[Premium Article] Fine, Just Ban it Already

[Whatever Works]

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. 

What an ego trip. I mean seriously, your a greater player and all, but that is incredibly arrogant. Congradulations, you took a broken deck like long.dec and tweaked it... You improved Gro-A-Tog a bit...You made a gifts varient good using cards from homelands...  I dont mean to be rude you HAVE the right to same these things because of the player you are, but please tone it down just a little bit.

Saying that you want a card banned because you design decks around it, and you win "with it so much" is just hillarious. Congradulations, you won alot of games with amazing card your not the only one. I guess that means that your so good that we should ban the card to protect all the little children of the world from getting hurt by the sight of the card being played.

The fact that some of your decks play the "yawgmoth's Will" strategy is the reason they are vulnerable. Meandeck Gifts has alot of trouble with graveyard hate. You can debate this as much as you want, but from everything I have scene (Rich Shay 5-0-1 vs. Gifts with a maindeck tormod's Crypt), and heard... This card that you want to ban isnt anything special...

Someone adress this: If Yawgmoth's Will is banned (which it wont be I am fairly sure)... Combo would be dead in the format...

[And11]

Is it arrogant to inform "not-very-well-informed people" of facts they might not have considered? No, not at all. I'd call it service. If Steve wants to make a point, he should back it up with the best argumentation available, and there you go. Btw., stay on topic and don't post irrelevant posts like my self.

/aNd11

[Meddling Mike]

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. 

I don't speak for Rich, but I think you may have taken his words a bit too personally here Steve, I think he was speaking to people frustrated with Yawgmoth's Will in general.

So most of the decks you've played a role in creating in the past few years have been intended to abuse Yawgmoth's Will, I'm not sure that in itself is necessarily a problem. Oath decks are designed to abuse Oath of Druids(Not even restricted), Workshop based decks are designed to abuse Mishra's Workshop(Not even restricted), Control Slaver is designed to abuse the synergy between Goblin Welder(Not even restricted), Thirst for Knowledge(Not even restricted), fat artifacts and Mana Drain(Not even restricted) with Yawgmoth's Will thrown in for good measure. My point is that every deck is designed to abuse SOMETHING.

As it stands right now I don't think banning yawgmoth's will is at all necessary. Perhaps my view is a bit skewed by the local metagame, but last I checked Yawgmoth's Will's popularity is at an all time low. As such I'd say that the power level of decks that abuse will is comprable to the other decks out there. Should this situation change there are of course numerous cheap solutions like tormod's crypt that can keep the strength of Yawgmoth's Will in check.

[glacial-blue]

Oath decks are designed to abuse Oath of Druids(Not even restricted), Workshop based decks are designed to abuse Mishra's Workshop(Not even restricted), Control Slaver is designed to abuse the synergy between Goblin Welder(Not even restricted), Thirst for Knowledge(Not even restricted), fat artifacts and Mana Drain(Not even restricted) with Yawgmoth's Will thrown in for good measure. My point is that every deck is designed to abuse SOMETHING.

It seems to me that THAT is one of the biggest problems... namely that this card is powerful enough to try and find a way to abuse it when you have access to at least 3 less copies of the card.  It is MUCH easier to find an unrestricted card than a restricted one and this is the only restricted card that people seem to be bent on finding in order to abuse (by means of massive draw specifically for this purpose or lots of tutors). 

As it stands right now I don't think banning yawgmoth's will is at all necessary. Perhaps my view is a bit skewed by the local metagame, but last I checked Yawgmoth's Will's popularity is at an all time low. As such I'd say that the power level of decks that abuse will is comprable to the other decks out there. Should this situation change there are of course numerous cheap solutions like tormod's crypt that can keep the strength of Yawgmoth's Will in check.

Even if Will's popularity is low, that doesn't mean that the card isn't worth banning.  It just means that enough people have not been looking at the card in the right way.  Remember, Long.dec was one of the best decks ever and its not like EVERYONE was playing that before things became restricted.

As for the hate cards... realize that its not efficient to put in hate cards that specifically target Yawgmoth's will b/c the decks that abuse it the most either are too fast *in general* for that to be effective or are too resilient meaning they have ways to kill you w/o Will or have answers to your hate.  Not to mention, it would require several crypts to deal with a singleton giving the Will player an advantage b/c you void 1 card out of 60 whilst the opponent is left with only 57 *1 crypt having been used on the Will* useable cards at most.  This is why graveyard hate tends not to be the most helpful strategy against decks like Slaver, and, rather, using Red Elemental Blast, or counters, etc... to help deny their draw is much more beneficial.  You kill one card and still let the deck perform unhindered with executing their initial strategy.

[Whatever Works]

Even if Will's popularity is low, that doesn't mean that the card isn't worth banning. It just means that enough people have not been looking at the card in the right way.

What is the "Right" Way to look at it then??? I look at Yawgmoth's Will as being everything great about type 1.

[The Atog Lord]

I think you may have taken his words a bit too personally here Steve, I think he was speaking to people frustrated with Yawgmoth's Will in general.

This is very true.

As for the hate cards... realize that its not efficient to put in hate cards that specifically target Yawgmoth's will b/c the decks that abuse it the most either are too fast *in general* for that to be effective...

If a deck is so fast that a zero casting cost spell is too slow to work against it, then I have yet to hear of the deck. Crypt is pretty easy to find the mana for.
 

or are too resilient meaning they have ways to kill you w/o Will or have answers to your hate.

Well, if this amazing deck can just kill me without Will anyways, then why are we concerned about Will in the first place? You're implying that it is a win-more card. As for their removing it and then going off, yes, but that itself takes time.

[Boduse]

there is a story to vintage and their are two parts that everyone knows:

             Mox are the begining and will is the end!!

(you can buy the cliffnotes for a dollar fifty, find it under "tinker")

Posts merged. I highly suggest you read the Forum Rules before posting again. -jeek

[Summit]

Q: "Why not just restrict Skullclamp in Standard? With just one, you have much less chance of drawing it. Is only one really that dangerous?"
--Howard
Philadelphia, PA

A: From Aaron Forsythe, Magic R&D:

"The canned answer is that we don't restrict cards in Standard (or Block, or Extended, or Type 1.5). The only format that uses a Restricted List is Type 1, and that's because if we ban cards there, there'd be no place to play many of them at all.

"So why don't we restrict cards in Standard? In general, we don't want to add more randomness to the game than there already is. There were complaints that certain matches were coming down to 'whoever drew Skullclamp won,' and by only allowing one copy per deck there would be more of a feeling of 'random unfairness.'

"Plus, in the case of Skullclamp, would restriction really make it show up less? With cards like Trinket Mage, Steelshaper's Gift, and Taj-Nar Swordsmith in the format, even one Skullclamp is not difficult to get on the table. And we don't want it showing up at all."  http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/1204

I have been out of the loop for a while but I can't help reading this and not adding my two cents.  As Rosewater has said in the quote above the reason why restrictions do not happen in anything but type 1 is because of the unfair randomness factor.  This tells me implicitly that the DCI and Wizards understand one of the great draws to "Vintage" Magic is the "oops I win" factor.  Banning more cards can and will alleviate that feeling of unfairness (most especially because Will is so damned unfair) but frankly a level of unfairness is always going to be inherent to Type 1 Magic unless the format becomes more liken to that of one where cards are only banned and not restricted (yeah its a huge subtle hint about Legacy that I am getting at).  Just because some cards will have to be restricted because of an unfair card doesn't take away from the game that no matter what you do to Vintage as long as cards are restricted there will always be an unfair "I win" factor to the game.  If you don't like it then you will have to think strongly about Legacy.  Besides, if Mana Drain wasn't Banned in Legacy this format would have probably lost over half of its players anyway to a more "fair" environment where you can counter something and take a game winning swing all at the same time just the game is "less" random.

[glacial-blue]

Even if Will's popularity is low, that doesn't mean that the card isn't worth banning. It just means that enough people have not been looking at the card in the right way.


What is the "Right" Way to look at it then??? I look at Yawgmoth's Will as being everything great about type 1.

I meant that people have truly realized the full potential of the card.  Ie... that, like JP said, people are thinking of Will as another card in a 60 card deck rather than thinking of Will as 1 card and then searching for the other 59 cards. 

As for the hate cards... realize that its not efficient to put in hate cards that specifically target Yawgmoth's will b/c the decks that abuse it the most either are too fast *in general* for that to be effective...

If a deck is so fast that a zero casting cost spell is too slow to work against it, then I have yet to hear of the deck. Crypt is pretty easy to find the mana for.

Well it can be two fast for two reasons... either the deck can win on the first turn... or it takes too long to find the card considering it is going to be 1 in every 15 cards thus, you may have to mulligan quite a bit to find the card *and even then there are no guarantees*.

or are too resilient meaning they have ways to kill you w/o Will or have answers to your hate.

Well, if this amazing deck can just kill me without Will anyways, then why are we concerned about Will in the first place? You're implying that it is a win-more card. As for their removing it and then going off, yes, but that itself takes time.

It has the potential to be a win-more card... yes... which is why whenever looking for cards to find with a tutor you must determine whether or not Will is the fastest way to win at that particular moment... look to the Slaver example i gave earlier about how Slaver's primary kill is Slaver but sometimes one may tinker for pentavus instead...  However, just because certain aspects of a deck are null-n-void that does not mean that Yawgmoth's will isn't a primary win condition nor does it mean that it is merely a "win more" card. 

Think of a deck that is resilient as having multiple win conditions (Gifts) or plenty of hate removal (Oath)...  In the former, the Will kill is the primary kill, however if someone puts up a lot of graveyard hate the deck may opt out to find tinker in another manner and then get colossus for the win.  OR if it draws tinker, land, mox, mox, it may just tinker it up first turn and not even have to use Gifts in order to win.  Does that make tinker a win-more card?  or Will a win-more card?  no... 

As to the latter, all it says is that Will probably isn't the primary win condition, but rather augments the deck so that it can further its own strategy and make up lost ground the way it did in old style keeper and Tog allowing the deck to have inevitability.  In that scenario Will, to me, takes on the form of another Hate removal card in that it helps the deck bypass what the opponent has already done to your deck and continue with your strategy unhindered.  In this way, Will becomes necessary as the most succesful method of doing this, and since the deck is built upon hate removal and a win condition, Will becomes essential to the deck rather than a "win more" card.

[TheWayOfNoWay]

Before getting into anything specific I’d like to just say that, based on intuition (the feeling, not the card), I don’t think YawgWill should be banned.

Referring to the “I hate loosing/winning with a random top-decked will� argument I’d like to propose and address several of the possible scenarios:

1.   You are out of cards and not in control of the board; your opponent has a mitt-full of cards in hand.
2.   Both you and your opponent are in top-deck mode.
3.   Your opponent is out of cards and you’re tapping Library every turn (maybe more figuratively than literally.)
4.   Both you and your opponent have full hands and are waiting for the other to play something juicy to Mana Drain.

In the first scenario top-decking a YawgWill will bail you out only if, in their big hand of cards, your opponent is sporting zero counter. Of course, you do need to have a nice looking ‘yard, but this will be a given for the time being. Also, the option of holding onto the Will and setting up with more top-decked love is available. The latter, I think, is tricky to do under an opposing 4+ card hand size. Basically, you’re either praying for a counter-free forecast, or you’re still stuck in top-deck mode waiting for more support.

In the second scenario, wouldn’t any type of cheap win condition do the job? Maybe something with a bunch of teeth? Any draw spell would sure be a sight for sore eyes, too.

You’ve got no business loosing in the third scenario anyway. Even if they top-deck a YawgWill, if you had no counter, it could’ve been any number of broken things that frequent the Type 1 scene. No counter for top-decked Tinker? Looks like you’ll be Recalling me, keeping the zero-pile on Fact or Fiction, and Forcing your own Thirsts. No counter for top-decked Balance? Welcome to top-deck mode.

The final scenario is perhaps the most important one. A few turns of draw-go, both players have a billion cards in hand, 300 of which are counters. Finally you rip a YawgWill. Sweet. But now winning is a little more difficult than just tapping 2B and throwing down some totally pimp simplified Chinese card. That’d be like plowing your brand new BMW straight into the first brick wall you come across. It takes lots of careful planning and baiting to actually pull off a YawgWill.

I may just suck at Magic but, it seems to me that if a card offers a player victory in exchange for a whole bunch of skill it’s worth keeping around.

[glacial-blue]

Referring to the “I hate loosing/winning with a random top-decked will� argument I’d like to propose and address several of the possible scenarios:

No offense but it seems to me that Steve's argument wasn't based upon the random top-decked will, but rather to the over-all power of the card and the way that decks tend to try and abuse it or should... Moreover, all of the scenarios you state explain that you and your opponent are pretty much even and so ANY restricted card, or even an additional counter could tip the balance in your facor.  You even state that other cards such as a top-decked tinker, ancestral recall, etc... would all have the potential to win you the match.

I may just suck at Magic but, it seems to me that if a card offers a player victory in exchange for a whole bunch of skill it’s worth keeping around.

Its not that yawgmoth's will doesn't take skill to use b/c it certainly does take SOME skill in realizing when it will be most effective, but in terms of an evenly matched top-deck mode... it doesn't seem that recieving an extra bomb which tips the scales *regardless if it is yawgwin or ancestral etc...* really requires much skill to use and earn a victory.

p.s.  Can we get back on topic here... instead of talking about starcitygames premium etc can we actually look into the worthiness of banning yawgmoth's will?  My last post on page three describes why i think Will should be banned due to the degree of non-interactivity that it creates and, since non-interactivity tends to be severely disliked amongst the vintage community and is worthy of restriction, shouldn't that also be justification for banning if a card continues to be central in creating so much non-interactive play even restricted?  I may be wrong but I am curious as to what people as a whole have to say on the subject especially since that provides an alternative solution to the "but 50% of people don't use it* and *we need a new criteria for determining bannings* issues.

[moxpearl]

This is an interesting discussion, but obviously extremely subjective.  Maybe it's time to put up a poll and see the statistics on our community's opinions.  I know there's sort of one in the Basic Community forums but everyone might not read that.

Also, I'd be curious in a poll, how many people would be in favor on unbanning all of the ante cards if they errated the ante with "remove a random card from the game."  There are some people who think no card should be banned even if it read "One black mana, discard your hand, remove top card from game, draw 7."    Or unbanning the dexterity cards...why not?  (rhetorical) This would show that some people, no matter what, think no card should EVER be banned in Vintage.  It's broken.  You only get one.  So what, you'll build decks with it or to deal with it.  

If you're not in the never-ever camp, and if you don't think Yawgmoth's Will is worthy of banning, certainly you must agree there will come a time when some card will need to be banned.  It's inevitable...and I personally think it will some day be Will.

[Godder]

A challenge for Steve Menendian:

Stop focussing your deck design/development skills on breaking Yawgmoth's Will for a month or two, and try focussing on breaking something else, and see how you get along.

Side note... I agree with Steve most of the time, and respect him greatly as a longtime player and contributor, but I don't think Will needs to be banned, any more than Academy needed to be banned when that was the issue du jour.

[dandan]

This is an interesting discussion, but obviously extremely subjective.  Maybe it's time to put up a poll and see the statistics on our community's opinions.  I know there's sort of one in the Basic Community forums but everyone might not read that.

(the poll mentioned)
What could T1 do to be fixed, if it needed it?
Quit bitching, play your game.  44 (77.2%)
Go to 75 card decks  4 (7%)
Ban Yawgmoth's Will  3 (5.3%)
Ban something else  1 (1.8%)
Restrict more cards  2 (3.5%)
Restrict less cards  3 (5.3%)
Total Votes: 57

Also, I'd be curious in a poll, how many people would be in favor on unbanning all of the ante cards if they errated the ante with "remove a random card from the game."  There are some people who think no card should be banned even if it read "One black mana, discard your hand, remove top card from game, draw 7."    Or unbanning the dexterity cards...why not?  (rhetorical) This would show that some people, no matter what, think no card should EVER be banned in Vintage.  It's broken.  You only get one.  So what, you'll build decks with it or to deal with it.  

I am opposed to banning cards unless the current methods of keeping Vintage playable fail. If they do, then we should look at alternative methods (this is what the thread in Basic Community is meant to be about), one of which is banning.
Regarding Ante cards - it is crystal clear that Contract From Below is madly broken IF you ignore the Ante bit and still pretty broken even if you play for Ante. None of the other Ante cards are relevant to this discussion. IF someone issued errata to ANY card including Ante, Portal, flipping, giant-sized promotional Juzzies, Vanguard, Unglued or Proposal and that card became a problem that could not be contained using restrictions then I would be in favour of using an alternative method of solving that problem, which might be banning.

If you're not in the never-ever camp, and if you don't think Yawgmoth's Will is worthy of banning, certainly you must agree there will come a time when some card will need to be banned.  It's inevitable...and I personally think it will some day be Will

I do not consider it inevitable. It is perfectly feasible that we reach a situation where three main decks are fairly equally matched (could be 2, could be 5) and new cards make only small improvements which result in reactions from the other decks. It is entirely possible that newer cards may aid control in holding back fast combo (Wizards do like new versions of FoW) so that not all changes would result in fundamental turn decreases. If we look at Evolution (or the wonderful diversity of divinely-created species or the offspring of the four turtles we ride upon - depending on your beliefs), you might say that a dominant species is inevitable or might argue that there is a dominant species. Or you might see that different species interact in different ways in different environments and that an equilibrium is possible albeit a dynamic equilibrium.
Seven (eight?) years after Academy, I think we are further from having to ban a card than we were then.
Only death and taxes are inevitable.

[Hi-Val]

Someone adress this: If Yawgmoth's Will is banned (which it wont be I am fairly sure)... Combo would be dead in the format...

There's this deck. Called Dragon. Perhaps you know about it?

TPS would be hurt badly, but it still has plenty of cards that can make it win. Will was just the best of them.

Will being gone would also maybe slow things down enough for things like Replenish or High Tide combo to be playable. Hell, maybe even some Academy deck comes back.

Godder: Why would you ever, ever focus on breaking something other than Yawgmoth's Will if you had the choice? It's the most retarded card ever. Why try to break Second Sunrise when you can further break Will? On its best days, whatever you try to break will probably not be comparable to Will on its worst days.

And I'm fine with Will being restricted. My Unglued version makes me smile every time I draw it.

[DeMarki]

Chill out guys! We have already over 100 posts and for what? For the fear that Will might get banned? Well it won't get banned because the only banned cards are ante cards and cards that require physical skill. It can't get more simple than this, why are you all so afraid?

[Moridar]

We are afraid that with a convincing argument and no one saying otherwise we'll have our first broken card banned...

I don't think it needs to be banned.  But one of the best T1 players calls for the banning, writes an article and WotC putting their nose into this discussion is not what most magic players want.

Wayne

[Revvik]

Why care?  I'm not yet convinced it needs the banning, but I am certainly not going to get up in arms, sell my cards, and quit just because a $10 card from Urza's Saga just became illegal for play.  Besides, Smmenen's arguments are very well thought out, and enough to intrigue me to think "what if?"

[Luiggi]

And I'm fine with Will being restricted. My Unglued version makes me smile every time I draw it.

Now that's something I'd like to see. Pic?

Luiggi

[rogue]

     The reason that I don't believe that will needs to be banned is that is doesnt serve a purpose that other cards in the format don't also serve, although it does serve this purpose (in my opinion) on a more efficient level than any of those cards. I consider Vintage to be about two types of non-distinct, sometimes interchangable cards: enablers and the enabled. Enablers are cards like will, tinker, ancestral, moxen, lotus, ritual, workshop, academy, and tinker. Each of these enables other, less broken cards to become relevant and good in this format. Ancestral enables merchant scroll, tinker enables darksteel colossus, workshop enables smokestack, etc. etc. Will enables (and has enabled) burning wish, LED, gifts, and gush. The problem with will is that unlike the other cards, it hasnt enabled black lotuses, and card advantage engines. All of the enablers can produce random wins, so I consider that argument null. The problem is whether or not will is simply enabling too well. When looking at cards will has enabled, however, we see tutors, 0cc accalerants, and card advantage engines, as opposed to big creatures, limited tutors (much more so in the case of merchant scroll VS. Burning Wish) and, at worse, mindslaver. The question I ask myself, then, is this: wouldn't some other card, albeit perhaps not as efficiently, have abused gifts, or gush, or LED, since they are so obviously full of potential? Wouldn't they have, at some point, become an issue with some other interaction? I believe that they would have. As such, I can't argue for the banning of will, as even though is has clearly been an enabler, something few cards enjoy the luxury of becoming, it simply isn't the only card that could enable this sort of brokenness.

[jpmeyer]

If you're not in the never-ever camp, and if you don't think Yawgmoth's Will is worthy of banning, certainly you must agree there will come a time when some card will need to be banned.

Speaking purely hypothetically, to me the only situation I can see where you would need to ban a card because no restrictions can possibly work would be if the far and away "best deck" were a combo deck (what turn it kills is irrelevent) which consists of 4 Gemstone Mine, 4 City of Brass, 4 Brainstorm, 4 Force of Will, and 44 unique restricted cards.

[OutsideAngelX]

Despite what you may think of Smemmen's positions, everyone should give him credit for keeping us on our toes. Between this and his re-earthing of the proxy debate, he's definitely making the Type 1 community take a moment to think about some important issues.

I feel that, in conjunction with the proxy debate, the debate over whether or not to ban Will is really, at it's core, a debate over what we, as a community, want Type 1 to be. Not only would banning Will remove the most powerful card in Magic from the game completely and forever, it would also set a precedent, meaning that, in the future, other cards, deemed 'too powerful' could also be removed. (Tinker has been mentioned)

Steve made a good argument again the 'slippery slope', and it's true that, perhaps with the exception of Tinker, nothing else even comes close to Will. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a card has been completely erased from the game because of its power. This says alot about the format.

Currently, Vintage is the format you can go to play with the most powerful cards in the game. Alot of the allure of the format resides in that fact. Standard had quite the boom when Ravager Affinity ran abound. Now, you could argue that this was partially because it was easier to win uphill matches (playskill wise) with the deck, but I and many others believe that the Ravager craze was at least a great deal due to the fact that people love playing powerful cards and powerful decks. And I personally feel that the biggest draw to Vintage is that you can play with the most power. (including the Power with a capital P)

True, were Will restricted, the game would be more balanced. Will, like so many other Vintage staples, was a mistake. Just as the moxen, and Lotus, and Recall, and Workshop were mistakes. Magic with those cards removed is, on the whole, a better game, from a design standpoint.

This seems to have put players in to two camps: those who want Vintage to be (technically speaking) a better (designed, balanced) game, and those who love the unbalanced power of playing with RnD's mistakes.

(Aside-- To those of you who want to play with all the old cards, with the widest, deepest cardpool avaliable, but want to play without all of Wizard's screwups, and in a format that rewards playskill over all else, seriously give Legacy a try. If Legacy had the level of support Type 1 had, it would be truly amazing)

So where does the DCI fall? Somewhere in between, I think, but closer to the fun side of the game. They've historically used the restricted list to keep the game on a playable level (fast mana, riduculously powerful cards like Tinker) remove some cards that were just obviously wrong (Dream Halls, Mind's Desire) and take out key parts of decks that were simply dominating the format (Gush, Burning Wish). However, they recently restricted Trinisphere, which, while arguably no more broken that many other unrestricted cards, and not an integral part of a clearly dominating deck, made the game less fun. Also note that Mishra's Workshop still comes in a 4-of, when it is clearly an unbalanced card. The same could be said, to a lesser extend, for Dark Ritual and Mana Drain. But these cards help to define our format, and restricting them would definitely restore alot of balance to Vintage (and, in the end, result in Legacy) but remove alot of the feel.

In the end, banning Will may or may not completely change the format. However, the precedent the decision will set very well may. Personally, I love Vintage because of the brokeness, because of the wanton power. To me, Vintage in all its glamour and glory is about weilding that power. I play Legacy when I want a deep, non-rotating cardpool and tuned, balanced card game. I play Vintage when I want to shuffle up the most powerful, least balanced cards Magic has to offer. For me and many other players, Vintage is all about the broken, and Will is simply the best of the worst.

(And besides, even if Will is restricted, Steve and the rest of the Meandeck crew will just move on to exploiting the next most broken card, and the next one after that. I swear, those guys'll break Llanowar Elves, someday.)

[glacial-blue]

Everyone on this forum keeps talking about how Vintage holds a lovely place in all of our hearts b/c it is broken and allows players to do broken things.  However, if that were solely the case, then why do we have a restriction list in the first place?  Wouldn't having no restriction list provide the most broken plays ever?!?  Yet, people would complain and we'd be back to square one... 

In response to this, people say that cards should ONLY be limited when it can no longer be effectively hated out and/or 50% of the players use the card.  However, just recently the forums were plagued with people complaining about trinisphere *which is a broken card and thus SHOULD be liked* simply b/c it wasn't "fun".  Yet, many players testify that they loved it when they played against workshop decks b/c it was their best matchup and could play around trinisphere with relative ease *barring that the deck got the nuts.* 

So if brokeness isn't the reason, and the 50% rule isn't the reason, it seems to me that people are just complaining over arbitrary concerns that don't really make anything concrete.  Instead, the only criteria given, it would seem, is that vintage has become based upon upholding traditions in the best and newest ways possible.  It is the oldest format and like any old man, it gets very grumpy whenever something new comes along to ruin its day.  Does this make it right?  no... does this make any sense? not really... its just a fact that seems to be occuring which is why cards such as mana drain and dark ritual which are staples to the vintage community and EXCEPTIONALLY over powered seem to elude the restriction list.

So, since I don't think that this particular post was about whether or not people would like Will to be banned, but rather about the actual reasoning behind why cards should be banned and how Will met those standards, can we please stop these type of comments and focus rather on the important aspects?  For instance I'm still curious if anyone has any response to Will -> more non-interactive game play than any other card and non-interactive play -> players having no fun and restrictions.  Since restriction doesn't truly stop Will, Will should be banned *look to last post made on page 3 for more details*.

[Smmenen]

To all the people arguing that Will shouldn't be banned becuase we shouldn't have banned cards in Vintage:

Why don't we lobby Wizards to errata the ante cards so that they the ante effect is conditional and only applies if are playing for ante.  That's not that big of an errata becuase that's how the cards were intended to work anyway.  Kevin Cron has suggested that would be a possibility for years. 

That way we could unban and then restrict Contract from Below.  We should be able to play with all of our cards -- it's vintage, we have insane shit, so why not? 

mwhahahaha. 

[Vegeta2711]

To all the people arguing that Will shouldn't be banned becuase we shouldn't have banned cards in Vintage:

Why don't we lobby Wizards to errata the ante cards so that they the ante effect is conditional and only applies if are playing for ante.  That's not that big of an errata becuase that's how the cards were intended to work anyway.  Kevin Cron has suggested that would be a possibility for years. 

That way we could unban and then restrict Contract from Below.  We should be able to play with all of our cards -- it's vintage, we have insane shit, so why not? 

mwhahahaha. 

Because nobody gives a damn (At least that I've noticed). Unless of course you feel like going and bugging WOTC about that too for a while. 

Weren't you studying for the bar or something? I seem to distinctly remember reading that somewhere.  :lol:

[dicemanx]

Why don't we lobby Wizards to errata the ante cards so that they the ante effect is conditional and only applies if are playing for ante.  That's not that big of an errata becuase that's how the cards were intended to work anyway. 

But they weren't intended to work that way. The additional ante was meant to offset the draw-7 effect of Contract from Below, for example. Take that away and you have an entirely different card. 

If we're going to make up our own cards with errata, how about issuing an "errata" on YawgWill: you may only play one spell out of your graveyard. Um, OK, maybe two spells. There, problem solved, and we satisfy those who argue that they should be able to play with every card in the format.

[Bram]

Eventually, all such discussions end up nonsensical. There is no way Wizards would ever reword a card to do something else entirely. Restricting Will to two cards or removing the ante clause from cards would be similar to errata'ing Ancestral to draw two cards or removing Juzam Djinn's lifeloss drawback. A card would sooner be banned than butchered.

[Slay]

Bram's dead on. And Wizards has gone _on the record_ as saying they would rather ban cards than errata them due to power reasons.

I'd like to point out, in the slippery-slope argument, that the modern Vintage community does not know what a world without Yawgmoth's Will would look like. We have the vague idea that Dragon, Fish, Workshop, and Oath would remain, as they don't operate with Will as a main component. But I think most of the community is underestimating the massive metagame shift that would happen if Will was banned. About 50% of the decks you see at a tournament would be dead or significantly altered. All the hate aimed at them would be dead, meaning that decks like Fish would no longer be a good metagame choice due to Chalices not being too effective now. You see where I'm going with this? The metagame would so drastically alter and the Vintage environment would be so less powerful that it is very possible that something like Tinker would rise to the point where it wins games hands-down.

As it is, the metagame is precariously balanced between decks which abuse Will and decks which stop them. But if Will is removed there may be Tinker decks significantly overpowering the decks designed to fight them. I see no reason that we should take such a massive risk if the metagame is as balanced as it is.
-Slay

[Affiniteit]

I hope this will not be completely idiotic as a first post, however, i thought id also chip in a reply.

I would want to look at this also from a collectible point of view.

I have not read the article like many others due to the premuim thing, so i cant really respond to any of the things stated in there.
My personal belief on this matter is that completely banning a card, would be almost on the same level as reprinting power cards from the reserved list.
In the end, that list boils down to trust. We have based our value of our most expensive cards on their power, but also on their rarity due to the limited printrun.

Why do i say this? If wizards suddenly decides to reprint a chronicles of a few power cards (not that im particularly saying power 9, but any of the older expensive cards) people will lose their trust in wizards from a collectible point of view, not just in game perspectives. Of course, if one card is suddenly reprinted, why not the next? Or all for that matter?

Back to banning, if they decide to ban a card from play, therefore deeming it too powerful for a powerfilled environment, wont people lose trust in them as well?
Wouldnt it bring a feeling of paranoia to the players? I wouldnt want to wake up in a world where they suddenly decided to ban cards like ancestral recall, or a lotus. Again, im also saying this from a collectors point of view, because banning a card will also diminish its value inevitably, since then they would be reduced to mere piles of expensive cardboard.
Even though they would of course never be completely worthless, they would be declining in value for sure.

Ive always considered banning to be a bit of a "taboo" in magic, i saw it as the final border that we simply could not cross anymore. Thecards that are banned now are  banned for a very good reason, be it the physical or the gamble aspect, but not of their power.
Banning a card is not simply removing it from a few decks that people play in tournaments, its removing it from the game entirely, especially since most of thecasual players follow the banned restricted list.

As a final thing, i would also like to say that to me, it sounds selfish to call for a banning. Especially because you, Steve, said that it isnt even because you lost against it so much, but because you won with it.
I would have understood much more if you had run against an unbreakable wall of wills, instead of uktilizing it yourself.
Now it sounds more to me like a power trip, where you are someone who says, i got drunk with power using it, so please save me and the people ive beaten by banning it.
What about the crapload of people that dont have that big of a problem with it? The people who are not beating everyone senseless with it?
Not everyone is using it with the stated deadliness and i think they should count too.

I know everyone sees this as the environment of only the strongest, but i believe it to be unfair that because one of them wins so much with a card, the rest of the people who are just "normal good" with it and just like the card alot (and there are plenty), should suffer its banning.

Ok i hope this made a bit sense, and please note that everything is from my point of view and should be seen as my opinion.

Be gentle! 

[OutsideAngelX]

Everyone on this forum keeps talking about how Vintage holds a lovely place in all of our hearts b/c it is broken and allows players to do broken things.  However, if that were solely the case, then why do we have a restriction list in the first place?  Wouldn't having no restriction list provide the most broken plays ever?!?  Yet, people would complain and we'd be back to square one... 

Again, many cards are on the restricted list in order to keep the game playable. If the Power 9 et all were unrestricted, then Type 1 really would be about who won the dice roll, or at least something very close. The restricted list exists to keep the game fun. Remember, at its core, this is still a game, and games are about enjoyment. People have fun doing broken things, but there is a certain level of brokenness that just makes the game unfun. It's the DCI's job to maintain the "brokenness asymptote" if you will; Vintage should have the most brokenness possible, while still being a playable, fun game. At least, that's how I, and apparently many others, feel.