hominem statements like "ur just mad that you lost to will lol", but there is a sort of non-interactivity that Will grants to decks that can really take advantage of it.  The Long and GAT examples (where Will lets you do a whole lot of nothing, but that nothing forwards the decks' strategies) were given earlier, but I think that Slaver and Tog are more in line with the sentinments that I got from this article.  The presence of Yawgmoth's Will in those decks can make a lot of what the opponent does irrelevent because even if the opponent "does stuff to them" (yes, I know that that's very vague), the fact that they have Will means that they can still do their thing of drawing infinity cards or playing Goblin Welder and infinity artifacts.  These also show examples of how flexible Will is with letting you execute strategies through it.  I also think that in a way, Will can trick you into thinking that there is more variety than there is in deckbuilding as people look at the Will as a single card in a deck rather looking at the other 59 cards.

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

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

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

In other words, Will creates two types of non-interactivity.  Either it is in a deck such as long.dec where it wins before the opponent gets to play anything *the reason why combo is so disliked when it is effective* or in decks such as slaver where the opponent gets to play a few cards, but, from the moment that yawgmoth's will is played almost everything that the opponent did is ineffective.  The latter is generally regarded as being just "broken".  However, I'd argue that this makes the game, in many ways, just as non-interactive as fast combo.  The only difference is that the deck trades speed for resiliency and thus doesn't NEED Will to win...  This is why i believe that JP is right when he says that

Will can trick you into thinking that there is more variety than there is in deckbuilding as people look at the Will as a single card in a deck rather looking at the other 59 cards.

  Namely, because a deck is more resilient, it has more options.  And based upon your draw, a particular choice might be more ideal than another.  however, this does not detract from the reality that the deck likes to be as non-interactive as possible making Will one of its primary objectives.  *example is one might tinker for pentavus rather than slaver in CS.  Although your primary focus is to slaver the opponent, in this particular instance, pentavus is the right choice and will let you win.*

Quote
The same could be said of a million other carsd that have been restricted.  LED and Burning Wish should not have been restricted becuase of FOW and Chalice of hte void - both free.  Trinisphere shouldn't have been restricted becuase of Rack and Ruin, etc. etc.  That argument doesn't work people.
Isn't the answer to this one of your main points in the article? All those cards had answers, but you have to have them right away, and to do that you have to fill your deck with them in order to have the answer by turn one or two. Whereas with Will, BECAUSE it is a late-game card, you have turn after turn to find your Tormod's Crypt/Trinisphere/whatever. It's actually possible to throw in just one or two Will-hate cards and have them be effective at stopping Will - you couldn't do that against Long.dec or Trinisphere.dec.

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

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

Would Yawgmoth's Will be less of a problem if Dark Ritual were restricted?

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

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

[The Atog Lord]

Well, alot of people obviously don't have Starcitygames Premium access.  Nor are they required to in order to post on this website.  So, of course posters will not read the article, yet respond to the topic.  People will always flock to the banned/restricted threads by nature and throw in their random two cents

Well said. If you still want my random two cents:

I haven't read the article, of course, since it is premium. But banning Yawgmoth's Will isn't a good idea. If you'd like to play a format without  stupid, swingy cards, go play Legacy. It is a very fun format, and there is no Yawgwill.

If you'd like to stop losing to Yawgmoth's Will in type one, then, why aren't you playing with Tormod's Crypt?

[Smmenen]

Well, alot of people obviously don't have Starcitygames Premium access.  Nor are they required to in order to post on this website.  So, of course posters will not read the article, yet respond to the topic.  People will always flock to the banned/restricted threads by nature and throw in their random two cents

Well said. If you still want my random two cents:

I haven't read the article, of course, since it is premium. But banning Yawgmoth's Will isn't a good idea. If you'd like to play a format without  stupid, swingy cards, go play Legacy. It is a very fun format, and there is no Yawgwill.

If you'd like to stop losing to Yawgmoth's Will in type one, then, why aren't you playing with Tormod's Crypt?

I *love* the assumption that I want will banned becuase I lose to it too much.  You're talking to the person who made Long.dec good and tuned the best GroAtog deck (a very good Will deck) and invented Meandeck gifts.  All three decks are nothing/much weaker without Will.   

I want Will banned becuase *I* have won with it too much.  It makes the format stupid becuase it substitutes for strategy. 

 In the last couple of years, most of the decks I've designed are designed to do one thing: abuse yawg will.  That's a problem. 

[Moridar]

Ummm...  Haven't we been abusing every card in the format since '93...   Just some of the cards get more lovin' and come up more and more.   That doesn't mean you have to ban a card cause it's broken.  the whole format is broken.  was broken.  and will always be broken.

Late game broken Yawg's Will = a win.

Wayne

[Smmenen]

Actually no.

The collective "wisdom" of the Type One commnity in 2000 was that Gaea's Blessing was more appropriate in Keeper than Will.

Darren, Matt D'Avanzo, Eric Spinnelli, Josh Reynalds, etc, etc all believed that The Franchise was better without Will.

I'm not kidding. 

[Revvik]

The collective "wisdom" of the Type One commnity in 2000 was that Gaea's Blessing was more appropriate in Keeper than Will.

<3 storytime.  That is a pretty fun little fact.

And yes, we do abuse everything, it's just that Yawgmoth's Will is more obvious - since it's abusable as a singleton even more so than, say, Ancestral Recall.