[Premium Article] An Honest Look at the Restricted List

[Imzakhor]

There will always be a card that is "the best" in Vintage.

I do not accept this as a reasonable argument for leaving Will in the environ. Nobody - and I mean NOBODY - is arguing to remove anything but Will. I really don't think that extrapolating from banning Will to banning something else is valid, especially if it is used as the basis for an argument for leaving Will IN. It is the essence of a slippery slope argument, and though it can hide in many forms, subtle and blatant, it really should not enter into a discussion about banning Will.

It's all just spitting in the wind, until Wizards proves they care more than 0 out of 10. We might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. My enjoyment of T1 does not hinge on the existence of Will anyway. But it does still bug me.

Am I buggin' you? Don't mean to bug ya. OK Edge, play the blues...

Thanks for reading!

[Moxlotus]

I don't want to nitpick on numbers, but that is horribly exaggerated.  Long, Slaver, Bomberman, Stax, ichorid, u/w fish, URBana fish, Dragon, Bomberman, Oath, Ravager, TMWA all use a lot of different cards and any one of those decks can win any given tournament.

Take all of the decks that you honestly feel maximize your chances of getting a respectable finish, and tally up the number of different cards. I doubt the number I presented was so "horribly exaggerated". Would you, for instance, take Ravager, Ichorid or Oath because you feel that you would be maximizing your chances of t8ing or winning, or would you play such decks for the sake of playing something "different"?

I am willing to concede that if Will was banned, *eventually* we would be stuck in a similar scenario where the best decks and strategies would be all worked out again and the diversity would take another dip. However, this is only an issue if you believe that we should work towards some sort of ideal B/R list, and not use the B/R list as a means of shaking things up periodically when the format drifts towards being "solved".

No, I would not play all of those decks in a tournament--but that's because I don't like to play a few of the archetypes.  I believe any and all can and have won/splits tournaments recently and will do it again.  While I hate playing Bomberman and Ichorid, I respect what they can (and have) done.

I think the italic line is the crux of the matter.  I believe B&R should be absolute last resort and only used if something is dominating.  I don't think it should be used to "shake up" the format.  The format is shaken around every 3 or 4 months by the players.  Look back at Steve's "Vintage Review of 2006" and look at just how much happened.  It's easy to forget--hell, I forgot all that happened in 1 year.  The list is as big or bigger than the year before!  I see no reason to doubt that the same will happen again.  The format will never be completely solved--there will always be innovation to beat the "solved" meta.  That "best deck" will become obsolete and a new deck will be on top.  Metas shift all the time, even in Type 1.

[dicemanx]

I believe any and all can and have won/splits tournaments recently and will do it again.

That's not what I asked. 9-land stompy can theoretically win an event too.  A lot of players want to play decks that give them the best chance to t8/win. Not "a" chance, but the best chance. Such decks do get played because some players have a more casual approach to vintage.

Look back at Steve's "Vintage Review of 2006" and look at just how much happened.  It's easy to forget--hell, I forgot all that happened in 1 year.

The fact that so much happened can also be an indication of how barren the future will be, unless you believe that vintage has some unlimited supply of deck ideas and strategies just waiting for discovery.

[hitman]

Dicemanx, you know he wasn't talking about decks like stompy when he said "any/all."  He was talking about any of the powerful decks like Ichorid, Bomberman, Slaver, Gifts, Long, Fish, Stax, Dragon, etc.  Are you honestly arguing that new restrictions and bannings will make 9-land Stompy playable?

Why does a great deal of change necessitate little change in the future?  There are still lots of possibilities.  Would you have thought about the interactions in Ichorid?  I wouldn't have but someone did.  Just because a lot of people don't have killer deck ideas doesn't mean they're not out there.  Didn't you come up with Dragon?  Just because people don't constantly come out with new decks that are playable doesn't mean they aren't out there.  It just means people are having fun playing the ones that are known right now.  You mentioned that the playable cards make the rest pretty much unplayable.  I think you mentioned something like out of 5000, only 50-100 are playable.  Would the cards in Ichorid or even Bomberman and Fish be considered playable if someone hadn't come up with the idea?

[dicemanx]

Dicemanx, you know he wasn't talking about decks like stompy when he said "any/all."  He was talking about any of the powerful decks like Ichorid, Bomberman, Slaver, Gifts, Long, Fish, Stax, Dragon, etc.  Are you honestly arguing that new restrictions and bannings will make 9-land Stompy playable?

Please read what he wrote and my response before commenting. He included decks that have won/made t8, but that aren't very popular choices for players that try to maximize their chances of winning/making t8. Basically, I have an issue with the argument: "oh look, this substandard/tier 2 tier 3 archetype made t8, so we have diversity!".

You missed the boat on the 9-land stompy reference. The banning of Will certainly won't make it competitive, but the deck HAS made t8s in the past. You don't wish to include it in a list of viable archetypes, which was exactly my point - you can't just list decks that have made t8 or won events, because that list contains some very inconsistent and subpar decks that don't exhibit very many repeat performances.

[diopter]

Dicemanx, you know he wasn't talking about decks like stompy when he said "any/all."  He was talking about any of the powerful decks like Ichorid, Bomberman, Slaver, Gifts, Long, Fish, Stax, Dragon, etc.  Are you honestly arguing that new restrictions and bannings will make 9-land Stompy playable?

Please read what he wrote and my response before commenting. He included decks that have won/made t8, but that aren't very popular choices for players that try to maximize their chances of winning/making t8. Basically, I have an issue with the argument: "oh look, this substandard/tier 2 tier 3 archetype made t8, so we have diversity!".

You missed the boat on the 9-land stompy reference. The banning of Will certainly won't make it competitive, but the deck HAS made t8s in the past. You don't wish to include it in a list of viable archetypes, which was exactly my point - you can't just list decks that have made t8 or won events, because that list contains some very inconsistent and subpar decks that don't exhibit very many repeat performances.

Substandard, tier 2, tier 3, inconsistent, subpar - these are your opinions, and yours alone. Is this how you are pigeonholing decks like Bomberman and Ichorid into? Despite the work that Smennen, meadbert and others have put into the Ichorid arcetype, and the development of Bomberman as a strong but underrecognized strategy that has repeatedly made Top 8.

Look, you are not the arbiter of what decks are good and what decks are bad. Tournament results are. The proving ground for good decks is the Top 8, the Top 4, and the Top 2. Moxlotus pointed out a number of different archetypes that have been shown in tournaments to have game. That's diversity to me.

And, before you tell me that I missed the point - no, I don't think I missed the point at all.

[dicemanx]

Look, you are not the arbiter of what decks are good and what decks are bad. Tournament results are

Oh really. It is funny how I seem to be the only one in the debate to offer some numbers from Tourney results.

If I see decks being played at major events, but very few end up making t8s with appreciable frequency, then yes, I would label them as substandard. What is your criterion? If a deck ever makes t8, is that sufficient proof to you that the deck is top tier and not substandard? Are you just trying to be difficult?

Moxlotus pointed out a number  of different archetypes that have been shown in tournaments to have game.

I told you, that is not the issue. I could have made that list for him myself. I don't disagree that there is a sizeable list of archetypes that have done well for themselves in the past. But those times are either gone, or the good performances are non-reproducible, or the chances of a repeat performance are low. Sub-tier does NOT imply that the deck never has a shot of t8ing or winning; it has to do with the percent chance it has of making t8/winning. If you want to maximize your chances, you don't take certain decks to high level events. This is a matter of crunching tourney results; it isn't just my opinion.

Our debate revolves around a competitive environment, and how many top-tier options there are for highly competitive players. This is the diversity (or lack of) that we're supposed to be addressing.

[diopter]

Look, you are not the arbiter of what decks are good and what decks are bad. Tournament results are

Oh really. It is funny how I seem to be the only one in the debate to offer some numbers from Tourney results.

If I see decks being played at major events, but very few end up making t8s with appreciable frequency, then yes, I would label them as substandard. What is your criterion? If a deck ever makes t8, is that sufficient proof to you that the deck is top tier and not substandard? Are you just trying to be difficult?

Moxlotus pointed out a number of different archetypes that have been shown in tournaments to have game.

I told you, that is not the issue. I could have made that list for him myself. I don't disagree that there is a sizeable list of archetypes that have done well for themselves in the past. But those times are either gone, or the good performances are non-reproducible, or the chances of a repeat performance are low. Sub-tier does NOT imply that the deck never has a shot of t8ing or winning; it has to do with the percent chance it has of making t8/winning. If you want to maximize your chances, you don't take certain decks to high level events. This is a matter of crunching tourney results; it isn't just my opinion.

Our debate revolves around a competitive environment, and how many top-tier options there are for highly competitive players. This is the diversity (or lack of) that we're supposed to be addressing.

Alright, then I will refer you to the most recent high-level event, Waterbury. I would go back more tournaments and grab more top 8 lists to draw trends for you - but I won't, since according to the logic you used that I highlighted, top8's further in the past don't define top decks, what matters is the here and now. Well, I give you the here and now:

Waterbury Day 1
------------------------
1.) Andy Probasco - Gifts
Notable features are 3 Repeal, Timetwister, and Empty the Warrens.
2.) Davide Faramia Cohen - 7/10
Mixes Stax components with a blue card drawing engine and Force of Will to interact on Turn 1.
3.) Tariq Zahzam - GAT
Uses 2 Dryads and 4 Togs. He runs 2 Gifts, presumably to get Yawg Will, Regrowth, and 2 other bombs. But he also runs 2 Cunning Wish for the Berserk - Tog kill.
4.) Jeremiah Rudolph - Dry Slaver
The Goblin Welder engine in action, but using Gifts instead of Thirsts. Definitely a Will deck.
5.) Dan Carp - Oath
ICBM Oath build. Most certainly not a Will deck, even though it uses the full Drain control shell. Instead it uses Chalice of the Void and Null Rod in a very aggro-control fashion until its Angels can deal the necessary 18-24.
6.) Demonic Attorney - Gifts
Nothing really radical here - EtW, Repeals, a single Dark Ritual, nothing shocking though.
7.) Kevin Sigman - EBA
UWB aggro-control with a bit of emphasis on control - only 11 creatures. Various control elements include Chalice, FoW, Mana Drain, Stifle, and Duress. Dark Confidant is the draw engine.
8.) Dave Feinstein - U/W Fish
UW aggro-control with a bit more aggro - 15 creatures, 5 of them are 2-power 1-drops. Null Rod is paired with the FoW/Stifle/Daze package, and the draw engine is the draw step. Completely different MO than the 7th place finisher.

Day 1 summary:
5 decks with the full Mana Drain package top 8. Three pure Will decks show up - 2 GIfts and 1 Dry Slaver. Oath doesn't even run Will, and the GAT build only runs 2 Gifts Ungiven - arguable whether it is a Will deck or not. 2 aggro-control decks with different MO's show up, as well as an unconventional Workshop deck. Ritual combo is a no-show.

Waterbury Day 2
------------------------
1.) Brian Demars - Control Slaver
ffy's standard "Burning Slaver" build. Multiple paths to victory. Will makes it stronger, of course, and enables a Burning Wish -> Tendrils victory path that other CS builds don't feature.
2.) Justin Timoney - TPS
Tendrils combo. Hard to say whether it's a Will deck or not - it packs a different tutor configuration than Long (1 DT, 1 MT, 1 VT, 1 Grim Tutor, 1 Gifts, 2 Scroll) which makes it slightly more difficult to directly access Will, though.
3.) Erik Williams - Bob-Bomberman
One of two aggro-control decks featuring Dark Confidant and Trinket Mage. 14 creatures and the Salvager combo - two robust paths of winning.
4.) Michael Heatherington - Gifts
Standard MDG build - definitely a Will deck.
5.) Crossman Wilkins - TPS
Tendrils combo. It runs an additional Grim Tutor and an additional Infernal Contract than 3rd place, and Intuition in place of Yawgmoth's Will. To be fair, we'll put its dependence on Will at the same level as Long's - a primary strategy, but not critical.
6.) Seth Levy - Drain TPS
Control deck with Tendrils as the kill condition. Most certainly a Will deck.
7.) Jeremiah Rudolph - Dry Slaver
The same deck he won with Day 1. Definitely a Will deck.
8.) Ross Merriam - Counterbalance
Very control oriented Aggro-Control. Runs the Top/Counterbalance engine, as well as a Trinker Mage toolbox. Confidants and Cutpurses make up the draw engine.

Day 2 summary:
Ritual combo shows up twice - both of them are not Long! One runs more tutoring power than the other, and it is difficult to say that these decks are both Will decks. One Gifts, one Dry Slaver, and one Drain TPS show up - all three are Will decks. CS takes first place, but CS in this form is not a dedicated Will deck, no matter how you try and twist it. Aggro-control of various forms continues to make a strong showing, while Stax is a no-show.

So, what does this mean?
Day 1, 3 dedicated Will decks show up. The rest of the top 8 consists of Drain decks winning in very different non-Will ways, 2 different aggro-control decks, and a form of Stax that I think is the type of innovation that Stax players need to be doing.
Day 2, 3 dedicated Will decks show up again. 2 Ritual combo decks also make it in - but it's questionable whether or not they are Will decks, given they pack lower tutoring power than Long. CS shows up also, but this build is not dedicated Will. 2 very interesting and very potent aggro-control decks place.

That seems like quite a variety of decks to me. Mishra's Workshop is underrepresented, but I don't really see that as a problem when modern Shop decks aren't evolving past the "complete prison" design - and when they do, as was the case Day 1, they can place high.

dicemanx, you are going to be very hardpressed to convince me that there is not a variety of strategies and decks today that give their pilots an extremely good chance of top8'ing high-level tournaments.

[Akuma]

The fact that so much happened can also be an indication of how barren the future will be, unless you believe that vintage has some unlimited supply of deck ideas and strategies just waiting for discovery.

Most of the "new" Vintage deck ideas are a direct result of new sets, and not because there was some sort of awesome interaction that nobody saw. The future is not barren, as far as I know Wizards is still printing new cards.

Whenever Wizards prints or introduces something that makes an impact (ie. Grim Tutor, Gifts Ungiven, Trinisphere, Worldgorger Dragon, Crucible of Worlds), there is always a great outcry by those in the community that are unhappy with change. They want everything new restricted because it's too good. These things are not TOO GOOD (except for Mind's Desire), they are what is needed to compete in Vintage.

I thank WotC for printing these cards.

I can only roll my eyes when those same people that are whining about innovation want the new cards to be restricted because they are destroying their stagnant metagame.

[dicemanx]

Alright, then I will refer you to the most recent high-level event, Waterbury.

You have a sample size of 1. That is not good enough I'm afraid. Of course, we're not going to effect any changes anytime soon, so we will have a chance to observe trends in deck selection, obtain t8/t4/t2 data, and we'll get a better picture. Time will tell whether you're right.

[Nehptis]

you are going to be very hardpressed to convince me that there is not a variety of strategies and decks today that give their pilots an extremely good chance of top8'ing high-level tournaments.

Statistics are always a matter of perspective.  Consider it from a view point of how YWill distorts the format:

Waterbury Day 1
------------------------
1.) Andy Probasco - Gifts - Pro-YWill deck
2.) Davide Faramia Cohen - 7/10 - Neither Pro nor Anti YWill
3.) Tariq Zahzam - GAT - - Pro-YWill deck
4.) Jeremiah Rudolph - Dry Slaver - Fringe Pro-YWill deck
5.) Dan Carp - Oath  - Neither Pro nor Anti YWill
6.) Demonic Attorney - Gifts - - Pro-YWill deck
7.) Kevin Sigman - EBA - Anti-YWill deck
8.) Dave Feinstein - U/W Fish - Anti-YWill deck

Waterbury Day 2
------------------------
1.) Brian Demars - Control Slaver - Fringe Pro-YWill deck
2.) Justin Timoney - TPS - Pro-YWill deck
3.) Erik Williams - Bob-Bomberman Neither Pro nor Anti YWill
4.) Michael Heatherington - Gifts - Pro-YWill deck
5.) Crossman Wilkins - TPS - Pro-YWill deck
6.) Seth Levy - Drain TPS - Pro-YWill deck
7.) Jeremiah Rudolph - Dry Slaver - Fringe Pro-YWill deck
8.) Ross Merriam - Counterbalance Fringe Anti-YWill deck

So limiting this to 3 main categories, in total that's 10 Pro-YWill decks, 3 Anti-Will decks, 3 Neither Pro nor Anti YWill.  13 of 16 decks are centered around exploiting or diminishing the effects of YWill.  In my opinion that's distorting.

But, to play devil's advocate on myself.  A point someone else brought up was isn't Wasteland just as distorting?  Look at how much mana bases have changed towards more basics since Wasteland became more widley used.  Obviously, Wasteland is not a target for banning or even restriction.  It's these points that make this arguement so interesting and diverse.

[diopter]

Alright, then I will refer you to the most recent high-level event, Waterbury.

You have a sample size of 1. That is not good enough I'm afraid. Of course, we're not going to effect any changes anytime soon, so we will have a chance to observe trends in deck selection, obtain t8/t4/t2 data, and we'll get a better picture. Time will tell whether you're right.

You missed what I said:

I told you, that is not the issue. I could have made that list for him myself. I don't disagree that there is a sizeable list of archetypes that have done well for themselves in the past. But those times are either gone, or the good performances are non-reproducible, or the chances of a repeat performance are low. Sub-tier does NOT imply that the deck never has a shot of t8ing or winning; it has to do with the percent chance it has of making t8/winning. If you want to maximize your chances, you don't take certain decks to high level events. This is a matter of crunching tourney results; it isn't just my opinion.

Alright, then I will refer you to the most recent high-level event, Waterbury. I would go back more tournaments and grab more top 8 lists to draw trends for you - but I won't, since according to the logic you used that I highlighted, top8's further in the past don't define top decks, what matters is the here and now. Well, I give you the here and now:

If you want a larger sample size, we'll have to look back to late 2006. If you are going to dismiss Top 8s from the past because they don't define top decks now, then we can't look at results from late 2006. You can't have both.

Of course, you are right that we can wait for trends to appear in early 2007. I'm pointing out the first "high-level" tournament of 2007. Yes, my sample size is 1, but that is better than idle speculation and outright untruths about how Will is "dominating".

[Moxlotus]

But, to play devil's advocate on myself.  A point someone else brought up was isn't Wasteland just as distorting?  Look at how much mana bases have changed towards more basics since Wasteland became more widley used.  Obviously, Wasteland is not a target for banning or even restriction.  It's these points that make this arguement so interesting and diverse.

Well, Crucible was on a lot of people's hit list for a while because it was "distorting"

[dicemanx]

If you want a larger sample size, we'll have to look back to late 2006. If you are going to dismiss Top 8s from the past because they don't define top decks now, then we can't look at results from late 2006. You can't have both.

Of course, you are right that we can wait for trends to appear in early 2007. I'm pointing out the first "high-level" tournament of 2007. Yes, my sample size is 1, but that is better than idle speculation and outright untruths about how Will is "dominating".

"Idle speculation"?  We have a substantial amount of evidence from 2006. This is recent enough, since archetypes/strategies haven't changed that much in the past year, at least not in the last 3/4 of the year.

Be reasonable, so that we don't have to waste time spelling everything out and arguing over foolish things, like whether a sample of 1 from 2007 trumps every event from 2006.

[Katzby]

Banning cards in Vintage WOULD be something new, those cards that were banned in the past were banned because Vintage co-existed with other formats. Mind Twist and Channel were banned because they were reprinted and would have been legal in the "Standard" format (Katzby explains this somewhere in greater detail).

I hate to crap on the point of somebody who very politely and graciously gave me credit for something I said, but...

No it's not.

There has been at least one card banned in Vintage simply for its strategic and/or power-level value in Vintage alone: Time Vault.  In fact, I've been very surprised that Time Vault's banning hasn't come up as a supporting argument on either side of this debate already.

For a long time, Time Vault was banned in Vintage.  This was before it received any kind of errata, and it could be untapped with a Twiddle to take an extra turn.  The common feeling was that it was banned for power-level concerns, but looking back, it's hard to make the case that this was a more powerful card than say, Ancestral Recall or Black Lotus.  Instead, this card was actually banned because the strategy of playing a 2-mana artifact and a bunch of Twiddles was not an acceptable Magic strategy (for whatever reason) regardless of how powerful Time Vault actually was. 

This very much echos the current debate about Yawgmoth's Will; Yawgmoth's Will is not necessarily a better card than some of the more broken things in the format, but rather that the case may be made that Yawgmoth's Will strategies are simply bad for Vintage.  Thus a call for its banning.

To get back on topic, both Shahrazad and Divine Intervention were also banned in Magic (before the differences in formats existed), so, these were also cards that were banned due to their interaction in Vintage alone.  (Although, of course, it wasn't actually called "Vintage" at the time.)  These cards were banned for fear that drawing games anr generating sub-games would make matches run too long for tournament settings.

I do agree, however, that banning cards simply due to strategic and/or power level would be a new thing to Vintage since Vintage became Vintage (instead of just being "Magic").  Channel and Mind Twist, though banned after the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 was defined, were banned mainly as a result of wanting to ban them in Type 2, and being forced to ban them in both formats.

Katzby

[dicemanx]

In fact, I've been very surprised that Time Vault's banning hasn't come up as a supporting argument on either side of this debate already.

We don't need to, the same reason why we don't have to concern ourselves with the idea of precedents or slippery slope arguments.

The proposal to ban Will is a unique case, and it neither has a precendent nor should it set any precedent if it does get banned. The policy to never ban cards in Vintage will stand, unless there is a very compelling reason to go against it, itself consisting of unique circumstances that will have to be individually addressed.

[Imzakhor]

I'm sorry if this is out of place, but I couldn't find a way to make a poll here... Or anything in the FAQ regarding linking to my own website.

Anyway, I have made a poll on my own website, at this location. I figured a straw poll, of some kind, would be at least a LITTLE helpful, or at least interesting, in figuring out the complexity of the Yawgmoth's Will issue.

[The Atog Lord]

The proposal to ban Will is a unique case, and it neither has a precendent nor should it set any precedent if it does get banned. The policy to never ban cards in Vintage will stand, unless there is a very compelling reason to go against it, itself consisting of unique circumstances that will have to be individually addressed.

Have you ever decided to stick to a particular workout routine? Self-discipline is always easier when every single workout is performed on time. The first time a workout is missed, it often has a cascading effect on future workouts. Likewise, while it would be nice to dismiss the slippery slope argument as being somehow not able to be applied here, it can't be avoided.

Once Wizards decides that banning cards based on power level is acceptable in Type One again, then they won't use this tool only on Yawgmoth's Will. And these boards won't want them to! I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that once this hydra's first head is down, another will replace it. Once Yawgmoth falls to these cries for his execution, soon after will start the cries for perhaps Tinker or another equally-abusable card to be removed from the format.

This would not end with Yawgmoth's Will, and you could not ban Yawgmoth's Will without, by definition, setting a precedent.

[Machinus]

Rich's absolutely right about precedent.

Think about all the times players have wanted cards banned or restricted. People wanted Academy to be banned due to it's effect on future restrictions; people wanted Welder restricted due to it's effect on the format; many cards have been complained about for years, but in time players have always adopted new technology and rebalanced the format.

The only reason people are complaining so much about will is because it is very easy to see how resolving will ends the game. But you don't complain about ancestral, or black lotus, do you? Those cards could be just as easily credited for ending games, possibly even more so than will. Just because they only generate mana, or are efficient draw, or anything but a game-ending spell, doesn't make them any less deserving of banning. We should examine our bias and limited memory when we seriously entertain the possibility of breaking Vintage's primary deckbuilding principle.

[dicemanx]

Once Yawgmoth falls to these cries for his execution, soon after will start the cries for perhaps Tinker or another equally-abusable card to be removed from the format.

Sure, a decision that is hasty and not well thought out could set a negative precedent.

We could also argue that by banning Will, it would set a precedent of caring about the future of the format by trying to increase diversity, maintain interest, and build the player base. If banning Will is consistent with those goals, and no other viable options exist, then wouldn't that be a positive precedent that would be set?

Think about all the times players have wanted cards banned or restricted. People wanted Academy to be banned due to it's effect on future restrictions; people wanted Welder restricted due to it's effect on the format; many cards have been complained about for years, but in time players have always adopted new technology and rebalanced the format.

Did those cards get banned or restricted? No. So what is the point of mentioning them? Will is not going to be banned tomorrow from some knee-jerk reaction and because of some random outcries, unless you think the DCI is too thick to understand the gravity of such a decision? (but then you respect and abide by the DCI's decisions up to this point, so that's not exactly accurate, is it?) People have wanted all sorts of random B/R changes based on personal likes and dislikes, but the only changes that have actually come about are those with very solid arguments behind them.

This is an unproductive "us versus them" mentality that you are adopting - we are trying to flesh out whether vintage is slowing down in the development and interest department, and whether Will is distoring things to an acceptable degree. This isn't such an easy question to answer, and shouldn't be so easily dismissed. If we're able to establish that there is a problem, that interest is indeed waning, and that vintage is slowly grinding to a halt, then perhaps the changes proposed are warranted.

The only reason people are complaining so much about will is because it is very easy to see how resolving will ends the game.

Are you sure that this is the ONLY reason? That is a bold statement to make.

[Godder]

These 'ban Will' discussions remind me of the 'ban Academy' discussions led by a prominent Vintage writer on SCG once upon a time. The basic argument was similar to the current one - it was extremely powerful and had a serious effect on the restricted list at the time.

I play Oath on the rare occasions I get to experience tournament Vintage, but I do like the concept of Vintage being the last domain of the broken cards, and that no card is too broken for Vintage. I like knowing that I can obtain any card and still be able to play it in Vintage even if it's banned in Legacy. Banning Yawgmoth's Will would make it totally worthless, much like Channel and Mind Twist back in the day.

[brianpk80]

Channel and Mind Twist, though banned after the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 was defined, were banned mainly as a result of wanting to ban them in Type 2, and being forced to ban them in both formats.

Nice post.
One small thing... IIRC, the banning of Channel and Mind Twist were much more specific to Type 1 than Type 2.  There was no requirement that a card be banned in Type 1 for it to be banned in Type 2, so the idea that "we have to ban it in Type 1 to have it banned in Type 2" doesn't hold up.  For instance, Land Tax and Ivory Tower were never banned in Type 1 although they were curbed in Type 2.  Channel was banned because Lotus, Channel, Fireball was considered far too "cheesy" of a play for a respectable Magic setting and Mind Twist was considered to be a supremely unfair "game over" card by high strategy players around the time that "The Deck" was gaining prominence.  In fact, the banning of Mind Twist was so welcomed in Type 1 that it became the springboard and point of comparison for banning Library of Alexandria, which was considered by all (and admitted by DCI then) to be the next card in line to be banned for power reasons.  Mirror Universe was right behind it.  They never got around to crossing that line though.

So we do have a history of having cards banned for pure power reasons in Type 1: Mind Twist, Channel, Time Vault, and LoA was about an inch away from getting the axe circa 1996. 

-BPK

[Moxlotus]

We could also argue that by banning Will, it would set a precedent of caring about the future of the format by trying to increase diversity, maintain interest, and build the player base. If banning Will is consistent with those goals, and no other viable options exist, then wouldn't that be a positive precedent that would be set?
 

One would first have to establish

1. There isn't format diversity
2. There isn't a high level of interest in Vintage from its players
3. There isn't a solid player base

All 3 of those are highly debatable, so its unlikely that many believe all 3 are true.

[Smmenen]

These 'ban Will' discussions remind me of the 'ban Academy' discussions led by a prominent Vintage writer on SCG once upon a time. The basic argument was similar to the current one - it was extremely powerful and had a serious effect on the restricted list at the time.

I play Oath on the rare occasions I get to experience tournament Vintage, but I do like the concept of Vintage being the last domain of the broken cards, and that no card is too broken for Vintage. I like knowing that I can obtain any card and still be able to play it in Vintage even if it's banned in Legacy. Banning Yawgmoth's Will would make it totally worthless, much like Channel and Mind Twist back in the day.

Yawgmoth's Will is nothing like Academy for reasons I've written many times.    I also never advocated that Academy should be banned and I'm very interested to know who advocated such an argument.

My central contention is this:  at some point we should ban will rather than restrict more cards.   If Gifts is going to get restricted, I say let's ban Will instead.   It's that simple.  Yawg Will has caused restrictions before and will cause more again.   

I'm not saying we should ban will, but I'd rather see Will banned than another card restricted on account of it.  It's insane to restrict around the problem.   It's like where they tried banning everything but Necro in ancient Extended before coming to their senses and axing Necro.

[dicemanx]

1. There isn't format diversity
2. There isn't a high level of interest in Vintage from its players
3. There isn't a solid player base

All 3 of those are highly debatable, so its unlikely that many believe all 3 are true.

Agreed - I mentioned before that it isn't clear that we're there yet. But the trends are pointing in that direction, both in terms of 2006 player attendance and top performing decks in major 2006 events. I look forward to what 2007 will bring, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Katzby]

Channel and Mind Twist, though banned after the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 was defined, were banned mainly as a result of wanting to ban them in Type 2, and being forced to ban them in both formats.

Nice post.
One small thing... IIRC, the banning of Channel and Mind Twist were much more specific to Type 1 than Type 2.  There was no requirement that a card be banned in Type 1 for it to be banned in Type 2, so the idea that "we have to ban it in Type 1 to have it banned in Type 2" doesn't hold up.  For instance, Land Tax and Ivory Tower were never banned in Type 1 although they were curbed in Type 2.  Channel was banned because Lotus, Channel, Fireball was considered far too "cheesy" of a play for a respectable Magic setting and Mind Twist was considered to be a supremely unfair "game over" card by high strategy players around the time that "The Deck" was gaining prominence.  In fact, the banning of Mind Twist was so welcomed in Type 1 that it became the springboard and point of comparison for banning Library of Alexandria, which was considered by all (and admitted by DCI then) to be the next card in line to be banned for power reasons.  Mirror Universe was right behind it.  They never got around to crossing that line though.

So we do have a history of having cards banned for pure power reasons in Type 1: Mind Twist, Channel, Time Vault, and LoA was about an inch away from getting the axe circa 1996. 

-BPK

Ah!  A magic history knowledge challenge!  Not to sound obnoxious, but I don’t know anybody who knows as much about magic history than I.

First of all, I did a better job explaining the last paragraph of my last post here: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32268.msg464472#msg464472.

Secondly, at the time, yes indeed there was that requirement.  When type 2 was created, the DCI did not have the foresight to treat them as seperate formats with seperate restricted lists.  If you think they did, you are giving the early DCI too much credit. 

A lot of people probably don't remember that Revised was actually type 2 legal for a little while.  Stuff like Sol Ring, Demonic Tutor, and Braingeyser were restricted in type 2 just as they were in type 1.  "By default," type 2 started out with the same restricted list as type 1.

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.

This was mainly prompted by the fact that type 2 had no reason to keep Recall and Feldon’s Cane, which were both recently reprinted in Chronicles, on the restricted list (both were restricted in both type 1 and type 2 up until that point).  On the same announcement, those two cards were unrestricted in type 2 (though remained restricted in type 1), and Black Vise was unrestricted in type 1 (though remained restricted in type 2).  Land Tax was not restricted in type 2 until the June 1, 1996 announcement. 

Despite what you’ve said, Ivory Tower was indeed restricted in Vintage.  It was not unrestricted until the October 1, 1999 announcement.  Ivory Tower was not actually banned in type 2 until January 1, 1997 (along with the rest of the then type 2 restricted list).  So, your counter-examples don’t hold up.

You have a good memory.  I can confirm that Library did almost get the axe at the time that you mentioned that it did.  I don’t quite recall any serious discussion of Mirror Universe being next, but you may remember this point better than I.


Katzby

[Godder]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/4599.html

Search for Tolarian Academy, and one can see that the comments there are quite similar to the arguments for banning Yawgmoth's Will. As an aside, I didn't say Yawgmoth's Will is the same as Tolarian Academy, I said the arguments being made to ban them are similar.

According to Crystalkeep, the following were banned 1st Oct 1999:

Crop Rotation
Dream Halls
Enlightened Tutor
Frantic Search
Grim Monolith
Lotus Petal
Mana Crypt
Mana Vault
Mox Diamond
Mystical Tutor
Tinker
Vampiric Tutor
Voltaic Key
Yawgmoth's Bargain
Yawgmoth's Will

[Smmenen]

Wait a second - you cite Oscar Tan as a random SCG writer for advocating to ban academy?  That's hilarious.   

I've said this elsewhere - but some people advanced an argument that proceeded on the assumption that there were lots of cards that could be "freed" if Academy was banned.   This was never established to be the case.    All but one of the cards that was restricted on account of Academy deserved to be there for other reasons.    The rest were appropriately unrestricted in time. 

[Godder]

I didn't say 'random', I said 'prominent', which Oscar was at that time. Additionally, Oscar wasn't the only one calling for Academy to be banned.

Here are some more restrictions from around that time, starting with some more from 1st October 1999:

Doomsday
Hurkyl's Recall
Mind Over Matter

1st January 1999:

Stroke of Genius
Tolarian Academy
Windfall

1st April 1999:

Memory Jar
Time Spiral

What's interesting is how many cards were restricted because of Academy and later removed because better has come along. Academy is no longer a monster, but I assure everyone that, at the time, people were terrified of it. Will has nothing on the fear Academy inspired in its day.

[brianpk80]

Ah!  A magic history knowledge challenge!  Not to sound obnoxious, but I don’t know anybody who knows as much about magic history than I.

How obnoxious.  I jest.

Though I would not purport to be a Magic historian, I have a bit to add yet.

First of all, I did a better job explaining the last paragraph of my last post here: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32268.msg464472#msg464472.

"Later, the type 2 and type 1 restricted lists were separated.  Channel and Mind Twist stayed restricted in vintage for a few years mainly as a result of neglect of the format, in my opinion."

While I'm impressed with your memory of the game's history (nice to have more veterans here), I think there's been some confusion of the terms "banned" and "restricted" in the discussion.  For instance, during the mid-late 1990's, Channel and Mind Twist were banned in both formats, not restricted.

Secondly, at the time, yes indeed there was that requirement.  When type 2 was created, the DCI did not have the foresight to treat them as seperate formats with seperate restricted lists.  If you think they did, you are giving the early DCI too much credit. 

Ok, this clarifies your original point.  While that may be true when Type 2 was originally created, it seemed to me that you were claiming that the Type 2 banned list always borrowed from the Type 1 banned list throughout the tenure of Channel and Mind Twist as banned cards.  My memory of very premature Type 2 is hazy, but sometime around 1997, I remember this being the logic:

Is it banned in Type 1?  If so, it's banned in Type 2.
Is it restricted in Type 1? If so, it's banned in Type 2. 

I do recall a short period of time where Type 2 had a restricted list, but once it shifted to "4x" or "banned" I recall that being the logic.  Hence why Balance, Ivory Tower, ended up banned in Type 2 while only restricted in Type 1.  And then at some point Land Tax ended up banned even though it was never restricted in Type 1.  The next thing I remember is all of the fallout from Necro summer, with Strip Mine and maybe Hymn to Tourach banned?  Or maybe it was Strip Mine and Necropotence.  That's a bit hazy cause I never played T2 much. 

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.  Also, my hazy memory is telling me that Channel was banned before Mind Twist was, but I don't know if this is actually true.  I remember Chaos Orb having a controversial ban around that time so it may be confusing me.  Do you remember their order more specifically?

Despite what you’ve said, Ivory Tower was indeed restricted in Vintage. 

  I only said that Ivory Tower was never "banned" in Vintage which is true.  I remember with much pain how restricted it was.  I had an epiphany sometime back then that Ivory Tower was the best card in my Weissman deck and I wanted always wanted to run four but never could.  Heck, I think I remember getting excited when Copy Artifact got unrestricted cause of Ivory Tower. 

You have a good memory.  I can confirm that Library did almost get the axe at the time that you mentioned that it did.  I don’t quite recall any serious discussion of Mirror Universe being next, but you may remember this point better than I.

There wasn't much to go by, just random articles, Usenet posts, maybe a few websites (moxperl? or moxpearl?) but the talk was out there and Mirror Universe was considered obscene in many circles.  I really wish they would errata it back to its original intent... maybe add a clause reading "If you would lose the game during an upkeep in which Mirror Universe is sacrificed, instead check for game loss at end of upkeep."  I see no reason why we can't have Mirror kill in a world of 50,000 Goblin tokens and Tendrils of Agony.

-BPK