[Premium Article] Fine, Just Ban it Already

[Dozer]

Ugh.  I don't want to be drawn into this, but I still think that you are missing the most important argument of all - not that it is going to cause more restrictions and not that it has become a dominant (in the game theory use of the term) strategy, but that restriction is ineffective.
[...]
All the restricted cards are restricted so that first of all they come up with less frequency in the opening hand and as a result can't be relied upon.  Will CAN be relied upon and you don't WANT it in your opening hand.  Not only is it relied upon, it's going to come up more than any card your want to see in your whole deck if you are playing a drain deck.

Steve, this argument is very true and valid. I think almost everybody agrees that Will being restricted does not stop its power. Turned upside down, we also agree that an unrestricted Will would be very bad... or do we? But that's not the point here. Because even though the argument is valid in itself, I can't see the reason why Will should be neutered in the first place. Why not have that power available?

As I said before, all reasons you give that Will needs to be gone are entirely hypothetical. In your article, only two of your arguments present a reason for the banning (the others are just illustrations of Will'spower): that Will is going to cause more restrictions in the future, and that Will circumvents strategy. Both points have been highly contested in this thread: Further restrictions can be blamed on many cards, and setting up Will requires a lot of strategy by itself. Take Meandeck Gifts, a deck that you and me enjoy to no end. Setting up Will in the deck that is (as you say) "an attempt to truly harness and concentrate the power of Yawgmoth's Will in a way that even our Goth Slaver list was unable to do" still needs a lot of strategy before it. You don't just go Gifts, Will. You need to fulfill a lot of other conditions, too, even more so than with other three-card combos that just win you the game. Salvagers needs less setup. Grim Power needs less setup. It just so happens that the setup for Gifts does also advance your gamestate. In that respect it is a bit like Ravager Affinity in its heyday:

"Yawgmoth's Will is like a fairy godmother. It sits on your shoulder and says 'You play badly, but I don't care. I still love you.'"

Is this true? No. Ravager was banned because it was so dominating that everything came down to Ravager vs. Anti-Ravager. Decks had to pack an unreal amount of hate just get to 50/50 chances, so everybody played Ravager. It is not like that with Will. Even as many decks use Will in some way, the variance is big enough to let it stand.

I understand your arguments. But I come to different conclusions: I don't see why Will should be banned. The impact is just not big enough, and it is spread over a variety of decks. One dedicated Will deck (Gifts) made T8 in Chicago, three others played Will. Four decks played Crucible (three of which had no Will). Six decks played Welder. Seven played Ancestral Recall.

My point is that a world without Yawgmoth's Will would be a far more interesting world because decks would actually have to struggle to execute their strategies - not play them out by proxy of Yawgmoth's Will.

I think this is the core sentence in the article. This is your vision of Vintage. It is not mine. And Yawgmoth's Will is no fairy godmother.

Dozer

P.S.: I might just leave it at that, and write a rebuttal for SCG instead. I feel both positions just miss each other by yards: Those who think Will should be banned present good arguments, which the other side does, in fact, understand. It's just the conclusions that don't match: Will is über-powerful? Yes! Decks are built around Will? Yes! Will will lead to more restrictions? Yes! So why ban it?

[A Black Lotus Buddy]

The Chicago T8 had 4 Wills and 6 Tinkers.  The winning deck didn't use either of those cards.  Will is only truly gamebreaking when it is used in Sorm combo (which isn't looking too hot these days) and in the lategame of Drain decks (where the Drain player has already established complete control of the game).  As mentioned earlier, Type One is the format where a player can use every card (besides the stupid ones.  What the hell were they thinking with Chaos Orb?).  Banning Will would break the rules of Vintage. 

If the format should be refreshed, it should be through unrestricting.  Why do Dram Halls, Mind Over Matter, Trinisphere and Voltaic Key have to be there?  Unrestricting those would rejuvinate the format more than the banning of Trinisphere.

TY

[kl0wn]

I'm just going to add two REAL statements that have been touched upon in this thread. They are really at the heart of this discussion, but haven't really seen any good elaboration (if they have, it didn't really jump out at me). They are:

1) Yawgmoth's Will is a restricted card that causes other cards to be restricted.

Yes it does and will continue to. This is not necesarrily bad.

Take Crop Rotation. The only real reason why it's restricted is because of Academy, but a lot of people aknowledge that it could cause future problems.

In the case of Will, Gifts would be equivalent to Crop Rotation, except not only does it search out Will, it also grabs cards that make Will more powerful. Furthermore, even if Will were banned, Gifts could easily cause future problems (this is what I meant by my "Gifts forChannel/Fireball" comment earlier on).

2) Yawgmoth's Will eliminates player interaction.

Yes it does. But only in the mid/late game after the player has had time to set it up or if they've been extremely lucky with their draws.

There is absolutely no problem with someone just flat-out winning in the mid game or later. If Will doesn't eliminate player interaction in the mid/late game, something else will (Mindslaver for example).

Banning Will will not change any of this, as it is the nature of Type 1.

[Smmenen]

My point is that a world without Yawgmoth's Will would be a far more interesting world because decks would actually have to struggle to execute their strategies - not play them out by proxy of Yawgmoth's Will.

I think this is the core sentence in the article. This is your vision of Vintage. It is not mine. And Yawgmoth's Will is no fairy godmother.

Dozer

P.S.: I might just leave it at that, and write a rebuttal for SCG instead. I feel both positions just miss each other by yards: Those who think Will should be banned present good arguments, which the other side does, in fact, understand. It's just the conclusions that don't match: Will is über-powerful? Yes! Decks are built around Will? Yes! Will will lead to more restrictions? Yes! So why ban it?

So you like that will does that?  YOu agree with all of my premises - apparently as Summit does - but your argument, as is summits, that those premises don't compel the conclusion that yawg will should be banned is powerful, but is it sensible?  I mean, if will does those things, doesn't that mean it should be banned?

Why do you like that it becomes a proxy for strategy?  

EDIT: Klown posted before my response: Klown, Crop Rotation is far more effective and scary in finding Strip Mine than Academy in the current environment.  Stax would play at last 2 and probably 3 to find Workshops and Strip Mine and then Academy. 

Also, I think you should go back and look at my huge post with the restricted list becuase that was the real argument about Will - not the fact that it eliminates player interaction or that it will cause other cards to be restricted.  Although those are both important, they are less important than the proxy strategy point and the uniqueness of will in terms of design and reliability effected by resrtriction and the fact that Will is the only card on the restricted list where restriction has done so little to stop it becuase restriction doesn't decrease its Expected Utility Value. 

[kl0wn]

EDIT: Klown posted before my response: Klown, Crop Rotation is far more effective and scary in finding Strip Mine than Academy in the current environment.  Stax would play at last 2 and probably 3 to find Workshops and Strip Mine and then Academy.

I know, but the main reason why the DCI restricted it was because of Academy. Like I said, unrestricted Crop Rotation would cause more problems than just reliable Academy fetching.

Also, I think you should go back and look at my huge post with the restricted list becuase that was the real argument about Will - not the fact that it eliminates player interaction or that it will cause other cards to be restricted.  Although those are both important, they are less important than the proxy strategy point and the uniqueness of will in terms of design and reliability effected by resrtriction and the fact that Will is the only card on the restricted list where restriction has done so little to stop it becuase restriction doesn't decrease its Expected Utility Value. 

That last post was just addressing some other points that people have brought up and nobody really addressed.

I understand your argument that restricting Will doesn't have much impact on it's power level. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

My stance on it however, is that it just doesn't matter.

The effect that restriction has on the card is irrelevent; it does not have much of a cumulative effect in multiples and you don't want to see it in your opening hand (barring stupidity with Lotus and friends). But those two criteria should not be factors when considering whether or not to ban a card; if anything, they should be reasons to NOT ban it.

[Smmenen]

You think that a card causing more restrictions is a reason not to ban?  Why? 

And why is the effect of restriction irrellevant?  What other policy tools are there?  So far, we only have one policy tool: restriction.  If it isn't sufficienlty effective, why is that irrellevant?

[kl0wn]

You think that a card causing more restrictions is a reason not to ban?  Why? 

I didn't mean that it causing more restrictions was an argument against banning, I meant that there are other cards that cause restrictions which are not banned. By using that criteria, we'd also have to ban Academy and all of the Power 9 for that matter...hell, even almost all of the restricted list. Is Mystical restricted because it can fetch four-ofs? Or because it can fetch nearly half of the restricted list?

Restricting things for synergetic reasons has been a common practice since the restricted list first came into being.

And why is the effect of restriction irrellevant?  What other policy tools are there?  So far, we only have one policy tool: restriction.  If it isn't sufficienlty effective, why is that irrellevant?

The restriction tool isn't effective because the card itself does not meet the typical criteria for restriction that are currently used:

1) It does not typically distort the early game.
2) It is not cumulatively powerful.
3) It does not eliminate player interaction.

Therefore, the typical reasons why restrictions are put in place are not relevent to the card.

[Matt]

You think that a card causing more restrictions is a reason not to ban?  Why?

The same reason they didn't ban Academy three years ago, when the buzzword du jour was "critical mass." Everything in your article is an old, old argument, including the observation that restriction doesn't do much against Will. I know that I, personally, was using that argument to predict eventual bannings back when TNT was a deck to beat. the only new thing is that you've apparantly switched sides.

Yes, Will makes other cards get restricted. This is true - look at Personal Tutor, look at Burning Wish. So? Is this a problem? A better question would be, why is this all of a sudden a problem?

Yes, restriction isn't that good at stopping Will. I was making this argument when Gush was restricted - that because restriction is not banning, decks are going to creep up in power until restriction does nothing - I believe my quote was something like "every fourth game, post-restriction GAT will play like pre-restriction GAT." It's the nonlinearity of card value - the difference between one Balance and no Balance is infinitely greater than the difference between three and four.  Again, this is not a new phenomenon - and it is also not all of a sudden a problem. If it wasn't a problem before, why is it now?

I honestly did not expect Vintage to survive as long as it did. Banning is not just super-restriction, and the criteria need ot be wholly different. Domination isn't enough. Metagame warping isn't enough. The only way I'd expect something to be banned is if it was dominating through all reasonable hate - dominating beyond the ability of the format to contain it. Right now almost no one is hating on Will at all.

What other policy tools are there?

Metagame forces. Extract, Tormod's Crypt, Planar Void. These should be the FIRST policy tool, but you're overlooking them, or pretending that they've failed, when in fact they haven't even be tried.

[Sagath]

The only way I'd expect something to be banned is if it was dominating through all reasonable hate - dominating beyond the ability of the format to contain it. Right now almost no one is hating on Will at all.

Quoted for truth, and reinforcement. Lets not skip out on the big picture here. Yeesh.

On a sidenote; There is another option that noone has explored and I'm actually shocked has not been raised before. With the majority of tournaments (minus the Gencon and National types) being 10 proxy rule and thus not DCI sanctioned, why has noone on TMD imposed their own restricted policy to test?

Granted, I know it sounds kind of far fetched, but it might just be a way to test and handle all these bloody "omg0dz0r! t3h b0rk3n k4rd xxx 1s d357r0y1ng m33333!!1!11!one!!!" posts, which I'm getting bloody sick of.
Frankley I cannot see a reason to NOT try this out. Think will is too good? Ban it via the TMDDCI, think Workshop is too good again? (remember all those December restriction posts?) Well then lets restrict it and see!


A certain Maro said very recently that we need to stop acting like chicken little, and the sky is not falling down. Hes right. Its not.

[Smmenen]

The sky is definately not falling down.

I'm not claiming that.  I am claiming though, that banning will is the principled thing to do for the arguments I have already presented.  I think the arguments for banning are different than restricting.  And I think I've made that clear as well.  This isn't a pressing issue - but it is one worth exploring and I'm glad that so many people have made such articulate and compelling positions.

[Dozer]

Matt and kl0wn got it exactly right. This is Type 1. Broken things happen.*

Why do you like that it becomes a proxy for strategy? 

Will is not a proxy for strategy, Will is a strategy by itself. As many (including myself) have already vouchsafed earlier, you need a setup for Will. It cannot be played in a vacuum. Many strategic decisions go into that setup. Also, how often do you see players screwing up in their Will turn and losing the game for it? Mana management, spell order, mulligan decisions, even deckbuilding, are all strategic decisions that have to be made with Will in mind. If Will wasn't a strategy, all this should be unimportant. The case could be made for Tinker -> DSC, because that is all the strategy you need right there in two words. (Alright, four words: Tinker Colossus smash smash.) But even that is a strategy, although a very simple one. Will is much more complex than that.

This is what I like: I like that I always have to factor in Will.  I like the challenge for tight play that Will elicits. I like that Will can get me out of situations I'd otherwise lose. I like that sometimes Will takes me by surprise. I like the monumental game swings that can come from Will. I like that sometimes I can topdeck Will and win on the spot. I like that carelessness about Will loses games. I like that I can screw opponents out of their Wills. I like that opponents can screw themselves with their Will.

It's much easier to screw yourself with Will than with Ancestral.

Dozer

*Thank you, Oscar Tan, for that cheesy but immortal line.

[Vegeta2711]

Thank you for at least saying you have done some testing and providing some informed information to the community.  Could there be anyway I could convince you to share a few of the possible decklists to see what decks you believe would be say, Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks after a Will Banning?

A lot of the decks that I used at the time of my testing are rather outdated by todays standards. I can PM you the lists sometime if you like though.

[glacial-blue]

To summit...  again all of your arguments are based upon the assumption that Will isn't "unfun" enough to be banned.  The only example you note is ravager and you try to correlate banning with something that is THAT extreme.  However, considering vintage, due to its large card base/ability, can hate out any deck shouldn't we really use a different criteria?  I mean I really doubt that the majority of recent restrictions occurred due to the majority of people playing with that card to SUCH a degree that it couldn't be hated out.

But further more, like Smmenen keeps saying that the standard for banning should be different than restriction.  But since everyone keeps missing this point, we will just go around in circles saying *i agree with you on everything but the conclusion* and nothing will happen.

So my challenge still stands to all of you Nay Sayers...  Can you give a set criteria for banning Will with specific reasons why this fits vintage rather than merely saying *it works for standard* b/c the two really don't correlate.

The only one who truly attempted this was Matt when he said:

dominating beyond the ability of the format to contain it.

My response is:

Do you honestly believe that there could POSSIBLY be any one card that cannot be hated out in vintage?  People say that this is the format where "buh-roken" things happen, so why do we create a restricted list in the first place since THOSE cards could be hated out?  *maybe not in mass, but individually*.

This leads me to the conclusion that it's not about hating out a card, but based upon the way the card interacts with the format.  So we're trying to figure out what that other standard could be... 

As for

Why do you like that it becomes a proxy for strategy?

Will is not a proxy for strategy, Will is a strategy by itself. As many (including myself) have already vouchsafed earlier, you need a setup for Will...Many strategic decisions go into that setup. Also, how often do you see players screwing up in their Will turn and losing the game for it? Mana management, spell order, mulligan decisions, even deckbuilding, are all strategic decisions that have to be made with Will in mind. If Will wasn't a strategy, all this should be unimportant. The case could be made for Tinker -> DSC, because that is all the strategy you need right there in two words... But even that is a strategy, although a very simple one. Will is much more complex than that.

This is what I like: I like that I always have to factor in Will. I like the challenge for tight play that Will elicits. I like that Will can get me out of situations I'd otherwise lose. I like that sometimes Will takes me by surprise. I like the monumental game swings that can come from Will. I like that sometimes I can topdeck Will and win on the spot. I like that carelessness about Will loses games. I like that I can screw opponents out of their Wills. I like that opponents can screw themselves with their Will.

It's much easier to screw yourself with Will than with Ancestral.

Dozer

*Thank you, Oscar Tan, for that cheesy but immortal line.

I'm just a little confused about this...  Why a strategy being complicated make it NOT restriction/ban worthy?  You could mess up with old Long.dec due to the order of set-ups and so on just like you explain but it lead to MASS restrictions. 

In addition, the reality that you have to "always factor in Will" when it is a singleton seems a little over the top.  How often do you figure in *is this hand keepable if my opponent gets a turn 1 tinker*  or *what do I do if my opponent top decks lotus on turn 3*.  The reality that you DO always have to factor in Will, but rarely seem to have to do that to other cards to the same degree, gives credence to two things:
A.  Will's strategy is completely unhampered by restriction *which the majority of people agree with*.
B.  Decks really are built around Will

So why does this not merit banning

[Summit]

A.  Will's strategy is completely unhampered by restriction *which the majority of people agree with*.
B.  Decks really are built around Will

So why does this not merit banning

The community as a whole is willing to accept the stupidity that is Will because its Type 1 and stupid things happen with other cards too.  As long as the game remains fun and people dont have to play "Ravager vs Anti-Ravager"(Will vs Anti-Will) decks, people will still have fun and wont think Will needs to be banned.  So what we are all saying to you based on your criteria and the current state of the metagame......SO WHAT?

[glacial-blue]

So what we are all saying to you based on your criteria and the current state of the metagame......SO WHAT?

right... that may be true... I'm still wondering where we draw the line.  Like you have to have a set standard that merits restriction/banning.  In addition issues such as *Will is too powerful as a 4 of, restriction didn't lessen its power, therefore new course of action must be taken* etc... are still viable.

Not to mention, this goes back to my point earlier in the thread where i discuss the three reasons why Will really isn't up for contention by the general public... aka...

1.  People think of vintage as the format where you can play anything you want, which, as a whole, is kept in check by the restricted list.  This happens regardless of the truth of this statement.
2.  Some cards have become staples to the format and so people don't like changing things which they grew up w/ and have come to love *regardless of the impact it has on the format as a whole.*
3.  People accept that broken things happen.  So as long as they get to play with their foils then they are happy.  Thus, when Will becomes a 4th turn combo that is nearly impossible to stop *exaggeration noted* then people will keep on grinning and go on their merry way.

So again, please state a standard, with reasons as to why this fits vintage specifically, that can be agreed upon banning.  EVEN IF Will DOESN'T meet that standard, that really is the next step that needs to happen for discussion to continue.

As a side note... can people please stop using the "Will is broken, other cards are broken, so what's the big deal" argument.  Like Smmenen has pointed out plenty of reasons why Will is unique.  Other people on this thread have done the same.  Not only is it unique in the way it bypasses the general rules, it is also relegated as one of the MOST broken cards if not the most.  So if 4 tinker's are too much to play with b/c of the manner in which it executes its strategy... then why is 1 yawgmoth's will NOT too many when it is as powerful if not more so and still is able to carry out its strategy as effectively as if there were 4 in the deck.

So please stop using that line... it is too ambiguous, doesn't address any of the analysis on this thread and in the article, and doesn't really move things forward.  Not to mention it is completely arbitrary as to the acceptance of such a statement and is one of the reasons why there ARE complaints.

[andrewpate]

Wizards still has yet to inform the public what they feel their offical reason to banning is.

I'm just a little confused about this...  Why a strategy being complicated make it NOT restriction/ban worthy?  You could mess up with old Long.dec due to the order of set-ups and so on just like you explain but it lead to MASS restrictions.

I spoke with Randy Buehler earlier this year and asked him point blank, "Why do you ban and restrict things, really?"  He said to me, "This may be disappointing, but really, it's just based on a rather subjective assessment of how fun it is.  We thought that an unrestricted Trinisphere wasn't fun."  I then asked him whether this was because of its "no-brainer" nature and whether a card as powerful as Trinisphere but as difficult to use as, say, Cabal Therapy would need be restricted.  He said, "No, then it could stay."  He went on to say how Skaff Elias fought to keep Necropotence unbanned in Extended for a long time because he said it was skill testing, and dominated the Pro Tour only because pros were highly skilled, and even they made mistakes with it that costed games.  In other words, they do have a criteria:  fun.  And a strategy being complex and difficult to execute is one way things can be fun.

So the challenge to those advocating the banning of Yawgmoth's Will would be this:  is the fun of playing Vintage suffering seriously because of Will?  Would banning Will make a serious, direct difference in the level of fun of the format?  Prove that the answer to both of these questions is "yes."  For me, at this point, it is not.

[glacial-blue]

So the challenge to those advocating the banning of Yawgmoth's Will would be this:  is the fun of playing Vintage suffering seriously because of Will?  Would banning Will make a serious, direct difference in the level of fun of the format?  Prove that the answer to both of these questions is "yes."  For me, at this point, it is not.

To me, your last statment says the most.  "For YOU at this point, it is not" really is indicative of the way vintage has evolved.  I'm one of those players that used to play back in the day and only picked up the game again in the past few years.  As such, the level of "brokeness" available to me when i originally played *stopped after the Urza block* was dramatically less.  Even within the few years that i've been playing people are claiming that the fundamental turn has shifted down to turn 1.5.  Because of this, whenever I try to get my friends to play (the ones I used to play before i stopped) they force me to use older style decks; otherwise they don't have fun.

The point i'm making is that the criteria for "fun" really is subjective and truly falls under the category of the 3 things i listed earlier:

1.  People think of vintage as the format where you can play anything you want, which, as a whole, is kept in check by the restricted list.  This happens regardless of the truth of this statement.
2.  Some cards have become staples to the format and so people don't like changing things which they grew up w/ and have come to love *regardless of the impact it has on the format as a whole.*
3.  People accept that broken things happen.  So as long as they get to play with their foils then they are happy.  Thus, when Will becomes a 4th turn combo that is nearly impossible to stop *exaggeration noted* then people will keep on grinning and go on their merry way.

Because of these 3 things, I think people, like Smmenen, are asking people to take a closer look at what Yawgmoth's Will actually does.  Granted, we have become VERY accustomed to it, and are willing to accept losing to it, but for people who are deck designers, like Steve, who are tired of using Will in EVERY deck b/c it is THE card to use, in addition to the reality that it keeps certain cards restricted ultimately decreasing card choices/deck designs, then Will becomes very trite.  I'm not saying that vintage loses all of its flavor as one discovers new ways to abuse the format, only that the format does become stale.

Does this necessarily mean that Will is impacting the level of play significantly to point of being "unfun"?  probably not, and this will probably never occur as WOTC tries to keep combo in check b/c that style of deck really isn't fun to lose to *as was described by my third point*.  Does this mean that Will doesn't necessarily meet the banned criteria?  no.  Its all a matter of perspective, and as Smmenen pointed out, He's looking at it from a deckbuilder's perspective rather than just a player's.

So as long as people are having "fun" playing cards even though they are almost assured of losing on turn 4 (exaggeration) and as long as people are merely looking to replay older cards b/c it has been in their binder for decades and have always enjoyed playing with it *even though now it is 5 times more powerful* then i guess Will shall be fun.  If you look at vintage more wholistically, and the impact it has on the format as being indicative of fun *the way Smmenen seems to percieve it* then Will isn't nearly as fun as it once was.

So I guess all i can do is ask you nay sayers to take a moment to stop and reflect upon this and try to determine what is so "fun" about Will yourself.  couple this with knowledge that other staples may be unrestricted and will hopefully lead to a more diverse format.