B&R Results are In - No Change for Vintage

[Justin]

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? 

Give this man a prize! Whatever our arguments are, they may not be taken as seriously as we want them to be taken if this exact statement isn't addressed.

[diopter]

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.

OK.
I'm working off Smmenen's argument for banning Will, which I think is a very well-framed argument, despite the fact that I disagree with it.
Smennen argues this:
Yawgmoth's WIll short-circuits strategy, or worse, substitutes it.
Meaning that Will is the strategy in Vintage and that by banning it, we would have more strategies.

What I'm arguing is this:
- Right now, we have exactly one deck whose only real strategy is Will, and that deck is Gifts. Long abuses Will but it also runs other bombs and tutoring power, and Slaver runs multiple paths to victory, the fastest of which (Tfk + Welder + early Slaver) does not involve Will at all.
- In a post-Will environment, yes, the environment is slower. Yes, Fish and Stax may place higher. But those decks place high already, and those strategies exist already in this Will environment. Which strategies are going to suddenly appear if Will is banned? Steve wrote that control decks would actually have to execute a kill condition, but Slaver often does that now without the help of Will.

As far as slowing down the format being a good thing, that's neither here nor there. We're talking about banning a card, which is a last resort. My belief is that you ban cards only in the direst of circumstances, such as when players are leaving the game. Restriction should be the primary tool for slowing down formats to levels that the governing authority deems acceptable.

[diopter]

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? 

Sure. We can approach them as a group. But if we have some sort of poll, or debate, regarding B/R decisions that will be good for the format, I will be there stating my opinion that no cards currently unbanned be banned.

Actually, the most compelling case for banning a card would be in the "Is Vintage fun?" thread in Basic Community. 25% of TMD members do not think Vintage is fun. I think that fact is concerning. If I'd asked on the general forum at SCG, I would've expected a higher percentage of players to think Vintage is not fun. But TMD is where I would expect a really vast majority (90%+) to enjoy Vintage. The fact that 1 in every 4 people here do not, is the only doubt I have as to whether my stance in this B/R debate is correct.

[hitman]

Justin, I wasn't saying you can't beat Will.  I was asking whether you were using that statement to defend your point.  When I said storm was the flavor of the month, I was saying its popularity will die down some due to boredom like most decks. 

If you ban Will, you weaken Gifts to a point where it might not be competitive anymore.  With Slaver already on its heels, Gifts needs the speed to be playable.  The deck has very limited board control.  You're basically arguing to kill an archetype and replace it with a lesser deck.  No one is arguing that Gifts the card won't see play.  Gifts the deck will be severely crippled and will have to undergo extreme change in its strategy.  It'll be a different deck.

I don't know whether you were strictly talking about Magic when you said "a community vote never hurt anyone" but community votes have hurt many people in other areas of life due to incorrect assumptions and conclusions and I argue a community vote here would hurt Vintage in the same way.

[Smmenen]

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.

Actually I can.   Gifts will not exist without Yawg Will.   IT would not exist without Yawg Will.  Long wouldn't look as it does without Yawg Will.   

Your comments reveal "truths" that are anything but obvious.

Stephen Menendian

[dicemanx]

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.

So what happens to be "proven" in a format where YWill exists and where CS *uses* Will itself to generate a lot of victories, is automatically applicable to a post-YWill environment? The only thing that tourneys have proven was that CS was very playable and competitive. You are trying to suggest something beyond that. You also make it sound like CS dominated anything except faster YWill based decks. This unfortunately wasn't true, as Fish and Oath had a decent game versus CS, not to mention aggro archetypes (I was under the impression that aggro strategies were the bane of CS, and now without Will things would get more dicey).

[Justin]

(I was under the impression that aggro strategies were the bane of CS, and now without Will things would get more dicey).

I was under the same impression, at least thats what I found in testing.

Personally, I dont think CS is going to be the end all, be all deck if & when Yawgmoth's Will is banned.

I also dont think that strengthening aggro, by slightly slowing combo down, is a bad thing for the format. Aggro is the weakest link in the rock/paper/scissors dynamic of a balanced metagame, which is sad in a way. Many people are introduced to the format via aggro decks (they're relatively inexpensive & relatively easier to pilot), so their existence helps in that sense.

[dicemanx]

If you ban Will, you weaken Gifts to a point where it might not be competitive anymore.

Gifts was a derivative of U-based control. It simply evolved in a combo-direction when it started being more Will-centric. If Will was banned, it would likely return back to a more controlling strategy such as BBS. Whether the card Gifts Ungiven would be used is anyone's guess. It still fetches 2 powerful cards and can set up Recoup/Tinker. We won't be atuomatically "losing" an archetype - we might just end up regressing to an earler iteration.

[yespuhyren]

Peter, in my opinion, the people who say things like the one you quoted are the dedicated netdeckers who fear for losing their wonderful netdeck, as I'm sure the true innovators will never say anything is dead just like that.

[hitman]

Yespuhyren, when I say Gifts will die, I'm talking about how the deck functions now.  I even offered an opinion of what I think the deck might turn into without Will.  I play and test every deck I can.  I play Slaver, Ichorid, Gifts, Fish, Bomberman and I used to play a little Stax but I never liked it much.  Right now, I play Fish.  You shouldn't make assumptions about people you know nothing about.  Only one of those decks revolve around Gifts.  Only two of them even play the card.  I'm not arguing because I'm biased toward it.  I'm arguing about ideas that I think are harmful to the environment.  If Will was banned, I would quit because some group of people decided they knew what was best for a format and axed a card they deemed too powerful.  I don't want to play a game where over-opinionated players can decide what they think is best for a format and ban cards because they're frustrated and tired of dealing with it.   If you're so up on community concensus, maybe we should see who would lose interest or stop playing because of such a decision.

[The Atog Lord]

If Yawgmoth's Will were banned, control slaver would not become the unchallenged lord of the format. As has been said already, aggro decks are pretty darn good against Control Slaver. A well-built Null Rod deck is much scarier to me than a Gifts deck. In my testing, CS beats gifts anyways. Long is a bad matchup for Control Slaver to be sure. and it would remain so in the absence of Yawgmoth. Banning Yawgmoth's Will would hurt CS far less than Gifts, since I'd rather cut Will from CS than Tinker anyways. But it wouldn't mean the deck would rise to own the format.

I think that banning cards in Type One on power reasons would be a terrible idea, for whatever its worth; but that's another matter.

[diopter]

Peter, in my opinion, the people who say things like the one you quoted are the dedicated netdeckers who fear for losing their wonderful netdeck, as I'm sure the true innovators will never say anything is dead just like that.

Smennen is the biggest proponent of banning Will, and he is saying that Gifts will not exist without YawgWill. Please don't make assumptions that are provably false.

If Yawgmoth's Will were banned, control slaver would not become the unchallenged lord of the format. As has been said already, aggro decks are pretty darn good against Control Slaver. A well-built Null Rod deck is much scarier to me than a Gifts deck. In my testing, CS beats gifts anyways. Long is a bad matchup for Control Slaver to be sure. and it would remain so in the absence of Yawgmoth. Banning Yawgmoth's Will would hurt CS far less than Gifts, since I'd rather cut Will from CS than Tinker anyways. But it wouldn't mean the deck would rise to own the format.

I think that banning cards in Type One on power reasons would be a terrible idea, for whatever its worth; but that's another matter.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Like I said, this is educated speculation. I would definitely see CS's combo matchup improving - Long would lose about a turn on its goldfish which would give CS the time to set up Drains or even Leaks, if it so chose to play them. CS would become a powerhouse in a Will-less format. To be sure, there would be decks like Null Rod aggro to foil CS - but Null Rod aggro is already Top 8 viable right now! The point of my conjecture about CS was to point out that the new metagame created from banning Will would not increase strategic diversity one whit - the metagame would contain the same strategies, just shifted somewhat to account for the loss of a bomb that is flagship in some decks and merely very good in others.

Yespuhyren, when I say Gifts will die, I'm talking about how the deck functions now. I even offered an opinion of what I think the deck might turn into without Will. I play and test every deck I can. I play Slaver, Ichorid, Gifts, Fish, Bomberman and I used to play a little Stax but I never liked it much. Right now, I play Fish. You shouldn't make assumptions about people you know nothing about. Only one of those decks revolve around Gifts. Only two of them even play the card. I'm not arguing because I'm biased toward it. I'm arguing about ideas that I think are harmful to the environment. If Will was banned, I would quit because some group of people decided they knew what was best for a format and axed a card they deemed too powerful. I don't want to play a game where over-opinionated players can decide what they think is best for a format and ban cards because they're frustrated and tired of dealing with it. If you're so up on community concensus, maybe we should see who would lose interest or stop playing because of such a decision.

I would lose interest in Vintage if Will were banned. If I played at all, I'd play the most broken deck available to me, which would probably be CS. It definitely wouldn't be the same to me, though.

[Justin]

I would lose interest in Vintage if Will were banned. If I played at all, I'd play the most broken deck available to me, which would probably be CS. It definitely wouldn't be the same to me, though.

Wow. I cant imagine abandoning an entire format just because a single card was banned.

Especially when youve repeatedly tried to point out just how many non-will decks are competitive.

This will probably be my last post on this. I believe that for the sake of the format, Yawgmoth's Will should be banned, for every reason that countless players have expressed at this point. If this doesnt happen, then a close eye should be put on exactly how dominant Gifts & Long are in terms of top 4 finishes for some period of time. Restricting Grim Tutor and Gifts Ungiven could help tone these decks down if they do in fact continue to dominate the top 4 places of tournaments, although I think it was Smennen who correctly said having Yawgmoth's Will remain legal in this format can only lead to more restrictions in the future, which I believe to be more stifling to the format than Yawgmoth's Win's bannination.

[diopter]

I would lose interest in Vintage if Will were banned. If I played at all, I'd play the most broken deck available to me, which would probably be CS. It definitely wouldn't be the same to me, though.

Wow. I cant imagine abandoning an entire format just because a single card was banned.

Especially when youve repeatedly tried to point out just how many non-will decks are competitive.

This will probably be my last post on this. I believe that for the sake of the format, Yawgmoth's Will should be banned, for every reason that countless players have expressed at this point. If this doesnt happen, then a close eye should be put on exactly how dominant Gifts & Long are in terms of top 4 finishes for some period of time. Restricting Grim Tutor and Gifts Ungiven could help tone these decks down if they do in fact continue to dominate the top 4 places of tournaments, although I think it was Smennen who correctly said having Yawgmoth's Will remain legal in this format can only lead to more restrictions in the future, which I believe to be more stifling to the format.

I believe that Yawgmoth's Will shouldn't be banned, for every reason that countless players have expressed to this point. Many non-Will decks are competitive now. By banning Will, you remove a powerful strategy in the format, and for what? A metagame shake-up? Stax and Fish get slightly better, Gifts dies, CS takes its place, Long weakens, etc... you shouldn't have to ban a card to do this, this is the job of restrictions, and even that is a drastic move unless there is clear evidence that a particular archetype is dominating. And, given that Nataz pointed out that the average percentage of Gifts in recent Top8's is 21%, I don't think there is clear evidence of domination.

The move to banning Yawgmoth's Will should be like the move to banning the artifact lands, Ravager, and Disciple in Affinity Standard - it is a drastic step, it will totally remove a strategy from the metagame, it should only be done if a.) the format is not fun, evidenced by many players leaving the game, and b.) the result is that the format is fun again and players return to the game. We can't say that a.) is true, many people on these boards enjoy Vintage. I've tried to point out how even if a.) were true, b.) would not be true because there would be little to no new strategic diversity that would come of a Will ban. Banning Will would be like if the DCI had only banned Ravager and Disciple in Affinity Standard, and instead of players rejoicing because they could play anything other than Tooth and Nail or Affinity.hate.dec, they came back to a metagame dominated by Klark-Clan Ironworks.

I wouldn't "abandon" Vintage, I would lose interest in it. Abandonment implies conscious action - I would simply not be as interested in Vintage were Yawgmoth's Will banned, it's not something I can help. I like Vintage for a number of reasons that I can't quite put into words, and Yawgmoth's Will is a big part of it.

[+t]

So, I hate to tarnish this thread with another incredibly ambitious proposition, but are we at the point where we need a new Eternal Format? 

Some people have stated that they are wholly opposed to banning Will in Vintage simply due to the fact that we want to play with "every card." [Within reason, obviously we can't be playing with Ante or Dexterity cards (or at least to operate under the facade that we can)].  Some of the rhetoric from this camp has, in effect, stated that if you don't like the general state of the metagame, go play Legacy.

We all know that the bolded part is a huge draw for the format.  The fact that we want to play Moxes and Tinkers is the reason that the italicized solution is not really a solution at all, more a deragatory rub at naysayers who simply won't agree with their rhetoric. 

With that said, could a format that bans and restricts cards similar to Type 1 pre 2k1 work?  That way, no card would be banned in Vintage (yawgmoth's will can still be played in one format) and people who wish to play Willless Vintage can play a slightly different format.  Similar to Neo-Legacy, it gives individuals the ability to develop new deck ideas without completly destroying the old Vintage, as Neo-Legacy did for Legacy.

Of course, there are major problems that acompany this idea.  The biggest is that it divides our community, both in terms of time to test decks and potentially draw to tournaments.  Does Store X hold a mox tournament for Vintage, or Vintage Squared?  Does Steven Menedian right articles about Vintage One, or Vintage Two?

This idea does have its problems, but since both pro-ban and anti-ban camps seem to not be listening to one another, the solution for this problem may not solely rest in one format.     

[forests failed you]

I feel as though Oath would likely become the metagame darling in the absence of Yawgmoth's Will.  It would likely become the best Drain based deck in the format, just because of its fast clock and focused game plan.  Yawgmoth's Will is extremely important to Slaver's game plan, especially against aggro decks.  Tinker does not randomly beat a board full of guys and a bunch of burn spells, Yawgmoth's Will however allows you to get far enough ahead (usually with the use of Time Walk) to set up a Slaver activation or some other insane undoing of their plan.

[Akuma]

Yawgmoth's Will SHOULD NOT BE BANNED.

I'm writing this just to make sure if WotC is reading these threads, they can see that there are many of us who are against the idea of banning.

They have been clear in their intent to "let us play with all of our cards" until now, and I hope this continues to be their policy. Banning Will or any card does not improve any of the so called woes of Vintage. It accomplishes nothing...

[Bram]

I'm writing this just to make sure if WotC is reading these threads, they can see that there are many of us who are against the idea of banning.

Oh, don't worry - they are.

[Methuselahn]

I'm writing this just to make sure if WotC is reading these threads, they can see that there are many of us who are against the idea of banning.

Oh, don't worry - they are.

For real.  'They' being one or two employees who skim the internet every three months.  They've repeatedly said that they haven't the time to invest in Vintage, I hardly doubt this 7 page thread is even getting read.  And even if it is, these one or two employees are just going back to the WotC nerve center to summarize Vintage in 10 minutes, if that, on the last day of the month.   

I don't know about other companies, but when the company that I work for makes a mistake, we try and fix that mistake.  Not try and reinvent the industry(format) to compensate. 

[brianpk80]

A few thoughts:

If storm is the real culprit in magnifying the unacceptability of Yawgmoth's Will, is this a problem that can be addressed by the printing of a very focused and potent strategy hoser?  For instance:

Eye of the Hurricane
WW
Summon Wizard
Each player may play no more than two spells per turn.  If an opponent has played three or more spells this turn, you may put Eye of the Hurricane into play without paying its mana cost.  If you do so, it gains Flash and Split Second.
2/2

Jeremy
U
Summon Wizard
Players may not search their libraries.
1/1
"When Jeremy speaks in class, the tutoring ceases."

I've thought through the idea of strategy hosers a lot as a Fish player always looking for ways to combat the Will field.  An advantage of the strategy hoser route is that it may have potential to succeed in accomplishing some of our collective objectives here (increasing "fun" and interactivity by puncturing the most "unfun" decks out there, ideally spurring an influx of more exciting replacements), while still adhering to that principle that Vintage is where you can play "any" card.  Frankly, I was really hoping for a major strategy hoser in Planar Chaos but instead they gave us one that purported to hurt Bomberman, Ichorid, and Dragon more directly than anything else (what was the point?).   

Note also that the idea wouldn't be for the format to degenerate into Storm v. Super Storm Strategy Hoser.  The objective here is for the very existence of those hosers to deter players from noninteractive decks so that new and ideally more balanced contenders supplant them.  Setting aside slippery slope arguments for now, is this feasible and a good way to address the problems we have?

Next there's the issue of batch restrictions.  Although it rarely gets serious attention in B&R discussions, Brainstorm x4 is the bread and butter of just about any deck running blue, both Will and anti-Will.  Is it time to raise the profile of Brainstorm as a ubiquitious and subtle subverter of the goals we have in mind for Vintage that is now ripe for restriction discussion?   

I'm having a serious dilemma whether the more interactive environment that many of us are hoping for would be better achieved by a banning of Will or a few restrictions (Brainstorm, Scroll, Ritual) that may help the field even independently of the Will problem. 

Further, I'm particularly impressed with this idea:

As I wrote in another forum, maybe what needs to happen to increase the enjoyability of the format is to look at the B/R as a dynamic entity. As you imply, there is no ideal B/R list, and even if there was one, we don't need to achieve it. However, an argument can be made that times are most exciting when there is some sort of *change*. So it really isn't whether the decision to change the B/R list in some manner is "objectively correct" or "necessary", but whether the mere act of change is what stimulates interest and attracts players, whether new or old.

A more fluid approach to the B/R list may be the best ingredient available to avoiding Vintage entropy as we reach a plateau in refining synergies of the overpowered cards available to us. 

I feel as though Oath would likely become the metagame darling in the absence of Yawgmoth's Will.  It would likely become the best Drain based deck in the format, just because of its fast clock and focused game plan.  Yawgmoth's Will is extremely important to Slaver's game plan, especially against aggro decks.  Tinker does not randomly beat a board full of guys and a bunch of burn spells, Yawgmoth's Will however allows you to get far enough ahead (usually with the use of Time Walk) to set up a Slaver activation or some other insane undoing of their plan.

This is another good point.  With Will gone, Tinker becomes the most conspicuous power strategy out there, and Oath essentially runs four Tinkers that cost 1G.  Radical as it may be, perhaps cleaning up some the fallout from a Will banning in advance (ie couple it with Oath restriction and possibly some way to preempt Dragon-mania) might benefit the health of the format. Though this might not necessarily be comfortable the short term with major upheaval and confusion (that skillful players/designers would most benefit from), eventually, shouldn't we be thinking about some long term strategy for the health of Vintage over the next decade or so?

-BPK   

[The Atog Lord]

Brian,

I'd be all for a good hoser or two. Might be just what the format needs. However, were Wizards to print one, I'd really hope that hoser to be well-tested and strong. Tsabo's Web was printed to stop Rishadan Port, but in the end never did enough to stop the card -- it was one mana too much to be an effective counter to a mana-denial card. Pithing Needle never did mark the end of Affinity's Reign of Terror. And Gaea's Avenger...let's just say he never made an Atog go hungry.

The White Split Second card broke my heart. If only it made its caster untargettable for a turn, it would have been really strong.

[brianpk80]

I'd be all for a good hoser or two. Might be just what the format needs. However, were Wizards to print one, I'd really hope that hoser to be well-tested and strong.

100% agreed.  That's why some ideas to float around need to be extremely deterring to Storm.  There's no sense holding back and making Mangara's Blessing part two (do we all remember what that was for?).  An extreme response in printed form is justified because we're talking about conceiving a card or two in lieu of taking that ultimate taboo step of banning a non-ante non-"throw it at the table" card in modern Vintage.

The White Split Second card broke my heart. If only it made its caster untargettable for a turn, it would have been really strong.

If you mean that Angel's Grace from TS then I'm with you completely.  Even if they had a "prevent loss of life caused by opponent" clause it would have gone a long way v. Tendrils.  Of course, EtW renders the whole anti-Tendrils strategy obsolete.  Storm was a problem before TS but fortunately we had only one viable incarnation of it to worry about (and even if you count Brain Freeze, they both target a player so some True Believer effect could keep them both at bay).  Now, EtW highlights just how much the problem inheres with the Storm mechanic itself, and not simply Tendrils of Agony.  I was ready to sound the alarms to ban Tendrils a few months ago, but that is very moot at this point.

FWIW, I think of Storm as virtual mana and find it disturbing how comparable the amount generated is to the amount of actual mana generated by a Tolarian Academy.  I mentioned it months earlier, but when you're getting an uncounterable Drain Life for 22 (23 Black and 1 Colorless) for 2BB, there's a real problem here.  Now it's spread out over several cards, like Warrens, and it's become clear that abating storm itself is much more necessary than simply abating Tendrils.   

-BPK

[Akuma]

The very idea of restricting Brainstorm is LUDICROUS...

Maybe we should restrict fetchlands and dual lands so we can drop consistency another notch as well  

I don't really like the idea of powerful hosers that are purposely created to stop a particular strategy. I think that every so often, WotC will put something useful out there for us to use, things like Pithing Needle, Chalice of the Void and Jotun Grunt to name a few. These are great cards, generally useful, and not specific hate cards.

And, oh yeah, we do have a storm hoser, it's called Trinisphere, but that got restricted a couple of years ago because it was "unfun", lame...

[brianpk80]

The very idea of restricting Brainstorm is LUDICROUS...

Why?

I don't really like the idea of powerful hosers that are purposely created to stop a particular strategy. I think that every so often, WotC will put something useful out there for us to use, things like Pithing Needle, Chalice of the Void and Jotun Grunt to name a few.

So, assuming there is a problem, you would find it preferable to ban and/or restrict cards rather than introduce some focused hosers into the environment.  Or are you saying that you don't believe there is a problem so we lack the need to find solutions? 

-BPK

[orgcandman]

The very idea of restricting Brainstorm is LUDICROUS...

Why? You seem to offer nice blanket statements with no supporting arguments whatsoever, and qualify them with words like "consistency", "ludicrous", "lame" without actually offering support.

Maybe we should restrict fetchlands and dual lands so we can drop consistency another notch as well 

Was this neccessary? I understand you're trying to get across that you don't think anything is needed, but why the sarcasm?

I don't really like the idea of powerful hosers that are purposely created to stop a particular strategy. I think that every so often, WotC will put something useful out there for us to use, things like Pithing Needle, Chalice of the Void and Jotun Grunt to name a few. These are great cards, generally useful, and not specific hate cards.

Well, I would argue that Jotun Grunt IS specific hate. Chalice was intended as a way to give budget players another way combat the speed of the format, but that doesn't even matter, as the top tier decks are using it instead. Needle, I'll agree with, was "broad" hate.

And, oh yeah, we do have a storm hoser, it's called Trinisphere, but that got restricted a couple of years ago because it was "unfun", lame...

Actually, a storm hoser is something like Arcane Lab or Rule of Law. 3Sphere did NOTHING against TPS...it would just get 3 lands online, rebuild eot, and win. That wasn't the hand that came up once in a blue moon, that was the strategy. 3sphere was better against drain decks, which is probably why there were more cries for it to be restricted. People just can't bear to have their drains oppressed.

As far as the actual arguments for/against will go, I say why don't we run a few tournaments (ala the myriadgames and kobefan tournaments) without will. Then we can have actual data to go on. All of this conjecture about "Oh, we can't ban" "Oh we must ban" is just going to go in circles, and escalate to flames. If people showed up to a willless tournament and still lost to pitch-long, CS, and some of the other dominant decks we have, sans will, then we can say "Will won't have any effect whether banned or not. Therefore, we should not ban." If, conversely, those decks were pushed out of the metagame and whirling dervish.dec suddenly became amazing (that's an extreme example, btw) then we know "Hey, will is pretty much THE type 1 backbone." Not only will this prove/disprove that a willless environment does/doesn't have an impact on the metagame, but it lets people move on from those arguments.

[Myriad Games]

Another option that's been bandied about is perhaps more extreme than breaking the precedent of not banning non-ante, non-Un, non-dexterity cards in Vintage. If Wizards were to errata Storm to trigger upon resolution rather than when the spell is played, the mechanic would lost most of its overwhelming potency.

[Mr. Nightmare]

Another option that's been bandied about is perhaps more extreme than breaking the precedent of not banning non-ante, non-Un, non-dexterity cards in Vintage. If Wizards were to errata Storm to trigger upon resolution rather than when the spell is played, the mechanic would lost most of its overwhelming potency.

More extreme, yes, and contrary to recent changes Wizards has been making, removing the power level errata of all non-Time Vault cards.

[diopter]

The very idea of restricting Brainstorm is LUDICROUS...

Why?

Ultimately the goal of restrictions or bans is to make a format more fun. Generally concepts like "strategic diversity" and "correlation between skill level and success" ultimately translate to playing Magic being more fun.

As well, losing to bad luck, particularly losing to mana screw, is generally (note the emphasis) considered to be not fun. Cards like Brainstorm increase the playability of opening hands and increase the likelihood of seeing enough mana of the right types. As well, Brainstorm's cards-seen-to-mana-cost ratio (3:1) is on the same level as the modern pure cantrip Serum Visions (yes, Brainstorm is better, but you get my drift).

Brainstorm is not the type of card that the DCI would want to restrict - it reduces the effect of bad luck without being at an unacceptable power level.

[Nehptis]

This is a recent, good example of the non-diversity that we will continue to see proliferate through the format until Will is banned or Gifts / Grim are restricted.  Check out other recent tournies in your area and you will see the same results.  For those of you who like playing with and against Fish and Storm all day...enjoy!

Full lists, more pictures and feature match coverage can be found at www.Eudemonia.com/p9 soon.

David Ochoa: Dark Rituals and Merchant Scrolls (Control combo, anyways).........Yawgwill
Richard Luna: UB Grim Long with Badlands maindeck.........Yawgwill
Jeff Huang with Fish (if I recall correctly).........Anti-Yawgwill
Zac Cabot with Mono-U Ophidian/Morphling..........Anti-Yawgwill
Eric Campusano with old school UW Fish (with Curious Flying Men).........Anti-Yawgwill
Luis Scott-Vargas with Control Combo.........Yawgwill
Eirik Aune with Gifts/Tendrils/Warrens.........Yawgwill
Austin Martinez with Oath of Druids.........Neither, so this can be Stax, or Ich or any non-Pro-Will or Anti-Will deck

[madmanmike25]

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

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.

Bingo!  Give this man the toaster oven.  Will doesn't define EVERY deck, as much as Black Lotus doesn't define EVERY deck.

I just played in a small tournament last weekend.  I lost more to Tinker->DSC than Yawgmoths Will even though Will was in those decks.  

What if I said that I felt Tinker has distorted the format?(bear with me).  Should I start a crusade to get it banned?  I KNOW that when I have Tinkered->DSC on players new to Vintage they felt cheated.  One even said "Remind me never to play Type 1 again."  That was from a Legacy player btw, not that it matters, just for reference.  And yet the hate for DSC is out there- Welder, STP, Edict, Gone, I won't list them all.  Same is true for Yawgs Will.  Maybe I should start a page on ALL the cards that decimate Yawgs Will and are STILL playable in the format???  Meaning you have cards that affect opponents GRAVEYARD, not just Yawgmoth's Will so you won't be classified as a Anti-Will deck.  Last I checked Stax relied heavily on Crucible/lands in the grave.  Graveyard hate maindeck shoudn't classify you as Anti-Yawgs Will.  It's a graveyard based format, Yawgs Will is just the BEST card to utilize it.

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.

WTF, WTF?**  Diverse??  Check out decklists.  See how many winning decks do NOT use cards like Black Lotus and Moxen(Will being aside).  Actually, most decks have the SAME SHELL, you either play with MANA DRAIN, MISHRAS WORKSHOP, DARK RITUAL, or BAZAAR OF BAGHDAD.  Is that your diversity?  The rest of the cards are almost filler, who actually thinks they get to choose 60 cards when making a (hopefully) top tier deck??.  Would you rather play a diverse deck (without moxen/lotus) or a competitive one?

**I just hate when people type WTF?!!? as if the person said something that didn't make sense.  I think THAT hurts people's arguments as much as hyperbole.

Also when this thread gets to 10 pages, someone should close this and just start TWO threads- one pro-banning, one pro-leaving vintage the way it is.  Then complain to the DCI with the best arguments from both sides. 

And yeah, I will go ahead and say on the record that if Yawgmoth's Will is banned, my interest in Vintage will disappear.  I don't need to explain myself, that's just the truth.  It would be a bad precedent in my opinon to ban Will