[Free Article] A Date Which Will Live in Infamy - June 1 Vintage Restrictions

[JACO]

Here is my take on banned/restricted policy, and Wizards' most recent actions. It's a bit different than Steve M or Steve O's articles this week. The follow up article going up next week will speak more about the format going forward, card choices, deck choices, and more.

He didn't just mention Ponder, Shahrazad, Darwin's theory of natural selection, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and Pro Tour Qualifiers all in the same article, did he?!
http://mtgsalvation.com/840-a-date-which-will-live-in-infamy.html

Yes he did. Go get it.

[fury]

Here is my take on banned/restricted policy, and Wizards' most recent actions. It's a bit different than Steve M or Steve O's articles this week. The follow up article going up next week will speak more about the format going forward, card choices, deck choices, and more.

He didn't just mention Ponder, Shahrazad, Darwin's theory of natural selection, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and Pro Tour Qualifiers all in the same article, did he?!
http://mtgsalvation.com/840-a-date-which-will-live-in-infamy.html

Yes he did. Go get it.

In "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", Smith argues that the State should let agents following their personal interest (see his example of the butcher and the beer producer), in order to reach an economic optimum. But this freedom must be effective in a very narrow framework. Thus, the State let the agents taking economic decisions, but obliges people to respect the law (no private justice, no private police, for instance, the role of the State is to take care of this). If freedom is absolute, with a 100% laissez-faire, the economic system falls down.

Darwin theory is also widely applied to others subjects, but we should keep in mind that this theory actually applies only to species' evolution.

In Vintage, suppressing the B&R list would have nasty consequences on the game, which would last one turn only (and the winner of the toss has 100% probability to win. In the same way, we know that with the rise of new archetypes, some decks are dying, that's right.

Despite of that, the use of Smith's or Darwin's theories applied to Vintage doesn't seem very relevant to me. The framework of these two theories is different from a simple game. The economic world, and the biological system of life are specific complex systems, and their theories should be take into consideration in other subjects with a lot of caution. You maybe should have used elements of Game Theory (Nash equilibrium for instance) to analyse the consequences of restrictions on Vintage in a more neutral way.

But I congratulate you for the intellectual exercise.

[Polynomial P]

I feel that you missed the mark on few points. Flash is a mana accelerant in a similar mold as Tinker. It allows you to gain an effect at a drastically reduced cost. Tinker, in addition to being a tutor is also a mana accelerant. I also feel that the problem with the DCI is not a Laissez-faire approach, but rather there is a certain level of ignorance or incompetence when it comes to Vintage. This really started with a year ago when Gifts Ungiven was restricted over Merchant Scroll, Gush was unrestricted (who would have thought that free, instant speed draw would be good in type 1?), and further demonstrated in the latest B/R changes and subsequent "summary". Frankly, I would appreciate a return to the Laissez-faire approach instead of this.

[FW]

Darwin theory is also widely applied to others subjects, but we should keep in mind that this theory actually applies only to species' evolution.

Despite of that, the use of Smith's or Darwin's theories applied to Vintage doesn't seem very relevant to me. The framework of these two theories is different from a simple game. The economic world, and the biological system of life are specific complex systems, and their theories should be take into consideration in other subjects with a lot of caution. You maybe should have used elements of Game Theory (Nash equilibrium for instance) to analyse the consequences of restrictions on Vintage in a more neutral way.

But I congratulate you for the intellectual exercise.

I think it's a bit narrow minded to say it is a game only use game theory. The development of new decks with a large cardpool as vintage feels a lot like evolution to me. Ofcourse the biological and the economical world are a lot more complex. But same principles work for magic. The strongest cards and synergies will eventualy be discovered.

It was a nice article to reed.
But you're saying that affinity got banned out of emotion not because it was dominating the field. Affinity was absolutly dominating Standard at that time.

[wiley]

This isn't terribly important but the US wasn't completely at peace with Japan prior to the attack on Oahu as we had been trading guns, ammunition, food, oil and other supplies to China at an incredible loss for an extended period of time prior to December of 1941.  Indeed our aid to China was a major reason it didn't fall to the Japanese invasion, bringing the Japanese to the conclusion that starting a front with us was the best solution.  Like I said, not terribly important, but it still drives a wedge between the comparisons for anything other than the "opening paragraph" of your speech.  The relationship between the DCI and Vintage players is not comparable to that between two nations; it is closer to that of a governing body and its people (which you use later in the article).  I simply want to point out the distinction that, while our relationship with the DCI can be analogous to one or the other, it cannot be such to both.

4) Brainstorm – not an overpowered tutor, fast mana acceleration, or format warping spell. Brainstorm simply helps to increase consistency in decks in both Vintage and Legacy, and to help dig for answers to problematic spells an opponent has played or will play.
5) Ponder – see Brainstorm above, but Ponder is an even worse card objectively and sees much less play

This, I believe, is a misleading statement.  Brainstorm is/was obviously a format warping card.  If it was not, then no one would be stating that the format will change.  A card that has sat atop the "best unrestricted cards in vintage" list for 5 years running has to be format warping, or else there is no format.

Historically, capitalistic countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom have made their greatest strides when operating closest to a Laissez-faire policy. From 2001 to 2007, when Wizards' was least actively policing and changing the Banned/Restricted list, we saw some of the most exciting development and tournament play in Vintage history, due in large part to a similar hands-off approach.

Can this correctly be attributed to the policies of the DCI, or is it that the influx of new and powerful cards sparked more interest in the format?  My opinion is that it is a combination of both and, while you did use the "in large part" clause you didn't pose any other option for this.  I’m unsure if it requires being in the article as your target audience should be able to infer such information on their own, but it might be nice for non-vintage educated people who happen to stumble upon your writing.

When there is no objective reason for restricting a card, such as repeated tournament dominance, then there frankly is no legitimate reason for restriction in my mind.

I couldn't agree with this more.

The way you can affect the future shaping of the Banned/Restricted list is by viewing this as a call to arms. If you are not satisfied with the DCI's decisions then let them know. Write articles for websites such as this or MagicEternal.com or others, and email everyone important at Wizards of the Coast that you can think of. Leave no stone unturned if you are unhappy, but do so by crafting a logical and thoughtful argument.

Sound advice well said.  I applaud you for this paragraph as it is something very few people try to do; incite others to action.

I feel that you missed the mark on few points. Flash is a mana accelerant in a similar mold as Tinker. It allows you to gain an effect at a drastically reduced cost. Tinker, in addition to being a tutor is also a mana accelerant. I also feel that the problem with the DCI is not a Laissez-faire approach, but rather there is a certain level of ignorance or incompetence when it comes to Vintage. This really started with a year ago when Gifts Ungiven was restricted over Merchant Scroll, Gush was unrestricted (who would have thought that free, instant speed draw would be good in type 1?), and further demonstrated in the latest B/R changes and subsequent "summary". Frankly, I would appreciate a return to the Laissez-faire approach instead of this.

This reflects my sentiment exactly.  I would enjoy a more transparent view on how exactly the DCI comes to its decisions.  Many in the past have been questionable and few have ever been rationalized to an acceptable degree.

Darwin theory is also widely applied to others subjects, but we should keep in mind that this theory actually applies only to species' evolution.
…
Despite of that, the use of Smith's or Darwin's theories applied to Vintage doesn't seem very relevant to me. The framework of these two theories is different from a simple game.

I believe the context used to describe the two is accurate enough.  If a member of a species has a flaw, or a defect rendered unusable by its environment then the animal/plant dies without passing on its genes.  If a card that is a member of a larger species (i.e.; tutoring, card draw, card filtering, beat down creatures, utility creatures etc.) proves to be an underperforming counterpart to others of its species then it is simply not used, effectively not existing.

[bluemage55]

This, I believe, is a misleading statement.  Brainstorm is/was obviously a format warping card.  If it was not, then no one would be stating that the format will change.  A card that has sat atop the "best unrestricted cards in vintage" list for 5 years running has to be format warping, or else there is no format.

While I would agree Brainstorm is indeed format warping, it bears mention that Brainstorm is format warping in a good way, like Force of Will, Dual Lands, and Mana Drain.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Anyone who bothers to throw their thoughts out there demands a certain respect, but I disagree with a lot of the content and most of the style.  Too much chutzpah, not enough insight.

Whether you like it or not, the cards, metagames and players of T1 don't fuction like a free market (free markets don't even function like free markets), and the DCI, while it seems they do listen some, are essentially an independent body (re: despot).  They have a reasonably successful history; I think we should see how things turn out before grumbling.

[JACO]

Thank you all for taking the time to read my piece. I'll attempt to address a few things while I have a spare moment.

In "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", Smith argues that the State should let agents following their personal interest (see his example of the butcher and the beer producer), in order to reach an economic optimum. But this freedom must be effective in a very narrow framework. Thus, the State let the agents taking economic decisions, but obliges people to respect the law (no private justice, no private police, for instance, the role of the State is to take care of this). If freedom is absolute, with a 100% laissez-faire, the economic system falls down.

This is entirely accurate - the system relies on people and accountability, and when they break the law the State takes action. But this is besides the point, because a 100% Laissez-faire system is never practiced. The example is met to coincide (which it does) with the practical application, that is the recognizance that there is a governing body in place, and we speak of its actions.

I also feel that the problem with the DCI is not a Laissez-faire approach, but rather there is a certain level of ignorance or incompetence when it comes to Vintage. This really started with a year ago when Gifts Ungiven was restricted over Merchant Scroll, Gush was unrestricted (who would have thought that free, instant speed draw would be good in type 1?), and further demonstrated in the latest B/R changes and subsequent "summary". Frankly, I would appreciate a return to the Laissez-faire approach instead of this.

Thank you Polynomial, for reinforcing my exact point. THIS is the whole point of the Laissez-faire theme in part of the article - the practical application. From the facts and actions (or lack of actions) taken by the DCI every quarter or possible time of restriction/banning, the DCI has clearly demonstrated a level of incompetence to me which illustrates my point. Things like restricting Brainstorm and Ponder, and not unrestricting cards like Earthcraft or Dream Halls are a perfect example of this, and an example of why the Laissez-faire approach would be fully justified and ultimately necessary.

Darwin theory is also widely applied to others subjects, but we should keep in mind that this theory actually applies only to species' evolution...Despite of that, the use of Smith's or Darwin's theories applied to Vintage doesn't seem very relevant to me. The framework of these two theories is different from a simple game. The economic world, and the biological system of life are specific complex systems, and their theories should be take into consideration in other subjects with a lot of caution.

I believe those theories are very relevant to the card game, because those (much like Ayn Rand's or Sun Tzu's) have a practical application through many walks of life, including a governing body such as the DCI, which regulates the rules praticed by a specific body of players.

I feel that you missed the mark on few points. Flash is a mana accelerant in a similar mold as Tinker. It allows you to gain an effect at a drastically reduced cost. Tinker, in addition to being a tutor is also a mana accelerant.

While the argument can be made that Tinker is a mana accelerant, that is not why it is restricted. It is restricted because of its incredible tutoring power, and the fact that it tutors for artifacts (which by Wizards' own design are some of the most powerful spells in the game).

4) Brainstorm – not an overpowered tutor, fast mana acceleration, or format warping spell. Brainstorm simply helps to increase consistency in decks in both Vintage and Legacy, and to help dig for answers to problematic spells an opponent has played or will play.
5) Ponder – see Brainstorm above, but Ponder is an even worse card objectively and sees much less play

This, I believe, is a misleading statement.  Brainstorm is/was obviously a format warping card.  If it was not, then no one would be stating that the format will change.  A card that has sat atop the "best unrestricted cards in vintage" list for 5 years running has to be format warping, or else there is no format.

I don't believe Brainstorm is format-warping at all, but rather that it (like Force of Will) is format-defining. Vintage is a format defined by the power of it's spells, including the best unrestricted spells ever printed, which are ultimately the "best of breed," which I specifically mention in the article:

Cards like Brainstorm, Ponder, Force of Will, Tarmogoyf, Swords to Plowshares, Lightning Bolt, Duress, and many other of the game's best cards are just run of the mill, good old fashioned cards. These examples are a few of the best in their specific genres, whether that genre is filtering cards, countering spells, attacking the opponent, or removing creatures. Should those cards be restricted because they are the best at what they do, even though they are not extremely overpowered and do not warp the format in any way? Of course not."

[Justin]

Brainstorm – not an overpowered tutor, fast mana acceleration, or format warping spell. Brainstorm simply helps to increase consistency in BLUE decks in both Vintage and Legacy, and to help dig for answers to problematic spells an opponent has played or will play.

Fixed that for ya. No other color benefitted from such an interaction (Sensei's divining top is in a different class of search/draw & cant hide business already in your hand). Anyone who played before fetchlands will agree that the interaction between BS & the fetches pushed blue, already the most powerful color, into a tier of its own.
 
 

[wiley]

... and do not warp the format in any way ...

Except that these cards warp the lens through which we judge other cards, and the way we design/play our decks.  I think that brainstorm and force of will were/are extremely format warping thanks to this effect.  With brainstorm in the format we can reliably search through our decks for certain cards, fix our hands mid game and keep more opening hands.  These effects open up a wide range of powerful deck archetypes (that are hard pressed to exist without them) and create a very high standard for anything else that would go into its slot as it is effectively a unique card.  With force of will in the format you mitigate the possibility of cheap efficient combos; this card (while not completely shutting off combo) creates a barrier for the format, keeping it away from degenerate deck ideas.

I think the problem here lies with or differing semantics for "warping".  I believe you mean it to be 'overpowering to the point of breaking' whereas I mean it to be 'having an extreme impact on what can and cannot be played competitively'.  The thin grey line between the two is what is “healthy” for the format as a whole.  I personally keep the word broken reserved for when the format becomes unhealthy in my view.

[Smmenen]

Despite of that, the use of Smith's or Darwin's theories applied to Vintage doesn't seem very relevant to me. The framework of these two theories is different from a simple game. The economic world, and the biological system of life are specific complex systems, and their theories should be take into consideration in other subjects with a lot of caution. You maybe should have used elements of Game Theory (Nash equilibrium for instance) to analyse the consequences of restrictions on Vintage in a more neutral way.

But I congratulate you for the intellectual exercise.

Yes!  A systems theorist!

Over the last 7 months, I have tried to elaborate how systems theory applies to magic.   It has been one of the driving themes of my work lately.   Not only are magic metagames complex systems with many interacting elements, but magic decks are as well.   DCI interventions can be catalytic, as in positive feedback, or negative, when basically nothing happens. 

Magic metagames are specific complex systems that certainly differ from biological systems or economic systems, but the many general principles remain the same.   If you have SCG Premium, I would suggest that you read my article this week for more on this topic. 

@JACO:
While I enjoyed your article, I think something that detracted for me was your articulation of the three reasons the DCI restricts.   The truth is that the DCI doesn't revert to those principles or frankly any set of predetermined principles in a systematic or rigorous way.  It's mostly ad hoc determinations.  I mean, fast tutoring? Why restrict Gifts and not Intuition?  What makes Intuituion so special?  Fast mana.  Why is Grim Monolith restricted but not Dark Ritual or even Cabal Ritual?  There are too many inconsistencies for those principles to really be explanations in themselves.  A big part of your article was applying those principles to the new restrictions, so I found that section uninteresting for that reason as well. 

Nor, when you really inspect those 'principles' do they mean anything.  Format warping? 

It also doesn't account for past restrictions.  What about Stroke and Gyser?  Why or how are they justified under those three critiera. 

The truth is that the only true criteria for restriction is Fun.   Dominance by one deck is unfun because you have to play that deck or lose.   Format distortion, where the format warps around a card like Desire is unfun.  Trinisphere drove people from tournaments, it was too unfun.  And so on.   

[JACO]

While I enjoyed your article, I think something that detracted for me was your articulation of the three reasons the DCI restricts.   The truth is that the DCI doesn't revert to those principles or frankly any set of predetermined principles in a systematic or rigorous way.  It's mostly ad hoc determinations.  I mean, fast tutoring? Why restrict Gifts and not Intuition?  What makes Intuituion so special?  Fast mana.  Why is Grim Monolith restricted but not Dark Ritual or even Cabal Ritual?  There are too many inconsistencies for those principles to really be explanations in themselves.  A big part of your article was applying those principles to the new restrictions, so I found that section uninteresting for that reason as well. 

Nor, when you really inspect those 'principles' do they mean anything.  Format warping? 

It also doesn't account for past restrictions.  What about Stroke and Gyser?  Why or how are they justified under those three critiera. 

The truth is that the only true criteria for restriction is Fun.   Dominance by one deck is unfun because you have to play that deck or lose.   Format distortion, where the format warps around a card like Desire is unfun.  Trinisphere drove people from tournaments, it was too unfun.  And so on.   

Gifts was restricted because it performed in a tournament setting over a decent period of time, and because enough people bitched about it. I was not one of them, and it wasn't a deck that one "had to play...or lose." Intuition and Gifts are powerful and very unique cards from a design and deckbuilding perspective, but are a lot more limited than something like Vampiric or Demonic Tutor.

As you know, Grim Monolith was restricted during the Academy era on September 1 1999, with a bunch of cards that were perceived to be problematic from the Extended and Standard era infused by the Saga block (along with cards like Dream Halls, Voltaic Key, Doomsday, Hurkyl's Recall, Mind Over Matter, etc.). Dark Ritual and Cabal Ritual aren't on the Restricted list because neither have demonstrated continued dominance, nor have people really bitched about them needing to be restricted. I don't really see an objective reason for Grim Monolith's restriction, and would welcome its removal from the Restricted list.

Braingeyser, Stroke, Mind Twist, Black Vise, and things of this nature were restricted (or banned for a while, in the case of Mind Twist) in a different era of Magic, with different card quality. Back when Braingeyser was actually played there wasn't much card drawing or filtering available like there is today, which is why it flat out sucks and is unplayable now. It's not a best of breed card, but at a certain point it's all that was available and was fairly potent.

The groupings that the Vintage Restricted list fall into are just a convenience. All of the examples you cite further support the argument for restriction based on objective merits, and not perception or emotion. The latter are what lead to things like the restriction of Brainstorm and Ponder, or even terrible cards like Ali From Cairo and Ivory Tower (in the past).

[Smmenen]

While I enjoyed your article, I think something that detracted for me was your articulation of the three reasons the DCI restricts.   The truth is that the DCI doesn't revert to those principles or frankly any set of predetermined principles in a systematic or rigorous way.  It's mostly ad hoc determinations.  I mean, fast tutoring? Why restrict Gifts and not Intuition?  What makes Intuituion so special?  Fast mana.  Why is Grim Monolith restricted but not Dark Ritual or even Cabal Ritual?  There are too many inconsistencies for those principles to really be explanations in themselves.  A big part of your article was applying those principles to the new restrictions, so I found that section uninteresting for that reason as well. 

Nor, when you really inspect those 'principles' do they mean anything.  Format warping? 

It also doesn't account for past restrictions.  What about Stroke and Gyser?  Why or how are they justified under those three critiera. 

The truth is that the only true criteria for restriction is Fun.   Dominance by one deck is unfun because you have to play that deck or lose.   Format distortion, where the format warps around a card like Desire is unfun.  Trinisphere drove people from tournaments, it was too unfun.  And so on.   

Gifts was restricted because it performed in a tournament setting over a decent period of time, and because enough people bitched about it.

Exactly.  My question was largely rhetorical, but designed to make the point that the so-called 'principles' really mean nothing by themselves.  They have always been coupled with some other consideration. 

[Thegreatgonzo]

Quote : “ Brainstorm – not an overpowered tutor, fast mana acceleration, or format warping spell. Brainstorm simply helps to increase consistency in decks in both Vintage and Legacy, and to help dig for answers to problematic spells an opponent has played or will play.”

Well, it’s not a powerful tutor, it’s not fast mana... but it’s a bit of both. Just like a cheap tutor it allows you to search for bomb/answer/mana. It turns a so-so hand into a turn 2 kill with counter back-up.
But I don’t think that’s the reason it got restricted.
Brainstorm, like Gush, and, to a certain extend, Flash, have been restricted because they allow 16 cards mana bases. Well at least that’s the only way I can explain the restriction of Ponder. When you look at your opening seven and see land + Brainstorm, or land + Ponder, you know you will get this second land on time more often then not. Then, once you have 2 lands, you know, thanks to gush, that you will get that third land drop that gets everything started. (And you will draw two cards for free, and these cards, thanks to your aggressive manabase, will likely be useful spells).

So it’s not fast mana the way lotus is, it’s not ancestral recall, it’s not demonic tutor. But allows you to develop a mana base while drawing stuff, all at the same time.
Before Gush got unrestricted and Ponder was printed, the common “unfair Blue/Black” deck used to run 25 mana sources.

25 to 16, that’s 9 slots. Add the fact that silver bullets, wich are mostly blue instants, were 1 of thanks to Merchant scroll *4, and you’ll get the picture.

Now I don’t say I agree with thoses restrictions, but at the very least I understand them.

This raise one final, hard to answer question : should vintage be “tamed” like any other format? Should we suffer (or benefit) from the same kind of format rotation that exist in other formats? To be honest, I don’t have a clue. But this is what we should ask ourselves.

Sorry for the approximative english, and thanks for reading.