B&R Results are In - No Change for Vintage

[madmanmike25]

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.

Very well said. 

It's always nice to be able to say "Do you have a Vintage deck?" and be able to play in any store and not ask about Bill or Bob's House Rules("Green is a broken color! It's banned!).  Yes, that's extreme, but that's what it could come down to.

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?

Thats apples and oranges.  Way to argue a technicality.  Banning Yawgmoth's Will is NOT the same as allowing players to use proxies.  MANY places do not allow proxies.  Ask players from Europe.

I do think we should make suggestions to the DCI as a group.

This is probably the BEST sentence in this entire thread.  In fact why not start 2 threads, one for banning Will and another against banning?  Then all involved can collaborate and send the DCI their collective opinions.

I'll go out on a limb here.  If DicemanX can prove that Yawgmoth's Will is indeed the most broken card ANY deck, I will change my opinion.  Put Yawgmoth's Will in a Dragon deck, and perform well with it.  See how broken it truly is.  It should clearly be banned.

That is just to illustrate that Will needs to be in decks that can abuse it to be broken.  I would agree wholeheartedly that if you could just toss it in any deck and top deck it and win, then all copies should be recalled and burned.  I ran it in a multi-colored Shop Aggro deck(very briefly).  It sucked, and very badly I might add.

Furthermore, I haven't seen any 'flaming'.  There was a 'wuss' comment, but I don't think whoever said that truly meant it as an insult.

[zeus-online]

...Cards do not get banned or restricted because you can just put them in any deck and win with them.
They get banned when they distort or dominate eviroments, take Disciple of the vault in extended, that card was good in ONE deck,that was it...one deck, yet it is banned. Will isn't just good in one deck, it is being abused in varios decks, but those decks always manages to do better then the rest of the field (At least that is how i see it).

This could be viewed as skullclamp in Standard a couple of years back - Tooth and nail finally found a way to beat affinity, and that was by adding around 12 1-toughness creatures and skullclamp.

/Zeus

[madmanmike25]

I see your point.  But Yawgmoth's Will does not always win the game even when cast in decks that CAN abuse it.  You need to set it up.  Has it distorted the format?? Again, that's a debatable opinion, and not proveable.

Another point.  You don't always win with Yawgmoth's Will.  Take that for what its worth.  Sometimes some EOT bounce does the trick just fine.

Honestly this is all moot.  I don't forsee them banning it.  There should be another thread about this even though it won't go anywhere.  Good Luck.

[dicemanx]

Your tactic seems to be: let's convert the argument into what it is not, so that I can easily attack it.

For instance:

It's always nice to be able to say "Do you have a Vintage deck?" and be able to play in any store and not ask about Bill or Bob's House Rules("Green is a broken color! It's banned!).  Yes, that's extreme, but that's what it could come down to.

See, here's the problem - those of us seeking change are not asking for eventual fragmentation on a local scale where the B/R list differs from one place to the next. You seem to think that this is what we're suggesting.

Thats apples and oranges.  Way to argue a technicality.  Banning Yawgmoth's Will is NOT the same as allowing players to use proxies.

You are missing the bigger picture here.

This isn't a "technicality". People seem to be sticklers for following DCI rules to a tee, and yet proxies were quite welcomed into the fold. Why? Because the community of vintage players came together and decided what was best for the growth and development of our format, and the change happened despite some strong opposition (proving that you don't need unanimous approval).

We as players are now responsible for coming up with what is best for the format, because the DCI has little *active* interest in helping us achieve those goals (they will help, but they are a passive observer). Fortunately, they will effect changes if there is enough of a demand and if the arguments are persuasive enough. As a business whose goal is to sell cards they obviously cannot embrace the idea of proxies, but they are quite willing to listen to persuasive arguments and effect changes when it comes to the B/R list.

If DicemanX can prove that Yawgmoth's Will is indeed the most broken card ANY deck, I will change my opinion.  Put Yawgmoth's Will in a Dragon deck, and perform well with it.  See how broken it truly is.  It should clearly be banned.

Unfortunately, I will not seek to do any such thing, because that is NOT the criterion that is being cited when considering the banning of Yawgmoth's Will. You're inserting your own misinformed criterion so that you can subsequently challenge an argument that few are interested in defending. I won't elaborate on this further because there is another thread dealing with this topic and articles by Smmenen devoted to explaining in detail the argument. As to whether you choose to believe it or not when you say:

Has it distorted the format?? Again, that's a debatable opinion, and not proveable.

That massive distorion is occuring is not up for debate. What the challenge for the proponents of the banning of Will happens to be is establishing whether that distortion has reached an unacceptable degree where it is starting to do two things: unacceptably limit deck diversity, and push players away from the format who are less and less interested in being limited by engaging in Will vs Anti-Will strategies.

There is fairly strong evidence in the past year from major events that is painting a picture of a Will vs Anti-Will format, and ALSO that the Will side is starting to edge out other non-Will archetypes.


I understand that vintage is defined by being a format where you can play anything. However, vintage is NOT supposed to be defined as a format that is Will-centric - at least that is the argument. These two are at odds with one another. Proponents of banning Will are troubled by the fact that they have to go against the primary definition of vintage where everything is allowed, but they have to start making exceptions where individual cards are dictating the definition.   

[diopter]

See, here's the problem - those of us seeking change are not asking for eventual fragmentation on a local scale where the B/R list differs from one place to the next. You seem to think that this is what we're suggesting.

See, here's the problem - it is going to be incredibly difficult to maintain a single B/R list, separate from the DCI's B/R list, that is universally recognized by the Vintage community. Who would the authority be for this B/R list? The Vintage Adepts of TMD? A committee whose members are voted in by TMD and/or SCG members?

Please. Setting aside the question of whether such an authority would even make good B/R choices (my opinion of which would probably irk you), the fact of the matter is that there will most definitely be tournament organizers who, a.) don't know about the new B/R list, and don't follow it, or b.) know about it, but would like to maintain their tournaments in accordance with the DCI's B/R list.

This kind of format fragmentation is ok for casual formats - witness Type 4, where there are a loose set of core rules and deckbuilding guidelines, but beyond them, it's pretty much house rules. But when you're hosting tournaments, with hundreds of dallars in prizes, that doesn't fly. How are you going to advertise it? If you advertise as "Vintage", then you create confusion. If you differentiate by advertising "DCI Vintage" or "TMD Vintage", well... you've pretty much created a new format.

[dicemanx]

See, here's the problem - it is going to be incredibly difficult to maintain a single B/R list, separate from the DCI's B/R list, that is universally recognized by the Vintage community. Who would the authority be for this B/R list? The Vintage Adepts of TMD? A committee whose members are voted in by TMD and/or SCG members?

We don't have to maintain a separate B/R list. we can try to persuade the DCI to change the current list so that it does get the universal recognition.

In order to figure out what changes are best, there were proposals put forth in this thread to run tourneys with modified B/R lists. This wasn't meant to be some permanent solution - it was meant as a way of generating data so that we can make a better pitch to the DCI to effect certain changes.

[nataz]

There is fairly strong evidence in the past year from major events that is painting a picture of a Will vs Anti-Will format, and ALSO that the Will side is starting to edge out other non-Will archetypes.

Examples? I'm talking real numbers, not feelings.

[Akuma]

People seem to be sticklers for following DCI rules to a tee, and yet proxies were quite welcomed into the fold.

The proxy thing is a different story. Let's face it, without them this format is dead. Some of us have all or most of the cards to play competitive Vintage, but a vast majority of people don't. No proxies = No new players.

When I bring up Vintage to anyone who is not familiar with the format, they are put off by the entry fee. "Sounds like a really cool format, but I will never be able to afford any of those cards..."

[diopter]

See, here's the problem - it is going to be incredibly difficult to maintain a single B/R list, separate from the DCI's B/R list, that is universally recognized by the Vintage community. Who would the authority be for this B/R list? The Vintage Adepts of TMD? A committee whose members are voted in by TMD and/or SCG members?

We don't have to maintain a separate B/R list. we can try to persuade the DCI to change the current list so that it does get the universal recognition.

In order to figure out what changes are best, there were proposals put forth in this thread to run tourneys with modified B/R lists. This wasn't meant to be some permanent solution - it was meant as a way of generating data so that we can make a better pitch to the DCI to effect certain changes.

I'll refer you to this post...

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 our 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.

... which pretty much started the last two and a half pages of debate on this subject.

[dicemanx]

Examples? I'm talking real numbers, not feelings.

I made tallies from 2006 from January up to October of decks that made t8, t4, and t2 in major events like all of the SCGP9 events, Champs, and Waterbury (presented in a SCG thread) - Gifts and Long (the Will-centric decks) were the runaway winners in each of those 3 categories, combining to outnumber the sum total of all other archetypes. Next in line was CS (another Will-based archetype) Fish and Stax, the premier anti-Will archetypes. If the deck doesn't feature Null Rod or CotV (and other disruption components that exist within the Stax or Fish frame) then it features the exploitation of Will coupled with ancillary strategies. Bomberman, WGD and Oath barely made much of a dent. I can try to find the thread, or you can check the database itself. I didn't look at non-proxy European events.

There is likewise evidence in the actual progression of deck construction, particularly Gifts, which is pulling more towards a combo role rather than a control role aimed at building card advantage and establishing board control. The deck is more focused on abusing Will than any previous Drain archetype - it's gotten to the point where there is a possibility that the Drains might even be superfluous given the focus of the deck. If we look at the other premier Drain archetype - CS - the more recent "innovations" are pulling away from the Welder-Mindslaver combo and cutting back on those combo pieces (Welders go down to 3 or 2), while we see the insertion of Gifts Ungiven and even Recoup to further put the emphasis on the Will plan. On the anti-Will side, decks like Stax and Fish enjoy some success because of the disruption base that targets explosive mana - CotV and Null Rod, along with SoR, CoW/Waste/Strip, Smokestack, or FoW/Daze/Stifle/Meddling Mage/Duress etc. the goal of Fish and Stax is primarily to curb mana explosiveness because there is little you can do otherwise to deal with the card advantage, disruption, and inevitability of establishing Will. The other interpretation of Will vs anti-Will format is where you are engaging in using explosive mana to win very quickly versus stopping explosive mana immediately. Other card choices are footnotes. Of course you have one other feasible plan, and that is to combo faster than the Will deck - this is what WGD and Ichorid attempt to do, and both also feature a scant disruption package to slow the Will decks down. These stategies aren't very successful or at the least are underplayed.

[dicemanx]

... which pretty much started the last two and a half pages of debate on this subject.

Shock Wave's suggestion is not at odds with what I said.

If the DCI would refuse to effect any changes for the sake of improving the format, then creating a separate B/R list might be a sad necessity. However, there is no reason to suspect that they will stay passive and not do anything if there is an outcry for change.

We should not be debating the means by which the changes will happen (DCI making changes of we make our own B/R list). The debate should be about whether there is a need or desire for change in the first place for the sake of format diversity and maintaining player interest so that we maintain or expand the player base.

Here is the critical remark from Shock Wave's post:

If the DCI does not care about us, why should we promote and adhere to their standards?

Note the "if". When this statement becomes true, then *most certainly* we should take matters into our own hands and depart from an organization that stops caring about the progression and development of the format. We'd like to think that we are not there now, and that the DCI does listen to us and makes changes if there are enough compelling arguments and enough consensus.

[hitman]

Justin, you're completely missing my point.  I'm not saying Yawgmoth's Will only leaves Will decks and anti-Will decks.  I'm saying anti-Will decks, obviously, wouldn't be viable because Will would be banned.  Limiting cards doesn't increase diversity, it limits it.  This should be obvious.  You said that Yawgmoth's Will just ends the game but that's not necessarily true unless you're saying that you've cleared the way for it and set up a good graveyard and have protection.  By that definition, any broken card just wins the game when cast.  By the way, control decks still beat combo decks.  Read some of Brain Demar's tournament reports.  He consistently plays against competent combo players like Menendian and Mastriano and still takes multiple first places.

[nataz]

I made tallies from 2006 from January up to October of decks that made t8, t4, and t2 in major events like all of the SCGP9 events, Champs, and Waterbury (presented in a SCG thread) - Gifts and Long (the Will-centric decks) were the runaway winners in each of those 3 categories, combining to outnumber the sum total of all other archetypes. Next in line was CS (another Will-based archetype) Fish and Stax, the premier anti-Will archetypes. If the deck doesn't feature Null Rod or CotV (and other disruption components that exist within the Stax or Fish frame) then it features the exploitation of Will coupled with ancillary strategies. Bomberman, WGD and Oath barely made much of a dent. I can try to find the thread, or you can check the database itself. I didn't look at non-proxy European events.

Couple of things. 1) I'd really like to see the thread, but if you can't find the numbers I can do it myself, it will just take longer to respond. 2) Should we be including the Euro events? Other then lack of data, will proxies be a significant factor?

On the anti-Will side, decks like Stax and Fish enjoy some success because of the disruption base that targets explosive mana - CotV and Null Rod, along with SoR, CoW/Waste/Strip, Smokestack, or FoW/Daze/Stifle/Meddling Mage/Duress etc. the goal of Fish and Stax is primarily to curb mana explosiveness because there is little you can do otherwise to deal with the card advantage, disruption, and inevitability of establishing Will. The other interpretation of Will vs anti-Will format is where you are engaging in using explosive mana to win very quickly versus stopping explosive mana immediately.

I think its interesting that you keep referring to will and explosive mana. I suppose its fair to say that will is powerful because of explosive mana; with out moxen/rit/lotus etc, will would be nowhere as good. However, the same cannot be said as an inverse. With out will, moxen/rit/lotus are all fine cards that are perhaps just as broken even when not accelerating to a will. Does this strike you as a potential red herring, or is the root of the format's problem fast mana and not will? Would Gifts.dec exist without will? Would Gifts.dec exist with out fast mana? Perhaps it's lotus and the ilk that are really our "necro".

Other card choices are footnotes. Of course you have one other feasible plan, and that is to combo faster than the Will deck - this is what WGD and Ichorid attempt to do, and both also feature a scant disruption package to slow the Will decks down. These stategies aren't very successful or at the least are underplayed

This statement bothers me because of the qualifier you put on the end. You have said many times that Dragon is a good enough deck to compete, no matter what the meta-game, given a competent pilot and a sufficient list. If this is true, why is no one playing Dragon? Either your statement is false, and Dragon cannot compete, or your statement is true, and Dragon can compete, but people just don’t play it (well).

If your statement is true that means there is a non will/anti will deck that exists (I would argue along side of bomberman) that can beat both the will decks and the anti-will decks. If no one is playing said known decks, isn't it conceivable that there are other possible lists that can have the same success .: eliminating the argument of will v. non-will format?

[hitman]

Tournaments don't tell you anything besides what people favor playing at a given time.  If the stronger players are generally playing Gifts and Long, then Gifts and Long should be making most of the top 8s.  Look at the names of the players winning with Will decks:  Herbig, Mastriano, Menendian, Becker, Hetherington, Pease, Kowal, etc.  When good players play other decks like Bomberman (JR, Manchand, McRae, Vaisberg), Slaver, which is a Tinker-based deck (Demars, Shay, Kowal), Oath (think Carps), and Fish variants (Sullivan Solution, Feinstein Fish, Nicolo's 7th place at World's list, etc.), they do well with them and even beat the "unbeatable" Gifts and Long.  Right now, storm is just the flavor of the month.  I realize Will decks are very strong but all top tier decks are very strong.  

[zeus-online]

Tournaments don't tell you anything besides what people favor playing at a given time.  If the stronger players are generally playing Gifts and Long, then Gifts and Long should be making most of the top 8s.  Look at the names of the players winning with Will decks:  Herbig, Mastriano, Menendian, Becker, Hetherington, Pease, Kowal, etc.  When good players play other decks like Bomberman (JR, Manchand, McRae, Vaisberg), Slaver, which is a Tinker-based deck (Demars, Shay, Kowal), Oath (think Carps), and Fish variants (Sullivan Solution, Feinstein Fish, Nicolo's 7th place at World's list, etc.), they do well with them and even beat the "unbeatable" Gifts and Long.  Right now, storm is just the flavor of the month.  I realize Will decks are very strong but all top tier decks are very strong. 

...And the best players usually play whatever they feel would be the best choice.

oh, and the fast mana is pretty much what defines vintage, at least in my eyes...No one would gain anything from getting all the fast mana banned, i'd bet that it would cause alot of people to just quit vintage if not magic.

/Zeus

[dicemanx]

Couple of things. 1) I'd really like to see the thread, but if you can't find the numbers I can do it myself, it will just take longer to respond. 2) Should we be including the Euro events? Other then lack of data, will proxies be a significant factor?

Found it:

Out of curiosity, I quickly tallied all of the decks that made t8 in all of the SCGP9, Waterbury and Champs events in 2006:

Gifts(MDG/TFK-Gifts): 19
Slaver(CS/Burning Slaver):18
Tendrils (Grimlong/Pitchlong/IT):18
Shop(Stax/UbaStax):14
Fish(UW/URBana/SS):13
Bomberman:7
Oath:5
WGD:3

For the same events, here are the tallies for the 1st/2nd place finishers in 2006:

Gifts:6
Tendrils:6
CS:4
Stax:3
Fish:2
Bomberman:2

http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=296094&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75

I don't know how I would factor in the non-proxy event data.

I think its interesting that you keep referring to will and explosive mana. I suppose its fair to say that will is powerful because of explosive mana; with out moxen/rit/lotus etc, will would be nowhere as good. However, the same cannot be said as an inverse. With out will, moxen/rit/lotus are all fine cards that are perhaps just as broken even when not accelerating to a will. Does this strike you as a potential red herring, or is the root of the format's problem fast mana and not will? Would Gifts.dec exist without will? Would Gifts.dec exist with out fast mana? Perhaps it's lotus and the ilk that are really our "necro".

I don't think it is a red herring - I think that Will magnifies the power of the mana explosiveness and the card drawing to an unacceptable degree. The acceleration and efficeient card drawing enables a myriad of possible strategies, but Will rises to the forefront that everything else becomes second tier. For instance, why focus on meticulously building card advantage and working to establish board control, when you can construct your deck to combo off on turn 3-4?

This statement bothers me because of the qualifier you put on the end. You have said many times that Dragon is a good enough deck to compete, no matter what the meta-game, given a competent pilot and a sufficient list. If this is true, why is no one playing Dragon? Either your statement is false, and Dragon cannot compete, or your statement is true, and Dragon can compete, but people just don’t play it (well).

I can give you 3 likely reasons why people don't play the deck:

1) Misconceptions about incidental hate cards and how WGD apparently rolls over to hate
2) The deck is boring - I frankly cannot stand to play it for more than 1-2 consecutive events; the excitement for me is coming up with unique builds and with correctly predicting when the time (or metagame) is ripe for a particular build
3) It needs Bazaars, and people don't have Bazaars to play even in 10 proxy events.

I stand by my assertion that WGD can compete, but to me it is hardly the posterchild for diversity and that we have more than the Will vs anti-Will dominated format. WGD is a weirdo exception that is competitive because of a ridiculously fast, game-ending, unintuitive combo of WGD + Animate. We don't have many of those in T1, and to beat a Will deck you have a very fast, consistent win condition (unless you are with an anti-Will deck). The only other combos that come close are Time Vault + Transreliquat and Metalworker + Staff.

If your statement is true that means there is a non will/anti will deck that exists (I would argue along side of bomberman) that can beat both the will decks and the anti-will decks. If no one is playing said known decks, isn't it conceivable that there are other possible lists that can have the same success .: eliminating the argument of will v. non-will format?

It certainly is conceivable, but might not be very probable, not anymore at least. Regardless, are you willing to wait it out to find out for sure, and, more importantly, can you use it as a selling point for the format? Would you approach others that are getting dissatisfied with the format and tell them that there *might* still be undiscovered decks out there that would be competitive, and that they shouldn't give up their search? This is becoming a tougher sell these days.

[yespuhyren]

Found it:

Out of curiosity, I quickly tallied all of the decks that made t8 in all of the SCGP9, Waterbury and Champs events in 2006:

Gifts(MDG/TFK-Gifts): 19
Slaver(CS/Burning Slaver):18
Tendrils (Grimlong/Pitchlong/IT):18
Shop(Stax/UbaStax):14
Fish(UW/URBana/SS):13
Bomberman:7
Oath:5
WGD:3

For the same events, here are the tallies for the 1st/2nd place finishers in 2006:

Gifts:6
Tendrils:6
CS:4
Stax:3
Fish:2
Bomberman:2

Just to do the math for people, because pointing out the math really strengthens Peter's point here.

T8

Will - 55
Nonwill - 42

T2

Will - 16
Nonwill - 6

And that is only if all the bomberman and Oath didn't play Will.  Some Gifts/Oath or Combo/Oath did well, as did some Bomberman sporting Yawgmoth's Will.  So thats the best case for the Will side.  Worst case would be a few more on Will and a few less for Nonwill

[diopter]

Found it:

Out of curiosity, I quickly tallied all of the decks that made t8 in all of the SCGP9, Waterbury and Champs events in 2006:

Gifts(MDG/TFK-Gifts): 19
Slaver(CS/Burning Slaver):18
Tendrils (Grimlong/Pitchlong/IT):18
Shop(Stax/UbaStax):14
Fish(UW/URBana/SS):13
Bomberman:7
Oath:5
WGD:3

For the same events, here are the tallies for the 1st/2nd place finishers in 2006:

Gifts:6
Tendrils:6
CS:4
Stax:3
Fish:2
Bomberman:2

Just to do the math for people, because pointing out the math really strengthens Peter's point here.

T8

Will - 55
Nonwill - 42

T2

Will - 16
Nonwill - 6

And that is only if all the bomberman and Oath didn't play Will.  Some Gifts/Oath or Combo/Oath did well, as did some Bomberman sporting Yawgmoth's Will.  So thats the best case for the Will side.  Worst case would be a few more on Will and a few less for Nonwill

Ya know what, I bet the numbers are really skewed towards Black Lotus decks against non-Black Lotus decks.

Will is a central strategy primarily for Gifts. Combo decks lean on it as well to increase their fundamental turn, but ultimately, whenever you ask the combo players on this forum, they will invariably say that they can easily win without Will, which is what makes Will-specific hate like Leyline of the Void pretty bad against combo. And CS can abuse Will too, but it abuses Tinker just as well and its most consistent path to a turn 3 win is through early Welder + TfK->Mindslaver.

You see where I'm going with this... yes Will appeared in more than half of the decks listed. Yes it is an utterly insane bomb. Vintage is full of these. Yes, Will makes those decks good. But to say that Will is a problem because every deck that contains Will is a "Will deck", cut and dry, nothing else, is an unfair characterization for decks like Long and CS.

[Methuselahn]

Here is the critical remark from Shock Wave's post:

If the DCI does not care about us, why should we promote and adhere to their standards?

Note the "if". When this statement becomes true, then *most certainly* we should take matters into our own hands and depart from an organization that stops caring about the progression and development of the format. We'd like to think that we are not there now, and that the DCI does listen to us and makes changes if there are enough compelling arguments and enough consensus.

I agree completely with the logic behind Shock Wave's post.  I, however, think that we ARE there now.  Just look at the following recent DCI/Wotc quotes.

We didn't have time to take the long, hard look at the lists that would preface the removal of cards from it this time around.

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.

THAT is the whole point of Type 1???  WTF.  The whole point of this TMD community is to foster a diverse and competitive metagame.  Having this rule as the ultimate spade is absolutely ridiculous.

The time is here to realize that this community, with all of it's zeal, is perfectly capable of not letting their beloved format degenerate into chaos.  Designing and hosting our own alternative side events is not only healthy, but totally possible.

[Justin]

Justin, you're completely missing my point.  I'm not saying Yawgmoth's Will only leaves Will decks and anti-Will decks.  I'm saying anti-Will decks, obviously, wouldn't be viable because Will would be banned.  Limiting cards doesn't increase diversity, it limits it.  This should be obvious.  You said that Yawgmoth's Will just ends the game but that's not necessarily true unless you're saying that you've cleared the way for it and set up a good graveyard and have protection.  By that definition, any broken card just wins the game when cast.  By the way, control decks still beat combo decks.  Read some of Brain Demar's tournament reports.  He consistently plays against competent combo players like Menendian and Mastriano and still takes multiple first places.

1. Removing 1 format distorting card does not limit diversity. THAT should be obvious. You can not honestly say long, gifts, IT or CS will not exist in a will-free environment. You can not honestly say that Yawgmoth's will's banning will make tendrils obsolete. Im interested to see what decks you think will disappear if Will is banned. Please answer that exact question.

2. Lol I never said the format needed increased diversity. Youve certainly missed my point, which I thought I made perfectly clear. Take a closer look:

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)."

I hope you read that. Now, re-read this -

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.

This is the problem I have with will. It *can* speed combo up to the point where many decks cant compete, or it *will* end an otherwise even matchup in a single turn. The card ostensibly states "during your turn, you may replay just about everything youve done up until this point, FTW".

Setting up a good graveyard does not necessarrily necessitate a whole lot of planning. It happens during the course of just about every game. Just about every spell you cast is going to be good: This is vintage.

Right now, storm is just the flavor of the month.  I realize Will decks are very strong but all top tier decks are very strong. 

Storm is here to stay buddy. I remember chaining tons of spells together so i could stroke of genius someone for the rest of their deck.   In a format of cheap spells, fast mana, and bargain card draw you will always be able to cast a ton of spells in a single turn.

And finally, all the top tier decks are "will" decks. Everyone else is fighting for a piece of their glory.

[hitman]

What Vintage game goes 10 turns then Wills?  I just posted a reply that showed that good players with decks that don't revolve around Will still win tournaments.  What's your argument?  You can't beat Will decks?  All the cards you mentioned that don't just win games upon resolution do win games upon resolution.  How does Tinker into Jar, Titan, DSC, Lotus and even Tormod's Crpyt not just win games for you  or, Necropotence and Bargain?  The scenario you're talking about is 10 turns into the game.  Both players have probably exhausted their resources by this point and any of those topdecks are amazing.  Even if you aren't in topdeck mode, those are game winning cards, in and of themselves.  Can you seriously remember a game where Bargain, Tinker, or Necropotence didn't just win the game for you?  You keep making it seem like a resolved Will is game over.  It's not.

I, also, never said removing Will would make certain decks unplayable, however, if you remove the central strategy to top tier decks, they will inevitably lose substantial amounts of power.  If they're weakened that much, are they honestly competitive?  If they're no longer as strong, why play them when there were already decks that could beat them, like Slaver, that aren't really that affected by the banning of Will.  Will is very strong in Slaver but Slaver is far from revolving around the card like Gifts does. 

[diopter]

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)."

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.

You grossly underemphasize the interaction that precedes the Will endgame, assuming that this interaction does not even have a role in setting up the Will endgame. These "10 turns of player interaction" that you casually brush aside include:
- securing resources (e.g. fast mana, countermagic) for the endgame via draw engine
- fighting over dangerous setup spells while they are in hand or on the stack
- building a stable manabase that provides needed colors as well as protection from opposing mana denial
- finding bounce, or post-SB, mass removal to deal with any problematic permanents

While it is true that Will sometimes ends games randomly, the same can be said for many broken cards in Vintage, like the ones that you list above (Necro, Bargain, Tinker). However, you ignore the fact that in many games where Will wins the game, the player who wins with Will does so because he is able to set up a board position in the preceding turns that allows him to secure his endgame!

Removing 1 format distorting card does not limit diversity. THAT should be obvious. You can not honestly say long, gifts, IT or CS will not exist in a will-free environment. You can not honestly say that Yawgmoth's will's banning will make tendrils obsolete. Im interested to see what decks you think will disappear if Will is banned. Please answer that exact question.

As a Gifts player, I can tell you that Gifts will not exist in a will-free environment. Gifts is a Will deck.
CS and Long will survive, but be weaker.
The Tendrils kill will certainly be eliminated from control decks.
The non-Will-dependent win conditions that are being played today are EtW, Tinker->Colossus, or Welder engine. These are on average a turn slower than Will. In a Will-less environment, these will be present and they will oppress lesser strategies due to their proven speed and resilience.

Let me ask you a question. What decks do you think will become viable in a Will-free environment? Will they be good enough to beat U/R Slaver with its insane draw engine and its ridiculous abuse of Tinker, which would be, by far, the most powerful card in a Will-less environment? How about Long combo that has switched its focus from resolving Will to resolving Necro or Bargain, which will, you know, win games after turns and turns of interaction?

[jcb193]

I hate to repost, but this got buried in between some "who has the longest shlong debates":

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.

Those 5-10 people can deliberate and then form a consensus, or a % recommendation to DCI (ie: "80% of us think you should unrestrict Voltaic).

The DCI does not want to take the time to analyze T1, so the more professional and complete we make the process, the more open they may be to input.   

My fear of only having prominent people write essays, is that essays are sometimes self-serving.  It wasn't too long ago that paragons quoted "what cards they got restricted" in their signatures. Hopefully a wieldable committee could prevent that. 

[Bubbydan]

Quote From:diopter

As a Gifts player, I can tell you that Gifts will not exist in a will-free environment. Gifts is a Will deck.

 I don't think that Gifts would die. You would just have to change your win condition. You could go Recoup,Burning Wish, Tinker and Time Walk amoung other things. Will is just an easier way to go. This is why I think Gifts is broken with or without Will

Dan

[dicemanx]

Will they be good enough to beat U/R Slaver with its insane draw engine and its ridiculous abuse of Tinker, which would be, by far, the most powerful card in a Will-less environment? How about Long combo that has switched its focus from resolving Will to resolving Necro or Bargain, which will, you know, win games after turns and turns of interaction?

CS and Long will be weaker without Will, despite your attempt to sway by using words like "insane" and "ridiculous" (some advice: the more hyperbole you use, the weaker your argument). The idea isn't to kill Drain archetypes or Long variants - just bring them down a notch. It would actually be quite interesting to see just how strong CS and Tendrils combo can be without Will as an option.

[zeus-online]

From what i've seen CS with black splash for will is almost twice as powerfull as straight U/R.

I think Gifts would still be abuseable just at a much lower power level, and probably used more as a regular draw engine. I think most of the post-will decks would still use the graveyard, just for different purposes.

It's all just speculation though...I can honestly say that the most nutty draws i've had with gifts was not with Yawgmoth's will, but a shitload of mana, bounce and draw ending the game turn 1-2 with a ToA...But! If will was banned i wouldn't bother playing ToA in the deck as it would be alot harder to set up, EtW and tinker is still possible, but both win conditions seems alot more fair without will.

/Zeus

[hitman]

Gifts would have to change dramatically.  The reason it's playable right now is because of its speed.  Its fundamental flaw is its lack of board control.  It's speed gets around this problem.  If you axe Will, you fundamentally change the deck.

[diopter]

From what i've seen CS with black splash for will is almost twice as powerfull as straight U/R.

I think Gifts would still be abuseable just at a much lower power level, and probably used more as a regular draw engine. I think most of the post-will decks would still use the graveyard, just for different purposes.

It's all just speculation though...I can honestly say that the most nutty draws i've had with gifts was not with Yawgmoth's will, but a shitload of mana, bounce and draw ending the game turn 1-2 with a ToA...But! If will was banned i wouldn't bother playing ToA in the deck as it would be alot harder to set up, EtW and tinker is still possible, but both win conditions seems alot more fair without will.

/Zeus

My point is that in a Will-less environment, half the power of regular CS is enough to dominate. This quixotic "diversity" that people are striving for, it won't just magically appear by banning Will, because other high-power options exist to exert pressure on slower, weaker, less resilient, less "broken" strategies.

Will they be good enough to beat U/R Slaver with its insane draw engine and its ridiculous abuse of Tinker, which would be, by far, the most powerful card in a Will-less environment? How about Long combo that has switched its focus from resolving Will to resolving Necro or Bargain, which will, you know, win games after turns and turns of interaction?

CS and Long will be weaker without Will, despite your attempt to sway by using words like "insane" and "ridiculous" (some advice: the more hyperbole you use, the weaker your argument). The idea isn't to kill Drain archetypes or Long variants - just bring them down a notch. It would actually be quite interesting to see just how strong CS and Tendrils combo can be without Will as an option.

In the context of a Will-less environment, the turn Long loses would make it weaker against control, but CS in particular would maintain its relative strength over other archetypes. CS has always had trouble against faster decks, and you're basically "bringing them down a notch". My guess, derived from the average turn loss that modern decks experience when cut off from their Wills, is that a Will-less format would slow down by about a turn across the board. This means that CS would be able to control the early game better, which allows it to consistently and effectively bring online its insane proven-in-tournaments-to-be-extremely-powerful draw/combo engine. Also, its ridiculous proven-in-tournaments-to-be-game-ending abuse of Tinker into Mindslaver or other artifacts, would maintain the kind of "random win" factor that is hated by a good portion of ban-Will proponents.

[Justin]

CS and Long will be weaker without Will, despite your attempt to sway by using words like "insane" and "ridiculous" (some advice: the more hyperbole you use, the weaker your argument). The idea isn't to kill Drain archetypes or Long variants - just bring them down a notch. It would actually be quite interesting to see just how strong CS and Tendrils combo can be without Will as an option.

This is exactly what I was getting at.

And hitman, you can try and call me out with things like "YOU cant win through will" but its laughable. Ive top 4'd at every tourney ive entered in the last year (not that that should mean much to anyone). You should really watch the hyperbole, and baseless claims.  Like "storm is the flavor of the month". That's classic, and its going to be my new sig.

@Diopter

The non-Will-dependent win conditions that are being played today are EtW, Tinker->Colossus, or Welder engine. These are on average a turn slower than Will. In a Will-less environment, these will be present and they will oppress lesser strategies due to their proven speed and resilience.

So your logic is, by making decks that win frequently with will a turn slower, that their new, slower win condition will oppress lesser strategies? Does that make sense to anyone? It shouldnt! IF anything, slowing the fastest decks down a turn would mean that decks with slower kills (fish, stax) would have a better shot at making higher finishes.

This is not coming from someone who hasn't abused the heck out of will. Ive played combo from its infancy, as well as control & anything else youve ever seen or read about. Ive played Weismann when the hot new tech was abyss/autumn willow. Keep in mind Im not saying this because I think Im a better player than anyone here. Im saying this because Ive seen exactly what these types of strategies were able to do BEFORE will was in the environment. Combo was able to win before it had acces to its entire yard for 3 mana, and i dont think that will change if it was no longer true. And to those of you who think Gifts is dead if Will is banned, do you think noone will use gifts in a control/combo deck without will? Do you think gifts is a bad card if Will went away? I would hope not, its awesome.

I think the poll idea that has been brought up is great. A community vote never hurt anyone, and could show the DCI exactly what percentage of vintage players feel will is a problem.

In the context of a Will-less environment, the turn Long loses would make it weaker against control, but CS in particular would maintain its relative strength over other archetypes.

I actually kind of agree with you here, although I havent been combo'd out turn 1-2 by control slaver 3-4 games every tourney.

[jcb193]

Can we talk about what we can do to influence the DCI, or what it is we want to do about T1? 

This enless debating about which deck is better, and whether or not Ywill should be banned is irrelevent until we decide how we want to approach the DCI.  The DCI is not going to tune into 6 pages threads of YWill debates for their decision making.  They would rather ignore it at that point and use the adage "If it aint broke....."

Do we want to try and become more communicative with the DCI as a group?  Or should we rely on essays, auto-restricts,  and Randy Buehler playing in random tournaments?