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

[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.

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.

If that's true, then my point is also true - even if you don't accept the conclusion that the point (that Will narrows the strategic diversity of the format) suggests (unacceptbly so). 

[Evenpence]

I think Steve is absolutely right, and Yawg's Will bannination would increase format diversity.

[Cross]

Just because you label a certain category of decks a certain way does not mean the format is warped. Your anti-will decks seem more like decks that just take on strategies that don't involve will, that doesn't make them anti-will.

Edit: also, why do you consider these decks anti will decks? As far as fish oath and stax go it looks like they run cards that stop mana development, not will. This just lends more fuel to the below argument that will is not the best card, and in fact lotus, and to a great extent the moxen are way more format warping.

I think the most important part of the ban will argument is that it hinges on will being the best card in the format, which it isn't. As long as that is a truth to the format there's no way to consider any arguments pertaining to banning it because they are flawed.

[MuzzonoAmi]

It might increase diversity of STRATEGY(and only slightly), but not diversity of DECKS. The new decks that crop up are likely to be crap. The only appreciable change would be that combo would slow down between .5-1.5 turns, making bad aggro more viable, but not viable enough to actually do anything substantial. Tendrils decks would become far weaker as Ill-Gotten Gains (or possibly unrestricted Regrowth) is(are) the only remaining card(s) whose functionality even approaches Will's. If that didn't work, combo would be fundamentally altered for the worse. Even weakened, however, new combo decks would still beat the bad aggro that cropped up. Your issue here seems to be that High Tide, Goblin Charbelcher, and Academy Rector seem more "fair" than Yawgmoth's Will. That isn't a vaild reason for banning something.

You might say, though, that it forces control to diversify. I call shenanigans. It nerfs Gifts as we know it, but it will probably come back, just looking different. All it really loses is its normal means of getting a kill, which, when you get down to it(and as you yourself have observed), is incidental. CS would continue to be awesome, and fundamentally unchanged, contrary to your suggestion. All control loses by banning Will is one way to go broken/go for combo kills. It still beats the bad decks that will crop up. Being less cynical, though, we might net 1 new, good deck by banning Will. Really, we might. It might slow things down just enough to let Enchantress be good again (it has the closest effect to Will that would still be around), but I doubt it.   But one deck is all I predict a net gain of.

The other issue I take with your argument is that I have yet to see a dedicated "anti-Will" strategy outside of the handful of Fish builds that take that route. People don't run Tormod's Crypt or Phyrexian Furnace or Withered Wretch main to hate Will. They run them because NEARLY EVERY DECK IN THE FORMAT acesses its graveyard in some way over the course of the game. Workshop decks run Welder and Crucible. Control and Combo run Will. Ichorid and Dragon don't work without emptying themselves into the graveyard. Oath runs Blessing. If I build Oath, I don't add Chalice and countermagic thinking "These let me stop Yawgmoth's Will"; I run them thinking "These let me survive long enough/disrupt my opponent enough to win the game".

[Glix]

Until I see substantial proof, I am pro-will.

Yawgmoth's Will is broken, no doubt.  When it is successfully cast, it tends to be game winning.  However, using "changing control" as an argument doesn't seem logical.  In control decks, Yawgmoth's Will, as I believe you once states, steve, is a win condition.  Would you claim that no other win condition would be discovered?  Maybe so, but probably not.  The real question is does this justify violating a founding principle of vintage?  That all cards may be played (of course this excludes cards that ban themselves (ante) and the dextery cards that were just stupid ideas in the first place, on principle rather than power level).  I don't think anyone would doubt that control would survive.  Slaver would probably be completely unchanged (will is a huge tool and win condition, but not necessassrilly an essential one).  Gifts would have to retool itself, but I'm sure it would be able to figure our a new win condition.

It is combo that bites the bullet here.  That destroys a pillar of the format (of the five), and may, or may not, distort the format heavily.  That is a concern.  That is why it must be tested first.

But that is not the problem I most greatly fear.  Steve, you yourself lead the prostest on how the errata on Time Vault was a bad move.  For the record, I think the change is acceptable (and that it should be futhure retooled so that it works the way its worded without time ocunters), but the timing is not, and hurt a lot of players.  But you were conserned on the president it set.  What president would this set?  A fundamental change that could, or could not, result in a monster we don't want to deal with.

Currently, the format feels acceptable to me.  It could be a little more diverse, but nothing is really dominating.  Stax will likely get a new tool soon, and with it rebound, as it has done since its inception.

I suggested that a "ffl" of sorts be created for vintage to test these, not real touraments (someone else took my statement a step too far, imo).  Could we at least test a format without will, etc.?  It seems that that would give us more substantial proof.

[Juggernaut GO]

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 could write a book on the amount of times I have lost to a control slaver player only because they topdecked yawg will, or found it with a brainstorm.  That card is the entire deck, and without it, the deck dies.  I laugh at anyone that says control slaver takes skill to play, you draw a bunch of cards, find yawg will, then draw more, time walk, then lock your opponent out lol.  Banning will would bust the format wide open, and I think it would weaken drain decks and possibly put them on even keel with shop decks.

[M.Solymossy]

I could write a book on the number of times I've won, or watched Rich win, or been beaten by Rich, without Yawgmoths Will resolving.  I actually sideboard the card out in certain matchups.

[Dante]

I could write a book on the number of times I've won, or watched Rich win, or been beaten by Rich, without Yawgmoths Will resolving.  I actually sideboard the card out in certain matchups.

Let's chalk that last sentence up to an attempted hyperbole gone very, very wrong....

[Evenpence]

I could write a book on the number of times I've won, or watched Rich win, or been beaten by Rich, without Yawgmoths Will resolving.

See, that's possible because Yawgmoth's Will actually isn't a win condition.

You should know that no deck, not even ones based around Yawgmoth's Will absolutely must cast it in order to win.

[AngryPheldagrif]

Funny, I haven't resolved Yawg Will in months.

[Dante]

I could write a book on the number of times I've won, or watched Rich win, or been beaten by Rich, without Yawgmoths Will resolving.

See, that's possible because Yawgmoth's Will actually isn't a win condition.

You should know that no deck, not even ones based around Yawgmoth's Will absolutely must cast it in order to win.

Sideboarding it out, however, is wrong.  Unless there is some bizarre situation that I'd like to hear about.

[Moxlotus]

I could write a book on the amount of times I have lost to a control slaver player only because they topdecked yawg will, or found it with a brainstorm.  That card is the entire deck, and without it, the deck dies. 

Wasn't there a Waterbury or something where the 2 final Slaver lists didn't run any black?

[Evenpence]

Sideboarding it out, however, is wrong.  Unless there is some bizarre situation that I'd like to hear about.

I'm in agreement here, Dante.

[Juggernaut GO]

Wasn't there a Waterbury or something where the 2 final Slaver lists didn't run any black?

No, the finals were between 2 goth slaver decks that Rich Shay labeled as "training wheels" slaver because they used intuition and AK.  With a top 16 with about 12 control slaver decks, those 2 rose to the top, and Rich got knocked out by my metalworker deck in the round of 16.

[M.Solymossy]

Against ICBM Oath Yawgmoths Will is about the WORST card in Slaver.  Your mana acceleration doesn't do dick against Chalice + Null rod.  You've got better cards against the deck than a 3CC black card, that usually won't give you much of an advantage.

[Dante]

Against ICBM Oath Yawgmoths Will is about the WORST card in Slaver.  Your mana acceleration doesn't do dick against Chalice + Null rod.  You've got better cards against the deck than a 3CC black card, that usually won't give you much of an advantage.

It's doubtfully the worst card.  Just because an Oath Player has 4 Chalice and 2 Null Rods doesn't mean you'll see them every game or get them to stick (most slaver variations play maindeck artifact removal).  All it takes is one EOT rebuild or other [commonly played] bounce spell and Will is back online.

I'd need to see a specific list with the +/- sideboard plan, but I'm sure I can find something I'd rather side out before Will.

[orgcandman]

I could write a book on the amount of times I have lost to a control slaver player only because they topdecked yawg will, or found it with a brainstorm.  That card is the entire deck, and without it, the deck dies.  I laugh at anyone that says control slaver takes skill to play, you draw a bunch of cards, find yawg will, then draw more, time walk, then lock your opponent out lol.  Banning will would bust the format wide open, and I think it would weaken drain decks and possibly put them on even keel with shop decks.

I'm calling bullshit on this right now. I've played control slaver off and on for the past 2 years. It's NOTHING BUT knowing when to thirst, drop your welder, and activate mindslaver. Will just happens to be a good enough card that it makes the cut, along with its little buddy DT. However, look at results from even last year. UR slaver running aks and intuitions was tearing everything up. Will is NOT the keystone of this deck like it is with gifts.dec or tog.

[Juggernaut GO]

Ok, call bullshit all you want, but cut will from control slaver, and you wont be seeing the deck make top 8's anywhere signifigant.

Will enables the deck to get back in the game after turn 6-10 after it has exhaused its resources trying to control the opponent and get board control.  Some decks slaver plays against are so shitty, you dont even need will to play catchup and get control of the game back, and you see alot of this at myriad games.

However, against other tier 1 decks, will is the only reason the control slaver stands a chance to get back into the game and get board control and win the game.  Therefore in a fuly tier 1 environment where you don't get paired against scrubby decks, control slaver has to rely on will to win each game.

I heard a great control slaver player once say after a CS mirror that "Everything leading up to yawg will is just bait, the only spell you need to resolve to win the game is yawgmoths will."

That pretty much cements the fact that Control slaver is entirely reliant on Yawg will to win a match in a tier 1 environment.

I want to add something about the intuition/ak U/R version of slaver, I see that deck as an entirely different deck then control slaver, it relies way more on welder/intuition and welder/thirst and draws more cards then regular control slaver.  I think having intuition/ak makes up for the lack of running will, as intuition can win the game straight away with an active welder.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

Quote from Rich Shay on February 02, 2006, 10:58:35 AM

Quote from: Quality_Bear on February 02, 2006, 05:20:48 AM
Would there be any advantages in running a u/r version of slaver? Clearly you would lose card quality without tutor/s, and miss out on darkblast, but you would on the other hand have a more stable manabase, and perhaps be able to open up other doors. Thoughts?

In response, please allow me to quote myself from February of last year, from the TMD discussion of my article on why Intuition/AK doesn't belong in Slaver.

Yawgmoth's Will increases my match against everything. Even against a deck like Stax, which can Waste the two to three Underground Seas that I play, and which can temporarily nullify Will with Trinisphere, I love what Black does for the deck. As for the Wastelands, remember that I play a hefty 26 mana sources. Goblin Welder can very often get rid of Trinisphere, and post board, Rack and Ruin can clear the way for Yawgmoth. You only need one Trisphere-free turn to end the game with Will.

Against a deck like Stax, or any sort of deck, Yawgmoth's Will allows Control Slaver to come back from nowhere. I have gone countless times from two lands and nothing in my hand to having a complete lock. I play Control Slaver as though the deck were based on Yawgmoth's Will. I would sooner cut Ancestral Recall than Yawgmoth's Will.

I don't think that Yawgmoth's Will should be banned.  It certainly affects the format a great deal and does impose deck limitations, but other cards do this as well. 

There is no quesiton, however, that banning this card would fundamentally change the way control decks work.  Will is what makes them so powerful, because it has such synergy with chaining card draw and mana development.  The fact is, however, that it still requires a good amount of set-up and the investment of a singificant amount of resources in order to win.  The control deck often builds to a Yawgmoth's Will over the entire course of the game.  Without Will, card-drawing based strategies become less powerful because there isn't as efficient a way to convert those resources into killing one's opponent.

I consider Will, as aguably the best card, to be the epitome of Vintage.  Others may disagree with me, but I think that it is part of what makes the format so fun.  Even if I'm not playing a Will-based deck, I enjoy the challenge of playing against one.  I know that I can't slip up and give them any wiggle room at all, because it might be possible for them to come back and win.

I must admit, however, that Steve's arguments do carry a great deal of weight.  Separating decks into Will decks and anti-Will decks is certainlya possible way of looking at things.  We still do have a diverse number of viable decks in the format, however, with various different builds evovling and achieving varying degrees of sucess.  Could we have more diversity?  Probably.  But I think that what we have now is pretty good, and to use a cliché, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

[Draven]

If that's true, then my point is also true - even if you don't accept the conclusion that the point (that Will narrows the strategic diversity of the format) suggests (unacceptbly so). 

Steve... I think I figured it out. The reason we arn't "agreeing" is because we do agree. I agree that Will is so dominant that decks either need to run Will or have a way to combat it. (Bonus points if you do both) However, and here it is: I am okay with it.

[Evenpence]

Steve... I think I figured it out. The reason we arn't "agreeing" is because we do agree. I agree that Will is so dominant that decks either need to run Will or have a way to combat it. (Bonus points if you do both) However, and here it is: I am okay with it.

Does that make you or your argument better or something?  Just because I'm okay with unrestricted Ancestral Recall doesn't mean it's best for the format.

[Draven]

Steve... I think I figured it out. The reason we arn't "agreeing" is because we do agree. I agree that Will is so dominant that decks either need to run Will or have a way to combat it. (Bonus points if you do both) However, and here it is: I am okay with it.

Does that make you or your argument better or something?  Just because I'm okay with unrestricted Ancestral Recall doesn't mean it's best for the format.

My opinion is just that, an opinion. Just like Steve's. Take away all his arguments (in the logic sense) and all his lawyer talk and it is just Steve's opinion.

Where we disagree is what "is" and "isn't" good for the fromat. My opinion is Yawg's will, albeit broken as hell, is okay for the format. Steve's opinon is Yawg's Will is broken as hell, and is not good for the format.

On a final note, I do believe Steve knows alot about Magic, I have even built a few of his decks and played them at tourneys (like a good little sheep  ) I just don't agree with his opinion on this topic.

[dicemanx]

I find that there isn't enough justification for banning Will. I am certainly for increasing diversity in the format and wouldn't be bothered if they banned or errata'd cards to achieve it, but given that Will is legal in the format and so many archtypes already exist, I'm not quite ready to buy into the arguments so easily. Its banning would be nothing more than an experiment which could backfire - we might find ourselves in a sitation where a narrowing of diversity occurs because a particular strategy comes to the forefront and dominates or distorts heavily. The B/R list can then handle that of course, but we're then embarking on a path with unknown consequences, and we have to juxtapose that with the current scenario and the diversity we enjoy now.

Plus, I think that there's another way to look at Will. While the card isn't the basis of a dominant strategy, it prevents (collectively with other powerful cards centered around Shops, Bazaar, Null Rod etc) the domination of *any* strategy in this format. The fomat brokenness serves to generate this bizarre regulatory function - even a deck that goldfishes on turn 1 70% of the time doesn't lead to dominating or distortive effects. That's incredible.

[Smmenen]

Quote from Rich Shay on February 02, 2006, 10:58:35 AM

Quote from: Quality_Bear on February 02, 2006, 05:20:48 AM
Would there be any advantages in running a u/r version of slaver? Clearly you would lose card quality without tutor/s, and miss out on darkblast, but you would on the other hand have a more stable manabase, and perhaps be able to open up other doors. Thoughts?

In response, please allow me to quote myself from February of last year, from the TMD discussion of my article on why Intuition/AK doesn't belong in Slaver.

Yawgmoth's Will increases my match against everything. Even against a deck like Stax, which can Waste the two to three Underground Seas that I play, and which can temporarily nullify Will with Trinisphere, I love what Black does for the deck. As for the Wastelands, remember that I play a hefty 26 mana sources. Goblin Welder can very often get rid of Trinisphere, and post board, Rack and Ruin can clear the way for Yawgmoth. You only need one Trisphere-free turn to end the game with Will.

Against a deck like Stax, or any sort of deck, Yawgmoth's Will allows Control Slaver to come back from nowhere. I have gone countless times from two lands and nothing in my hand to having a complete lock. I play Control Slaver as though the deck were based on Yawgmoth's Will. I would sooner cut Ancestral Recall than Yawgmoth's Will.

I forgot about that quote from Rich Shay.  Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Moxlotus]

Wasn't there a Waterbury or something where the 2 final Slaver lists didn't run any black?

No, the finals were between 2 goth slaver decks that Rich Shay labeled as "training wheels" slaver because they used intuition and AK.  With a top 16 with about 12 control slaver decks, those 2 rose to the top, and Rich got knocked out by my metalworker deck in the round of 16.

The point is that Jeff Tussi still won a Waterbury with a Slaver list that doesn't have Will.  Obviously Will is amazing in Slaver decks and most people would look at you as though you were an idiot if you were to play Slaver without Will today.  However, if Will is banned the deck simply won't die as some suggested.  There is proof that a Will-less Slaver list can succeed if it needed to.

The fomat brokenness serves to generate this bizarre regulatory function - even a deck that goldfishes on turn 1 70% of the time doesn't lead to dominating or distortive effects. That's incredible.

Agreed.

[Juggernaut GO]

My argument was that if you took a control slaver deck that people generally run(any of the cs decks that top 8'd at richmond) and removed yawgmoths will from it, the deck would not be viable. 

Intuition slaver plays out like a completely different deck then control slaver does.  It's almost more like mono blue control, with a slaver lock as kill condition.  Its rooted way deeper in card advantage, and intuition/welder interaction then the popular control slaver decks that are played today.  While Intuition slaver relies super heavily on goblin welder, it's not a deck that absolutely depends on resolving a tinker, like control slaver does, and yawg will is not even in the deck.

However, I still think a 2color intuition slaver deck wouldn't be too slow to run today in a field of gifts, oath, and certain fish decks.  That deck was a great meta game choice for the time it did well, then it fell off the map after gifts/SSB became popular.

[Vegeta2711]

My argument was that if you took a control slaver deck that people generally run(any of the cs decks that top 8'd at richmond) and removed yawgmoths will from it, the deck would not be viable. 

If you take Will out from the other decks at the same time, you wouldn't think the massive power decrease would allow even a weaker CS to compete? And fish? ZOMG I HAVE TO RUN MD AND BOARD REMOVAL NOW *cry cry, mark 2-0 vs. fish, cry cry*

Yeah dumping Will from Slaver would allow less BS recoveries or wins. But since the entire format is based on those types of cards, eh, I can accept that.

[M.Solymossy]

I still managed to  play Will and DT in Gothenburg Slaver.  *shrug*

[Space_Stormy]

While it is true that removing Will would remove many bullshit wins, many decks would suffer at the loss.  But what I am not sure of is wether or not that is a bad thing.  Tendrils based combo would lose steam and gifts would be pretty much dead.  But don't you think that this event would cause the rise of all workshop and Oath decks?  Without Will, combo would be Dragon and Sensei Sensei, Combo-Control would be a weaker Control Slaver and I could see a return of  Keeper and the aggro would be able to return with first-turn wins being much harder to pull off (combo without Will is so weak and fragile that most would not bother to play it) So, fish and maybe even FCG could return (it did win a SCGP9) I don't see many new decks that could pop up as a result of the banning, so it would, inadvertantly, cause a lessing to deck diversity rather than the latter.

[Smmenen]

Just to be absolutely clear:

I, personally, do not want Yawg Will banned. I like the card alot and have won most of my power off it. However, I think that banning will would be the best thing for the format.  I want to continue to be able to play Long and Gifts.