[Article] Latest Developments by Devin Low

[moxpearl]

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".

A lot of us care.  I agree that we need to accept these changes and move on (and I might even say enjoy this new format), and we shouldn't hyperanalyze every point in Turian's expanded explanation and argue ad nauseum why we agree or disagree.  However, in any community or organization, when the leadership makes a major change or decision, they owe it the community to give an explanation of why they made such decisions.  The greater the change or decision, the more explanation is needed.   Can you imagine the CEO of a company making the most significant decision in ten years to one of its departments and tacking on a brief reason at the end of a memo primarily related to other departments?

Sure, Wizards doesn't have to explain further, but if they care anything about the Vintage community, it is wise that they do.    Otherwise they risk losing their credibility and, in this case, losing players.    Even if they said what you just wrote in that it "feels right" or "we can't give specific explanations of cards but we felt Vintage was too dominated by blue and wanted to bring more diversity with other colors to the format", I could accept that.  Again, we might not agree, but at least they took the time to explain and show they cared about the Vintage community.

[arctic79]

It would be nice to at least understand the current criteria the DCI is using for the B&R.  The vintage community would at least know what to look for in upcoming restrictions.
For all we know someone at the DCI or WotC has a serious hate on for blue based decks because they keep losing with their Earth Elementals or Nightmares.  Believe it or not, there are still first generaion players out there that despise vintage because they still cling to the old days where you had to swing with a horde of creatures to win.

[BreathWeapon]

why cards like Impulse and Sleight of Hand, which are as good if not better then ponder where not restricted too?

Because Ponder is much, much better than either of those cards.

I really wish we had been given more of an explanation. I had been looking forward to it, and this was disappointing.

Restricting Ponder does make sense, if the goal is/was to create a 2cc standard for hand sculpting then restricting Ponder was a necessary evil to force us to choose between either Impulse and Night Whispers or 1cc Sleight of Hand and Opt (or Careful Study if the rest of your deck can support it).

My guess is they set a bar for hand sculpting similar to the bar they set for tutoring and decided Ponder exceeded it.

[Yare]

While I strongly suspect that this follow up article was written in response to our displeasure with the initial "explanation" we were provided with, I'm not sure what else we could want at this point. We showed extreme displeasure and WotC responded. Sounds good to me.

[Smmenen]

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.

Right - I understand your point.   But you missed my point, which is that your general criteria remains problematic because it is - at best - incomplete.  None of the principles you state can, by their own terms - that is by their own, precise language, be implemented consistently or objectively.   And it's not simply the ambiguity in words like "undercosted," its the fact that we don't restrict cards on principle alone.   

We care about frequency of use, impact in the metagame, etc.  That's why I think that your resort to those principles is dead wrong.  They may be part of the mix.  But my examples were used to show that, logically, they are incomplete by their own terms. 

Because those principles are incomplete, I think it is a disservice to try and explain restrictions to players on the basis of them.  They skew thinking and reasoning and frame these questions in the wrong way.   It's much easier to get the heart of the matter, which is to say that a card, quite simply, is too good, etc, rather than to say, "well, in Vintage, we restrict undercosted tutors, etc, etc."

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.

Peter, I do. 

Go back and read the 1999 explanations that I linked in my article last week.  The DCI went out of its way to categorize the restrictions and explain them.   In the past, particularly during the Buehler era, such analysis were available, as when they restricted Burning Wish and LED.

It's not that Turiant didn't simsply persuade or that it wasn't comprehensive enough or didn't consider some critical counter-point, it's that it was essentially a non-explanation.  There was nothing there.    I don't think players mind if the DCI comes up with a few good reasons to restrict something.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Turian's 'explanation' generated alot more negative reaction from Vintage players than the fact of restriction themselves.   Turian's answer was pitifully non-explanatory.  There was almost nothing there, and what little was there was either obviously erroneous (citing turn zero kills) or descriptions of history, etc. 

I never expect good reasoning from the DCI.  But I think players should expect *some* explanation, whether valid or not.   They didn't even try this time.   That's what I think is the slap in the face.  Most players, I've found, are willing to accept the rationale that authority figures give.  Had the DCI given at least some modicum of an explanation, I don't think people would be complaining as much.   His response was pure garbage. 

I mean, really, take a look at it:

The DCI is continually looking to do what is best for the health of the 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.

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.

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.

There are nine sentence to justify the most sweeping restrictions in over a DECADE.   The first sentence is an obvious banality.  The second sentence is only partly true, but also begs the question: why wait a year after Flash has been legalized.   The third sentence is a partial restatement of the second.   The fourth tells us something we already know.   The fifth isn't even a true statement.   The sixth has nothing to do with the fifth despite the statement "likewise."   Also, it's the weakest reason to restrict them.   The sixth sentence is suggesting that Brainstorm and Ponder were restrited for their tutoring capabilities.   The seventh sentence has no new information.   The eighth is a historical fact and the ninth is an assertion of a problem, without any support.   

There is almost nothing there.  Compare it to the 1999 explanations, or basically any other explanation. 

[prosbloom225]

There are nine sentence to justify the most sweeping restrictions in over a DECADE.   The first sentence is an obvious banality.  The second sentence is only partly true, but also begs the question: why wait a year after Flash has been legalized.   The third sentence is a partial restatement of the second.   The fourth tells us something we already know.   The fifth isn't even a true statement.   The sixth has nothing to do with the fifth despite the statement "likewise."   Also, it's the weakest reason to restrict them.   The sixth sentence is suggesting that Brainstorm and Ponder were restrited for their tutoring capabilities.   The seventh sentence has no new information.   The eighth is a historical fact and the ninth is an assertion of a problem, without any support.   

There is almost nothing there.  Compare it to the 1999 explanations, or basically any other explanation. 

Pretty much owned right there.

[Harlequin]

It would be nice to at least understand the current criteria the DCI is using for the B&R.  The vintage community would at least know what to look for in upcoming restrictions.

How can you say that?  If there is anything I know about DCI B&R updates its that I would probably consult my local Psychic Hotline for as good a guess as any for upcomming changes.  Any explaination that doesn't involve a Dartboard, Voodoo, or a Monkey with a typewritter I will be very sceptical of.  The change has been made, someday it might be unmade, or not.  In the meantime "reason" they give will infulence my future action/speculations in the same way my daily horascope changes my actions for the day.

At the end of the day: They Make the Rules; You make the Metagam; and I'll try to make a deck to poke holes in it.  None of that changes.

[Demonic Attorney]

Dear Mr. Turian:

I write on behalf of The Mana Drain in connection with the reasoning recently provided for the 6/2 Banned/Restricted announcement for Vintage.  I realize a great number of people have contacted you at this point and won't recapitulate their arguments or belabor the obvious points.  I only want to ask you if you, or anyone else at WotC, would ever honestly consider doing to any other format what you just did with Vintage.  I don't recall there having been a B/R decision in Block, Standard, or Extended that had such sweeping impact and was accompanied by so little explanation.

I understand an article is expected on 6/15 to further address the issue, and I'll certainly look at it.  However, I'm still concerned by the disparity in how WotC treats Vintage versus how it treats the other formats.  In the wake of the 6/2 announcement, there are more calls for the Vintage community to ignore the DCI and institute its own B/R list than I have ever heard before.  I don't support that decision for many reasons, but I want to emphasize to you that the risk of Vintage completely splitting off from sanctioned formats becomes greater with each new indication by WotC that it has such little interest in managing Vintage.

Whether or not exerting the additional effort needed to reassure players that WotC is still invested in managing Vintage is, of course, ultimately a question of economic value and business sense.  But in making that decision, please bear in mind that if WotC decides to maintain its involvement with Vintage, a half-hearted, lackadaisical effort to manage the format will not work indefinitely.  Sooner or later, the Vintage community will force WotC to choose between making some sort of significant investment in managing the format, or relinquishing control of Vintage to members of its community willing to do that work.

Thank you in advance for your attention.  If you have any questions or responsive comments, please don't hesitate to contact me at this  e-mail address. 

[Matridom]

I've been holding off commenting on these changes for several reasons, i think it's time to speak up.

I've come off a 3 year sebaticle from this game for several reasons, mostly personal and work life interfered with getting a good game in. I dusted off my cards 2 weeks ago and found that much has changed and more has stayed the same in the vintage format.

My knowledge of the format is imperfect, I understand how painters servant works and i'm still trying to understand how ichroid works. Flash to me is new, so it's banning means very little to me, Gush, well, it was restricted before i left the game, so it's no surprise to find it on the list again, Merchant scroll? what blue tutor is un-restricted? Brainstorm/ponder? a little surprise.

I need to relearn the game already, so these changes i'll take in stride and move on with life. What worries me the most about this recent change is the lack of transparency regarding the needs for the change. When i saw that DCI would explain on Friday, I was hopefull; to say i was disappointed with the explanation is an understatement in the extreme. I will remain hopefull that this comming Friday will see a better article justifying the needs of this restriction list and let the people at DCI redeem themselves somehow. If they don't, I'll go find formats that are not controlled by the DCI.

[Sarcasmic]

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Turian's 'explanation' generated alot more negative reaction from Vintage players than the fact of restriction themselves.   Turian's answer was pitifully non-explanatory.  There was almost nothing there, and what little was there was either obviously erroneous (citing turn zero kills) or descriptions of history, etc. 

I'm just a lurker, but I'd like to chime in and say that this describes my situation exactly.  I don't mind the restrictions (I'm not crazy about them, but I don't mind them).  What I do mind is the lack of explanation.

If they wanted to restrict Brainstorm because it's too powerful with fetchlands, or that it (along with Ponder) makes storm grow too quickly, that would be fine.  At least then we'd understand the restrictions.  But this?  Who knows what's going on.

It's also insulting, like we're not worth the time, or that they didn't put any thought into the restrictions.  Either option is insulting.

[Purple Hat]

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

While I'm glad to hear...yet again....that we will recieve a full explaination at a later date these words ring just a bit hollow following the explaination we recieved the last time we were told to "wait til friday, there will be an explaination comming" will there also be an explaination of why we were treated in this manner or why your "explaination" was deemed acceptable until you were faced with a mountain of customer complaints?  Will we recieve another 9 sentences followed next week by "wait til friday, I'll be posting a more indepth explaination then."  I, for one, do not intend to wait week upon week while you dole out your reasons for your format shaking decisions in dismissive short statements that show a total lack of thought and consideration.  You had your chance to give your reasons, you hyped it up, you told us it would all be explained.  then you provided your "article" this week.  Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....

Possibly not telling everyone there will be an explaination then not providing one on the appointed date and instead telling everyone that an explaination is comming at a later date isn't a strategy WOTC and the DCI should continue using.

[Vegeta2711]

FWIW, since it's only a small piece of my article today I figure I'll just post the exert here.

A brief rant on Vintage and the B/R explanation
Let’s start with the latter, because this section of my article on it will undoubtedly be longer than the 123 words Mr. Turian gave the new restrictions. It only depresses me to think that many of the e-mails that Turian will be receiving will be five to ten times as long as the blurb the Vintage community received. You remember the big kvetching-fest a few months ago about the lack of communication between WOTC and its players? This  feels like that to some extent. To most Vintage players this is how they saw the piece in Devin Low’s article:

“Dear Vintage players,
The DCI is continually looking to do what is best for the health of the Vintage format. We regret to inform you the sky is blue and that blue draws and tutors for cards. As 1-of’s we hope this causes less issues in the future.

Mike Turian
P.S. We’ll try not to restrict Sensei’s Divining Top without at least an arbitrary reason six months from now. “

Here’s my main issue with this. A decent number of Vintage players have no idea why you decided to restrict Brainstorm after it being in the format for so long. Especially if you were going to hit Gush, Merchant Scroll and Flash which completely changes the dynamics of the current Vintage metagame and the power of Brainstorm and Ponder. With that said, there was valid reasoning that could be used to restrict four of the five cards that did get hit, however this blurb simply chose to give kindergarten level reasoning. Gee, Merchant Scroll finds restricted cards? Really? And Brainstorm filters!?!

I actually liked many of the restrictions after the initial shock went away, but Ponder still boggles me and simply waving it off in the same sentence as Brainstorm does a disservice to anyone playing the format. Let me put it like this, had the DCI decided to ban some cards from Dredge and Sensei’s Divining Top last Extended season, had you thrown out a 123 word piece of text on it, you would have been crucified. These are format warping implications that are basically being written off. In fact the only valid reason I can see for doing the blurb like that in the first place is because you figured you would be blown out by people raving and ranting regardless of how much detail or logic you used. Regardless, it is your job to at least make an effort to those who have rational thought capabilities.

[Zherbus]

The link should be at this address at midnight:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/dl41

[Nefarias]

The link works, it's up, and while they say the same thing multiple times, I guess it's really all we could ask for.

[wiley]

The way I read it was that blue deck manipulation brought too much power to combo, we can't ban combo so we have to nerf deck manipulation ... hard.  This gets rid of brainstorm and ponder.  Flash was better than other combo decks that have had pieces restricted so it gets the axe and we think that merchant scroll should have gone a long time ago but we sat on our thumbs.  Gush is borked, too borked for you to have ... no bork for you.

Gush remains the one I question (I think they did a decent job explaining ponder), as without the deck manipulation to chain them together (not to mention finding fastbond) it is not that good of a card.

[dicemanx]

So he said the EXACT same thing as last week, but longer and with pictures.

I trust that this will bring a warm fuzzy feeling to those clamoring for a more "in-depth" explanation to the mass restrictions? I'm really not sure what people were expecting. Research? Data? No such precedents exist, and there was no reason why they would be used as justification now. It is once again a speculative/intuitive guess on the DCI's part as to what should be done to improve the format - they clearly saw an issue with the Flash combo and with the Gushbond engine, and figured it was an opportunity to further weaken the color (axing Scroll and Brainstorm) more out of general considerations. I don't disagree with their assessments, and I don't disagree with many opinions that DCI might have jumped the gun.

[Mr. Nightmare]

So he said the EXACT same thing as last week, but longer and with pictures.

I trust that this will bring a warm fuzzy feeling to those clamoring for a more "in-depth" explanation to the mass restrictions? I'm really not sure what people were expecting. Research? Data? No such precedents exist, and there was no reason why they would be used as justification now. It is once again a speculative/intuitive guess on the DCI's part as to what should be done to improve the format - they clearly saw an issue with the Flash combo and with the Gushbond engine, and figured it was an opportunity to further weaken the color (axing Scroll and Brainstorm) more out of general considerations. I don't disagree with their assessments, and I don't disagree with many opinions that DCI might have jumped the gun.

I know I'm more comfortable now with the decisions, through both the article and my own discussions with Mike Turian in the last week.  On the other hand, I'm not sure what you're looking for, Peter.  There has never been a time where they've shown us hard data and research to support their decisions as far as Eternal formats go.  I don't think anyone (or, I suppose at least myself) was expecting them to suddenly hold themselves accountable in that manner.  All I really wanted was some insight on why they chose to act in the manner they did, and perhaps dedicate more than a meager few sentences to it.  I think they've accomplished that.  Whether or not any of us agree with those decisions is a discussion on an entirely different level.  I don't see it as a particularly relevant one, but again, that's simply me speaking for me.  So, aside from a bit of rambling, I guess I'm asking what you expected, and if your expectations have been satisfied.

[jpmeyer]

Well, there was one time: when Gush was restricted the first time.

[Smmenen]

So he said the EXACT same thing as last week, but longer and with pictures.

It's not even close to the same thing.  They actually gave good reasons this time, as opposed to actually not explaining at all or giving incorrect information.  I could spend the next 15 minutes of my life deconstructing the two and comparing them, but I've already deconstructed the first earlier in this thread, so I'll just point out three major differences with respect to Scroll. First of all, he mentioned that Scroll is the most efficient unrestricted tutor, that it dominates tournaments, and quoted Forsythe on Gifts as precedent for restricting Scroll.  None of those points were raised before.

I think many questions still remain, such as timing (Brainstorm and Flash - Why Now and not three months ago or three years ago?) and whether the reasons for Gush and Flash make any sense with Brainstorm and Scroll restricted (they don't), but to say that this is the exact same thing but longer is total BS.  There is no way around that.  There were enormous substantive differences this time around. 

[Dante]

The main point I got from the BS/Ponder explanations were that:

- one-mana  hand-fixers/"diggers" that go 3 cards deep on turn 1 are too efficient, even if you don't get to put 2 cards back (Top needs 2 mana turn 1 to do that, plus no shuffle effect).
-cards like Opt (only see 1 card before making a decision), Sleight of Hand (dig 2 but sorcery), and S's Top (dig 3 deep, but can't do it turn 1 without acceleration beyond a land and can't put cards back) are acceptable.

So basically if you want to dig 3+ cards, you need to be:

2 mana (e.g. Impulse) as an instant
2 mana the first time you use it (1 to cast top & 1 to use it).

The real question is would an instant-speed 2-card digger be acceptable (think Sleight of Hand as an instant).

Dante

[arctic79]

I was satisfied with the explinations except for ponder.  It sounded like a pre-emptive strike, what happened to lets wait and see like they did with Gush, another 3 months would have been sufficient to see how strong Ponder really is. The main problem I'm seeing with the Ponder restriction is the inevitable rise of Top, Impulse, or Serum Visions and the prescedent is set for them to restrict those cards as well because they will start showing up more and more in Combo decks and eventually we have the possibility of being stuck with Tidings only. 

[moxpearl]

So basically if you want to dig 3+ cards, you need to be:
2 mana (e.g. Impulse) as an instant
2 mana the first time you use it (1 to cast top & 1 to use it).

Or not get the card that turn, e.g. , Portent.  I'm guessing Portent is safe because combo can't use it to go off.

I also think the explanation was much improved.  For one, they admit they wanted to stifle blue combo, regardless of whether or not Workshop and other decks were keeping them in check.  Second, in their Ponder explanation, they mention leaving Ponder unrestricted would hurt "control".  To me, this implies they want Mana Drain decks to come back!

Also, I noticed they referred to vintage top 8's throughout the article.  Does this admit the DCI is using unsanctioned proxy tournaments for their decision making?   Not blaming them, because that's all they have, but interesting how DCI does not sanction these tournaments yet uses them for their decision making.