Should Gifts be Restricted? An outsider's perspective.

[Jacob Orlove]

Almost a year and a half ago, Smmenen wrote an article on banning Yawgmoth's Will that addresses many of the fallacious arguments that people have brought up in this thread.

The article itself is here: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10071.html and has been available to non-premium subscribers for over a year. Since people seem to have either deliberately forgotten it, or never bothered to read it, I reprint it here in its entirety:

In Vintage, when a card is too good it gets restricted. It doesn't matter if that card is Black Lotus good or just Grim Monolith good, the result is the same. With the unbanning of Channel and Mind Twist in 2000, the DCI swept away the remnants of policy from years past and ushered in a new era in Vintage where restrictions would be the only way to keep things in check.

The principal behind the restriction policy is that by limiting a card from a four to a single copy in deck construction, the DCI can destroy overly dominant or distorting decks that rely on multiple copies of the card in question. The majority of the restricted list exemplifies this policy. In recent terms, think of GroAtog with four Gush or Long.dec with four Lion's Eye Diamond. Restriction works.

There are two reasons why restriction is an effective policy device. First, with only a single copy, the card won't come up with enough frequency in a sixty-card deck to rely on it or abuse it to the full extent. The restriction of Fact or Fiction killed BBS and the restriction of Gush ruined GroAtog. Second, restrictions make the card itself significantly weaker. There are hidden synergies that arise from being able to design a deck around a four-of. This is obvious with Mind's Desire but take cards like Channel, Black Vise, Gush, and Fastbond for example. All four cards are hugely powerful but see almost no play because they are narrow cards that don't have a good home as singletons. When you can't rely on a card, decks have to find other engines to rely on making powerful, restricted singletons like Fact or Fiction less important.

Yawgmoth's Will is the one card where the logic of restriction I have just presented breaks down.

(1) Restriction Has Not Sufficiently Neutered Yawgmoth's Will
In the first place, Yawgmoth's Will is not a card that you need multiple copies of, or need immediately. The resources spent leading up to Yawgmoth's Will are what make it so powerful. The strength of a Will is conditioned on the strength of the cards already in the graveyard and the strength of other cards in the deck. Therefore, a strong Will is preceded by other spells that increase the chances that Will will be found and resolved. In other words, unlike most restricted cards, Will is not a card that you can heavily diminish the influence of by restricting because decks aren't trying to get Wills in their opening hand so that it can be the first spell they cast. Going Swamp, Dark Ritual, Yawgmoth's Will are your first play is as funny as it is useless. However, going Swamp, Dark Ritual, Necropotence is nothing to laugh about.

This force of this point is brought home with the realization that each powerful preceding spell increases the likelihood that Will will show up - and when it does, it will grow more broken with each spell cast. It is for this reason that decks with robust drawing engines often don't even need to Tutor for Will - if you simply draw enough cards you will find it.

Yawgmoth's Will is called "Yawg Win" because that is generally what happens when it resolves. The effect is to speed up the format by permitting decks to "combo" out far earlier than they would normally win. It seems obvious to me that decks will become more and more efficient at abusing this card, until, once again, something else needs to be restricted. JP Meyer has compared Yawgmoth's Will in Type One Tog to Upheaval in Tog decks of other formats. The idea that the game ends there is right on - but what the analogy misses is that the spells that led up to the casting of Yawgmoth's Will have 1) made it more likely to resolve (because you have more countermagic to protect it from having drawn so many cards) and 2) made it more broken (by filling up your graveyard with juicy spells). Upheaval is more analogous to Berserk.

This isn't to say that people wouldn't play with four Wills if it was unrestricted - I have no doubt that they would, but the assumption underlying the principle of restriction that you want to diminish the number of multiples in a deck in order to stop a certain engine is less applicable to Will. The power of Yawgmoth's Will is not really affected all that much by restriction. Sure, quite a few decks would run four Yawgmoth's Wills if they could (Long.dec did so vicariously through Burning Wish), but many would run only two if they could.

This leads me to the second reason why Yawgmoth's Will should be banned:

(2) The Development Trajectory of Vintage has Often Been a Race to Maximize Abuse of Yawgmoth's Will
The first deck to abuse Yawgmoth's Will that I witnessed in Type One was Keeper and Trix. Both decks fueled large game winning Yawgmoth's Wills. Advancements in Type One made Yawgmoth's Will more central.

Taking a look back for the moment, the Gush engine was very broken in GroAtog because the deck was naturally very powerful (the Gro base), and because of the interaction with Fastbond. But what made the deck ungodly was the combo that occurred when Yawgmoth's Will was cast. In the turns preceding Yawgmoth's Will, one Gush may have been cast from hand, and a Merchant Scroll might have found another, and a cantrip or two might have found the third. This was enough to maintain a solid advantage on the board and make Dryads and Togs quite formidable.

When Yawgmoth's Will was cast, things quickly spiraled out of control. In that turn - often turn 3 - in the general game and in the usual case at least four Gushes were cast (generating mana with Fastbond) along with Ancestral Recall and Time Walk, and Dryads and Togs grew to enormous proportions - often around 20 power. The Gushes helped find Yawgmoth's Will and Yawgmoth's Will made the Gush engine more than just a draw engine that fueled Togs and Dryads, it turned it into a combo deck that didn't even need Berserk.

The restriction of Gush helped the format slow down a bit, but the next deck upped the ante. The next deck to really abuse Yawgmoth's Will went beyond GroAtog and was really nothing less than a Yawgmoth's Will deck: Long.dec. Using Burning Wish and Lion's Eye Diamonds it found that 4 Burning Wishes and Lion's Eye Diamond synergy effectively enabled turn 1 or 2, game winning Yawgmoth's Wills with great consistency. For the first time in many years, two cards were restricted (Burning Wish and Lion's Eye Diamond) to stop that nonsense. This deck moved the Yawgmoth's Will turn from turn 3 or 4, to turn 1 or 2 - and made it possible by putting Will in the sideboard and finding it with Burning Wish.

Last year, my team developed Control decks whose entire strategy was to just draw cards and then play Yawgmoth's Will. Our Psychatog deck first made great use of this with the inherent synergy of Intuition. We one-uped ourselves with the Goth Slaver lists that used Intuition as well as Thirst for Knowledge to really make Yawgmoth's Will even more powerful and faster.

And now storm clouds are once again on the horizon. Gifts Ungiven has provided the perfect vehicle for truly abusing Yawgmoth's Will in fine fashion. Recoup is being played solely to flashback Yawgmoth's Will. My Gifts list - Meandeck Gifts is nothing less than an attempt to truly harness and concentrate the power of Yawgmoth's Will in a way that even our Goth Slaver list was unable to do. My Gifts for Time Walk, Tinker, Yawgmoth's Will and Recoup is a win-win Gifts. If they give me Tinker and Time Walk, I win on the spot. Anything else and Yawgmoth's Will costs less than seven mana. Yawgmoth's Will is so good that Meandeath is willing to pay half your life and seven mana just to cast Yawgmoth's Will.

This all relates to my third point:

(3) Yawgmoth's Will is Inevitably Going to Cause More Restrictions
I think the case for banning Yawgmoth's Will is very strong once the realization is made that future restrictions will have to be made entirely or partly because of Yawgmoth's Will. The pressure is building for cards like Dark Ritual and more pressing, Grim Tutor. That pressure would evaporate with the banning of Yawgmoth's Will.

This is sort of like the old Tolarian Academy argument: Ban Academy and you can unrestrict other cards. That argument never really held much water. You couldn't really unrestrict anything that isn't otherwise unrestrictable (at least you can't now). This is much worse though - because development in Vintage is often a battle to abuse Yawgmoth's Will, it will inevitably cause more restrictions. The most likely card to be restricted is Grim Tutor. I think it would be a big mistake until it proved dominant (because I think the deck is fair), people are already grumbling. The other card that could potentially be restricted at some point because of Yawgmoth's Will is Gifts Ungiven. With the legalization of Portal and the influx of more tutors, finding and playing Yawgmoth's Will can only become easier. Let's save ourselves the pain and suffering in advance. Other cards will be restricted because of Yawgmoth's Will. There is no other card that I can so safely claim that about. Yawgmoth's Will probably should have been banned back in December of 2003 instead of Burning Wish being restricted.

(4) Yawgmoth's Will Short Circuits Strategy or worse, Substitutes it.
I think this one is the most damning arguments from a mechanical point of view. Magic is a strategy game. Players have a general strategy for winning any given game. In some cases that just will be as mundane as attacking with creatures. In others, it is some victory condition such as Illusion of Grandeur + Donate. 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. Just as an example: Why should I build a deck around Psychatog + Cunning Wish for Berserk when I could build my deck around Yawgmoth's Will first? If I play Yawgmoth's Will, then I will have plenty of cards to feed to Psychatog and a million counterspells to backup my Berserk. For example, let's say I am holding Cunning Wish in my hand and I have a nearly lethal Psychatog on the table as a result. I can swing for a turn or so and then blow my hand and graveyard to just kill my opponent. Instead, I am fortunate enough to be holding Yawgmoth's Will. I play Yawgmoth's Will and replay my Accumulated Knowledges for 4 and 3 and Time Walk and Ancestral Recall. Now I can untap and kill my opponent with plenty of countermagic back up and the Berserk is really a formality so I can trample over my opponent's Mishra's Factory. The same goes for Gifts Ungiven. Meandeck Gifts doesn't really have a game plan outside of Yawgmoth's Will aside from Tinker + Time Walk. And Tinker + Time Walk is only so powerful because of the presence of Yawgmoth's Will in the deck.

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. Win conditions don't even have to be powerful if the deck sufficiently abuses Yawgmoth's Will. If your Yawgmoth's Will is sufficiently broken, cards as slow as Morphling can finish the job because you have acquired enormous and overwhelming card advantage.

Good Type One players will often Duress a Yawgmoth's Will far in advance of a likely resolution simply because it is so threatening. It ends the game more quickly than the game would naturally have ended and helps reinforce the perceptions about Type One being less "interactive" than other formats. When Tog plays its second Intuition for Black Lotus, Mana Crypt, and Time Walk simply because it has Yawgmoth's Will in hand, you know that Yawgmoth's Will is a focal point of the deck.

It's not only a safe move to ban Yawgmoth's Will, it would be a wise move. I have no doubt that Yawgmoth's Will constraints deck design unnecessarily, and possibly even limits card design. Yawgmoth's Will forces the opponent to watch in resignation as all the spells that led up to Yawgmoth's Will over the course of the entire game are replayed in one turn because of one card. In other words, one player gets to replay the entire game from start to finish. If the cards in Type One are considered "accidents" or even overpowered, then all those broken cards that preceded the Will and made it more likely to show up imbalance the game all over again.

One final factor to emphasize is the universality of the card. Few decks cannot use Yawgmoth's Will and the splash for Black that occurs just for Will and possibly Demonic Tutor has so little drawback because of Fetchlands that the burden of proof is on the person who failed to include Will to explain why. It is useful in combo decks, control decks, aggro-control decks, prison decks, and aggro decks alike. Most restricted cards can't boast such universality. Necropotence is something control decks generally don't play.

I know that there will be resistance to what I am saying - regardless of its truth. The counter-arguments seem to fall into one of two categories.

Claim One: Yawgmoth's Will is just Another Broken Card and a Critical Part of Vintage
Part of the allure of Vintage is its enormous card pool, strategic diversity, and its brokenness. The top decks in Vintage are brutal. They are fast, relentless, and broken. But there is a broken balance in the format that makes it worthwhile. Decks go at each other and the struggle to pick up the bits and try and get your game plan together. Yawgmoth's Will is not just another card.

The closest card to Yawgmoth's Will in terms of game-winning power that can be played in most decks is Tinker. The only other two or three cards that I would even put on that level of power in terms of effect are Yawgmoth's Bargain, Mind's Desire, and Necropotence. But those three cards are very limited in terms of who can use them. And as for comparing Yawgmoth's Will to Tinker let me put it this way - Tinker is no Yawgmoth's Will. Yawgmoth's Will stands head and shoulders above all the other cards in the format in terms of sealing games. Zvi suggested that Tinker should arguably be banned. Turn 1 Tinker isn't really that dangerous for the format. First of all, turn 1 Tinker is most likely going to find Darksteel Colossus. That play is actually a goldfish turn slower than winning with Mox, Forbidden Orchard, Oath of Druids and Oath of Druids and Forbidden Orchards are unrestricted. Tinker is quite insane, especially since Mirrodin block, but it doesn't deserve banning because it doesn't win the game on the spot. Restriction actually works with Tinker. Only being able to run one makes the card much less powerful.

Claim 2: Banning Yawg Will Opens the Floodgates for Banning
This is probably the argument that causes the most concern. It is not warranted, and here is how you get around it:

There is no card in the format or in the game even remotely like Yawgmoth's Will. The more powerful a card is, the more you want to see it immediately. If Contract From Below (arguably the strongest Magic card ever printed) were Vintage legal, it would be a really broken turn 1 play. Yawgmoth's Will is not a broken turn 1 play. There are very few cards that have that quality and none on the scale of Yawgmoth's Will. As a result, restrictions will always serve to neuter the power of cards that people want to see on turn one. Restrictions will not just neuter the decks, but as I have shown, it makes the utility of the individual card itself drop.

Instead of opening the floodgates, banning Yawgmoth's Will can serve to uphold the principals that Vintage serves. It can stand alone in contradistinction guarding vigilantly against the claim that someone someday might put forward that some lesser devil should join it on the banned list. A simple comparison to Yawgmoth's Will will reveal the folly of such a claim. We should put it on the pedestal that says: This card is the best card ever. Banning Yawgmoth's Will can serve as a monument to enshrine the principal that in Vintage you can play with all of your cards and remind that banning need never happen again. I can think of no card more deserving of that honor.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

You can't remove the power and still have a T1 enviroment

There are some people who are of the opinion that you can't remove *any* card and still have a T1 environment, because T1 is the format where "you can play anything" (ante and dexterity cards aside). Others don't share this opinion and advocate banning. My point was merely to question the reasoning for banning cards like Yawgmoth's Will, Tinker, and Tendrils. There are a few arguments that these cards contribute to decks that are too distortive, whereas my point is that the Power cards exert significantly more pressure on decks to execute a Turn 1/2 winning gameplan or lose.

Everyone seems to love playing with lands, too, but I wouldn't advocate their banning. Moxen are merely more powerful mana sources because they are faster without a significant drawback. Given their nature, why wouldn't most decks run them?

Moxen enable mid/late-game plays to happen in the early game, and they also turn card advantage into direct board position because of the ability to play them more than once per turn. Most of the so-called "unfair" or "distortive" decks being discussed here are predicated on playing high-cost effects on Turn 1. The fact that Moxen are present in almost every deck is not just something to be brushed off if one is trying to argue about the distortive effects of cards. If every deck is running Moxen, it creates an environment where every deck is trying to execute an "I-win" strategy on Turn 1. A player has to either pack narrow hate to fight it(which may not be effective against every single strategy) or play their own unfair strategy. That's distortion.

Decks always have to adapt to the strategy other other decks.  That is part of what defines magic and creates the entire concept of a meta game.  Decks have to adapt to certain cards/strategies in every format.  Is Wrath of God 'distorting' the type 2 meta for example?  It's certainly an integral part of white-based control strategies and forces aggro decks to adapt.  Should every card with a significant effect be banned?  What makes a card worthy of banning?  What are we trying to accomplish through restrictions/bannings?  Do we want diversity?  Do we want the format to be fun?  Do we want the format to be 'fair'?  What is 'good' for the format?  How do we define these things?  I think that these questions have to be answered first of all before deciding whether something needs to be fixed or not.  IMO, type 1 is diverse, fun, and in a way, fair.  There are many different viable decks, I enjoy playing the game, and powerful cards and strategies tend to balance each other out.

[Moxlotus]

So are some people of the opinion that we should kill any card that can lead to a turn 1 kill?  So Belcher and Dragon would have to get nuked.  After all, getting a turn 1 kill is the least interactive game possible.  

Let's face it.  The reason combo needs to become so fast is to race control.  Control has gotten freaking fast.  Even removing Will from Slaver it will still be too fast for combo to compete without their will.  Mana Drain is the reason combo has been driven to how fast it has become.  Mana Drain is the chief card in the format that has warped the Type 1 metagame forever.  It is the reason decks have become so fast--so they can win before Drain gets online.  Drain is by far the most distorting card in the format--more than Tinker, Will, Rits, and Shops combined.  Obviously Drains being restricted would destroy any resemblance of the format, but let's be honest on what card is the most distorting card in the format.

[dicemanx]

Also, this is a question I want to ask: What's the difference between a card "distorting" the format and a card merely "influencing," or "defining" the format.

Yes, this is the relevant question, and represents the difference between cards like Trinisphere and cards like Shop/Rutual/Bazaar/Drain etc.It's a matter of degree, and often cannot be quantified but "felt" that something is wrong. As someone wrote during the restrict Trini debates - we'll know that there is a problem when we see it.

So are some people of the opinion that we should kill any card that can lead to a turn 1 kill?  So Belcher and Dragon would have to get nuked.  After all, getting a turn 1 kill is the least interactive game possible. 

No, because such a single criterion isn't enough these days - it must be coupled to others. Belcher or MeandeckSX would have to be addressed if many started to show up in events with these decks and stole many games from players based on what are essentially coinflips. A deck doesn't have to merely have the potential for a 1st turn kill - it has to result in it occuring frequently enough at events, which is a combination of *both* average goldfish speed and number of such decks in the field.

[Jacob Orlove]

Now to address a few other cards that have been brought up.

Black Lotus: this is unquestionably the best card in the format, but what it typically does not do is turn a losing game state into a winning one. Lotus is phenomenal in the opening hand (as are most restricted cards) but it does not shortcut having an actual game plan the way Will does. It is powerful tactically, but you cannot build a strategy around it.

Brainstorm: likewise, this is the best unrestricted card in the format, by far. Force of Will is a distant second place. But neither one would make a good target for restriction, because they de-emphasize the power of your opening hand. Without them, there would be too much luck in the format, simply because a better opening hand would be an almost insurmountable advantage.

Tendrils of Agony: cards that just win the game are basically never broken. When they seem to be, it is because other cards in the format are too good. Tendrils itself is perfectly fair, and deserves neither restriction nor banning.

Tinker: admittedly quite powerful, Tinker is nonetheless not a threat to the overall power level of the format, both because it is so easily answered, and because it requires a significant enough investment that it is typically not a deck's go-to plan. Sure, an early Tinker can be annoying, but it's no better than an early Oath. The only difference is that the Tinker deck is more likely to get multiple Time Walks in--typically thanks to Yawgmoth's Will (either by forcing impossible Gifts splits with Recoup, or by allowing actual double Walks).

With Will banned, the format would not become less diverse, it would simply become less distorted. Not so much less that we would be playing a different format--as long as we have the Power Nine, Vintage will be Vintage, but decks would need to have actual strategies again, rather than playing the "let's race to Yawgmoth's Will" game.

fake edit: Drain. Control is only as fast as it is because Yawgmoth's Will is a one turn kill. If control decks had to set up actual ten spells into tendrils or slaver locks or creature beatdown, combo would have openings to win the game even after control has two islands on the table. And that would slow things down enough to let other decks have a chance too.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

fake edit: Drain. Control is only as fast as it is because Yawgmoth's Will is a one turn kill. If control decks had to set up actual ten spells into tendrils or slaver locks or creature beatdown, combo would have openings to win the game even after control has two islands on the table. And that would slow things down enough to let other decks have a chance too.

Although I don't support the banning of Will, I have to agree with this point.  Often when playing MDG against combo all I need to do is slow them down a few turns until I can win, because they are really only a few turns faster than I can be, and Will is the reason for this.  Against combo I often set up an early Will just for card advantage and then afterward kill my combo opponenet at my leisure if I don't have the resources necessary to win outright after stopping their initial assault.  Mana Drain isn't nearly as powerful without being able to lead up to resolving Will to seal the deal; control would either have to find some other way to win quickly (and nothing is really better at this than Will is) or it would be much more difficult to stabalize.

Edit: That said, I do think that Will plays a significant role in keeping other strategies in check, such as Oath of Druids, for example.  I'm pretty sure that if Will was banned this would hands down become the best deck, because it demolishes aggro/creature based strategies and without Will control and combo would have difficulty racing it.  As a result I think that if Will were banned Oath might have to be restricted.

2nd Edit:  Oops, I forgot about Dragon.  Dragon would be pretty insane post-Will also, as a fast combo deck that doesn't even use it, and without all of the splash damage graveyard hate against Will people would probably have to pack hate specifically for it. (the combination of Oath and Dragon being so good/popular might lead to things such as maindeck Ronom Unicorn/Kami of Ancient Law or such to deal with the dominent'best' strategies)

[zeus-online]

You can't remove the power and still have a T1 enviroment...for the same reason i'd rather restrict cabal therapy then dark ritual, no one wants to kill Type 1 (or well, not anyone who visits these boards i'd imagine) just weaken a few decks.

There are alot of cards that are of restrict-worthy power, but probably won't get the axe simply because they are what makes this format Type 1.

/Zeus

but what do you mean by cards being restrict-worthy power level.  What makes a card of a power level worthy of restriction yet still OK for the format?  I don't really understand; if a card is worthy of restriction, doesn't that mean that it ISN'T OK for the format?

Its funny that you say this and then go on mentioning a whole bunch of them...cards i deem of restrict-worthy power level:
Brainstorm
Workshop
Bazaar of baghdad
Mana drain
Dark ritual
Oath of druids

They're alot more powerful then several restricted cards, yet if they where all restricted, the format would warp into a pseudo legacy, and simultaneously kill almost every currently played archetype.

/Zeus

[Akuma]

Jumping on the ban-wagon (ban or restrict) is such a Vintage community thing 

Many people complain about what the current overpowered cards of choice are and want them removed, then, if they actually get removed, they will complain about whatever takes their place. OMG, Dragon is so broken!!

If variety exists, if skill plays an important role, if we are enjoying the game, those are the things that matter. There are many things that are enjoyable about Vintage, but it's sad that the ban-wagoners want every deck to run a myriad of singletons. I, for one, don't want the pillars of the format reduced to one, or even the staples (heck, we could use a few more things off the list, like Gush). I guess if they get their way, we will all be playing highlander...

[zeus-online]

you do realize, that i did NOT suggest restricting those cards? I'm just pointing out that they are of equal or greater power level then many of the currently restricted cards.

/Zeus

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

you do realize, that i did NOT suggest restricting those cards? I'm just pointing out that they are of equal or greater power level then many of the currently restricted cards.

/Zeus

Yes, but my point is that I am confused becuase you seem to be contradicting yourself.  My logic pretty much goes as follows:
1: A card is either worthy of restriction or not.
2: A card worthy of restriction should be restricted.
3: Therefore, it is inconsistent to consider a card restriction worthy yet at the same time not advocate its restriction.  (Unless you do not want what is best for the format.)

So either, the cards aren't worthy of restriction, and thus should not be restricted, or they are, and should be.

[brianpk80]

Yes, but my point is that I am confused becuase you seem to be contradicting yourself.  My logic pretty much goes as follows:
1: A card is either worthy of restriction or not.
2: A card worthy of restriction should be restricted.
3: Therefore, it is inconsistent to consider a card restriction worthy yet at the same time not advocate its restriction.  (Unless you do not want what is best for the format.)
So either, the cards aren't worthy of restriction, and thus should not be restricted, or they are, and should be.

I think what zeus was saying is that Brainstorm, et. al. are more innately powerful than many currently restricted cards.  Acknowledging that isn't necessarily inconsistent with failing to advocate their restriction.   

[andrewpate]

Black Lotus: this is unquestionably the best card in the format, but what it typically does not do is turn a losing game state into a winning one. Lotus is phenomenal in the opening hand (as are most restricted cards) but it does not shortcut having an actual game plan the way Will does. It is powerful tactically, but you cannot build a strategy around it.

You actually can make a strategy around Black Lotus, as in decks like Reaplace and Bomberman.  I think that unrestricted Lotus (not that anyone is suggesting this) would almost certainly spawn combo decks based on recurring it.

@Gandalf_The_White_1
I strongly disagree with your logic, namely point #1.  I do not believe that cards are usually worthy of restriction purely on their own merits "in a vacuum," as it were.  Granted, this may be the case with a few special cards like Balance and Wheel of Fortune (it is difficult to imagine an environment that would not be totally redefined by the introduction of 4 copies of one of these cards), but it is not usually the reason cards are restricted.  Trinisphere was restricted because decks like 5/3 were not fun to play against, and the restriction of Trinisphere was seen as capable of solving that problem.  The DCI does not look at a card and decide whether it needs to be restricted; they look at the format and decide whether it needs a restriction, and then decide which card is creating the problem.  The same system is used for bans in other formats. 

Also, on the subject of skill-based bans:  the last time I spoke with Randy Buehler, I asked him to explain exactly how the DCI decides on bans/restrictions.  He told me pretty well exactly what I just said, but he also said that a card on the same power level as Trinisphere but requiring much more skill in order to utilize (he compared it to Cabal Therapy) would not have been restricted, pretty much killing that line of reasoning.

[BruiZar]

Quote
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?

You entirely missed the point Moxlotus.
The statement the postmaker was trying to make is that it would be detrimental for vintage's playerbase and would therefore hurt Wizards which would lead it to its restriction, rather than making any sense or being consistent in rulings. What good is consistency when you have no players to be consistent too? Raffinity was crippled when it started to be detrimental for the game and thus it directly affected wizards piggybank. The same happened to trinisphere. The difference is that these 2 cards(ravager/3sphere) weren't as skill intensive as gifts ungiven. I dont think wizards gives enough about vintage's elites (those that can harness the power of gifts) to bother doing anything about the format currently.

If gifts will be crippled, i am afraid that vintage will only consist of a number of fish builds. Fish is available in all colors and all have their own strengths. Combo is already severely crippled by cards such as stifle, meddling mage and children of korlis.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

@Gandalf_The_White_1
I strongly disagree with your logic, namely point #1.  I do not believe that cards are usually worthy of restriction purely on their own merits "in a vacuum," as it were.  Granted, this may be the case with a few special cards like Balance and Wheel of Fortune (it is difficult to imagine an environment that would not be totally redefined by the introduction of 4 copies of one of these cards), but it is not usually the reason cards are restricted.  Trinisphere was restricted because decks like 5/3 were not fun to play against, and the restriction of Trinisphere was seen as capable of solving that problem.  The DCI does not look at a card and decide whether it needs to be restricted; they look at the format and decide whether it needs a restriction, and then decide which card is creating the problem.  The same system is used for bans in other formats. 

When did I ever say we had to judge cards in a vacum?  The very idea of that is nonsensical; it's impossible to judge cards in a vacum, and anyone who suggests that it is doesn't know what they are talking about.

By a card either being worthy of restriction or not I mean that a card cannot be 1/2 worthy of restriction, nor can it be both worthy and not worthy at the same time.  It simply is or it isn't, although this may be based on multiple factors such as other cards in the meta.

[Glix]

First of all, I want to make it clear that I would not, am not, and will never advocate the banning of any card in vintage (werid things like unglued, ante, and flip are different, simply because they detract from the game or change the rules).

One thing that this thread has touched on, but people still don't seem to understand, is that there are cards that get MUCH better the more of them there are allowed.  Fact or Fiction is one of those cards.  FoF is not nearly good as it was with 4 of them running around, which was retarded.  Bazaar is another, brainstorm could be run if restricted, but it is better as a 4 of for sure.  Frantic Search is another one of these card, as is oath, and the list goes on.

Gifts is a card that doesn't really fit into this category.  There is one, and only one, deck in the entire format the runs a full suit of this card, and many of its subtypes don't even run that man.  Gifts does NOT get better the more you run.  It is of equal power each time you cast it, usually.  Furthermore, it is extreemly skill intensive.  This makes the card more valuable to the integrity of vintage.  Trinisphere was the antithesis of this, it required no skill at all.  Draw shop, draw sphere, cast sphere, win, duh.  Gifts is incredibly complicated, can swing games, but also doesn't necessarilly.  In most cases, when a deck successfully resolves a non-artifact 4 mana card, things are going well enough for it.

I think these cards, however, can't be singularly analyzed.  One must assess, is the format unhealthy?  Is any deck dominating?  I agree we have seen a slight decrease in variaty, as stax has fallen out of favor a bit and combo/gifts has been doing well.  However, the a stax deck just won SCG.  The format is nothing like times of old where one or a few decks dominated, the times of GAT, of Long, of 3sphere stax.  If we see domination of one deck, we could take action, but we really aren't.  There is inovation, different decks are winning.

When you begin banning cards, vintage becomes legacy.  We don't want that, I hope.

[Jacob Orlove]

First of all, verbal warning for that post, because it has no content. Edit: the post has since been deleted.

Second, this whole Legacy argument is a ridiculous fallacy. Legacy does not have Moxes--you get to have three lands on turn 3, and not sooner. That alone guarantees that the formats will remain wholly distinct, but there are literally dozens of other restricted cards that ensure we have card drawing and tutoring that they cannot hope to match, plus dozens of unrestricted cards that are each more powerfully individually than their entire format--many of which are actually too weak for us to bother with.

Vintage WILL NEVER TURN INTO LEGACY. That would be like Chess turning into, I dunno, Monopoly. It's actually impossible. Even if you restricted every card in T1, turning it into Highlander, it would still be significantly more powerful than Legacy. I've played all three formats, I should know.

And then you have to remember that people are not even arguing for highlander--of the hundreds of tournament viable Vintage cards, people want to restrict perhaps as many as two. They may argue which two, but even then, there's only a half dozen or so cards being proposed; we could restrict them all, and the format would still be basically the same.

[Zarathustra]

Correct, I would support the banning of both Tinker and Tendrils of Agony.  The compelling reasons to do so would be to maximize the effect of skill variation and increase the diversity and interactivity of the formant not just in 2006  but for the foreseeable remainder of Vintage's lifespan.  Given that Pitch Long and to a lesser extent Meandeck Gifts bring us to a power threshold where cards like Oath of Druids, Goblin Welder, Bazaar of Baghdad, and even Mana Drain are comparatively slow and underpowered, the omission of Tendrils of Agony and Tinker would reopen the format to a more vibrant array of competitive decks and card selections.  Excising the most arbitrary and game-breaking first turn plays requires players to sharpen their skills and weather the game rather than unjustly earning a win with skill substitutes like Tinker and Ritual, Ritual, Tutor.

I honestly don't see how Tendrils and Tinker speed up the format.  The decks they are built around are making the format faster and faster.

Sure Tinker steals games, but that's Vintage.  I have no idea how Rit, Rit, Tutor has anything to do with Tendrils and Tinker.  Since, Tutor itself is rather broken.  So, we should ban Tutor now too, right? 

The move would be bold, unprecedented, and initially bemoaned by a select subset of "powergamers," while privately celebrated by many of the more quiet Vintage voices.  In the long run, it would make Vintage Magic a much more attractive option for Legacy and Standard players who largely dislike losing to coin-flips and have openly criticized our format on that basis for years.  It would also benefit Wizards by aligning the standard of what constitutes a Vintage "playable" card more closely with the types of cards they will be printing from now until the game vanishes (if ever).

I don't see the need to cater to Legacy and Standard players.  Whatever misconceptions Legacy and Standard players have about Vintage need not concern this community.  Their ignorance shouldn't neuter our format.  Also, bannination of a certain card or cards don't seem to justify what sort of precedent that sets for the format.  

These reasons may not be compelling enough for you or for other players but in my opinion, they seal the deal.  Maximizing skill, minimizing arbitrary losses, increasing format diversity, and broadening the appeal of Vintage Magic are well worth the loss of Tinker and Tendrils of Agony.

You state that they are 'compelling reasons', but these reasons are also your opinion.  Which, you also clealy state in the same sentence.  Compelling evidence is rarely opinionated.  Unless, it's backed by hard evidence.

However, I fail to see what makes "Ritual, Ritual, Tutor" any more redeemable than "Workshop, Trinisphere" when cast in terms of non-interactive mindless Turn 1 kills.  If anything, a quick Will->Tendrils is even more unmanageable than Trinisphere for two reasons.  First, the skeletons that support Tendrils now incorporate both Force of Will and Misdirection so the role of one's own FoW as a bastion against random Turn 1 kills/locks is diminished.  Second, with Trinisphere, when it resolves you are largely unable to play spells for a few turns and may or may not lose the game as a result.  With Tendrils of Agony, you lose in no uncertain terms.

Trinisphere ended games on turn 1.  Without a need to resolve anything else.  Period.  Only Force of Will stopped that.  Grim Long makes up for it's raw power by being incredibly hard to pilot.  Which, in turn allows weaker decks to still have a chance to win.

I don't understand how you can say Trinisphere isn't an auto-loss, when the only card able to stop it on turn 1 was Force of Will.  Yet, you can say that Tendrils is completely unstoppable.  The fact that you can actually have the chance to attack a Tendrils deck allows you to win.  I mean, you even told me that Gifts and Long have no way to win with Crypt.  Right?  So, they can't be unbeatable.  But, now you claim they are unbeatable.  I fail to see how, when there are serveral ways to stop them at the root.  

Yawgmoth's Will as the consummation of a drawn out control strategy is a fine thing for the format.  Yawgmoth's Will as an engine for generating an ocean of black mana and 14 storm on the first turn is no less perverse than a first turn Trinisphere.  To that end, I would ban Tendrils of Agony (and yes, I would restrict it instead if there was any chance of that accomplishing anything, which there is not).  In my opinion, the case for banning Tendrils is stronger than that for Tinker.  Nevertheless, an 11/11 trampling indestructible nightmare for 2U, even as a mere tutorable singleton, is very contradictory to upholding the values I outlined above.

In order for Yawgmoth's Will to even be of any use, you have to have pieces.  YawgWill, Moxes, Land, Dark Rit, Cabal Rit, Draw-7's, Duress, Tutors, a graveyard...

Workshop + Trinisphere...  Two pieces.

A turn 1 TWO PIECE combo, that can only be stopped with Force of Will.  Compare this with Yawgmoth's Will, which clearly needs a lot of the right conditions.  Basically, a turn 1 kill with Yawgmoth's Will is what Vintage is about.  It's a broken format, broken things happen.  Do you want Will banned now, too?

Tinker/Colossus doesn't break values.  In your opinion, you'd just rather not have to see a big dude on the other side of the board.

-DShell

[dicemanx]

Trinisphere ended games on turn 1.  Without a need to resolve anything else.  Period.  Only Force of Will stopped that.

Statements 2 and 4 are incorrect. Resolving Trini turn 1 would be meaningless without subsequent pressure. You also needed to be on the play for that 1st turn Trini to have maximum impact. And FoW wasn't the only solution. Every deck could conceivably simply ignore Trinisphere via 3 (or more) land drops - not an easy thing to do, but it happened often enough.

Many people complain about what the current overpowered cards of choice are and want them removed, then, if they actually get removed, they will complain about whatever takes their place. OMG, Dragon is so broken!!

If variety exists, if skill plays an important role, if we are enjoying the game, those are the things that matter.

If restriction can bring about increased variety, or increase the role of skill in vintage and minimize luck, then we shouldn't miss an opportunity to do so.

[Akuma]

If restriction can bring about increased variety, or increase the role of skill in vintage and minimize luck, then we shouldn't miss an opportunity to do so.

But restriction will NOT increase variety. The good Vintage players in the community will just identify the next objectively superior strategy(ies) and run with that. Then people will complain about that.

Since there are no bannings in Vintage, the broken plays will remain, Will will still be stupid, so will Tinker, etc. These cards will always appear in Vintage, they will not be supplanted. Our diversification comes from the release of new sets, introduction of previously unavailable cards (ie. Portal or an unrestriction) and how these new cards interact with the existing pool. I think an archetype should DOMINATE the format before it loses a key piece to restriction.

Certain cards dominate Vintage, and they always will, unless they are banned (and that's an entirely different topic).

[dandan]

Apologies for the long quote but this is in reply to the idea that resistance to banning YawgWill must be based on ignorance.

(1) Restriction Has Not Sufficiently Neutered Yawgmoth's Will
In the first place, Yawgmoth's Will is not a card that you need multiple copies of, or need immediately. The resources spent leading up to Yawgmoth's Will are what make it so powerful. The strength of a Will is conditioned on the strength of the cards already in the graveyard and the strength of other cards in the deck. Therefore, a strong Will is preceded by other spells that increase the chances that Will will be found and resolved. In other words, unlike most restricted cards, Will is not a card that you can heavily diminish the influence of by restricting because decks aren't trying to get Wills in their opening hand so that it can be the first spell they cast. Going Swamp, Dark Ritual, Yawgmoth's Will are your first play is as funny as it is useless. However, going Swamp, Dark Ritual, Necropotence is nothing to laugh about.
This force of this point is brought home with the realization that each powerful preceding spell increases the likelihood that Will will show up - and when it does, it will grow more broken with each spell cast. It is for this reason that decks with robust drawing engines often don't even need to Tutor for Will - if you simply draw enough cards you will find it.
Yawgmoth's Will is called "Yawg Win" because that is generally what happens when it resolves. The effect is to speed up the format by permitting decks to "combo" out far earlier than they would normally win. It seems obvious to me that decks will become more and more efficient at abusing this card, until, once again, something else needs to be restricted.
This isn't to say that people wouldn't play with four Wills if it was unrestricted - I have no doubt that they would, but the assumption underlying the principle of restriction that you want to diminish the number of multiples in a deck in order to stop a certain engine is less applicable to Will. The power of Yawgmoth's Will is not really affected all that much by restriction. Sure, quite a few decks would run four Yawgmoth's Wills if they could (Long.dec did so vicariously through Burning Wish), but many would run only two if they could.

Yes, restriction has less of an impacy on YawgWill than on most other Restricted cards. Now cut and paste the above and substitute Tendrils of Agony for YawgWill. Should we ban Tendils? IMHO no. Ditto Will

This leads me to the second reason why Yawgmoth's Will should be banned:
(2) The Development Trajectory of Vintage has Often Been a Race to Maximize Abuse of Yawgmoth's Will
The first deck to abuse Yawgmoth's Will that I witnessed in Type One was Keeper and Trix. Both decks fueled large game winning Yawgmoth's Wills. Advancements in Type One made Yawgmoth's Will more central.

Yes, good deck design is all about abusing the strongest cards available. Again you could reasonably talk about designing a decks to abuse Tendrils. Good decks will tend to design around the strongest weapon available or the cards with the greatest collective synergy. Take out Will and once again most decks will try to abuse whatever the next best card is.  

This all relates to my third point:
(3) Yawgmoth's Will is Inevitably Going to Cause More Restrictions
I think the case for banning Yawgmoth's Will is very strong once the realization is made that future restrictions will have to be made entirely or partly because of Yawgmoth's Will. The pressure is building for cards like Dark Ritual and more pressing, Grim Tutor. That pressure would evaporate with the banning of Yawgmoth's Will.
This is sort of like the old Tolarian Academy argument: Ban Academy and you can unrestrict other cards. That argument never really held much water. You couldn't really unrestrict anything that isn't otherwise unrestrictable (at least you can't now). This is much worse though - because development in Vintage is often a battle to abuse Yawgmoth's Will, it will inevitably cause more restrictions. The most likely card to be restricted is Grim Tutor. I think it would be a big mistake until it proved dominant (because I think the deck is fair), people are already grumbling. The other card that could potentially be restricted at some point because of Yawgmoth's Will is Gifts Ungiven. With the legalization of Portal and the influx of more tutors, finding and playing Yawgmoth's Will can only become easier. Let's save ourselves the pain and suffering in advance. Other cards will be restricted because of Yawgmoth's Will. There is no other card that I can so safely claim that about. Yawgmoth's Will probably should have been banned back in December of 2003 instead of Burning Wish being restricted.

So banning cards to unrestrict others is a poor argument as you couldn't really unrestrict anything that isn't otherwise unrestrictable. I agree. But somehow this doesn't apply to future cards. For some reason, although the 13 years or so of Magic haven't so far yielded any cards that should be Unrestricted but are Restricted because of Will, Will being in the mix will lead to future restrictions?  And no other card will cause restrictions? Can Wizards safely produce 3 and 4 cc artifacts like Trinisphere? 5MLSC can cause otherwise balanced cards to be cast far earlier than they were designed for, ditto Workshop. Are we to ban them so we don't have to restrict cards in the future?

(4) Yawgmoth's Will Short Circuits Strategy or worse, Substitutes it.
I think this one is the most damning arguments from a mechanical point of view. Magic is a strategy game. Players have a general strategy for winning any given game. In some cases that just will be as mundane as attacking with creatures. In others, it is some victory condition such as Illusion of Grandeur + Donate. 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. Just as an example: Why should I build a deck around Psychatog + Cunning Wish for Berserk when I could build my deck around Yawgmoth's Will first? If I play Yawgmoth's Will, then I will have plenty of cards to feed to Psychatog and a million counterspells to backup my Berserk. For example, let's say I am holding Cunning Wish in my hand and I have a nearly lethal Psychatog on the table as a result. I can swing for a turn or so and then blow my hand and graveyard to just kill my opponent. Instead, I am fortunate enough to be holding Yawgmoth's Will. I play Yawgmoth's Will and replay my Accumulated Knowledges for 4 and 3 and Time Walk and Ancestral Recall. Now I can untap and kill my opponent with plenty of countermagic back up and the Berserk is really a formality so I can trample over my opponent's Mishra's Factory. The same goes for Gifts Ungiven. Meandeck Gifts doesn't really have a game plan outside of Yawgmoth's Will aside from Tinker + Time Walk. And Tinker + Time Walk is only so powerful because of the presence of Yawgmoth's Will in the deck.

It's not only a safe move to ban Yawgmoth's Will, it would be a wise move. I have no doubt that Yawgmoth's Will constraints deck design unnecessarily, and possibly even limits card design. Yawgmoth's Will forces the opponent to watch in resignation as all the spells that led up to Yawgmoth's Will over the course of the entire game are replayed in one turn because of one card. In other words, one player gets to replay the entire game from start to finish. If the cards in Type One are considered "accidents" or even overpowered, then all those broken cards that preceded the Will and made it more likely to show up imbalance the game all over again.

So we should ban YawgWill because it helps you win a game where you have already cast Psychatog, Intuition, AK 3 and 4, Ancestral Recall and Time Walk? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaase. YawgWinmorecity. Meandeck Gifts doesn't really have a gameplan? Apart from surviving until it can cast a 4 cc spell, then Recoup, then Will, not that you do that much anyway as often you have even better options. And Tinker+Walk is only so powerful because of YawgWill in the deck? Sure Walking twice for the win is cute but the big man is quite capable of swinging over two turns anyway, a counterspell would be just as effective, if not more, at helping him swing for the win.
YawgWill constains card design? I doubt that Wizards consider Vintage as a design constraint let alone Will.

Tendrils of Agony: cards that just win the game are basically never broken. When they seem to be, it is because other cards in the format are too good. Tendrils itself is perfectly fair, and deserves neither restriction nor banning.

Time to substitute YawgWill for Tendrils in the above.

At present, we have a format that is based on the principle that you can use any (non-ante, non-dexterity) card, with the format being balanced using a Restriction list. The format appears to be more or less healthy and as balanced as such a format could be (I am not suggest balanced=not-broken just that the amount of brokenness seems to be balanced!). To ban a card requires a heavy burden of proof, tournament results, signs of a deck and anti-deck metagame, etc. I'd be surprised if Will usage is not fairly constant and possibly even slightly down due to heavy artifact and little uwb men in the metagame. I see no such proof of a need for banning. We have seen this all before, of course. Academy was 'necessary' to ban in order to 'free up' the Restricted List', save the format and make new decks possible. Time has shown that opinion to be wrong. I hope time will also have the chance to prove this latest theory wrong.

Nothing much is wrong at present. IF a slight 'tinkering' is needed to the B&R list, I'd go with a restriction of Tendrils of Agony. This would have a minimal effect on most decks but would very slightly weaken combo (as the option of running a second Tendrils MD or SB would be gone, jank like Extract might be effective, Consultation becomes less tasty). It would also 'flag' Tendrils as a problem card, which it undoubtedly is. To be honest, I'd prefer to leave things alone.

[cssamerican]

If I remember correctly there were people who didn't want Trinisphere restricted because it would make Will-Storm based decks too powerful. I was one of those people, and I think I was somewhat wrong in hindsight. I don't think storm decks are too powerful, at least not yet; however, I feel I was right in that ever since Trinisphere's restriction Will-Storm based decks have just gotten stronger. This is one of the reasons why I think people should be very careful in what they ask to be restricted or banned. These decisions always have consequences, and these decisions are almost impossible to reverse. Trinisphere is now looked at my many as being so powerful it won games on its own, which is just preposterous. Lots of people won through turn one Trinispheres, but that is the problem with getting cards restricted. Once they hit that list they become legendary in the power, and people forget thier true power level.

Edit: I am not saying Triniphere should come off the list, but rather I am saying make sure what your asking for is what you want. In many cases it takes a long time before the consequences are felt, so be sure that you will be okay with consequences.

There are cards on that list that if they got off that list tomorrow no one would even play them. To me that is the biggest problem with the system, we don't give the meta time to adjust to new powerful cards before we call for their restriction. And we never parole restricted cards off the list to see if they still impact the game as much today as they did two years ago.

Ban nothing, Restrict nothing...If you think storm decks are too powerful let us look at paroling cards off the restricted list that would hurt those decks instead of trying to remove more cards from our game.

[Pyromaniac]

Ban nothing, Restrict nothing...If you think storm decks are too powerful let us look at paroling cards off the restricted list that would hurt those decks instead of trying to remove more cards from our game.

So we should make Vintage even more about the die roll? Raising the power level of T1 even further by unrestricting cards doesn't sound like the best option to me to answer Will & co... Besides, what would you want to unrestrict? The only card I can see that might hurt them is 3sphere and the format is random enough as it stands.

[dicemanx]

I feel I was right in that ever since Trinisphere's restriction Will-Storm based decks have just gotten stronger. This is one of the reasons why I think people should be very careful in what they ask to be restricted or banned. These decisions always have consequences, and these decisions are almost impossible to reverse.

We made a provision for that counterargument during the Trini debate: we shouldn't have a ridiculous coinflip card keeping another coinflip deck in check, as Pyromaniac is echoing now. Even if Trinisphere was keeping Tendrils decks in check, it had to go. If Tendrils decks get too powerful (and it looks like that won't happen), then we'd address them separately. Either the average player hasn't mastered Long to the extent that would make the deck dominant, or perhaps its incapable of dominating T1 in the first place - we won't know until that level mastery happens.

The proposition to weaken Long variants is to dissuade people from playing a deck with a high turn 1-2 kill percentage and make games less random. It doesn't have to do with any issues of dominance - not at this point anyways.

[cssamerican]

I think the point I was trying to make got overlooked. I caution anyone asking for things to get banned or restricted unless you are sure that you will be happy with the outcomes of such actions because it is pretty much impossible to go back. If you ban Will or ToA be sure that you will be happy with all of the consequences that those actions will bring, because you are going to be stuck with them. I am very hesitant to recommend anything for restriction because it is SO permanent.

Pyromaniac the die roll factor doesn't always increase when you bring cards off the list. Trinisphere is the only card on that list that directly attacks the storm mechanic, but there are other cards on that list that create decks just as fast as the storm decks that give other options for people. Cards like Gush and Fact or Fiction were restricted because at that time they were too dominant. It is possible they would still be, but I would rather give them parole and find out before I send other cards into the Nothing. It is possible the list of viable strategies would increase by removing cards from that list. It is just hard to say because of how much time has past since those cards were legal as 4 ofs. This to me is the one problem with the restricted list...Once a card gets on that list it has to be unplayable to get off, and even then it is gonna take a couple of years of being unplayable before it gets off that list.

[dicemanx]

it is pretty much impossible to go back

Why do you think its impossible to go back? Every decision can be undone if it turns out to be a poor one. So far, there just hasn't been any need to undo anything, because recent B/R decisions at the very least haven't upset anything in the format. Perhaps we could get certain cards unrestricted, but that would be a function of the effort put into getting it done. Half hearted suggestions just before every B/R list announcement aren't going to sway WotC.

[cssamerican]

I think that way because I have never seen a good card come off that list, while it was still good. Name the last card that came off that list that was played as a 4of soon after it was unrestricted. I know I can't. It is easy to complain to restrict something and get a ton of people to agree with you because you have evidence that it is distorting the format, it is much harder to get things off the list because you have no evidence that it would be safe. I remember people thought unrestricting Berserk would be the end of the format. That didn't pan out like many smart players thought it would, hell no one ever ran it in multiples after it came off the list. You have to fight the history of a card, which in many cases makes the card out more powerful than it really was because people make statements like nothing could beat BBS or 4Gush-Gat. Even if they were true at one time, people have a hard time realizing that it probably would not be true today. So, very few people ask, and when they do people act like they are crazy.

[Implacable]

I think that way because I have never seen a good card come off that list, while it was still good. Name the last card that came off that list that was played as a 4of soon after it was unrestricted. I know I can't. It is easy to complain to restrict something and get a ton of people to agree with you because you have evidence that it is distorting the format, it is much harder to get things off the list because you have no evidence that it would be safe. I remember people thought unrestricting Berserk would be the end of the format. That didn't pan out like many smart players thought it would, hell no one ever ran it in multiples after it came off the list. You have to fight the history of a card, which in many cases makes the card out more powerful than it really was because people make statements like nothing could beat BBS or 4Gush-Gat. Even if they were true at one time, people have a hard time realizing that it probably would not be true today. So, very few people ask, and when they do people act like they are crazy.

Curiously enough, my entrance exam essay to TMD addresses this.  I hope it goes through, so that I have the whole thing, but the basic gist was to argue for the unrestriction of some cards that are definitely 'still good'.  While decks look very powerful if they dominated a format, the format that they dominated must be taken into account when discussing their alleged 'brokenness'.

[andrewpate]

I think that way because I have never seen a good card come off that list, while it was still good. Name the last card that came off that list that was played as a 4of soon after it was unrestricted. I know I can't.

You could say this about Doomsday.  Smmenen made T8 at SCG Chicago with Doomsday right after its engine card came off the list.  It was the Budget deck of choice for 5-proxy for about 6 months in 2005.

[brianpk80]

I think that way because I have never seen a good card come off that list, while it was still good. Name the last card that came off that list that was played as a 4of soon after it was unrestricted. I know I can't.

Mishra's Workshop is the best example I can remember of a restricted card that exploded onto the format some time after it was unrestricted.  Candelabra of Tawnos is another card that was once restricted and while it's pretty obsolete now, there was a time it was used in conjuction with Academy following its unrestriction.  Throughout the years there have also been instances of decks either using or sideboarding multiple Maze of Iths, a card that was long restricted.  Braingeyser and Mirror Universe (there was a Lich/Overgrown Estate/Mirror combo deck at one point) likewise have seen infrequent play in multiples, though no time recently and my memory could be a bit fuzzy here.  Previously restricted Zuran Orb, Ivory Tower, Hurkyl's Recall, Fork, and Underworld Dreams have also been part of decks where multiple inclusions of each have played some part in an important strategy. 

The point here is that if we restrict something and upon later reflection it turns out to be a mistake, there's definitely life after restriction.  I don't see having a more fluid or flexible banned/restricted list as a bad thing for a format whose major archetypes have been static since the release of Champions of Kamigawa. 

-BPK

[Dxfiler]

Alright, I'll put my two cents in.

The only reason Gifts has been unrestricted for as long as it has is because the player pool in vintage is very low in terms of skill.  Harsh but true words.  When you get a good pool of gifts players together, they dominate.  Top 8 of Gencon and most recently the top 16 of the European 8 lotus tourney fully support my claim. 

Gifts Ungiven is a very skill intensive card that wins many games if it resolves.  The better the player behind the gifts, the better it is.  I've won lots of power off people just casting gifts for the absolute wrong cards.  Bad gifts players make me money. 

Now a mediocre gifts players...or even the few select good gifts players?  They give me fits. 

Is it a problem that good players get rewarded for playing well with a card that gets incrementally better based on how good the player is? 

In the past, no.  Now, yes. 

I think it's a major problem because the majority of Gifts players are no longer donkeys, and they're winning almost every time they cast the card.  This makes it format warping.  In a battle of two gifts players, it's just a good old fashioned race to see who can resolve it first.  People are no longer in the dark on the card, and players of all skill levels are abusing the hell out of it. 

Put a little work into learning gifts and you will be rewarded as much if not more than someone who has put months if not years into playing the card, assuming you get to it more than they do.  I've watched countless matches of people squaring off with Gifts where one player is just clearly better than the other with the deck, but the better player will lose if they cannot get their gifts off first.  If the mediocre player in the match gets it off, they can usually finagle a win even if they did not get the 4 most optimal cards.

Notice I said mediocre and not bad.  A totally bad player cannot win with gifts.  That doesn't mean the card isn't restrict worthy.  Gifts is unqiue from other format warping cards in that you have to play moderately well to win with it.  You can't just belong to the human race and win because the card is too good, like the days of 4x trinisphere.
It's not a penultimate 'i win' card, like yawg will. 

You have to put some work into Gifts Ungiven.  Once you do, you win.  Everyone is putting work into gifts now, and most of them are winning.  The format has turned into  'play gifts or be on a different playing field.'  I can play decks that beat gifts alot.  I have, and I've done well.  Now it's at the point where I'm still going to lose close to half of my games to the card because everyone has a clue, and the card is just genuinely unfair when people have a clue.

Gifts Ungiven is no longer a card that should get a pass because it centers around skill.  The majority of pilots know how to play with it, they know how good it is, and when they play even half competently with it, they're bringing shotguns into a nursery school.

For a very long time, I was against the restriction of Gifts.  That time has passed.  It's now completely format warping and unhealthy for type one.  I say restrict its ass.

- Dave Feinstein