[Article] Latest Developments by Devin Low

[Shock Wave]

I found a neat summary of the explanations at the SCG forums:

The DCI is continually looking to do what is best for the health of the Our Money Vintage format.

The combination of Flash with only a few cards, leads to too many turn zero and turn one kills. The speed and ease of these Flash combos led to Flash being added to the Restricted list. How ever we decided to print a combo that requires the same number of cards, and less deck space dedicated to it, becasue that way you need to all go out and buy packs to find your 4 painters servant.

Merchant Scroll, Brainstorm and Ponder have all been added to the restricted list. Merchant Scroll tutors for the most powerful cards. Likewise the access power of Brainstorm and Ponder make finding the powerful restricted cards in a deck too easy. you should have to pay at least 15$ a card to have that kind of effect, and the fact that they were common makes us too little.

Gush returns to the restricted list. Last year, we removed four cards from the Vintage Restricted list. Of those cards only Gush has proven problematic as a free card-drawing instant. This is actually the only thing we did with no evil motives, and proves that we do have a soul. Dont worry we are working on that, and soon youll see 2 new cards that do the same thing printed only as super bizaroo mythic crunchy rares, 1 per case.

mike turian

Money Money Money Money Money Moneeeeeeeeey!

Under this logic, what other prevalent Vintage commons can we expect to bite the dust?

[Kowal]

I've sent my email to Mr Turian as well.  However, I would like to echo the sentiments above about being polite about it.  A swarm of hate mail won't accomplish anything, but some well articulated concerns communicate our problems much better.

[bluemage55]

Under this logic, what other prevalent Vintage commons can we expect to bite the dust?

*sarcasm* 
Duress: Clearly this card is way too powerful now that Brainstorm is restricted.  Thoughtseize is similar, but it costs 2 life, so it's okay (it's just a coincidence that it's a recent rare)

Tormod's Crypt: Cards that shut down entire strategies are just unfun.  Leyline has a similar effect, but is balanced by only really working if you get it in your starting hand (again, also a just a coincidence).

Dark Ritual: This one I could actually see being legimiately restricted alongside Workshop and Bazaar if the format warps enough as a result of Blue's castration.

[arctic79]

I was really hoping there would be insight into the DCI's policies concerning the B&R rulings.
I think a better way then writing letters to protest the current shakeup, would be for all those going to the Vintage Champs to play with the most absurd decks that can't win.

Here is a possible deck
56X Forest
4x Wooden Sphere

At the very least I would hope the Winner of Champs to decline their prize or rip it up during the presentation.

WOODEN SPHERE FOR THE WIN BABY!!!

[Razvan]

Mr. Turian,

I for one would like to thank you for your well thought-out and comprehensive explanation for the recent Vintage restrictions.  Oftentimes, members of the Vintage community such as myself have too little faith in Wizards consideration for the format, but the staggering scope and breadth of your article clearly display not only your mastery of the format's intricacies, but also the dedication you have to making sure the player community is well-informed regarding wizards policy. 

I was so pleased to find that rather than the trite summation that many expected, you graced us with the new benchmark in clear and open communication and gave us true insight into all the various thought processes that went on in making this momentous format change.  I can now say with confidence that the restrictions were completely justified - how can anyone think differently after the persuasive prose that you crafted? 

I can only imagine how long it took to create such a masterpiece, the lonely hours you must have spent lovingly reworking every word and phrase to arrive at perfection.  In the past, various critics have chosen to extol previously-considered epics such as Tolstoy's War and Peace, Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities, or Nabokov's Lolita.  I feel so privileged to be alive today when a new hallmark classic has surpassed these gems to set the new standard in literary magnificence.

Thank you, thank you, thank you,

Thorme

i have always loved your sarcasm, thorme. this one is top-notch.

[Mr. Nightmare]

Mr. Turian,

As I've been reading around on Magic forums this morning, I feel it's safe to say you've been bombarded with emails today, with varying degrees of feelings - mostly centered on frustration and anger.  I'm sure at this point, you've had time to read some of them, and I'm sure your day has been going pretty terribly because of it.  For that, I apologize on behalf of the Eternal Magic community.

While I can't say I'm particularly pleased with the way the Vintage Restrictions have been handled this quarter, I also can't pretend these changes weren't warranted.  Flash, Gush, and Merchant Scroll were all on the level of power that is traditionally relegated to the Restricted list, and it wasn't a surprise to me or anyone else who pays attention to Vintage that these were restricted.  Brainstorm, while slightly surprising to some, has been on my personal radar screen for some time, and was bound to eventually become too strong in a format so full of broken cards.  As its power is inherently a function of the relative power of the other cards in your deck, its no great shock that a threshold would be reached where putting three new cards in your hand at instant speed would be too good in the format.  Ponder, as I'm sure you're aware, is the big surprise this quarter, as no one had seen it coming.  I would hope the intent was to limit the amount of options Blue has to replace Brainstorm with a similar replacement - preventing those decks which would use Brainstorm from removing three Brainstorm and adding three to four Ponder.

Understand, this is pure conjecture on my part, because the explanation of these changes was noticeably absent from the place it normally appears after a change is made to the B&R list.  Compare the blurb included in Devin's article today to an article like Aaron Forsythe's "Gone in a Flash" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af173), and it's easy to see that there has been an oversight on someone's part.  I'm not certain who to point the finger toward, which unfortunately means I'm left pointing at who wrote what small explanation there was.

This was the largest, most significant change to the Vintage list in almost ten years.  The entire metagame has been effected, whether it be decks which utilized the now restricted cards, or decks which no longer need to be concerned about those decks.  The format is in upheaval, and there's no rationalization from the people in charge to give us any real insight into the theory behind these changes.  From a group which has, until very recently, followed a policy of "less is more" when it comes to both these type of changes, as well as this format on the whole; and has a track record of transparency on these decisions when they are made, it's confusing to try and sort out this episode.

In my eyes, this represents a continuing trend at Wizards that frankly scares and upsets me - it seems there isn't any significant focus on the eternal formats at all.  While I understand that from a business perspective, limited and constructed formats are the "bread and butter," and as such they require the bulk of attention from the company, it blows my mind that there isn't even one person - not one, in a company that employs over 300 people - that could act as liaison to these formats.  Having even a single person that focuses on the Legacy and Vintage metagames, on the effect new sets may have on them, and potentially on any issues that arise with their respective banned and restricted lists, would be simple, effective, and a welcomed improvement to the way these changes are handled today.  It would provide a point of contact for those of us with concerns, and no other way to bring them forward.  I'm honestly amazed that this position doesn't exist already.  Hell, if you're looking for the right person or people, look over at StarCityGames.com, and pick a writer.  I'm sure Steve Menedian and/or any of the writers on Unlocking Legacy would jump a the chance.  Consider this option - it's a surefire way to please a significant portion of your player base that truly feels like their best interests are not being taken to heart.

Sorry to be another in the long list of concerned emails.  We're frustrated because we care.

Sincerely,

Adam Barnello
"Mr. Nightmare"
www.mtgthesource.com

[Wagner]

Well said Mr. Nightmare! Classy and respecfull while even offering solutions.

[Zherbus]

A lot of really well-thought out replies and letters. I'll do my own, but I encourage everyone to keep the truck rolling.

One thing everyone in Vintage agrees on across many sites - this "explanation" was very lacking.

[Nehptis]

Add one more to the count for those who felt insulted by the DCI explaination or lack of one.  The restrictions don't bother me.  But, lack of reasoning does.

Also, if that quote on the SCG forums is really from Turian then Vintage and/or MTG is on a very bad path.   Seriously, Mike (or Fake Mike)? restriction worthy because the effect was on a common and not on a $15 rare.  I hope I read that wrong.  Does he really believe we are going to get excited about cool effects because they will be on "super bizaroo mythic crunchy rares, 1 per case"?  If I need the card, I'll get the card or Proxy it up.  Does he realize his audience has decks worth thousands of $$$ and play in a proxy format?

DCI/WOTC really handled this whole thing poorly. Final thought: am I supposed to feel better about the whole thing because they are dangling some new Ruby art in front of me?...please.

[Mr. Nightmare]

Add one more to the count for those who felt insulted by the DCI explaination or lack of one.  The restrictions don't bother me.  But, lack of reasoning does.

Also, if that quote on the SCG forums is really from Turian then Vintage and/or MTG is on a very bad path.   Seriously, Mike (or Fake Mike)? restriction worthy because the effect was on a common and not on a $15 rare.  I hope I read that wrong.  Does he really believe we are going to get excited about cool effects because they will be on "super bizaroo mythic crunchy rares, 1 per case"?  If I need the card, I'll get the card or Proxy it up.  Does he realize his audience has decks worth thousands of $$$ and play in a proxy format?

DCI/WOTC really handled this whole thing poorly. Final thought: am I supposed to feel better about the whole thing because they are dangling some new Ruby art in front of me?...please.

It was a joke.  No one ever said Turian actually wrote that.

[ELD]

Hello Mr Turian,

I am writing to explain my concerns over the DCI's latest actions.  I am a member of the Vintage community, as a player and tournament organizer.  I do everything I can to support Vintage, from creating the Facebook Group New England Vintage, to running small Vintage events every Monday nights an hour from my home, to risking monetary loss guarantying prizes at my monthly ELD Mox Events.  I have traveled to Europe twice, with the single purpose of winning large Vintage events.  I have dedicated significant time to Vintage since Urza's Block.  I care a great deal about this format, the community that surrounds it, and the future of Vintage.

I feel the explanation given for these B/R changes was totally unacceptable.  Sweeping, precedent breaking change to a format deserves more than a simple statement.  I felt the DCI had previously acted in a way that was clear and logical.  This batch of restrictions was certainly not presented in such a light.

The list should be as sparse as possible, with action only towards specific types of cards, and only taken if things have become entirely degenerate.  This last part is most troubling, as we were far from degenerate.  Last summer, I coined the term "Golden Age of Vintage" to describe the unprecedented health of the format.  The variety in both the field, and Top 8's was tremendous.  The key factor to winning was skill, with the best players consistently doing well.  Everything was in place to encourage innovation, growth and community.  New tech like Mystic Remora based decks were not only being developed, but winning events.  I had never seen a format so full of possibilities.  That said, looking at cards that could go on the list was certainly reasonable.

The banned/restricted list should be composed of only:

1) Undercosted Fast mana
2) Undercosted Tutors
3) Undercosted Degenerate Card Advantage

Any card added to this list should have an explanation as to how it meets this criteria.  If the DCI is departing from this standard, the new policy should be explained.  As we stand now, I have no concept of what cards may be joining the B/R list in the future.

There is a great deal of talk about the community managing it's own B/R list.  I will not support that move, as the game is global.  I enjoy traveling the world looking for the best competition, and the largest prizes.  What we need from the DCI, is adherence to a clearly defined policy, with a clearly defined purpose.

Merchant Scroll was the only card that needed to be added to the list.  It is an undercosted Tutor.  It rivals Demonic Tutor in our current format.  It gives tremendous consistency to what would otherwise be fragile and situational designs.  It allows decks to run single card answers, and have tremendous access to them.  It takes decks built around cards like Flash or Gush, and turns them from situational to consistent.  It is exactly for this kind of card that we have the B/R list.

With Scroll gone, Gush would go from a linear combo chaining into a win, to a card advantage engine with a significant drawback.  Sometimes this drawback would be an advantage, but other times, it would be a massive tempo loss.  Gush would go from being the premier draw engine, to a rival of Thirst for Knowledge, Intuition, Bazaar and others.  If, after 3 months, it proved to dominate the Vintage format, it would not be unreasonable to restrict it on the principle of being both Undercosted Fast Mana, and Undercosted Degenerate Card Advantage.  A full explanation at the time would be necessary.

Flash would be crippled with Merchant Scroll restricted.  As it was, Flash had very difficult match ups in the format, and was not dominating.  If Flash somehow started to put up tremendous results, post Merchant Scroll, then it could be restricted on the back of Undercosted Fast Mana/Undercosted Tutor in the same way that Tinker is restricted.  The cards are quite similar, but since Flash 1) requires many dead cards 2) must use an extra card from hand - it is much more fragile.  In the case of Flash, restricting it is not so troubling, as the lack of decent explanation.

Brainstorm and Ponder meet none of the criteria for restriction.  They lend consistency to Control and Combo strategies, which must find ways to smooth out their draws.  Unlike Aggro, Combo and Control have many cards that are answers/situational.  These cards provided consistency, which allows the best players to most often win.  They allowed us to play lighter mana bases, which prevents mana screw.  In decks running heavier mana bases, they allow us to prevent mana flood.  The role these cards played will have to be filled by cards like Sensei's Divining Top, Thrist for Knowledge, Bazaar of Baghdad and others.  Their function must be retained, as Combo and Control cannot just draw random cards off the top and expect to compete with the already competitive field of Goblins, Tarmogoyfs, Dredge and Workshop powered Artifact Creatures.  Restricting Brainstorm and Ponder is restricting the Aces out of a Poker deck.  The Kings take their place.

Attacking the best cards in the format, without explanation, leaves us questioning where the DCI is headed with their new policy.  Cards like Top, Bazaar Thirst and Intuition will be used more now.  Do we need to be concerned about their potential restrictions?  Mana Drain, Mishra's Workshop and Dark Ritual provide huge boosts for decks that play them, are they in danger as well?

I ask that we receive a full explanation of this new direction, as well as cards that the DCI would consider restricting in the future.  I also ask that there be serious discussion about Brainstorm and Ponder coming off the list.  I feel if cards are going to be restricted, that a full article should be devoted to detailing the information that was used to make these very important decisions.  I, and the many members of the Vintage Community that I have spoken with, feel that the complete departure of previous policy with a minimal explanation is a slap in the face.  I trust that if the DCI is attempting to take care of Vintage, they will act in a way that proves it.

Peace,
Eric
ELD

[Tha Gunslinga]

I cannot believe they make the most drastic changes to vintage ever, then give us these cute little blurbs to "explain" it.  Brainstorm and Ponder filter cards, so they are restricted.  Gee, thanks.

This is really pitiful, and while I totally supported the majority of the restrictions, I can't understand how WotC expects us to respect them if they won't respect us enough to give us some sort of detailed rationale.  Did they actually LOOK and see what people were doing with Flash?  Turn ZERO kills?  What?

[CodeRedrum]

I too was dissapointed with wizard's explanation for the restrictions list posted on the 1st.  To truly make wizards know what the vintage community feels we should write emails like polynomial's to the wizard's staff, however, even if this is the biggest mistake wizards has ever made regarding restrictions and banning, it will not be changed until September when the new R&B lists are posted.  The fact that Flash was used to create a savage Turn one (NOT ZERO) kill with only two cards is indictive of the ingenuity of the vintage community.  So I say that after we all take thirty minutes and write a well thought out, expletiveless, constructive critique of the new restrictions we should begin to use our ingenuity to formulate decks that can combat for first place in August.  Now I know there are teams out there that have already begun this process and will likely keep their ideas under wraps, the rest of us who may not attend Nat's should be working together to create Ichorid wrecking machines that can compete in our favorite format.  I for one am trying to determine how Faeries can be used in Vintage, I think Spellstutter Sprite is an excellent counterspell that destroys Moxen, Lotus, and at least three of the restricted draw engines.  I admit that it is difficult to fathom an aggroish conjtrol deck based on a type 2 monster working in Vintage, but I am going to try!  What are you going to do to try to increase the number of competitive decks post June 1st's bomb?

[Troy_Costisick]

Turn ZERO kills?  What?

I'd like to see him produce a few tournament reports where this happened. 

-Troy

[Kowal]

I actually received a phone call this afternoon at work in reply to my email.  I spoke with Mr Turian for about fifteen minutes about the format, the restrictions, and any possibility of things down the road.  He's requested I not directly quote him, but as soon as I have the time (and I'm not at work) I plan on writing a "general gist" of what we're all missing.

[Harlequin]

In defense of the "Turn 0" thing, You could argue that you could easily lose a game to flash before you got your first turn.  Meaning you needed Turn 0 cards like Force of Will or Leyline of the void to answer the deck.  Does it technically "win on turn 0"? No - but if you don't get a turn, is there really a difference?

Again, just discailming this with - I don't support the restrictions, or the reasons that were given.  Just saying that picking appart the verbage used to make the few points they tried to make doesn't help anyone.

[tender]

This makes me really glad I got out of Magic a year ago.

"Hej, vintage! So glad you wackos enjoy playing this format we hate! We at the DCI love capriciously restricting your cards without explanation while watching the prices plummet! Keep playing those Bazaars and Workshops while you can! They might be too good in the near future, you know."

I would have been happy with just Merchant Scroll getting restricted. Gush is pretty ridiculous, too. However, it's frustrating that they destroyed Flash (a budget archetype) that brought some new faces into the game to enjoy the excitement.

This is what should have happened:

Announcement Date: June 1, 2008
Effective Date: June 20, 2008

Vintage

Yawgmoth's Will is banned
Merchant Scroll is restricted
Balance is unrestricted
Chrome Mox is unrestricted
Dream Halls is unrestricted
Fact or Fiction is unrestricted
Gifts Ungiven is unrestricted
Grim Monolith is unrestricted
Library of Alexandria is unrestricted
Mox Diamond is unrestricted

[Smmenen]

Eric, I agree with most of what you said, except this:

The banned/restricted list should be composed of only:

1) Undercosted Fast mana
2) Undercosted Tutors
3) Undercosted Degenerate Card Advantage

Quite simply, I gave up long ago trying to articulate a coherent and objective policy for restriction.  Any such measure fails, as does yours.

Here are two reasons why yours fail in particular:   

1) If those are the exclusive reasons to restrict, you could open the door to format dominance based upon a card that has none of those traits.  There are theoretically ways to dominate a format, truly dominate a format, using a deck that abuses none of those.   Since that is theoretically possible, that illustrates a logical gap in your criteria.   

2) Moreover, your criteria sweep too broadly.   Being an undercosted tutor or an undercosted fast mana accellerant should not, by itself, justify restriction.  Unrestricted mana accellerants right now produce more mana more efficiently than restricted ones.  Examples include Mishra's Workshop, Dark Ritual, Cabal Ritual all of which are more useful as mana accellerants by large margins than Mox Diamond, Grim Monolith, or Chrome Mox, all of which are restricted.    Another example:  Personal Tutor and Enlightened Tutor are restricted tutors.  Are they really better than Intuition or Grim Tutor?  Not hardly.   I also think that Grim Tutor is superior to Burning Wish.   If we were to apply your principle, all of those cards should be restricted. 

Restricting on principle does not a) explain why a card should be restricted by itself (hence is incomplete as a principle for application) and b) would lead to more restrictions than are necessary.   

My restricted list would be 40 cards, and it will be my article next week.  In terms of what we think should be restricted, I think we are probably in most agreement among people who are concerned about these restrictions.   I just wish you hadn't laid out those criteria. 

[feyd]

Free mana is what he meant.  Dark ritual and cabal ritual are cast from you hand for mana.  Mox diamond and Chrome mox cost zero from your hand and you do not actually even have to pay the additional cost once they come into play; You play a spell for zero mana.
Burning wish is cheaper than grim tutor and can be played in a deck that does not potentially require dark/cabal ritual to be played. 
Mishra's workshop being unrestricted is not dangerous.  Artifacts are easy targets for hate.  Few, if any, workshop decks boast turn one or two wins.
Personal tutor and enlightened tutor are on the list from an archaic decision to restrict them a while ago.  They will come off the list in due time.

The DCI has restricted/banned cards in a pretty steady manner.  They ban cards that are blatantly unfun for many or contain the words "ante".  Restricted cards are placed on the list because they circumvent conventional play and "break" the game badly.  Brainstorm is not a tutor per se, nor is it card advatage per se; ponder also is not a true tutor nor is it card advatage. 
Most of us knew that some combination of flash/gush/scroll had to go.  While breaking away from conventional thinking can be good I doubt the placement of ponder and brainstorm on the list is a good move.

[Vegeta2711]

I'll likely be mentioning how worthless this list of 'explanations' were in my next article just as a point of principle. :/

[ELD]

1) If those are the exclusive reasons to restrict, you could open the door to format dominance based upon a card that has none of those traits.  There are theoretically ways to dominate a format, truly dominate a format, using a deck that abuses none of those.   Since that is theoretically possible, that illustrates a logical gap in your criteria.   

I believe we should cross that bridge when we come to it.  Trinisphere is as close as you can get to this concept.  Were I to argue Trinisphere, I would argue that it creates massive card advantage, effectively nullifying all the cards in your opponents hand, while it usually doesn't impact you at all.  I believe cards on the list can be discussed in the terms that I have laid out.  If they cannot, then I think there is no reason for them to be on the list.  Gush and Merchant Scroll is the perfect example.  When people talked about which card would be best restricted to stop Gushbond decks dominance, I easily pointed to Scroll as fitting the restrictable criteria.  If, after 3 months, Gushbond decks continued to obliterate the field, then Gush could be restricted on the principle of being 1) Undercosted Card Advantage and 2) Undercosted Mana Acceleration.  If only Scroll got restricted, I do not believe we would have reached that point. 

2) Moreover, your criteria sweep too broadly.   Being an undercosted tutor or an undercosted fast mana accellerant should not, by itself, justify restriction.  Unrestricted mana accellerants right now produce more mana more efficiently than restricted ones.  Examples include Mishra's Workshop, Dark Ritual, Cabal Ritual all of which are more useful as mana accellerants by large margins than Mox Diamond, Grim Monolith, or Chrome Mox, all of which are restricted.    Another example:  Personal Tutor and Enlightened Tutor are restricted tutors.  Are they really better than Intuition or Grim Tutor?  Not hardly.   I also think that Grim Tutor is superior to Burning Wish.   If we were to apply your principle, all of those cards should be restricted.

While I wouldn't object to cards like Mishra's Workshop, Dark Ritual and Cabal Ritual being restricted, I do not think tournament data has shown that to be in any way appropriate.  I have argued that Merchant Scroll and Grim Tutor both belong on the list.  Grim Tutor has not put up the results that Gushbond decks have, and I would argue that it isn't a major concern right now. 

Restricting on principle does not a) explain why a card should be restricted by itself (hence is incomplete as a principle for application) and b) would lead to more restrictions than are necessary.   

My restricted list would be 40 cards, and it will be my article next week.  In terms of what we think should be restricted, I think we are probably in most agreement among people who are concerned about these restrictions.   I just wish you hadn't laid out those criteria.

My point is not that they should restrict all cards that fit my criteria, but that cards on the list should be able to be discussed using such terms.  Every card that deserves to be on the list could be explained to a new player as fitting into one of those 3 categories.  In order to actually make it onto the list, I would argue that the cards would have to create a distorted or degenerate format.  The format we are leaving had skill as the most important factor.  I hope that we are moving into a new format that shares that trait. 

If the DCI wanted to spice things up, and create some excitement, they could have removed a card from the list.  I'd be all for a stated policy of trying to clean up the list, and unrestricting something every 3 months barring some huge set backs.  Something like Dream Halls, Fact or Fiction, Gifts Ungiven, Time Spiral, or Grim Monolith would be a new toy for deck builders, without destroying all the decks that they took out with these restrictions. 

[mturian]

Hi.

I will be writing a more in-depth article explaining the changes during the Latest Developments column next week. I look forward to your response to our reasons.

Thanks,

Mike Turian

[Akuma]

I agree with EVERYTHING ELD has said. Mr. Turian please take a look at ELD's post. Thanks for reading and please fix the problem.

Merchant Scroll is the only thing worthy of restriction. Thank you.

Giovanni

[Kiriyuu]

I just recieved the following e-mail:

Hi.
 
I will be writing a more in-depth article explaining the changes during the Latest Developments column next week(6/13). I look forward to your response to our reasons.
 
Thanks,
 
Mike Turian
 

I hope this is good news for people.

Take care everyone, have a good weekend!

robert.

[Akuma]

Nothing short of a reversal of some sort is really good news as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe Wizards is printing a new Mythic Rare Brainstorm, so that is why we don't need the old common one anymore...

[M.Solymossy]

I actually have a question for Mr. Turian which I don't think he would answer, but I'm curious as to if his posting on here, and his next article, were planned, or are in response to the massive amount of emails he received.

I am very impressed with the community as a whole.   The community has shown me that even though my favorite cards are gone, the amount of fun to be had at tournaments is well worth continuing to play.   

[Moxlotus]

I anxiously await his article.  And whether it was going to be written or if it is a response to the community.

[M.Solymossy]

Mr Turian:

I hope in your article you will discuss how Wizards RnD expects other decks to keep up with the Icorid and Workshop decks that everyone expects to be popular, without other decks having Brainstorm in order to combat their explosive turns.

[wraith985]

Of course they'll never admit if they weren't planning on writing anything further if there wasn't such a big outcry so quickly about the slap in the face the Vintage community received. But think about it this way - if this is all the effort they put into the initial "explanation" after having had an entire week to work on an article and after having (presumably) discussed all of these restrictions at length for a period of time before June 2 and having had good reasons for restricting all of these cards, is it really reasonable to think that they were just putting things off so they could do an extra good job for us later? This is the internet. It's not like it's a hard copy magazine where there are space constraints (although apparently it is, because the biggest changes to the game since the new card face and MaRo's explanation didn't even last on the main page for an entire week), or that you have to have the entire thing shipped off to the "publisher" (webmaster) by a certain due date for it to make it onto the website at all. And given that the "article" in question would have taken the average person approximately five seconds to write and there were at least four days between announcement and article publication, it's not like WotC "didn't have time" to assign that column or that the writer "didn't have time" to write it. It's never been a problem before. Why is it a problem now? They certainly didn't have any problems finishing a humongous article about why Standard is awesome and Shadowmoor doesn't suck, and therefore nothing needed to be done there. Would it really have killed them to spend even twenty minutes writing 500-700 words about FIVE RESTRICTIONS? I don't know if anyone realizes this, but we got 124 words. 96 hours between announcement and publication and presumably at least 48 between announcement and submission deadline, and we got 124 words. That's just amazing. Fifth graders write more than that in their daily journals.

Whether the problem was that they didn't assign it to anyone in a timely fashion, or that Mike Turian didn't know the details of the restrictions but was assigned to write the article anyway, or that they didn't think that it'd be such a big deal, or whatever reason, none of it is legitimate - not only have all of these problems been avoided or superbly dealt with in the past, but any reason I can think of for such a half-assed job also shows a distinct lack of respect for the Vintage community with respect to the biggest format changes in eight-plus years.

I call BS. And I don't mean Brainstorm.

None of this is meant to be a stab at Mike Turian. I understand that there were likely factors beyond his control and that he were probably just the messenger of a poorly-planned assignment. But until we see who was really responsible for this whole fiasco, he's the only person whose name we have, and in that sense I feel bad for him - because he's being nailed to the cross unfairly and it probably wasn't his fault in the slightest that WotC decided to blow the community off.  Of course, that's probably another thing we'll never get the whole story to, although I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that full disclosure (and I mean FULL disclosure) happens in next week's article. But on that front, I'm really not holding my breath.

[dicemanx]

I hope in your article you will discuss how Wizards RnD expects other decks to keep up with the Icorid and Workshop decks that everyone expects to be popular, without other decks having Brainstorm in order to combat their explosive turns.

Workshop decks should get weaker in my estimation, not stronger. One of the reasons that Workshop was a strong choice prior to the restrictions was the cheating of the mana-bases precisely because of cards like Brainstorm, Gush, and Ponder. Now U-based decks will likely revert back to more control-based strategies as opposed to the cantrip-into-a-win combo approach, and the manabases will expand again to 25-26 sources with more basics and Wastelands. This will weaken the 9Sphere approach. Furthermore, with U-based control receding in power aggro-strategies will be more tempting, which would also give Shop decks problems (particularly Goblins and Fish decks with Kataki). Lastly, Shop will really not enjoy having WGD return to the format.

As far as Ichorid goes, it will continue to struggle against any prepared meta - the key cards in the fight against Ichorid are mostly BS/Ponder-independent. Even Shop and aggro archetypes can really do a number on Ichorid if you know how; I anticipate that Ichorid prevalence after the restrictions will match approximately its prevalence before restrictions. It is just too difficult to be consistent with a deck that lives off the top of the library when it comes to finding solutions against dedicated hate cards.

Of course, that's probably another thing we'll never get the whole story to, although I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that full disclosure (and I mean FULL disclosure) happens in next week's article

Honestly, who cares about Turian's coming article and the DCI's justifications. Turian could easily come and copy any of the valid arguments for BS/Ponder/Gush restriction from these forums alone. It is possible to argue for the validity of just about ANY restriction, and NO ONE can challenge that validity unless they are clairvoyant. The fact is that any change, whether objective or not, is in many ways a good thing, and T1 has grown to the point where it can handle just about any archetype or strategy or B/R list change. Look at Flash for instance - this deck would never exist for as long as it did 5 years ago, but the fact that many didn't see it as grossly distorting and unfair is a testament to the ability of our format to buffer against just about any change or introduction of a powerful strategy.

Thus it ultimately doesn't matter one lick what reasons the DCI gives for the restrictions, because it is impossible to evaluate their impact until LONG after the fact. Maybe this is why the DCI initially devoted 100 words on the matter rather than 10,000 words, because either way it wouldn't make one shred of difference. Plus, the DCI seems to do things by feel - sometimes something just doesn't "feel" right even though it is tough to explain what exactly is wrong. As someone in another thread once said, "I don't know precisely what criteria to apply, but I'll know a problem when I see it".