[Free Article] So Many Insane Plays - Restrict Mana Drain? the Nov/Dec Report

[Troy_Costisick]

Your point doesn't stand just because you claim it does.  You can draw conclusions any way you want when you haven't actually polled people asking them the reason why they chose what they did for a given tournament.  Purplehat's suggestion is just as viable an explanation for Drain presence in top 8's.

But if that were the case, then some other deck or engine would be piling up wins because it was the better build.  We wouldn't see the top spots of tournaments consistently won by Drain builds.  Instead we'd see something else up there.  However, Drains are winning tournaments.  Popularity might guarantee you a good number of top 8 births (I don't happen to believe that, but oh well), but it won't guarantee you wins.  Drains win.  Consistently.

I also think restricting mana drain would do a ton of short term damage to vintage.

Dammit, nobody is talking about getting the DCI to do that.  Find the posts where people have logically put forth any kind of reasoned arguement to restrict Mana Drain, quote them, then post them in this thread or in another.  What you will find is people stating that Mana Drain (or any card for that matter) should not be immune from restriction, but that's an entirely different topic. 

I think something that should be taken into consideration for this debate is the numbers that Vintage events were putting up during the different eras of the decks people have mentioned.  I do not have access to such information and am not sure if anyone does, but it would be interesting to take into account.

With the exception of the most recent report, all the Vintage metagame report articles are free to view on SCG- even the ones done by authors before Stephen started doing his.  You have access to all the information if you really want it.

[Diakonov]

Your point doesn't stand just because you claim it does.  You can draw conclusions any way you want when you haven't actually polled people asking them the reason why they chose what they did for a given tournament.  Purplehat's suggestion is just as viable an explanation for Drain presence in top 8's.  Your own teammate LordHomerCat agreed he fell into this group.  Many of the players I know fall into this group, too.  Whether you want to admit this or not, Vintage is largely a casual format.  Most players play it for fun and make deck choices based on how much fun they'll have at a given event.  Just because Mana Drain is viable again, now that Gush if gone, doesn't mean it's a problem.

I think it's important to note that even if what you say here is true, some population of players will always choose what is looked at as strategically best.  It's reasonable to assume that whatever is strategically best should generally perform best, regardless of players' motives for running that archetype.  Imagine if Drains did not work well in this metagame for some reason.  Would good players such as Purplehat, LordHomerCat, and yourself continue to run Drains anyway?  As long as there are good players who are willing to pick up other archetypes, even those who are skilled would start to find it hard to justify running Drains just because they are nostalgic.  On the whole, most of us who are skilled are still playing to win.

As an aside, more harm is done to Vintage by restriction than anything else I've witnessed since starting to play the format.  I've literally watched three waves of players leave the format when some idiotic restriction took place.  We play this format to play with all the cards ever printed.  You restrict 3/4 of the reason for us to play this format and we'll just leave and play a better format.  Why do you think Legacy is getting so much attention???  Because you can play with an actual playset of a card!!! 

For the most part I agree here.  Overall, restriction is probably bad for Vintage...but it does still need to happen sometimes.  The DCI does seem to have a tendency towards semi-whimsical restrictions, which is unfortunate.  On the bright side (or rather, the not-quite-so-dark side), a smaller contingent of players such as myself returned to Vintage specifically because of the restriction of Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll. 

I think almost anytime you restrict cards, the total initial reaction is going to be a loss.  It takes some time for the "new format" to attract players again and build up the population, always in hope that it will surpass the original relative constant.  It's probably most appropriate to analyze the number of players after a few months have gone by.  This is not to say that Vintage hasn't suffered an overall decrease, because I think it has.

EDIT: Troy posted some of the same-minded statements as I have here while I was writing mine up, so I apologize if it's a little bit redundant.  Also, I am not advocating the restriction of Mana Drain.

[Guli]

Why would mana drain be restricted, give me one good argument. And don't back it up with some statistics. Yes maybe it is because of Mana Drain. But maybe it isn't, until i see a number of good studies about this issue I refuse to accept that the card Mana Drain itself has anything to do with the results over the past year (months). I dare not to make a statement about this topic in a serious debate.

Maybe it is just me, I don't know, but I think that the non drain decks should take a step back and add more surprise and variety in their designs. IF there really is a dominance of mana drain decks, then CREATE decks that crush it instead of playing the mirror. I must say that the majority of the players who are competent in piloting a drain deck truly must be convinced that drain is just the safest, most solid archetype to go top 8. You can't break that conviction easily added in that their is this so called 'pet deck' concept. I don't agree entirely on the 'pet' thing. I rather call it just making choices and that choice differs from person to person. One will go try to win the thing and the other wants to have a good time while being competitive as well. There are most likely other motives involved as well.

I personally don't have any problems outplaying a drain deck with Null Rod or Aether Vial. If I can make a suggestions for fish were their meta is full of drains, play Vexing Shusher it shuts down blue effectively. And if you really want to nail drain decks go for Vial as well but I agree that Null Rod seems the safer card right now.

[LordHomerCat]

Why would mana drain be restricted, give me one good argument. And don't back it up with some statistics. Yes maybe it is because of Mana Drain. But maybe it isn't, until i see a number of good studies about this issue I refuse to accept that the card Mana Drain itself has anything to do with the results over the past year (months).

I'm not saying to restrict drain, but if someone were to argue that, what evidence would you like if statistics aren't good enough?  Divination?  Maybe just the way that person feels?  How about a study by a focus group?  Really, that sentence is one of the most illogical I've read in a long time.

[Guli]

Why would mana drain be restricted, give me one good argument. And don't back it up with some statistics. Yes maybe it is because of Mana Drain. But maybe it isn't, until i see a number of good studies about this issue I refuse to accept that the card Mana Drain itself has anything to do with the results over the past year (months).

I'm not saying to restrict drain, but if someone were to argue that, what evidence would you like if statistics aren't good enough?  Divination?  Maybe just the way that person feels?  How about a study by a focus group?  Really, that sentence is one of the most illogical I've read in a long time.

My concern is not the restriction of mana drain. My criticism is based on the fact that I tend to be careful with statistics and linking conclusions to those statistics.

[Harlequin]

Why would mana drain be restricted, give me one good argument. And don't back it up with some statistics. Yes maybe it is because of Mana Drain. But maybe it isn't, until i see a number of good studies about this issue I refuse to accept that the card Mana Drain itself has anything to do with the results over the past year (months).

I'm not saying to restrict drain, but if someone were to argue that, what evidence would you like if statistics aren't good enough?  Divination?  Maybe just the way that person feels?  How about a study by a focus group?  Really, that sentence is one of the most illogical I've read in a long time.

Just as a point of clarification, however, I am not advocating for the restriction of Mana Drain.   My point is more subtle than that: it's simply that DCI policy is grossly inconsistent.

I agree with Smmenen's point here.  And this has been by my issue with things basically since I started playing competitively. 

Statistics are irrelevant because they are not currently part of the policy.  I'm sure if given enough time, and enough clever mathematical manipulation, I could use statistics to show that Feral Thalid should be the next restricted card.  I think right now, trying to figure out why any card is restricted or not is an exercise in religion more than logic (in that we have to -believe- certain concepts about the B/R list are true).   

I would lump the current errata policy in with the current B/R policy.  In that both "policies" are only loosely defined in piecemeal statements, and fraught with counter-examples of any unifying concepts we might try to derive.

If asked to predict the next B/R or errata change, I would sooner invest in "Voodoo Bone Casting for Dummies" than a calculator or statistical program. 

[hitman]

Dammit, nobody is talking about getting the DCI to do that.  Find the posts where people have logically put forth any kind of reasoned arguement to restrict Mana Drain, quote them, then post them in this thread or in another.  What you will find is people stating that Mana Drain (or any card for that matter) should not be immune from restriction, but that's an entirely different topic.

If that isn't semantics, I don't know what is.  What is the point in arguing that Mana Drain shouldn't be immune to restriction if it isn't your intention to argue that it is restriction worthy?  Come on people.  Can we just be honest here.  You're all arguing that based on previous restrictions, Mana Drain is restrictable and should be restricted.  I don't even agree with the sentiment you just described.  I don't care how powerful some effects are, they shouldn't be restricted because they form, in-and-of themselves, the reason most players play Vintage.  In any case, what are we to take from statements like this? 

Upon a bit more reflection, it's clear to me that Mana Drain and Thirst are actually like Gush and Brainstorm and Scroll in a critical respect.   The problem with Gush-Bond engine, as it was articulated, was that it was basically ported into every blue deck.   That, as Tom said, blue decks basically became 4 Force, 4 Brainstorm, 4 Scroll, etc.   

Mana Drain is actually a worse offender in some ways because of this reason:  consider almost any strategy in Vintage, whether it is Painter, Time Vault, Tendrils, or whatever.   Given the option between a viable shell that implements that strategy using Mana Drains and one that implements that strategy using other cards, the Mana Drain shell is almost always going to be superior.  That's why Mana Drain shows up in everything from Slaver, to Painter, to Remora, to Tezzeret.   It's actually like Gush-bond, but worse.

You're comparing Mana Drain to Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll, two cards you strongly believe should be restricted, and claim it's worse than they are.

I agree with you that the TFK/Mana Drain shell is a worse offender than Gush/Bond, but I believe I think it is worse than you do.  A good number of the ManaDrain decks have the exact same lines of play: hold everything off then get 2 artifacts in play and win OR Tinker into Fattie.  The Gush decks, while all sporting the same engine, had really different lines of play- especially from an opponent's perspective.

Tyrant Oath and Tropical Storm played radically different from each other.  GAT and DoomsGush had completely different strategies.  MSPaint and EmptyGifts each had different strengths and weaknesses.  But from a non-Mana Drain opponent's point of view, Painter, Tez, and Shaymora have nearly identical weaknesses and lines of play.  You stop their attempt to play their broken artifacts and then thwart Tinker, or you race them with Ichorid or TPS.  The Gush decks were all vulnerable to Shop prison type decks, but all the other archetypes had to play a different way to beat each Gush Archetype.  Even Hulk Flash, arguably the most goldfish deck ever, had to adjust when they played MSPaint vs. Tyrant Oath vs. GAT.

Here, someone is calling Mana Drain a worse offender than the GushBond engine.  He then bases this claim off a complete misunderstanding of how the Gush decks played.  How you can claim Gush decks played differently and Mana Drain decks are all the same is beyond me.  Instead of Mana Drain, you interact with Duress or Duress-like effects until you're able to land two Islands on the table in which case you leverage card advantage until you can't actually lose the game.  They all played like that.  Your myriad examples of variety is just oversimplifying one engine and over-complicating another.

Vault-Key is not the problem, imo, because even if Vault-Key were not legal, I suspect that Mana Drains would still consitute roughly the same percentage of top 8s.

However, that is a question that is open to dispute, and there is no way to prove or disprove it.

I am definitely biased, since I long advocated for Time Vault to be restored, but I don't think its a problem.  I think the problem is the flawed restriction policy that has allowed it to be dominant.

Here, you're claiming there's a problem and it's not Vault-Key but a restriction policy that lets Mana Drains run rampant.  Of course we're going to assume that you're suggesting Mana Drain's restriction because the topic is restriction and you're claiming there is a problem that is not Vault-Key.  So, without any indication of another solution, a reasonable person would conclude that you're talking about restricting Mana Drain.

@Smmenen -  I don't like how you let people assume things.  I now understand that you're building an argument to reverse previous restriction mistakes but you go about it in a way that implies you believe something else.  I'm not the only one that took from your statements that Mana Drain should be restricted.  Due to your influence in the community, you've haphazardly caused a following of players to think Mana Drain should be restricted. 

[Smmenen]

Why would mana drain be restricted, give me one good argument. And don't back it up with some statistics. Yes maybe it is because of Mana Drain. But maybe it isn't, until i see a number of good studies about this issue I refuse to accept that the card Mana Drain itself has anything to do with the results over the past year (months).

I'm not saying to restrict drain, but if someone were to argue that, what evidence would you like if statistics aren't good enough?  Divination?  Maybe just the way that person feels?  How about a study by a focus group?  Really, that sentence is one of the most illogical I've read in a long time.

Just as a point of clarification, however, I am not advocating for the restriction of Mana Drain.   My point is more subtle than that: it's simply that DCI policy is grossly inconsistent.

I agree with Smmenen's point here.  And this has been by my issue with things basically since I started playing competitively. 

Statistics are irrelevant because they are not currently part of the policy. 

This is clearly untrue.   Tournament dominance is a metric the DCI uses for all formats, as is format diversity.  

 I'm sure if given enough time, and enough clever mathematical manipulation, I could use statistics to show that Feral Thalid should be the next restricted card. 

No you couldn't.  

@Smmenen -  I don't like how you let people assume things.  I now understand that you're building an argument to reverse previous restriction mistakes but you go about it in a way that implies you believe something else.  I'm not the only one that took from your statements that Mana Drain should be restricted.  Due to your influence in the community, you've haphazardly caused a following of players to think Mana Drain should be restricted. 

What I believe/want are things that I try to keep separate from metagame analysis.    While I personally do not believe that Mana Drain should be restricted, I also want to flag the potential concerns over bias, and do so using empirical data.   

There used to be a time in Vintage where people would call for the restriction of anything that threatened Mana Drain decks superiority in the format.    Thus, you had people like Oscar Tan arguing for the restriction of *Back to Basics* in one of his articles, and, worse, Aaron Forsythe taking the suggestion seriously.   

Contrary to your point, I believe that the DCI should not treat Vintage as a casual format.   You stated in your previous post that you view Vintage as a casual format.    Casual formats do not need DCI maintenance.   

There used to be a time in Vintage where it mostly was a casual format.   Not coincidentally, that also happened to be a time where most players just wanted to play Keeper.   

[AmbivalentDuck]

 I'm sure if given enough time, and enough clever mathematical manipulation, I could use statistics to show that Feral Thalid should be the next restricted card. 

No you couldn't.  

He can, he just has to pick poor axioms.  Ie.  "There are four Feral Thallids in every deck that aren't listed since it's obvious that everyone plays with them."  If he doesn't state his assumptions, he can easily "show," but not prove, that Feral Thallid should be restricted.

[hitman]

Whether you want to admit this or not, Vintage is largely a casual format.  Most players play it for fun and make deck choices based on how much fun they'll have at a given event.  Just because Mana Drain is viable again, now that Gush if gone, doesn't mean it's a problem.

I should expound.  I was using this language to debate your method of gathering meaningful evidence in, what I thought was, an attempt to restrict Mana Drain.  What I mean in the above quote is that the format is largely played for casual reasons even if the players are quite good and take games seriously once engaged in them.  The fact of the matter is, we are an older group of players and many of us don't have any intention of being on the next pro tour.  Largely, what we are looking for is a fun weekend with friends playing a game we've loved since adolescence.  We don't necessarily make decisions solely based on what we think will win a given tournament.  My point is that, due to the nature of why we play, we make choices based on fun as much, if not more, than on winning.  To take tournament results and claim that they are the best way of determining the health of the format with that in mind is an exercise in futility.  Most of us "grew up" on Mana Drains.  We have an affinity for them.  I'm saying because of this bias players have, in general, to play the cards they love, which are largely Mana Drain-based, how can you gather tournament data that specifically points to a problem other than player's bias?

[Smmenen]

Very easily.   

 If it were true that Mana Drains weren't really too good, but that their performance was merely a result of player preferences, then Mana Drain decks would have performed much better during the Gush era.   And it wasn't for lack of trying.   Lots of people played Drain decks -- they just didn't win.  Workshop decks consistently outperformed Drain decks in that time period.   The same is true of the Trinisphere era. 

Your assumption is that what is fun and what wins are clearly distinct.  Rather, they are mutually constitutive. The *reason* that so many players enjoy playing Mana Drain decks is precisely because they are so good.   They win with them, and winning begets winning.    And if you have been playing since the errata on Time Vault, you've *really* been winning.

[hitman]

My comments may be visceral but not out of attachment to Mana Drain.  I sold my Drains about a year ago and haven't played Drains since.  I'm sick of people calling for unwarranted restrictions because, instead of just getting better at the game, they complain and want the DCI to do something about it.  Arguments about restriction inevitably break down into flamewars and real discussion never develops.  It gets frustrating hearing the same old ignorant arguments over and over (I'm not calling you ignorant but talking in general). 

I never separated the idea of player preference and viability of a card.  I said that because it's preferred and strong, it sees as much success as it does.  It's widely accepted that Gush strategies were superior to Mana Drain strategies and that's why they were more successful but Purplehat has suggested that Gush was liked more than Mana Drain.  It's the combination of viability and preference that makes a deck prominent.  Few people like to play solitaire and that's why prison and combo archetypes see such little play.  Fish sees a great deal of play but it sucks.  That only leaves Mana Drain to be prominent.  Don't you think if more people played combo or Ichorid and played it competently, Drain dominance would see a decline?  Of course Mana Drain is powerful but not more powerful than the rest of the viable field.  People just don't play the other decks widely because they don't like them as much.  You just placed very highly in a large Mana Drain infested tournament with a Gro deck that you'd never played in a tournament with before.   Do you really think Mana Drain is the best or are you arguing that Mana Drain lovers keep getting our favorite cards restricted so they can thrive?

There are plenty of cards that are strategically viable against Mana Drain.  That's why I don't get this argument that Mana Drain is too good.  We know how to beat Mana Drains.  Generally, people just prefer to play Mana Drain.

[Troy_Costisick]

If that isn't semantics, I don't know what is.  What is the point in arguing that Mana Drain shouldn't be immune to restriction if it isn't your intention to argue that it is restriction worthy?

How are the two following statements contradictory?

1) No card should be so hallowed as to be immune from restriction for all time.
2) At this time, I do not feel Mana Drain or any card for that matter needs to be restricted.

You're comparing Mana Drain to Brainstorm and Merchant Scroll, two cards you strongly believe should be restricted, and claim it's worse than they are.

No, he compared the Mana Drain engine of 2008-2009 to the Gushbond engine of 2007-2008.  Read his post more carefully.

So, without any indication of another solution, a reasonable person would conclude that you're talking about restricting Mana Drain.

In fact it's been the opposite.  Steve, like myself, has been only advocating unrestrions.  Re-read the whole thread more carefully before tossing around baseless comments like this.

I'm sick of people calling for unwarranted restrictions because, instead of just getting better at the game, they complain and want the DCI to do something about it.

I'm sick of people running around screaming that people want Mana Drain restricted when next to no-one has even suggested such a thing.

There are plenty of cards that are strategically viable against Mana Drain.  That's why I don't get this argument that Mana Drain is too good.  We know how to beat Mana Drains.

The cards that beat drains are consisently restricted.  Gush, LED, Burning Wish, Trinisphere, Strip Mine, Entomb, and Flash all are terrific anti-Drain cards.  All are restricted.  This is part of the reason Drains are so damn hard to beat right now.  I'm not advocating they all come off.  We all know that would be ridiculous.  But isn't it reasonable to encourage the DCI to remove some of cards I listed from the list?  If for no other reason than to encourage format diveristy.

[Nehptis]

I would lump the current errata policy in with the current B/R policy.  In that both "policies" are only loosely defined in piecemeal statements, and fraught with counter-examples of any unifying concepts we might try to derive.
If asked to predict the next B/R or errata change, I would sooner invest in "Voodoo Bone Casting for Dummies" than a calculator or statistical program. 

I disagree.  And maybe I wasn't clear enough in my last post.  But, to anyone who is complaining about not understanding the DCI's thought process READ THIS ARTICLE.  It clearly states what their methods are and were for Restrictions.  To that end, I must assume that they are doing 2 things right now:
1) Watching FOW decks that use Drains (remember the DCI calls FOW decks an archetype) very closely to see what the problem card(s) are.
2) Re-examining their decision to make Key / Vault functional again.

Here's the article: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/32

[Purple Hat]

Very easily.   

 If it were true that Mana Drains weren't really too good, but that their performance was merely a result of player preferences, then Mana Drain decks would have performed much better during the Gush era.   And it wasn't for lack of trying.   Lots of people played Drain decks -- they just didn't win.  Workshop decks consistently outperformed Drain decks in that time period.   The same is true of the Trinisphere era. 

Your assumption is that what is fun and what wins are clearly distinct.  Rather, they are mutually constitutive. The *reason* that so many players enjoy playing Mana Drain decks is precisely because they are so good.   They win with them, and winning begets winning.    And if you have been playing since the errata on Time Vault, you've *really* been winning.

First off, how can you possibly know if what is fun for anyone but yourself is connected to winning?  I have to say the most fun I've had playing magic since gush got the axe was day two of waterbury, and I was just screwing around.  My deck was viable, but there was basically no chance I was going to win and I knew that going into the tournament.  Actually...that's not true, I had more fun playing with the giant cards....those things were AWESOME.
 
Secondly, this thread has become completely pointless.  We're arguing in circles here because if you're not advocating the restriction of drain (in an article with the title "restrict mana drain?" and a thread about it) then you're on the same side as all of the people you're manufacturing differences with. 

To sum up:
Our position: drains aren't too good, the DCI just nerfed the hell out of most other things people have played in the past and people aren't really coming up with new things, they're just playing drains instead because they like drains.  The DCI should unrestrict things that go in non drain archetypes including undoing some of the restrictions from last summer to return a weakened gush and flash to the meta

as I now understand it, your position: The DCI is inconsistent and by their policies as enacted in the past they SHOULD restrict mana drain.  However, even though I generally forget to mention it in my posts I'm against restricting drain.  Instead I'm in favor of fixing the policy, and unrestricting stuff to fix the meta. I just usually forget to mention that.

Is that a correct restatement of both sides?  If so there isn't much actual disagreement here.  we're just all doing a terrible job of explaining ourselves.

[Smmenen]

Very easily.   

 If it were true that Mana Drains weren't really too good, but that their performance was merely a result of player preferences, then Mana Drain decks would have performed much better during the Gush era.   And it wasn't for lack of trying.   Lots of people played Drain decks -- they just didn't win.  Workshop decks consistently outperformed Drain decks in that time period.   The same is true of the Trinisphere era. 

Your assumption is that what is fun and what wins are clearly distinct.  Rather, they are mutually constitutive. The *reason* that so many players enjoy playing Mana Drain decks is precisely because they are so good.   They win with them, and winning begets winning.    And if you have been playing since the errata on Time Vault, you've *really* been winning.

First off, how can you possibly know if what is fun for anyone but yourself is connected to winning?  I have to say the most fun I've had playing magic since gush got the axe was day two of waterbury, and I was just screwing around.  My deck was viable, but there was basically no chance I was going to win and I knew that going into the tournament.  Actually...that's not true, I had more fun playing with the giant cards....those things were AWESOME.
 
Secondly, this thread has become completely pointless.  We're arguing in circles here because if you're not advocating the restriction of drain (in an article with the title "restrict mana drain?" and a thread about it) then you're on the same side as all of the people you're manufacturing differences with. 

To sum up:
Our position: drains aren't too good, the DCI just nerfed the hell out of most other things people have played in the past and people aren't really coming up with new things, they're just playing drains instead because they like drains.  The DCI should unrestrict things that go in non drain archetypes including undoing some of the restrictions from last summer to return a weakened gush and flash to the meta

as I now understand it, your position: The DCI is inconsistent and by their policies as enacted in the past they SHOULD restrict mana drain.  However, even though I generally forget to mention it in my posts I'm against restricting drain.  Instead I'm in favor of fixing the policy, and unrestricting stuff to fix the meta. I just usually forget to mention that.

Is that a correct restatement of both sides?  If so there isn't much actual disagreement here.  we're just all doing a terrible job of explaining ourselves.

What are you talking about?

Mana Drains are totally dominating Vintage, and they are putting up grossly absurd numbers, dwarfing not just what Gush put up a year ago, but what anything has ever done, really, in the history of modern Vintage.   

The DCI says that it wants balance among its main four foundations: Force of Will decks, Bazaar decks, Workshop decks, and Dark Ritual decks.   They have utterly failed.    Mana Drain based Force of Will decks ALONE make up more than the combined numbers of Bazaar, Workshop, and Ritual decks.   

The problem is clearly that Mana Drain is far too powerful, because it grossly distorts tactical implementation of any given Vintage strategy, since, it is superior to any non-Drain analog the vast majority of the time.   Anyone can clearly see this, not just from the statistics, but from a common sense, non-biased view of Vintage.   

The claim that Mana Drain decks are dominant because people prefer Drains over other archtypes is clearly proven false, as there was an entire year that disproves that point.  The people who love Drains played Drains and did not win.   

The silly counter-argument that you've made is that people prefer Drains, but some large number of those people preferred Gush decks more.   That argument is actually an exception that swallows the entire argument.   First of all, and the most obvious reason that this is a ridiculous counter argument is that if that were true, then the 'dominant' deck at any given time is not really the 'best performing deck', but simply the most preferred deck.   There is no reason that this argument isn't applicable to other formats as well.    The DCI bans and restricts cards when there is a dominant deck, and has done so many times.   If it were simply that people 'preferred' the dominant deck, rather than the fact that the dominant deck wasn't really that dominant, then there would be no need to ever ban and restrict a card for tournament dominance, since, after all, it's just preference, right?

In any case, you suggestion is simply untrue.    Gush decks do not have the history or strong built-in, years of generated preference that Drain has. It's very, very simple.   Gush decks pummelled Drain decks.   If you played a Drain deck, you couldn't beat Gush decks.   So Gush decks won whereas Drain decks didn't.   It wasn't 'fun preferences,' so much as, well, you know, the best decks won.     Brian DeMars, a LONG time Drain player, played Drain decks well until March, nearly 8 months into the Gush era.  It took some time for many long-time Drain players to finally realize they needed to switch over, and many tournaments of losing.

But more importantly, there are well over a decade of other instances of Mana Drains *not* being the best deck.   Your argument would have to apply to each of those instances, yet we know it doesn't.  Mishra's Workshop decks frequently outperformed Mana Drain decks when Trinisphere was unrestricted.  Yet, it wasn't because people didn't prefer Mana Drain decks.   They were just losing more frequently than they won during those months.    Same with Gush.

The attempt to try to say that, oh, really, it wasn't that Mana Drain decks aren't dominant because they are simply *the best by far* is refuted not simply by the experience of Gush, but by many other experience as well, including Necro era, Academy era, Gush era, Trinisphere era, etc.

Throughout each of those eras lots and lots of people played Drain decks.  They just weren't the best. 

The DCI monitors for tournament dominance and bans and restricts cards when engines dominate the format.   The first time Gush was restricted, it was putting up about 36% of top 8s, and everyone acknowledged that it was dominating Vintage.    There is absolutely no argument that Mana Drains aren't dominating Vintage right now, because they are.  It has been six months since the printing of Shards of Alara, and Mana Drain decks show no relent, and it's not for the lack of trying.   Lots and lots of people are playing non-Drain decks, and compared to Drain decks, they are not winning tournaments.   

The real problem isn't that Drain decks are the best deck.

A format defined by a 'best archetype" isn't necessarily a bad thing.   The problem is the *degree* of dominance.    Gush decks were only 25% of top 8s for most of June, 2007-June, 2008.   But at the same time, Workshop decks actually outperformed Gush decks by about half a percentage point on average for at least 8 of those 12 months.    And then, on top of that you had a huge diversity in the rest of the metagame.   The problem today is that there is no even close competitor to Drain decks.

A year ago, we had two engines that made up 25% of the field each, and a very healthy 40% of the remainder metagame after Flash and Ichorid.   Today, we have roughly 45% of the metagame as Drain decks, then much smaller, less than 10% fractions of the field being Shops, Fish, and Rituals individually.   

It's a hugely imbalanced, non-diverse field. 

To say that Mana Drains aren't a problem ignores not only the reality of the Vintage metagame right now, where Mana Drain decks are BY FAR the most dominant engine, and BY FAR the most winning engine, but also the design reality that Drains are just the best implementation any given strategy, other things equal.   The fact that there is a large portion of the Vintage player base that prefers Drains does not explain or make this OK.   

The effort of the DCI, as articulated by Tom LaPille, to make Force of Will decks more balanced against Bazars, Shops, and Rituals has not only failed, it has miserably failed.    Let me repeat it:  Mana Drain decks, and not just Force of Will decks, outperform Bazaars, Shops, and Rituals *combined*.   

It's actually worse than that.   Because the numbers that Bazaars, Shops, and Rituals are putting up understate Drains dominance of the field because those decks make top 8 but rarely win.

Put this in perspective:  there were 21 documented Vintage tournaments of 33 or more players from November, 2008 through February 2009, a four month period.   In that period there were 21 total tournaments.    Drain decks won 14 of them, TWO-THIRDS of them.    That is not anamlous, and is a trend that appears to be persisting.  Wait til you see the stats for next week.   It gets worse. 

It has stifled, if not destroyed, much of the health and diversity in Vintage.    Non-Drain archetypes are not only clearly inferior, from a tournament perspective, they also can't even beat Drain decks with any degree of consistency.   Sure, Stax and Fish can make top 8, but they almost never win tournaments.   

My suggest is not to restrict Drains, but to unrestrict cards that could help re-balance this metagame.   Remember, I was advocating for the power errata on Time Vault for years, and most vocally, during the second Gush period, when Time Vault was quite modest compared to archetypes like Flash.    I say unrestrict cards that are not necessarily optimal in a Mana Drain shell.   Two cards that spring to mind are Gush and Flash, neither of which is optimally used in a 4 Mana Drain shell.   

[Stormanimagus]

I agree with Stephen that UNrestriction is the way to go. Now let's examine the possible cards to take off the list. First off let's lay out that ever hated list:

The following cards are restricted* in Vintage tournaments

Ancestral Recall
Balance
Black Lotus
Brainstorm
Burning Wish
Channel
Crop Rotation
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
Enlightened Tutor
Entomb
Fact or Fiction
Fastbond
Flash
Frantic Search
Gifts Ungiven
Grim Monolith
Gush
Imperial Seal
Library of Alexandria
Lion’s Eye Diamond
Lotus Petal
Mana Crypt
Mana Vault
Memory Jar
Merchant Scroll
Mind’s Desire
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mystical Tutor
Necropotence
Ponder
Regrowth
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
Time Vault
Time Walk
Timetwister
Tinker
Tolarian Academy
Trinisphere
Vampiric Tutor
Wheel of Fortune
Windfall
Yawgmoth’s Bargain
Yawgmoth’s Will

Ok. Now I'm gonna go through the list again and use the following rating to show you which cards I think could be unrestricted in Vintage play to help diversify the format while keeping it fair I'll give a short explanation on controversial cards at the bottom. Here's the scale I'll use:

*** = Definitely unrestrict
**   = Probably won't distort anything
*     = Dangerous but possible
(none) = probably a power nine card or staple like Yawg Will. Don't TOUCH it!

Ok. here goes:

The following cards are restricted* in Vintage tournaments

Ancestral Recall
*Balance
Black Lotus
Brainstorm
**Burning Wish
**Channel
Crop Rotation
Demonic Consultation
Demonic Tutor
*Enlightened Tutor
**Entomb
Fact or Fiction
Fastbond
**Flash
Frantic Search
Gifts Ungiven
***Grim Monolith
*Gush
Imperial Seal
Library of Alexandria
Lion’s Eye Diamond
Lotus Petal
Mana Crypt
Mana Vault
Memory Jar
Merchant Scroll
**Mind’s Desire
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Mystical Tutor
Necropotence
**Ponder
Regrowth
Sol Ring
*Strip Mine
Time Vault
Time Walk
Timetwister
Tinker
Tolarian Academy
*Trinisphere
Vampiric Tutor
Wheel of Fortune
***Windfall
Yawgmoth’s Bargain
Yawgmoth’s Will

So There you have it. I really think that Windfall and Grim Monolith are, in no way, broken and do not do anything that other engines cannot in today's blazing fast Vintage metagame full of Tezzeret decks that can combo out as early as turn 3. These just don't need to be on the list.

The ** are a bit more controversial. On that list we have:

Ponder
Mind's Desire
Flash
Entomb
Burning Wish
Channel

None of these cards seem like engine breaking cards, but they could infuse some life in to dead archetypes. Those archetypes being:

Long (Burning With)
Belcher (Channel)
Dragon (Entomb)
Flash-Hulk (Flash)
Ponder (Fast Storm Combo)
Mind's Desire (Fast Storm Combo)

The * cards are quite risky and I'm just throwing out there as possible counterbalances to the current Tezz heavy meta:

Strip Mine
Trinisphere
Enlightened Tutor
Gush
Balance

All cards on this list are busted in the right deck, but I don't think any of those "right decks" would benefit from running drain. Trinisphere + Balance might be kinda the sauce in the right shop deck so perhaps unrestricting both would be a bad idea.

Ok. In my eyes those are all fair game. 

[LordHomerCat]

As soon as you listed Mind's Desire as anything but completely unrestrictable ever, I stopped caring what you wrote.  Are you serious?  I mean, no one would ever run mana drain again I guess.  Give me a break.

[oneofchaos]

I do have to say if Drain does get restricted I will lose my faith in the DCI.  The ability to weaken the best deck should not necessarily involve restricting it.  Unrestricted cards to fight it is probably more preferable.  I am just wondering how we can expect gush back if ponder and brainstorm are still restricted?  What would the effect be of unrestricting ponder, brainstorm and gush? (leaving on flash/and scroll). 

[Hero]

Restricting cards should always be a last resort.  Unrestrict other things if you need to.  Maybe even print some new cards that are simple but powerful enough to make a difference to non-Drain Vintage decks?

[Diakonov]

Storm, I appreciate your change in direction.  The other stuff was getting tiresome.

Your list looks like a good starting point.  Although I do agree with LordHomerCat that Mind's Desire really can't be unrestricted, he was being exceedingly harsh. 

It's probably best to start small and only talk about a few target cards.  If we let everyone discuss every card you listed, I think it might degenerate very quickly.

The first question is whether we should look at cards which are safest to unrestrict, or those which are most likely to combat Mana Drain and/or Vault/Key.

Safest: Grim Monolith

The only things I can see here are maybe a use in Workshop (which would be fine), or someone who's interested reigniting Grim/Power Artifact.  Although that is something that could find its way into Drain archetypes, it's likely much less powerful than anything else they have going.

Combating Drain Decks: Flash, Gush

If these were brought back, they would definitely see play immediately.  As has been hypothesized many times over, without Brainstorm or Scroll they probably wouldn't take over.

Personally I think you might be underestimating Windfall.  Similar to Mind's Desire, the fact that you can play four means that they help each other become better.  Turn 1 wins would become a lot easier if you could drop mana and chain Windfalls together.

This discussion is probably worthy of its own thread, but I know these topics are kind of frowned upon. 

[zeus-online]

This discussion is probably worthy of its own thread, but I know these topics are kind of frowned upon. 

Actually, since you're a full member you could make a topic in the advanced vintage forum....B/R topics are allowed in that forum!

Unrestrictions seems like a good place to start....And maybe even breaking a taboo and suggesting bannings...Although there are only 3 cards that comes to mind for bannings in my world.

/Zeus

[Purple Hat]

steve,
we're all in favor of unrestriction to help advance the other archetypes, so I don't think we're really all that far apart.  But the fact that you're constantly citing examples that look like this "xxxx made YYYY% of top 8's just prior to it's restriction, Drain currently makes up 45% of top 8's" makes it look like you're arguing for the restriction of drain.  If you're NOT arguing for the restriction of Drain, then seriously, phrase your argument in a way that doesn't appear to state that drains are over some threshold for restriction.

As for your example of Demars, I know that Rich Shay, ELD and several other players who tend to play drains made the swap the day they found out gush was unrestricted.  There's even a tournament report around somewhere where one of them states that GaT was his all time favorite vintage deck and he was excited that the DCI gave it back to him.  

Regardless this is totally unrelated.  We both think the DCI screwed up with the restrictions, we'd both like to see more diversity and we both think that the best way to get there is to unrestrict other cards.

[Stormanimagus]

As soon as you listed Mind's Desire as anything but completely unrestrictable ever, I stopped caring what you wrote.  Are you serious?  I mean, no one would ever run mana drain again I guess.  Give me a break.

I agree that Mind's Desire might be excessive and too powerful to unrestrict, but ask yourself: How much better is it than Ad Nauseam? I think it IS better, but not so much better that it couldn't be unrestricted. With all the other cards like BS and Ponder now sitting on the restricted list I'm not sure that Mind's Desire Alone would actually break TPS. It would certainly help the deck become more consistent and easier to play, but wouldn't that be good in a world of the quick and easy "Tezz-Vault-Key" combo? I mean, that combo's pretty easy too. I don't really see how Mind's Desire makes TPS dominant any more than Drains are right now because sans BS and Ponder you can't reliably dig up Desire in the first 2 turns anyway (unless you tutor for it and then you'd probably just get Will anyway).

I would say that Windfall + Mind's Desire coming off the restricted list probably should NOT happen though. The two together could be devastatingly consistent and fast. I think one or the other would be ok but both would not.

The only reason I suggest something as bold as Windfall or Mind's Desire is because I really would like to see TPS make a bigger splash on the scene right now instead of only being a possible weapon in the hands of a few select masters. I think one of those two cards would give the deck a new life in the mainstream Vintage metagame and that would help bring more decks back to the fore as well (Shops would do better again to counter Storm Combo).

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

As soon as you listed Mind's Desire as anything but completely unrestrictable ever, I stopped caring what you wrote.  Are you serious?  I mean, no one would ever run mana drain again I guess.  Give me a break.

I agree that Mind's Desire might be excessive and too powerful to unrestrict, but ask yourself: How much better is it than Ad Nauseam? I think it IS better, but not so much better that it couldn't be unrestricted. With all the other cards like BS and Ponder now sitting on the restricted list I'm not sure that Mind's Desire Alone would actually break TPS. It would certainly help the deck become more consistent and easier to play, but wouldn't that be good in a world of the quick and easy "Tezz-Vault-Key" combo? I mean, that combo's pretty easy too. I don't really see how Mind's Desire makes TPS dominant any more than Drains are right now because sans BS and Ponder you can't reliably dig up Desire in the first 2 turns anyway (unless you tutor for it and then you'd probably just get Will anyway).

I would say that Windfall + Mind's Desire coming off the restricted list probably should NOT happen though. The two together could be devastatingly consistent and fast. I think one or the other would be ok but both would not.

The only reason I suggest something as bold as Windfall or Mind's Desire is because I really would like to see TPS make a bigger splash on the scene right now instead of only being a possible weapon in the hands of a few select masters. I think one of those two cards would give the deck a new life in the mainstream Vintage metagame and that would help bring more decks back to the fore as well (Shops would do better again to counter Storm Combo).

I think one of the great things about TPS is the fact that it actually takes a very skilled person to win consistantly with. Put quite simply making the deck so Joe Randomguy can bring it to a tournament and T8 just means that those few skilled people will be taking first place nonstop. There are plenty of combo decks out there for simpler people.

As for Mind's Desire there is no way that should ever come off the list. It is WORLDS better than Ad Nauseam. It is Ad Nauseam except you don't lose life or have to pay mana to play cards you draw and it can't be countered. That is nowhere near as bad as Ad Nauseam. Hell slap in a playset of Mind's Desire and a playset of Sins of the Past and you'll never even fizzle you can just chain Desires until your whole deck is free and cast 3-4 Tendrils at 30+ storm each just for the hell of it. At the moment the only reason people would tutor for Will instead of Desire is because Desire can fizzle. With 4xDesires+a ton of tutors you almost completely eliminate the possibility of fizzling and I garuntee people would be getting Desire instead of Will, which by itself should say A LOT. It isn't that hard to dig up a sorcery run in a playset, Personal Tutor+the usual restricted pile? I mean Drains are at 50% of top 8s who cares if TPS doesn't get MORE dominant than Drains it just moves from 50% drains vs 50% Null Rod to 50% TPS vs 50% Trickbind with Desire off the list. It was actually pre-emptively restricted. How many cards can say that? LordHomerCat's words may seem harsh but his message is bang on. If you think 4xDesire in Vintage is a good thing your opinion probably doesn't matter.

However, I've seen your other posts and you seem like a really smart guy who may have just made a mistake or underestimated Mind's Desire or just wanted to spawn some interesting discussion which is never a bad thing. I'd like to talk about your suggestion of unrestricting Windfall, which isn't as insane as some might think. Outside of turn 1 Windfall is usually a draw 3-5 that costs you your hand. Sure you can get lucky and your opponent opens up with Island->Ancestral on your upkeep on the draw and you get a draw-9 with BBBBB3 floating because he miraculously didn't hit a FoW, but come on that isn't realistic. Forcing your opponent to take a pseudo-mulligan however is. It could be quite dangerous giving a deck the ability to run a playset of Windfalls simply because of how strong they are on the play. I would even venture to compare it with Trinisphere. Both cost 3 mana and mess up your opponent's game plan, but Windfall still gives them a good chance to recover. However, the fact that it also strongly pushes the combo deck's gameplan foreward by allowing lands/moxen to stay in play makes it very good. The clutch is that the strengths can also be huge weaknesses. Your opponent may have kept an iffy hand and you just gave them 7 pieces of cardboard gold. Just like all draw-7s it can fizzle easily, moreso that it often won't even get 7 cards. Also, while on turn 1 it is amazing, after that it is usually just a slightly better Infernal Contract that also helps your opponent if they have already played the best cards in their hand. It is also a pretty bad card in the combo mirror or against Fish. I'm not sure whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages enough to warrant restriction but I think it isn't a bad thing to discuss Windfall.

[Stormanimagus]

As soon as you listed Mind's Desire as anything but completely unrestrictable ever, I stopped caring what you wrote.  Are you serious?  I mean, no one would ever run mana drain again I guess.  Give me a break.

I agree that Mind's Desire might be excessive and too powerful to unrestrict, but ask yourself: How much better is it than Ad Nauseam? I think it IS better, but not so much better that it couldn't be unrestricted. With all the other cards like BS and Ponder now sitting on the restricted list I'm not sure that Mind's Desire Alone would actually break TPS. It would certainly help the deck become more consistent and easier to play, but wouldn't that be good in a world of the quick and easy "Tezz-Vault-Key" combo? I mean, that combo's pretty easy too. I don't really see how Mind's Desire makes TPS dominant any more than Drains are right now because sans BS and Ponder you can't reliably dig up Desire in the first 2 turns anyway (unless you tutor for it and then you'd probably just get Will anyway).

I would say that Windfall + Mind's Desire coming off the restricted list probably should NOT happen though. The two together could be devastatingly consistent and fast. I think one or the other would be ok but both would not.

The only reason I suggest something as bold as Windfall or Mind's Desire is because I really would like to see TPS make a bigger splash on the scene right now instead of only being a possible weapon in the hands of a few select masters. I think one of those two cards would give the deck a new life in the mainstream Vintage metagame and that would help bring more decks back to the fore as well (Shops would do better again to counter Storm Combo).

I think one of the great things about TPS is the fact that it actually takes a very skilled person to win consistantly with. Put quite simply making the deck so Joe Randomguy can bring it to a tournament and T8 just means that those few skilled people will be taking first place nonstop. There are plenty of combo decks out there for simpler people.

As for Mind's Desire there is no way that should ever come off the list. It is WORLDS better than Ad Nauseam. It is Ad Nauseam except you don't lose life or have to pay mana to play cards you draw and it can't be countered. That is nowhere near as bad as Ad Nauseam. Hell slap in a playset of Mind's Desire and a playset of Sins of the Past and you'll never even fizzle you can just chain Desires until your whole deck is free and cast 3-4 Tendrils at 30+ storm each just for the hell of it. At the moment the only reason people would tutor for Will instead of Desire is because Desire can fizzle. With 4xDesires+a ton of tutors you almost completely eliminate the possibility of fizzling and I garuntee people would be getting Desire instead of Will, which by itself should say A LOT. It isn't that hard to dig up a sorcery run in a playset, Personal Tutor+the usual restricted pile? I mean Drains are at 50% of top 8s who cares if TPS doesn't get MORE dominant than Drains it just moves from 50% drains vs 50% Null Rod to 50% TPS vs 50% Trickbind with Desire off the list. It was actually pre-emptively restricted. How many cards can say that? LordHomerCat's words may seem harsh but his message is bang on. If you think 4xDesire in Vintage is a good thing your opinion probably doesn't matter.

However, I've seen your other posts and you seem like a really smart guy who may have just made a mistake or underestimated Mind's Desire or just wanted to spawn some interesting discussion which is never a bad thing. I'd like to talk about your suggestion of unrestricting Windfall, which isn't as insane as some might think. Outside of turn 1 Windfall is usually a draw 3-5 that costs you your hand. Sure you can get lucky and your opponent opens up with Island->Ancestral on your upkeep on the draw and you get a draw-9 with BBBBB3 floating because he miraculously didn't hit a FoW, but come on that isn't realistic. Forcing your opponent to take a pseudo-mulligan however is. It could be quite dangerous giving a deck the ability to run a playset of Windfalls simply because of how strong they are on the play. I would even venture to compare it with Trinisphere. Both cost 3 mana and mess up your opponent's game plan, but Windfall still gives them a good chance to recover. However, the fact that it also strongly pushes the combo deck's gameplan foreward by allowing lands/moxen to stay in play makes it very good. The clutch is that the strengths can also be huge weaknesses. Your opponent may have kept an iffy hand and you just gave them 7 pieces of cardboard gold. Just like all draw-7s it can fizzle easily, moreso that it often won't even get 7 cards. Also, while on turn 1 it is amazing, after that it is usually just a slightly better Infernal Contract that also helps your opponent if they have already played the best cards in their hand. It is also a pretty bad card in the combo mirror or against Fish. I'm not sure whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages enough to warrant restriction but I think it isn't a bad thing to discuss Windfall.

Yeah, I was failing to realize some key things about Mind's Desire. I was only seeing the prohibitive 4UU casting cost as reason to unrestrict because I see a card like Tezzeret that can win the game for 3UU, but I realize that they are totally different.

When played with 4-5 storm count Desire usually = Win the game now (though it can fizzle)
UNCOUNTERABLILITY = didn't remember this one before, but this alone makes it too good
Free spells = This isn't as big a deal when you consider all the rituals that  TPS deck runs anyway, but it cannot be discounted.

I guess I was hoping that the relative strength of Tezz and Remora decks would be great enough to balance out an unrestricted TPS deck with Mind's Desire, but I now highly doubt that. We could always experiment with building a 4x Desire TPS deck and testing it against Tezz or Remora and see who comes out victorious. I think it'd probably be a blowout in favor of TPS, but the only way to truly find out is to test.

Honestly guys, I'm not stupid. I know how powerful Desire is. I've played TPS for years at Vintage tournaments and Pitch Long (to one nice finish). The point I'm trying to make is that the ever-expanding restricted list has gotten longer and longer over the years and I think players (and the DCI) have forgotten just how good many of the restricted cards are in the context of TODAY. I'm not saying that there aren't obvious cards that deserve to remain restricted (Necropotence, and Yawgmoth's Will come to mind) but I think we need to closely examine and test EVERY card on the list in unrestricted decks to truly see the cards that are just plain no fun.

Without the support struts of Brainstorm and Ponder I feel there are a lot more cards that could come off the restricted list than people think.

Heck, even Library Of Alexandria could be considered for unrestriction. Is its effect really that busted?  It would certainly be a nice weapon for Landstill archetypes.

All I'm saying is that the time may be right to shake things up a bit with bold moves on the part of the DCI. Vintage is a format of broken plays and exciting decision making in the first 1-3 turns and right now it seems those broken plays are becoming increasingly limited.

Those are my thoughts for now. . .

[Akuma]

A year ago, we had two engines that made up 25% of the field each, and a very healthy 40% of the remainder metagame after Flash and Ichorid. Today, we have roughly 45% of the metagame as Drain decks, then much smaller, less than 10% fractions of the field being Shops, Fish, and Rituals individually.

Basically, a year ago Vintage was good (two competing engines, diverse field) and now (post June 20th) Vintage is not good (half the field = Drains, no diversity, Highlander decks). Steve is advocating for the unrestriction of cards that will help to diversify this stale format (not trash like Grim Monolith), hopefully he/the community will succeed. Until that happens, I will continue to focus on the better/more interesting eternal format.

Does anyone think that WotC is intentionally killing Vintage?

[Wagner]

When played with 4-5 storm count Desire usually = Win the game now (though it can fizzle)
UNCOUNTERABLILITY = didn't remember this one before, but this alone makes it too good
Free spells = This isn't as big a deal when you consider all the rituals that  TPS deck runs anyway, but it cannot be discounted.

I guess I was hoping that the relative strength of Tezz and Remora decks would be great enough to balance out an unrestricted TPS deck with Mind's Desire, but I now highly doubt that. We could always experiment with building a 4x Desire TPS deck and testing it against Tezz or Remora and see who comes out victorious. I think it'd probably be a blowout in favor of TPS, but the only way to truly find out is to test.

Honestly guys, I'm not stupid. I know how powerful Desire is. I've played TPS for years at Vintage tournaments and Pitch Long (to one nice finish).

You played it for years yet forgot that is was uncounterable?

Anyway, another huge problem with unrestricted Desire is that it is very possible to Desire into another Desire. Once that happens...

[arctic79]

I see a lot of statistics being thrown around concerning Mana Drain's dominance in the format, but has anyone looked at why?  Time Vault + Tez.  If they axe or errata Time Vault again I'm sure that Drain will taper off.  Why else would you play Drain right now other than Vault?  Steve mentioned a few posts ago that the release of the sets from shards onwards hasn't altered Drain's presence, could that be because Shards and Conflux have fed Drain more than any other engine?
While we are at it, let's axe FoW because it has been dominating since it was printed.  Oh that's right, Wotc considers it an archtype deck, I'm sorry I never built a deck based around FoW ever, just decks that are supported by FoW.

[Stormanimagus]

ok guys. There is no doubt in my mind that Unrestricting Desire would make some speedy ass TPS decks crop up. But would they really be better than what's out there to combat them? It'd be nice to see TPS as more of a presence again. Here's the list I'd run with 4 Mind's Desire. It is, as yet, untested, but I do think it is a really good deck. I just want everyone's thoughts on its brokenness. Can it really win Turn 2 consistently? Aight, here's the list:

Unrestricted Desire

Land (13):
4 Polluted Delta
1 Flooded Strand
3 Underground Sea
3 Island
1 Swamp
1 Tolarian Academy

Artifacts (11):
1 Black Lotus
1 Lotus Petal
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Sol Ring
1 Memory Jar

Artifact Creatures (1):
1 Inkwell Leviathan

Instants (18):
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Brainstorm
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Mystical Tutor
1 Fact Or Fiction
1 Gifts Ungiven
4 Dark Ritual
2 Cabal Ritual
4 Force Of Will
1 Chain Of Vapor
1 Rebuild

Sorceries (15):
4 Thoughtsieze
4 Mind’s Desire
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Yawgmoth’s Will
1 Tendrils Of Agony
1 Tinker
1 Timetwister
1 Time Walk
1 Ponder

Enchantments (2):
1 Necropotence
1 Yawgmoth’s Bargain

SB
4 Extirpate
4 Leyline Of The Void
3 Hurkyl’s Recall
4 Smother