Bye Bye Brainstorm

[JACO]

Rich, if this was the case, and evidence derived from an existing metagame was largely used to support an argument of restriction, then how could you argue for the restriction of Flash and Crucible of Worlds in the past? Your arguments were more theoretical, and less based on practical results in actual Vintage tournaments played around the globe. There was never any demonstrated dominance of either card over the course of an extended time period to support your argument for the restriction of those.

My arguments for Flash were based upon data collected throughout a year of events in which Flash was prevalent. The data was not based on theoretical opinion about what Flash could possibly do, but rather about what Flash actually did. I'm not really sure how you can compare these two scenarios:

(A) A deck that is established wreaks havoc over the course of a year and carries proven potential to kill their opponent on the first turn with startling consistency. A call is made for its restriction at the next B&R announcement, based largely on facts pertaining to the player impact and functionality of the deck.

(B) A B&R announcement is made. Without any data about any deck, and without any deck even existing in the current metagame, a call is made to change the B&R list based on theory about what the metagame might consist of.

I examine all tournament results I can find, and I have never seen Flash demonstrate any kind of consistent domination of tournament play. Perhaps you can show me these results that would lead to a legitimate reason for it's restriction, based on the data you mentioned you collected.

In your own statement (A) above, you mention making a call for restriction based largely on the "functionality of the deck." To me, the potential functionality of a deck is not in any way a substitute for tournament performance.

[OwenTheEnchanter]

That is a pretty valid point, with the loss of Merchant Scroll and Brainstorm, the Flash deck would be marginal at best.

The one time I did play Flash in a tournament I felt it was very powerful, but games were won and lost on your Brainstorms and a smart opponent would duress/counter them immediately.

[Shock Wave]

I examine all tournament results I can find, and I have never seen Flash demonstrate any kind of consistent domination of tournament play. Perhaps you can show me these results that would lead to a legitimate reason for it's restriction, based on the data you mentioned you collected.

I think you're misunderstanding my position about why Flash deserved restriction. Again, it was never based upon format dominance, but a unique combination of factors which made it very bad for the format. I wrote an article clearly illustrating my position and repeating my argument is a segment of my life I'd rather not waste. I have no intention of providing you with the data you're seeking, since I do not believe it is a necessary criteria for restriction and is only one of many factors to consider when making a decision for or against B&R changes. Apparently, you seem to think that "dominance" is the only form of legitimate data that can lead to restriction, and if this is the case, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

In your own statement (A) above, you mention making a call for restriction based largely on the "functionality of the deck." To me, the potential functionality of a deck is not in any way a substitute for tournament performance.

Well thankfully (or regretfully, depending on your position), the DCI disagreed with you. It was their feeling that enough evidence and reason existed to make a restriction, so the fact that you choose to ignore the data they've considered does not make it any less legitimate. Back to your initial point of contention, regardless of whether you agree with Flash's restriction or not, you cannot deny that the restriction was made after a metagame and semblance of an environment formed and allowed the opportunity for the illustration of problems in the format. You may not agree that problems existed, but you cannot disagree that the information provided by the metagame was sufficient enough to make a call for or against Flash. Now, since we have no metagame or information, it does not make any sense to try to predict the future. If changes are to be sought after, they are going to have to be backed by some sort of evidence, none of which presently exists. If you mean to argue that there is current evidence to suggest that the B&R changes are wrong, I'd be open to listening to whatever evidence this may be.

[JACO]

I examine all tournament results I can find, and I have never seen Flash demonstrate any kind of consistent domination of tournament play. Perhaps you can show me these results that would lead to a legitimate reason for it's restriction, based on the data you mentioned you collected.

I think you're misunderstanding my position about why Flash deserved restriction. Again, it was never based upon format dominance, but a unique combination of factors which made it very bad for the format. I wrote an article clearly illustrating my position and repeating my argument is a segment of my life I'd rather not waste. I have no intention of providing you with the data you're seeking, since I do not believe it is a necessary criteria for restriction and is only one of many factors to consider when making a decision for or against B&R changes. Apparently, you seem to think that "dominance" is the only form of legitimate data that can lead to restriction, and if this is the case, let's just agree to disagree and move on.

I don't think I misunderstood. I read your article and thought it was well written, even though I disagreed with the the content. I believe in objective measurements when restricting cards, and I don't believe your "unique combination of factors" provide a compelling and objective reason for restriction.

The main crux of your argument seems to be interactivity, and that Flash limits interactivity because of the potential speed of the combo. To me, it is not any different than a deck like Charbelcher, which seeks to use it's leverage (speed) to attempt to win the match. In your eyes, it seems that speed is an attempt to limit interactivity, while in mine it is using the advantages of the deck's design. Another observer could say that your own creation (Landstill) seeks to limit interactivity by discouraging the opponent from playing spells, or risk losing to an avalanche of card advantage created by the card Standstill. Should we restrict that card too? I don't think so, because there is no prolonged period of tournament dominance of the card, and no objective reason to restrict it, just as there has been no historical data to support the contention that Flash has demonstrated any tournament dominance for an extended period of time.

Along this same line of arguments, there is no reason to restrict Brainstorm, as it simply does not follow any of the previous grounds for restriction, which I think is the point of this thread. All of this, and more, will be addressed further in depth by my nexst article at the end of this week. ; )

[fromm2020]

Good Lord: did I say that blue decks suck?

Just because you didn't say it doesn't mean that it isn't the case.  I'm advancing the argument that the new restrictions will serve to severely weaken blue, and leave other decks intact.  In a format where blue has a tenuous hold (remember the calls to restrict Bazaar, Shop, and Ritual?), weakening blue will reduce the number of Force of Wills out there.

See below.

Brainstorm, as my entire post pointed out, wasn't format-balancing, because it raised one color above the rest.  Force doesn't raise one color above the rest (i.e., make that color strictly better than the rest) - what it does is maintain an equilibrium between archetypes (i.e., combo and the rest of the world).

Brainstorm is just one component of blue, just as Dark Ritual is just one component of black combo and Sphere of Resistance is one component of Stax.    There are a number of cards that can be hit to weaken blue (chief of which are Scroll).

Force of Will does raise blue above the rest, because it allows blue to stop combo decks.  No other color can make this claim.  But that's just Vintage.  Unless we give every color effects comparable to Force of Will, Duress, and Sphere of Resistance, certain colors will always stand out.

However, if you understand that FoW is the glue that holds Vintage together, then can you not understand that hurting blue weakens FoW and thus weakens the glue that holds together the format?

Hurting blue (Brainstorm) also weakened all of the things that FoW holds in check: combo decks.  So if combo decks and the things that countered combo decks are both weakened, then archetypical parity is maintained while color parity is attained (pardon the pedantry).  It's a balance.

Once people play a little while they will realize that it was a good choice on part of the DCI but I think the more pressing matter at hand is the fact that while slowing down Blue control/Combo based decks they did not slow down Ichorid, stax, and belcher. Blue will still be greatly playable but without a restriction of Bazaar, Serum Powder, or Shop/Sphere blue will be strictly slower than these decks and much less likely to have the FoW they will need to live to the later turns. I like that Brainstorm is gone, now with that Gifts and scroll restricted we might actually get back to the good ol' draw like Thirst and Intuition/AK, but I fear that the format will drown if those 3 decks(Ichorid, Stax, and Belcher) arent brought down to the pace of the rest of the format.

[Shock Wave]

I believe in objective measurements when restricting cards, and I don't believe your "unique combination of factors" provide a compelling and objective reason for restriction.

The main crux of your argument seems to be interactivity, and that Flash limits interactivity because of the potential speed of the combo. To me, it is not any different than a deck like Charbelcher, which seeks to use it's leverage (speed) to attempt to win the match. In your eyes, it seems that speed is an attempt to limit interactivity, while in mine it is using the advantages of the deck's design. Another observer could say that your own creation (Landstill) seeks to limit interactivity by discouraging the opponent from playing spells, or risk losing to an avalanche of card advantage created by the card Standstill. Should we restrict that card too? I don't think so, because there is no prolonged period of tournament dominance of the card, and no objective reason to restrict it, just as there has been no historical data to support the contention that Flash has demonstrated any tournament dominance for an extended period of time.

Look Jason, that's awesome that you disagree and all, but I'm really not interested in engaging in a discussion about why I feel Flash deserved restriction. It would serve no purpose to me seeing as how my objective has been met. To be honest, I'm only interested in discussing criteria for restriction when I think there is a problem for the format, and since I currently don't see any, it's a discussion I'd rather not spend my time on.

I feel your equation of how Flash attacks interactivity to the function of Landstill logically tragic, but I suppose this is because you have a higher tolerance for early game-ending plays than I do. Again, this is entirely irrelevant to your initial objection. Let's try to get back to that:

Rich, if this was the case, and evidence derived from an existing metagame was largely used to support an argument of restriction, then how could you argue for the restriction of Flash and Crucible of Worlds in the past?

I will submit the following answer to you, again, and hopefully it will address your question:

...regardless of whether you agree with Flash's restriction or not, you cannot deny that the restriction was made after a metagame and semblance of an environment formed and allowed the opportunity for the illustration of problems in the format. You may not agree that problems existed, but you cannot disagree that the information provided by the metagame was sufficient enough to make a call for or against Flash. Now, since we have no metagame or information, it does not make any sense to try to predict the future. If changes are to be sought after, they are going to have to be backed by some sort of evidence, none of which presently exists. If you mean to argue that there is current evidence to suggest that the B&R changes are wrong, I'd be open to listening to whatever evidence this may be.

Along this same line of arguments, there is no reason to restrict Brainstorm, as it simply does not follow any of the previous grounds for restriction, which I think is the point of this thread. All of this, and more, will be addressed further in depth by my nexst article at the end of this week. ; )

That's great. I think that if you really want to make an impact, an article and submission to the DCI is the way to go. I think your timing is very premature, since even if Brainstorm does not match current restriction criteria, that does not mean that it was not a good decision, and more importantly, that it does not create new considerations and criteria for restriction. It may end up having a very positive impact on the format as a whole.

My point was that sounding off in threads on TMD about how you hate the changes probably isn't going to achieve much, since it is very unlikely that the DCI will undo any changes in the near future. However, if it is your intent to pursue the issue at such an early stage in the new metagame, all the best to you in that endeavour.

[Zherbus]

Locked. We need to consolidate the B/R Topics.