Should there be another level of restriction in magic?

[boggyb]

Do you think there should be another level of restriction in Magic?

We have Banned, Restricted, and Unrestricted. I'm thinking perhaps there should be another level of restriction, perhaps to allow for a two-of cap on a given card; call it "partial restriction" (pretty lame name, I know).

For example, there recently was a thread (that was closed) discussing the possible ramifications of un-restricting of Library of Alexandria. Personally, I think it should be left restricted - but I still feel that it would be interesting to allow players to run only two copies of it.

What cards do you think should fall on this list? I'm thinking Bazaar would be a good candidate, as well as possibly Gifts Ungiven. There are plenty of cards that are already restricted that could fit this bill - maybe Windfall? maybe Wheel of Fortune? maybe Mox Diamond?

Anyway, what do you think?

[Roxas]

I would be against such a thing, mostly because it makes the format's rules even more confusing to newer players than it already can be without necessarily making the format itself very much better. Anyway, the system currently in place is sufficient. Either a card is too good for four copies to be allowed, or it isn't - there shouldn't be a need to split the difference.

[Demonic Attorney]

Moved to Basic Community.

[andrewpate]

Yu-Gi-Oh has a rule like this.  Does anyone have tournament experience in that game?  I'd be interested to hear how it plays and whether any players of that game see it as a potentially beneficial rules import.

On the face of it, though, I tend to side with Roxas.

[desolutionist]

Yu-Gi-Oh has a rule like this.  Does anyone have tournament experience in that game?  I'd be interested to hear how it plays and whether any players of that game see it as a potentially beneficial rules import.

In YuGiOh, the banned/restricted/limited list is only influenced by top 8 decklists; if certain decks constantly win, Konami/UDE butcher it by banning/restricting/limiting components of it.  Objectively, the "2-limit-restriction" is successful in reducing repetitive decklists.  This wouldn't translate well to Magic (or any other respectable game).

[Apollyon]

YGO apparently has a huge restricted list for their version of Standard. It also apparently has serious "deck viability" issues, namely that every deck starts with roughly the same 30 or so cards.

[Jacob Orlove]

Many, many years ago, a casual format called Type B implemented a tiered restriction list; I used to play it a lot locally before I got into Vintage. There was also a cap on your total number of restricted (as opposed to semi-restricted) cards in your deck, and everyone got as many proxies as that cap (which, at the time, was unheard of).

Anyway, this wouldn't work in real Vintage, because you can still run tons of tutors. We typically played with a limit of 4 restricted cards, which meant you couldn't have a bunch of tutors AND a bunch of acceleration AND a bunch of broken cards--it was pretty much just 1-2 of each. That meant that only having 2 of something was a meaningful distinction.

Honestly, I think you'd get better results with a limit on restricted cards, and then taking anything off the list that just got de facto banned (Windfall, Voltaic Key, etc). If people only got 10 restricted cards to go with their 10 proxies, they would have to make some very hard choices. That's probably too low, though. 15 might work, giving, say, 5 moxes, Lotus, Lotus Petal, Crypt, Sol Ring, along with Ancestral, Walk, Demonic, Vamp, Academy, Will.

Strip Mine, Fact or Fiction, Mystical Tutor, Library of Alexandria, and others would find themselves marginalized.

Combo would be hurt, though, since they wouldn't have access to all that plus Necro, Bargain, Desire, Windfall, Timetwister, Jar, Vault, Wheel, Tinker.

Another option would be to set the limit higher, say at 20, and restrict a few more cards.

[wethepeople]

I would be against such a thing, mostly because it makes the format's rules even more confusing to newer players than it already can be without necessarily making the format itself very much better. Anyway, the system currently in place is sufficient. Either a card is too good for four copies to be allowed, or it isn't - there shouldn't be a need to split the difference.

I agree. When I first started playing t1, I had trouble understanding which cards I could/could not use, as well as what were restricted. If you play in MWS, you will come across several "beginners" who don't even know of the Banned/Restricted list, so further ruling would make deckbuilding for new players even more difficult.

Honestly, I am having no objections to any of our current Vintage decks, seeing as none of which are in any way un-beatable.

[netherspirit]

Although I don't see the need for another level of restriction, I wouldn't at all mind it. It's something I myself have thought about a lot and it would be interesting to see the effect on the format.

Maybe, though, a better idea would just be for those who want another level of restriction to create their own casual formats for them and their play groups with these restrictions implemented.

  netherspirit