[Premium Article] An Honest Look at the Restricted List

[Katzby]

The type 1 and type 2 restricted lists were not separated until April 1, 1996.  And a big deal was made about this.  It was an official change in policy that was announced along with the new B&R list.  If anybody is truly interested, I’m sure I can dig up a copy of this announcement.

Sure, I'd be curious to see it. 

It took some while, but I found it.  Enjoy.  Also, Chaos Orb, Falling Star, and Channel were banned at the same time in October of 1995.

DUELISTS' CONVOCATION INTERNATIONAL
                BANNED/RESTRICTED LIST CHANGES

                   "BANNED/RESTRICTED DAYS"

Many Duelists' Convocation members have remarked that, while they
appreciate our policy of announcing changes in the Banned/Restricted Lists
one month before they become effective, there have been problems in
getting the information out in a timely manner. So, we have decided to
make certain days of the year "Banned/Restricted Days." No, that doesn't
mean you'll have to cross those
days off your calendar! It just means that we will announce changes to the
Banned and Restricted Lists ONLY on those days.

       Type I: March 1, September 1
       Type II: March 1, June 1, September 1, December 1

                              LISTS SEPARATED

In addition, the Duelists' Convocation would like to take this opportunity
to announce that the Banned and Restricted Lists for Type I and Type II
sanctioned tournaments will henceforth be separated from one another. That
is to say, each card which is Banned or Restricted in the future will be
considered on its own merits for each type of tournament: The addition of
a card to the Banned or Restricted List for Type I tournaments does NOT
necessarily mean the card will also be added to the Type II Banned or
Restricted Lists.

         OFFICIAL CHANGES TO THE BANNED/RESTRICTED LISTS

                        EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1996

CLASSIC (TYPE I) RESTRICTED LIST

       Fastbond is added

CLASSIC (TYPE I) BANNED LIST

       No alterations

STANDARD (TYPE II) RESTRICTED LIST

       Hymn to Tourach is added
       Strip Mine is added

STANDARD (TYPE II) BANNED LIST

       No alterations

                           Letter to DCI Members

Greetings to all DCI members,

The Duelists' Convocation International (DCI) is excited and pleased to
announce the beginning of the 1996-97 tournament season! In keeping with
our customary policy, we would like to briefly discuss the newest changes
to the tournament environment, and our rationale for making them.

Hymn to Tourach Restricted in Standard (Type II)

Hymn to Tourach from Fallen Empires has been the center of more
controversy than any other single card throughout the later half of the
1995-96 tournament season. Competitors began to suggest its restriction
shortly after the first Pro Tour event in New York, primarily because the
card was seen by many as the cornerstone of the popular and successful
"Necro" deck. Many DCI members expected its restriction on June 1 but were
surprised when the DCI decided to restrict Land Tax but not Hymn to
Tourach.

The DCI explained that, at that time, it lacked sufficient data on Hymn's
true influence in the Standard (Type II) tournament environment. Necro
decks had barely started to dominate tournaments, and Alliances had not
yet been released, giving rise to the possibility that new card
combinations and deck designs would emerge to challenge Necro decks.
Moreover, the actual cause of Necro's success was still open to
speculation: Some competitors claimed it was the result of
several other cards, while others theorized that it was due to the sheer
number of competitors (particularly top-ranked players) who used the deck.

The conclusion of the 1995-96 season and the release of Alliances gives
the DCI more information on which to base a decision. Hymn to Tourach's
impact is more readily visible: One need only recall the semifinal match
at the 1996 U.S. Nationals, between Dennis Bentley and Matthew Place to
witness the Hymn's early game-swing advantage, as well as its strong
ability to stifle new deck-construction ideas.

Strip Mine Restricted in Standard (Type II)

Restricting Strip Mine (Fourth Edition) echoes the DCI's Black Vise
decision earlier this year: Strip Mine is a card so generally effective
that an overwhelming majority of tournament players decide to include it
in their decks, regardless of the deck's theme or purpose. Its tremendous
ability to
provide an early game swing-not to mention the fact that it cannot be
countered-makes the card too attractive to ignore.

Fastbond Restricted in Classic (Type I)

Fastbond (Revised) has occupied a spot on the DCI's "most-watched" list
for some time. Fastbond is similar to Channel in its ability to create
grossly overpowered, game-winning combinations. This is most obvious when
Fastbond is used in conjunction with Storm Cauldron, effectively creating
a Channel for colored mana, with preventable damage.

The DCI hopes you agree that these changes offer the prospect of a
stronger, more dynamic tournament environment as we inaugurate the new
season!

Sincerely,
Jason Carl
Director, DCI
 

[brianpk80]

It took some while, but I found it.  Enjoy.  Also, Chaos Orb, Falling Star, and Channel were banned at the same time in October of 1995.

Did the Channel banning predate the Mind Twist ban?  I thought it did, but I could be wrong. 
Thanks for posting the announcement,

-BPK

[Purple Hat]

on the "erata will" concept, which I believe appears on the first page and thus this is a bit off the direction this discussion has gone, but couldn't will be erataed to say something along the lines of: "until end of turn you may put cards in your graveyard into play by paying their casting cost" so that they didn't count as spells cast that turn?  someone who's better with rules wording than I am these days would have to tell me if this could work with non-permenants, but I suspect there's a way to do this.  This would A) preserve the power of will as originally intended, as a source of card advantage.  and B) Prevent the use of will with storm to produce stupid I just win now scenarios in the early game.

It'd still have to be restricted cus it's still insane card advantage, but this nerfs the storm interaction to the point where will-->storm requires more setup.  Just a thought.  I think another solution, which by the way would snap standard and extended like a twig, would be to find a way to print some cards that were equally powerful but so dissynergistic with eachother that a deck designed to use more than one of them would fall apart under it's own weight.  this seems like a terrible idea, but it seems to me that you can either lower the power level of the will strategy, and this is the primary problem with will....resolving will correctly is an entire strategy, or boost the level of all other strategies.

Hale

[brianpk80]

on the "erata will" concept, which I believe appears on the first page and thus this is a bit off the direction this discussion has gone, but couldn't will be erataed to say something along the lines of: "until end of turn you may put cards in your graveyard into play by paying their casting cost" so that they didn't count as spells cast that turn?  someone who's better with rules wording than I am these days would have to tell me if this could work with non-permenants, but I suspect there's a way to do this.  This would A) preserve the power of will as originally intended, as a source of card advantage.  and B) Prevent the use of will with storm to produce stupid I just win now scenarios in the early game.

Although it's uncanny and I'm not sure how far we'd get advancing this suggestion, this is by far one of the most clever and unique ideas I've read.  Nice thinking,

-BPK

[zeus-online]

Oh...but wizard's just removed alot of power level erreta, why would they all of a sudden do something like that?

...And i would still rather see it banned then having to consult the oracle to see what my cards do.

/Zeus

...oh and on another note...does anyone know why Thawing glaciers still have a power-level erreta?

[andrewpate]

The Thawing Glaciers errata is similar to the Lotus Vale errata; it's not so much "power level errata" as it is errata that causes the cards to behave as they were intended.  This is different from something like Great Whale (which, while not exactly intended to produce mana, was designed to untap lands when it came into play).  Lotus Vale, when printed, could not be tapped for mana before its controller dealt with its comes-into-play trigger; the new (broken) functionality of its printed text is simply a totally different card.  Thawing Glaciers is the same way, as are Scorched Ruins, Phyrexian Dreadnought, and Mox Diamond.

The question with which this leaves me, then, is why only cards such as these, whose new functionalities are superior to their original ones, have intent-restoring errata.  The intent behind Mirror Universe seems clear to me:  it was printed in order to create a means of abusing the delayed game loss for 0 or less life in the original rules.  I feel that Mirror Universe should recieve hideous errata establishing a static ability until the end of the phase which would allow it to function as intended.  If Lotus Vale is not Slightly Suboptimal Black Lotus Two Through Five, then Mirror Universe should be a kill condition.

[Akuma]

And on that note, the stupid errata on Phyrexian Dreadnought should be removed...

The removal of some of the power level errata can actually be viewed as a way for Wizards to introduce "new" cards that might be playable in Vintage without affecting their premier formats.

[zeus-online]

Are you absolutely sure that it wasn't possible to abuse glaciers before the 6th ed. rules? I remember reading some old articles about tapping it EOT, untapping, and getting two lands.....But i'm not sure if that was pre or post 6th ed. rules.

/Zeus

[Katzby]

Are you absolutely sure that it wasn't possible to abuse glaciers before the 6th ed. rules? I remember reading some old articles about tapping it EOT, untapping, and getting two lands.....But i'm not sure if that was pre or post 6th ed. rules.

/Zeus

I can confirm that it was possible to do this for a little while in extended (never in type 2), but only after the 6th edition rules change.  However, we can't consider the odd card interactions that sprouted up during the "transitionary" few months after 6th edition rules went into effect to actually be the original intent of these cards.

There are plenty of goofy things that were possible for a little while.  You could use Lion's Eye Diamond at the time you could play a mana ability, and thus pay for a spell from your hand with it.  You could use Crop Rotation to fetch a Lotus Vale with no penalty (for a while, the erratta said that sacrificing lands was a "cost" to play the Vale).  Dark Ritual and Yawgmoth's Will was even a two card infinite-mana combo (according to the rulings on Yawgmoth's Will that were in effect, but left over from 5th edition rules).

Even when the whole power-level errata debate was in full force, there wasn't anybody that was arguing for these quirky interactions to be possible again.  They were simply only possible as a result of the fact that it took some time to flush out the cards that were truly broken by the rules change and then to give them the appropriate erratta.


Katzby

[Dr. Sylvan]

I was rereading this article and I was wondering if anyone remembered the Oscar Tan article I referenced.  I was digging through his article archive but I couldn't find it.   It would be fascinating to take another look at that article.

Here is the article:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/5979.html

Here is the Paragon+others "ballot" table:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=5980

And here is the article I wrote in October 2003 (one of the first I wrote for SCG) about an early case for the YawgWill ban (long before Steve's later, more advanced, article, but after Steve placed himself in the pro-ban camp), which also includes some alternatives to banning: (1) a cap on the number of restricted cards per deck, (2) a "relative restriction" list wherein pairs of cards are prohibited from appearing in a deck together, but neither is banned, and (3) the distinctly less appealing idea of changing fundamental rules like deck size to try to reduce combo efficiency.

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/6019.html

At the time, everyone was mostly terrified of future versions of Long, not of control-combo decks like those that apparently abuse YawgWill now. Critical mass was like the king of all buzzwords in B&R firefights, because it was widely perceived that Steve would just keep breaking cards until he could always win on turn one and there was no card that could really be restricted to weaken it. Since then, of course, the JP Meyer (or whoever else I'm forgetting to attribute this to) wisdom that all good Type One decks win via something like a combo has superseded that. The issue isn't much different, however.

Speaking as someone who quit two years ago because of the slow pace of change, I think I can define what the collective issue here is. Here are the (oversimplified) "Eternal" player groups:

(1) Vintage players who accept a slow rate of change and just want to be able to play a half-dozen or so really competitive, really broken decks, even if they have substantial overlap and only mutate a few cards at a time. These players will oppose any change that knocks out the most powerful card(s), unless there is some huge dominance that affects the half-dozen-decks preference.

(2) Vintage players who have enjoyed Vintage over the last five years due to the accelerated rate of change as the format's deck tech finally caught up with its enormous cardpool, and want to see continuing change---which is why they see the status quo as stagnant, even if there is no dominant archetype. These players want brokenness, the Power Nine, AND a format which experiences some level of upheaval at least every few months. They will favor more DCI action on a regular basis, because that's the only mechanism to force decks to change away from the currently most-powerful cards.

(3) Legacy players who like the high power level and complexity of a large cardpool, but are happy to see overpowered cards go for the sake of format change and/or balance. They will sit back and alternate between chuckling and sighing about how Type One players have such huge arguments when they could just stop using a few dozen cards and play in a far less stupid format.

The problem is that these three groups (and, I'm sure, some Legacy faction I'm glossing over through ignorance) only have two formats to choose from. When I was an active Magic player, I was somewhere between (2) and (3). I would have played Legacy if I hadn't already put so much energy into Type One. Eventually, recognizing that there isn't and wouldn't be a format for me, much less with the full community that makes Type One so special, I kinda just gave up and threw in the towel for a couple of years. I probably won't come back to regular Magic as a player. (I've come back to TMD for another, unrelated project of mine involving Magic as a component, which I think I'll enjoy more.)

I'm the case that dicemanx has been so diplomatically warning about in this and the other threads. Someone who is really, really into Type One, but just gets bored with it when nothing changes and the barriers to innovation are too ridiculous. I don't know how many people have quit or would consider quitting over stagnation, but I'm proof that it's no red herring. Somebody just has to decide how B&R policy can be used to keep as many people happy as possible.

With that in mind, if I was the DCI, I'd probably institute the restricted-cards cap. It would virtually excise the less-good restricted cards from the format, but would present a block to decks' power level and force designers to make some new and interesting decisions. Plus, it has the virtue of simplicity: anyone who knows the B&R list only has to learn one new thing, and it can be explained simply, i.e., "A deck can only have 12 restricted cards in it." (Twelve is my no-studying number; it looks like the broken decks use more like 18-30 restricted cards now, so 12 would force change without inhibiting Type One essentials.)

Anyone else think that would be a more productive, more broadly acceptable compromise change? I'm just an old fogey rehashing his past; you guys are the players who still need a solution.

[dicemanx]

Someone who is really, really into Type One, but just gets bored with it when nothing changes and the barriers to innovation are too ridiculous. I don't know how many people have quit or would consider quitting over stagnation, but I'm proof that it's no red herring

(1) Vintage players who accept a slow rate of change and just want to be able to play a half-dozen or so really competitive, really broken decks, even if they have substantial overlap and only mutate a few cards at a time. These players will oppose any change that knocks out the most powerful card(s), unless there is some huge dominance that affects the half-dozen-decks preference.

(2) Vintage players who have enjoyed Vintage over the last five years due to the accelerated rate of change as the format's deck tech finally caught up with its enormous cardpool, and want to see continuing change---which is why they see the status quo as stagnant, even if there is no dominant archetype. These players want brokenness, the Power Nine, AND a format which experiences some level of upheaval at least every few months. They will favor more DCI action on a regular basis, because that's the only mechanism to force decks to change away from the currently most-powerful cards.

I also want to point out, as I have stated before, that group 1 that Phil characterizes belongs in my "indifferent" category - they will resist change and argue that change is unnecessary, but they will very likely continue to play and enjoy the game regardless of what changes occur (hence the aftermath of indifference). For instance, I cannot imagine someone like Brain Demars quitting because YawgMoth's Will gets banned. He might get annoyed that a favorite toy gets taken away, but he will play on because what he enjoys about the format will continue to be present. (If I'm being to presumptious Brian, do let me know)

Group 2, on the other hand, is in the opposite category - if we don't work hard to try to please such individuals, it is entirely possible that we will not only stunt any growth in the format, but actually progressively start to lose support. We especially have to ensure that we don't satisfy ourselves by claiming that we will tackle this issue when it does become a problem, because by then it might be too late. I appreciate that right now we might not have enough evidence to effect changes in the format as far as certain bannings, restrictions, on unrestrictions are concerned; we merely have "trends' in the data but things are not entirely conclusive. The problem however, is that if actually reach a point where there is clear evidence of a problem, we might lose too many individuals from Phil's second group in the process.

I wrote before that an attractive part of magic is that it is an ever-shifting game. Because the learning curve is very steep once one begins to approach "expert" levels, and because there just isn't enough financial incentive to devote a lot of time to deck innovation, the barrier to innovation cannot be set too high. Sure, team ICBM can tell us how they have some amazing new developments in the works for 2007 as "proof" that the format has not been bled dry, but that doesn't do the rest of the vintage population any good if they are just not having fun. Team ICBM still needs these individuals to maintain their interest in the format, unless they intend to play only amongst themselves in 2008.

Yes, I'm aware that all of this doom and gloom might be a little exaggerated. It still remains within the realm of possibilities, and perhaps the bottom line is that we're not asking the right questions - for instance, maybe the question isn't "why" (when considering change) but "why not"? Maybe the question isn't "is there sufficient evidence that things are going downhill?" but "do we want to get to the stage where there is ample evidence of things going downhill?". Maybe the question isn't "is the format fine right now" but "could we do something to stimulate more interest in this format and attract more players?".

[yespuhyren]

Are you absolutely sure that it wasn't possible to abuse glaciers before the 6th ed. rules? I remember reading some old articles about tapping it EOT, untapping, and getting two lands.....But i'm not sure if that was pre or post 6th ed. rules.

/Zeus

I fail to see how you can't do this anymore though.

Thawing Glaciers comes into play tapped.
 , : Search your library for a basic land card, put that card into play tapped, then shuffle your library. Thawing Glaciers gains substance until end of turn. Return Thawing Glaciers to its owner's hand when it loses substance.

Just use it in the EOT step, so it can't fire off the removal of the substance counter when the rest of the EOT triggers go on the stack.  Then untap and redo it on your turn, and it will return at the end of your turn.  If it said you couldn't use the ability with a substance counter that would stop it.  At least this is what it looks like to me.  Am I wrong?

[Imzakhor]

I believe "until end of turn" doesn't use the stack like "at end of turn".

[Akuma]

So what dicemanx is basically saying is that we can ignore group 1...

From the looks of things, it seems like this discussion took place in 2003 and look how things turned out.

[dicemanx]

So what dicemanx is basically saying is that we can ignore group 1...

From the looks of things, it seems like this discussion took place in 2003 and look how things turned out.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If we had the discussion in 2003, it would be entirely unwarranted because there was almost no development in T1. We have come a long, long way since then, and as Phil said, we've essentially "caught up" in terms of reaching format potential. There is still slow evolution, but there is a finitie limit, and the rate has to slow - it is inevitable.

Therefore, such arguments would have had no merit in 2003, but they are meritous in 2007.

And yes, I am asking us to ignore group 1. I belong to group 1. I will continue to enjoy the format even if there are no changes, although I actually would embrace changes because I do feel it would make things better and more exciting. Look at it this way: recall the Trinisphere changes. I know you vehemently oppose the restriction, but unfortunately for you (actually, FORTUNATELY for you) the decisions catered to those that were unhappy with the card and how it was affecting individual games, matches, and fun factor. That is because the people opposed to the restriction were not in opposition on grounds that Trinisphere is somehow essential to their fun. Take away the card, and you don't really take away their fun in the long run. You might not embrace the idea that a "unfun" criterion was used, but perhaps you can embrace the idea that you still have people to play with at your local events and that there is still interest in the format.

Sure, you can step on your soapbox and admonish people for "whining" about losing to the card, and not making the effort in constructing their decks to beat it, but that really isn't going to help anyone. Criticising people for how they enjoy the format is only going to drive them away; they are not going to stay on account of any such "advice" that you might give.

[zeus-online]

Are you absolutely sure that it wasn't possible to abuse glaciers before the 6th ed. rules? I remember reading some old articles about tapping it EOT, untapping, and getting two lands.....But i'm not sure if that was pre or post 6th ed. rules.

/Zeus

I fail to see how you can't do this anymore though.

Thawing Glaciers comes into play tapped.
 , : Search your library for a basic land card, put that card into play tapped, then shuffle your library. Thawing Glaciers gains substance until end of turn. Return Thawing Glaciers to its owner's hand when it loses substance.

Just use it in the EOT step, so it can't fire off the removal of the substance counter when the rest of the EOT triggers go on the stack.  Then untap and redo it on your turn, and it will return at the end of your turn.  If it said you couldn't use the ability with a substance counter that would stop it.  At least this is what it looks like to me.  Am I wrong?

I'm gonna take this to the rules forum...I'm pretty sure it isn't possible anymore. But i hope you're right, and it works...then i'm gonna get myself a playset and have fun 

/Zeus

Edit: From the rules forum  http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32440.0

[Seraphim3577]

@dicemanx - This is an amazing peice of insite and I would love to echo it.  Thanks for a great string of posts!

Change stimulates creativity.  Creativity stimulates innovation.  Innovation stimulates more change and ultimately interest in something (in this case, a format).

Throughout the life cycle I have defined above, there is built-in change 3-4 times a year.  These changes occur every time a new set comes out.  Unfortunately, the changes that are being made with these new sets have been so small, that the creativity sparked from these changes leave very little room for innovation. Very few archetypes have died out in Type 1 over the past few years.  Very few archetypes have been created over the past few years.  I'm not arguing that Type 1 should be the same as Type 2 (mass overhauls every year).  I'm simply stating that in the desire to generate interest in something, change has to occur.  It is extremely important that this change is enough sustain the interest of people.

Type 1 is not changing fast enough to keep the people listed in groups 2 and 3 or the above categories interested in the format.  I don't think that it would be very healthy for type 1 to ban all of the power of 9.  I do think that some combination of restricted limits and card bannings would be very healthy for the creative element of people that play the format.

I hypothesize that in addition to the 3 categories of people that play Type 1, it can be further analyzed that people that play magic get enjoyment out of it for a variety of reasons.  Many people enjoy simply playing the game of magic.  Others enjoy the process of creating a deck.  There is some combination of the two, but it is important to note that Type 1 is not a good format for the "deck builders" of magic due to its infrequency of change.  Type 1 is a lot of fun for deckbuilders when they originally discover the format because of the HUGE cardpool available for them to create new things.  The primary problem, however, is that their ideas are severely hindered by the ability of cards to do more "broken" things than the cards on the restricted list.  If the average deck in type 1 plays 14 lands and 6-7 restricted artifact mana sources, then includes approximately 7-10 of the same restricted spells, then another 8 of the same "disruption" cards, how much innovation can there really be?  We have already listed out approxmately 40 cards.  The real deckbuilders of the game only get to play around with approximately 20 cards.  I know that this is a broad generalization, but the meat of it is the fact that there are only really 4 kinds of type 1 decks:  blue based decks including mass lists of restricted cards that finish with either tinker or a storm based kill, combo decks that finish with either a belcher or storm based kill,  aggro-based strategies that can either run blue, black, or red as the primary color, and finally, workshop based decks that rely heavily on broken mana sources to get overpowering artifacts into play.

I know that there are exceptions to this generalization.  I also know that many people enjoy playing in a format like this.  I'm not arguing against people playing a format like this.  What I am arguing against is the ability for a format like this to live and thrive without giving the deckbuilders of the game something to look forward to and play around with.

Grr, I wish that I could spend more time on this post, but I am still at work and have an obligation to actually get stuff done    .

[Akuma]

dicemanx - I think we actually agree on some key points, having a format that is interesting and can draw new players.

IMHO, the core problem with Vintage is not that it is a broken environment, it is one of availability. Most of the players I know don't mind the stupid plays in Vintage, they mind that they would have to trade in an arm and a leg to construct their own broken monstrosity.

I do have a problem with the "unfun" criteria for restricting something, I think it is completely arbitrary. Vintage is what it is, we should have objective measures for handling the format.

[Aardshark]

There is a fourth group not described by Dr. Sylvan--newcomers to vintage. (I started playing vintage almost exactly 1 year ago, we should probably include anyone who started in the last 2 years in this group.)

These changes occur every time a new set comes out.  Unfortunately, the changes that are being made with these new sets have been so small, that the creativity sparked from these changes leave very little room for innovation. Very few archetypes have died out in Type 1 over the past few years.  Very few archetypes have been created over the past few years. . . .

Type 1 is not changing fast enough to keep the people listed in groups 2 and 3 or the above categories interested in the format.  I don't think that it would be very healthy for type 1 to ban all of the power of 9.  I do think that some combination of restricted limits and card bannings would be very healthy for the creative element of people that play the format.

As a relative newcomer, I have to say that I'm bewildered by all the fuss.

I disagree vigorously with Seraphim's statement that "[v]ery few archetypes have been created over the past few years," or that "the changes that are being made with these new sets have been so small, that the creativity sparked from these changes leave very little room for innovation."

Over the past 3 years innovation in vintage has been driven by the printing of new cards.  Steve's set reviews are illustrative:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/245 (2004);
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11070.html (2005 part 1);
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/11116.html (2005 part 2);
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13368.html (2006 part 1);
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13428.html (2006 part 2).

When I first started observing vintage in late 2005, two new decks driven by Champions of Kamegawa cards, Oath and Gifts, had recently burst onto the scene. Before that, the format was defined by decks built around Mirrodin block cards--Control Slaver (TFK, and obviously mindslaver), and Stax (3-sphere, CotV, and most belatedly Crucible of Worlds).  Shortly after my first vintage tournament in Spring of 2006, Steve piloted a revolutionary new deck abusing Ravnica's the dredge mechanic to the top 8 of a SCG event, and shortly after that new fish, control-combo, and combo-control decks abusing (and arguably based around) Ravnica's Dark Confident flourished: Bob-bomberman, URBana fish, and confidant-tendrils. Coldsnap contributed Jotun Grunt (to call grunt-based fish a new archetype is probably saying to much, but it gave aggro-control a new reason to play white).  Coldsnap also offered Counterbalance, which inspired a new control/lock engine that top-8ed in the recent waterbury tournament (I doubt the potential of Counterbalance has been exhausted in vintage, with its extremely flat-mana-curves).  With Time Spiral, Ichorid has been strengthened and arguably elevated to format defining tier 1 status by re-building the deck around Time Spiral's Dread Return.  ETW has been an even more format-altering force, although (so far) it has been mostly incorporated into existing archetypes rather than spawning new ones (whose to say a deck running 4x ETW will not be built?).  Planar Chaos's Extirpate at least threatens to shake up the format (some argue it invalidates dragon and threatens gifts--positions I am in no way endorsing).  I am surely ignoring other examples.  Look at January's waterbury tournament--these decks are filled with cards printed in the last two years.

Yes, you can say that not all of these decks above are new archetypes, but this is a matter of degree.  Arguably there are only 3 archetypes in magic--aggro, control, and combo--and this is as true in standard as in vintage.  My point is, how can you say the pace of innovation driven by new cards has been slow?

And there is a secondary impact of new cards and archetypes--each time new decks emerge defined by new cards, innovators have the opportunity (and obligation) to scour the staggeringly large vintage card pool for forgotten cards that will shine in the face of new strategies (see e.g. Trashing Wumpus (!), and maybe Extract).  

For me, this raises the question: how much "innovation" do Seraphim, Dr. Sylvan, and other "category 2" players want?  As a longtime magic player and a busy professional (a lawyer, cheers Steve!), I was drawn to vintage for its high skill-level, heritage, and (not least of all) its consistency.  In vintage, I can devote my limited MtG resources (money and even more precious time) to building and learning to play decks challenging enough to warrant prolonged attention--confident that my efforts will not be obviated in the span of a few set rotations.  

But I also know that new decks and archetypes will be inspired by new cards. As outlined above, historically it seems that each block inspires at least two new archetypes: two for Mirrodin, two for Champions, 2+ for Ravnica, 1-2 for Coldsnap (depending on how you view of grunt-based fish), 1+ for Time Spiral (I consider dread return ichorid a new archetype). Note that Time Spiral and Coldsnap are far to young as sets (let alone Time Spiral as a block) for their impact to be fully felt--it can take up to a year for new cards to become integrated into the format--see the rise of gifts in late 2005, nearly a year after its release in October 2004.

For me, this pace of innovation is almost perfect, particularly when combined with constant baseline cat-and-mouse "innovation" of metagaming (without the injection of new cards), and the occasional break-out of new ideas from old cards (see Ritual Gifts).

Yes, "[v]ery few archetypes have died out in Type 1 over the past few years."  This is just as it should be, and much of what attracts me to vintage.  To quote a recently expressed sentiment, "strong vintage decks never 'die'--they just fade away," as the metagame shifts with new decks based on new cards and different ideas.  And even after "fading", any deck that at one point rose to the top of such an enormous cardpool constantly threatens to reemerge should the right metagame window present itself--see the resurgence of control-slaver in 2006, and the recent third-place finish of GAT at waterbury.  

Magic's "oldest and finest format" has always been a battle between the old and new--isn't this part of what we all love?  Nothing would please me more than to see Parfait top 8 at a major tourney (not saying this will happen, but Goblins might).

Honestly, what are all of you complaining about? If you want a "shake up," play legacy (incidentally, a format I perceive to have enjoyed significantly less innovation than vintage in the same timeframe, although I'm not prepared to cite support for that claim).  

It seems to me Vintage has been incredibly healthy for the past 3 years, driven primarily by printing of new cards, as well as the expanded player base with newcomers like me (who primarily contribute cash in the form of entry fees that pay for the prizes you seasoned vets to win).  

Is there some reason to believe the format won't continue to be healthy? That innovation will suddenly screech to an (unprecedented) halt?  Please tell me what I'm missing.  

[dicemanx]

It seems to me Vintage has been incredibly healthy for the past 3 years, driven primarily by printing of new cards, as well as the expanded player base with newcomers like me (who primarily contribute cash in the form of entry fees that pay for the prizes you seasoned vets to win). 

Is there some reason to believe the format won't continue to be healthy? That innovation will suddenly screech to an (unprecedented) halt?  Please tell me what I'm missing.

You are absolutely right in stating that we have had an explosion in innovation and diversity over the past three years. However, the arguments are not examining what the trends were over the past three years - what is put to the question is whether there is a problem at the current moment, because there is a finite amount of possibilities even with such a large card pool. There is some evidence that we are getting closer towards some ideal when it comes to deck construction, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to introduce new, competitive archetypes, One of the more recent big innovations, Manaless Ichorid, hasn't proven itself yet; in fact, the numbers suggest that it really isn't a very good deck choice unless you fancy playing the deck more out of curiosity.

Note, for instance, that we do not have the concept of aggro-control-combo in vintage - instead, the aggro and control decks have been pushed towards taking more of a combo role. Mid range aggro and mid range control have been virtualy pushed out of the top tier bracket. For instance, your premeir Drain decks are now combo decks with control components (Gifts, Drain Tendrils, and even arguably CS, which has a game-ending combo built in and can fire off succeffuly with some regularity).

Even some aggro and prison strategies have assumed more of a "combo" role - for instance, Ichorid is a combo deck first and foremost, although it really hasn't been very successful yet. Stax is another archetype that could be interpreted as a combo archetype, in the sense that it is built to maximize the chances of an early game lock-down. It hasn't seen much popularity of late though, because it isn't so easy to deal with the archetypes that it was initially designed to stop. The last pure mid range control/aggro deck, Fish, hasn't been producing very good numbers of late, and while some select individuals are still enjoying some success with certain appraoches (UW Rod Fish for example), the rest are just not generating much in the way of success. It is starting to be more and more difficult in rationalizing why one *isn't* playing Gifts or Tendrils anymore if their intent is to win or at least make top8. Fortunately, Vintage doesn't suffer as much as a format like standard or Extended would suffer - vintage players are not as competitive because there just isn't any financial incentive to do well at events or devote hundreds of hours into testing and preparation. As a consequence we still see some variety because some tend to opt for second or third rate archetypes for variety's sake, or because they have the joy of playing their creation even though it might not be a very good deck objectively. however, such individuals likely won't care about any format changes or upheavals - they will continue to experiment and play their own decks.

If you are a new player and are enjoying the format, that is certainly very good to hear. The question you need to ask, however, is how long that excitement of playing broken decks will last, and whether you would be bothered by the fact that your deck choice might in fact be severely limited if your intention is to be as competitive as possible at an event and maximize your chances of winning. If it isn't and you'd prefer to experiment, then might it not be a fair statement that you wouldn't be bothered either way by any changes that might occur in the format? 

[brianpk80]

I do have a problem with the "unfun" criteria for restricting something, I think it is completely arbitrary. Vintage is what it is, we should have objective measures for handling the format.

That may be true, but it's important for everyone to remember that no one is coming up with the "un-fun" criterion out of thin air and saying "we should consider this."  "Un-fun" comes directly from Wizards/DCI's most recent in depth explanation of their restriction criteria that came along with the restriction of Trinisphere.  So whether we like it or not, that is an express consideration they have in mind when making the decisions.  

-BPK

[Katzby]

So what dicemanx is basically saying is that we can ignore group 1...

From the looks of things, it seems like this discussion took place in 2003 and look how things turned out.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If we had the discussion in 2003, it would be entirely unwarranted because there was almost no development in T1. We have come a long, long way since then, and as Phil said, we've essentially "caught up" in terms of reaching format potential. There is still slow evolution, but there is a finitie limit, and the rate has to slow - it is inevitable.

Therefore, such arguments would have had no merit in 2003, but they are meritous in 2007.

We did have a very similar discussion in 2003, after Long.dec exploded, but before the 2003 restrictions (Lion's Eye Diamond, Burning Wish, and Chrome Mox) happened.  The debate centered on the fact that there were a few who purported that restricting any or all of the above cards would not affect the dominance of Long.dec.  This led to people arguing over the fact that Vintage had already reached “critical mass” and that we must start banning cards.  This call for banning was not due to stagnation, but due to the dominance of combo (though I guess that could also be considered a type of stagnation), and of the general power level of the format.

The idea of a restricted card cap also reared its head in 2003, but definitely not for the first time.  One of my most longwinded posts to the this site was an explanation that the suggestion of limiting the total number of restricted cards per deck has appeared many, many times throughout the lifespan of Vintage (and of Magic as a whole), and that the problem of so-called critical mass was “solved” back in 1994 with the creation of type 2.  I can’t even find that post archived anymore, otherwise I’d just quote from it. 

While the card cap proposal would probably do a good job curbing the power level of the format, should this ever be needed, it will do nothing for the stagnation of the format (see below).

Looking back, it’s pretty humorous to see how things turned out.  People bleated hysterically for either bannings or for the instantiation of a restricted card cap (or for both), yet things worked themselves out on their own.  Deck innovation did indeed catch up to the card pool, and that was that.

In 2003, I think we all finally agreed that the first rule of playing Vintage is to accept that the format is broken as hell, and there’s nothing that anyone can do about it.  This was hard for a lot of new Vintage players to understand and accept.  Granted, people have done a pretty good job about finally shutting the hell up about the broken- and swingy-ness of the format.  However, now I’m starting to think that the second rule of playing Vintage is that the format is also pretty much stagnant as hell, and there’s nothing that can be done about that, either.

Now, to address the problem with the card cap argument (hopefully once and for all): a card-cap is not a long-term solution to the stagnation of this format.  Consider why Vintage is as stagnant as it is now.  Along with Legacy, it’s a format where not much changes.  Sets come in, few cards are added to the format, but nothing ever leaves.  Banning and/or restriction shakes things up a bit from time to time, but we can’t have sweeping changes every year (Portal can only be legalized once, etc).  This is the perfect recipe for stagnation.

A restricted card cap would definitely change the face of current Vintage.  Certain decks wouldn’t work at all anymore.  But, innovation would inevitably catch up, and before long, we’d figure out what the best decks in the format were.  And because all of the above factors would still be true, we’d just have another stagnant (though less powerful) format on our hands.

So, while banning may be the right direction, we shouldn’t and don’t need a restricted card cap.  It’s a temporary solution that takes away from the format without adding anything.  After all, a lot of group 1-ers are still attracted to this format over the prospect of playing with a big stack of broken singletons.  I know I am.

[Smmenen]

So what dicemanx is basically saying is that we can ignore group 1...

From the looks of things, it seems like this discussion took place in 2003 and look how things turned out.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If we had the discussion in 2003, it would be entirely unwarranted because there was almost no development in T1. We have come a long, long way since then, and as Phil said, we've essentially "caught up" in terms of reaching format potential. There is still slow evolution, but there is a finitie limit, and the rate has to slow - it is inevitable.

Therefore, such arguments would have had no merit in 2003, but they are meritous in 2007.

We did have a very similar discussion in 2003, after Long.dec exploded, but before the 2003 restrictions (Lion's Eye Diamond, Burning Wish, and Chrome Mox) happened.  The debate centered on the fact that there were a few who purported that restricting any or all of the above cards would not affect the dominance of Long.dec.  This led to people arguing over the fact that Vintage had already reached “critical mass” and that we must start banning cards.  This call for banning was not due to stagnation, but due to the dominance of combo (though I guess that could also be considered a type of stagnation), and of the general power level of the format.

The only call for bannings that I remember at the time were my own - and in fact, it was only a single card I suggested should be banned: Yawg Will.  I thought restricting LED or Burning Wish instead of banning Will would be a mistake because Yawg Will was the real problem. 

[Aardshark]

@ dicemanx:

If the experts and innovators of vintage are in agreement that the possibilities have been exhausted, and that gifts and tendrils based combo are such dominant stragies that deckbuilders are unable to find viable answers in the current cardpool, and are unlikely to find answers in future cards, then I understand the need for radical action to save the format. 

You suggest that the apparent diversity at recent tournaments like Waterbury is either a holdover from the past that will not continue, or an illusion driven by sub-optimal deck choices that anomolously performed well.  You predict the future will be increasingly dominated by Tendrils and Gifts, in more or less their current forms.  If you are correct, the future will bear this out.  If one year from now (after 3 more sets have been printed and a new block of mechanics invented) new decks and archetypes have not arisen to compete with the current forms of gifts and grim/pitch long, then you and others will have been proven correct that the format needs a radical overhaul.

But while I consider it an bad omen that you and other experts and innovators are making such a prediction, the controversey in this thread proves that as of yet there is no such consensus.   Recent tournament results, including the most recent Waterbury tournament, have not yet demonstrated a lack of diversity.  Right or wrong, Steve recently wrote elsewhere that he believes gifts is in decline. 

My sense is that most people in this thread agree that action now would be premature, but that many predict that it will be needed in the future to sustain the format.  If this that is the debate, we will simply have to wait and see.  I sincerely hope that you and others are wrong, and that a drastic overhaul is not needed. Not because I would stop playing vintage (I wouldn't--I also play legacy and occasional extended), but because I think some part of the heritage of vintage will have been lost.  I much prefer to see the format work itself out--until tournament results show that innovators have run out of ideas for creating new dominant strategies and the DCI has failed to topple such strategies with new cards.

(For the record, I think restricting a few cards if clearly needed to maintain balance is not so drastic, but putting a cap on restricted cards certainly is--banning Yawg will somewhere in between).

As an aside, I cannot agree that the collapse of control and combo strategies in ritual gifts and pitch long signals a problem.  Hybrid strategies that warp conventional archetypes has always been a defining feature of vintage.  

Nor is the dominance of storm combo in itself a problem.  Combo has been strong in vintage since the beginning (or at least since the printing of Tolarian Academy if we disregard channel fireball), and none of the contemplated action (short of banning storm) is likely to change that.  Note that legacy tendrils decks (iggy pop and epic storm) are only a fraction of a turn slower than grim long (albiet slightly more vulnerable to disruption), and that Meandeck Tendrils would survive both the banning of will and a modest "cap" on restricted cards more or less intact (admittedly a mox* restriction would likely kill this deck).  

@ Katzby

"Stagnation" and "consistency" are obviously 2 sides of the same coin, and you are absolutely correct that this defines eternal magic.

[Smmenen]

  Right or wrong, Steve recently wrote elsewhere that he believes gifts is in decline. 

Being in decline doesn't mean isn't tier one.   It's a statement that means that I think that Gifts has peaked and will not do as well as it did in 2006 where it put up the most number of top 8 appearances. 

I also want to draw attention to the Roanoke top 8s.  There were, what, TWO Gifts lists out of sixteen slots from the top two eights? 
http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&start_date=2006-11-19&end_date=2006-11-19
http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&start_date=2006-11-26&end_date=2006-11-26

Day 1 Top 8:
 And the Top 8:

1) Pitch Long
2) Meandeck Gifts
3) Urbana Fish — Eric Becker
4) Workshop Aggro
5) U/W Fish
6) U/W Fish
7) Bomberman
8) Oath of Druids

Day two top 8:
1) Drain Tendrils — Codi Vinci
2) Bomberman
3) U/W Fish
4) Meandeck Gifts
5) 5c Stax
6) Pitch Long
7) U/B/W Aggro Control
8) Stax

I think Roanoke will resemble the sorts of events we see more of this year at Rochester and in particular the Vintage Champs.   The waterbury metagame has always been very different from the Vintage Champs metagame.   

Also: note that I agree with the substance and quality of your posts.   

[Aardshark]

(Incidentally, I don't trust R&D to make what they think are"Type I-specific" cards. No one there knows enough about Type I, and their little gift might prove more abusive than they realized. Then, we're stuck with it until DCI says something, and no one knows whether or not they're looking at the new mistake until they actually make a restriction.)
- Oscar Tan on October 22, 2003 (linked by Dr. Sylvan above):

Anyone else find this eerily prophetic?

[Jarbo]

I think there's some confusion here on what exactly people are doing.  Let me define it.  You are playing magic, a card GAME.  Do not forget this.  Games, like life, are often not fair, and will never be fair.  A game, like any system, always has flaws.  Everyone is looking to balance the format and make it fair, but this is not possible.

Balancing-
If you want to make the game as balanced as possible, don't even look at T1.  Go play another format or perhaps another game.  T1 is not "balanceable".  With this many possible card combinations (which grows with each new set) there will NEVER be true balance.  Most importantly, you can never 100% balance T1 by monkeying with the restricted list.  The restricted list does "help" balance T1, but it is not a perfect solution.  I think people need to accept the limitations of the system/format.

Stagnation-
If you think the game is stagnant, maybe YOU are making it stagnant.  Think about what you're doing.  If you and all your buddies simply copy winning deck lists, what does that say about you?  What does that say about your contribution to the game and the community?   It says you suck.  I mean really, you go to a tourney and there are 5 copies of this, 3 copies of that, etc.  That ruins a tourney and the fault falls on the players for bringing the copies.  If you want to make it more interesting, have the balls to bring new decks/ideas to tourneys, and encourage your buddies to do the same.  Play responsibly.

-J

[hitman]

Jarbo, your comment would hold more weight if it weren't directed at the ones that produce the innovative decks.  I don't belong to a team but by the sounds of it, they rigourously test new/old ideas to see which is most applicable to a given metagame.  If they aren't able to come up with a solution to the metagame, naturally, the most dominant deck at the time would be the best choice to bring.  The decks that are being played were made by some of the posters proposing restrictions/bannings now.

The question isn't whether Vintage is balanced.  It's whether the current state is manageable.  Can a good variety of decks win tournaments?  Are too many options stymied because of the top tier?  These are the relevant questions.  I've argued that things are fine.  When a certain deck comes to prominence, people find solutions, in time.  I believe, as long as cards are restricted, our options are limited.  For every broken card printed, Wizards has printed an answer.  It's just a matter of time for people to appropriately adapt to decks on the rise. 

[dicemanx]

A game, like any system, always has flaws.  Everyone is looking to balance the format and make it fair, but this is not possible.

Two comments:

1) While a system has flaws, it doesn't mean that we need to give up because we will never be able to address all of the flaws.

2) The format is balanced and fair; but in balance, there can be stagnancy due to rising barriers to innovation along with the narrowing of the number of top tier archetypes, and consequently the loss of interest. We are trying to address the latter issue, not the former.

I appreciate that people think along these lines: we had an explosion of innovation over the last 3 years, so why should we think that it won't continue for the next 3 years, and the 3 years after that? Well, here is the problem. Aside from the obvious that there are a finite number of possibilities and that there is an "end" to innovation somewhere along the timeline, it should be noted what drives most of the innovation in the first place. It isn't driven for the sake of mrely trying new and different things; there is a selective process that filters out all of the innovations that cannot compete with the crop of current top-tier decks. We are therefore constantly progressing towards finding the optimal strategies and optimal archetypes. Either some pinnacle is reached (no adaptation possible anymore and we have dominance of one or two archetypes) or the progression ends in an endless loop (cycllic adaptation, like rock-paper-scissors). Both ends represent an unwelcome stagnancy, and it wouldn't be enough to posit that the format merely needs to "adapt" if the adaptation might not be possible anymore or it leads to such endless loops (you brought rock, so I'll bring paper next time; then you will adapt by bringing scissors, so I'll switch to rock, etc ad infinitum).

We are of course not entirely there. However, we don't actually have to get to such an extreme scenario - as we progress to that state people will lose interest and the opportunity for T1 function as a creative outlet (unless they are willing to effectively play with a handicap and narrow their chances of winning or making t8). This is essentially your advice:

That ruins a tourney and the fault falls on the players for bringing the copies.  If you want to make it more interesting, have the balls to bring new decks/ideas to tourneys,

Unless those ideas are on par with the top tier archetypes (and it is increasingly more and more difficult to come up with competitive ideas), you are calling for people to handicap themselves in the interest of not "ruining" a tourney for everyone. 

[Akuma]

Unless those ideas are on par with the top tier archetypes (and it is increasingly more and more difficult to come up with competitive ideas), you are calling for people to handicap themselves in the interest of not "ruining" a tourney for everyone.

Competitive ideas are the result of new cards being introduced into the format, end of story. All of the so-called innovation in Vintage over the past 3 years has been enormously influenced by the influx of new cards (Portal legalization, new sets, removal/addition of errata). That has always been the nature of things. People didn't "invent" Stax, Mishra's Workshop was unrestricted. Masknought? Errata on Illusionary Mask. Gifts decks? Printing of Gifts Ungiven / Recoup. Long variants (Grim Tutor). Oath. Forbidden Orchard...etc.

Stagnation? I don't think so. New cards are coming, players will come up with new things, certain archetypes will rise while others fall. There is nothing wrong with Vintage or the metagame, it is as it always was. New cards WILL be printed...