B&R Results are In - No Change for Vintage

[Jank Golem]

Instead of focusing the discussion on the formation of a new governance body for the Vintage B&R, why not consider something more effective and less disruptive?

Is there an effective way that we can reach out to the DCI or a member of the DCI to have a periodic open dialogue on the B&R list?  I admit to knowing nothing about their membership body and analysis process.  But, if we (by we I mean a select # of the T1 Community speaking on Vintage's behalf) could have a DIRECT (not some open letter / or random post) dialogue with the DCI or a subset of its members then perhaps our voice would be heard more clearly and with less delay.

Does anyone know of the logistics of such an approach?  And the feasibility and possibility of making it happen?

I really like this idea. Before trying to build our own B/R list or break off from the DCI we should try talking to them. Even just linking them to this thread would be good. I am hesitant of electing representative but I like the general premise. Does anybody know anything more about how the DCI makes changes to the list?

[Shock Wave]

As a community, we don't abide by the no-proxy rule because, ultimately, it brings people into the game. It's almost a no-risk move, because people with real cards are still able to play.

Changing the B&R list also brings people into the game. Here in Ontario, we play lots of modified T1 formats to no detriment to sanctioned or proxied DCI Vintage, and they have a rather devout following (ex. 100 card Vintage, 60 Vintage minus P9, etc). There is no risk, because nobody is trying to permanently reinvent the wheel. The purpose is to try something different, and if it works and people enjoy it, then we can allow it to grow and eventually propose adoption of the system as a standard. Even if such a system never were to receive widespread acceptance, it still helps Vintage because it allows people to be part of a different metagame while still retaining roots to DCI Vintage.

If you decide to create a new B/R list, you are creating an entirely new format. You are not playing Vintage.

I don't understand this. The DCI creates new B/R lists when they feel it is appropriate. What keeps the format "Vintage"? The fact that the DCI dictates the changes? That would seem to imply that if the DCI suggest restricting card A, then the format is still Vintage. However, if I decide to hold a tournament and restrict card A, then the format is some bastardized form of Magic. The whole point of changing the B/R list is for that purpose: to bring about change. It just so happens that some people have decided that it is time to try something different, otherwise we wouldn't have TOs suggesting tournaments of modified Vintage formats.

The DCI does not hold Vintage by the throat, as many people seem to believe. If that were the case, we wouldn't be playing with proxies and T1 would have remained the obscure format that it was 6-7 years ago. Since it is the community that defines this format, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest tinkering with it. Hell, we know the DCI does very little research in regards to Vintage, so why not do some of our own? If it doesn't work, we can always revert back to DCI rules and B/R standards. Nobody is suggesting we throw them in the fire.

The last time this argument was brought up, I remember somebody pointing out that Five-Color, which is a self-governed format, is a disaster.

What is so disastrous about holding an event with a modified B/R list? What is the worst that could come of it? People don't like it? Seriously, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by trying different things with this game. People seem to think I am suggesting that we forsake the DCI and slay their Vintage wives and children. I'm not saying that at all. I am proposing that we embrace the idea of TOs hosting events with modified T1 B/R lists. It can only serve to spruce up our "Vintage" metagame and teach us more about what really needs to stay and what really needs to go.

[diopter]

As a community, we don't abide by the no-proxy rule because, ultimately, it brings people into the game. It's almost a no-risk move, because people with real cards are still able to play.

Changing the B&R list also brings people into the game. Here in Ontario, we play lots of modified T1 formats to no detriment to sanctioned or proxied DCI Vintage, and they have a rather devout following (ex. 100 card Vintage, 60 Vintage minus P9, etc). There is no risk, because nobody is trying to permanently reinvent the wheel. The purpose is to try something different, and if it works and people enjoy it, then we can allow it to grow and eventually propose adoption of the system as a standard. Even if such a system never were to receive widespread acceptance, it still helps Vintage because it allows people to be part of a different metagame while still retaining roots to DCI Vintage.

If you decide to create a new B/R list, you are creating an entirely new format. You are not playing Vintage.

I don't understand this. The DCI creates new B/R lists when they feel it is appropriate. What keeps the format "Vintage"? The fact that the DCI dictates the changes? That would seem to imply that if the DCI suggest restricting card A, then the format is still Vintage. However, if I decide to hold a tournament and restrict card A, then the format is some bastardized form of Magic. The whole point of changing the B/R list is for that purpose: to bring about change. It just so happens that some people have decided that it is time to try something different, otherwise we wouldn't have TOs suggesting tournaments of modified Vintage formats.

The DCI does not hold Vintage by the throat, as many people seem to believe. If that were the case, we wouldn't be playing with proxies and T1 would have remained the obscure format that it was 6-7 years ago. Since it is the community that defines this format, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest tinkering with it. Hell, we know the DCI does very little research in regards to Vintage, so why not do some of our own? If it doesn't work, we can always revert back to DCI rules and B/R standards. Nobody is suggesting we throw them in the fire.

The last time this argument was brought up, I remember somebody pointing out that Five-Color, which is a self-governed format, is a disaster.

What is so disastrous about holding an event with a modified B/R list? What is the worst that could come of it? People don't like it? Seriously, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by trying different things with this game. People seem to think I am suggesting that we forsake the DCI and slay their Vintage wives and children. I'm not saying that at all. I am proposing that we embrace the idea of TOs hosting events with modified T1 B/R lists. It can only serve to spruce up our "Vintage" metagame and teach us more about what really needs to stay and what really needs to go.

What you are suggesting is reasonable. Trying out new formats for a while, to see the effect of certain cards being restricted/banned, would be OK.

What other people are suggesting in this thread is that we take Vintage into our own hands and completely split off from the DCI, creating this new format that the Vintage community would accept as the "new Vintage". I just have issues with that, because a.) self-governed formats tend to not work, because everyone has a different opinion on what should or should not be allowed, and b.) having our own "Vintage" format, while the DCI continues to provide a definition of Vintage, would create much confusion - see Harlequin's post.

[yespuhyren]

The last time this argument was brought up, I remember somebody pointing out that Five-Color, which is a self-governed format, is a disaster.

Didn't you ever think that maybe the fact that

1)  250 card decks with specific color guidelines are a pain in the ass to shuffle and deck check
2)  The format is for Ante

could have been part of that moreso than the fact that it is self governed?

[diopter]

The last time this argument was brought up, I remember somebody pointing out that Five-Color, which is a self-governed format, is a disaster.

Didn't you ever think that maybe the fact that

1)  250 card decks with specific color guidelines are a pain in the ass to shuffle and deck check
2)  The format is for Ante

could have been part of that moreso than the fact that it is self governed?

If I remember correctly, the comment was made by somebody on the Five-Color governing body, and they were specifically referring to the B/R process, which was enormously difficult.

[Imzakhor]

I always thought a [* Tutor] restriction, and a [Mox *] restriction would work wonders. One Mox, one Tutor per deck... You can pick which ones. That would be beautiful.

I wouldn't be sad to see Yawgmoth's Will leave the format either. I think a ton of decks would sigh in relief that they don't need to splash black to play it, and have 4-8 sideboard cards prepare for it. There is every reason to put poorly designed cards on the Vintage sideline. I simply don't understand the desire to keep poorly designed cards IN Vintage.

[policehq]

Does anyone feel that Serum Powder could become on the watch list?

It's a free Draw card that can't be countered and is one-sided with very minimal drawback.

It's the only reason Manaless Ichorid can function (without it, Imperial Seal, Vampiric Tutor, and Bayous/Cities/Underground Seas are needed).

During discussions about Manaless Ichorid sideboards and maindecks, it is often concluded that Leyline of the Void does not address the problem match-ups effectively. Still, I'm seeing it in a lot of sideboards. In the other sideboards, does it come in versus Gifts and Long as well as Ichorid, or is it played just for the Ichorid match-up? If it's the latter, I feel that Serum Powder is the problem for the distortion, and a much more likely (and not collection-damaging) candidate for restriction.

-hq

[yespuhyren]

How in gods name of ALL cards could serum powder ever get restricted.  That card is good in one archetype that almost always fails to put up any good numbers.  Ichorid rarely ever does well.  There is far from any reason to ever ever ever look at that card for restriction.

[zeus-online]

How in gods name of ALL cards could serum powder ever get restricted.  That card is good in one archetype that almost always fails to put up any good numbers.  Ichorid rarely ever does well.  There is far from any reason to ever ever ever look at that card for restriction.

Was about to write the same

If manaless ichorid becomes a problem, then maybe, just maybe - but until then..why bother?

/Zeus

[yespuhyren]

I would have to say that I don't think it is possible for Manaless Ichorid to EVER be a problem.  It is so easy to hate no matter what archetype you are playing.  If all decks SB appropriately, losing games 2/3 to Ichorid should be rare.

[dicemanx]

That being said, it's obvious to me, at least, that they at least have some idea of how the list ought to be.

Why is that obvious? If you mean to suggest that they have some vague idea much the same way that your average vintage competitor has an idea, then I won't argue. But deciding on things that will be beneficial for the format - and I hope that there is close to a unanimous agreement that the two things at the top of the list are format diversity (which encompasses format balance) and a large, growing player base - I doubt that the DCI has any clue, or even any interst,  on what the best course of action happens to be. I feel that we are the experts here, not them. We play this game, we understand what drives us, where that enjoyment comes from. While we might have differing opinions on a variety of issues, there are enough things we share in common

Outside of the banning Will argument (which is another philosophical issue altogether), what's to say that one form of the B/R list that is slightly different from another is the "perfect" Vintage format?  I really do not think there is some ideal B/R list out there that we haven't achieved.  Moreover, I don't believe that we need to achieve it.  The game is just fine the way it is.

But it isn't fine, unless your contention is that it only needs to be fine for a select percentage of the vintage community, even if that group is even the majority. As I stated above, we might need to cater to the minority. By your own admission, you recognize that there could be many different versions of the B/R list that would work - so, I'm assuming, that if the B/R list shifted next time, that you might make your argument for how it was unnecessary, but you would play, enjoy, innovate in that format just the same. Am I wrong in such an assumption? If not, you are therefore in the "indifferent" category, exactly where I am also. I too buy into the argument the format is acceptable as is in terms of format balance, and I can derive enjoyment out of it. However, I think that things could be better, if not for me then for many others that might otherwise choose not to play, no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise.

As I wrote in another forum, maybe what needs to happen to increase the enjoyability of the format is to look at the B/R as a dynamic entity. As you imply, there is no ideal B/R list, and even if there was one, we don't need to achieve it. However, an argument can be made that times are most exciting when there is some sort of *change*. So it really isn't whether the decision to change the B/R list in some manner is "objectively correct" or "necessary", but whether the mere act of change is what stimulates interest and attracts players, whether new or old. I, for instance, would look forward to any massive upheavals, even if that meant banning Will, or restricting Mana Drain, or unrestricting Gush or FoF. The ensuing chaos and uncertainty as to what decks are "best" that would follow thereafter is what would make things very interesting; that we would eventually find out the answer and determine the strongest archetypes is an inevitability, but one that can be prevented every time through periodic B/R list changes (changes every 1-2 years, not every 3 months - T1 evolves very slowly).

Basically, I love chaos and the unknown. This is what happens like clockwork in every other format, from limited down to every constructed format. It is the one thing that attracted me to this game, and why I feel this game has tremendous longevity - it constantly changes and re-invents itself, never getting stale or progressing too much to the "solved" stage. Vintage WAS like that - except we have "caught up". While evolution was slow and painful, we have undergone significant development, playskill and deck-building skill has increased, we have developed vintage theory, identified format standards as far as efficiency and focus of deck design are concerned. The power inherent in this format is imploding to the point where all decks are effectively blurring the lines of combo, control, and aggro, from Drain archetypes, to Ritual based decks, to even Worksjhop decks that can literally "combo you out" on turn 1, and are constructed to do exactly that in the first 1-2 turns. Even aggro decks like Goblins or Ichorid are combo decks in disguise.

[madmanmike25]

I, for instance, would look forward to any massive upheavals, even if that meant banning Will, or restricting Mana Drain, or unrestricting Gush or FoF. The ensuing chaos and uncertainty as to what decks are "best" that would follow thereafter is what would make things very interesting; that we would eventually find out the answer and determine the strongest archetypes is an inevitability, but one that can be prevented every time through periodic B/R list changes (changes every 1-2 years, not every 3 months - T1 evolves very slowly).

Basically, I love chaos and the unknown.

Then I have a suggestion.  If you have enough players that feel the way you do, then you should all get together and set up your own rules for playing Magic.  Make up  your own restrictions, ban whatever cards you want.  I guess just go by majority rule, because you WON'T get a uniform B/R list from all players involved.  Set out dates and locations to play with your group, and have fun.

Just don't call it Vintage.  Leave Vintage alone unless you want to play by it's rules.  You can call it DMX-MTG.

I respect your opinion.  But it's just that, an opinion.  I can write pages on why I think that things are fine and the format is healthy.  I can back it up with evidence to support my opinion, but it doesn't make me right/wrong.

I think the format is fine.  I think the Restricted list is fine.  Banning Yawgmoth's Will seems asinine(again, my opinion) and would cater to those who bitch, piss, and moan about how Yawgmoth's Will/Vintage is too powerful(cough cough.....Legacy players...cough cough).  Force of Will is in more winning decks than Yawgmoth's Will or even Mana Drain, should that be restricted?  First turn Trinisphere is more detrimental that first turn Yawg's Will (BARRING a godhand), should Trini be banned?

You want more diversity?  Translation: MORE BAD DECKS.  Do you wish to see people playing Llanowar Elves in Vintage to attract more people? 

Vintage follows rules and guidlines, play by them, or play something else.  What's next, shall we make our own cards?  Increase life totals to 60?  Draw only 5 cards?  Where does it end man? 

I am willing to accept the DCI B/R policy for Vintage though I may sometimes disagree.

The Dude abides.


p.s. You don't need to write a 1000 word counter-argument saying how I just (somehow) proved all your points.  I'm just stating my opinion on the current state of Vintage.  I said my peace.  I'm done talking, I think I will go play some old fashioned Type 1 now. 

Mike

[jcb193]

There is a simple solution to this dilemma that should appease both camps. 

1.)  Create a manadrain.com committee who will make "official recommendations" to the DCI 1.5 months out.  This gives you a consensus opinion, allows us to "elect" people to represent our views here, and will still work within the framework of the DCI. 

We could elect 5-10 "spokespeople" for this site and they can solicit our opinions, and then make a decision.  Democratic, organized, and much more meaningful than random essays.

Each person that wants to run for this position, could also give a sentence or two about how they feel "I, Josh, promise to push for the banning of YWill, think that blue decks are too powerful in T1, and think that Fact or Fiction should be unrestricted," or whatever.

Those 5-10 people can deliberate and then form a consensus, or a % recommendation. 

[Imzakhor]

Extrapolating to the ludicrous is not logical, and is rarely helpful. Banning Will is not the same as restricting FoW: different card, type, color, philosophy, intention and impact (restriction!=banning). Do not equate the two, it is a fallacy of logic.

Discussing what might be good to ban/restrict IS helpful. Why is banning defective cards a bad thing for Vintage? Philosophical reasons? If so, my reasons could also be categorized as philosophical. I simply demand that the format that I play in have no defective, degenerate cards. Will is the only one... My Mox/Tutor restriction notwithstanding.

Please don't slippery slope "banning Will" to "Ban the next thing after that too," because that follows to the illogical conclusion of "BAN EVERYTHING". We can all agree that Will is too powerful. Being 'too' anything is bad... 'Too' weak is also effectively banned from tourneys. Why not 'too' strong?

Thanks for reading.

[GrandpaBelcher]

We can't all agree that Will is too powerful, though.  I don't think it is.  It can be countered, requires some setup, can be hated with any number of cards including a 0cc artifact that everyone can run, and (everyone's favorite reason why cards are or are not good) it doesn't even pitch to Force.  Will just happens to be the easiest way to win in multiple decks right now.  Good players can win without it (Hurkyll's Recall and Rebuild are still really good!), so Long and Gifts would probably survive with some modifications and still be strong choices.  Bad players use it as a crutch; if you kick the crutch out from under them with Tormod's Crypt (Extirpate, Withered Wretch, Extract, Orim's Chant, Leyline, whatever) they fall down hard.

If anything, we should look more closely at unrestricting cards.  Gush could revitalize a section of aggro-control in an attempt to keep combo and Gifts down.  Trinisphere could give Workshops a bump to the same end, though Stax has all the tools it needs to beat Will right now if it can speed up its clock or its lock and can protect against end of turn bounce (SSG + REB anyone?).  Mind Twist is an option too, though it would likely be the weakest of these three options.

Banning is for wusses.  The format contains thousands of cards and should easily be flexible enough to adapt around one restricted sorcery that costs three mana.  Players just need to think outside the box a little more and not be afraid to try new strategies and answers.  Plus, you never know what the next set will bring along.

[Imzakhor]

Does any other single card require so much hate, thought and attention from opponents? Or, does any other single card absolutely require sideboard slots (maybe even MD answers!) to prepare for it? I don't think so. To me, that defines a card that is too powerful, and should be removed from Vintage. Being the "Easiest way to win in multiple decks" is a heckuva clincher, too.

*edit* heh, I suppose I should actually MENTION the card here by name. Yawgmoth's Will. That is all.

[dicemanx]

I respect your opinion.  But it's just that, an opinion.  I can write pages on why I think that things are fine and the format is healthy.  I can back it up with evidence to support my opinion, but it doesn't make me right/wrong.

You are forming an opinion about things that I am not interested in contesting. I cannot rebut your opinion, because I cannot even disagree with you regarding format balance and fun factor from a personal perspective.

In the end, our opinions about health of the format are irrelevant. If tourney attendance slips because people grow dissatisfied or feel that the format is getting stale, then that will be an indication that something is wrong, whether or not you choose to believe that there is anything wrong. If 50% of the people think that the format is fine, and 50% of the people think its not fine, then the format isn't fine.

I'm not saying we are necessarily at that point now, because we have yet to see the numbers for this year. But there HAS been a downward trend in the past year, both in terms of support for SCGP9 events, and local events in some areas from what I have read in the tourney forums here. Additionally, why do you suppose that we've had this kind of explosion in the discussion about making some key changes, coming from talented players that are even responsible for a lot of the diversity and excitement in this format? If the discussion is spearheaded by a person the brought a lot of that diversity and had a big hand in format development, that tells me something.

Just don't call it Vintage.  Leave Vintage alone unless you want to play by it's rules.  You can call it DMX-MTG.

Would you not agree that whether I would effect such changes on a small scale, or whether the DCI does it, it will be just as arbitrary, and there would be as much resistance to change either way?

Fortunately, we don't need universal agreement to get things done; it seems pretty clear that if enough people make enough noise and put forth compelling arguments, then you don't need unanimous support for the DCI to make changes. And I already explained why - despite the fact that some people like to argue that the format doesn't require changes, and go so far as to insult others (reference to "bitching", "pissing" and "moaning" from apparent "noobs"), they do fall into the "indifferent" category - they will continue to play, and they will continue to enjoy the format, even if changes are made. I don't imagine that the DCI caters to those with indifference, even if they can make arguments to stop changes from occuring - this is undoubtedly why Trinisphere was restricted despite many arguments (headed by Smmenen no less) in favor of keeping it unrestricted. If this wasn't the case, they would have done nothing, and would have stated: you have no consensus, therefore, we won't change anything".

You want more diversity?  Translation: MORE BAD DECKS.  Do you wish to see people playing Llanowar Elves in Vintage to attract more people?

Trust me, I know all of the tactics when it comes to these arguments. Your embellishment/distortion will not help you in selling your point.

Vintage follows rules and guidlines, play by them, or play something else.

Ouch. The DCI/WotC have made it abundantly clear that they care little about supporting our format - we had to effect changes to make the format more diverse, more accessible, and more attractive to new players. The rules you abide by today, some of those were OUR doing. I'm referring to the proxy rules, and more recent B/R changes once the B/R criteria were fleshed out by US. We don't need a separate governing body, we have to get enough support (and have enough indifference for those with counterarguments) to get the DCI to effect the changes for us and make them universally binding.

Banning is for wusses.  The format contains thousands of cards and should easily be flexible enough to adapt around one restricted sorcery that costs three mana.  Players just need to think outside the box a little more and not be afraid to try new strategies and answers.

Is this how you sell the format to others? Is this your attempt to keep attendance up, to keep interest from waning? If you insult others for thinking that the format is a little too stale to maintain their interest or it is becoming increasingly too difficult to innovate because a couple of archetypes have a stranglehold on tier 1 status, do you think this will change their minds?

Do you not think that we should strive to be ambassadors trying to sell this game to others, so that we can build and maintain a stable, happy player base and keep stimulating interest and not regress to playing this game on our kitchen tables or small local events?

Please, at the least, let's not disparage those that want changes.

[Imzakhor]

Nice reply, dicemanx, very diplomatic. My reply was made before the "Banning is for wusses" was edited into my original post's target. Banning cards is not a state of mind. It is the only way to correct a card, where only a single allowable copy can warp 1/3 of the archetype wheel, COMBO vs. control vs. aggro.

Basically, and to sum up: I hope to see Will banned in the near future. I use it, I hate against it, and I wish I had neither option. Will is degenerate, and overpowered.

[ELD]

All of the talk about banning Yawgmoth's Will it totally lost on me.  I simply do not get it.  It's a great card.  One of the best ever printed.  It is one of the cards that defines Vintage, in the same way that the totally overpowered Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall and the rest of the Power 9.  Will wins the game.  If I can't stop my opponent's game ending spell, then I lose.  I have no issue with that.  The last tournament I had a sick hand, but with no counter, and lost to a top deck.  Some people call that luck, I call that being caught with my pants down.  I could have played differently to get a counter in my hand.  Instead I gave my opponent a chance, no matter how small, to beat me.  They drew it, and I lost.  It really doesn't matter to me which card seals the deal, if I leave myself defenseless, I'm not going to complain about not being able to defend myself. 

I do feel banning cards in Vintage goes against the entire idea of the format.  I think restricting cards is fine.  That said, I think the restricted list should look like card draw, tutors and fast mana, with as little else as possible.  Other combo cards, like voltaic key, MoM seem fair enough to me.  I will not and do not have personal feelings about Gifts and Grim Tutor being restricted.  They certainly are powerful effects that are not dissimilar to other cards on the list.  If they go, that is fine, if they stay, that's fine too. 

I just to try and figure out the deck that gives me the best chance to win.  That's how I pick my deck.  I don't say to myself, I like little men, let's see what I can do with that.  I don't even say, "I like Mana Drain, how can I best abuse it?"  I try and objectively figure out what gives me the best chance to win.  If someone else is going to say they don't want to play with the cards that gives them the best chance to win, I cannot sympathize with them if they're losing.  Vintage is like drafting with the best cards ever made.  If you decided to draft a deck full of Merfolk, cause you like them, it's just the reality of competitive games that you're not going to do as well as someone who doesn't care what the flavor of the cards is, and just tries to win. 

At the end of the day, I still have to sit back and marvel at how much Magic players hate Magic cards. 

[Draven]

First I have to ask, when did Vintage players become a bunch of Brujah(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brujah)? Damn the man (DCI), they are oppressing us!!!

But seriously, the reason it is called Vintage is because of the concept called "labeling". Labeling is a shortcut method human use to categorize items. Look at this example:

I am thinking of an object that has four legs, a flat "seat" and back. Most everyone would say, oh, that's a chair. And they would be correct, because we have a universal way to categorize chairs.

Now, what if I decided to arbitrarily label a blender a "chair?" I say to the other person, hey, can you go grab me that chair? Are they going to come back with a blender? Probably not.

So, Vintage is the label for the format designed around the DCI R&B list. If a TO arbitrailarys changes the B&R list, it is no longer Vintage because the components of that label are no longer universal.

If the DCI changes cards in the R&B list, then is does continue to be Vintage because they are the ones who define the format in the first place.

[Darkenslight]

I'd propose this solution:

1) About six weeks before each announcement, each Vintage player is allowed to nominate one card for restriction/banning, with a short paragraph detailing why.  The results are collected and tallied.
2) Four weeks before the announcement, a collective e-mail is sent to the DCI, detailing what Vintage players want to do about the B/R list.
3) The Ball (lightning) is in the DCI's court, to do with as they will.
4) [Optional] Every year, in the Feb announcement, the B/R list is 'rotated,' with a vote on which cards should be unrestricted as well, following the above guidelines.

It is by no means perfect, but at the moment, it is one of the best solutions to a potential stagnation problem, which a number of people seem to be complaining about.

[bebe]

All of the talk about banning Yawgmoth's Will it totally lost on me.  I simply do not get it.  It's a great card.  One of the best ever printed.  It is one of the cards that defines Vintage, in the same way that the totally overpowered Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall and the rest of the Power 9.  Will wins the game.  If I can't stop my opponent's game ending spell, then I lose.  I have no issue with that.

There is a big difference between banning a card and restricting a card. Vintage is comprised of powerful cards. Black Lotus probably appears in every top eight deck. Do we ban it? Ancestral Recall is used in almost every deck that runs blue. Do we ban it? Is Will worse then a first turn Tinker/Colossus with backup or a turn one trinishere? We did not ban any of those cards.

The storm mechanic when introduced probably had the biggest effect on Vintage then anything else in the last five years. Do we ban all cards with storm? Of course not. I'm tired of hearing that Vintage is too parochial. Only a few archtypes can bcompete in Vintage  -or so some would have us believe. My experience has been to the contrary. I've seen Sui and Threshold make top eights in tournaments supported by competent players - thresh , btw, is a nightmare for Gifts decks when designed properly.

I do think we should make suggestions to the DCI as a group. But hastily banning cards is not a path I want to take. I heard the calls to restrict Extirpate when it was introduced and had a nice chuckle over it. Sure it can be strong but it will not destroy too many archtypes.
Trickbind did not stop Gifts.

If anything i agree with the sentiments that suggest we look at cards we can take off the restricted list. We are playing Vintage and yet Legacy can use multiples of cards we cannot. I understand that we have accelerants and powerful spells that make us hesitate to unrestrict certain cards but some of the restrictions were ludcrous ( eg, squirellcraft nerfed). I want to play in a format where powerful cards are encouraged asnlong as we have equally powerful answers.

[Imzakhor]

*shrug* agree to disagree, then. I can only hope more people (and the right people, at the DCI) agree with me: yawgmoth's will should never have been born, and fixing it, by killing it, can be classified as justifiable homicide.

[hitman]

I think Yawgmoth's Will is important to the diversity of the format because it allows for decks designed to stop it.  There needs to be a deck that's fast, powerful and focused so people can make decks that stop the abusive strategies.  If Gifts and Long weren't as powerful, then there would be no reason not to play something like Slaver which is good against aggro, prison, control, etc. (everything except Gifts and Long).  By adding restrictions like Gifts and Grim Tutor, you actually weaken the decks designed to stop them.  There will always be competitive players who want to find the synergies in cards and abuse them.  Someone will come up with solutions.  There has to be a buffer time for some smart deck designer to find a reasonable solution to an abused metagame to stabilize it.  Instead of arguing for ridiculous alternate restricted lists and abandoning the DCI, why not have contests with prizes for good deckbuilding?  Ichorid is a good answer to Gifts.  Fish is a good answer to Long.  Why always the extreme viewpoints on the forums?  Isn't the price of power a fairly good indication that the popularity of Vintage is higher than it was 5 years ago?  Does growth need to be exponential for a casual format?  Stocks rise and dip because of initial over-popularity and the ensuing realization that it wasn't everything they thought it was.  Let the format fix itself without all this melodrama.

[Justin]

I think Yawgmoth's Will is important to the diversity of the format because it allows for decks designed to stop it. 

So, a format that boils down to 1 card/anti-1 card is diverse to you?

I remember a time, before yawgmoth's will was printed, that both combo & control were able to win.

The point is, after turns & turns of activity on both player's parts, a single yawgmoth's will can end the match. You can't say that about any other card on the restricted list. The only cards on the restricted list even close to that description would be necropotence, yawgmoth's bargain. & tinker, all of which will give the opponent time to answer them (except for bargain, which has a significant casting cost & loses its brokenness after theyve taken the beating that should occur when decks are actually interacting).

Also, while this discussion takes place, I think we can all do without all the hyperbole & name calling. Ive been amazed at how quick people are to flame someone on these boards, when in person these "flamers" would make sure to watch their words more carefully. The flames add nothing to their arguments. If anything, they take away from it.

I love the format, and Ive played this game since "the dark" went into print. There are a lot of powerful decks, built around very interesting synergies. In my opinion, a good game should not involve 10 turns of player interaction rendered moot by a single mistake made by R&D years ago.

[Brainstorm]

First off, well said Justin.  Rational conversation is the beginning. I suggest a poll on the subject. It is important to phrase the choices carefully though. We could have one poll that lists the top 5-10 most broken cards in vintage and ask if you had to ban one which card would it be.  A second poll would take the most picked card from the first poll and ask the following questions or something similar.

If you had to choice to ban card X what would you do?

1. I would ban it.
2. I would leave it restricted. (Or restrict it if isn't already)
3. I do not believe in banning cards in vintage.

Option 3 is essentially a subset of option 2 and would give us a feel for how many people have a more philosophical view on banning cards. 

I am sure people will have many thoughts on this proposal. Let’s try to keep them constructive.

[Implacable]

If you play with an alternate B&R List, you are not playing Vintage.  You are playing a format that has a B&R List separate from the format called Vintage, and are therefore not playing that format.  What keeps this format Vintage is, absolutely, the fact that it is sanctioned by the DCI governing body.  Conservative approaches to change are good; they mean that important policy changes are not performed in response to rapidly shifting popular opinion.  What binds the people who come to the tournaments out here together is the fact that they know what they will be playing, and are experienced and educated in its intricacies.  There would not be enough players for any tournament out here that did not follow the official Vintage rules, and that means that I don't want to see this happen.

[Brainstorm]

Implacable, I don't believe that I said or even inferred that we would have a separate B/R list. I am merely suggesting that we have a poll to take the pulse of the populace.  While it probable that nothing close to a majority of the vintage players would participate due to the fact that not everyone that plays vintage reads TMD, it is a good start to gather some information. If a strong enough opinion is shown those results could persuade the DCI to have an investigation or poll of their own.  No journey is started without the first step.

[dicemanx]

If you play with an alternate B&R List, you are not playing Vintage.

Any tourneys that would be organized with alternate B/R lists would be done to collect some data and measure the impact of such changes. If such events were to stimulate interest, diversify deck construction, and attract players, it would make a case for effecting such a change - we would have a stronger case to present to not only other players, but the DCI as well.

Thus, the DCI can make more informed decisions, and you can go back to claiming how important it is to follow the DCI rules which we might have a hand in altering because playing by any other B/R list is "not playing vintage".

What keeps this format Vintage is, absolutely, the fact that it is sanctioned by the DCI governing body.

Except that if you play in proxy events you are not playing a format sanctioned by the DCI governing body. I guess you're not playing vintage then?

[Imzakhor]

What keeps this format Vintage is, absolutely, the fact that it is sanctioned by the DCI governing body.

Except that if you play in proxy events you are not playing a format sanctioned by the DCI governing body. I guess you're not playing vintage then?

Parry, and Riposte! I have been thinking the same thing, throughout this whole thread.

Do The Powers That Be (i.e. DCI) ever actually visit these forums in a sanctioned manner? In other words, is there any proof that they care at all about the feelings of Vintage players from TMD?

I think what frustrates most Vintage players is how EASY it would be to fix/improve the game-state of Vintage, but Wizards just can't seem to be made to CARE. Waiting once every three months, for NO CHANGE, would be unacceptable in a true customer relationship.