Poll: Which Card is the Best Candidate for Unrestriction?

[diopter]

Any particular reason why you *don't* think Fact or Fiction would be a problem?  It remains one of the best draw effects in Vintage and, as a 4-of, might overshadow Gifts.

Gifts is 2-4 Demonic Tutors stapled together.  Fact or Fiction just gets you random cards.  As we understand more and more about Gifts, we find it to be more and more powerful.

There is no truer statement than this. Gifts as a card has not even reached its full potetion in deck design and  power. We have probably have only seen 50 to 65 percent of what Gifts Ungiven is fully capable of.

I don't think FoF would cause any problems right now, but thats because of the speed of the format, which has reached my limit anyways...i think things need to slow down a bit. Almost don't care how...ban will, or restrict some cards, aslong as it works!

Seriosly, the amount of broken cards on the list which are being discussed for CUTTING is insane!...
People are saying that you could unrestrict:
Gush
FoF
LoA
Mind twist
...some people are cutting necropotence...

That's just nutz if you ask me.. I think something ought to change, but that is just my opinion.

Necro used to be a near-guaranteed win, even if cast on Turn 2 or Turn 3. Same with Library in the control mirror. Now they are no longer so. I personally think it is a good thing when such "I win" cards lose some of their potency.

[forests failed you]

Fact or Fiction is good in a control deck where one tries to answer cards one for one and then overwhelms an oppoenent with card advantage.  Gifts makes 'control' decks extremely quick.  You can just find all of the cards that win and kill somebody on the spot.  With the ability of Drain decks to play 4X Gifts, why would you even want to play 1 Fact or Fiction let alone 4?  I haven't had FOF in one of my Drain decks in over a year.  Simply put, Gifts is a much more powerful card than FOF is because it says "Search your Library for 4 cards."  With a deck full of restricted and busted cards, that ability is extremely unfair... Even at four mana.

However, if Gifts were to at some point find itself restricted and FOF Unrestricted; that might change the dynamic somewhat.  But, as long as Gifts is on the unrestricted list, I see no reason that its baby sister Fact or Fiction couldn't be unrestricted as well.

And, Library is insane.  There is no reason that card ever needs to come off the unrestricted list. 

[Godder]

I thought we'd had this discussion? Some cards are just amazing as 4-ofs because they chain so well, and FoF and Gush are two primary examples. Gifts doesn't really chain, in that the first Gifts doesn't generally make the second Gifts that much better, but second and third Fact or Fictions and/or Gushes get out-of-hand really fast.

[forests failed you]

RIght, Right... But

Chaining Fact or Fictions is slow... By the time you have the mana to do that you are most likely dead, because some guy had Gifts and FOW on your end step and killed you during his turn.

[Implacable]

I thought we'd had this discussion? Some cards are just amazing as 4-ofs because they chain so well, and FoF and Gush are two primary examples. Gifts doesn't really chain, in that the first Gifts doesn't generally make the second Gifts that much better, but second and third Fact or Fictions and/or Gushes get out-of-hand really fast.

The real reason that Gifts doesn't chain?

The first one wins you the game.

[zeus-online]

Any particular reason why you *don't* think Fact or Fiction would be a problem?  It remains one of the best draw effects in Vintage and, as a 4-of, might overshadow Gifts.

Gifts is 2-4 Demonic Tutors stapled together.  Fact or Fiction just gets you random cards.  As we understand more and more about Gifts, we find it to be more and more powerful.

There is no truer statement than this. Gifts as a card has not even reached its full potetion in deck design and  power. We have probably have only seen 50 to 65 percent of what Gifts Ungiven is fully capable of.

I don't think FoF would cause any problems right now, but thats because of the speed of the format, which has reached my limit anyways...i think things need to slow down a bit. Almost don't care how...ban will, or restrict some cards, aslong as it works!

Seriosly, the amount of broken cards on the list which are being discussed for CUTTING is insane!...
People are saying that you could unrestrict:
Gush
FoF
LoA
Mind twist
...some people are cutting necropotence...

That's just nutz if you ask me.. I think something ought to change, but that is just my opinion.

Necro used to be a near-guaranteed win, even if cast on Turn 2 or Turn 3. Same with Library in the control mirror. Now they are no longer so. I personally think it is a good thing when such "I win" cards lose some of their potency.

So you think its good that the format has sped up this much? The only reason that they've lost their potency, is because the format has increased so much in speed, that the old crop of busted cards are getting too SLOW for Type 1...

The real reason that Gifts doesn't chain?
The first one wins you the game.

But gifts does chain, if you want it to...its just not necessary all that often.

I think Fact or fiction is an objectively better card, but in Type 1 gifts is just alot scarier due to the cards in the metagame.

/Zeus

[moxpearl]

On a related note to this discussion on how the format has speed up so much, why was Enlightened tutor not on the list on potential unrestrictions?

There have been lots of threads on trying to make green and white better colors, and this card could possibly help that side of the color wheel.  I think the reason it's on the restricted list is that it gets two cards - Necropotence and Black Lotus (and maybe Fastbond, but that would requre a green/white deck, yeah!)   It seems most people agree that Necropotence has lost a lot of it's luster when it's played beyond turn 1, so how many people would splash white just so they can play 4 enlightened tutors and go turn 1 scrubland-enlightened, turn 2-ritual-necro?   That's a heck of a lot of card and tempo investment just to get Necro out.   And past turn 3, the enlightened tutors really are only worth getting black lotus in a combo deck, which some may argue is good, but you've spent 4 bomb slots and possibly losing the splash red for ETW or green for Xantid, all just to enable this questionable turn 2 necro.

On the flip side, maybe it could help some new enchantment deck designs that would splash white.  Let's help that side of the color wheel, before we talk about making blue better by unrestricting fact or gush!

[andrewpate]

I have built and tested the Fastbond deck with 4xEnlightened Tutor, and that was like 2 years ago.  Nothing in the format has changed to make me think it would be any prettier now than it was then.  Fastbond is truly insane, and I see no reason to give it such a great support card.  Do we really need another turn 3 combo deck with 12 disruption slots in the format?  I don't think so.

[dicemanx]

I have built and tested the Fastbond deck with 4xEnlightened Tutor, and that was like 2 years ago.  Nothing in the format has changed to make me think it would be any prettier now than it was then.  Fastbond is truly insane, and I see no reason to give it such a great support card.  Do we really need another turn 3 combo deck with 12 disruption slots in the format?  I don't think so.

I don't understand this argument on a couple of levels.

Are you critical of the speed of the format, and feel that something should be done about it via restrictions? If not, then the answer to your question would be "yes, we want another 3 turn combo in the format". Our goal is to increase format diversity, or we risk losing player interest - generally speaking, if we gain an archetype without pushing another archetype out of a format, that translates into a positive outcome.

Secondly, are you assessing the power of Gush/Fastbond based on GAT's performance in the past, or your own private testing with your "4 Enlightened Tutor and 1 Fastbond" deck, or are you idly speculating? GAT was a monster relative to the decks it was competing against at the time, but in today's environment it could very well be just another competitor in a sea of strong, viable archetypes. If your argument is based on private testing with Fastbond/Gush builds, it's a little insufficient to say "trust me guys, I've tried it and it's too good". We've listened to enough of these very strong contentions about the power of certain cards or archetypes (remember Magus of the Jar just recently, or CotV when it first came out?) to tell us that even strong, experienced players misevaluate or overestimate card strength or impact.


I would approach these discussions about the B/R list this way:

Let's suppose that our primary goal is format diversity AND periodic changes/upheavals to keep things interesting by forcing players to constantly adapt. If this wasn't the primary goal, it might be fair to say that interest will wane - no matter how much Smennen can hype up a match-up like Gifts vs Grimlong or demonstrate how intensely complex and interesting such matches might be, people simply don't like to play vintage where they are forced to play 1 of 2 archetypes to be realistically competitive. While some certainly have no issues with the state of the format right now or the speed of top tier decks in T1, we have to put our own interests and wants aside and do whatever it takes to ensure that we keep the player base that we have now (or at least maintain status quo even if there's turnover), or, even better, SELL the game to prospective or even current T1 players to allow the format to thrive. Therefore we have two options - convince those dissatisfied with the format that there is still a lot of fun to be derived from it, or actually effect changes via the B/R list (as we are powerless to do much else, such as print specific vintage playable cards or change the rules).

Now I have no illusions that we can definitely succeed with the first option - I'll leave that to others to propose how it can best be achieved. On the other hand, the second option is more of a guarantee that format interest will be continuously revived. Note, for instance, how exciting things get around the time that a new set is released - there is tons of speculation about card viability, tons of decks are generated trying to employ new cards or pursue new strategies. That the nature of the format will cause the rejection of 99% of these ideas is beside the point - it is the pursuit of mining for new and exciting strategies and generating playable archetypes that holds a lot of interest and appeal to a large number of T1 players, and these forums and any T1 event are sufficient proof of that. The interest, essentially, lies in the journey to find the "objective truth" - we seek out to find what is "best", but with the realization that once we get there, we will essentially undermine the format and the interest that it holds for many.

We want to "solve" the format, but we don't want to be playing in a "solved" format.

The problem is that new sets don't have enough of an impact now on t1 - we've almost reached "critical mass", where it would be difficult to find stronger versions of currently existing cards without printing overpowered cards in the first place. Perhaps on occasion a "flagship" card is printed, like Magus of the Jar or Golgari Grave Troll/dredge mechanic, that could spawn an entirely new viable archetype, but either such circumstances are very rare, or we are way too slow in realizing the potential of certain cards or strategies. Now Smennen is of the opinion that there is still a lot left to be discovered in t1 (unless he has more recently changed his view). I agree with him. However, what we believe is irrelevant for the health and interest in the format - if players are finding it much too challenging at this stage to come up with new and exciting ideas, the interest WILL wane, whether the actual format potential is fully tapped or not. It is the same dilemma facing Legacy - format diversity is likely very achievable, but the triumvirate of Goblins/Threshhold/High Tide is a very high barrier to many prospective players - I know I can rank myself in such a category and why I stopped pursuing Legacy.

So then, what's another option to effect change in T1? We can naturally turn to the B/R list. It is arguable that any change whether good or bad, is positive for the format, even if the change is an objectively poor one. For instance, let's say that there was a decision to unrestrict Gush. Now it could very well be the case that this is a poor decision, because it will ultimately spawn Gush-based archetypes that push much of the diversity out of the format. However, until we actually get there, there will be much momentary interest stemming from trying to best break the card. Evolution and finding "ideal" approaches is a very slow process as it is - we usually have a lot of time before we get to the point where such a deck will start showing signs of domination. We already have perfect evidence of this - Gifts took a few years to rise to the forefront, and Long based archetypes are only more recently showing their true power.

So then, what good would it do to unrestrict a potential problem card, if it will create a worse environment in a few months or a few years? Well, that would only be the case if we view our modification of the B/R list as working towards the ideal, instead of using it as a tool of diversity. For instance, if Gush starts proving to be problematic, you can restrict it again in one year, or whenever it starts exhibiting signs of format dominance.  This way the B/R list is always in a state of flux, a dynamic entity that doesn't seek out a "best" form - the mere act of change is what is "best" here, at least according to the argument. Just imagine the wealth of possibilities if in a few days, the decision came down to unrestrict Gush, Fact or Fiction, and Mind Twist, among others like Voltaic Key and Dream Halls. It would create a sudden surge of interest as people scrambled to find the ideal way of abusing or breaking these cards.

Now, we have to put our faith in two things - the first is that this format has very strong buffering capacity, to borrow a chemistry term. That is, if a potentially powerful strategy initially appears, the format has enough resources to deal with the issue and prevent outright dominance. For instance, notice how the introduction of a turn 1 kill combo deck - Meandeck Tendrils - barely dented the format. The fact that cards like FoW, CotV, Null Rod, Sphere of resistance, Tormod's Crypt and a few others exist and are commonplace in main decks, makes it difficult for very fast strategies to push everything else out of the format. Contrast this scenario to one 4-6 years ago, where a turn 1 kill deck would be entirely unacceptable because the format just didn't have the tools to cope.  Because of such "buffering capacity", or ability to neutralize any strategy to some extent, we don't have to fear making "incorrect" B/R decisions in the short term. In the long term, we can easily reverse prior B/R decisions to make sure we never reach stagnancy caused by the discovery of the "ideal" forms of an archetype that would exhibit some degree of dominance.

We also have to put our faith in one last thing - that the constantly changing B/R list will not be too much of a concern for prospective or even existing T1 players. For one thing, I am not suggesting that we need a change every three months, so this kind of fluctuation wouldn't be so frequent as to cause confusion - the changes will simply coincide with the needs of the format, and since vintage evolution is relatively slow (at least it has been thus far) they would not be required too frequently. Secondly, so long as players are aware that this is how the format functions, and is periodically subject to change via changes to the B/R list, they will anticipate such things well ahead of time and keep better track of whats allowable in the format. We have to place some accountability on the shoulders of vintage players - if they would be easily frustrated by changes that might occur every year, that to me isn't a very reasonable argument against such a proposition. Plus, people generally love to vent about anything and everything, so naturally such an idea such as this one might meet with some resistance. The question will be whether there is in fact a reasonable counter-argument, not whether an actual counter-argument exists (it always exists for any argument, but isn't necessarily always reasonable).

So there you have it. I propose changing the B/R list periodically for the mere sake of change, to periodically infuse this format with fresh cards or deny certain strategies to bring underdeveloped strategies to the forefront. I don't care about accuracy or ensuring that we make "correct" restriction/unrestriction decisions (aside from silly trivial cases like unrestricting Moxes/Lotus/power blue, which would never be considered), because the mere change is positive enough - it always has been in the past (every B/R change, whether you think the decision was good or a poor one, resulted in resurgent interest, even when people supposedly threatened to "quit" in protest), and it will continue to be in the future.

One of Magic's bigest selling points is that it is always changing. Equilibrium is never allowed to be reached - when the best T2 decks are being discovered, all of that work is rendered obsolete every 3-4 months. Furthermore, in T1 specifically, we LOVE to play with our broken toys, but NOT for an extended period of time. Playing with those 4 Trinispheres might have given us a rush the first 3 months that we played with them, but as others copied the strategy and as more people succumbed to silly effective turn 1 kills things got unexciting and unfun quickly. We want the brokenness, but only in relatively short bursts - we want to constantly move on and break new cards or deck ideas.

If T2/Extended/Limited players enjoy such constant flux, why can't we?

Thoughts?

[Implacable]

Diceman, that is an amazing post.  After thinking about it, I agree with what you've said entirely; a dynamic Banned & Restricted list is one of, if not the, best way(s) to keep players interested in the format.  I for one would be thrilled to have to dynamically playtest new cards in anticipation of the variable metagames that would develop because of B&R changes.

[moxpearl]

I completely agree too.  You articulated very well what I've thought for a while.  I've mentioned this one of the other topics...I want Wizards to be more aggressive on unrestricting cards.     Let's unrestrict five or so cards and see what happens for the next year.

While I would argue Will should be permanently banned, another thought is Will could be part of that B/R rotation.  For example, Will could be on a one year on/ one year off rotation.  That alone would be provide an incredible amount of diversty and change from one year to the next as the next time Will rotates back, there will have been a full new set that came in.  People would be excited to bring their Will decks back and then excited to try new decks wil Will gone.

This may be a wild suggestion to Wizards, but certainly an interesting proposal nevertheless.

[andrewpate]

After reading your post, diceman, I must agree with you.  On a rotating basis, Enlightened Tutor would be a fine unrestriction.  And while I think that reliable turn 2 Fastbond would grow burdensome after a bit, you are almost certianly correct that it would be very exciting for a while and bring some real interest.

I also like your point about the difficulty of evolving the format.  With very few exceptions, significant new decks come from one of just a few centers:  Meandeck, Reflection, GWS, ICBM; only groups such as these can reasonably do anything with the format, since one great mind is not typically enough to push a deck over the top for Vintage.  The curve is too steep.  Suddenly reintroducing a card of crushing power but little utility for existing archetypes is just the ticket to give the dynamism that makes Standard interesting (it is frequently "solved" by the end of the season and needs the rotation in order to be fun again).

I'd be interested to hear Wizards's take on this.  We understand our own format so much better than they do; I wonder if they'd listen to the suggestion.  It would be akin to "releases" for shallower formats.  Suddenly we have 4 Gush but only 1 Gifts Ungiven.  It's like a rotation!  Actually, that could be the problem with it.  Wizards seems to think that Vintage is defined by a sort of muddy stasis, where things change very slowly and Black Lotus is the only card that really matters.  Why they see this as desirable is beyond me, but it's been their perception for years and they haven't seemed to be looking to change it.

[Vegeta2711]

We understand our own format so much better than they do

Good luck getting anyone to agree on anything ever.

[andrewpate]

That's not at all what I meant.  I meant that we are on the level to debate things like this seriously.  Of course we're not going to come to some kind of unanimous consensus.

[Smmenen]

For those of you contemplating Peter's post:

Do you want greater strategic diversity in Vinage?

Would you like to see change - perhaps for the purpose of creating or stirring up interest?

Would you like to see Vintage look alot different than it does now without ruining the magic of the format?

Do you feel the format is a little too fast and swingy?

Do you want there to be more interactivity in the format?

Do you feel that maybe Gifts and Grim Tutor push the limit of the format?

Would you like to see other decks have a chance to push themselves to the forefront?

IMO, all of these objectives can be accomplished and more with one simple move.   Only one card needs to be changed on the B/R list to accomplish all of this: Ban Yawg Will.   Nothing needs to be restricted.  One simple little change.  No risk, no guesswork.  It's a clean and simple solution that changes everything without having to change much at all.

[Royal Ass.]

Diceman's thoughts on this are interesting.  This scenario would only work if the people in charge of making restriction changes at Wizard were keeping a very close watch on what's going on in type one.  As of now, it seems like the only changes that take place on the restricted list come about after huge outcries from the players.  Having a revolving restricted list that changes frequently would require Wizards to really keep their finger on the pulse of the format in order to make the kind of informed decisions necessary to achieve the kind of result Dicemanx outlined.  I hate to be a skeptic, but I just don't see Wizards caring that much about this format. 

As an alternative, there could be some sort of players advisory committee that could make recomendations to Wizards on what kind of restriction changes needed to happen and Win.  The problem with this is that the players could never come to a consensus about changes, and Wizards would never relinquish their control over the decision making process to the players.

[carlossb]

some sort of players advisory committee

I hope you are suggesting an international one, not one with players from only the US (or Canada).

[moxpearl]

For those of you contemplating Peter's post:

Do you want greater strategic diversity in Vinage?

Would you like to see change - perhaps for the purpose of creating or stirring up interest?

Would you like to see Vintage look alot different than it does now without ruining the magic of the format?

Do you feel the format is a little too fast and swingy?

Do you want there to be more interactivity in the format?

Do you feel that maybe Gifts and Grim Tutor push the limit of the format?

Would you like to see other decks have a chance to push themselves to the forefront?

IMO, all of these objectives can be accomplished and more with one simple move. Only one card needs to be changed on the B/R list to accomplish all of this: Ban Yawg Will. Nothing needs to be restricted. One simple little change. No risk, no guesswork. It's a clean and simple solution that changes everything without having to change much at all.

Yes ^ 7
I agree.

Wizards is probably worried about making a dumb decision, so to them, it's not worth the risk and time investment to learn the format to make a bold decision such as banning Will or being more unfree in their unrestrictions.  Maybe the mods should put up a poll with player's opinions on banning will.  I'm sure they look to TMD for opinions from our community, so a poll could help them understand where the Vintage players stand on this issue.  Has there ever been a poll, such as "Wizards' should:
1.  Ban Yawgmoth's Will permanently
2.  Ban Yawgmoth's Will with the possibility of a future unbanning of the card.
3.  Leave it unbanned, because I don't think it's unhealthy for the format
4.  Leave it unbanned, because it holds true to the rule that only dexterity and ante cards are banned."

Beyond that, we could put up polls on other cards unrestrictions, so Wizards knows where the community stands.  Then they don't have to do as much research and they're not necessarily relinquishing control of the b/r list to the players.  Also, I know we have a poll such as which card most deserves unrestriction, but maybe there should be an individual poll for the top three. 

[netherspirit]

This may sound radical and stupid.. But what if the whole Restricted list were scrapped except for the p9 (maybe with the exception of Timetwister), and then the cards that seem most problematic were scrapped?

I know this may sound stupid and the format as a whole would be totally degenerate for a while, but it may see the emergence of many new decks as a result.

[Vegeta2711]

but it may see the emergence of many new decks as a result.

No it wouldn't. It'd be a race to see who built the first turn 1 combo deck. Shit like Bargain, Necro, Desire, etc. don't need to come off the list as 4-of's to show people how degenerate they are. 

As an alternative, there could be some sort of players advisory committee that could make recomendations to Wizards on what kind of restriction changes needed to happen and Win.  The problem with this is that the players could never come to a consensus about changes, and Wizards would never relinquish their control over the decision making process to the players.

This fails anyway, because how would you even begin to pick who would be on this committee?

It's a clean and simple solution that changes everything

Yep. Drain's get stronger and everything else sucks shit. I can get behind this. :thumbsup:

[zeus-online]

This may sound radical and stupid.. But what if the whole Restricted list were scrapped except for the p9 (maybe with the exception of Timetwister), and then the cards that seem most problematic were scrapped?

I know this may sound stupid and the format as a whole would be totally degenerate for a while, but it may see the emergence of many new decks as a result.

This has the risk of creating a meta-game like the one today, where everything is so broken that the archetypes are keeping each other in check - but this time the power level and speed would be way higher because of all the unrestricted brokenness. (Although i have a hard time imagining a faster meta-game...)

/Zeus

[dicemanx]

I cannot disagree with Steve's suggestion of banning Yawgmoth's Will, because it still falls under the umbrella of my proposal - a change to the B/R list to stimulate interest is a good thing, even if the banning of the card might not be "objectively best". The idea I proposed and what Steve is suggesting are not mutually exclusive.

[OfficeShredder]

Restricting gifts ungiven, merchant scroll and grim tutor should probably be done before banning yawgmoth's will.  And maybe ETW and tendrils of agony too.  With all the tutor support available, it's really no surprise that will is shining

[Smmenen]

Restricting gifts ungiven, merchant scroll and grim tutor should probably be done before banning yawgmoth's will.  And maybe ETW and tendrils of agony too.  With all the tutor support available, it's really no surprise that will is shining

How does that make sense?  Restricting three cards before banning one?   Getting to play with 9 less cards instead of one? 

In my view, Yawg Will should be banned before any card is restricted on account of it.   Merchant Scroll is powerful primarily  because of tempo which Will makes good.   Without Will, none of those cards are restriction worthy.   

Should we permit Yawg Will to restrict one more card before banning Will?  I don't think so.   

[Mr. Nightmare]

Restricting gifts ungiven, merchant scroll and grim tutor should probably be done before banning yawgmoth's will.  And maybe ETW and tendrils of agony too.  With all the tutor support available, it's really no surprise that will is shining

Q:  What is Gift's Ungiven's primary purpose in the metagame?
A:  To set up the perfect Will.

Q:  What is Merchant Scroll's primary purpose?
A:  To act as Gifts Ungiven 5-8, in order to set up the perfect Will.

Q:  What is Grim Tutor's primary purpose?
A:  To find Will.


See the common theme here?  If I were to make the case that something is wrong with Vintage (and I don't know if I would), banning Yawg Will seems to be the easiest answer.  The DCI's policy has always been to allow players the ability to play with as many of their cards as possible, I simply can't see a reason why they would choose to restrict 3 and still not solve the issue, rather than ban 1 and open up the format, probably tenfold.

[zeus-online]

Urh, i mostly tutor for FoW and A. recall with merchant scroll? Rarely Gifts....am i doing something wrong?...

I'd say that gifts looses so much power from the banning of will that it goes from restrict-worthy to mediocre.

Grim tutor would probably still be good, but not on the same level.

Merchant scroll would still be good, it just need a new deck! No deck abuses merchant scroll as much as gifts does, maybe except for intuAK, but nobody plays that anyways.

/Zeus

[Implacable]

While his example of Merchant Scroll as a Gifts Ungiven tutor is definitely off, it is absolutely true that Grim and Gifts are both used to make the perfect Will.  I do agree that Will should be banned, although I doubt that it will happen.  I want to play the Type 1 that I never got a chance to; the fairer, more innovative Type 1 that Oscar Tan captivated me with.  While there may be broken cards in this new Vintage, there will not be, if you will, the 'One Card to Rule Them All'.

[Mr. Nightmare]

Urh, i mostly tutor for FoW and A. recall with merchant scroll? Rarely Gifts....am i doing something wrong?...

I'd say that gifts looses so much power from the banning of will that it goes from restrict-worthy to mediocre.

Grim tutor would probably still be good, but not on the same level.

Merchant scroll would still be good, it just need a new deck! No deck abuses merchant scroll as much as gifts does, maybe except for intuAK, but nobody plays that anyways.

/Zeus

Yeah, I admit to stretching the word "primary" to suit my needs, but Merchant Scroll is the least-effected card of the three by banning Will, since it doesn't directly interact with it.

[Smmenen]

I actually think that Merchant Scroll becomes bad if Will is banned.   The original criticism of Scroll is that the later Scrolls are bad.   The reason Scroll is great in MDG is that your card advantage from resolution of early Ancestral can be sustained, tempo wise, striaght through to the resolution of Will.   You can Scroll to protect Ancestral and after Ancestral you can Scroll to find Gifts or countermagic to protect your card advantage so that you'll eventually resolve your Will or to gifts to will asap.   Scroll also gives versatility and resilience since it tutors for bounce and Mystical Tutor.    Without the Yawg Will strategy, the tempo and card advantage derived from Scroll wouldn't make it worth it.   The game is too decompressed and the inheret card advantage weakness of Scroll vis-a-vis other draw spells would become too apparent.   

In short, Will makes Scroll good because of the way that resolution of early Ancestral dramatically accellerates your ability to find, play, and resolve Will as quickly as possible.   Without Will, Scroll becomes much weaker and is almost unjustifiable as a 4-of. 

[Mr. Nightmare]

I actually think that Merchant Scroll becomes bad if Will is banned.   The original criticism of Scroll is that the later Scrolls are bad.   The reason Scroll is great in MDG is that your card advantage from resolution of early Ancestral can be sustained, tempo wise, striaght through to the resolution of Will.   You can Scroll to protect Ancestral and after Ancestral you can Scroll to find Gifts or countermagic to protect your card advantage so that you'll eventually resolve your Will or to gifts to will asap.   Scroll also gives versatility and resilience since it tutors for bounce and Mystical Tutor.    Without the Yawg Will strategy, the tempo and card advantage derived from Scroll wouldn't make it worth it.   The game is too decompressed and the inheret card advantage weakness of Scroll vis-a-vis other draw spells would become too apparent.   

In short, Will makes Scroll good because of the way that resolution of early Ancestral dramatically accellerates your ability to find, play, and resolve Will as quickly as possible.   Without Will, Scroll becomes much weaker and is almost unjustifiable as a 4-of. 

But at the same time, with Will banned, there's a decompression that would happen, and the format could see a move back toward things like Intuition -> AK as a means of generating long term card advantage.  Merchant scroll definately has a home in that type of format.

Where Gifts is most suited for a Yawg Will environment, Merchant Scroll has enough other interactions where it could find a home qithout Will in the Format.