B&R Results are In - No Change for Vintage

[yespuhyren]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/rb102

We don’t actually ban cards in Type 1 any longer, because the whole point of Type 1 is that it’s the format where you can play every card ever made. However, by restricting all of the most powerful cards we try to make the games stay diverse and interesting.

And wasn't the banning of Mind twist like...11-13 YEARS ago?

[Moxlotus]

The "slippery slope" argument has been tried before, but it usually has little merit. Trinisphere (where this argument was used unsuccessfully in the past) and Yawgmoth's Will are unique cases. We're currently only considering banning Yawgmoth's Will because of how it shapes and warps the format. No other card comes remotely close, and this isn't going to open any floodgates.

Incidentally, why is there are need to point out that Trinisphere was restricted because it was "unfun", suggesting that it is a bad criterion. EVERY B/R decision had the intention of making the game more fun, and "fun" is a always a consideration, regardless of whether you are a pro or a casual player. Furthermore, there is always a reason that something causes the game to be "unfun" - in Trini's case, there were a number of factors including gross distortion, similar to what we are seeing now with Will. You don't need to see 40-50% Will decks in t8s for there to be a problem that might need addressing.

The thing about the "unfun" argument is everybody thinks something different is unfun.  If Will gets banned, there will be lots of people that think Tinker is Unfun.  Hell, lots of people were bitching about Workshop for a while because "stax didn't even let me play any of my cards--that's unfun".  I mean, Crucible+waste/strip is unfun--there were a number who wanted Crucible to be restricted because of its level of "unfun".

I'd wager that Crucible has distorted the metagame almost as much as will.  Look at almost every manabase in Vintage as an example.  Simply having an effect on the metagame, or "distorting", is not a way to determine the B&R list.  If it has an effect--big deal.  If it's not winning in massive numbers its no problem.  Some decks will die, and some will adapt.  Some will be created out of nothing for this "distorted" metagame.  Vintage can handle pretty much anything--even including Will, and have a vast number of decks and strategies available that can win any given tournament.

And if the format is broadly defined as "Will v. Antiwill" right now then where were the calls for the restriction of mana drain when the format was Keeper v. Sligh/sui?.  That format was Drain v. antidrain and eveybody was perfectly ok with it for some reason.

[Nehptis]

That's a good article to post, especially when talking about banning YWill.  Check out these quotes from Randy:

"Sure Ancestral Recall is awesome, but it’s merely undercosted – it’s not an inherently broken effect, whereas Balance and Yawgmoth’s Will do things that are unfair at almost any cost."
Exactly, a broken effect.  The only part of this that I disagree with is that he's putting Balance and Will on the same power level.  Will is a problem even as a Restriction.  Balance is not even close to as much of a game ending threat, especially as a 1 of.  How many Tier 1 decks out there can abuse Balance for a game ending turn like decks that can go YWill...GG?  None?

"...so we think that by restricting Burning Wish, Spoils is no longer going to be a problem."  
Which I translate to meaning, since Ywill exists we needed to restrict BW and had to initially consider restricting Spoils.  Collateral damage folks.....it's never going to end until Will is gone.

I'd wager that Crucible has distorted the metagame almost as much as will.  Look at almost every manabase in Vintage as an example. 

That is actually a very true statement and a solid arguement against banning Will.  I guess we need to ban Wasteland...just kidding!

[yespuhyren]

The most intriguing paragraphs for me were the ones where they talked about potential cards they'd restrict.  Workshop.  Bazaar.  Chalice of the Void.  Etc. 

They said if workshops start to dominate, they will hit shops.  If Dragon starts to dominate, they will hit bazaar.  Yet they make no mention WHATSOEVER about Mana Drain.  While I"m not saying it should be restricted, I"m saying it is strange they woudln't even mention it. 

While everyone is looking @ percentage of Gifts decks being played, no one is looking @ the percentage of the blue devil running around. 

Day 1 Waterbury T16 - Out of a possible 64 Mana Drains there were 46 played.  That means that 11/16 decks ran the full compliment of Drains, and 1/16 ran 2 drains . 12/16 decks played drains, which is 75%.

Day 2 Waterbury T16 - Out of a possible 64 Mana Drains there were 32 Played.  That means 8/16 Played the full compliment, 50%

Now, to go with Nataz's results, instead of calculating gifts lets calculate Drains.  Here we go.

Charleston SC Feb 24 - 3/8 - 37.5%
TempleCon 2007 - 5/8 - 62.5%
Myriad Games - 2/8 - 25%
LCV III - 5/8 - 62.5%
Urbana - 1/8 (I think) 12.5%
Myriad Games - 4/8 - 50%

Average DRAINS in T8 - 41.667 %

FYI:  GroAtog was 38% of Top 8s I calculated when Gush was restricted.

While again I'm not calling for drain to be restricted, I can GUARANTEE that if shops were taking up 45% of T16's people would be bitching and moaning for shop to be restricted.  Don't lie, we know you would.  We've seen people calling for its restriction before many a times when stax did remotely well putting 3-4 decks in T8 along with 3-4 drains.  Though no one talked about hitting drains...just shops   

[zeus-online]

I think its because of this whole "fun" business...People love their mana drains, hell i prefer drain mirrors, they're more fun than most other matches.

Oh and while its true that its a long time since they banned mind twist, its still true that they banned it for being too good, back then, mind twist was probably the equalant of Will. I.e. a game ending threat.

/Zeus

[dicemanx]

The thing about the "unfun" argument is everybody thinks something different is unfun.  If Will gets banned, there will be lots of people that think Tinker is Unfun.  Hell, lots of people were bitching about Workshop for a while because "stax didn't even let me play any of my cards--that's unfun".  I mean, Crucible+waste/strip is unfun--there were a number who wanted Crucible to be restricted because of its level of "unfun".

I agree with you - that's why to get something done there has to be some consensus about what is fun or not. My point is that we cannot criticize "fun factor" as a reason for change, because it's is a fundamental motivation for ANY change that occurs. If there won't be any consensus on the banning of Will, then clearly nothing is going to happen.

There seemed to be a substantial consensus regarding Trinisphere being unfun. It also seemed that the people that were *against* Trinisphere restriction were not arguing the fact that Trinisphere was FUN; instead, they were challenging the criteria for the restriction of Trinisphere and the necessity of that restriction.

Do you see the difference?

In other words, whether Trinisphere was axed or not wouldn't really have much, if any, impact on how these opponents to restriction enjoyed the format. On the other hand, people that were trying to get Trini restricted were doing so precisely because they felt that the card was curbing the enjoyment of this game and this format.

This is a very important idea to keep in mind. It resurfaced again when we were having our forum debates regaring Time Vault -  one side wanted Time Vault to remain playable so that they could enjoy playing with the card and enjoy the increased number of options in a format that doesn't experience much in terms of deck diversity (relatively speaking), while the other side argued because...they like arguing I guess.

And if the format is broadly defined as "Will v. Antiwill" right now then where were the calls for the restriction of mana drain when the format was Keeper v. Sligh/sui?.  That format was Drain v. antidrain and eveybody was perfectly ok with it for some reason.

I think you know that this comparison isn't a very good one - it is similar to citing the banning of Channel or Mind Twist as a precedent.

This is a new format, new rules, new crop of players.

[Moxlotus]

"Quote
And if the format is broadly defined as "Will v. Antiwill" right now then where were the calls for the restriction of mana drain when the format was Keeper v. Sligh/sui?.  That format was Drain v. antidrain and eveybody was perfectly ok with it for some reason."

I think you know that this comparison isn't a very good one - it is similar to citing the banning of Channel or Mind Twist as a precedent.

This is a new format, new rules, new crop of players. 

I, and apparently WotC too thought Channel and Twist were on there for the wrong reasons too.  My comparison was that people are trying to super generalize the format as a way to advance a point for a ban/restriction.  I was super generalizing a past format and asking why they didn't want a ban/restriction during that metagame.  I was pointing out the fallacy of making overly general statements like "Will v. Antiwill"

[Smmenen]

Banning Will seems just as reasonable to me as restricting Gifts, especially when we consider that more cards will be restricted on account of it someday.   

It seems unfair to make statements like this, as there’s no way you can say it’s definitely true.

On the other hand, I said this two years ago here http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/10071.html

(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.

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

For something that was written two years ago, it seems alot truer today than it did when it was initially written.

Given that calls to restrict Grim Tutor and Gifts - things that I speculated about in 2005 - have now actually come true, how likely does it seem that Yawgmoth's Will will cause other restrictions?   

It's caused restrictions before - why let it restrict anything else?  Do you have a good argument aside from the bare principle that we don't ban for power in Vintage?  Another way of articulating that same principle is to see it as an extension of the deeper principle that Vintage is about playing with all of your cards.   That principle certainly operates, arguably with less force though, against restrictions as it does with banning.  After all, seen from one point of view, a restriction takes away 3 cards.   Banning takes away just one. 

In short: seeing how I said that Yawg Will would "Inevitably" cause restrictions back in May of 2005, what makes that statement seem any less true today than when I said it then?   

EDIT: More importantly, your argument applies everytime a card is restricted on account for Will.

For instance, we all agree that Burning Wish was clearly restricted because of Will.  Now, what if back at the time of that announcement we all said: maybe we should ban will instead?  You could say: no, there is no way to know that Will will cause another restriction.

Then let's say we restrict Gifts.   Someone could say: why not just ban Will instead, it will inevitably cause another restriction?  You could say no, there is no way to know that it will cause another restriction.

Then let's say we restrict Grim Tutor.  Someone could say: why not just ban will instead, it will inevitably cause another restriction?  You could then say: no - there is no way to know that it will cause another restriction.

Well you might be right, but at some point, the argument that Will won't cause more restrictions looks less and less plausible.  It will always be the case that you can't prove that Will will cause more restrictions.  But that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Restricting cards other than banning Will begins to look more and more like banning Dark Ritual instead of Necropotence in ancient extended.   

[Methuselahn]

From the Randy B.

For me, Type 1 has always been a nice diversion from regular tournament Magic.

We don’t actually ban cards in Type 1 any longer, because the whole point of Type 1 is that it’s the format where you can play every card ever made. However, by restricting all of the most powerful cards we try to make the games stay diverse and interesting.

Reading these quotes, you'd think that WotC doesn't really take Vintage seriously.  They don't consider it to be a competitive format at all.  When "play every card ever made" blindly trumps any notion of wanting to create a competitive environment, wtf are we suppossed to do? 

There is no change because the powers that be apparently have zero resources to devote to a format that, even though  they created it, is completely dead. 

They give us the Gencon championships to put on this front that shows they care.  At the same time, they start the vintage midnight tourny at Gencon half an hour early and then go on to bitch that they're not even making money off it because of the low amount of entries.  (yeah, I know all judges don't represent wotc, but this didn't help)

The DCI only looks at the restricted list when people start throwing bricks through windows.

/rant

[Smmenen]

The thing about the "unfun" argument is everybody thinks something different is unfun.  If Will gets banned, there will be lots of people that think Tinker is Unfun.  Hell, lots of people were bitching about Workshop for a while because "stax didn't even let me play any of my cards--that's unfun".  I mean, Crucible+waste/strip is unfun--there were a number who wanted Crucible to be restricted because of its level of "unfun".

I agree with you - that's why to get something done there has to be some consensus about what is fun or not. My point is that we cannot criticize "fun factor" as a reason for change, because it's is a fundamental motivation for ANY change that occurs. If there won't be any consensus on the banning of Will, then clearly nothing is going to happen.

There seemed to be a substantial consensus regarding Trinisphere being unfun. It also seemed that the people that were *against* Trinisphere restriction were not arguing the fact that Trinisphere was FUN; instead, they were challenging the criteria for the restriction of Trinisphere and the necessity of that restriction.

In my article Monday I wrote about the fact that ultimately all arguments for restriction devolve into "fun."  But I also said that sometimes the various constituent elements of fun can be in tension.   I gave an elaborate discussion of Trinisphere on this point.   In sum, I wrote that two constituent elements of fun: interactivity and format balance were in tension.   Trinisphere was unfun because it was noninteractive.   Yet, because it didn't have format dominance, it threatened to destablize or at least make less diverse what was a very diverse metagame.   I have statistics to support this point in my article from Monday.   

So, it wasn't so much that those of us who were against Trinisphere's restriction were arguing solely from the perspective that the criteria for restriction (fun through interactivity) wasn't legitimate, we were just skeptical that this criteria should trump another element of fun: the importance of a diverse metagame.  The sense, later proven by the data, was that restricting Trinisphere might decrease the number of viable decks in the format.    Admittedly, this fear was proved overblown - only Dark Rituals left the format -- and only until Grim Tutor saw print.   Workshops remained quite viable.  Nonetheless, the related fear that interventions sometimes lead to unpredictable results proved true.  I doubt anyone could have predicted that the 7 months following Trinispheres restriction would mark the most success Stax has ever enjoyed in Vintage.

This is a side note:
I have found that the level of sophistication when talking about issues such as this are generally very low.  For instance, we frequently see people say that card X or Y is more "powerful" than another.  Someone else in this thread wrote that Ancestral Recall is not inherently problematic, but it is a broken "effect."   The words I've quoted are inherently ambiguous. I asked Brian Demars what he meant by more "powerful" and he simply substituted "powerful" with another ill-defined, equally ambiguous term.   

From the Randy B.

For me, Type 1 has always been a nice diversion from regular tournament Magic.

We don’t actually ban cards in Type 1 any longer, because the whole point of Type 1 is that it’s the format where you can play every card ever made. However, by restricting all of the most powerful cards we try to make the games stay diverse and interesting.

Reading these quotes, you'd think that WotC doesn't really take Vintage seriously.  They don't consider it to be a competitive format at all.  When "play every card ever made" blindly trumps any notion of wanting to create a competitive environment, wtf are we suppossed to do? 

There is no change because the powers that be apparently have zero resources to devote to a format that, even though  they created it, is completely dead. 

They give us the Gencon championships to put on this front that shows they care.  At the same time, they start the vintage midnight tourny at Gencon half an hour early and then go on to bitch that they're not even making money off it because of the low amount of entries.  (yeah, I know all judges don't represent wotc, but this didn't help)

The DCI only looks at the restricted list when people start throwing bricks through windows.

/rant

This comment is not intended as a flame or to be incendiary in any other way, but I do find it ironic that you are so concerned about the health of the format when you clearly believe that proxies are misguided.    You have suggested that we should not have proxy tournaments and that the DCI should further not pay attention to proxy tournament results.    If you are so concerned about a competitive environment, how do you reconcile that with your (clearly minority) view of proxies?

[dicemanx]

Trinisphere was unfun because it was noninteractive.   Yet, because it didn't have format dominance, it threatened to destablize or at least make less diverse what was a very diverse metagame.

Be careful though. Needing a card that limits the interactivity so drastically to maintain format diversity (whether true or not, depending on how you interpret the data) means that there are further issues that need addressing via the B/R list, not that Trinisphere should remain unrestricted to deal with such a problem.

I wrote about this when we were pressing for its restriction. I also mentioned that in my opinion Stax could actually get stronger once Trinisphere was restricted, because Trini was an inferior lock piece to other options that were underplayed at that time. Just because a card can generate a powerful, perhaps game ending effect, doesn't automatically mean that it is best or an automatic inclusion. I remember others were stating similar things at that time.

[yespuhyren]

From a PM from Becker to Me

You may want to remove Urbana from your data set. The metagame at the event was relatively undeveloped with a fair amount of "bad" players. 

This would change my data to look like this:

Charleston SC Feb 24 - 3/8 - 37.5%
TempleCon 2007 - 5/8 - 62.5%
Myriad Games - 2/8 - 25%
LCV III - 5/8 - 62.5%
Myriad Games - 4/8 - 50%

Average Drains in T8 = 47.5%

The only people who don't see anything wrong with this in my opinion are the people who play drains. 

[Akuma]

GroAtog was 38% of Top 8s I calculated when Gush was restricted.

How much of this is due to the price of constructing a GroAtog deck vs. some of the other top tier decks of the time? The only reason GroAtog was so prevalent was because it could be built for a lot less, and it worked well with the proxy limits. It could have easily been metagamed against (and it was), Stax was not a popular archetype, 4 color control was...

I understand that it was a strong interaction, but how much worse is that than what we see nowadays. My point is that it was so prevalent because it could be built by more people and it was competitive. You have to drop 2 LANDS before Gush can even be used, how is that not fair?

Seeing T1--> Shop-->3Sphere is "unfun" and usually ='s GG. Seeing Turn 3+ -->Gifts for Will, Recoup, Lotus, Ritual is equally un-fun and is also usually game.

I think there is a serious bias towards control in Vintage because control players think they are so "skillful" when they execute one of their "brilliant" plays. While Workshop --> Trinisphere takes no skill. I have to agree, Workshop --> Trinisphere does not require any sort of brilliant play, but in what world is that GG? Oh, I see, I got to go first this time, or I had a Smokestack for my 2nd turn, or wait, better yet, I had a Crucible of Worlds and a Strip Mine. I'm sorry, I had the stone cold nuts. CLEARLY, it's not okay to have the stone cold nuts unless your deck has Force of Will or Mana Drain in it.

Modern day "control" and "combo" decks have a more powerful line of play than that, it happens more consistently than Shop --> 3sphere, and it destroys your opponent with greater certainty. People refused to play basic lands when 3sphere was legal, then bitched about losing to it. That is moronic.

Who here believes that 3sphere Stax would be an all-around better deck than modern day Gifts, Control Slaver or Pitch Long?

P.S. - These are general statements, and not addressed at anyone in particular.

[yespuhyren]

Something I was talking about, that could be very interesting.  What if we were to restrict brainstorm.  This has never been talked about, and I'm sure I'll receive lots of flack.  Everyone is claiming that of the unrestricted cards Brainstorm is the most powerful.  Stronger than Shop, Bazaar, and Ritual.  If it is that powerful, why don't we restrict it?  That is clearly part of what makes the drain based archetypes so strong. 

I personally just think that drains are overpowering the other archetypes right now, and I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.  We could even get more tournament data and I'm sure it would be fairly close to this number, this is NOT selective statistics.

[brianpk80]

Something I was talking about, that could be very interesting.  What if we were to restrict brainstorm.  This has never been talked about, and I'm sure I'll receive lots of flack.  Everyone is claiming that of the unrestricted cards Brainstorm is the most powerful.  Stronger than Shop, Bazaar, and Ritual.  If it is that powerful, why don't we restrict it?  That is clearly part of what makes the drain based archetypes so strong. 

I personally just think that drains are overpowering the other archetypes right now, and I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.  We could even get more tournament data and I'm sure it would be fairly close to this number, this is NOT selective statistics.

I don't think your idea is silly at all.  A lot of the mess we have in T1 right now could easily be cleaned up by nailing Brainstorm, Dark Ritual, and Merchant Scroll. 

-BPK

[yespuhyren]

Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll, yes. 

Dark ritual would

A) Devastate Combo
B) Do nothing of importance IMO.

VERY few tendrils decks are making strong showings, not much more than Stax.  I would say the environment right now:

50% Drains
10% Shops
10% Fish Style
15% Combo
15% Random.dec (Hide and Seek, TMWA, etc)

[Dakkon]

Mana Drain may have 47% of the top 8's, but there are many different decks that use Mana Drain, all with different game plans. Bomber-man, Gifts, Control Slaver, and Drain Tendrils are just some of the decks. Workshops can build Stax, and Aggro varients. Its not disturbing at all that there are so many mana drains, because many different decks with different strategies can use them. Workshop and Bazaar are both more expensive and more narrow than Mana Drain, I dont see anything wrong with that statistic.

I don't think your idea is silly at all.  A lot of the mess we have in T1 right now could easily be cleaned up by nailing Brainstorm, Dark Ritual, and Merchant Scroll. 

-BPK

IMO Merchant Scroll is debateable. But the idea of restricting Brainstorm is ridiculous. Brainstorm is really the foundation of Vintage. Every deck in todays metagame (not counting sui-black and R/G) utilizes Brainstorm except for Stax. and Stax's purpose is to hinder all the other decks that use brainstorm. If Brainstorm got restricted vintage wouldnt be vintage anymore. The "mess" would go away (I dont think theres a mess at all, in Top 8's are really healthy with 6-8 different decks with making it each time). Vintage would turn into legacy with a restricted list, Workshops would dominate, half of stax would then get restricted in response, and people would stop playing Magic.

The restriction of Brainstorm would also wreck Combo.

Also, Alot of your tournement data came from the NE didnt it? That IS still Drain territory isnt it? 

[nataz]

50% Drains
10% Shops
10% Fish Style
15% Combo
15% Random.dec (Hide and Seek, TMWA, etc)

Got any numbers to back that up? I'm not being snide, just honestly curious. 40-50% gifts in top 8 seemed suspicious to be, so I went and did a quick fact check with the data that’s publicly available. I found Gifts to be no where near as dominant as people claim. Why that is can be up for debate, but that stats are there if you look.

If anyone is curious, for my number I included any deck with 2 or more gifts in it (i.e., dry slaver, but not crosslong), as well as trying to stay with events with 20+ people. It wasn't very scientific (and of course to an extent arbitrary), but our data isn’t that good to begin with, and its still better then going by "feel".

Also, A lot of your tournament data came from the NE didn’t it? That IS still Drain territory isn’t it? 

And as for this, a lot of Type 1 comes from NE. Not our fault that we hold + publish more events per/ month then any other area. It does help that we are like the size of eastern Europe though =p.

[Akuma]

He did not say 50% Gifts, he said 50% Mana Drains. That is a true statistic.

And about the comment that Drain goes into all of these different strategies, isn't that just proof that it is a strong card, stronger than Workshops and Bazaars...

I don't want anything axed, I just hate it when something that hinders the Drain archetypes gets axed just because it's "unfun" (which incidentally is what the Drain players say, it's "unfun" when there are other things that can compete with you?)

[nataz]

I was referring to his breakdown as a whole.

[Dakkon]

Also, A lot of your tournament data came from the NE didn’t it? That IS still Drain territory isn’t it? 

And as for this, a lot of Type 1 comes from NE. Not our fault that we hold + publish more events per/ month then any other area. It does help that we are like the size of eastern Europe though =p.

LOL I have no problem with the fact that the data comes from the NE. Its just that other peoples data is alittle bias since Drains are popular in the NE. so I wouldnt call Drains necessarily way more powerful, they're just way more popular (and affordable compared to workshops and bazaars).

He did not say 50% Gifts, he said 50% Mana Drains. That is a true statistic.

And about the comment that Drain goes into all of these different strategies, isn't that just proof that it is a strong card, stronger than Workshops and Bazaars...

I don't want anything axed, I just hate it when something that hinders the Drain archetypes gets axed just because it's "unfun" (which incidentally is what the Drain players say, it's "unfun" when there are other things that can compete with you?)

Having Mana Drain in many different strategies isnt proof that its a stronger card, its just a more versatile card, hence, a more popular card. And alot in alot of games the Drain player doesnt even use Drain at all.

And I assume your refering to trinisphere. That card didnt just hinder Mana Drain decks. It hindered everydeck. It stopped interection completely sometimes. Play Sphere of Resistance if you miss Trinisphere. In many ways its more of a pain to play a drain deck with that on the table than trinisphere.

[Methuselahn]

(me quoting R.B. and berating wotc)

This comment is not intended as a flame or to be incendiary in any other way, but I do find it ironic that you are so concerned about the health of the format when you clearly believe that proxies are misguided.    You have suggested that we should not have proxy tournaments and that the DCI should further not pay attention to proxy tournament results.    If you are so concerned about a competitive environment, how do you reconcile that with your (clearly minority) view of proxies?

That would be a seriously weak flame if it was intended as one. 

It's absolutely true that at one point I was firmly against proxies.  And this was when I had very little power!  Nowadays, I support it because I've all but given up on WotC/DCI.  Let me try to explain.

I'm very concerned about the health of the format and I want the DCI to acknowledge the responsibility they've put upon themselves to maintain it.  The DCI determines the fate of the format because they determine the B&R list.  In that sense, they control everything.   Yet, they repeatedly make it clear that they do not take the format seriously.  Just look at Mr. Buehler's quotes and the action they take.  "Sorry, we didn't have time."  This is a smack in the face to all of the Vintage players out there, IMO.

I want the DCI to not pay attention to proxy tournaments because I want them to support their product, their rules, and the format as they have designed.  I want them to take action.  I can only believe that the DCI would be far more successful in supporting Vintage than anybody else.  I'd think that they'd be able to do this by supporting sanctioned events only.  Also, as a side bonus, we wouldn't have to deal with banning threads, as much collusion, or enforcing punishments.

I find it ironic that the DCI will base decisions based on people who don't follow their laws.  People who use proxies.  Really, if they are going to vehemently uphold the Reserved list and things like the promise to not ban anything, what gives them the right to restrict cards based on the complaints of rule-bending proxy players?  These decisionss affect my rule-following sanctioned meta.*  This seems completely illogical to me.  I see this as following their own imposed rules only if it's convenient.  So, Wotc, please go all-in or fold.  Adhere to the sanctioning statistics, or give way to the proxy players' wishes.  At the very least, take some risks and SOME action.

I settle for proxy tournaments and support them because I see Wizards and the DCI doing squat.


Large portions of Europe seem to enjoy Vintage just fine without proxies.  It seems to be thriving there. The Italians that I spoke to at Gencon reflected this sentiment.  "Proxy tournaments are not better or more competitive, they're just different."  I suppose I could use that quote to reconcile an argument against proxies, but I'd rather not.


*my meta is actually proxies.

[Akuma]

Having Mana Drain in many different strategies isnt proof that its a stronger card, its just a more versatile card, hence, a more popular card. And alot in alot of games the Drain player doesnt even use Drain at all.

Mana Drain is a powerful card, Mishra's Workshop is a powerful card. I'm not going to debate the virtues and strengths of blue as a color, since it's well, you know, the best. Mana Drain IS a more versatile and powerful card in a more powerful color that does not require that you use only artifacts to be good. People whine about distortion, Mana Drain has been the king of distortion for ages in this format. Mana Drain is a huge reason why control beats Workshops.

And I assume your refering to trinisphere. That card didnt just hinder Mana Drain decks. It hindered everydeck. It stopped interection completely sometimes. Play Sphere of Resistance if you miss Trinisphere. In many ways its more of a pain to play a drain deck with that on the table than trinisphere.

Sphere of Resistance is TRASH. One of the reasons for Trinisphere's restriction, IMHO, was the effect it had on noobs. Yeah, Trinisphere prevents noob decks from interacting with you. If you ask most of the top notch players if they are afraid of playing against Trinisphere, I'm positive they will say no.

When Trinisphere was legal, many people REFUSED to use basic lands in their precious Vintage decks, and then they would bitch about how they were cheated by a Trinisphere 

Workshop --> Trinisphere was never GG against a competent opponent. Assuming you went first, if it was followed by a Smokestack or a Crucible/Strip then it very well was. How is that any different than when Gifts / Pitch Long / (Insert any of the Tendrils U/B variants here) mauls you by turn two/three.

[zeus-online]

Something I was talking about, that could be very interesting.  What if we were to restrict brainstorm.  This has never been talked about, and I'm sure I'll receive lots of flack.  Everyone is claiming that of the unrestricted cards Brainstorm is the most powerful.  Stronger than Shop, Bazaar, and Ritual.  If it is that powerful, why don't we restrict it?  That is clearly part of what makes the drain based archetypes so strong. 

I actually suggested this a long time ago in yet another B/R discussion...Although the problem could also be fixed by nailing Fetches. Both cards makes decks and mana bases extremely consistent, and alot harder to disrupt via. wastelands and the like (B2B, blood moon, etc....and brainstorm is pretty good against discard generally speaking)

/Zeus

[Nehptis]

Workshop --> Trinisphere was never GG against a competent opponent. Assuming you went first, if it was followed by a Smokestack or a Crucible/Strip then it very well was. How is that any different than when Gifts / Pitch Long / (Insert any of the Tendrils U/B variants here) mauls you by turn two/three.

It's not any different and that's exactly the point.  It's also one of the strong arguements for banning YWill or restricting one or both of its enablers like Gifts/GTutor.  Since Trini followed by another Stax component was GG then the DCI took action and restricted Trini.  We are now in the same situation with Gifts / GTutor and Will.  So either ban Will or let the restrictions commence.

[dicemanx]

If you ask most of the top notch players if they are afraid of playing against Trinisphere, I'm positive they will say no.

Of course they will say no. This wasn't a question of fear. You have this idea that there was some sort of conspiracy among Drain players, who argued "I can't beat Trinisphere, so let's get it restricted". This was far from the case. If you have a problem with Mana Drain, that is a separate consideration. There were problems with Trinisphere that had nothing to do with the existence, strength, or distorting effects of Drain.

There were a significant number of strong players that agreed that Trinisphere had no business existing in this format.

When Trinisphere was legal, many people REFUSED to use basic lands in their precious Vintage decks, and then they would bitch about how they were cheated by a Trinisphere

You are distorting things to emphasize your point. Name 2 people that "refused" to play basic lands and bitched about Trinisphere. The problem would not go away by playing basic lands, and the more you geared your deck towards beating Trinisphere, the more it supported the point of Trinisphere being grossy distorting and warranted subsequent restriction. Perhaps your idea of "ideal deckbuilding" in the 4 Trini era would be to only limit yourself to decks that played all fetches and basics, and had 4 FoW and 4 Wasteland?

I think you also exaggerate when you claim that Workshop-Trini needed "God-hands" (ie immediate CoW-Strip or Smokestack follow-up) to actually win turn 1 via Trinisphere. You perhaps forget the odds of powered archetypes actually finding 3 lands within the first three turns - the odds aren't so great when you play 14-15 lands and full power; you can even play all of the basics that you wanted and it wouldn't help as much as you think it would.

[roberts91rom]

This is ridiculous and I can't believe that people are saying Trinisphere did not warrant restriction and it was only because of the "unfun" factor. Trinisphere was a 3 Time Walks AT LEAST. This is assuming you don't follow up with some type of lock piece in the 3 turns you have. Followed up with ANY lock piece it ended games. Tangle Wire, Crucible, any LD effect, Smokestack, Chalice, Orb of Dreams, etc. It was more disgusting than Necropotence, because the mana cost was easier, you didn't have burn a ritual to play it, and it won the game this turn instead of next turn. Even on the draw Trinisphere wasn't as useless as some people made it out to be. It was still better than SoR, and combined with any other lock piece it still had a very powerful effect. I don't care about Trinisphere being "unfun". However, when at its worst the card can still win games, something is wrong. Will can fizzle and requires setting up, Necro passes the turn with no health, any draw-7 gives your opponent a fresh hand, Time Walk is only 1 turn. Trinisphere requires no setting up, doesn't give your opponent a free turn, doesn't refill their hand and is multiple Time Walks. It can't be Misdirected, and will never get drained if the Stax player is competant. Keep in mind this is all assuming your opponent has the ability to get 3 basic lands to play that 1 bounce spell that you probably will lock him out of anyways. There used to be more than a 40% chance to win on turn one in Stax, and that is ridiculous. Don't give me any of that mana crap because Stax already ran almost 30 mana sources, and could easily get it out with Shop, land Vault, land mox ring, land mox mox, ancient tomb mox, tomb vault, tomb ring, city of traitors mox, city vault, city ring, etc. They could even run Rituals, SSG and ESG if they really wanted to. 4Trinisphere increased Shop's turn 1 win percentage by 40%. It is still stupidly broken and not even combo can put up those numbers today.

[Akuma]

I have no problem with Mana Drain, I find it's presence a Vintage perk. I like (ab)using Mana Drain as much as the next guy, I just think that Trinisphere is not as powerful or distorting as Drain is, and it got restricted. There are entire archetypes that are built to play around Drain like fish, but that seems to be okay.

While we are on the subject, I'm not a "pro" Trinisphere only advocate, I also don't agree with Gush's restriction. There is also a lot of garbage on the restricted list, but that is beside the point.

@roberts91rom - I think your analysis is wrong, but unfortunately many other players bought into this train of thought and that is why Trinisphere is restricted. Trinistax existed at a time when 4cc Control was still popular, go figure why people would complain. Basics and fetches circumvent Trinisphere as does Wasteland and Force of Will.

I'm not debating that Trinisphere was a powerful play, I just don't think it was more powerful than what is available to other archetypes. You provide all of these combinations that produce a turn one Trinisphere, aside from Workshop --> 3sphere, all of those require a certain combination of cards, how is that any different than Land, Ritual, Grim Tutor...

Trinisphere was only truly powerful going first, after that it was JUST another lock component. I see no difference between it and any of the power plays that many decks can execute nowadays on turn one, that can ONLY be prevented by Force of Will.

As an aside, I was not actually an avid Trinistax player, I used Control Slaver / Combo during the majority of that time period with great success.

[dicemanx]

Trinisphere was only truly powerful going first, after that it was JUST another lock component. I see no difference between it and any of the power plays that many decks can execute nowadays on turn one, that can ONLY be prevented by Force of Will.

Is this to support an argument that Trinisphere should not have been restricted, or that other cards now should be restricted to prevent such "power plays"?

[Dakkon]

Sure, there are other turn 1 winning plays that can only be prevented with FoW. But non of them use Mana Drain, and they are all alot less likely than workshop-trinisphere (in the 4 sphere era). I cant even really think of a turn 1 play that is as distorting as a turn 1 trinisphere.

Against combo and some control, SoR is not trash. IMO it is one of the best lock pieces there is against those decks coupled with chalice.

Has anybody actually thought of what would happen if Gifts/Grim got restricted? My prediction is Control Slaver and/or Bomberman would be as dominant as Gifts is now, and TPS would just be played instead of Long. TPS gets top 8 more than Long does now anyways. Would it ultimately change anything?