December B&R Changes

[Akuma]

My point was to show how those categories are just silly.

I don't believe it is "silly" to lump cards on the restricted list into these categories. It is what makes the most sense. This categorization is obviously not a perfect system (some cards can fall into multiple categories, some cards are not restricted and some are and they do/have similar effects). No one said that the DCI's policy is transparent, many things don't make sense. Restrictions and unrestrictions are made according to a group of people's subjective notions of what is fair and unfair, there is no system.

Doesn't it make sense to say that some cards are restricted because of their overwhelmingly powerful effect (Group A), others are restricted because they can tutor for these cards (Group B) and if they were not, it would in essence negate the restriction of cards in Group A. Let's face it, Crop Rotation is garbage and so is Enlightened Tutor. I'm sure ETutor would change nothing if it was unrestricted. And Group C contains cards that allow you to play all cards, including those in Group A, before your opponent. Simple as that.

The fact that cards like Grim Monolith are on the list does not indicate a contradiction of policy, it indicates that the people in charge of this list don't look at it too closely and once they put something on there, they leave it there to rot, despite the fact there are other cards in the environment that are better.

The "Merchant Scroll" fiasco got several cards restricted that should not have been restricted (Gifts, Flash, Gush). Restricting Brainstorm and Ponder was just retarded.

Even without 4 scrolls, the engine is just way too good for anything else to compete, so you can say goodbye to Thirst and Intuition if you do that.

The loss of 4 Merchant Scrolls would have been enough to bring "Gush" decks back down to earth and in the process hurt other decks that were using this efficient tutor. How is Gush being the draw engine of choice any different than now when Thirst for Knowledge is the draw engine of choice. Given a fixed card set, it seems only logical that a best whatever will be determined.

Gush/Bond is an incredibly efficient engine.

Fastbond is RESTRICTED!

All the Blue spells that are restricted should stay restricted.

What is the difference? You are still losing if you are not playing blue spells, if you unrestrict more of these, at least you will get to lose to different kinds of blue spells instead of the same ones you are losing to now.

One more thing, this notion that something is "unfun" therefore it should be restricted is so unbelievable dumb, I can't even find the words to discuss the matter. So someone thinks Trinisphere is unfun, or Shahrazad, or Flash, or whatever. Who cares? I think Mana Drain is unfun, but I'm not crying out for its restriction. Let's just restrict all of the unfun cards    Play another damn format if you don't think it is fun!

The modern Vintage environment has ALWAYS been able to counter all of these supposedly unfair cards (Trinisphere was not dominating when it was restricted, Gifts Ungiven wasn't dominating, Flash wasn't dominating). You can say Gush decks were, but were they doing so any more than Mana Drain decks are doing now? Why is it okay for a Mana Drain deck to be the best deck in Vintage but it is not okay for a Gush/Workshop/Combo deck? Another factor to consider is that all of the leading strategies prior to Gush being unrestricted were gutted, so yeah, it was going to do well, the DCI got rid of everything else that was decent prior to unrestricting Gush.

In short, restrictions are not needed when they don't adhere to the following categories: A. Overwhelmingly overpowered, B. Efficient Tutor and C. Efficient Acceleration. Let us also remember that there is a BIG difference between CONDITIONAL (Gush) vs. UNCONDITIONAL (Ancestral Recall) power.

[Twaun007]

All the Blue spells that are restricted should stay restricted.

What is the difference? You are still losing if you are not playing blue spells, if you unrestrict more of these, at least you will get to lose to different kinds of blue spells instead of the same ones you are losing to now.

That is exactly my point. Blue is the most powerful color in magic so why does it need access to another powerful spell?

How would unrestricting Fact or Fiction help Vintage besides giving blue a better strangle hold over the format?

[Smmenen]

My point was to show how those categories are just silly.

I don't believe it is "silly" to lump cards on the restricted list into these categories. It is what makes the most sense.

Can you support this claim that it makes the most sense to categorize them in that way?

I can think of other categories that make more sense. 

This categorization is obviously not a perfect system (some cards can fall into multiple categories, some cards are not restricted and some are and they do/have similar effects). No one said that the DCI's policy is transparent, many things don't make sense.

I didn't say that the DCI's policy wasn't transparent.  In fact, I think it is pretty straightforward.   The restrictions that have occurred both make sense and don't make sense, depending on what you are looking at.  If we view the restricted list, not from a categorical perspective as you have, but from a historical perspective, it makes perfect sense.  By that, I mean that their decisions are comprehensible, whether we agree with them or not. 

Doesn't it make sense to say that some cards are restricted because of their overwhelmingly powerful effect (Group A), others are restricted because they can tutor for these cards (Group B) and if they were not, it would in essence negate the restriction of cards in Group A.

Wow, now you are switching from one set of ambiguous language to anther.  "Power"?  "Under-costed"?  These are relative concepts which are very hard to define, let alone measure. 

Your categories make little sense because there is no reason to put them in one category or another aside from your arbitrary choices.  I don't see why you have separated out "efficient tutoring" and "accelleration" when those really can be lumped under "under-costed" effects.   Cards aren't restricted from being "efficient" or "undercosted" in any case.  Spoils of the Vault is as efficient as many of the tutors listed.  It's not restricted.   Or why do you have Library listed as undercosted effect.  How is Bazaar less undercosted? 

One could just as easily frame things in terms of card advantage or card selection, and we could put Frantic Search and Brainstorm under that category.   

How broad is the scope of an "effect"?  Not all tutors tutor up the same things.   How do you measure this effect?  Where is the line between permissible and impermissible?   

The notion that you are restricting because of an effect implies an order process of analysis based upon an effect rather than other, more obvious considerations, such as metagame impact.   The effect may influence its metagame impact, but that is a subsidiary element, not the reason for restriction.   Sometimes, the DCI talks about these cards in that way, but that is because of reasons someone else cited: we like to categorize things, and we (as human beings) tend to think that this helps us reason through things (as it is a characteristic of analytical reasoning).  that doesn't mean its right.

In any case, your entire categorization process is truly nonsensical upon close inspection.

.

One more thing, this notion that something is "unfun" therefore it should be restricted is so unbelievable dumb, I can't even find the words to discuss the matter. So someone thinks Trinisphere is unfun, or Shahrazad, or Flash, or whatever. Who cares? I think Mana Drain is unfun, but I'm not crying out for its restriction. Let's just restrict all of the unfun cards    Play another damn format if you don't think it is fun!

While I agree with you in spirit, there is actually no reason to restrict that can't be ultimately describe as serving "fun."

The most obvious and justifiable reason to restrict is to neuter a dominant deck.   Why would we do that?  Because most people think that diverse metagames are more fun than non-diverse ones. 

Your categories describe cards that are "efficient" - what reason is there to restrict efficient cards?   If your answer is that we don't want things to be too fast, why not?  If fun is not a consideration, I see no reason why we can't just unrestrict everything!  In fact, I've played that format, and it's quite fun! 

All the Blue spells that are restricted should stay restricted.

What is the difference? You are still losing if you are not playing blue spells, if you unrestrict more of these, at least you will get to lose to different kinds of blue spells instead of the same ones you are losing to now.

That is exactly my point. Blue is the most powerful color in magic so why does it need access to another powerful spell?

How would unrestricting Fact or Fiction help Vintage besides giving blue a better strangle hold over the format?

My advocacy for the unrestriction of Fact was at a time when Grow decks were dominant, and MUD decks were also popular.  I thought that unrestricting Fact could bring Drain decks back into the format and compete with Grow decks.

That said, Fact, again, was restricted on the flimsiest of evidence at a time when there were no competitive Vintage events.   

[Twaun007]

All the Blue spells that are restricted should stay restricted.

What is the difference? You are still losing if you are not playing blue spells, if you unrestrict more of these, at least you will get to lose to different kinds of blue spells instead of the same ones you are losing to now.

That is exactly my point. Blue is the most powerful color in magic so why does it need access to another powerful spell?

How would unrestricting Fact or Fiction help Vintage besides giving blue a better strangle hold over the format?

My advocacy for the unrestriction of Fact was at a time when Grow decks were dominant, and MUD decks were also popular.  I thought that unrestricting Fact could bring Drain decks back into the format and compete with Grow decks.

That said, Fact, again, was restricted on the flimsiest of evidence at a time when there were no competitive Vintage events.   

In the Grow meta Fact or Fiction could have defiantly come off. I personally don't think quad laser FoF could have helped combat the 8x duress effect Grow decks, but that is a story for different times. In the metagame of today, I do not think that FoF coming off would help the format. As for other cards I will post my thoughts after work.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Tutoring in itself isn't that great.  See Burning Wish for an example of a 'meh' tutor made insane by Yawgmoth's Will.  If Will were banned (which I'm 100% *not* advocating), Burning Wish could safely come off the list.  Similarly, Enlightened Tutor?!?!?  I'm not even aware of a target that makes this worthwhile.  Even Oath of Druids-based strategies run Imperial Seal over this.

Efficient tutoring isn't a problem, it's the restricted engine cards that the format revolves around.  Let's face it, in a world without Ancestral Recall, Gush, and Flash,  Merchant Scroll would see no play.  Look at the game's single best tutor: Demonic Consultation.  It fetches any unrestricted card at instant speed for a single black mana.  And how much play does it see?  How much play would it see in Legacy or Extended if legal there?  Just to put things in persepctive...

Ancestral Recall and Yawg Will together warp the format into a tutor-heavy shuffle fest.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  It's just that tutors are only as strong as their best targets.  

0 (make it...white and green), instant, split second, search your library for a non-blue Planeswalker card and put it into your hand.  If you do put it into your hand, gain 5 life.

Would this see play in vintage?  Heck no.  This would get insta-banned in every other format, though.

[Harlequin]

This is mostly paraphrased from basically the same question that was discussed here a few years ago.  Found here: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32268.0

In looking at the B&R list I like the concept of "Acceptable Cost."  Through this lense you can judge basically every card on both on and off the list.  It's the closest thing I've seen to an actauly objective look at cards that are restricted and unrestricted.  It ignores the subjectivity of 'power' 'fun' and 'dominating' and simply looks to break down a card into its component parts and take a guess at what the acceptable cost would be.  Think about it, cards like Legacy Weapon, Door to Nothingness, and Mindslaver are amazing powerful cards... but does anyone think they should be restricted?  No because they are 'fairly' costed.  If it the cards cost equals the acceptable cost, or costs more - then it should be unrestricted.  If the cards cost is less than the acceptable cost - then it should be restricted.

This arguement breaks down at lands.  Lands are interesting because you certainly can't say that lands are cost-less.  In that if you have many lands in hand you cannot 'dump' them all onto the board.  Also Balance, Triniphere, and to an exent Fastbond; on the other side Mindslaver and  Crucible are interesting examples.  The logic doesn't quite work for these effects don't have cards that do similar effects that span a continum of costs. 

From what I can tell here are the acceptable costs:

Drawing a Card (or more accuratly +1 Card relatively random Card Advantage) = 1.5 Mana

Inhand Tutoring for any card with no drawback = 3 mana is just bearly not acceptable (see Grim tutor).  So 3.1 ~ish

Tutoring for a card with drawback or restriction = 2 Mana?

Countering a Spell = 0 Mana? While there are no counterspells at all that are restricted.  We know that countering a spell for 1 mana or 1 card are both certainly acceptable. 

Producing Temporary Mana = +2 for each 1 mana is acceptabile. 

Permanent Mana = about ~1 a mana per mana generated each turn. 

Conversion Rules of Thumb: 1 Extra Card Disadvantage can reduce the acceptable cost of the card by 1 mana

* There are plenty of cards that are restricted because thier effect is uniquely powerful.  Cards like lands

So lets take a look at some cards under this concept:

Let's start with a few easy ones... Vamp, DT, Grim Tutor, Diabolic tutor
Vamp is a tutor with a drawback (topdeck) ~> Acceptable cost would be 2 mana (look at Tainted Pact).  It costs 1 and 2 life.  This means it should be restricted.
Demonic Tutor Vrs Grim Tutor and Diabolic Tutor.  This illustrates this concept very well.

Staying in the world of Tutoring.  Let's compare Brainstorm, Ponder, and Impulse.  Again the acceptable cost for a conditional or restricted tutor is generally acceptable at 2.  Mystical, Crop Rotation, Enlightened Tutor, etc... All cost 1.  Brainstorm and Ponder are ~so~ restrictive in what they can "tutor" for it's very difficult to say if the 1 is a fair cost or not.  But what about Merchant Scroll?  Many have made the arguement that the condition on Merchant scroll is vertually negligible, making it closer to DT in actualy powerlevel.

Two Last card to look at a Tutor: Gifts Ungiven And Intuition.
For Gifts you Tutor for 4 cards with a restriction on each.  But again you only get 2, so not counting the cards that hit the yard we have 2 + 2 = 4.  Now.... how do we value the card that went into the yard?  Anyone who has tried to split a Recoup/Yawg Pile knows that the cards that end up in the yard certainly have value.  Even if we modestly count them as 1/2 a mana each (ignoring entomb as a benchmark), we still end up with "Acceptable Gifts" costing 5 mana. 
For Intuition, you only get a single tutored card with a restriction* (2 mana), and againt costing the other two cards at 1/2 point each Intuition is just bearly acceptable at 3 mana.  Intuition certainly has a restriction in that you either need to tutor for 3 cards you want in the graveyard, or a x3 non-restricted card, or x3 bombs of which you get the weakest.   

Lets look at some draw spells:

Night's Whisper, Thirst, FoF, and Yawgmoth's Bargin.
Nights Whisper and Thirst fairly closely follow the 1.5 mana per card guidelines.  Bargin at 6 mana should be able to buy you around 4 cards - maybe 5 because its not an instant.  Bargin very frequently gets many more than that so it should cots upwards of 9 mana therefor it's restricted.  I'd like to point out that these aren't really linear... I don't think Miojin of Seeing Winds should be restricted because it should cost 11 instead of 9.  This makes cards like Bargin a bit harder to evaluate.  FoF is an interesting card.  Effect either 2 best cards, or 3 good cards.  On the surface you have either +1 "Semi-tutor" because your taking the best card wich should cost 1 + 2 = 3 mana.  Or you get +2 cards 1.5 x2 = 3 mana. Again we have to ask the question what is the value of the cards going to the graveyard - AND what is the value of the choice -you- get to make on how to play the card.  @ another 1/2 point a pop FoF averages out a 4.5 mana to be acceptable.  And I think most people would agree that if FOF were 5 mana it would be nearly unplayable.  But I don't think 4 is acceptable, however I'll admit that it walks the line.

Here's Another group: Temporary Mana.
Dark Ritual, Mana Vault, Lotus Petal, Channel -
Dark Ritual shows us that there +2 for 1 mana is acceptable.  Channel shows us that there is certainly a limit on how much temporary mana is acceptable, and Lotus Petal is a nice example of that as well (0 is less than a 1/2).  Again, the question mark here is what is the value of a 'worthless' artifact after the mana is expended.  If they made a card called  "Dark Ritual Vault" for B -- Add BBB to your pool, and put an artifact token into play with no abilites.  It would basically be strictly better than Dark Ritual - and would it be restricted?  I think Mana Vault says yes. 
Lotus Petal is interesting especailly when compared to the two spirit guides.  Now we may have to revise our criteria to include mana selection.  Lotus Petal is ANY color mana including two very powerful colors U and B.  the spirit guides each produce only thier own color mana AND both are relatively weak colors.  Is this enough to draw a distiction between 0 and 0?  I guess so.

Stable mana holds true as well:
Chrome Mox, Mox Diamond, Llanowar Elves, Mox Saphire, Sol Ring.
The pitch-mox are recently unrestricted, which again sheds light on the 'cost' of card disadvantage.  An acceptable cost for 'stable mana' is about 1 (see Llanowar Elves, birds of paradice, etc) maybe even less than 1.  But 0 mana and a card is now acceptable.  Where the true Mox, Sol Ring, and Mana Crypt are all safely restricted.  This shows that these guidelines aren't static, instead we see them change with each restriction and unrestriction.  I feel that the list is a tool to derive these costs, not that the costs are used to create the list (however as new cards are created - perhapse this would be a good way litmus test new cards powerlevels).

[Smmenen]

This is mostly paraphrased from basically the same question that was discussed here a few years ago.  Found here: http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=32268.0

In looking at the B&R list I like the concept of "Acceptable Cost."  Through this lense you can judge basically every card on both on and off the list.  It's the closest thing I've seen to an actauly objective look at cards that are restricted and unrestricted.  It ignores the subjectivity of 'power' 'fun' and 'dominating' and simply looks to break down a card into its component parts and take a guess at what the acceptable cost would be. 

A fool's errand.

Your analysis replicates the same error I was criticizing Akuma and ELD for committing. 

You cannot uncouple subjective questions of "fun" from what is "acceptable costs."   The very definition of what is "acceptable" turns upon what is fun.   How do we determine what is acceptable?   Metrics such as "speed," etc all exist because of the underlying value of fun.   

Furthermore, even if you could devise a system for identifying a card for restriction based upon its component parts, how would you identify the line between what is acceptable and what is not with respect to those components?  Drawing that line requires a subjective, possibly arbitrary, decision. 

Think about it, cards like Legacy Weapon, Door to Nothingness, and Mindslaver are amazing powerful cards... but does anyone think they should be restricted?  No because they are 'fairly' costed.  If it the cards cost equals the acceptable cost, or costs more - then it should be unrestricted.  If the cards cost is less than the acceptable cost - then it should be restricted.

And how do we determine what is an acceptable cost?

This arguement breaks down at lands.  Lands are interesting because you certainly can't say that lands are cost-less.  In that if you have many lands in hand you cannot 'dump' them all onto the board.  Also Balance, Triniphere, and to an exent Fastbond; on the other side Mindslaver and  Crucible are interesting examples.  The logic doesn't quite work for these effects don't have cards that do similar effects that span a continum of costs. 

The argument doesn't just break down at lands -  it's fundamentally flawed.   Every card has an assortment of costs, not simply mana costs.  How do you measure the cost of risking death and removing cards from game in Spoils into your equation?  How do you compare that to Demonic Consult?   

Alternatively, how do you measure benefits?   DT finds any card.   Crop Rotation only finds a land.  So does Sylvan Scrying, ut Rotation puts the land directly into play.  How do you measure and compare those various benefits?

From w
hat I can tell here are the acceptable costs:

Inhand Tutoring for any card with no drawback = 3 mana is just bearly not acceptable (see Grim tutor).  So 3.1 ~ish

What does that say about Spoils of the Vault? 

Tutoring for a card with drawback or restriction = 2 Mana?

Spoils.

Permanent Mana = about ~1 a mana per mana generated each turn. 

Gilded Lotus proves this false.

Your analysis is riddled with errors, holes, and gigantic, and incorrect assumptions. 

[Akuma]

Can you support this claim that it makes the most sense to categorize them in that way?

I can think of other categories that make more sense.

I don't have to support them, this entire conversation is based on opinion. The only people who can tell you anything for sure are those that work at WotC. The whole category thing is how I view things. I think it makes perfect sense. My categorizations are made based on what I have seen from WotC since the inception of this game. When Magic began, we had Alpha and then Beta, then Revised was released and WotC removed cards they considered to be "spoilers". Some of these cards were restricted or banned based on THEIR criteria.

I don't see why you have separated out "efficient tutoring" and "accelleration" when those really can be lumped under "under-costed" effects.   Cards aren't restricted from being "efficient" or "undercosted" in any case.  Spoils of the Vault is as efficient as many of the tutors listed.  It's not restricted.   Or why do you have Library listed as undercosted effect.  How is Bazaar less undercosted?

Tutoring and acceleration are separated out because while you can argue that they both "accelerate", it is very clear that there are cards in this game that say "find x card" of some sort. I would also say that a tutor has to be playable (ie. efficient) for it to merit restriction. Diabolic Tutor is unrestricted and it gets anything just like Demonic Tutor. Cost is definitely a factor, so I was using the word "under-costed", I'm not an English specialist or a lawyer, so maybe I have used two terms that are interchangeable (under-costed vs. efficient) but the point is the same, cost has a lot to do with WotC's decision.

Spoils of the Vault falls into the conditional vs. unconditional camp, just like Rhystic Tutor/Infernal Tutor vs. Demonic Tutor. I personally think Library of Alexandria should be unrestricted, but has been left on the list to rot because it was restricted a long time ago and once put on the list, cards are left there because this is not a format that is closely watched.

Your categories describe cards that are "efficient" - what reason is there to restrict efficient cards?   If your answer is that we don't want things to be too fast, why not?  If fun is not a consideration, I see no reason why we can't just unrestrict everything!  In fact, I've played that format, and it's quite fun!

I don't make the decision on what is too efficient, someone else does. Clearly these people have deemed "Ancestral Recall" worthy of restriction and not "Concentrate". My fun might not be your fun, which in turn is not what someone else thinks is fun, so I can't comment on what is just right, fast and too fast.

The most obvious and justifiable reason to restrict is to neuter a dominant deck. Why would we do that? Because most people think that diverse metagames are more fun than non-diverse ones.

I'm fine with this. It would be nice if WotC followed a pattern more similar to the one it uses for its "money-making" formats. They take a long hard look at things before they axe something, they don't do sh** like the Time Vault errata to make it worthless (Flamevault), people would be pissed in Standard if they banned Tarmogoyf on a whim.

[Smmenen]

Can you support this claim that it makes the most sense to categorize them in that way?

I can think of other categories that make more sense.

I don't have to support them, this entire conversation is based on opinion.

I said that your categories were silly.  You said that your categories were not silly because "they made the most sense."   
How can you argue that your categories make the most sense, and are therefore not silly, if you don't give any reasons in support of your claim?

The fact that you label your claim an opinion does not insulate it from reasoned analysis. 

People who hold opinions always hold those opinions for a reason (even bad ones).   If you can't offer a reason for that opinion, then it make little sense to hold it.

The only people who can tell you anything for sure are those that work at WotC.

I wouldn't go that far.    Wizards of the Coast behaves in ways that are intuitive, not always logical. 

I don't see why you have separated out "efficient tutoring" and "accelleration" when those really can be lumped under "under-costed" effects.   Cards aren't restricted from being "efficient" or "undercosted" in any case.  Spoils of the Vault is as efficient as many of the tutors listed.  It's not restricted.   Or why do you have Library listed as undercosted effect.  How is Bazaar less undercosted?

Tutoring and acceleration are separated out because while you can argue that they both "accelerate", it is very clear that there are cards in this game that say "find x card" of some sort. I would also say that a tutor has to be playable (ie. efficient) for it to merit restriction. Diabolic Tutor is unrestricted and it gets anything just like Demonic Tutor. Cost is definitely a factor, so I was using the word "under-costed", I'm not an English specialist or a lawyer, so maybe I have used two terms that are interchangeable (under-costed vs. efficient) but the point is the same, cost has a lot to do with WotC's decision.

My view is that you have it backwards.   The reason for restrictions is usually not because of cost, but because a card is too good.   One of the reasons a card is too good is because it is efficient.   Cards that are too expensive don't see play.   

You're mistaking ultimate reasons for subsidiary reasons, which is the fundamental flaw in the entire "categorization" concept.

The restrictions do not fall into categories.  They are ad hoc decisions made at a particular point in time due to a mixture of considerations.   Your categories make little sense, both because there is no way to know which cards fall into which categories (because of hte overlap), but also because your categories could all collapse into the top category, which raises the question: why have the other one's at all?



In any case, the historical narrative explaining each restriction makes alot more sense than your arbitrary, fliud, and silly categories.  So why, again, does that make more sense than just acknowledging, what's true, that the restrictions are ad hoc and simply a list that has evolved over time? 

Spoils of the Vault falls into the conditional vs. unconditional camp, just like Rhystic Tutor/Infernal Tutor vs. Demonic Tutor. I personally think Library of Alexandria should be unrestricted, but has been left on the list to rot because it was restricted a long time ago and once put on the list, cards are left there because this is not a format that is closely watched.

What does conditional mean?

Every single card in Magic is conditional.   No card in Magic, aside from Dryad Arbor, does anything by itself. 

Your categories describe cards that are "efficient" - what reason is there to restrict efficient cards?   If your answer is that we don't want things to be too fast, why not?  If fun is not a consideration, I see no reason why we can't just unrestrict everything!  In fact, I've played that format, and it's quite fun!

I don't make the decision on what is too efficient, someone else does. Clearly these people have deemed "Ancestral Recall" worthy of restriction and not "Concentrate".

You assume that the restrictions are based on efficiency rather than somethign else, which may be informed by a cards efficiency. 

I strongly dispute that notion, for reasons I gave in response to Harlequin's post.

My fun might not be your fun, which in turn is not what someone else thinks is fun, so I can't comment on what is just right, fast and too fast.

So you acknowledge that fun is a reason they restrict?  In fact, it's THE reason they restrict.

Every single possible reason to restrict ultimately devolves into some conception of fun.

The most obvious and justifiable reason to restrict is to neuter a dominant deck. Why would we do that? Because most people think that diverse metagames are more fun than non-diverse ones.

I'm fine with this. It would be nice if WotC followed a pattern more similar to the one it uses for its "money-making" formats. They take a long hard look at things before they axe something, they don't do sh** like the Time Vault errata to make it worthless (Flamevault), people would be pissed in Standard if they banned Tarmogoyf on a whim.

So you admit, now, that every single reason for restriction ultimately comes down to some conception of fun?

[Akuma]

So you admit, now, that every single reason for restriction ultimately comes down to some conception of fun?

No, that single reason is not fun, it is money, the way it has always been.

The reason for restrictions is usually not because of cost, but because a card is too good.

I believe there is a group cards that is restricted for being too good. There are other cards that are not really all that good but are restricted because they find cards that are too good. You can lump some tutors into the too good category as well, but you can clearly see that not all of them are too good (see Legacy B&R list).

They are ad hoc decisions made at a particular point in time due to a mixture of considerations.

I don't disagree with this. I just think that the cards on the list usually fall into certain general fields. Cards that are too good (includes some tutors like Demonic Tutor for example and all acceleration can be included here, it is acceleration that is too good) and cards that get cards that are too good (these cards would not be restricted if it wasn't for the powerful card they fetch, things like Crop Rotation).

Every single card in Magic is conditional.

This is just lame, of course all of these cards can be considered conditional. Do you not see the difference between a card that says "Pay mana: search for a card, put it in your hand" and one that says "Pay mana: search for a card and put it in your hand unless your opponent pays 2 mana"?

[arctic79]

I don't think that there is any way to catagorize banned or resticted cards other then the way WotC does already which is the "fun" or "have a fighting chance" catagory.  Outside of some dated selections on the list they have attempted to neuter "overly powerful" cards/and or combination of cards.  Sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they get it right, but what they do is required to keep the Vintage scene alive.  If WotC had not done something about Flash or Gush would we be able to bring any new players into the format?  Probably not because no one would want to play knowing that they do not have a fighting chance against these decks while just learning the environment. 
They won't restrict Tarmogoyf in Type 2 or ban it because there are easy answers to it that don't require extra space just to combat it (it is a format based on attacking).  But in Vintage unless you had a hand full of answers, there is little you can do to combat say Gush/Bond once it gets online or stop Turn 1 or 2 Flash without resorting to specific hate. 
Call it the "fun factor" or whatever, WotC makes the changes they do to try and better the health of the Format whether their choices end up right or wrong.
This is just my opinion.

[Smmenen]

So you admit, now, that every single reason for restriction ultimately comes down to some conception of fun?

No, that single reason is not fun, it is money, the way it has always been.

I'm not sure that is true for Vintage, or, if it is, it's true to a much lesser extent.   But that's fine, I can accept that as the main value.  That makes more sense than "efficiency."

The reason for restrictions is usually not because of cost, but because a card is too good.

I believe there is a group cards that is restricted for being too good. There are other cards that are not really all that good but are restricted because they find cards that are too good. You can lump some tutors into the too good category as well, but you can clearly see that not all of them are too good (see Legacy B&R list).

Is a tutor that finds good cards that is restriction worthy also "too good"?  I.e. Scroll?  Or, if you think it should be restricted, Gifts?

They are ad hoc decisions made at a particular point in time due to a mixture of considerations.

I don't disagree with this. I just think that the cards on the list usually fall into certain general fields. Cards that are too good (includes some tutors like Demonic Tutor for example and all acceleration can be included here, it is acceleration that is too good) and cards that get cards that are too good (these cards would not be restricted if it wasn't for the powerful card they fetch, things like Crop Rotation).

Again, isn't accelleration and tutors that fuel cards that are "too good" and restriction worthy also, by definition " too good"?

Tinker is just a tutor.  But no one would say that it just finds good cards, but isn't good itself. 

Every single card in Magic is conditional.

This is just lame, of course all of these cards can be considered conditional. Do you not see the difference between a card that says "Pay mana: search for a card, put it in your hand" and one that says "Pay mana: search for a card and put it in your hand unless your opponent pays 2 mana"?

Of course, but that doesn't change the card that every card is still conditional.  There are varying degrees of conditionality.  Some are extremely contingent - i.e. Coalition Victory of the Cheese Wins again.  Some are much less so. 

[salvager]

I personnaly think that if adjustments have to be make to our format it's definitly not by restricting cards but by unrestricting cards to restore balance between decks.

For exemple if combo dominates the metagame don't restrict his engine to kill the deck instead just unrestrict a hate card which distrupt that deck (trinisphere) and i think that it is wath the dci should have done instead of restrcting every blue engine.

P.S. please don't tell me that trini is unfun cause it is in my opinion really chalenging and skill rewarding to play against a trinisphere and the cherry on the cake i almost die of laughter everytime i play a 1st turn trinisphere so it's a fun card

sorry for my english i'm a frenchy

[LordHomerCat]

I personnaly think that if adjustments have to be make to our format it's definitly not by restricting cards but by unrestricting cards to restore balance between decks.

For exemple if combo dominates the metagame don't restrict his engine to kill the deck instead just unrestrict a hate card which distrupt that deck (trinisphere) and i think that it is wath the dci should have done instead of restrcting every blue engine.

P.S. please don't tell me that trini is unfun cause it is in my opinion really chalenging and skill rewarding to play against a trinisphere and the cherry on the cake i almost die of laughter everytime i play a 1st turn trinisphere so it's a fun card

sorry for my english i'm a frenchy

But 3Ball didn't keep combo in check.  As a European, surely you remember how the original TPS decks would massacre the trinisphere decks, and after the restriction combo actually got LESS popular.

[Akuma]

Is a tutor that finds good cards that is restriction worthy also "too good"?  I.e. Scroll?  Or, if you think it should be restricted, Gifts?

Merchant Scroll and Gifts Ungiven are not too good, that is why they are not restricted in Legacy. I understand the restriction of Merchant Scroll since many cards that were actually on the restricted list were inferior, especially at the time (ie. Personal Tutor). I don't believe Gifts Ungiven should have been restricted, clearly a case of "lets restrict Dark Ritual, it's what makes Necropotence good" mentality.

Every single tutor that is restricted in Vintage but not in Legacy is not "too good".

Again, isn't accelleration and tutors that fuel cards that are "too good" and restriction worthy also, by definition " too good"?

I thought I already agreed with you on this point. Yes, the acceleration is "too good" so there is not need for a separate category, they are just cards that are "too good".

There are varying degrees of conditionality.

True, that is why Demonic Consultation is restricted and Spoils of the Vault is not. We can live with the limitations of one but not the other.

[Harlequin]

The argument doesn't just break down at lands -  it's fundamentally flawed.   Every card has an assortment of costs, not simply mana costs.  How do you measure the cost of risking death and removing cards from game in Spoils into your equation?  How do you compare that to Demonic Consult?   

Alternatively, how do you measure benefits?   DT finds any card.   Crop Rotation only finds a land.  So does Sylvan Scrying, ut Rotation puts the land directly into play.  How do you measure and compare those various benefits?

As I said, I don't have a 'mana' value for a land drop.  It's certainly not 0, anyone who has had a hand that had 2 lands in knows this because they have to choose to play one of them.  so really this system is a metric for analizing Spells more than lands. 

From what I can tell here are the acceptable costs:

Inhand Tutoring for any card with no drawback = 3 mana is just bearly not acceptable (see Grim tutor).  So 3.1 ~ish

What does that say about Spoils of the Vault? 

Tutoring for a card with drawback or restriction = 2 Mana?

Spoils.

Spoils, Gamble, Demonic Consultation (and Ad Nauseam as a non-tutor) are all cards that I was originally going to cover, but I didn't get around to typing them out.  If you've studied insurance (or even if you haven't) you know there is a concept of the 'cost of risk.'  Spoils and Ad Nauseam are both cards that involve some amount of risk.  Spoils for Black lotus on turn 1 is a risky play.   So 'risk' as a drawback is difficult to put a cost on because each risk card has a differant risk.  In the case of Consultation, you have a small chance to deck yourself, or render the remainder of your deck worthless if you tutor for a restricted card.  But in a pinch you won't be too bad off.  With spoils if it's early in the game then tutoring for a restricted card is more likely to kill you than not.  So this means you mostly are going to be spoilsing for a 4-of (a restriction).  Also vamp and grim tutor have a trival life payment associated, Spoils has a fairly substantial drawback in the form of a potentially large life payement.  I think the combintion of the drawback, and the risk can bring the 2-mana acceptable cost to 1.  A similar metric can be applied to Gamble.

Quote
Permanent Mana = about ~1 a mana per mana generated each turn. 
Gilded Lotus proves this false.

???
Last I checked... and correct me if I'm wrong... 5 is greater than 3.  And Gilded Lotus is acceptably unrestricted (and arguably would still be unrestricted if it only cost 3).

[Smmenen]

Let me preface by saying that I’ve tried to come up with a categorization process long ago.

2003:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/5636_How_Should_We_Restrict_Cards_In_Vintage_An_Analysis_And_A_Suggestion.html

2004:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/8382_Crucible_of_Worlds_is_the_New_Library_of_Alexandria_Constructing_a_Coherent_Restricted_List_Policy.html

Over years of analyzing Vintage, I eventually realized that it’s pretty much incoherent and that the people who run the DCI are not these omniscient super computers , but actually rather ordinary people who happen to be in a position of power to make major decision for the format.   

The whole attempt to categorize the restricted list is attempted for these reasons:

1) The human need to make sense of decisions by putting things to schemas or categories

2) The desire to try and craft an objective, logical basis for the decisions based on something other than amorphous grounds.

However, it is futile because, ultimately:

1) Categories bleed, deeply so, and defy precise definition.  And any attempt to prioritize or develop criteria for putting cards into one category or another requires a subjective evaluation.

2) It is not just that categories bleed, but that cards have many characteristicis and it is impossible to jam them into one category or another in many cases.  The attempt to apply the categories to the cards requires subjective determination about what is most salient about a card. 

In fact, it is the COMBINATION of categorical traits which warrants restriction in many cases.  It's not just a card's efficiency, or its effect, or its metagame dominance, or its ability to create tremendous card advatnage (let's say, with Balance - which exhibits each trait), but the combination of these traits which makes it restriction worthy.   

The whole notion of categories is reductionist and misses the fact that it is the combination of traits, not one in particular, which explains the restriction. 

3) The line for putting something into a category is unclear, and it takes a subjective (arbitrary) decision to draw that line.  An example in law is the drinking age.  Why 21?  It’s just an arbitrary line drawn.  This line could not be based on objective considerations since it is, inherently, subjective.  The example of the line for tutors at 3.1 mana is case in point.  How are you going ot draw the line for something that is "too efficient"?  What if Burning Wish cost 1W - would it still deserve restriction? 

4) It’s not just that the line for putting something into a category is unclear, but even if you could identify a bright line (such as 1 card drawn for every .5 mana), you would have the further difficulty figuring out how to apply that rule to cards that really defy clear estimates.  In short, the problem is that costs/benefits, etc are often comparing Applies and Oranges.  You would need a way to put all of the costs and benefits into the same unit of measurement in order to apply the restriction criteria, and to do so would involve quite a few subjective determinations.

For example: Demonic Tutor.  We have a bright rule that Demonic Tutor is good enough to restrict.  But take Burning Wish.   Burning Wish has a “cost” that is not there for Demonic Tutor: it can only search a +/-15 card zone, whereas DT sees a +/- 60 card zone.  How do you compare that benefit?   Or how do we compare Enlightendt Tutor to Crop Rotation?  How much value to do we give to not having to sacrifice something to tutor (tinker/Crop Rotation v. Sylvan Scrying/Fabricate)?  How much weight do you give to putting somethig directly into play (Tinker v. Fabricate)?  How do you objectively figure that weight? 

The answer to all of these questions requires a subjective determination.   Similarly, the line between Transmute Artifact and Tinker.  One is cheaper than the other in one sense, but more expensive in another.   How do you compare that in an objective sense?

After writing well over hundred pages of articles on the subject in over 6 years, I can safely say that the attempt to create a logical, objective, clear categorical framework for restriction is inherently flawed and a doomed project. 

[Harlequin]

Over years of analyzing Vintage, I eventually realized that it’s pretty much incoherent and that the people who run the DCI are not these omniscient super computers , but actually rather ordinary people who happen to be in a position of power to make major decision for the format. 

This is so true that it hurts sometimes.  However, if one believes only this then its very easy to group all cards into two catagories:  "Cards that our 'ordinary people' feel should be restricted" and "all other cards."  This means that there's absolutly no point in reviewing, considering, or even thinking about why the restricted cards are restricted.  And when the list changes, there's no point in debating if it was good, bad, or ugly because it utlimate has no place in the model. 

However, as members of a community its our nature (and perhapse even our duty) to run our own analysis and post our own suggestions and recomendations to these 'ordinary people' about the way things "should" be. 

Also, the card pool is not a static system.  As new cards come out, the 'ordinary people' running the DCI has to consider each card and decide to restrict them or leave them alone.  There I think it's useful to have some sort of objective guidline to messure a card that puts a messurement on normally subjective words like "efficent" "acceptable" "overpowered" or "undercosted."  Using our experiance we all know why Godsire is not going to be considered for restriction, but Ad Nauseam could someday.  Using this metric we can make an attempt to actualy weigh new cards against cards that are already on or off the restricted list.  So while attempting to derive a "formula" for restriction is certainly a doomed task - I contest that refining a unit of messure for a card is NOT a worthless exercise.

[Smmenen]

Over years of analyzing Vintage, I eventually realized that it’s pretty much incoherent and that the people who run the DCI are not these omniscient super computers , but actually rather ordinary people who happen to be in a position of power to make major decision for the format. 

This is so true that it hurts sometimes.  However, if one believes only this then its very easy to group all cards into two catagories:  "Cards that our 'ordinary people' feel should be restricted" and "all other cards."  This means that there's absolutly no point in reviewing, considering, or even thinking about why the restricted cards are restricted.  And when the list changes, there's no point in debating if it was good, bad, or ugly because it utlimate has no place in the model. 

Your last two inferences do not follow, as a matter of logic, from the first.  Being incoherent does not mean incomprehensible. 

We can still employ reason to critique restrictions even when there is no objective grounds for the restrictions or when the attempt to categorize fails.  Why?  Because the restrictions are made on the basis of grounds which we are aware of and can debate.   While there may  not be an objective grounding for the decisions, in the sense of deductive logic, there are still reasons which we can debate.      And those debates can influence policy makers. 

My long experience of reviewing, critiquing, praising, and urging restrictions and unrestrictions disproves that contention.   My analysis of the June restrictions is a case in point (see the second half of this article):

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/16161_So_Many_Insane_Plays_The_MayJune_Vintage_Metagame_Report.html

EDIT:

We have come along way.   Back in the early years of DCI tournaments, the DCI would ban and restrict on the flimsiest evidence for the barest reason.  Violation of norms of that era was perceived as sufficient justification in many cases.   

We have a document that has a history, and the reasons for various restrictions cannot be untangled from that history.  Restrictions made in the 1990s were based on very different criteria and assumptions about the game than those used today.     

I believe that the restricted list we currently live with had produced norms which are used to guide our analysis today. 

[Troy_Costisick]

The answer to all of these questions requires a subjective determination.   Similarly, the line between Transmute Artifact and Tinker.  One is cheaper than the other in one sense, but more expensive in another.   How do you compare that in an objective sense?

This is very well said.  Any alterations to the B/R list for Vintage must take into account the current meta.  During the Gushbond era, FoF would have been find to unrestrict.  Right now, with Drain decks everywhere, probably not so much.  It's iffyer.  Anyway, each card should be examined individually, not as a group or a whole.  Each one has its own unique properties and interacts with the rest of the card pool in a unique way.  They're like people.  You can try to put them in groups, but we're all so unique and individualistic, that those groups don't hold up for very long and some new theory will have to be developed to explain things.  For the B/R list, the key is to eye the meta and make decisions from there.  The decks people design should drive the list.  Actual play is what matters most.  I, personally, am looking forward to Steve's 2 month update on the meta for Nov-Dec. 

Peace,

-Troy

[dicemanx]

This has been a very interesting discussion, particularly on Steve's end. I agree with many of his rebuttals.

My position over the last few years, as some will remember, is that the B/R list, whether purposefully or accidentally, serves as a perfect agent of positive format change and stimulates deck construction with every restriction or unrestriction. It's almost like playing a new meta every time, and is at times a needed boost when the released sets don't contribute significantly to vintage. In ohter words, I don't view any restriction or unrestriction as "bad" in the sense that it is ultimately "objectively poor"; for instance, I felt that the unrestriction of Gush was an excellent idea and that Flash was allowed to persist for a while also had positives. These decisions ultimately had a short shelf life (the DCI was arguably too slow to act once Gush based archetypes had "run their course" and Flash decks started to make matches less fun), which is perfectly acceptable in my view. I view the B/R list as fluid, everchanging, and a good ancillary source for change and infusion of new decks/approaches/archetypes into the format. I also don't believe there is such a thing as an "objectively ideal" B/R list, nor would I ever believe that anyone is even remotely qualified to reach such a determination. This is also why the DCI rationales for restrictions/unrestrictions don't really interest me (I'll leave it up to the TMD pundits to dissect them, complain about them/praise them, and try to establish some sort of B/R list "coherence").

That doesn't mean that I don't support certain criteria for restricting cards. While I don't remotely care about trying to identify criteria for cards in a vacuum (such as "too efficient", or "undercosted" etc.), I understand that even within the context of actual decks it is difficult to establish clear criteria. The two primary criteria are format dominance (when a particular archetype or a mechanic that appears in many archetypes) is dominating standings, and extreme format distortion (specifically: when a deck is able to manufacture very quick AND relatively straightforward wins to the extent that its popularity is high and you must scramble for solutions without them offering any guarantee of success). Flash clearly fell into the latter category, as did Trinisphere a while back; Ichorid was close but too hoseable and not popular enough to be in the same league as Flash. Gush on the other hand became the mechanic of choice in many blue based archetypes and would qualify under the first criterion, although I wouldn't even care to debate whether Gush needed to be hit in light of the other restrictions (Scroll and Brainstorm most notably). I understand that one question regarding such criteria is where to set the arbitrary cut-offs, but as we saw in extensive debates on TMD regarding Trinisphere and Flash sometimes you "just know" when a card, mechanic, or engine grossly oversteps boundaries and puts a limit on the fun factor for those that enjoy the brokenness of the format but like to see it be a skill intensive format nonetheless.


In other news, when is WotC going to fix Transmute Artifact by removing that damn power errata? The format is ripe for the more "weird" archetypes to have a go.

[Smmenen]

Here is my basic framework for thinking about restrictions, and it is about as "logically deducible" as I think you can possible make an analysis of the restricted list. 

The Vintage format exists as a format in which every single Magic card is legal, in so far as it is possible to play with them in a tournament.   This is the starting and fundamental principle of Vintage.  There are no bannings in Vintage except insofar as a card is impossible to use under tournament conditions.   There are only restrictions. 

The fact that every single legal printed card is legal insofar as possible creates fundamental limits on what can be done with Vintage, and it separates Vintage from every other format.   Things that would be considered fundamentally unfair in other formats will always be acceptable in Vintage as a necessary byproduct of that card pool.   

Even if every single card in Vintage were restricted except Force of Will (and similar cards), it would still be unacceptably fast compared to most formats.   The format's mana accelleration creates the possibility for winning on turn one, and the will always make other win conditions format faster than creature beatdown, even with Tarmogoyf.  In that respect, creatures will never be as central to Vintage as they are in other formats since creature beatdown will always be slower than other means of victory. 

There are three possibilities with respect to the restricted list:

1) Restrict Nothing.
2) Restrict Everything
3) Restrict Some Things

Although I, personally, enjoyed toying around with a totally unrestricted format, we can rule that out as a possibility.   

Furthermore, although I think that there would not be an objective best list if everything were restricted - I think that there would be several possible archetypes, we can reject that possibility as well.

Vintage is situated somewhere in between these two extremes.   

It seems to me that the underlying value that should support all restrictions is fun (or money making for wizards, which fun serves).   Every single reason a person can think up for restriction can be explain in terms of fun.   Thus, the goal, to a certain extent, is fun maximization.

There is a constraint, however.  Given that there will always be certain cards in the format, even if restricted, the level of fun maximization must be limited by that card pool.   One could hypothetically imagine that fun could be maximized, in the sense that maximum number of players could play the format and enjoy it, if a cheap mono green deck was the best deck in the format.   The reality is that even if every single card in Vintage were restricted, blue would still be the best color, and most good decks would run cards like Ancestral Recall and Time Walk.   

Thus, there is a limit on what is possible with fun based upon the fundamental principle of Vintage: virtually every card is legal. 

Now, what then, makes Magic fun?   

There is widespread disagreement about what is fun in Magic.  One person may find Flash and Trinisphere to be extremely fun.  Another may find them reason enough to quit magic.   Part of the reason that there exist many formats is so that people can select what they consider to be most fun, and play the format that suits their notion of fun.     

Nonetheless, there are a few things that most people agree on, and at least two things that are nearly universal.

1) First and foremost is deck options/diversity.   In general, people tend to like having a more diverse field rather than a less diverse field.  The more deck options, the more possibilities for individuals to maximize their fun by playing a deck that suits their taste and style.   Restrictions which neuter dominant decks or format strangling decks can easily be justified on the ground of increasing/enhancing format diversity.   To the extent that a restriction increases the diversity of a format, it can be considered a good thing.   The original restriction of Gush back in 2003 is a case-in-point, but I do not think that there are other modern examples.

Based on data I've seen over the years, if a deck is performing at about 40% of top 8s over time and accross geographic regions, that is a dominant deck which would justify some restriction.

2) Second, while there may be actual strategic diversity, people also like not being forced to play the same tactics either.   Thus, although there were many Gush-Bond decks: Oath, Gat, Storm, Painter, they all used the same suite of cards: Gush, Ponder, Brainstorm, Scroll, Fastbond, and Yawg Will.   The restriction of Scroll could easily be justifed on the grounds that it is just the dominant tactic in Vintage, as decks like Meandeck Gifts to Tyrant Oath attest.   

I would use the same 40% cut off for a dominant tactic.   I think that Merchant Scroll's restriction is the most obvious and most justifiable restriction in Vintage since the original restriction of Gush for this reason.   It was just the best tactic, period.

3) I think that if Vintage is strategically and tactically diverse, then it will naturally maximize most people's fun.   However, I am only one person, and a great deal of people tend to agree on at least a third criteria for restriction: games ending on turn one too frequently.   My personal view is that if a deck with a too high turn one win percentage or that shuts the opponent out on turn one is problematic, it will show up by strategic or tactical dominance, and can be restricted on those grounds.   The DCI clearly disagrees. 

They believe that cards which may not be strategically or tactically dominant, are nontheless restrictable on the ground that they are too unfun and drive people from tournaments.   The archetype example is Trinisphere.   Another is Lion's Eye Diamond.   A more recent example is Flash.   The reason is that the DCI feels that opponents should at least get a turn to play cards, even in Vintage.   Restrictions can therefore serve that end.   During the Academy era, many people quit magic because of losing on turn one.  While we aren't as squeamish today about losing on turn one as we are in the past, the DCI has decided that this is unacceptable, even in Vintage.

However, there is one other class of restriction which I think the DCI is empowered to make.  And it's a corallary to the power to ban cards on the grounds that they can't work in a tourament.  There may be cards which are not impossible to play in a tournament (such as ante cards, which by their own text remove themselves from tournament decks), but are nonetheless so problematic to tournament structure that they justify using restriction as a way to minimize these headaches.  Shahrazad is a perfect case in point.   I don't think that it's problems justify a total ban from Vintage, especially since a restriction will address 99% of the problems with Shahrazad.

There are a number of restricted cards that would not clearly fit into the categories I've advanced, but are nonetheless restricted.    Despite that, I think that these categories, particularly the first two, pretty much follow from the first two principles I laid out, and can  be a priori deduced from those principles. 

[dicemanx]

My personal view is that if a deck with a too high turn one win percentage or that shuts the opponent out on turn one is problematic, it will show up by strategic or tactical dominance, and can be restricted on those grounds.   The DCI clearly disagrees.

Even if there is a lack of "strategic or tactical dominance", there might be nonetheless a significant impact warranting restrictions based on your first two criteria. For instance, Flash and Trinisphere, while not completely dominating vintage, restricted a lot of deckbuilding choices (both in terms of deck selection and individual card choices) and forced players to be more reliant on their opening hands and more aggressive in their mulliganing. While there was hardly any absolute elimination of skill from the format (and thus the format could still be considered "fun", albeit to a lesser degree), it is hard to find an argument in favor of retaining decks that revolve around such cards.

I said before that there are usually two main camps in the T1 community when it comes to arguments about restrictions - the ones bothered by the state of the format clamoring for restrictions based on sound enough arguments, and others that would be easily tolerant of such restrictions (in other words, they would still play and enjoy the format as before) who nevertheless put up a fight against change, usually because the "evidence" isn't "persuasive" enough (it almost never is, which is why every decision is based substantially on intuition and gut feeling often disguised as "sound reasoning"). Because of this we have yet to have any sort of long term negative fallout from any B/R restriction/unrestriction from my estimation; while tourney attendance might be currently waning, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the state of the format compared to previous states prior to any B/R changes. If anything, the B/R decisions, even though some might be viewed as "objectively wrong", likely contributed to maintaining interest and excitement in vintage IMO.

[jcb193]

I don't think it is possible to put criteria on the B/R list.  I think it will always have to be subjective, as the environment for T1 is always going to be changing.  Being able to tutor for a land might be worthless in 1995, worth the most in 1998, and once again worthless in 2009.  It will always come down to the present interaction of the cards available.

Will moxes always be the most efficient sources of mana?  Yes, until we find out otherwise.  Will 1U for 3 cards be too powerful?  Yes, until we know otherwise.

I think it is fun to try and make criteria and conditions for a B/R list, but for a game that constantly changes the parameters of play and interaction, it seems quite pointless. 

[Implacable]

I don't think it is possible to put criteria on the B/R list.  I think it will always have to be subjective, as the environment for T1 is always going to be changing.  Being able to tutor for a land might be worthless in 1995, worth the most in 1998, and once again worthless in 2009.  It will always come down to the present interaction of the cards available.

Will moxes always be the most efficient sources of mana?  Yes, until we find out otherwise.  Will 1U for 3 cards be too powerful?  Yes, until we know otherwise.

I think it is fun to try and make criteria and conditions for a B/R list, but for a game that constantly changes the parameters of play and interaction, it seems quite pointless. 

I agree with most of what Steve said, so I'm not speaking on that, but with regard to this point, JCB: by that logic, shouldn't we not bother with coming up with doctrines for, say, law or the economy or social behavior?  Any system that tries to impose guidelines on the real world will be flawed, sure, but we can try and create a system that best hews to what we see as important in Vintage at the moment the system's created.

[OwenTheEnchanter]

There are three possibilities with respect to the restricted list:

1) Restrict Nothing.
2) Restrict Everything
3) Restrict Some Things 

I want to read that article!

[Akuma]

I want to read that article!

We could probably just look up articles on the Highlander format and that would suffice.

[Everrid1234]

As is said before the restriction was just crap.
All what should have been restricted was the Merchant Scroll. This would have the effects:
-thinning out Flash's tutors, but Flash would be still playable
-Fish would have kept its single faster drawing cards
-Gushbond would in some (difficult) way still be playable
-not so many crappy aggro decks would come up. T1 is still a format of speed and high-tech for me. Now it seems to be just a T1.5 copy.

Merchant Scroll is the only key card which was relly necessary to be restricted. Less Gush- and Ancestral Recall-tutors (well, it's very difficult imo without the 4 Scrolls to get the combo engine rolled here) but ALL important decks still in the format.

I just don't like the format without Fish, Gushbond and Flash being strong and always being on the search for some crappy BS replacement.

[Nehptis]

I just don't like the format without Fish, Gushbond and Flash being strong and always being on the search for some crappy BS replacement.

So, it sounds like you played BS heavy decks pre-restriction.  So, did I and I have come to the realization that there is NO replacement even if Ponder still remained as a 4 of.  But, BS had to go.  It made decks way too consistent (see above for amazing posts that contain incredible detail that emphasize this point).

With every new set and every B&R change the Vintage pendulum swings in favor of usually 1 or 2 decks.  Pre-restriction, decks like Oath and other decks that could abuse the Gush-Bond engine were very popular and strong.  Then post restriction Slaver was on top again in terms of popularity and power.  Now it's Tezz that is one of the more popular decks and one of the strongest.  But, how long will that last, who knows?  With a new set around the corner Tezz could get stronger, or another existing deck could get a new tool, or a completely new deck could emerge.

As much as some people want our format to remain the same it doesn't and shouldn't.  The only constant I've seen through the years is the push and pull of the three Vintage pillars, Drain Decks, Ritual Decks and Shop Decks.  They are in a never ending tug of war with each other while being constantly challenged by "external forces" like Fish, Ich, and Aggro.

[Akuma]

As is said before the restriction was just crap.

@Everrid1234 - I agree with you 100%. Thanks for voicing your opinion. The current Vintage format is trash. Hopefully more people will voice their discontent and this along with faltering interest in the format will lead to WotC setting things right.

It made decks way too consistent (see above for amazing posts that contain incredible detail that emphasize this point).

I don't see how this was a problem, consistency is good as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a big fan of being mana screwed/flooded. I don't enjoy not being able to create more lines of play for myself (or that my opponent doesn't have more lines of play) during the first turn or two of a game. Vintage is compressed enough as it is, more options are better. Removing cards like Brainstorm and Ponder has added an even greater level of the luck factor to our format.

With every new set and every B&R change the Vintage pendulum swings in favor of usually 1 or 2 decks.  Pre-restriction, decks like Oath and other decks that could abuse the Gush-Bond engine were very popular and strong.  Then post restriction Slaver was on top again in terms of popularity and power.  Now it's Tezz that is one of the more popular decks and one of the strongest.  But, how long will that last, who knows?  With a new set around the corner Tezz could get stronger, or another existing deck could get a new tool, or a completely new deck could emerge.

Actually, there isn't much of a swing. New cards get introduced into our format (new printing, new legalization), and every once in a while some of them have a REAL impact, but most of them are just minor roleplayers. The funny thing is that EVERY SINGLE CARD THAT HAS HAD A REAL IMPACT ON VINTAGE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED. The only reason Slaver was/is "back" is because all of the advances that had occurred over the past 2-3 years were erased from the map with stupid restrictions. Tezz has not changed anything, it is a one or two of in the most powerful existing shell. You can have Tezz, Painter/Grindstone, Vault/Key, Tinker/Collossus, Storm or even Welders in that spot, not much of a difference if you as me. I would rather have decks based around Gifts Ungiven, Fact or Fiction, Gush or Flash. At least they have varying game plans.

As much as some people want our format to remain the same it doesn't and shouldn't.  The only constant I've seen through the years is the push and pull of the three Vintage pillars, Drain Decks, Ritual Decks and Shop Decks.  They are in a never ending tug of war with each other while being constantly challenged by "external forces" like Fish, Ich, and Aggro.

Unneccesary restrictions have actually caused our format to remain the same. Lets see, late 2008, we have lots of Drain decks. Okay, lets check back in 1998, what do we have? Lots of Drain decks! We actually had more decks back in early 2008 than we do now. Stupid restrictions just narrow the field more and more. Our choice right now is: What win condition should I put in my Drain deck?

/

Another thing that needs to be reiterated is that BLUE is the BEST color in Vintage. Period. No amount of restrictions will ever change this. This should be understood. We should embrace having multiple viable blue strategies, the more cards we lose to restrictions, the more mirror matches we will find ourselves playing (same deck, different win condition maybe).

Randomness:

1) I'm actually surprised that WotC did not gut Ichorid, it is the ONLY innovation for the last couple of years that has not been erased.

2) I wholeheartedly agree with the restriction of Merchant Scroll.

3) I don't champion any particular archetype, I just want to see more strategies available. I want Vintage to be the home of the most powerful strategies. Gush/Flash decks are not legal in any other format, where can I play them? This answer should be Vintage.

4) WotC should throw us a bone, unrestrict things to add to our format. Don't take away the little variation we already have. Of course everyone used Gush decks, they erased all prior advances with restrictions. Test unrestrictions. WotC has not been totally unhelpful, they have unrestricted things in the past. Some were good/interesting (good-Gush, interesting-Chrome Mox, Mox Diamond), but most of them were just removing trash from the list. We should have lost Merchant Scroll and gained Fact or Fiction.