B&R Results are In - No Change for Vintage

[Nehptis]

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.

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 opinion to ban Will

WTF????? I'm just kidding.  To your first point I think the Tinker crusade can be seen as legitimate a crusade as Yawgwill.  Personally, I don't think it is since Tinker-->DSC is not game over in 1 turn as many times as Yawgwin is.  (I realize that there are a lot of nuances to this statement.)

To your second point consider how many folks will consider leaving the format if Yawgwill doesn't get banned and this era of Will vs. non-Will continues.

[forests failed you]

At the last RIW Power tournament we had 15 players and cut to the top four.  The top four was

1 Buring Slaver
1 Stax
1 Stray Fish
1 UG Threshold Fish

that is 3 decks that do not play Yawgmoth's Will, and 1 that plays Yawgmoth's Will but isn't centered around it.

In addition, there were 2 Long decks in the field played by competent combo players:  I.e. Combo genius Ben Perry and Dirty Harry.  And 2 Gifts decks one piloted by Josh Franklin who has a SCG P9 top eight to his credit as well as a top 8 finish at Vintage Worlds.  The Will decks were beaten by the non Will decks; not to mention the Will decks had pilots who were extremely capable.  

As I am reading this thread I am beginning to wonder if people actually believe that Yawgmoth's WIll is dominating the format, or if people just don't want to play against it because they don't like losing to it?

[dicemanx]

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.

With all due respect, and since few people have expressed this thought (2 exactly), I'd be willing to go through with the banning of Will because I would trust that not only you and diopter *would* return to Vintage (eventually), but you would enjoy the format as well.

I personally don't have attachments to any card in this format. What I want in T1 are three things:

1) Options - deck diversity with a lot of top tier archetypes to choose from

2) Format support - making sure that the format is fun and exciting for others, and that they show up to events

3) Maximization of the opportunity to exploit mistakes

Let me explain the last one. Trinisphere was the perfect example of a card that too often minimized the impact of play mistakes and made them unexploitable. For instance, after a first turn Trinisphere, my opponent could commit 5 innacuracies but so long as I couldn't build to 3 mana in time, those inaccuracies would essentially be forgiven. This is also true of YawgWill, along with any deck that ends games immediately. It is not a contest of two minds when the only skill involved is my opponent's accuracy and technical playskill in goldfishing his deck. I appreciate that not all matches against turn 1-3 kill decks are like this, but a significant portion certainly come down to that where you are reduced to the role of a spectator. This is why having decks like Long, Belcher, and MeandeckSX have always bothered me. Mind you, there is a difference between the game ending immediately, and situations that are still escapable where your opponent has explosive mana starts, resolves Ancestral etc. I've been in enough situations where my opponent develops an immediate, almost "game-winning" advantages at the beginning, but his subsequent lax play let's me catch up and maybe even steal a win. I cannot do that if the game effectively ends right on the spot right at the start.


I think that perhaps we are approaching this discussion backwards - we are looking at certain decisions and hypothesizing about their outcomes, where perhaps instead we have to come to some sort of an agreement on what goals are or should be for this format, whether we are on the right path to achieve those goals, and if not, what options are available to put us on that right path.

This way, we can look past individual cards and strategies and focus on the bigger picture here. For instance, I might hate losing to Oath, but Oath does add to the diversity of the format so I would fight to keep it unrestricted (if hypothetically there was a call for restriction). On the other hand, I love playing Drain-based YawgWill archetypes, but I'd fight for its banning if it will achieve the goal of increasing format diversity, and attract more players than it will (perhaps temporarily) repel.

As I am reading this thread I am beginning to wonder if people actually believe that Yawgmoth's WIll is dominating the format

Not dominating, but distorting. Your top 4, for instance, features 3 anti-Will strategies - its not that Will is not being beaten, its that it is dictating what non-Will centered strategies are permissible. Plus, according to the major tourney results from 2006, YWill based strategies (Gifts and Long) were combined leaders of the pack by a sizeable margin. Not enough to establish dominance, but it does show a trend. As players become more proficient with Long and Gifts, it will be increasingly more difficult to beat those decks. 

[Nehptis]

Well said Dicemanx. The key word is distorting. I hope other posters read and understand your points before making theirs.

And for the record, I played Storm based combo for what seems like forever.  Still I think YWill should go and we shouldn't look back.  And if banning is not an option, then add Gifts and Grim to the Yawg will "Highlander list" and let's move on.

[ELD]

I just want to point out that there is an error in the logic of classifying decks types into "Yawg Will deck" and "anti Yawg Will deck."  "Yawg Will" decks could best be classified as decks that try and win by using the best cards available.  "Anti-Yawg Will decks" could be classified as decks that attempt to stop the opposing deck from functioning the way it is designed to do.  .  It is a fundamentally different approach to deck building.  One build is based on the assumption that it is best to try and find the best cards and abuse them.  The other is based on the assumption that it is better to try and disrupt the more powerful decks.  Fish and Staxs are not happy about any important spell resolving on the other side of the table.  Be it Tinker, Empty the Warrens, Oath, or even Psychatog, disruption decks have often lost if a finisher hits the board on the other side of the table.

For me the bottom line is this - IMO the banned/restricted list should not be based off popular opinion.  I do not want to spend time several times a year lobbying for/against banning/restricting the next cards in line.  I feel the DCI has done a phenomenal job over the past few years.  I trust them fully to do what they do.  The fact that people talk about "I don't like losing to X" really shouldn't enter into restriction/banning discussions.  There is no rule that says certain only certain people can play with certain cards.  We're all allowed to use the most busted cards ever printed, and I hope it stays that way.  There is not doubt in my mind that some of the weaker cards on the restricted list will come off over the next year.  Voltaic Key, I'm looking at you.  Gift's and Grim Tutor are certainly powerful enough to go onto the list.  Then again, so are Merchant Scroll and Intuition.  I think whatever the DCI does with them will be fine.  Having more good cards on the restricted list is not a problem IMO.  Taking weak cards off the list is always a good thing.  The restricted list should be like a Hall of Fame from busted cards IMO. 

Let me remind the forum that people called for Academy to be banned on more than one occasion.  They said stuff like "It's just going to lead to more and more restrictions"  I think that would have been a mistake, and I hope everyone can see that.  Banning is IMO, not an option. 

All that said, with the creation of the Legacy format, people have a viable, fun alternative to the broken plays of Vintage.   I just played in a Legacy event Saturday, and it was a good time.  I would urge anyone who is sick of the really good cards in Type 1 to try out Legacy, it really is fun. 






 

[forests failed you]

As I am reading this thread I am beginning to wonder if people actually believe that Yawgmoth's WIll is dominating the format

Not dominating, but distorting. Your top 4, for instance, features 3 anti-Will strategies - its not that Will is not being beaten, its that it is dictating what non-Will centered strategies are permissible. Plus, according to the major tourney results from 2006, YWill based strategies (Gifts and Long) were combined leaders of the pack by a sizeable margin. Not enough to establish dominance, but it does show a trend. As players become more proficient with Long and Gifts, it will be increasingly more difficult to beat those decks. 

Or, as the trend of Gifts and Long has risen to the forefront of the metagame, players are just now begining to adapt and play decks that are able to consistently beat Gifts and Long.  Remember, that because Vintage tournaments are so few and far between that it takes a long period of time to determine exactly where the metagame is going.  And, it takes time for that data to correlate to noticable trends.

[Harlequin]

I think the phrase "Anti-Will" is being used to liberally.

Take for example: TMWA.  TMWA runs 4 maindeck Grunts as cards that spesifically damage will.  Infact you might even say that TMWA -helps- will gain strength because it has discard effects. 

Another example is my mono-red shop static prison deck.  It runs ... wait for it.... 0 cards that stop will dirrectly.  It is however very heavy on "Anti-mana."  Running Blood Moon, Orb of Dreams, and Null Rod.  Even when I was running Maindeck Pyrostatic Pillars I wouldn't clasify it as anti-will - just anti-storm.

Conversly, Jer recently played CS with 2 Maindeck Tormod's Crypt and 3 Maindeck Shadow of Doubt.  Yes he played Will, but his deck was designed to stop his opponent from resolving a lethal will.  Under many players definitions a deck cannot be will and anti-will.

Drawing a line in the sand between the "Wills" and "Will Nots" (so to speak), then labling it "Anti-Will" is just a way to make your arguement sound convincing.  You could just as easily draw a line between "Brainstorm" decks and "Anti-Brainstorm" decks.  How about "Gifts" and "Anti-Gifts"?

This could be compaired to Legacy Goblins.  Very often you hear that when testing a new deck if it doesn't go at least 50:50 with goblins then its not viable.  Does that make every Legacy deck that doesn't run 4 lackeys anti-goblins?  I suppose you could make that arguement, but it seems far fetched.

----------------------------

The other arguement is that there are cards that are currently on the restricted list that are there because of will.  Can anyone name a card spesifically that would be un-restricted because of will?  FoF ...maybe?

I think the arguement you mean to propose is that: in the future, Will would lead to restriction of cards ... which could then be refined to: Gifts ungiven is going to be restricted because of will.  Personally I don't think that Gifts Ungiven should be restricted because of will - I think it should be restricted because it is a grossly undercosted tutor like DT is.  DT should costs around 3 or 4 mana (Grim tutor?, Diabolic Tutor?) It costs 2 therefor it is restricted.  Gifts by my estimation should cost at least 6 mana; it costs 4 therefor it should be restricted [I posted a longer explination of my theory a few pages back on this forum].

----------------------------

Here is my personal arguement, because really, this forum has degenerated into personal oppinions.

I think there is plenty of diversity in the format.  There are many choices when it comes to "Will" decks.  There is not just one =BEST= will deck (like T2 Ravager-Clamp).  To extrapolate that, there is no =BEST= anti-will deck.  There are a handful of options in each camp, with litterally dozens of variations on ~each~ option.  Not only that, but Vintage is far from a rock-paper-scissors format.  That is why I love it.  There is almost no proven deck that has worse than a 60:40 match against any other deck.  The format has such a high skill ceiling that cracking a fetchland at a subtly incorrect moment can swing a game from win to loss.  Yawgmoth Will is in my oppinion a high-skill card - not nessisarily in playing out the will turn, but the ammount of effort it takes to ensure you resolve a lethal will.  If will wasn't a high-skill card then #1 the best players wouldn't go to it time and again, and #2 more scrubs would be able to pick up gifts and just tap 2B to win every game.  Banning will would lower the skill ceiling of the format. 

To pick on Dicemanx again, He says that he want's to be able to capitolize on his opponent's mistakes more.  I don't think banning will gives us that ability any more than leaving it un-banned.  The presents of Will, or even better, bluffing that you have will, can make your opponent make mistakes. 

Lets put it this way: I play Gifts ungiven, and you counter it using the last counter in your hand.  Next turn I play will, and win.  Was it a mistake on my part to cast the Gifts Ungiven w/o protection?  Who really made the mistake?
 
How is it any differnt from: I cast will with one counterspell protection.  You cast Orim's chant and I counter, then you counter will.  Who made this mistake then? did anyone make a mistake?

[dicemanx]

Or, as the trend of Gifts and Long has risen to the forefront of the metagame, players are just now begining to adapt and play decks that are able to consistently beat Gifts and Long.

Precisely Brian, that was distortion involves. It ultimately isn't a matter of adaptation (which will happen; if it doesn't you will have dominance), it is a matter of limits put on diversity by forcing such adaptations.

So either way, either we will ultimately have one extreme - dominance, or if the environment adapts you'll be at the other extreme - distortion.
 

Another example is my mono-red shop static prison deck.  It runs ... wait for it.... 0 cards that stop will dirrectly.  It is however very heavy on "Anti-mana."  Running Blood Moon, Orb of Dreams, and Null Rod.  Even when I was running Maindeck Pyrostatic Pillars I wouldn't clasify it as anti-will - just anti-storm.

Anti-Will isn't necessarily anti-graveyard. It typically involves playing cards that attack manabases and are backed by certain disruption spells (FoW, Duress, MMage, or the Stax lock pieces).

Drawing a line in the sand between the "Wills" and "Will Nots" (so to speak), then labling it "Anti-Will" is just a way to make your arguement sound convincing.  You could just as easily draw a line between "Brainstorm" decks and "Anti-Brainstorm" decks.  How about "Gifts" and "Anti-Gifts"?

Brainstorm and Gifts is not a strategy.

This could be compaired to Legacy Goblins.  Very often you hear that when testing a new deck if it doesn't go at least 50:50 with goblins then its not viable.  Does that make every Legacy deck that doesn't run 4 lackeys anti-goblins?  I suppose you could make that arguement, but it seems far fetched.

Not at all actually - Goblins is one of the measuring sticks of the format - unless your deck can "combo-off" faster, or unless it has the tools to stop Lackey/Vial, it will struggle in Goblin heavy environments. That is highly distortive and puts a limit on the number of top-tier archetypes.

[Akuma]

I second ELD's entire post.

Why is restricting Brainstorm ludicrous? See diopter's post on the matter, it pretty much covers everything. The comparison to fetchlands and duals was just to illustrate a parallel. Brainstorm = more consistency, so do fetchlands. They are not a bad thing. Brainstorm is a great card, I understand, but it is not damaging Vintage, it makes it a better format.

As I am reading this thread I am beginning to wonder if people actually believe that Yawgmoth's Will is dominating the format, or if people just don't want to play against it because they don't like losing to it?

I'm under the same impression.

So either way, either we will ultimately have one extreme - dominance, or if the environment adapts you'll be at the other extreme - distortion.

Distortion is another term that is thrown out there all the time and it really is meaningless. Does not EVERY SINGLE powerful strategy cause distortion. Doesn't Mana Drain distort the environment, so do Workshops, so does Force of Will, so do Moxes, etc. The format is distorted by all of the most powerful strategies. The power of Will is distorted by the presence of fast mana, cheap draw and effects.

Distortion seems to be just another way of saying "This/These card(s) affect the environment". If distortion is an arguement for restriction, we should have restricted Wasteland long ago.

[dicemanx]

Brainstorm increases deck diversity because it enables a large number of strategies. YWill decreases the number of possible strategies. That is the argument, and is why the restricting Brainstorm doesn't make sense and is a bad comparison.

[diopter]

Anti-Will isn't necessarily anti-graveyard. It typically involves playing cards that attack manabases and are backed by certain disruption spells (FoW, Duress, MMage, or the Stax lock pieces).

OK. We are getting to the crux of the matter.
This is your definition of an Anti-Will strategy:
It typically involves playing cards that attack manabases and are backed by certain disruption spells (FoW, Duress, MMage, or the Stax lock pieces).
And the argument for banning Will is that the format is becoming too "Will vs. Anti-Will".

In a banned-Will environment, this "Anti-Will" strategy won't just go away. The next best strategies will still lean on fast mana and bombs - the way to attack these strategies will still be to attack their manabase, disrupt them on the stack or in the hand. So in a Will-banned format, the metagame will not be "Will vs. Anti-Will" (if one even thinks that it is like that now, which is not an opinion I share), but it will be "Next-best-broken-strategy vs. Anti-Will".

On the subject of "Will" and "Anti-Will" characterizations:
Dicemanx, you've defined "Anti-Will" in a manner that I really like. Let's define "Will" decks the same way:
"Will" deck: A deck that uses fast mana to accelerate into the mid and endgame, to cast game-ending bombs, typically with enough disruption to resolve said bomb(s).

With these definitions, I would agree that the format is "Will vs. Anti-Will", but I would also argue that the mere banning of one card (Will) will not change this one whit. To have any chance of diversifying the metagame so that many non-fast-mana-and-bomb strategies or anti-strategies are viable, you would have to ban many, many cards - all of the artifact mana, all of the bombs, the triumvirate of Mana Drain, Dark Ritual, and Workshop... in which case, you'd have something pretty damn close to Legacy.

[GrandpaBelcher]

Another example is my mono-red shop static prison deck.  It runs ... wait for it.... 0 cards that stop will dirrectly.  It is however very heavy on "Anti-mana."  Running Blood Moon, Orb of Dreams, and Null Rod.  Even when I was running Maindeck Pyrostatic Pillars I wouldn't clasify it as anti-will - just anti-storm.

Anti-Will isn't necessarily anti-graveyard. It typically involves playing cards that attack manabases and are backed by certain disruption spells (FoW, Duress, MMage, or the Stax lock pieces).

But all of those disruption spells are good against Magic: the Gathering cards.  Meddling Mage can prevent Smokestacks and Dread Returns just as well as it can stop Yawgmoth's Will.  Extirpate can stop Crucible, Welder, and Ichorid recursion just as well as it can tear out Dark Rituals.  Stax locks and Wastelands work just as well on Tundras and Savannah Lions as they do on Underground Seas and Moxen.  Fish, Stax, TMWA and other hate decks wouldn't survive now if they were geared only to fight against Yawgmoth's Will and Tendrils and they didn't stand a fighting chance against other strategies.  Their hate cards can't be dead against the majority of the format, which contains decks that strive to optimize Yawgmoth's Will and those that don't.

I played Withered Wretch in UB Fish until Extirpate came out and even though I played it with Yawgmoth's Will in mind and even though it did really well against Will, the deck it really shined against (as I learned later) was Stax.

I'm with ELD on this one too.  Hear!  Hear!

[Harlequin]

Anti-Will isn't necessarily anti-graveyard. It typically involves playing cards that attack manabases and are backed by certain disruption spells (FoW, Duress, MMage, or the Stax lock pieces).

That seems like a very broad definition of "Anti-Will."  That was my point... your re-labling "denial" decks to "Anti-Will" to serve your arguement that Will is the reason Gifts.dec, CS, and Long are so strong.  While that may be the case the arguement that the format is "Will" vrs "Denial" seems much more accurate.  And at that point why not just say its "Combo & Control/Combo" vrs "Denial"?  

Brainstorm and Gifts is not a strategy.

I thought one of the driving arguements of this debate was that Will is not a strategy either.  I know that's Steves arguement (and I acknowledge that you are -not- steve).


@ diopter  - that is an excelent summary, I completely agree with your analysis.

[dicemanx]

"Anti-Will" strategy won't just go away. The next best strategies will still lean on fast mana and bombs

True, but they won't be as fast, which means there won't be as much pressure on playing resource denial (aka anti-Will) strategies. For instance, aggro strategies will not have to cram CotV/Null Rod and disruption like FoW/Misd/Daze/Duress into every aggro iteration, because the actual aggro strategy can compete with the control strategy.

With these definitions, I would agree that the format is "Will vs. Anti-Will", but I would also argue that the mere banning of one card (Will) will not change this one whit. To have any chance of diversifying the metagame so that many non-fast-mana-and-bomb strategies or anti-strategies are viable, you would have to ban many, many cards

Anti-resource stategies are only critical if the strategy they are trying to stop is extremely fast and efficient, and uses a lot of flexible cards. No other strategy comes close, apart from Tendrils combo routes and WGD.

"Will" deck: A deck that uses fast mana to accelerate into the mid and endgame, to cast game-ending bombs

Nope. Will decks have been morphing into fast combo. The latest iteration of Gifts has a long game, but it is constructed to kill you within 3-4 turns, maybe earlier. It's goal is to function as a beatdown deck primarily, not control, although it can clearly perform the control role well.

That seems like a very broad definition of "Anti-Will."  That was my point... your re-labling "denial" decks to "Anti-Will" to serve your arguement that Will is the reason Gifts.dec, CS, and Long are so strong.  While that may be the case the arguement that the format is "Will" vrs "Denial" seems much more accurate.  And at that point why not just say its "Combo & Control/Combo" vrs "Denial"? 

Well, we need to determine such definitions so that we know what we're arguing about. I wonder, for instance, how people have been interpreting "anti-Will" up to this point. Are any of the definitions different from mine? It is much too difficult to keep on even footing with Will-based decks unless your strategy is as fast or faster (which pretty much limits it to WGD and Ichorid), or you focus on resource denial - mana denial being the central focus. Maindeck graveyard hate is almost out of the question except in small numbers, because it is too inflexible against decks that don't care too much about their graveyards.

[Harlequin]

Well, we need to determine such definitions so that we know what we're arguing about. I wonder, for instance, how people have been interpreting "anti-Will" up to this point. Are any of the definitions different from mine? It is much too difficult to keep on even footing with Will-based decks unless your strategy is as fast or faster (which pretty much limits it to WGD and Ichorid), or you focus on resource denial - mana denial being the central focus. Maindeck graveyard hate is almost out of the question except in small numbers, because it is too inflexible against decks that don't care too much about their graveyards.

And how is that a distorted meta-game.  It seems like a rather healthy selection of options for both the "Beat down" deck and the "control" deck.  With an arguement like that comming from the Will ruins the format camp ..... it basically just sounds like you suffer from a "grass is always greener" affliction.

I would say that a denial card can only be considered Anti-X if it actually does something to dirrectly effect X.  So for me, Will is based in the graveyard, and even more dirrectly based on a big graveyard.  So for a card to be anti-Will - it must be a graveyard sweeper like Tormods, Grunt, Leyline of the Void, etc.  So by extension of that idea a deck is "Anti-Will" if it has many cards that are anti-will cards.

Duress is a great example a card that you are classifying as anti-will that I do not.  In a vacume Duress does not do anything meaningful to stop will (unless you rip will out of thier hand) because whatever you pull is just going to the graveyard... where will can replay it.

[dicemanx]

You are confusing anti-Will strategies with anti-Will cards.

Duress is not a strategy.

Using a package of resource denial which consists of mana denial (CotV/Null Rod, Stifle, Wasteland/Strip + CoW, Sphere of Resistance) and stopping critical spells (FoW, Misd, Duress, Cabal Therapy, Leyline of the Void, Meddling Mage, Jotun Grunt, True Believer etc), backed by a decent clock is a strategy.

[madmanmike25]

Maindeck graveyard hate is almost out of the question except in small numbers, because it is too inflexible against decks that don't care too much about their graveyards.

So....you mean the current meta is DIVERSE and not just Will/Anti-Will decks.  That kinda takes a bit away from your whole 'ban Will' argument.  There are other decks that can just use counterspells for Will/any card and not need graveyard hate.

I think those who have said to keep Will unbanned and keep Vintage what it truly is (a broken, fast paced format), have done an excellent job in presenting why someone who feels that Yawg's Will should be banned because it is unfun/whatever reason should probably play Legacy.  I bet ELD is right and that it is fun, but chances are it's too slow for me.

And no, Dicemanx, if Will was banned I *would* not eventually return to the format.  I *would* be concerned with what card certain people also thought was unfun/unfair and what would be next on the banning list(Black Lotus? Demonic Tutor?).  Do those who think Yawgmoth's Will was a mistake think that Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall was not a mistake as well?  When do they get banned?  I would sooner make up my own B/R lists than play Crippled Vintage.

[GUnit]

Ancestral recall distorts things quite a bit itself. Both the "Will" and "Anti-will" decks use it and actively seek to tutor and resolve it as soon as possible- an action which has a strong correlation with victory. Unlike Will it doesn't even require mana development, you can just play it. Many tournament reports, particularly those written by the pilots of drain decks, focus much attention around the battles over resolving/denying recall in describing the outcome of the game.

I honestly believe that will requires too much mana and has too much hate to be banned. If action should be taken it should be through printing of cards like Extirpate, not through power-level banning.

One last thing I'd like to add is that, at very least in the GTA metagame that I've grown accustomed to, the average skill/experience level of Will players (Gifts in particular, I've seen a few bad CS players) seems to be much higher than that of the antiwill (fish, mostly) players. I can think of notable exceptions, as I'm sure other players can from my area, but then consider the performance records of those exceptions. Lam (running birdsh*t), for instance, has top 8'd every tournament I've ever seen him in, with the exception of one in mississauga. Rich, running landstill, performs just as consistently.

I don't think yawgmoth's will is a detriment to the format. The format seems interesting and diverse to me. Ironically, I believe the volume of information about vintage which is available over the internet actually causes the format to stagnate more than particular cards themselves.
 

[forests failed you]

Well, the good news for those in favor of keeping Yawgmoth's Will as a part of the Vintage format is that there is really no reason to believe that it would ever actually become banned.  The drama in the forums, the debates, and the analysis of data doesn't change the fact that other than dexterity cards and ante cards no other card is currently banned.

One can debate away about whether or not it would be 'good' or 'bad' for the format if Will were banned.  But all evidence points to it staying around forever and ever.
1. Banning cards in Vintage is critical to maintaining Magic: the Gathering as a collectable investment over time.
2. We have no reason to believe that Wizards or the DCI is EVEN considering banning it.
3. It is debatable whether or not Yawgmoth's Will even requires enough distortion in the metagame that it would need banning.
4. Wizards just recently printed Foil Yawgmoth's Will as a judge foil.  Why would they bother to print a card that nobody is allowed to play with?

If you are one of the ones who really wants Yawgmoth's Will to be banned, I wouldn't hold my breath.  I am fairly certain that it is going to be around in Vintage for a very long time.

[brianpk80]

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.

While it's true that losing to mana screw is anything but fun, my understanding of Wizards/DCI's approach to Magic was that mana screw was an intrinsic and important part of the game and that they have no sincere interest in abating its effect.  With regard to Brainstorm, it's the single unrestricted card that makes the putative "unfun" decks operate with enough reliability and consistency that top players gravitate towards them. 

It might be hard to imagine an environment without 4 Brainstorms being the starting point for every single popular deck outside of TMWA, Ichorid, Stax, Dragon, and some Fish variants, just as losing 4 Strip Mines was a bit of a shocker in 1997.  But I think the strongest argument here for restricting it would be that without Brainstorm, players would have to sacrifice some of their raw speed in order to compensate for the lack of consistency in the absence of 4 Brainstorms.  Hence, addressing inconsistency and the chance of mana screw would require a bit more ingenuity on the part of players beyond "oh that's simple, just run 4 Brainstorm."  Accordingly, we'd see a slight decrease in combo or combo-control velocity & reliability as they find less efficient ways to ensure the consistency that Brainstorm currently just hands them on a silver plate.  Given that there is very strong support here for "not decimating combo or control, but just slowing them down a turn or two" I think zeroing in on Brainstorm is a worthwhile avenue.  Note that restricting Brainstorm helps contain Oath of Druids decks which would likely see a windfall of successes in a post-Will environment.     

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.

Again, I'm not sure about that based on some articles I've read by their staff on the importance of mana screw. 

-BPK

[Smmenen]

To be absolutely clear:

I am agnostic as to whether Yawg Will should be banned right now.

I DO, however, believe that Yawg Will should absolutely be banned if ever Gifts or Grim Tutor would be restricted.   It is insane to restrict other cards on account of Yawgmoth's Will being a problem.   Grim Tutor is an objectively mediocre card.  Putting it on the restricted list because of its insane synergy with one card is silly.  Gifts Ungiven is not a viable engine without Will.   

[Akuma]

I DO, however, believe that Yawg Will should absolutely be banned if ever Gifts or Grim Tutor would be restricted.   It is insane to restrict other cards on account of Yawgmoth's Will being a problem.   Grim Tutor is an objectively mediocre card.  Putting it on the restricted list because of its insane synergy with one card is silly.  Gifts Ungiven is not a viable engine without Will.

This arguement doesn't quite pan out. Crap Rotation is garbage, but it's restricted. There are quite a few cards on the restricted list for this very reason, cards that aren't necessarily all that great.

Nothing needs to be restricted or banned, if anything we could use a few unrestrictions.

[Smmenen]

I DO, however, believe that Yawg Will should absolutely be banned if ever Gifts or Grim Tutor would be restricted.   It is insane to restrict other cards on account of Yawgmoth's Will being a problem.   Grim Tutor is an objectively mediocre card.  Putting it on the restricted list because of its insane synergy with one card is silly.  Gifts Ungiven is not a viable engine without Will.

This arguement doesn't quite pan out. Crap Rotation is garbage, but it's restricted. There are quite a few cards on the restricted list for this very reason, cards that aren't necessarily all that great.

Wow - I strongly disagree.   Crop Rotation is utterly nuts imo.   I played it in my Stax decks since 2004.  Find Shop, Academy, Bazaar, Strip mine and now cards like Pendrell Vale and cards like that.   Finding Strip Mine for 1 green at Instant speed is ridiculous.  I played it in my Ichorid list last year for turn one Bazaar.    I also played it in Death Long.   Crop Rotation is a great card.   

Nothing needs to be restricted or banned, if anything we could use a few unrestrictions.

I agree.    My point is that IF anything were to be restricted, it is crazy to restrict more cards on account of Will.    Treating the symptoms doesn't make sense if you can kill the disease. 

[Moxlotus]

I agree.    My point is that IF anything were to be restricted, it is crazy to restrict more cards on account of Will.    Treating the symptoms doesn't make sense if you can kill the disease. 

Is Will the disease, or is it Lotus?

[Smmenen]

I agree.    My point is that IF anything were to be restricted, it is crazy to restrict more cards on account of Will.    Treating the symptoms doesn't make sense if you can kill the disease. 

Is Will the disease, or is it Lotus?

What about Scryb Sprites?   

I'm not quite sure where that is coming from.   There are only two cards that are legitimately under debate for restriction: Grim Tutor and Gifts Ungiven.  Both cards are specifically used to tutor up Yawgmoth's Will as their primary strategic purpose.    That has no more to do with Lotus than Scryb Sprites. 

[nataz]

I'd argue that its the So-Lo-Moxen + crypt that enable Will, Gifts, and any number of degenerate plays. They as a whole are the "Necro", everything else is just a scapegoat. They also happen to "be" Type I in many peoples minds (however silly that is), and no one will ever suggest banning them for power reasons. .: arguments like this will always crop up, will or no will, because something will abuse fast mana always.

By the way, I think this is a far better way to describe vintage in a binary sense. Will v. Anti-will makes no sense what so ever, and is a terrible terrible way to base your argument. It's a weak and flimsy architecture that undermines everything else that is said on top of it.

[Akuma]

Wow - I strongly disagree.   Crop Rotation is utterly nuts imo.   I played it in my Stax decks since 2004.  Find Shop, Academy, Bazaar, Strip mine and now cards like Pendrell Vale and cards like that.   Finding Strip Mine for 1 green at Instant speed is ridiculous.  I played it in my Ichorid list last year for turn one Bazaar.    I also played it in Death Long.   Crop Rotation is a great card.

You clearly misunderstood my point. You wrote:

"Grim Tutor is an objectively mediocre card. Putting it on the restricted list because of its insane synergy with one card is silly."

Let's just replace a couple of words in that statement:

"CRAP ROTATION is an objectively mediocre card.  Putting it on the restricted list because of its insane synergy with ONE OF THESE TWO LANDS is silly."

I'd argue that its the So-Lo-Moxen + crypt that enable Will, Gifts, and any number of degenerate plays. They as a whole are the "Necro", everything else is just a scapegoat. They also happen to "be" Type I in many peoples minds (however silly that is), and no one will ever suggest banning them for power reasons. .: arguments like this will always crop up, will or no will, because something will abuse fast mana always.

This post is spot on. These are the problem, they are the Necro...

[Smmenen]

Wow - I strongly disagree.   Crop Rotation is utterly nuts imo.   I played it in my Stax decks since 2004.  Find Shop, Academy, Bazaar, Strip mine and now cards like Pendrell Vale and cards like that.   Finding Strip Mine for 1 green at Instant speed is ridiculous.  I played it in my Ichorid list last year for turn one Bazaar.    I also played it in Death Long.   Crop Rotation is a great card.

You clearly misunderstood my point.

Actually, on the contrary.    I understood your point perfectly.   But, apparently, my command of the restricted list is greater than yours.   

To truly illustrate your point, you should have selected a card that actually WAS on the restricted list solely because of a restricted cards - like Frantic Search, not Crop Rotation.   Let me address this first before responding to your broader point.

You wrote:

"It is insane to restrict other cards on account of Yawgmoth's Will being a problem.   Grim Tutor is an objectively mediocre card.  Putting it on the restricted list because of its insane synergy with one card is silly."

Let's just replace a couple of words in that statement:

"It is insane to restrict other cards on account of STRIP MINE AND TOLARIAN ACADEMY being a problem.   CRAP ROTATION is an objectively mediocre card.  Putting it on the restricted list because of its insane synergy with ONE OF THESE TWO LANDS card is silly."

Except that that doesn't fit.

I didn't misunderstand your point - you just don't understand that your example is hugely flawed. 

Crop Rotation is NOT on the restricted list solely because of Strip Mine and Academy.   Unrestricted Crop Rotation would be problematic with Mishra's WOrkshop alone, let alone the obvious fact that it would be broken with Bazaar.

Crop Rotation is not an objecively mediocre card.   It is a 1cc TUTOR - which almost all good tutors are restricted for a reason.   And unlike most tutors, this one is even more busted because it puts the offending card directly into play.   

I am honestly shocked that you wrote that I didn't understand your point.

I want you to answer this:
In all sincerity and in truth: Did you really think that I misunderstood what you were saying or did you just say that for rhetorical effect?  If the latter, leave that at home.   I'm pretty sure that I'm quite capable of understanding anything you write.   

Also, I found it curious that you used the word "Clearly" in describing your view that I "misunderstood your point."   Even assuming that you genuinely thought that I was misunderstanding your point, was it "clearly" the case?  Leave the hyperbole at home.   *Sigh*

The contention  you are asserting is this: cards in the past have been restricted because of other restricted cards.   We let some cards earn restriction because of other restricted cards because we don't suspect that more cards will require restriction on account of those cards.  It's hard to imagine Academy causing another restriction.   Yawgmoth's Will is a card where it is hard to imagine it NOT causing other restrictions.   Your point is noted, but firmly rejected as irrellevant to the case at hand. 

I'd argue that its the So-Lo-Moxen + crypt that enable Will, Gifts, and any number of degenerate plays. They as a whole are the "Necro", everything else is just a scapegoat. They also happen to "be" Type I in many peoples minds (however silly that is), and no one will ever suggest banning them for power reasons. .: arguments like this will always crop up, will or no will, because something will abuse fast mana always.

This post is spot on. These are the problem, they are the Necro...

This post is spot on?   Nataz conflates different arguments that I've made as badly as Lou Dobbs conflates the various constitutive elements of the immigration debate.  It's a jumbled mess of rambling.   

 

[diopter]

To be absolutely clear:

I am agnostic as to whether Yawg Will should be banned right now.

I DO, however, believe that Yawg Will should absolutely be banned if ever Gifts or Grim Tutor would be restricted.   It is insane to restrict other cards on account of Yawgmoth's Will being a problem.   Grim Tutor is an objectively mediocre card.  Putting it on the restricted list because of its insane synergy with one card is silly.  Gifts Ungiven is not a viable engine without Will.   

Steve, I understood from your Ban-Will article that you would favor banning Will over restricting another card because of it, because banning Will would allow you to play more cards - rather than being able to play with 1 Gifts and 1 Will, for example, you'd be able to play 4 Gifts.

However, I think that argument is flawed. As you say yourself, Grim Tutor is objectively mediocre, and Gifts Ungiven is not a viable engine without Will. If you ban Will, you effectively remove Gifts Ungiven and Grim Tutor from the realm of playability. Essentially, you go from being able to playing those 9 cards (Will, Gifts, and Grim Tutor) to getting play zero of those cards.

[Smmenen]

To be absolutely clear:

I am agnostic as to whether Yawg Will should be banned right now.

I DO, however, believe that Yawg Will should absolutely be banned if ever Gifts or Grim Tutor would be restricted.   It is insane to restrict other cards on account of Yawgmoth's Will being a problem.   Grim Tutor is an objectively mediocre card.  Putting it on the restricted list because of its insane synergy with one card is silly.  Gifts Ungiven is not a viable engine without Will.   

Steve, I understood from your Ban-Will article that you would favor banning Will over restricting another card because of it, because banning Will would allow you to play more cards - rather than being able to play with 1 Gifts and 1 Will, for example, you'd be able to play 4 Gifts.

However, I think that argument is flawed. As you say yourself, Grim Tutor is objectively mediocre, and Gifts Ungiven is not a viable engine without Will. If you ban Will, you effectively remove Gifts Ungiven and Grim Tutor from the realm of playability. Essentially, you go from being able to playing those 9 cards (Will, Gifts, and Grim Tutor) to getting play zero of those cards.

You are redefining the meaning of "playable" in this context from something that exists within the rules to something that is viable in competitive play.

To illustrate why your attack is logically flawed, one only needs to examine a simple thought experiment:

What bannings and restrictions would maximize the number of "playable" cards in Vintage in the sense in which you are speaking?   That then, would be the goal of the restricted list.   In my view, if you restricted about 100 cards you would dramatically increase the Vintage card pool (which is what - 500 or so cards?), possibly doubling it.