[Premium Article] An Honest Look at the Restricted List

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13755.html

Blurb: The Vintage Restricted list is a source of constant controversy. In Magic's broken format, it's safe to say that constant policing of degenerate possibility is a must in order to promote a healty balance for the game. Stephen takes a brutal and honest look at the policy in years gone by, and comes up with some startling suggestions for improvement.



This is the first time in 3 years that I've published an article on this subject.   I provide a close analysis of the policy of restriction, metagame shifts during and after past restrictions, and a discussion of those cards that I argue should be unrestricted, broken down by tier of safety. 

Excerpt:

 The Vintage Restricted List is the defining feature of Vintage. It is a marker of power and a symbol of respect. It’s law.

The Restricted list is a policy device to regulate and manage Vintage. And yet, like all policy, it is driven by the value judgments of the regulators. As the most recent Vintage restrictions recede into the past and as the metagame that once existed becomes more history than memory, a certain clarity has emerged in my thinking and understanding of the restricted list and of the restrictions that were once hotly debated.

I once, foolishly, thought it was possible to make a logical argument for restriction (and I probably got as close as you could come) in my article three years ago on “Constructing a Coherent Restricted List Policy”

I argued that the DCI should articulate and clarify its policy for restriction. However, I admitted that in doing so they would remove a certain flexibility or “wiggle room” that they might need if unforeseen circumstances arise or if the need should be great enough.

The Values Behind Restriction

No a priori logical argument for or against restriction can be made: like all law it is reducible to some value judgment. You cannot separate the value from the policy. The problem, for Vintage, is that the values are sometimes in tension. The decision to restrict or not restrict will depend upon which value triumphs.

On the one hand, the most apparent principle of Vintage is that you get to play with all of your cards. That’s what makes Vintage unique and why it has a restriction rather than a banning policy. This desire to be able to play all of your cards operates most forcefully against banning anything, but it also applies against restriction. Restriction is still, in some way, taking away cards that players can use. Sure, they can still play one, but we’d rather let them play four if at all possible.

On the other hand, there is a need to maintain competitive balance. In sports economics it is often decried that big money markets like NYC can literally buy teams and create a competitive imbalance. In Vintage, cards that are just too damned good can theoretically create decks that are too damned good. Thus, Gush is restricted. In this way, the policy of letting people play all of your cards is trumped by the need for competitive balance.

Yet, there are other values. Most often they are articulated in terms of “fun.” The value of having fun and maintaining fun is what drove the restriction of Trinisphere. Forsythe acknowledged that Trinisphere didn’t actually affect the metagame or distort the competitive balance, but that too many players felt it was too non-interactive.

The truth is that “fun” is the category into which all arguments for restriction exist. A competitive balance is important because it maintains a healthy diversity of deck options. It is not fun to be able to only play one deck. Similarly, it is more “fun” to be able to play with all of your cards. It sucks to have a card you own or enjoy banned.

The problem, then, is that all arguments for or against restriction are ultimately utilitarian: it is about maximizing the fun that everyone has. Vintage, more so than any other format, has a very high tolerance for brokenness. After all, you wouldn’t play Vintage with such egregious mistakes as Black Lotus and Yawgmoth’s Will unless you weren’t attracted to that aspect of the game.


Ultimately then, there is a certain futility in arguing about the restricted list because it comes down to value judgments – something that are subjective. Logical arguments cannot undermine the starting value premise. You can attack a restriction as illogical from a particular point of view or starting premise, but not if the decision was based on a different value (say fun instead of competitive balance). This is why logical arguments for or against restriction are really implausible: they devolve and are reducible to the subjective value judgments that motivate them. One man’s fun is another man’s boredom. And sometimes, the constituent and identifiable elements of “fun” – such as competitive balance (metagame diversity) and the desire to interact – come into conflict. The DCI then has the onerous duty of choosing which value should trump.

At certain times in Vintage history the player base seemed certainly content with the notion that we should restrict everything until Drain is the best deck. Oscar Tan seemed to propound that view (and certaintly Weissman) (there is an Oscar Tan article I’m thinking of but can’t find right now where he asks 12 major Vintage players their opinions on like 12 different cards – there is a table that shows where we all come out). However, the notion that we should restrict until we make Drain best is now seen as antiquated and actually quite pernicious. Mana Drain is an utterly broken card and its dominance is no more healthy than that of any other card.

Where once I was of a particular point of view on restriction, I remain agnostic as to whether a particular value should trump and when. It’s simply too subjective for me to judge. I can tell you when a deck or a card becomes dominant, but my view of fun is going to be different from any other persons view of fun. My bias has always been against arguments that restrict on grounds other than competitive balance and stopping single-deck dominance. The reason for that bias is that I felt that too many Vintage players reasoned from a love for Mana Drain decks rather than what was truly best for the format. I no longer have that bias because the old guard of people who just played Drain decks are gone. The best players in Vintage switch from Drains to Combo to Workshops with ease (see Tommy Kolowith, Andy Probasco, myself and many others).

Dominance and Monopoly Power

The most obvious and legitimate use of the restriction device arises is the case of a “dominant” or “best deck.” A useful way of thinking about this is the corollary to monopoly power. We use antitrust regulations and laws to ensure the fair competition of business in the marketplace. Similarly, we use the restriction policy to regulate the fair competition of decks in the Vintage metagame. When a deck becomes too dominant, we restrict a key component to restore competitive balance.

Monopoly power in Vintage would be the “best deck” theory of the metagame. We’ve all seen this in the past. Many times in magic history the DCI has restricted or banned cards in other formats to kill off a “best deck.” Thus, a slew of cards were banned in succession to stop Extended Trix. And even in cases in which there isn’t an unbeatable deck, a deck with essentially monopoly power may be so metagame warping that it in effect makes the metagame best deck versus the anti-best decks. Thus, Lin Sivvi was banned in Masques Block Constructed.

The last time we had anything resembling dominance in Vintage it was GroAtog composing about 40% of the market (i.e. the Vintage metagame) from Feb to June of 2003. A single deck making 40% of top 8s consistently across the board is pretty astounding metagame power in a format as large and diversified as Vintage. Gush was restricted to kill it.

As a practical matter, it is almost impossible for a “best deck” to emerge in the sense of really dominating the metagame. GroAtog was one of the most intuitive decks to play ever created and the best. That’s why it was so popular. It was easy to build and easy to play. And it only got up to about 40% of top8s and its restriction was supported by one of the broadest consensus ever seen in modern Vintage.

[Moxlotus]

In the past you have argued for Will's banning.  Do you still feel that way?  Why didn't you talk about it in the article?  It seems like the perfect article to talk about it.

[Smmenen]

This article was about the restricted list specifically.   I have written about banning in a separate article.  The two lists are different.

Here is my article about banning yawg will: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10071.html

Here are two pertinent paragraphs from that article:

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

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

=======================================

So, all the way back in the summer of 2005 I foresaw that both Gifts Ungiven and Grim Tutor would face calls for restriction.   And two years ago I argued that banning Yawg Will would alleviate that pressure.   

I still think that Yawg Will should be banned, but this article really didn't focus on that question. 

[Moxlotus]

Ok.  Thanks for the quick response.

I agree with all the cards you wrote in the article.  The only one that actually matters is LoA.  But I doubt decks would play more than 2 maindeck.  You would be asking to lose to Fish, combo, and stax if you played more.  They would largely be a sideboard card in multiples.  However, I don't see the big deal in having a card that is insane against a specific matchup but sucking in other matchups being too scary unrestricted.

[BreathWeapon]

What's the point of a premium article addressing the restricted list? If these arguments are intended to create a consensus amongst the community and R&D, shouldn't they be public domain? Despite being an interesting read, this isn't the kind of material I want to pay for.

[andrewpate]

I like your suggestion of doing them in groups.  While I think that each card you highlight would be a safe unrestriction, I would not endorse the idea of taking them all off the list at once.  And doing them in ascending order of risk is definitely the right call.

Also:  was someone really arguing for Regrowth any time recently?  That seems absurd.

[That0neguy]

What's the point of a premium article addressing the restricted list? If these arguments are intended to create a consensus amongst the community and R&D, shouldn't they be public domain? Despite being an interesting read, this isn't the kind of material I want to pay for.

I was a little surprised to see this artical as premium as well.  I thought that SCG said that articals adressing the comunity would be open to everyone, which is why steve's "A Closer look at the Restricted List (2005-02-18 )" was published as an open artical.

[Gekoratel]

I was a little surprised to see this artical as premium as well.  I thought that SCG said that articals adressing the comunity would be open to everyone, which is why steve's "A Closer look at the Restricted List (2005-02-18 )" was published as an open artical.

This is due to the column-based structure that SCG is using now, they are no longer looking for unsolicited submissions so the articles written by premium writers will always be premium content.  Or this is how it has worked so far since their switch.

[Smmenen]

What's the point of a premium article addressing the restricted list? If these arguments are intended to create a consensus amongst the community and R&D, shouldn't they be public domain? Despite being an interesting read, this isn't the kind of material I want to pay for.

I'm sure that almost every word in the article will remain as relevant when this article becomes free as it does today, so I'll be sure to post a reminder when it becomes free in 90 days.

In the meantime, I've posted a lengthy excerpt from the article in the first post of this thread.

[BreathWeapon]

What's the point of a premium article addressing the restricted list? If these arguments are intended to create a consensus amongst the community and R&D, shouldn't they be public domain? Despite being an interesting read, this isn't the kind of material I want to pay for.

I'm sure that almost every word in the article will remain as relevant when this article becomes free as it does today, so I'll be sure to post a reminder when it becomes free in 90 days.

In the meantime, I've posted a lengthy excerpt from the article in the first post of this thread.

I agree, but if the purpose of an article is to address people on the basis of policy, why wait 90 days to gather a following? Perhaps I'm missing the point, but the only way to influence the banned/restricted list is by creating a consensus on what should/shouldn't be banned/restricted; how do you do that when your arguments are conducted behind closed doors?

You also completely miss your "chance for change" date of March 1st and move immediately to June, for what it is worth.

[LotusHead]

I'm sure that almost every word in the article will remain as relevant when this article becomes free as it does today, so I'll be sure to post a reminder when it becomes free in 90 days.

In the meantime, I've posted a lengthy excerpt from the article in the first post of this thread.

I was quite supprised at the length of the "excerpt", and appreciate it.

Vintage = Yawgmoth's Will, and it should never be banned.  This come from a guy who has never brough Yawg Win to a tourney.

The DCI is still very slow to unrestrict cards, even after months of "no change" to the Restricted List and years of some cards on the restricted list not getting played as singletons.  Voltaic Key and Dream Halls are what I am talking about.  Unrestricted, the current metagame/deck theory can handle it.

Has there ever been a card that was Restricted, then UnRestricted, then Restricted again?

To this day, I am shocked that Berzerk got unrestricted, but I haven't been pwned by 4 Berzerks in a long time.

[carlossb]

Voltaic Key and Dream Halls are what I am talking about.  Unrestricted, the current metagame/deck theory can handle it.

Has there ever been a card that was Restricted, then UnRestricted, then Restricted again?

That is not a good analogy. It does not have happened yet because WoTC has been careful with the unrestrictions.
Probably with the exception of Doomsday (which proved not be broken enough, in spite of the discovery of the Beacon combo by Jeek), WoTC hasn´t unrestricted cards with a high potential of creating new monster_decks, but because they were thought to be completely harmless.

And that is not the point with D.Halls. A deck casting Halls off Drains, and chaining Gifts with Gifts, and AKs with AKs is, at the very least, suspected of being able to re-restrict again Dream Halls in the very near future.

[Scott_Limoges]

Will the DCI unrestrict more than one card per announcement now?  Initially they unrestricted several cards to clean the list up but the last few announcements they have been more deliberate and unrestricted one card per announcement when choosing so.

[Yare]

Will the DCI unrestrict more than one card per announcement now?  Initially they unrestricted several cards to clean the list up but the last few announcements they have been more deliberate and unrestricted one card per announcement when choosing so.

It's certainly possible.  Braingeyser and some others were unrestricted at the same time if I recall correctly.

[Dnine]

question:

If unrestricting the card will have little to no inpact on the metagame, then what is the point? 

I agree that if the cards mentioned in the article were currently not restricted then there would be no one screeming for them to be so.  But I also don't see anyone screeming, "man if only Key was unrestricted my totally awsome deck would become tier one!!"  So why the call to unrestrict?

Is it just to make the restricted list prettier?  Kind of a who's who for magic cards so they can feel special?  Do people feel sorry for dream halls becuase yawgmoths bargian is making him his bitch for being on the list?  Are the moxes gaining up on poor Key and making him give them his lunch money? 

Granted I agree with unrestricting cards and reintroducing them into the cardpool, but it would be nice if they had some kind of impact on it as well. 

[Moxlotus]

question:

If unrestricting the card will have little to no inpact on the metagame, then what is the point? 

I agree that if the cards mentioned in the article were currently not restricted then there would be no one screeming for them to be so.  But I also don't see anyone screeming, "man if only Key was unrestricted my totally awsome deck would become tier one!!"  So why the call to unrestrict?

Is it just to make the restricted list prettier?  Kind of a who's who for magic cards so they can feel special?  Do people feel sorry for dream halls becuase yawgmoths bargian is making him his bitch for being on the list?  Are the moxes gaining up on poor Key and making him give them his lunch money? 

Granted I agree with unrestricting cards and reintroducing them into the cardpool, but it would be nice if they had some kind of impact on it as well. 

The entire point of Type 1 is to play the game with as many card choices as possible.  It is the format where pretty much every card ever printed is legal.  There is no reason to keep cards on the restricted list that can come off.

Sometimes they do have an impact.  Doomsday had an impact.  Hurkyl's Recall certainly had an impact.  Who knows, maybe someone will play multiple Voltaic Key in a deck someday.  Or if a casual player that still follows the list wants to play his Dream Halls deck.

[Smmenen]

I'm honestly shocked that there is so little resistance to my suggestions.

When I proposed most of those same unrestrictions in 2004 the response was much more vehement in opposition.  Now most of you seem to care less. 

@ Mox Lotus: yours was the first response to my article three years ago: http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=269584

It's fun to read what people thought at the time.   Check out this Drain thread on the 2004 article: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=20759.0

[Machinus]

I disagree with your overconfident assertions that the format is so will-centric. There is plenty of resistance to that strategy and frequently it's the wrong play to make.

I don't think we should violate the longstanding no-ban policy, but I don't even need to discuss why that's a bad idea. The current Vintage metagame provides enough evidence that we shouldn't start messing with the restricted list (excepting Key which is obvious).

[Smmenen]

I disagree with your overconfident assertions that the format is so will-centric. There is plenty of resistance to that strategy and frequently it's the wrong play to make.

Your second sentence contains two true statements:

1) There is plenty of resistance to Yawg Will.   That's just more evidnece of its predominance.   Almost all of the decks that aren't Yawg Will decks are specifically designed to fight decks that are yawg will centric.

2) Yawg will is often the wrong play.   Turn One Underground Sea, Dark Ritual, Yawg Will is an awful play, for instance.   There are many others. 

[Implacable]

In all other formats, the three main archetypes are as follows:

Aggro: Attempts to use a quick and consistent clock to kill before opponent takes control of the game
Control: Attempts to gain control of the game through board, hand, and/or counterspell control\
Combo: Attempts to abuse an interaction between cards to 'go off' quickly

In Vintage, the archetypes are as follows:

Aggro: Attempts to put a clock on the board while using disruption to keep opponent from resolving a lethal Will
Control: Attempts to control the game through counterspells and card advantage and then resolve a lethal Will
Combo: Attempts to play a flurry of spells and then resolve an early and lethal Will

Feinstein Fish and SS clearly attempt to do what aggro does; CS and Gifts both gain control and then use a lethal Will, with secondary win conditions available; combo just plays spells until their Will will be lethal, and other paths to victory are clearly suboptimal.  This format is all about Will, and has been since its printing.  It is, by far, the most powerful card ever.

[Nehptis]

For the record, I think cards like Key can be unrestricted and cards like Entomb should not.  However, I think that considering the state of the meta-game from my perspective (Will vs. non-Will decks), a discussion regarding what to do about Yawg Will is more or at least equally relevant.

A bit off topic perhaps, but I think Steve's old article still speaks to the critical points of the core argument http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10071.html. In my opinion, "Will" can be handled in a few ways:

1) Ban it - Simple solution.  However, it sets a precedence of banning non-dexterity / non-ante cards that could be unhealthy for Vintage.

2) Print some "Will-hate" cards - Cards specifically designed for dealing with it or lessening its impact.  The problem is that this is a narrow solution that really doesn't solve the issue of a Will vs. non-Will deck metagame.  I'd argue that it would accomplish the opposite and proliferate the strategies even further.

3) Errata It - There's no reasonable errata of Will that I can think of that would not alter its original intent, or do anything to lessen its power, or solve the issue of a Will vs. non-Will metagame.

In summary, I think that if you are in the "Will Hate Camp" the only reasonable option is to Ban it.  Then deal with the potential future consequences of the precedent that this sets.  If nothing is done, and to echo Steve's article, I strongly feel that Gifts, Grim and other future cards that enable combo / YawgWin are destined for the Restricted list.

Let me just end with this and say....Lead on!

There is always a good time to ban Yawg Will.  If the pressure starts to build to restrict Gifts, I will lead the charge to ban Will instead.

[EKM_Ichorid]

The problem with Will is that it became excessivly broken with the mechanic Storm. How many decks right now abuse Will without Tendrils or Empty The Warrens? It seems like the Storm mechanic, while beging very flavorful and fun, is just too broken in combination with Will. The mechanic was a mistake on the part of Wizards, and now the only real way to solve the problem is with the banning of Will.

Don't get me wrong...I love playing with Will. It's just too deck-defining.

[madmanmike25]

1) Ban it - Simple solution.  However, it sets a precedence of banning non-dexterity / non-ante cards that could be unhealthy for Vintage.

I for one am totally opposed to banning it, I will keep my opinions about that to myself as this is a 'Restricted' thread and not a 'Banning' thread.

2) Print some "Will-hate" cards - Cards specifically designed for dealing with it or lessening its impact.  The problem is that this is a narrow solution that really doesn't solve the issue of a Will vs. non-Will deck metagame.  I'd argue that it would accomplish the opposite and proliferate the strategies even further.

Last I checked, there are TONS of Graveyard hate cards in Vintage.  Too many to list, seriously.  If Will is the 'win' condition then Grave hate cards are your win condition (so to speak) against that ONE card.  You can tutor for Will, I can tutor for Graveyard hate too remember.  This is in addition to a card such as Leyline of the Void which can already begin in play.

If your resonse is "They/I can just bounce ______(*insert card here)" then my response is "I/We can counter your bounce/other card".  Yawgmoth's Will isn't ALWAYS in a perfect(read:winning) position.

2) Yawg will is often the wrong play. Turn One Underground Sea, Dark Ritual, Yawg Will is an awful play, for instance. There are many others.

I have had the misfortune to find out about some of those "many others".  I have also won games WITHOUT Yawgmoth's Will(when its in the deck).  Yes, it is possible.

3) Errata It - There's no reasonable errata of Will that I can think of that would not alter its original intent, or do anything to lessen its power, or solve the issue of a Will vs. non-Will metagame.

Not sure how that would work.  Yawgmoth's Will 2B Sorcery  "Until end of turn, you may play cards in your graveyard...........NOT!"

In summary, I think that if you are in the "Will Hate Camp" the only reasonable option is to Ban it.  Then deal with the potential future consequences of the precedent that this sets.  If nothing is done, and to echo Steve's article, I strongly feel that Gifts, Grim and other future cards that enable combo / YawgWin are destined for the Restricted list.

By whose reasons?  Instead of all the graveyard hate, why not just counter the damn thing?  FoW anyone?

If Force of Will is the glue that holds Vintage together, then Yawgmoth's Will is the Atom Bomb that blows it apart.  And I wouldn't have it any other way.

[forests failed you]

Yawgmoth's Will is a really, really, good card.  However, it is not in every deck and drawing it does not necessarily correlate to winning the game.  Furthermore, I feel that it is out of the flavor to Vintage to ban cards outright no matter how good they are.  In my opinion Black Lotus, The Moxes, Ancestral Recall, and Time Walk are far more abusive early on in a game because they are directly related to gaining insane amounts of tempo advantage.  If Yawgmoth's Will is the endgame of most combo and combo-control decks in the format, the reason that one is able to get to that point so quickly are the power nine.

Every format has its over powered cards... even standard.  For example I would cite Umazawa's Jitte, Plow Under, Flame Tongue Kavu, and Fact or Fiction as cards that have polarized metagames.  These four cards were so good at their respective times that they went into any deck that could play them and they transcended archetypes.  Much in the same way that Yawgmoth's Will does.  With that being said, every deck in their respective format had to acknoweldge and plan for how they were going to beat these cards.  However, none of these format defining cards ended up on the banned list.  Likely because they did not polarize the metagame into 1 deck that abuses Jitte, into the one deck that beats the Jitte deck.  But rather, Jitte was so good that a lot of different decks and stratagies played it, or had a plan to beat a Jitte.

Affinity cards on the other hand; found themselves banned.  Artifact lands, Ravager, and disciple led to the existence of a specific deck that polarized the metagame into Affinity V. Affinity hate.  The metagame was too decks Big Green V. Affinity.  That does not appear to be the case in Vintage at the moment.  There are several different decks that play Yawgmoth's Will.  In fact, most big mana decks play Yawgmoth's Will (Long, Slaver, and Gifts).  However, not all of the control and combo control decks even play Yawgmoth's Will.  Salvagers often does not even play Will.  On the flip side:  The decks that do not play Will are equally diverse as the Yawgmoth's Will decks themselves.  Salvagers, UR Fish, UB Fish, and Stax are all very different decks that use very different cards and stratagies. 

The precident for restriction and banning in Vintage has always been the dominace, or perception of dominance, of a specific deck over the field.  Or, rather the polarization of the metagame into Deck A, and then the Deck that beats Deck A.  Right now in Vintage there is a high threshold of decks that are capable of making a top eight at a large tournament. 

On the restriction end:  I think that there are likely a lot of cards that can come off the list, though I would like to see it done one or two cards at a time, as to make sure that things don't get shaken up all at once. 

Time Spiral (Yes, Steve I have changed my mind on this card).
Grim Monolith/ or, Voltaic Key (one or the other but not both)
Mind Twist
Dream Halls
Personal Tutor (nobody even plays one!)
Fact or Fiction
Black Vise (I have some reservations about this one, but will hesitently agree). 

Are all cards that could pretty safely come off the list.

[vroman]

what do you think of mox diamond? I wouldnt play any in stax. maybe life from the loam decks could abuse it, but they arent exactly the speediest.
also enlightened tutor. theres basically one target for this: black lotus. other than bomberman, what would use this in multiples? 5cstax already has all the tutor power it needs.
I would not unrestrict personal tutor, bc it would create turn2-tinker.dec

I would unrestrict
black vise
dream halls
enlightened tutor
grim monolith
mox diamond
time spiral
voltaic key

PS

unrestrict library?
<---$$$$---- thanks!

[zeus-online]

I think will is dominating, not in the sence that one deck rules them all, but the decks that are highly focused on will tends to do better then those who are not.

Hating will is infinitely worse then playing it, imo...since you can blow your hand and board away in order to protect the will, and then win upon resolution, while you can't just go leyline, T. Crypt GG. That would most likely set you so far back, that you can't ever hope to climb into the game again.

I mostly play will decks, but i wish they'd ban it, i think it would be good for the vintage meta-game...Its gotten extremely fast during the last two years, and the blame for that is Will, every deck needs some kind of answer to it...And the best one is usually to play your own will.

Every top Combo deck since the original Long.dec has been based on Yawgmoth's will. (Sole exception is dragon, but i don't think people consider it a "Top deck")
Every top Control deck has run it, and many of them had a strategy based on will, (GAT, HulkSmash, Control slaver, Gifts)
Those decks might be able to win without it, but most of them prefer to kill with will since its easier to setup, and usually several turns faster then other ways of winning.

Just my 2 cents.

/Zeus

Ps. Oh yeah, the list of cards i think could be unrestricted right now:
black vise (Unsure about this one, but i think the meta-game can handle it)
dream halls (The card rocks, the deck would suck)
enlightened tutor
grim monolith
mox diamond
Chrome mox
voltaic key
fact or fiction (I'm a bit hesitant about this one, but i think it would be good to have an additional viable draw-engine)
Burning wish (with Grim tutors unrestricted, who would bother to play this card in an abusive way anyways?)
Personal tutor (Turn2tinker.dec would suck anyways  )

[Smmenen]

Furthermore, I feel that it is out of the flavor to Vintage to ban cards outright no matter how good they are.

But the question you and others are going to have to face at some point is what you do when you are, once again, confronted with the difficult choice of restricting a card that is abusive on account of Will or just Ban Will.

How many restrictions should accrue before Will is banned?   At what point do you decide that it is better to just ban one card to save many?   

I am adamantly opposed to any further restrictions that could be solve simply  by banning Will.   Burning Wish already is restricted on account of Will directly (and LED was as well, although it eventually would have required restriction).  Must we see Gifts restricted merely to save Will?   Where will it end? 

[Metman]

Hating will is infinitely worse then playing it, imo...since you can blow your hand and board away in order to protect the will, and then win upon resolution, while you can't just go leyline, T. Crypt GG. That would most likely set you so far back, that you can't ever hope to climb into the game again.

I think this paragraph sums up the entire argument on YawgWill.  It isn't as simple as playing Yawg vs AntiYawg because grave hating cards just can't be played in big enough numbers to be effective against Yawg and the rest of the field.

There are, in my opinion, three solutions to fixing the power of Yawgmoth's Will if this is something you are after.

One - Ban Yawgmoths Will! This would solve the problem really quickly but it admits a serious mistake on the design team's part.  It would go against the philosophy of Vintage but being stubborn about a mistake you made years ago and putting your head in the sand doesn't make anything any better.

Two - Ban the Storm Cards! This reminds me of the Necro vs What ever was winning at the time argument.  The real problem was the skull not what it took to actually do the killing.  Banning the storm mechanic would make Yawg a lot less powerful wouldn't it?  Again, we must admit that there is a problem and not bury our heads in the sand.
  
Three - Make card(s) that are better enablers than Yawgmoth's Will.  This would encourage the designers to make cards that are balanced in other formats yet much more powerful in Vintage.  They would have to be cards that make it worth while to play aggro because we know that control abuses Yawg and giving them more outs/protection would just lead to more abuse of Yawg.  A perfect example of this is Jotun Grunt.  Balanced in other formats, badass in vintage, and encourages aggro.  

Now if you don't think YawgWill is a problem than you can just ignore what I just wrote.  

[Implacable]

Two - Ban the Storm Cards! This reminds me of the Necro vs What ever was winning at the time argument.  The real problem was the skull not what it took to actually do the killing.  Banning the storm mechanic would make Yawg a lot less powerful wouldn't it?  Again, we must admit that there is a problem and not bury our heads in the sand.

If you cast Yawgmoth's Will and have a storm card in your deck, you win the game.  If you cast Will and do not, the card advantage that it accrues will win the game anyway.  Storm just makes you win immediately, rather than on the back of the card advantage gained.

[TopSecret]

     I think the problem with this argument about Will is that
the two sides of the argument, those for banning Will and those who are against banning cards,
are arguing towards completely different goals.

     Those who want to ban Will want a better metagame, with less cards in total restricted.

     Those who do not want Will banned want to adhere to the format guideline of never
     banning any cards, exept ante and similiar rules problem cards.

   Because of the different values held by both sides arguing, I do not believe the argument can be resolved,
unless a major upset takes place, like:

#1) Both sides can agree on which value is more important: no bannings, or a healthier metagame.
#2) Make a separate format in which Will is banned.*
#3) Wizards decides for us. Although, this doesn't stop any arguments, because the action would still be questioned.

     *Some would argue that this is Legacy.

    Just my opinion, as to why the arguement itself is a bit circular.
   Although, discussion is never a bad thing.