Should Gifts be Restricted? An outsider's perspective.

[kurtkeoki]

   I am not an accomplished Vintage player. I'm a player with moderate PTQ success, in both Constructed and Limited, but I've never been a serious Vintage player. It is from that perspective that I write this. The question is this: Is Gifts Ungiven too skill-based to be un-restricted?
   I recently attended a Vintage Tournament at RIW in Detroit. A player I know, who is a very accomplished Fish player, but also maintains that he isn't a Vintage player, was piloting gifts for the first time at an important tourney. He struggled a bit with the deck, and although I assumed his 3-3 record was more a result of bad luck than play errors, he was commenting on how many mistakes he had made. After the tourney, he and I played some games, first with my Bomberman deck against gifts, then later he on Burning Slaver and me on Gifts. Each of us had an accomplished gifts player watch us play, and give us advice. Almost all the mistakes we made, and by mistake I mean when the accomplished player disagreed with our play, had to do with Gifts Ungiven. The myriad of options that are available with this card have been discussed many times elsewhere, so I won't go into that. My concern is that this card may be too skill-intensive to be healthy for the format.
   Magic has always been a game about both skill and luck. Skill will usually win out, but the reason people keep going to Grand Prixs, PTQs, State championships, and even prereleases, is that they feel they have the chance to win if they catch some lucky breaks. If magic were 100% skill, then normal players, even some pro-tour level players, would never beat Antoine Ruel. They need to get lucky to do so. But that is the beauty of the game. I know that I have a chance to win every tournament I go to if I can catch a few breaks. I wouldn't go if I knew I didn't have a chance to win. Very rarely, if ever, do I feel like I'm the best player at a tournament, but I always feel like I have a chance to win. This is the same reason people play poker. They know they aren't as good as Phil Hellmuth or Doyle Brunson, but they know that in poker, anyone has a chance to win if they catch a very lucky run of cards. Antoine Ruel doesn't win every pro tour, just like Phil Hellmuth doesn't win every poker tournament. No one would play poker if the best players always won. The same is true for Magic.
   That brings us to possibly the most skill-intensive card in Magic, and that is Gifts Ungiven. The reason I feel it is more skill-intensive that something like Brainstorm, Duress, Meddling Mage, or Cabal Therapy is that it involves both the player casting Gifts and his or her opponent. With no other card will the difference in skill be so apparent and exploitable as it is with this one. The greater burden of skill probably resides with the caster, but even someone that isn't a good Gifts player, and has chosen to pilot an easier deck, is faced with very tough decisions regarding this card. There is no escaping Gifts at a major Vintage tournament.
   I don't mean to cheapen skill in Vintage, or to say that the more prepared and more skilled players don't deserve to win the most, but in order for the format to expand its player base, we need it to be somewhat friendly to new and casual players. Vintage is by far the least friendly format when it comes to recruiting new players. If you take ten good players, and have them play a set of matches against good players from Vintage, Extended, limited, Standard, and Legacy, I'm willing to bet that almost across the board the players will have the worst record in Vintage. It is simply a monstrous and intimidating format. And Gifts Ungiven is one of the primary culprits.
   When making the decision the restrict gifts or not, we need to ask the question, "Is there such a thing as being too skill intensive when it comes to a Magic card?" For many the answer is no. They are the skilled Gifts pilots with hundreds of hours playing the deck, and playing against the deck. For some, the answer is yes. They are the players that haven't the aptitude with gifts, and can be found piloting Oath, Fish, or Goblins because they are easier for a new player to win with. I believe restricting the card would balance things out a bit. The skilled player would still be able to achieve an advantage with their single copy, but the less-experienced player wouldn't be blown out of the water by his superior opponent because of multiple gifts every game.
   I would like to hear the thoughts of players that play gifts and also those that don't. Does this card deserve restriction? Also, does my arguement of it being too skill-intensive have any merit, or is it better to be giving more advantage to the skilled player? Thanks for reading, and again, any feedback is appreciated.
Kurt Fruth

[Necropotenza]

Hi, you should read this The Vintage Paradox by Moxlotus: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12828.html

In my opinion Gifts should not be restricted, even less for the reason you argue. Being a average vintage player isn't harder than in any other format. There's no point in restricting Gifts to lower the skill in vintage because we should have to do the same with other cards. Newcomers will learn the basics of how to split a Gifts pile in a few games if they know how a Gifts deck is built.

[UR]

I don't play Gifts and I probably never will, it just doesn't suit my play-style. And while I agree that Gifts rewards players with superior skill, I don't agree with restricting the card.

I realise that Gifts usually reads; "Congratulations on your win because there is no pile he can make that will save him!" but in my opinion the match usually isn't about the Gifts itself. Everything leading up to the Gifts however is much more important. Where are you in the race? What has my opponent got? What have you got to protect it? It is just like Dragon resolving an Animate Dead or Confidant Control resolving a Tinker, the actual card that wins the game isn't very important. That well timed Mana Drain or leading up to the Gifts however is important.

Yes, Gifts Ungiven is difficult on both players, but I don't think people shy away from difficult plays. Remember Structure and Force in standard? That was ridiculously difficult to pilot through a tournament and fairly difficult to play against (especially if you were playing somebody like Frank Karsten) but that never turned people away from tournaments. I can think of several other decks in non-Vintage formats that I could have taken as an example here.

Banning or restricting card won't solve Vintage's problem methinks. Showing people that Vintage isn't a format where the most broken cards win all the time will attract more players. Show them how Vintage can be fun without being much more expensive than for instance your Extended deck (this will only work in America because they proxy stuff). Once they have a little experience under their belt, they will start to do better (believe me).

[pyr0ma5ta]

I don't see the argument.  Gifts is too skill intensive, so it should be restricted?  Huh?  Isn't the whole point of Magic to be a skill-based game where luck is only a minor factor?  Although Antoine Ruel is a top-ranked pro, he doesn't win every Pro Tour, like you mentioned.  He does, however, consistently Top 32, the mark of a consistent player.  Are you arguing that since he is so technically skilled at the game, he should be handicapped by making the game more random so others can beat him?

Your argument doesn't hold water.  Skill-intensive cards are good for the game.  They separate good players from the bad, and great players from the good.  If anything, the random and obviously overpowered cards (Tinker, Will) are those that you should be looking at for bannination, rather than restricting fair, skill-intensive, interactive cards like Gifts.

[policehq]

It would be a scary precedent indeed for WotC to establish that a card requiring a higher amount of playskill to optimize should be restricted.

I find it inconsistent, though, that Gifts would be unrestricted while Fact or Fiction is limited to one. The casting costs and instant-speed are the same, yet Gifts decks are built to win from a pile where they end up with all four cards at their disposal, much like Trinisphere decks were designed to be able to play around the higher casting costs.

-hq

[dicemanx]

Instead of asking for restriction to have the game match your current skill level, what about trying to raise your skill level to match the level required to be a consistent performer? It seems like you're resigning yourself to being inferior to those that are consistent performers and use luck as a justification for even playing. When you were testing with/against a Gifts deck, and had an experienced Gifts player watch over you, you're being to negative in stating that the experienced Gifts player was disagreeing with a lot of the Gifts piles as some indication of the inferiority of the Gifts pilot. Instead, why not look at the glass as half full - it's all part of the learning process, and it takes a little time and effort and experience to raise the level of your game.

I dont foresee "too skill intensive" as ever being a valid criteria for restriction. Just the opposite: we need more skill intensive cards in the format.

[That0neguy]

As a card that is too skill intensive, Gifts should not be restricted.  However, I still think it should be restricted for being a good tutor/draw spell, which should be restricted.

[[FtN|FH] Negator]

Hi, you should read this The Vintage Paradox by Moxlotus: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12828.html

In my opinion Gifts should not be restricted, even less for the reason you argue. Being a average vintage player isn't harder than in any other format. There's no point in restricting Gifts to lower the skill in vintage because we should have to do the same with other cards. Newcomers will learn the basics of how to split a Gifts pile in a few games if they know how a Gifts deck is built.

Nothing to add.
A card should never be restricted for "being to skill intensive".

[Moxlotus]

My concern is that this card may be too skill-intensive to be healthy for the format.
 

That might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life.  A card is too hard for you to use, so it must be restricted?  As opposed to, you know, actually testing the deck and getting better?  I don't mean to make it sound like a flame, but do you realize what you're saying?

[zeus-online]

You got it all upsides down...being skill-intensive is good. Keeps the deck in check and challenges players...i'd refuse to play magic if it was all about luck, i hate the luck factor in magic and try to minimize it whenever i play and build a deck.

Take trinisphere for example, Trinisphere is incredibly powerful and easy to use combining to create a dominating deck (Shop, 3sphere, go ?)

Also Fact or fiction is skill-intensive, but not for the caster, he gets the easy end, just picking what he need with way more information then the poor guy splitting the pile. This is ofcourse somewhat true for gifts aswell.

/Zeus

[Disburden]

AS much as Gifts is powerful, on the even side of the argument it is skill intensive. This is why the card won't be restricted. We also have yet to even come close to abusing Gifts in a totally busted manner. Cards that get Restricted don't require skill and just screw opponents out of a competitive match. See Trinisphere for example. That card was dropped on turn one without any kind of calculating or strategy. When Gifts becomes as busted as it could be, I can see it being restricted. I agree with Chapin when he says the card is truely powerful and nuts, but that doesn't mean anyone abuses it to this point yet. Gifts might even be that totally busted card that just slips out of our hands before we find an absolutely nonsense way of playing it. I still see a lot of suboptimal lists and not so sure fire powerful way to bust this card. Meandeck Gifts is the only thing to come close to abusing the power of the card.

Skill intensive is a good thing. Just test more games.

[EotGiftsGG?]

nope. A skill intensive card means that it is hard to play. Unlike Ancestral, you dont just pay a blue and draw three, you need to choose your own fate. Like mortal Kombat. "FIGHT"!

[desolutionist]

nope. A skill intensive card means that it is hard to play. Unlike Ancestral, you dont just pay a blue and draw three, you need to choose your own fate. Like mortal Kombat. "FIGHT"!

Resolving an Ancestral is arguably more skill testing than constructing the perfect Gifts pile.

[Arctanis]

I don't think gifts (or any card) should be restricted for being too skill-intensive.  Magic consists of skill and a little luck, and both parts make the game enjoyable.  I do agree with one part though...it does seem that a casual player would have a hard time getting into Vintage.  In my opinion, it seems that vintage players have forgotten about the casual players that helped jump-start the format.  However, just because entering vintage is intimidating to the casual player, doesn't mean that good cards should be restricted for your benefit.  Take the time to increase your skill - you have to crawl before you can walk.

[xycsoscyx]

Resolving an Ancestral requires no skill at all other than "Counter their Counters", it does all the work for you.  Gifts, by its very nature, requires both players to make the choices, Ancestral just gives someone three cards.

Above and beyond that, yes, I think Gifts should be restricted.  Any card that requires you to actually play skillfully should be restricted.  Smokestack should be restricted for the same reason "Do I add a counter, what do I sack", the fact that it makes BOTH players make skillful decisions means its just unhealthy for the format.  Do new players want to decide what permanent to sac, no!  Restricting it will allow new players to join in and make the format a bit less broken.  We should also flat out Ban all straight tutors as they require too much skill deciding what to tutor for.  Yup, really, it's true, it's bad, baaaaad.  </sarcasm>

Ok, in all seriousness, as it's been stated, restrictions should occur because the card is warping or overpowering the format.  The fact is, Gifts actually adds more interaction to the game BECAUSE it requires players to actually think, BOTH players.  First turn Accel, Will, Accel, Tutor, Tendrils is not interactive (it's pretty kool, but it's not interactive in the least), Gifts IS, including the fact that it takes a bit of setup.  First turn Gifts is nice, but by no means a game winner (unless they already had the perfect hand before that).

Above and beyond that, should Gifts be banned in other formats (Extended now that Kamigawa rotated out of Standard, and Legacy).  Was it making the format too "skill intensive" in Standard?  Is it warping Extended or Legacy?  The reasons you listed are why Gifts will probably NEVER be restricted, not why it SHOULD be.

EDIT: I say all this as a Stax player, as well.  I've never in my life resolved a Gifts Ungiven, or even played a deck with one in it.  XD  I would love to play in a meta without Gifts, but the fact is, it's a great deck (THEY are great decks, I should say), and a great card.

[desolutionist]

Resolving an Ancestral requires no skill at all other than "Counter their Counters", it does all the work for you.  Gifts, by its very nature, requires both players to make the choices, Ancestral just gives someone three cards.

Timing is critical.  In the control mirror, the outcome is almost always determined by who resolves Recall.  It goes beyond "having more counters than your opponent".

[Arctanis]

Timing is critical.  In the control mirror, the outcome is almost always determined by who resolves Recall.  It goes beyond "having more counters than your opponent".

But the same could be said of gifts.  You need to know when to cast gifts as well.  The difference between the two cards is that gifts requires way more decision-making.  Knowing when to cast something is a skill that is required no matter what the spell

[desolutionist]

Timing is critical.  In the control mirror, the outcome is almost always determined by who resolves Recall.  It goes beyond "having more counters than your opponent".

But the same could be said of gifts.  You need to know when to cast gifts as well.  The difference between the two cards is that gifts requires way more decision-making.  Knowing when to cast something is a skill that is required no matter what the spell

Gifts is an abundant resource; it doesn't necessarily have to resolve the first time, thus you can play them much more aggressively and even without counter backup.  Ancestral is a single card in your deck that practically guarantees a victory if it resolves.

The decision making involved in Gifts is often exaggerated.  There are really only a few commonly occuring piles that you need to be familiar with.  I can go an entire tournament without encountering one of the scenarios that Menendian presents in his articles.  I suppose being able to easily pilot the deck in those rare situations is what separates the men from the boys. 

You really can't expect players from every calibur to be able to play the deck as well as everyone else.  Experienced players are rewarded every once in a while in weird situations.  What's wrong with that?

[zeus-online]

Gifts is an abundant resource; it doesn't necessarily have to resolve the first time, thus you can play them much more aggressively and even without counter backup.  Ancestral is a single card in your deck that practically guarantees a victory if it resolves.

I'd much rather have ancestral mana drained then gifts, thats for sure
But yeah, its often just like...3 common piles based on preference....like...crypt, lotus, academy, mox/petal...or recoup, will, lotus, academy/crypt...and every now and then 4 lands.

/Zeus

[forests failed you]

I actually think that Gifts may be pushing its luck in the format.  And that we may very well see it restricted in the near future.  I would rather play a deck with four Gifts than four FOF.   That really says something as to the power of the card.

[Disburden]

I actually think that Gifts may be pushing its luck in the format.  And that we may very well see it restricted in the near future.  I would rather play a deck with four Gifts than four FOF.   That really says something as to the power of the card.

I agree, but where have you seen the deck that runs four Gifts Ungiven warp the format the way a deck with four Fact or Fiction has? I have yet to see a list that makes this very powerful card a degenerate card.

[dicemanx]

I'm actually curious how a deck with 4 FoF would fare in today's meta. If Gifts is indeed the more powerful card, will Drain decks not bother with multiple (or any) FoFs? The same goes for Gush - while I'm told that apparently Gush would make combo nuts (which I cannot see - only 1 Gush that you can only abuse on turn 2 doesn't exactly strike fear into my heart), I question whether it would be any more powerful than whats currently played in the present environment. FoF and Gush were part of dominant archetypes in horridly undeveloped environments, but would they succeed in dominating today?

[Pave]

The initial post is much more interesting than people give it credit for.  I enjoy Magic more than chess partly because there is in it an element of luck, though I should also add that I like that element small.  Luck will in all likelihood always be sufficiently produced by the shuffling of a deck and the drawing of a starting seven: the promotion of luck is not a sound basis for a restriction policy.

Gifts probably should be restricted for the reason that it resembles Demonic Tutor perhaps even more than it does Fact or Fiction.  And yet it doesn't seem quite necessary yet.  (It's the Ancestral that wins MDG games.)

EDIT@Dicemanx: Smmenen may have a while back suggested that a retooled MDG will 4 Fact or Fictions and a single copy of Gifts would be an improvment.  I would tend to think that.

[sa17dk]

To the topic creator:

When I read your post it seemed as if you wanted to punish the people who practice/test and put a lot of time in the game to become good.

[The Atog Lord]

When making the decision the restrict gifts or not, we need to ask the question, "Is there such a thing as being too skill intensive when it comes to a Magic card?" For many the answer is no. They are the skilled Gifts pilots with hundreds of hours playing the deck, and playing against the deck. For some, the answer is yes. They are the players that haven't the aptitude with gifts, and can be found piloting Oath, Fish, or Goblins because they are easier for a new player to win with. I believe restricting the card would balance things out a bit. The skilled player would still be able to achieve an advantage with their single copy, but the less-experienced player wouldn't be blown out of the water by his superior opponent because of multiple gifts every game.

I can't tell if this is a joke, but I will assume otherwise. Your suggestion is that we take away a card because it is too skill-intensive. Your idea is that a card be restricted because it is too rewarding of skill. I believe that casual Magic is a great game, and a fun way to spend time. Playing with Thallids, Wee Dragonaut Surprise, Storm Ten, or whatever other such deck you enjoy on your kitchen table is a fun way to pass the time and hang out with your friends. However, if we are going to a tournament, then I want the winner to be the most skilled person in the room. If we don't award prizes based on skill, then are we not just buying into a raffle? If we remove all skill from Magic, we are left with a game where we roll dice, and whoever gets the higher number wins. Would you pay $20 to enter the Die Rolling Tournament? It wouldn't be worthwhile, and frankly wouldn't be fun. If someone outplays me, I don't mind losing to that person; the most stinging defeats are those which are created by luck or chance. If the entire game comes down to a coinflip, why play?

[kombat]

My assessment of Gifts Ungiven is that currently, no other unrestricted card in the format equates to a win as much as a resolved Gifts Ungiven.

I'd argue that Trinket Mage comes close, but I'm Canadian.    Other examples might be Oath of Druids, Goblin Welder (admittedly, not so much anymore), and as you mentioned, Grim Tutor.

The question is how much give do we allow for cards that, after resolution, most certainly lead to a victory.  How high is our threshold in that regard?  (...)  Is Gifts Ungiven a card like that?  Or is it a little too easy to resolve and swings games a little more than we would like.

JDizzle raises a great point.  My friends and I have spent a bit of time discussing whether or not Gifts should be restricted (for very different reasons than the original poster).  Gifts is essentially a Demonic Tutor that grabs 4 cards instead of 1.  In a format packed with swingy, restricted bombs like Vintage, Gifts becomes extremely powerful.  Does the "different names" clause matter when the cards you're getting are restricted anyway?  It's a massive swing in tempo that is almost always unrecoverable for the opponent.

The color has a lot to do with it.  Gifts has lent itself well to blue-based decks, while Grim Tutor has a prohibitive cost for blue decks.  Thus, Mana Drain and Gifts Ungiven form a lethal combination, but Grim Tutor and Mana Drain do not.

You've hit on a very important point here.  Would Gifts be nearly as great if it weren't so easy to cast with Mana Drain mana?  Would it enable such a dominant deck if it were costed at UUU (1 less CMC than its actual, current cost)?  Ironically, probably not, in my opinion.

I'm pretty confidant that Gifts Ungiven has been under careful consideration for restriction within the DCI, behind closed doors.  And I wouldn't be surprised to see it put on the list at some future date.  The comparison with Fact or Fiction is particularly apt.  If FoF is worthy of restriction, then surely Gifts is, no?

[Akuma]

FoF and Gush were part of dominant archetypes in horridly undeveloped environments, but would they succeed in dominating today?

I agree with dicemanx's entire post. Many people who weren't playing back then always refer to the uber brokenness of BBS or GAT, but the reality was different. GAT, for example, was a player in the metagame (we sort of had one here in CA back then    but never a problem. 4 Gush GAT was good, and had deck development/construction been a little farther along, it would just have been another one of several playable decks. Gush was restricted because it was a $0.50 card that spawned an archetype that pushed garbage aggro outside of the metagame (which was subsequently accepted and not seen as a bad thing) and destroyed the "flimsy" control decks of the time, pissing of the established players because good deck construction knocked their thousand dollar piles out of tournaments. Oh yeah, and BBS was played in a metagame comprised mostly of Sui, Sligh, and Keeper...

I don't think Gifts should be restricted. It creates a powerful, competitive Vintage deck that requires skill to pilot. That is a good thing. I don't really care if FoF ever comes off the list, it would not spawn any new competitors, it would just give another powerful tool to the existing control strategies. Gush, on the other hand, should come off that list to provide Vintage with another viable archetype and NO, it  wouldn't dominate, it would be good for the environment.

[xycsoscyx]

Screw it, lets just unrestrict and unban everything and see what happens in the format?  Who wants to play 4x Lotus when your opponent can switch your ante for a land? 

[warble]

Gifts Ungiven is far less worthy of restriction than fact or fiction, and far less deadly in terms of swinging a game.  While Gifts Ungiven does allow you to win more consistently, Fact or Fiction can swing a completely lost game in your favor and there's nothing you can do about it.  The problem with my argument, however, is that I currently run 2 Gifts Ungiven in my CS build and 0 Fact or Fiction.

My answer to this is to state that, if Fact or Fiction were unrestricted, I would run 4 Fact or Fiction and 0 Gifts Ungiven in CS because it's more cards, gets the best of 5 instead of the worst 2 of 4, and the real kicker is that Fact or Fiction requires 0 cards to be sacrificed in a support role.  Gifts Ungiven demands so much of a deck that Fact or Fiction doesn't there is really no comparison.  I would run 4 Fact or Fiction for the simple reason that it would give me more draw power, more win conditions and more consistency.

To address the issue of skill, if you can't figure out how to win against Gifts Ungiven you should lose the match, and next time you should consider running a list with gifts ungiven in it because then you would definitely know how to win against gifts.  Experience and skill are prerequisites to playing the game of magic in a tournament, and the rules are made for the purpose of competitive play.  That means professionals playing professionals, and if they're 12 years old and cannot learn how to play with their $3,000 worth of vintage cards perhaps those players should switch over to block or extended.

[unknown.root]

My answer to this is to state that, if Fact or Fiction were unrestricted, I would run 4 Fact or Fiction and 0 Gifts Ungiven in CS because it's more cards, gets the best of 5 instead of the worst 2 of 4, and the real kicker is that Fact or Fiction requires 0 cards to be sacrificed in a support role.  Gifts Ungiven demands so much of a deck that Fact or Fiction doesn't there is really no comparison.  I would run 4 Fact or Fiction for the simple reason that it would give me more draw power, more win conditions and more consistency.

Thats great but in a little deck called Meandeck Gifts, it's a little bit different there budd.

Oh and the deal with needing cards in a support role? Yeah combo must be crap too for needing so many cards to get things going.

Like JD said gifts will win the game more often then grim tutor. So it's clearly stronger than that card, and we all know grim tutor doesn't need restricted, however if they did restrict it what effect would it have on the deck?
I'd say very little. If i had a problem with the card it would be the whole "oups i win" factor, that bugs me a bit even trinisphere i had a few turns of hope.

I for one tend to be against restricting cards, i don't believe 3sphere was overly broken and i was playing 2land belcher at the time. In addition i believe wizards to readdress a lot of resticted cards to see if the water has changed.