B&R Results are In - No Change for Vintage

[dicemanx]

Metagames can be solved most of the time.  This isn't always true and restrictions/bans are needed.  When we have every available card ever printed there is a very very high chance that we can always find a solution to the current metagame, it just takes a while with so many options.

OK, but the question is how will you know when a "metagame cannot be solved" and how long you're willing to wait for a "solution" to be found.

[Moxlotus]

Metagames can be solved most of the time.  This isn't always true and restrictions/bans are needed.  When we have every available card ever printed there is a very very high chance that we can always find a solution to the current metagame, it just takes a while with so many options.

OK, but the question is how will you know when a "metagame cannot be solved" and how long you're willing to wait for a "solution" to be found.

Personally, I'd wait a year to see if any deck can stop a dominating deck.  I admit it is arbitrary.  But so over the past 4 years we have found answers to any dominant deck in the format within 3-6 months. 

Slaver's foil was found in fish.  Stax's foil was found in IT.  Pitch Long's foil was found in Gifts.  It has been around 6 months since Gifts and PL have been doing really well.  Like I said, my meta adapted very quickly from one Gifts dominated tournament to this one.  I can't say if it was a fluke or if it was geniune and will catch on.

[Akuma]

Huh? Every B/R decision ever made in every format was done with the intent to make things more fun. It is "unfun" when archetypes dominate, it is "unfun" when archetypes excessively distort, it is "unfun" when archetypes have the means to win too quickly and easily on turn 1.

I understand what you are saying, I think what I said did not come across clearly. There are different levels. "Unfun" as in Affinity is dominating, I'm maindecking hate and I'm losing, all of the best players are playing it or a foil to it - that is when the DCI should step it.

"Unfun" as in some people don't find a certain archetype all that much "fun" to play against and it has a powerful new component, lets get rid of it because we don't like it. It's not dominating the environment, but we will have to make some adjustments, but we don't want to make them because we are lazy, lets cry for a restriction. This is not an acceptable reason to restrict something.

However, from what transpired after restriction, I'd say it was a damn good decision as the floodgates opened when it came to deck diversity and innovation. True, whether it was because of the restriction or in spite of it, no one can say with certainty, but who cares?

Nothing transpired after the restriction. All of the archetypes that were created after the restriction would have been equally viable. They did not thrive because Trinisphere was gone, they came to the forefront after they were championed tirelessly by certain individuals and teams. Gifts would have risen to prominence regardless, Pitch Long same thing (same with IT, other Tendrils variants, Ichorid, Slaver, etc.). Other innovations were due to new cards being printed.

There is mention that after Trinisphere was restricted, we saw the most successful time period of the Workshop archetype. The only reason this happened (in the U.S. only by the way) was because many players took Workshops lightly and failed to prepare adequately. Workshops decks = easily hated.

There are so few cards that enter the Vintage cardpool and make an impact. They are few and far between. Restriction should be the last option we contemplate. I don't want Gifts Ungiven gone (I don't even play the deck), I don't want Grim Tutor gone. Once a card is put on that list, it will most likely not comeback for ages. The criteria for restriction should be DOMINANCE.

I will ignore stupid suggestions, like restricting Brainstorm...

[Harlequin]

I have been following this thread, and I am also very surprised in the direction it went.  It seems like as it went on, it degenerated into "well, I want more diversity, so ... lets restrict/ban so and so."   I personally think that argument is purely based on opinion. 

I like to naively believe that the restricted list is based on several "restriction" criteria.  Now,  I will say that some of the criteria I personally think are too strict and/or non-applicable.  Here are the trends I see:

1) Too good in opening hand (or.. too good in multiples in the early game).
2) Benefit greatly out weighs "acceptable" cost - ah the real rub - What and where is the vintage standard cost for certain results?
3) Precedental restriction - this is the one I personally feel is unnecessary (to put it more critically ... "laziness").

Here are some things that are -Not- on the list ... that some people feel should be (or even feel entitled too).

-- "That card makes me feel bad"
-- "Fast mana"
-- "When/If it was unrestricted, it made up X% of top tables"
-- "This is restricted because Will is un-banned"


1) Too good in opening hand --  Now admittedly, I have it easy in this section because this section is purely opinion because I don't have guidelines for "Too good."  However is fairly clear cards such as the following are "too good" in your opening hand (and in multiples):
- Black Lotus
- All the Moxen
- Sol Ring
- Mana Crypt

The more debatable cards are:
- Lotus petal
- Chrome Mox, Mox Diamond
- Fastbond
- Library
- Crop Rotation
- Black Vise
- Ancestral (however this is also undercosted)
- Stripmine


Then you have cards that are too good in your opening hand contingent on having some other unrestricted cards as well.

- Mind Twist* hard argument to make but with all the black rituals out there I'm gunna make that argument
- Tinisphere* along with shop and/or moxen
- Tolarian Acad* along with artifact acceleration
- Balance * along with droping some moxen etc, or mulliganing.


2) benefit greatly out wieghs "acceptable" cost

I think the most contravertial point is #2.  So to expand that I will go over what I observe to be the cut off for standard costs in vintage for each ability.

Going up 1 card - about 1 to 1.5 mana.  Example: Gush is essentially "you gain and draw 2 cards", Ancestral is 3 cards for 1 mana.  However Thirst is unrestricted at 3 mana, and nights whispers is unrestricted at 2 mana.

Tutoring for any card with no drawback - 3 mana.  Obviously DT vs Grim

Tutoring for a card with drawback or restriction - 2 mana.
Vamp tutor, Entomb, Mystical, etc..  vrs Merchant scroll, Infernal Tutor, Tainted Pact.

Countering a Spell - This is where I think vintage deviates most from your standard T2 enviroment.  Countering a vintage spell costs roughly 1 mana or 1 card to stay unrestricted.  Example: no restricted counterspells, even with Force of Will, REB, Misdirrection, etc.

Temporary mana - 1 mana is roughly worth a 1/3 of a mana in cost.  Examples of this: Dark Ritual vs Channel or to a degree Lotus petal.

Dissecting some cards based on cost:

Yawgmoth's Will - Well its hard to put a price on this card because the number of playable cards in your yard is variable and depends on the deck.  Needless to say that even if you play 3 cards on the average off will it should be restricted ... so yeah.  benefit is too great for this card.

Yawgmoth's Bargin - 6 mana should buy you approximately 9 cards.  Bargin often is used for more than 9 cards so we can restrict this one.

Mana Vault - well here they go ruining my theory.. Mana Vault vrs Dark Ritual.  Both cards are right on the edge of acceptable as 1 mana for 3 temporary mana.  I think what pushes Vault over the threshold is two things. Firstly if you wait a turn, then its 0 mana for 3; secondly, it remains as an artifact in play, which is relevent.  However I can lump  this into our 'catch all' of  Precedental restriction.  arn't I cleaver

Mana Drain - Counterspells are so cheap in vintage that its hard to value this card.  Also the amount of mana you gain is variable making it ~really~ hard to value the card.   Lets say that on the average you earn 3 mana.  That means that mana drain could cost 1 (for countering a spell) + 1 (for adding 3 mana to your pool) = 2 ... and it does cost 2 so by these criteria it is a valid unrestricted card.

Fact or Fiction - Effect either 2 best cards, or 3 good cards.  On the surface you have either +1 "Semi-tutor" because your taking the best card wich should cost 1 + 2 = 3 mana.  Or you get +2 cards 1.5 x2 = 3 mana.  Now the question is ... how much are those cards in the yard worth?  If we value them at roughly 1 to 0.5 mana each then the card pushes to 5 cost meaning that it should be restricted.

Gifts Ungiven - Tutor for 4 cards with a restriction on each.  But again you only get 2, so not counting the cards that hit the yard we have 2 + 2 = 4.  Now.... how do we value the card that went into the yard? Given FoF as a starting point:  I would say that 1 is a fair value to place on each card that goes to the yard.  So by my calculation 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 =6.  Gifts should cost 6 mana to stay un-restricted.  It doesn't so _THAT_ is why I think it should be restricted. 

The other way to fudge Gifts into the unrestricted column is to unrestrict the non-vampiric top deck tutors.  This would mean that tutoring for a card that has 2 restrictions or drawback attached would cost 1 mana.  That would bring gifts back down to 4 mana (1 + 1 + 1 + 1). 


#3 Catch-all Precedental Restriction:  Here is where we can "Explain" all those other cards that are still restricted but not in #1 or #2.  We all know what cards are on this list and we generally all agree there are cards here that are not dangerous.  I won't repost them.


-- The Flaw --

My entire system basically unravels at lands.  I can't find a common theme in how mana and abilities are valued in weight to land drops.  So right now, I don't have a good analysis of Shop, Bazaar, Library, Tolarian, Wasteland, Fetchlands, etc..

At some point its easier to just say "it is what it is"

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

I think that above I have a fairly clear, procedural explanation of why I think gifts is worthy of restriction.

I would like to end on the most intriguing response I've heard yet.  It came from Dave Feinstein on the "Is Vintage Fun" thread.  I'll paraphrase his response.

'Right now, Gifts and Fish are dominating.  I am board playing against those two deck specifically.  Rather than build a deck to beat fish and gifts - I'll take a break from vintage to persue other formats until the meta shifts'

That is a great response because it identifies his personal issue with the format, and solves it on a personal level.  It seem like most of us take personal issue with the format and expect the "higher powers" to address our personal issue.  Lets face it, it's impossible for wizards, or anyone else to address EVERYONE's personal issues. 

For me, I am attempting to exploit this possible ~weakness~ in a predictable meta.  This has lead to the development of "Cookie Monster" and my Mono-Red Shop Prison conglomeration. 
 

[yespuhyren]

Stax's foil was found in IT.

Since when?  I'm like 4/5-0 against IT in tournaments...maybe a stronger IT player vs a weaker stax player, but I never had any worries while playing that match.  I'm actually elated to play combo, and would rather play combo/ichorid every round than any other decks.

[Moxlotus]

Stax's foil was found in IT.

Since when?  I'm like 4/5-0 against IT in tournaments...maybe a stronger IT player vs a weaker stax player, but I never had any worries while playing that match.  I'm actually elated to play combo, and would rather play combo/ichorid every round than any other decks.

Becker won about 7 pieces of power with IT in Stax.meta.  Other members of GWS won with IT too..  Most of them in Team Ogre.meta.  Becker's record vs Vroman was like infy-0 for a while.  The match got worse when Uba stax added tanglewire in addition to all of their other lock pieces.  Remember, when I was listing the decks foils it was the modern builds of CS and Slaver--it was the builds at the time of their top performances.

[unknown.root]

Becker won about 7 pieces of power with IT in Stax.meta.  Other members of GWS won with IT too..  Most of them in Team Ogre.meta.  Becker's record vs Vroman was like infy-0 for a while. 

Yeah I was on Team Ogre at the time, it wasn't pretty.

[Nehptis]

For me the center of this discussion is YWill.  I think most of the opposition to banning it stems from players being content to keep an abomination like Will around because, "It's always been here" or, "Ywill can be controlled with hate / tech", or "I don't want to start a precedence of banning cards".  I can not argue the last point.  No doubt the banning of a non-dexterity / non-ante card carries potential risks.  But, for a moment attempt to put aside your Vintage "experience" (some may call it arrogance or jaded-ness...I can say that because I emote both!) and consider this....

Imagine you are a novice / intermediate MTG player, with no knowledge of Vintage decks, cards, or plays outside the ones that exist in Standard today.  So, you know how to play MTG, but aren't familiar with Vintage.  I hand you a 59 card Grim Long and a 59 Card Gifts deck, obviously minus a YWill which I will show to you after your initial analysis.  You'd probably say GrimLong; uses its fast mana and Tutors to setup a lethal storm count, ideally in a single turn, but possibly 2 turns will be needed.  So, multiple TOAs or a recursion engine is ideal.  About Gifts; uses control and Tutors to sculpt a situation where it can combo out or use ETW / DSC to swing while it holds counters for protection.  You might even say, that the card Gifts Ungiven seems like a weak card since you are losing two cards of the opponents choice to your graveyard...shocking, but not too far fetched of a conclusion.

Now I show you Ywill.  WOW!  So, now GLong and Gifts can recycle their cards to ensure a single turn victory via a Lethal TOA or some other combo-out strategy.  And even better those 2 cards that I thought I was losing when I Gifted become usable.  So, now Gifts says tutor for 4 cards and you get to use them all!

Think about it that way.  And perhaps it's time for YWill to take a permanent vacation.  The alternative, we just keep adding cards to the Restricted list.  Either solution works for me.  Paging Gifts Ungiven, Gifts Ungiven please pick up a white courtesy phone.

[yespuhyren]

Stax's foil was found in IT.

Since when?  I'm like 4/5-0 against IT in tournaments...maybe a stronger IT player vs a weaker stax player, but I never had any worries while playing that match.  I'm actually elated to play combo, and would rather play combo/ichorid every round than any other decks.

Becker won about 7 pieces of power with IT in Stax.meta.  Other members of GWS won with IT too..  Most of them in Team Ogre.meta.  Becker's record vs Vroman was like infy-0 for a while.  The match got worse when Uba stax added tanglewire in addition to all of their other lock pieces.  Remember, when I was listing the decks foils it was the modern builds of CS and Slaver--it was the builds at the time of their top performances.

I guess its probably cause I played MD caps, as well as the fact that the opponents weren't at your level of play.

[Akuma]

IT is just a variation of TPS, so yeah, it has an advantage over Workshops. That isn't to say that a good Workshop player (like yespuhyren) can't beat a good IT player, but if all things are equal, the IT player has a strategic advantage.

I don't think anything will ever be banned...

[jcb193]

I played tournament magic when Mind Twist and Channel were banned.  I hate to tell you guys, it wasn't any different than playing Magic normally.  You had a restricted list and then two more cards that were banned.  Big whoop.  We didn't sit down to play each match and talk about how Vintage was tainted because of precedents.  We adapted and accepted that it was for the better.  We all had a few cards sitting in our binder that would never have any value (twist, channel), but can any of us say that we haven't wasted $5-10 at some point on unplayable or unuseable cards.  Is this any different than some card that has been made obsolete? 

DCI could ban every restricted card and it would still be magic.  Don't be afraid of what's unfamiliar.  It's hard to argue that the presence of Ywill enhances the game of Magic more than it detracts.  All the arguments seem to come down to precedents being formed, not quality of game. 

[Myriad Games]

In a related poll, would those of you in the Northeast be interested in attending a Myriad Games Vintage Tournament sans Yawgmoth's Will? Vote now!

[Katzby]

'd like to point out to everyone that two cards have once been banned due to powerlevel, in type1:
Channel
Mind twist

I realize this thread has already gone way past this point, but I felt the following was worth pointing out.

The only reason these two cards were banned in type 1 was in order to also ban them in type 2.  A long time ago, the banned/restricted lists for the formats were not separate.  As a result of this, if something were banned or restricted in one format, it would have to be banned or restricted in all formats. 

Mind Twist and Channel were two of the few restricted cards that made it into 4th edition (along with Balance and Ivory Tower; Black Vise, Strip Mine and Land Tax didn't get restricted until later).  As a result of this, you could play them in type 2.  Both of these cards were key players in Vise Age (twist was the only black card in Stern’s version), among other decks.  Henry stern made the finals of the 1995 US Nationals with it, and their banning came shortly after.

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.  Eventually, some serious consideration was made to clean up the restricted list and it became obvious that there was no reason to keep these cards banned in type 1 any longer.

The only card that was ever banned purely due to its power level in type 1 (and only type 1) is Time Vault.

On a side note, somebody asked on another thread on TMD if any card has ever been restricted twice in vintage.  I can’t seem to find that thread, but as I recall, nobody had the answer. 

The answer is that Black Vise is the only card that has been restricted in vintage twice, and for similar reasons as described above.  In order to restrict the Vise in type 2, it was required to also be restricted in type 1.  When the banned and restricted lists were separated, Vise was unrestricted in type 1.  Then, after Visions came out and the Prosperity combo deck dominated for a while, Vise was re-restricted.

Katzby

[Shock Wave]

In a related poll, would those of you in the Northeast be interested in attending a Myriad Games Vintage Tournament sans Yawgmoth's Will? Vote now!

Indirectly, I think this post raises a very interesting question. Why does anyone care about the DCI B/R list any longer? How many sanctioned events does the Vintage community participate in? If the DCI does not care about us, why should we promote and adhere to their standards? By playing with proxies, we've taken matters into our own hands as a community, and very successfully, might I add. Let's face it: We would never have had the metagame shifts we've had or the player base we've fought to cultivate if we hadn't introduced proxies. Why not take it a step further? Why not make our *own* B&R list?

I'm of the opinion that banning Will would have an interesting effect on the format. Why is it interesting? Well, simply because nobody knows what impact it would have. We can guess and speculate, but really, metagame predictions are very dificult to make and are seldom accurate. The result is a format that is new, and that may very well be what we need at this point. It may suck, but who cares? Why not try it out? It's nothing that can't be undone.

I would definitely support this event if I could and I encourage TOs to shake things up. I certainly would if I had the time to organize an event.

[Yare]

Why does anyone care about the DCI B/R list any longer?

Because I'd much rather have an independent, impartial entity making the B/R decisions as opposed to pretty much anybody else.

Additionally, Vintage worlds becomes a different format.

[bertmathis]

Why does anyone care about the DCI B/R list any longer?

Because I'd much rather have an independent, impartial entity making the B/R decisions as opposed to pretty much anybody else.

Additionally, Vintage worlds becomes a different format.

QFT

[The Atog Lord]

Because I'd much rather have an independent, impartial entity making the B/R decisions as opposed to pretty much anybody else.

Well said. There's no one else I'd rather have doing this vital job.

[dicemanx]

Because I'd much rather have an independent, impartial entity making the B/R decisions as opposed to pretty much anybody else.

Except your independent, impartial entity has become passive and effectively stopped making any meaningful decisions; it seems that the only way that any meaningful change will take place is if we persuade them to make such a change, but then they won't be an independent, impartial entity anymore, will they?

It's fine to desire an ideal, but we have to deal with the reality of the situation and propose some concrete solutions if we want change.

[Harlequin]

I would rather there be too few (or no changes) then spuratic, not-universially recognized, changes. 

The only way it would work is if wizards/DCI discontinued thier B&R list all together.  In order for us to be a format we need -ONE- governing body.  Its fun to think about insurrection... but at the end of the day, DCI would have to relinquish the throne in order to get anywhere.

I have no more interest in a constantly dynamic R&B than I do in having stop light colors change from town to town.

[dicemanx]

I would rather there be too few (or no changes) then spuratic, not-universially recognized, changes.

What a strange thing to say. Your personal desires might be at odds with what is best in the format - if too few changes result in stagnation, players losing interest, and fewer vintage events being offered, then it becomes a self-defeating desire. I'm not saying we are there yet, but slowly we creep towards it any time that the format doesn't receive some sort of infusion of change, whether via the B/R list or via new sets giving us vintage playable cards.

To also suggest that changes would be "sporatic, non-universally recognized" is puzzling. All more recent B/R changes have been arbitrary and didn't have universal approval. The DCI has the power of enforcement because players agree to abide by their rules and by the B/R list. However, lets not have any illusions that they know what is good for us, what the format needs, and what B/R decisions are "correct". They also have little vested interest in ensuring that non-sanctioned T1 events propagate or receive good turnouts. As they have more relevant formats to focus on, they are just as clueless as 80% of the people posting on these message boards, and need help in their decision-making.

[diopter]

I would rather there be too few (or no changes) then spuratic, not-universially recognized, changes.

What a strange thing to say. Your personal desires might be at odds with what is best in the format - if too few changes result in stagnation, players losing interest, and fewer vintage events being offered, then it becomes a self-defeating desire. I'm not saying we are there yet, but slowly we creep towards it any time that the format doesn't receive some sort of infusion of change, whether via the B/R list or via new sets giving us vintage playable cards.

To also suggest that changes would be "sporatic, non-universally recognized" is puzzling. All more recent B/R changes have been arbitrary and didn't have universal approval. The DCI has the power of enforcement because players agree to abide by their rules and by the B/R list. However, lets not have any illusions that they know what is good for us, what the format needs, and what B/R decisions are "correct". They also have little vested interest in ensuring that non-sanctioned T1 events propagate or receive good turnouts. As they have more relevant formats to focus on, they are just as clueless as 80% of the people posting on these message boards, and need help in their decision-making.

Do you include yourself in this 80% of people who are clueless and posting on these message boards? Because that seems like a very presumptuous thing to say.

You speak as if we are in universal agreement that change is needed in Vintage. There are many people whom on this very thread have expressed that they think Vintage is fine.

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.

If you decide to create a new B/R list, you are creating an entirely new format. You are not playing Vintage. You may attract new players, but you will drive away people who do not want to play in this new format because they like having access to the 4- and 1-ofs that are available to them in the real Vintage.

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.

[Harlequin]

@ dicemanx

I like how you shifted universally recoginized to universally accepted.  Those are two completely different things.  I'm saying that vintage is vintage is vintage no matter where you go, or who the TO is.  It is recoginized as the offical R&B list, and so all I have to do to compete in any vintage event is keep up to date with one list.  I would hate to have to call ahead to every TO and ask what thier house B&R list is ... so I can meta accordingly. 

Universal acceptance is completely imposible.  DCI, You, Me, the Democractic Union of Vintage, The Council of Electorate College for Vintage... or any other system will -always- have people in dissent of the current list. 

[Seraphim3577]

I think harlequin was attempting to point out that if we (the vintage community) were to totally ignore the DCI and to create our own sanctioning bodies, it would create further disturbance.  The primary point Harlequin is making is that the creation of a new sanctioning body would create more problems in the fact that it is impossible to get all players to agree on one idea, and would thus spiral into 5-10 different regional sanctioning bodies.  

Something to the following could easily happen:  The northeast TO's come together and decide that workshops are bad for magic...they get the boot.

The midwest TO's disagree with the northeast, shops are great...But that pesky gifts ungiven has to go away.

SoCal TO's think that every two mana or less tutor card ruins the format...so say good bye to vampiric tutor, demonic tutor, merchant scroll, etc...

Thus, we have a major problem within the community.  The game loses its universality and much of its camaraderie.  

While I do agree with Dicemanx that many people in forums do not know what they are talking about (haven't fully considered the ramifications of their words and actions or even fully thought out what they say), saying something to the effect of 80% of people in forums don't know what they are talking about is counterproductive and insulting.  I'm not asking for an apology or anything, just simply pointing out that comments like that could be made in a different way to be more productive.

edit:
- wanted to post even though harlequin replied while typing

[forests failed you]

You must also keep in mind that while, Vintage as a community supports the 10 proxy rule, Wizards of the Coast and the DCI does not.  The biggest and most important Vintage event of the year, the Vintage Worlds at Gencon Indy does not allow for the use of proxies.  Although proxies may in many ways attract new players, or provide new players the opportunity to play the format; at the biggest and most important tourney of the year, this mentality is brushed aside and only the players with cards can play.

Although this cannot be used as direct evidence with regard to rule making and prescident setting in Vintage;  I do think that it in some ways may suggest that the DCI may be unwilling to bend the rules, even if it provides an opportunity for potential growth.  (and I do stress the word 'potential' here).   The prescident set with the development and founding of Vintage (not the type I of yore, but modern Vintage), is that players can play with ALL of their cards (excluding Ante and dexterity cards).  If Wizards sets the prescident that it is willing to outright ban cards, (making them unplayable in any format) they risk destabalizing the very market that keeps their cards valuable over time.  

What if Black Lotus becomes too random or unfair?  Do they ban it?  What does that do to the value of collectors' cards?  The risk involved in leaving the format the way that it is seems to be extremely low, whereas the risk in shaking things up seems very high.  Just judging from past experience, with how little the DCI actually seems to care about Vintage as a playable format:  I think that we will see things remain they way that they are.  At least with regards to having cards become banned within the format at any time in the near future.

That being said:  I also believe that Vintage as a format is about as healthy as it has ever been.  There are a wide possibility of decks available to players, as well as multiple archetypes many of which don't even play Will.  I would be very, very surprised to see Will go, because it seems like a poor move and a poor prescident for a collectable game to make, regardless of whether it helps or hurts the format.

[jcb193]

I think this board also needs to recognize that every single person who abides by the restricted list is not a regular on this board.

If only manadrain.com people played Vintage, I would have no problems with a grassroots B/R list, unfortunately, I am quite sure that a small percentage of people who abide by that list (especially casual), will never set foot on this board.

DCI is probably praying for the day that T1 tries to spin off on its own.  They can finally put the dagger in Vintage without a second thought. 

I also think that the DCI regards the B/R list as more of a casual player tool, than a tournament tool.  Unless of course something hideous breaks out (Mind's Desire, etc)

[dicemanx]

Do you include yourself in this 80% of people who are clueless and posting on these message boards? Because that seems like a very presumptuous thing to say.

Then call me presumptious. But the more interesting question is: do you think I'm wrong?

You speak as if we are in universal agreement that change is needed in Vintage. There are many people whom on this very thread have expressed that they think Vintage is fine.

No, I speak AGAINST someone who wasn't willing to look past his preferences and look at the needs of current vintage, which primarily consists of retaining and keeping interested the current player base.

Consider this scenario (which might not be a stage we're at, but might become more of a reality):

Let us say that only 40% of individuals are finding the format stagnant and are losing interest. The format might be "fine" in terms of balance between archetypes, and despite the fact that games are brought to swift conclusions because of a few overpowered cards, nothing can be classified as overly dominating. Attendance in tourneys is down as a result, because some just cannot drum up interest in playing through yet another Gifts versus Long match, or refuse to take up another possibly inferior archetype for the sake of "keeping it fresh".  Such people also don't tend to care much for the preaching of those who think everything is fine, and who are too ready to explain how the format is still "skill intensive" or"so much room for innovation remains".

In such a scenario, there are two options: do not change the format, and hope that the ebb in the player base or the downswing in terms of the number of competitive vintage events is temporary - perhaps if you wait it out, there will be some sort of resurgence.

The other option is to cater to the 40% of such players. The reasoning for that is - what of the other 60%? As another poster wisely commented in this thread, changes do NOT drive such players away. They might find some sort of need to complain about how "incorrect" a change was or how "unnecessary" the change was (Trinisphere for example), but the bottom line is that they are still playing and enjoying the format. If I am incorrect, I would like to see some evidence of any mass exodus of players because of a B/R decision, especially given every B/R decision was arbitrary and had opposition.

I call such a group of players "indifferent". They are willing participants in debates such as those in this B/R thread, but at the end of the day, regardless of decision, there will be an indifference with respect to continuing to play the game (ie the B/R decisions will not impact their desire to play). People have a tendency to resist change, and they are drawn like flies to arguments where the autcomes in reality don't concern them all that much (and they probably don't even realize this!).

I like how you shifted universally recoginized to universally accepted.  Those are two completely different things.  I'm saying that vintage is vintage is vintage no matter where you go, or who the TO is.  It is recoginized as the offical R&B list, and so all I have to do to compete in any vintage event is keep up to date with one list.  I would hate to have to call ahead to every TO and ask what thier house B&R list is ... so I can meta accordingly.

Recognized can certainly mean accepted.

This is why the miscommunication arose: You spoke about "universally recognized changes". I can see why you think I made a shift (I didn't, not purposefully) - you assumed that I was speaking about "house rules"/everyone does their own thing. I didn't. If I would propose any changes, they would have to be universally accepted for those changes to work properly, which is why I didn't anticipate your intended definition.

[Harlequin]

This is why the miscommunication arose: You spoke about "universally recognized changes". I can see why you think I made a shift (I didn't, not purposefully) - you assumed that I was speaking about "house rules"/everyone does their own thing. I didn't. If I would propose any changes, they would have to be universally accepted for those changes to work properly, which is why I didn't anticipate your intended definition.

Which was the point of my original reponse.  That in order for us to have a universally recognized R&B list, DCI would have to completely abandon thier list.  My point was that you can't have two R&B lists that are universal in the same format.  If we created some TMD R&B list, then there would be places that used the DCI list and places that used the TMD list... thus it would cease to be universal. 

> Lets say that we accomplish the first step, and develop a new R&B list, that is widely accepted as suerpior to DCI's list.  Everyone is satified with it. 

*Now its not that every TO will have a bunch of new house rules - its that now there are TWO lists.  There is List-A and list-B.  So I may have exagerated my point before, but I think within a format, there is no room for more than exactly 1 list of restrictions and bans.

> The Next step is that TOs will -start- to use our list over the DCI list.  Here is where I would predict that the format would break down.  Essentially you would have two definitions of "Vintage."  Even if our list was more widely accepted, it wouldn't be universally used overnight.  It would take months and months of tournements.  Durring this time I think many players/TOs that are more or less indifferent to the R&B Crusade would simply quit out of frustration.

> The Final step would be that either DCI would adopt our list, or simply decide they do not wish to compete with our list and give us the power to design and redesign the list as we as a community see fit.  This is your proposed Utopia. 

This is why I made the original statement.  It seems like some people feel that "Well if DCI won't listen to us ... then F* them... lets make our own R&B list!  That'll learn them good!"  It not even that I don't trust someone other than DCI to handle the R&B list - Its that I prefer a tolorably stagnent R&B list  to a chaotic 'live free or die' campaigne to make changes to the list.  On top of that, I'm sure I would take issue with new R&B list anyhow.  Its impossible to make a list that keeps everyone happy all the time.

[Yare]

Except your independent, impartial entity has become passive and effectively stopped making any meaningful decisions; it seems that the only way that any meaningful change will take place is if we persuade them to make such a change, but then they won't be an independent, impartial entity anymore, will they?

It's fine to desire an ideal, but we have to deal with the reality of the situation and propose some concrete solutions if we want change.

I can't argue with the idea that the DCI is influenced by the opinions of players.  That being said, it's obvious to me, at least, that they at least have some idea of how the list ought to be.  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.

The fact that they are sluggish to act is not really a bad thing.  Vintage isn't really broken (in the "functional" sense, not the "this card is really good" sense) right now as a format.  I do not see what real advantage could be had by putting the B/R list in the hands of another entity, primarily because that entity could not be a central, overarching authority, period.  While there are, admittedly, some drawbacks to the DCI, the certainty and security of the format are two things that the DCI can offer that nobody else can.  While the time may come when we have to break off with the DCI because things get really bad, it is not now.

I guess the obvious question is: who is going to make these decisions if not the DCI?  I'm willing to give some leeway here for entities that aren't even remotely close to existing, but I honestly don't know how this could be done.

[Nehptis]

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?

[yespuhyren]

Even selecting a specific number of candidates, you will get mixed opinions.  It will be very difficult to find people like Smennen, who despite loving and playing GrimLong and Meandeck Gifts (both which make great use of YawgWill) will go against his own decks and STILL recommend the bannign of YawgWill.  Plain and simple, I believe too many people will be overly biased based on personal deck preference.