[Discussion] What is your ideal Banned/Restricted list?

[Implacable]

It's really not a matter of Trinisphere being really distorting among the highly competetive.

Yes, its a powerful card, but having played during Trinisphere's reign, it was easy to not only work around the sphere with fetches and basics and use your own strip/wastes to screw an opponant under his or her own sphere.  There were bounce spells, and players could win around it.

No, that is not the problem.  The problem is that the new players, the medicore to poor players, the innovative players, they were all, and would be again, squashed under turn one 3sphere, which just sucks.  Its not the power level, its the "fun" level.  Decks had to be designed to beat the card.  Decks had to pack 4 Forces, a tun of fetches, or be stax themselves.  New decks would perish, and although the format would live, it would become so assinine that no one would want to play it.

There are definitly cards on the list that should be on because they are stupid as a four of.  There are cards that are stupid in fours, and good, but not broken, as one-ofs.  There are strong cards on the list, but that define the format.

The following cards are obviously broken, even as singletons, but define the format.  They should be obvious:
    * Ancestral Recall
    * Balance
    * Black Lotus
    * Channel
    * Demonic Tutor
    * Fastbond
    * Imperial Seal
    * Lion’s Eye Diamond
    * Lotus Petal
    * Mana Crypt
    * Mana Vault
    * Mox Emerald
    * Mox Jet
    * Mox Pearl
    * Mox Ruby
    * Mox Sapphire
    * Mystical Tutor
    * Necropotence
    * Sol Ring
    * Strip Mine
    * Time Walk
    * Timetwister
    * Tinker
    * Tolarian Academy
    * Vampiric Tutor
    * Yawgmoth’s Bargain
    * Yawgmoth’s Will (I will discuss this later)

The following are less obvious, but if any of you have been around during their unrestriction, you recognize how broken they are as multiples due to the insane engines they promote.  For the most part, they deserve to be on the list:
    * Burning Wish*
    * Crop Rotation
    * Demonic Consultation
    * Enlightened Tutor
    * Entomb
    * Fact or Fiction
    * Frantic Search
    * Gush
    * Library of Alexandria
    * Memory Jar
    * Mind’s Desire
    * Personal Tutor
    * Regrowth
    * Time Spiral
    * Wheel of Fortune
    * Windfall

The italized cards here are the weaker cards in this bunch.  I am not sure that if any of these cards were unrestricted they would necessarily become broken.  Personal tutor is very slow and cumbersome, searching for but a handful of the powerful cards.  Entomb was restricted because of dragon, but dragon has since evolved.  What deck could abuse this now?  Time Spiral is the best of the bunch, but the 6 mana hurts a lot right now.  One might as well stamp a big "DRAIN ME" on it, as the caser usually is forced to invest all of their mana into it.  That being said, any one of these cards is also concievable broken, but I believe that we should test them.

The following remain on the list:
    * Black Vise
    * Chrome Mox
    * Dream Halls
    * Grim Monolith
    * Mind Twist
    * Mox Diamond
    * Trinisphere
    * Voltaic Key

Chrome Mox, among the unbolded cards, is the only card in my mind of these remaining card that can be considered for leaving restricted, as it does have aplications, but I am not sure it is broken.  Mox Diamond is considerably weak, difficult to cast, and its benifit no longer outways the cost.  Mind Twist is both too slow now, and counterproductive against many decks (Ichorid, Dragon, Stax, etc., etc.).

That leaves Black Vise and Trinisphere.  Why are these cards on the list?  They are "unfun".  Black Vise is a card easy to play arround.  It doesn't even see play now.  However, with 4, it makes control so "unfun" to play as you take a lot of damage simply for playing in your style, with a 1 mana artifact.  This, I am sure, is debatable, but it is not fun to play against, and so it remains on the list.  Trinisphere is likewise able to played around.  Heck, everyone could just play stax and it wouldn't even be that good of a card any more.  But then the format is a terrible game.  It looses its inricacies.  So it remains restricted.  I would keep these cards restricted for the sake of the format, I am not sure about the rest of you.

That leads into the next point.

Yawgmoth's Will.  This seems to be a point of contention.  It is an insainly broken card, true.  It wins the game when in resolves, also true.  Is it too good though?  Is it "unfun"?  If it is banned, should burning wish be unrestricted?

I believe that to determain the answers to these questions a vintage version of the ffl would have to be formed, in which we would test the proposed points of contention.  What would happen to the format if Will were banned?  Time Spiral unrestricted?  What decks emerge, what die?  These must be addressed.  Will could get the axe, imo, but only if the gain outweighs the loss, whcih I am not so sure on.  Its a stupid card, but it is a strategic card, to a point.  Combo and control tend to either use will as a win condition currently.  If it is banned, could another source of win condition be established that would maintain the decks so that they did not die to other unnefected decks in the format?

The following could be unrestricted with no hesitation:
    * Dream Halls
    * Grim Monolith
    * Mind Twist
    * Mox Diamond
    * Voltaic Key

They would not break or effect the format greatly, imo.  Chrome Mox is debatable, but could be added to this list as well, imo.

The other ideas must be extensivly tested.  Banning will is treading on thin ice.  I believe we must try it for perhaps six months, and see what happens.  Or at least conduct an experiment.  If it does not shatter the format, if it can be banned and make the format better, than we should likely try it.  But banning will is an unequal blow.  Aggro, stax, ichorid, oath, they suffer nothing.  Control takes a blow, but can survive.  Combo, however, would be mortallly wounded, I would suppose.  But this is all speculation.  We should test this.

This is the best post that I've seen in the entire thread.  I find myself agreeing with just about everything the poster says.  Although I primarily am a Tendrils.dec player, I still will advocate for the banning of Yawgmoth's Will.  Someone in this community made an excellent point recently, in a thread about their Fish deck; "Every deck in this format must either abuse Yawgmoth's Will or stop it from working."  A format should not revolve around one card.  Let's advocate for a six-month ban and see what happens.  I'd like to see a bit more variety, if only in the ways that decks got kills.

[MuzzonoAmi]

I must be the only person who doesn't want Will banned. Under different circumstances, I might want to see FoF and LoA unrestricted, but since control is so good right now, it won't do anything other than make control, CS in particular, insane. Aside from those though, I'd like to see the restricted list as:



  Ancestral Recall
  Balance
  Black Lotus
  Channel
  Demonic Tutor
  Fastbond
  Imperial Seal
  Lion’s Eye Diamond
  Lotus Petal
  Mana Crypt
  Mana Vault
  Mox Emerald
  Mox Jet
  Mox Pearl
  Mox Ruby
  Mox Sapphire
  Mystical Tutor
  Necropotence
  Sol Ring
  Strip Mine
  Time Walk
  Timetwister
  Tinker
  Tolarian Academy
  Vampiric Tutor
  Yawgmoth’s Bargain
  Yawgmoth’s Will
  Crop Rotation
 Fact or Fiction
Library of Alexandria
Memory Jar
Chrome Mox
Mind's Desire
Wheel of Fortune
Black Vise
Mind Twist
Dream Halls

Or in short, Unrestrict:
Entomb
Burning Wish
Chrome Mox
Windfall
Time Spiral
Frantic Search
Mox Diamond
Trinisphere
Gush
Demonic Consultation
Grim Monolith
Personal Tutor
Volatic Key

The biggest issues I see people having with this list are:
Burning Wish
3 blue draw spells - 2 of which are only good in combo
Trinisphere*
Demonic Consultation

But I do have reasons for this. D. Con is a great tutor, no doubt. And it DOES make it easy to find combo pieces. And as a combo player, I LOVE it. But I can't see anyone running more than 2. Why? Because it can lose you the game if you cast it too much. Just intuitively, decking yourself becomes more likely each time you cast it. And in combo, with so many singletons, a player could seldom afford to cast it more than twice without significant risk. Would you need to? Probably not. The most dangerous thing it is likely to do is make Belcher good again, since D. Con is the best tutor available to the deck. Chrome Mox would accentuate this, but not drive the deck into absurdity. I can't see any other deck significantly bemefitting from running additional Chrome Moxen. The 2 free draw spells may be nuts in combo, but Frantic Search is a genuinely GOOD card that gets better in multiples, AND can be run by archetypes across the spectrum. Would it be too powerful with Time Spiral in the environment too? Probably not, because, as people have pointed out throughtout this thread, Time Spiral is pretty much only good in combo, and most modern combo decks wouldn't run it because it costs 6 and isn't Mind's Desire or Baragin (i.e. it doesn't win the game now). So it has a home in a High Tide deck or some other strange combo deck that can generate a significant portion of that 6 from land to make the unrecurrable, doubly expensive Timetwister worth their time. And we can always use another decent deck (a dedicated Drain/Combo deck comes to mind). Windfall might be scary, but we can stand 3 months of a poor choice, and it's not likely to end up that way since while Long does run the lone allowed copy, is there room for another? I know I'm always disappointed when I draw it instead of a more reliable draw spell. This would be, IMO, the most interesting of the bunch to observe. Burning Wish coming off the list gives alot of decks greater flexibility, and doesn't give too much to combo, since Long has Grim Tutor now. What it does give, however, is a strong weapon to any deck that can support it - access to cards like Balance or Shattering Spree or Reverant Silence from the board could be a huge boon to control decks, possibly even allowing truly multicolor stratiges (even a variant on The Shining, maybe) to have the potential to compete again. Unlikely, but still possible, and an option that strengthens control without crushing everything else (it gives some combo decks more options too, I'll admit). If we want non Fish aggro, we need either Gush or Trinisphere, and we can't have both, because Trini would just drive Gush out of the environment. As much as I intellectually want Trinisphere unrestricted, I can't justify it on a practical level. Not only is it "unfun", but it IS format distorting, and in a negative way. If it comes back now, then I don't see any deck that would be safe from Trinistax or The Jester and still capable of consistently competing against the rest of the field. So give us back Gush, and with heavy heart, leave Trini where it is.

[Jacob Orlove]

Consult is absolutely stupid good, especially with 4 Burning Wish MD. That way, you can not only effectively Consult for Will, but you get the added bonus of being able to spend extra wishes on RFGd cards like Wheel.

[Glix]

You have Chrome Mox on both lists .

I don't think you understand the power of some of the cards you intend to unrestrict.

Gush, Frantic Search, Consultation, Wish- They don't really seem all that great right now.  Only a few decks play them, and only to specific ends that don't always seem to get the job done.  But do you know what would happen with 4 of them in a deck?  Who remembers GAT?  Gush is an insane engine that makes very, very big dryads very, very fast.  It digs deep, its free, fastbond circuments the loss, and its repeatable.  Frantic Search becomes quite the beast unrestricted.  Free draw spells are good, so I hear.  Card Draw spells that can actually generate mana are also some good.  This thing would perform shenanigans to the degree of Gush.  These two, however, are the weaker of these cards.  Unrestricted, the format may still be fine.  Consultation is different.  This thing is basically a one mana d-tutor in decks like Meandeck Tendrils and Belcher.  I would not like to see this unrestricted.  Finally we come to Burning Wish.  Oh, burning wish.  Who remembers long?  Burning Wish, unrestricted, and in conjunction with 4 Consultation, allows combo to run 5 Demonic Tutors, which isn't a good thing.  That means 4 wills maindeck, etc.

Windfall is a consideration, but I am weary of allowing a draw 7 to romp around unrestricted.  However, this is by far the weakest of the bunch.  This could be tested.

You must not have been around when those two blue engines were unrestricted, but they were along the lines of FoF good together, allowing for turn 3 leathal dryads and such.  One could test them, but I am fairly sure they would become apprently broken quite fast.

Regardless, you do defend your choices, and I could be blatently wrong.  Those are cards I would be willing to test, save Consult and Wish.  Those two cards are ridiculous, and Wish will be broken as long as will is.

[Draven]

I must be the only person who doesn't want Will banned...

I completly agree with you! Will should not be banned under any circumstances. I still remember when Mind Twist was banned, and I hated that

Will can be beat, you just have to run the cards that hose it (Crypt, Wretch, Leyline, Void, Furnace etc) Now, I know Jacob said:

Smmenen's article can be found here: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10071.html (scroll down past the premium ad). That has all the basic arguments for why Will should be banned.

As for Crypt (and Extract), running a card that does basically nothing but neutralize Will is not an adequate answer to the card, because Will (unlike most restricted cards) is strategically broken, not tactically broken. Decks with Will can afford to deal with Crypt or even Force an Extract, because that Will is generally going to be strong enough to overcome whatever sacrifices they had to make to cast it. Crypt helps several decks fight Will, but the Crypt itself sets you behind a card, which can sometimes be just enough of a disadvantage that they can leverage it into dealing with Crypt and resolving Will.

Edit: also, saying that "every deck" can play crypt is extremely misleading. Most decks in the format cannot afford to give up space and cards just to get Crypt out there to fight Will. Crypt just does not do enough on its own for anything but CS (which has Thirsts anyway, and Welders) to really be able to run it.

But I disagree, and I tell you why.

If I don't run some kind of bounce or STP, Colossus is going to run me over.

If I don't run Rack and Ruin or some other artifact hate, Workshop.deck is going to run over me.

If I don't run some kind of creature hate, Fish is going to run all over me.

If I don't run basics, Wasteland is going to wreck me.

If I don't run Crypt, Wretch graveyard hate, etc Will is going to beat me.

Now I am not advocating for a slippery slope ban/restrict everything, but I am saying, decks need to run defensive stratagies to combat the other decks. All of the cards I mentioned takes away from the other srtatgies of the deck, but they must be run to not autoscoop to the particular deck you are playing against. This game is interactive, the decks must be able to repsond to each other. If you don't, you are playing some turn 1 combo deck that hopes to hell the win that turn becaue if they don't, they have no outs.

Please people. Stop calling for Will's head.

[edit] Fixed spelling and added a missed sentence.

[Purple Hat]

What would you really run 4x burning wish in if you didn't have 4x LED or 4x demonic consultation?  I'm not sure that given those cards right now I'd run burning over death wish anyway as in long you were frequently required to fix mana in order to cast your burning wish anyway.

[Implacable]

I must be the only person who doesn't want Will banned...

I completly agree with you! Will should not be banned under any circumstances. I still remember when Mind Twist was banned, and I hated that

Will can be beat, you just have to run the cards that hose it (Crypt, Wretch, Leyline, Void, Furnace etc) Now, I know Jacob said:

Smmenen's article can be found here: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10071.html (scroll down past the premium ad). That has all the basic arguments for why Will should be banned.

As for Crypt (and Extract), running a card that does basically nothing but neutralize Will is not an adequate answer to the card, because Will (unlike most restricted cards) is strategically broken, not tactically broken. Decks with Will can afford to deal with Crypt or even Force an Extract, because that Will is generally going to be strong enough to overcome whatever sacrifices they had to make to cast it. Crypt helps several decks fight Will, but the Crypt itself sets you behind a card, which can sometimes be just enough of a disadvantage that they can leverage it into dealing with Crypt and resolving Will.

Edit: also, saying that "every deck" can play crypt is extremely misleading. Most decks in the format cannot afford to give up space and cards just to get Crypt out there to fight Will. Crypt just does not do enough on its own for anything but CS (which has Thirsts anyway, and Welders) to really be able to run it.

But I disagree, and I tell you why.

If I don't run some kind of bounce or STP, Colossus is going to run me over.

If I don't run Rack and Ruin or some other artifact hate, Workshop.deck is going to run over me.

If I don't run some kind of creature hate, Fish is going to run all over me.

If I don't run basics, Wasteland is going to wreck me.

If I don't run Crypt, Wretch graveyard hate, etc Will is going to beat me.

Now I am not advocating for a slippery slope ban/restrict everything, but I am saying, decks need to run defensive stratagies to combat the other decks. All of the cards I mentioned takes away from the other srtatgies of the deck, but they must be run to not autoscoop to the particular deck you are playing against. This game is interactive, the decks must be able to repsond to each other. If you don't, you are playing some turn 1 combo deck that hopes to hell the win that turn becaue if they don't, they have no outs.

Please people. Stop calling for Will's head.

[edit] Fixed spelling and added a missed sentence.

It's a different kind of kill.  At the moment, one card is hindering the formats development: Yawgmoth's Will.  Aggro decks can't race it, not even the slower combo-control Will decks.  You can play a massive amount of maindeck hate, but you then lose to the remaining 1/3 of the format that doesn't run it.  Looking at it, it seems like the format is split into three sections: Will decks, anti-Will decks, and the wierd floater here and there (Oath).  I really don't like that kind of system.

[roberts91rom]

Will won't be banned. It is not a format defining card. Without will, Combo would still exist, CS and to an extent Gifts would still exist. Aggro would still be a bad choice, and Null Rod and Chalice won't all of the sudden stop being run. Banning Will only slows down the format by 1 turn. Big whoop. I have a combo deck that would run perfectly fine without Will, and I always find Will just as "win-more" in that deck. I rarely fetch Will in my CS deck, I usually have more consistant ways to win. Gifts is a different story. Banning Will might as well lead to banning Moxes and then making the format into Legacy. Will is just a faster way to win.

Yes, it is broken.

Yes, you win if it resolves.

Yes, it is perfectly tailored for Vintage.

Yes, you would regret banning Will.

Yes, your idea of banning Will is stupid.

I completly agree with you! Will should not be banned under any circumstances. I still remember when Mind Twist was banned, and I hated that

If I don't run some kind of bounce or STP, Colossus is going to run me over.

If I don't run Rack and Ruin or some other artifact hate, Workshop.deck is going to run over me.

If I don't run some kind of creature hate, Fish is going to run all over me.

If I don't run basics, Wasteland is going to wreck me.

If I don't run Crypt, Wretch graveyard hate, etc Will is going to beat me.

Now I am not advocating for a slippery slope ban/restrict everything, but I am saying, decks need to run defensive stratagies to combat the other decks. All of the cards I mentioned takes away from the other srtatgies of the deck, but they must be run to not autoscoop to the particular deck you are playing against. This game is interactive, the decks must be able to repsond to each other. If you don't, you are playing some turn 1 combo deck that hopes to hell the win that turn becaue if they don't, they have no outs.

Please people. Stop calling for Will's head.

*clap clap clap*

Perfectly said. Either ban everything or don't ban anything. Banning is for Legacy and if you don't like running answers to Will then you can go play Legacy. Not to mention if Will got banned, then people would take out g-yard hate. Ichorid would sweep all of Vintage and that's the end of that chapter. So no matter what you ban, you will have to ban something else. Ban Workshop? Still running artifact hate for CS and Gifts. Ban Will? Still running graveyard hate for Ichorid. Ban Wasteland and Strip Mine? Still gonna run basics because somebody is gonna make a deck with Blood Moon.

GET!

OVER!

YOUR!

SELVES!

WILL!

SHOULD!

NOT!

AND!

WILL!

NOT!

BE!

BANNED!

[Harlequin]

I don't think that will is actually the problem.  I honestly think its DSC.  The agruement stems not from what "what it does" but "how can it be controled."  As noted, Will doesn't actually DO anything, what it does is enable the caster to go crazy and play many low casting cost spells all in one turn, and win via Tendrils.  It is true that every deck needs an answer to Will, and that is not a problem.  Simply put, Every color on the pie, and every type of deck architype has "Answers" to will.  There are basically 2 ways to control will.  Kill the yard, or hinder the spells.  

Black is most noteable for Yard hate, not to mention that Tormod's and even Phyrexian Furnace are extremely splashable.  
Blue has counterspells to hinder the spells, as well as stifle to stop storm and extract to pre-emptively control Yawg.
Green can limit spells as well with Rootmaze... and green can most easily splash null rod and Chalice as spell limiters
White in addition to the easy splash of chalice and rod, has orims and abayance.
Red... well red is kinda outa luck.  But they have the speed to forgo null rod and move back in the dirrection of Tormod's crypt and even chalice.
In addition to that Shop decks have Sphere of Resistance and Trinisphere in addition to basically ALL of the other artifacts mentioned.

The point being, If you want a competative deck, you need answer to commonly played threatening cards.  And no matter your deck choice, you have some access to cards that hurt will.  NOW my point.  All of the cards listed above... ALL of them.  Are widely useful cards.  There are no Will-hate-only cards, all of them have diverse usefulness even against decks that do not run will.

this brings me back to DSC, and why I think he is so un-fair.  Every deck needs to be able to answer DSC.  BUT most of the deck architypes... includeing  2 full color pies have NO way to control him.  Basically DSC is muscling decks outa the format. Any deck that cannot answer the question "how do you beat turn 1-2 tinker?" is automatically a casual deck.  It all comes down to the indestrucatable trait.  If he didn't have that then Oxidize, Naturalize, Disenchant, Rack and Ruin, Shattering Spree ... ALL would be valid answers and all would be more diverse than what is currently availible.  

The iceing on this cake is that a two card win-condition is too easy to splash into any deck running blue and moxen.  Even fish sometimes splashes this little combo.  Which is another way this card is different from will.  No deck would die becasue of DSC's Banning.  It would cause some decks to drop the tinker plan all together, and other decks to run something like Sundering Titan or maybe Platinum angel (wich I am fine with).  Banning Will on the other hand would totally destroy several types of combo in the current meta.  Lets put it this way:

Banning DSC - a few decks would loose power, and a minor handful of decks would go away.  It would open a venu for Mono-red and mono-green decks as well as validate other types of aggro decks. -- Net change in meta: More viable decks.

Banning Will - would euthinize most tendrils decks, and kill gifts control decks.  This would slow the format and give rise to some aggro style decks that were slightly too slow -- Net change in meta: minimal, you loose a top slice of decks and add it to th bottom, for every deck you loose, your adding an aggro deck.

[Draven]

I don't think that will is actually the problem.  I honestly think its DSC.  The agruement stems not from what "what it does" but "how can it be controled."  As noted, Will doesn't actually DO anything, what it does is enable the caster to go crazy and play many low casting cost spells all in one turn, and win via Tendrils.  It is true that every deck needs an answer to Will, and that is not a problem.  Simply put, Every color on the pie, and every type of deck architype has "Answers" to will.  There are basically 2 ways to control will.  Kill the yard, or hinder the spells. 

Black is most noteable for Yard hate, not to mention that Tormod's and even Phyrexian Furnace are extremely splashable. 
Blue has counterspells to hinder the spells, as well as stifle to stop storm and extract to pre-emptively control Yawg.
Green can limit spells as well with Rootmaze... and green can most easily splash null rod and Chalice as spell limiters
White in addition to the easy splash of chalice and rod, has orims and abayance.
Red... well red is kinda outa luck.  But they have the speed to forgo null rod and move back in the dirrection of Tormod's crypt and even chalice.
In addition to that Shop decks have Sphere of Resistance and Trinisphere in addition to basically ALL of the other artifacts mentioned.

The point being, If you want a competative deck, you need answer to commonly played threatening cards.  And no matter your deck choice, you have some access to cards that hurt will.  NOW my point.  All of the cards listed above... ALL of them.  Are widely useful cards.  There are no Will-hate-only cards, all of them have diverse usefulness even against decks that do not run will.

this brings me back to DSC, and why I think he is so un-fair.  Every deck needs to be able to answer DSC.  BUT most of the deck architypes... includeing  2 full color pies have NO way to control him.  Basically DSC is muscling decks outa the format. Any deck that cannot answer the question "how do you beat turn 1-2 tinker?" is automatically a casual deck.  It all comes down to the indestrucatable trait.  If he didn't have that then Oxidize, Naturalize, Disenchant, Rack and Ruin, Shattering Spree ... ALL would be valid answers and all would be more diverse than what is currently availible. 

The iceing on this cake is that a two card win-condition is too easy to splash into any deck running blue and moxen.  Even fish sometimes splashes this little combo.  Which is another way this card is different from will.  No deck would die becasue of DSC's Banning.  It would cause some decks to drop the tinker plan all together, and other decks to run something like Sundering Titan or maybe Platinum angel (wich I am fine with).  Banning Will on the other hand would totally destroy several types of combo in the current meta.  Lets put it this way:

Banning DSC - a few decks would loose power, and a minor handful of decks would go away.  It would open a venu for Mono-red and mono-green decks as well as validate other types of aggro decks. -- Net change in meta: More viable decks.

Banning Will - would euthinize most tendrils decks, and kill gifts control decks.  This would slow the format and give rise to some aggro style decks that were slightly too slow -- Net change in meta: minimal, you loose a top slice of decks and add it to th bottom, for every deck you loose, your adding an aggro deck.

Although I disagree with banning DSC (or Tinker), I agree that he is a much bigger problem. First of all, I think the Indestructable mechanic is the stupidist fucking mechanic. Like someone said earlier, artifact creatures are supposed to be the easiest cards to "break" (as in destory) you pay this price in the ability to splash the creature in any deck. The indestructable mechanic takes away the only drawback of an artifact creature.

The problem though, is without Tinker, DSC would not be played (aside from Oath *maybe). So, is DSC or Tinker the problem? (retorical question)

Back to the point... It takes some work to assemble a Will 'yard. Most times it takes a good 2-3 turns to assemble all the pieces of the Will. Sometimes the Will comes on turn 37 and you have a 'yard fatter than the lady that sings in opera's and, occasionally, you get some of those hands that Steve has been showing us that just say I win, but it is Vintage after all.. The point is, most of the time, it takes skill and many other cards to make Will the hotness it is.

How much skill does't take to slap down an Island and Mana Crypt and turn them both sideways and play Tinker?

Again, I am NOT advocating for the banning of anything, I am just saying Darksteel In-fucking-destructable Colossus (or TInker) is a just as big of a problem (if not more) than Will.

[MuzzonoAmi]

@Jacob -

I'm not saying Consult isn't amazing. I'm saying that I can't see it being used, even with Buring Wish unrestricted, in an excessively degenerate way as a 4-of. If you show me the deck that would wreck everything with 4, I'll gladly recant.

@Glix
I started playing Vintage shortly before TnT became popular, so I do remember 4 Trinisphere Trinistax, 4 Gush GAT, and 4 LED 4 Wish Long. I know the can of worms I opened by saying that, I just think it's a can that SHOULD be opened.

[Purple Hat]

But do you know what would happen with 4 of them in a deck?  Who remembers GAT?  Gush is an insane engine that makes very, very big dryads very, very fast

guys....4 gush gat really isn't that good compared to modern decks....it's a good deck, but it rolls to oath and it's not much faster than gifts, and stax beats the crap out of it and god help you if someone pops a slaver or drops chains.  It's good, but it's not great.

[ErkBek]

@Jacob -

I'm not saying Consult isn't amazing. I'm saying that I can't see it being used, even with Buring Wish unrestricted, in an excessively degenerate way as a 4-of. If you show me the deck that would wreck everything with 4, I'll gladly recant.

Demonic consult is my favorite card to draw in meandeck tendrils. 4 would probably push it to an 85-90% turn 1 kill and help increase the deck's ability to recover from counters. There are a number of other ways to break this card in combo, unrestricting this would be a huge mistake.

[cssamerican]

I'm not saying Consult isn't amazing. I'm saying that I can't see it being used, even with Buring Wish unrestricted, in an excessively degenerate way as a 4-of. If you show me the deck that would wreck everything with 4, I'll gladly recant.

Consult-Dragon decks would be very good because unlike the Spoils-Version it could reload after having its board nuked and go for the win again, and the chance of killing yourself would be much less of an issue. It wouldn't roll everything, but it could potentially warp the meta by forcing everyone to be able to deal with the combo consistently by turn 2. Plus I am sure that storm decks would learn how to break the card as well. So, this would put a huge strain on everything to contain the consistent fast combo decks that would arise from this being unrestricted. Of course I could be completely wrong, that is why I wished the DCI would implement a rotation for trial unrestrictions. This way we wouldn't be debating this with theory, we would know by looking at factual results.

[Glix]

Do we even need the DCI to impliment this?  How many touraments follow DCI rules?  Gencon, and some european stuff.

We should do our own trial leage in which we try each of the purposed unrestrictions and play them out for a month or two, see if anything evident happens.  We could probably imliment this over MWS even, although certain aspects of that program are undesirable.  Some cards are obviously going to remain restricted.  Others should obviously be taken off.  I think the following are debatable right now:

Frantic Search
Gush
Personal Tutor (leaning towards unrestriction)
Chrome mox (leaning towards unrestriction)
Demonic Consultation
Burning Wish
Time Spiral
Entomb
Black Vise (leaning towards restriction)
Trinisphere (This would be more on an "unfun" level, I believe)
Will (Banning of.  I think I would lean towards leaving it restricted on principle, the banning seems to be something we should take into account)
Any others?

By testing, we could see what happens and get definite evidence for or against the actinos we wish to take.  Getting less than empyrical data would also give us more leverage in persuading the DCI.  Rather than wait around and argue about what we think might possibly happen (and I am as guilty as any), shouldn't we go find out?

Just an idea.

[Jank Golem]

Do we even need the DCI to implement this? How many touraments follow DCI rules? Gencon, and some european stuff.

We should do our own trial leage in which we try each of the purposed unrestrictions and play them out for a month or two, see if anything evident happens. We could probably imliment this over MWS even, although certain aspects of that program are undesirable. Some cards are obviously going to remain restricted. Others should obviously be taken off. I think the following are debatable right now:

Frantic Search
Gush
Personal Tutor (leaning towards unrestriction)
Chrome mox (leaning towards unrestriction)
Demonic Consultation
Burning Wish
Time Spiral
Entomb
Black Vise (leaning towards restriction)
Trinisphere (This would be more on an "unfun" level, I believe)
Will (Banning of. I think I would lean towards leaving it restricted on principle, the banning seems to be something we should take into account)
Any others?

By testing, we could see what happens and get definite evidence for or against the actinos we wish to take. Getting less than empyrical data would also give us more leverage in persuading the DCI. Rather than wait around and argue about what we think might possibly happen (and I am as guilty as any), shouldn't we go find out?

Just an idea.

While it may be interesting to experiment with these cards unrestricted I think the slippery slope argument applies here. This could lead to TO makeing there own B&R list. As much as I love what TOs do for the game it does not make sense for them or any group or individual person besides the DCI to make the banned and restricted. It has been shown in the past that the DCI knows what they are doing when it comes to Vintage. It might be interesting to experiment with this but I would not take it too far.

[MuzzonoAmi]

That's not necessarily true. SCG/TMD could have it's own "official" B&R list that would apply to the P9 touraments and Opens, respectively. Most TO's would chose to follow a published list unless their metagame is so insular/far from competitive that it doesn't matter anyway.

Ray, if you're following this, would you consider doing this at the Open?

[Roxas]

Now I am not advocating for a slippery slope ban/restrict everything, but I am saying, decks need to run defensive stratagies to combat the other decks. All of the cards I mentioned takes away from the other srtatgies of the deck, but they must be run to not autoscoop to the particular deck you are playing against. This game is interactive, the decks must be able to repsond to each other. If you don't, you are playing some turn 1 combo deck that hopes to hell the win that turn becaue if they don't, they have no outs.

Nobody's saying that it is impossible to combat Will.  In a tournament setting, it is common knowledge that you need to have some sort of answer to Will, whether it be counters, Tormod's Crypt, or whatever, because you are trying to win and need to go to every possible length within the rules of the game to achieve that goal.  However, if you actually read Steve's article, one of his biggest arguments is that it constrains deck design.

Whatever the case may be, in Vintage, far too many strategies strategy that a deck designer would try to build a deck around are inferior to just building your deck around Yawgmoth's Will first and foremost.

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.

-----

As far as banning DSC, I am reluctant to give that idea the dignity of a response.  It isn't "muscling" ANYTHING out of the format. 

Banning DSC - a few decks would loose power, and a minor handful of decks would go away.  It would open a venu for Mono-red and mono-green decks as well as validate other types of aggro decks. -- Net change in meta: More viable decks.

Banning Will - would euthinize most tendrils decks, and kill gifts control decks.  This would slow the format and give rise to some aggro style decks that were slightly too slow -- Net change in meta: minimal, you loose a top slice of decks and add it to th bottom, for every deck you loose, your adding an aggro deck.

No offense, but this is among the most illogical and uninformed things I have ever read.  Bad aggro decks were pretty unplayable before DSC was even printed (partly due to the existance of a certain black card).  Banning DSC wouldn't make any new decks viable, and it wouldn't make any existing ones go away.  Your "mono-red and mono-green" decks will not magically become playable just because Tinker -> DSC gone, I assure you.  They probably wouldn't with a Will banning either, but the archetype that would be weakened the most by its banning (combo) is among the many reasons those kinds of decks are unplayable (unless you are Master Tap).  Turn 1 Tinker -> DSC is the same speed as turn one Mox -> Orchard -> Oath, which is a far, far more likely play and much more difficult for your "mono-red and mono-green" to deal with.

Like someone said earlier, artifact creatures are supposed to be the easiest cards to "break" (as in destory) you pay this price in the ability to splash the creature in any deck.

Um, what?  Says who? 

One last note about Tinker/DSC: Even if you did get rid of DSC, Tinker would still be a major problem.  On the other hand, if you get rid of Tinker, DSC becomes totally worthless outside of Oath.  However, I don't think getting rid of either is reasonable at all. 

[chrissss]

I am just sooo shocked to read every time that there are people here who think that banned a creature that costs 11 mana is beter than banning a card that lets you put any artifact of your deck into play.
makes me cry actually.

I am suprised that people here havent voted akroma to be banned yet.

 

[Dralock]

Being that this is a hypothetical thread, I can see why people who put up arguments about what should be banned or restricted.

What I want people to answer right now is what is wrong with the format? If I missed it somewhere between pages 3 and 5 I apologize. At the end of page 2 everything was geared toward the banning of will and we have already made those arguments before.

So, what is so wrong with the format that the B/R list needs to change? And if the format is so sqewed, why don't you get your local TO's to run modded rules formats with things like banned will etc.?

It would at least make for interesting results, instead of a bunch of hypothetical hot air.

*edit* - I see glix's response on this page, and don't know how I missed it, but I did. Either way, my opinion stays the same.

[Purple Hat]

Quote from: Draven
Like someone said earlier, artifact creatures are supposed to be the easiest cards to "break" (as in destory) you pay this price in the ability to splash the creature in any deck.


Um, what?  Says who?  

I was under the impression that this was a generally accepted fact given that they can be destroyed by more things than any other perminant in the game (artifact removal, creature removal, taking lethal damage).  The only thing that comes close is enchant creatures, and that's only cus they die when the creature leaves play.

[Draven]

I have never and will never advocate banning Will, Tinker, DSC or any other card that doesn't break the rules of Magic (ante and flips).

One last note about Tinker/DSC: Even if you did get rid of DSC, Tinker would still be a major problem.  On the other hand, if you get rid of Tinker, DSC becomes totally worthless outside of Oath.  However, I don't think getting rid of either is reasonable at all.  

If you read my entire post, you would have seen that I worte the same thing you did... Let me quote it for you though...

The problem though, is without Tinker, DSC would not be played (aside from Oath *maybe). So, is DSC or Tinker the problem? (retorical question)

I don't need to say any more on this, we agree

However, if you actually read Steve's article, one of his biggest arguments is that it constrains deck design.

I have actually read Steve's article regarding Will. I haven't read it in month's, so I will not be able to quote it. I agree, Will is stupid busted. I agree, you can have a game go completely backwards for you, lose in all intents and purposes, rip a Will off the top and win. I agree, why build deck X, when you can just build Will.deck and it be better. I can continue, but we all get the point. Will is ridiculus, Will is stupid and Steve in all his might and glory already wrote an article on it.

The point is it is beatable. The reason why Will.deck is better than every other deck is because people have not yet seriously tried to combat Will. It seems people are contemp at saying "Yup, Will is busted" and then go about their business without trying to put any Will contingencies into their deck.

I was under the impression that this was a generally accepted fact given that they can be destroyed by more things than any other perminant in the game (artifact removal, creature removal, taking lethal damage).  The only thing that comes close is enchant creatures, and that's only cus they die when the creature leaves play.

Thank you, I couldn't remember who said it and really didn't want to look through the last 5 pages.

[Dante]

That's not necessarily true. SCG/TMD could have it's own "official" B&R list that would apply to the P9 touraments and Opens, respectively. Most TO's would chose to follow a published list unless their metagame is so insular/far from competitive that it doesn't matter anyway.

Ray, if you're following this, would you consider doing this at the Open?

To whomever is suggesting that people don't stick with the official B/R list - you won't be playing the same format anymore.  While non-sanctioned tournaments don't HAVE to adhere to official WOTC anything, they do because people have certain expectations of Vintage, namely, what cards they can and cannot have in what numbers in there deck.  The only thing that is different about proxy tournaments is that some of the cards aren't "real" cards, just placeholders.  But they function the same.

Anyone proposing that "we" (TMD, SCG, groups of players) break off and form their own B/R list is out of their mind.  There are so many negatives (splintering of player base being the primary one) that it's not even worth considering.  High-level tournaments (Gencon, SCG, Waterbury, etc [I didn't mention Europe because they all seem to be sanctioned anyway]) need to be Vintage tournaments, not some "TO makes up the B/R to test things out" tournament.


If people want to run some "testing tournaments" to provide insight to the DCI, go for it, but do NOT come close to advertising it as anything remotely like Vintage.  Splintering a player base is the absolute worst thing that can happen.

[netherspirit]

I am suprised that people here havent voted akroma to be banned yet.

 

Why would they?!

[nataz]

That's not necessarily true. SCG/TMD could have it's own "official" B&R list that would apply to the P9 touraments and Opens, respectively. Most TO's would chose to follow a published list unless their metagame is so insular/far from competitive that it doesn't matter anyway.

Ray, if you're following this, would you consider doing this at the Open?

This is the most terrible idea in the entire thread. The moment Type 1 becomes 5 color is the moment I stop playing. I don't trust most people here to craft a decent sideboard, let alone the rules for the entire game.

[Thug]

Shouldn't we start by restricting Brainstorm??

Koen

[Jacob Orlove]

Shouldn't we start by restricting Brainstorm??

Koen

Brainstorm is quite honestly better than at least a third of the current restricted list (as is Force), but restricting them actually reduces diversity and format quality. You can only have maximum diversity when decks have a certain level of manabase and draw consistency. Compare last year's Standard with what it looks like with Rav block. All the dual lands and mana fixing mean that *more* decks are viable. Brainstorm and Force do much the same thing, by ensuring that more decks can draw what they need, and survive a broken opening by the opponent. Restricting either of these (or fetchlands, as someone suggested) would narrow the format to only the most powerful decks, as everything else would be much less consistent, and therefore unable to compete.

Back to Demonic Consultation, yeah it is insane in MD Tendrils, especially when you get to cast spoils with <20 cards in your library. People seem to have a totally irrational fear of randomly losing when they play Consult, but they forget that it is an instant speed Demonic for half the mana. I would play 8 if I could.

[Dante]

That's not necessarily true. SCG/TMD could have it's own "official" B&R list that would apply to the P9 touraments and Opens, respectively. Most TO's would chose to follow a published list unless their metagame is so insular/far from competitive that it doesn't matter anyway.

Ray, if you're following this, would you consider doing this at the Open?

This is the most terrible idea in the entire thread. The moment Type 1 becomes 5 color is the moment I stop playing. I don't trust most people here to craft a decent sideboard, let alone the rules for the entire game.

I barely trust most people to make it home safe without a foam helmet strapped on tightly, much less anything like a B/R list.

Let's keep the idea of a separate B/R list outside of this thread.  If someone wants to start a thread on the merits of that, feel free, but let's keep this one about what cards should and shouldn't be on the B/R list.

Dante

[Smmenen]

However, if you actually read Steve's article, one of his biggest arguments is that it constrains deck design.

I have actually read Steve's article regarding Will. I haven't read it in month's, so I will not be able to quote it. I agree, Will is stupid busted. I agree, you can have a game go completely backwards for you, lose in all intents and purposes, rip a Will off the top and win. I agree, why build deck X, when you can just build Will.deck and it be better. I can continue, but we all get the point. Will is ridiculus, Will is stupid and Steve in all his might and glory already wrote an article on it.

The point is it is beatable. The reason why Will.deck is better than every other deck is because people have not yet seriously tried to combat Will. It seems people are contemp at saying "Yup, Will is busted" and then go about their business without trying to put any Will contingencies into their deck.

But if I'm right that Will is the dominant strategy - and a proxy for all other viable strategies, then the only other viable strategy is anti-will - which is what you suggest.  But don't you think we are already there?

I                                                                                                        II                       III
Y  A   W  G     M    O   T   H   S    W  I    L   L      D  E   C  K  S   |   ANTI- WILL DECKS |    OTHER
        /                                              \                                     (Fish, Stax, Ichorid             Dragon?
       /                                                 \                                        Rod/Chalice Oath)             
      /                                                    \
DARK RITUAL BASED                                MANA DRAIN BASED
   |         |                                                 |                \
   |         |                                                 |                 \
   |         |                                                 |                  \
   IT     GRIM LONG                              Meandeck Gifts      Control Slaver 
                                                       Other Gifts Decks
Is that healthy?

Banning Will would end this nonsense and give us real strategies again: like Psychatog + Berserk.  Rector. 

Rich doesn't think that Slaver is a per se Yawg Will deck - but if you take Will out, that deck is a totally different animal.  I don't even think we can recognize it without will. 

I'd, personally, like to see Slaver be forced to protect its kill without Will proxy. 

I think strategic diversity would return to the format with the murder of Yawg Will.  I could be wrong though. 

[Draven]

However, if you actually read Steve's article, one of his biggest arguments is that it constrains deck design.

I have actually read Steve's article regarding Will. I haven't read it in month's, so I will not be able to quote it. I agree, Will is stupid busted. I agree, you can have a game go completely backwards for you, lose in all intents and purposes, rip a Will off the top and win. I agree, why build deck X, when you can just build Will.deck and it be better. I can continue, but we all get the point. Will is ridiculus, Will is stupid and Steve in all his might and glory already wrote an article on it.

The point is it is beatable. The reason why Will.deck is better than every other deck is because people have not yet seriously tried to combat Will. It seems people are contemp at saying "Yup, Will is busted" and then go about their business without trying to put any Will contingencies into their deck.

But if I'm right that Will is the dominant strategy - and a proxy for all other viable strategies, then the only other viable strategy is anti-will - which is what you suggest. But don't you think we are already there?

I II III
Y A W G M O T H S W I L L D E C K S | ANTI- WILL DECKS | OTHER
 / \ (Fish, Stax, Ichorid Dragon?
 / \ Rod/Chalice Oath)
 / \
DARK RITUAL BASED MANA DRAIN BASED
 | | | \
 | | | \
 | | | \
 IT GRIM LONG Meandeck Gifts Control Slaver
 Other Gifts Decks
Is that healthy?

Banning Will would end this nonsense and give us real strategies again: like Psychatog + Berserk. Rector.

Rich doesn't think that Slaver is a per se Yawg Will deck - but if you take Will out, that deck is a totally different animal. I don't even think we can recognize it without will.

I'd, personally, like to see Slaver be forced to protect its kill without Will proxy.

I think strategic diversity would return to the format with the murder of Yawg Will. I could be wrong though.

Wasn't Tog a Will based deck?

My point is Steve, is whether we are there or not (Will vs Anti-Will) does it matter? Magic used to be a rock-paper-scissors game. Magic is still a rock-paper-scissors game. It is just different from picking Control-Aggro-Combo, now you are picking Will-AntiWill-Other.

I'm just saying I don't think it is as bad as people think/say it is...I have been beaten by Will alot, but I have also been beaten by alot of other things, alot.

Cute diagram, by the way...