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

[Qasur]

I find all this talk about restricting a staple/core card of the Vintage format to be rather amusing at best.

After reading through the entire thread, I can only conclude that restriction of Mana Drain, even if it was farcical, is indulgent of over-bearing need to find anything to create discussion (and knowing debate.)

Vintage is built upon pillars for which it's good: Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, and Mana Drain.

Everyone here agrees upon this topic. Those who don't only say this in spite of the current vintage metagame. Looking over the years from 2001 until now, you can see a definite shift in which one of those three 'pillars' was the best card that defined vintage. Dragon utilizing Bazaar was a good deck, Stax (with Trinisphere) utilizing Mishra's Workshop was a good deck, and Gifts utilizing Mana Drain was a good deck. All of these decks are basically non-existence, save for Stax (having to utilize more basic, and older Kron-based principles) in order to survive the shift over the years (as well as the bannings/restrictions.)

No offense to anyone, but if you can't understand that within a complex system that is Magic, and more importantly, the Vintage format of Magic, there exist quite many cards that "break" the rules (and tempo) that is the Tournament Format. In such a format, how can even be implied that a "perfect" list of cards for Banning/Restricting can even balance this? Sadly, the B/R List has done a lot to "tame" this format, but it's not enough.

Despite the fact that Vintage is a "dead" format as people say when it comes to WotC, they adjust the rules, re-errata cards, and make changes to the B/R List more-so than they do with any other format. It's constantly within their grasp. They know what's going on and keep a keen on eye on the vintage format. Most changes to the B/R List don't come hastily or without results. They use data from tournaments, and even with some perusing through deck-creation forums, to keep up with the current metagame in order to make good chances to the B/R List.

Now back to the talk of restriction mana drain: My problem with bringing up the idea of over-use as a means by percentage is that within your own SCG article, you state how Drain decks went from 41% to 45% in the Top 8's. This is an increase in 4%... and can you actually blame that on a reactive card? Also, I'm all for The Shop's idea of defining cards; yet people tend to throw aside all discussion on how words are defined within the game of magic. These wouldn't be used terms if players didn't understand what their meanings were, so trying to toss them out as potential discussion topics in the basis that their defined definitions aren't good enough for you? That's just ludicrous and no other words you say bear any meaning then, as you don't believe in their intended meanings in the first place.

Mana Drain is a reactive card. Any card that can only be played in response to another is quite reactive, and therefore it's interactive. Requiring both players. And, don't be coy... who plays a card of their own only to Mana Drain it? That's just ludicrous too, so the only option is to counter an opponent's spell. While doing so is quite powerful, beyond that of a simple Time Walk, still doesn't make it more powerful than Time Walk because your opponent has opportunities, as well as, the ability to disrupt Mana Drain was resolving (Thoughtseize and Duress are great, and highly used, examples of this.) This all is what helps make up, and define, interaction within the format. Talk of interactivity is rather off-topic, just couldn't resist the temptation of at least saying something about it.

The restriction of Mana Drain, if it were to occur, would also require that WotC needing to restrict Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, Dark Ritual (and now Cabal Ritual too, for the same reasons that were applied to Ponder when Brainstorm got the axe.) People said it's the not the same and there would need to be data first to define if the other cards would need restricting. The problem with this argument is that WotC have already attacked blue rather aggressively during the previous year, and by Smennen's statistics, has showed that Blue "rebounded" and went up 4% in he rankings (basing this off Mana Drain decks.)

If Mana Drains were already running at ~40%, then why was nothing ever spoken of before this? Under this understanding, and trying to base Tezzeret's performance on the sole factor that it has Mana Drain seems flawed. There are multiple variables to factor into this equation. It's not that Tezzeret was printed because Time Vault was also errata'd again to move toward a more "original intent" based wording. This is also on top of the fact that Voltaic Key exists. So, that's at least three other variables to apply toward this discussions, which isn't a discussion whether or not Mana Drain should be restricted, but the fact that Time Vault being errata'd to work with both Tezzeret and Voltaic Key makes it a very easily assembled via just a few tutors; and Time Vault combo wins do not require the graveyard like many decks do in order to win, so many Sideboard answers (Tormod's Crypt, Faerie MaCabre, and Leyeline of the Void) do not even touch on this combo...

All-in-all, this is just a format that's impossible to control through simple Bannings and Restrictions without just outright banning a list of the most-powerful cards in the format... and that's just a topic that will cause all sorts of debate (mostly as to which cards are "the most powerful" and should be out-right banned) and is for another day altogether if it were to even need to exist. So, until something like that permits itself to the world for discussion, at least try to look through all the numbers, decks, and previous experience to see that Mana Drain is not the culprit, but that Time Vault's new wording is.

Any reason to disbelieve Time Vault's new wording is the cause and to advocate restricting Mana Drain is someone who wants act like they believe in the health of Vintage format. Taking away the tools to combat Combo decks (control cards) is going to allow Tendrils-based decks to dominate the format. Since aggro is not quick enough to kill any combo deck in at least 3 to 4 turns, they rely on cheap disruption like Null Rod and Chalice of the Void to stall... the problem is that Storm-based decks have the ability to retroactively answer these artifact disruption cards (Rebuild at the least is main-decked already.) So, that would leave Storm-based decks running rampant in the format with control decks being constantly reduced in strength, as any way to get them back up into any dominating percentage would cause another streak of "Not Blue's good again, even after restricting drain, so lets restrict card X now!" For this sake, what is the percentage of Force of Will in vintage decks?

Yeah, Force of Will is the "glue" that holds vintage together, but under the circumstance that Mana Drain is too good, what about FoW? It doesn't require having lands or moxes, or any mana-producer in play; just a blue card and at least 2 life. This is a minute cost for a card that has the tempo and playability that it does. Even after attacking the color that it promotes, FoW is still a mainstay in Vintage... and if you want to take away Mana Drain because of the numbers that it shows in tournament results, then the same should be said for any cards that aren't restricted, including Force of Will.

[Smmenen]

Of course Mana Drain is a reactive card.  But that's a meaningless distinction.  First of all, we don't categorize cards on the restricted list according to whether they are lands, or sorceries, or instants, or whatever.   They are restricted because they were too good, period.  Secondly, reactive is a category that is so narrow it means nothing.   Is Crop Rotation a reactive card?  What about Ancestral Recall?  Those cards can all be played in response to another card.   If you narrow your answer to cards that specifically respond to another spell on the stack, well then reactive cards are almost exclusively defined as countermagic.  Your rule would then simply be reduced to saying that Countermagic can't be restricted.   That is a pretty silly thing to say. 

Throughout your post,you repeatedly misconstrue points made, which I have neither the time nor inclination to deconstruct,   I will, however, point out one.   The point about Mana Drain wasn't that an increase of 4% warrants restricted, but that 40% of top 8s is pretty much dominance.

They restricted 4 cards in the Gushbond combo when Gush decks never rose above 25% of top 8s.   Mana Drain decks are CRUSHING Gush decks in terms of dominating Vintage, and yet Mana Drain is safe?  That's ridiculous.   Why did Gush deserve restriction when Mana Drain decks BEFORE Tezzeret and the errata on Time Vault were already 40% of the field, and now are even more? 

Some might say Thirst, but the evidence does not suggest that Thirst is a problem, since its numbers are so much lower than Drains. 

Based on that logic, then we could blame it on Force of Will: "Some might say Drain, but the evidence does not suggest Drain is a problem, since its numbers are so much lower than Forces."

I'm rather skeptical of the argument that mere numbers suggests that one card is a bigger problem than another.

I'm open to restricting Thirst, if six months from now, Mana Drains are performing 40-45% of top 8s.  That's simply unacceptable from a diversity/health of the format perspective. 

I think that what I was getting at is that the % of people playing a card in tournament is not normally the reason for restriction. 

????

It's THE reason for restriction.   If a top 8 had 100% copies of Deck X repeatedly throughout the world and over time, that would be absolutely 100% the reason to restrict it.   When a deck or engine reaches a certain proportion of the field, it becomes dominant.   That is absolutely the best and most universally justifiable reason to restrict, and the reason that cards are banned in other formats and restricted in Vintage.  Everyone acknowledges that diversity is one of the keys to a healthy metagame.  Having a dominant deck or engine does not make for one. 

Just as a bit of historical context, the single best performing deck in modern Vintage was GroAtog from February 2003 to June of 2003, when Gush got restricted.  Everyone knew it was totally dominant, and do you know what it's numbers were in terms of percentage of top 8s? 

36% of top 8s.   

Lastly, I love Steven's articles and all that he has done for popularizing vintage and educating people about it.  However, I suspect that there a bias in many of his works towards whatever his pet deck is at the time.  Tendrils would definitely be helped by the end of drain.dec.

Think again.

I played all archetypes in Vintage, as a creator of Meandeck Gifts to an advocate of TPS and GroAtog.   However, it is my view that there are a number of players who really want nothing more than to have everything restricted until Mana Drains are the best deck.   These people get up in arms when other decks are too good, and immediately start advocating or supporting the restriction of any number of cards, from Dark Ritual or Workshop or Bazaar or Gush.   Such double standards are not acceptable.   The standards we apply to other decks for restriction should be applicable to all archetypes, with no special exemptions.  Puzzling that you omitted Dark Ritual in your list of "pillars," since any real list of pillars would include that before Bazaar.   

EDIT: By way of reference, this might be might favorite chart ever on SCG
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/5980_You_CAN_Play_Type_I_108_The_State_Of_The_Metagame_Address_The_Charts.html

Look how I voted on each one. 

[Qasur]

You never seem to have the time nor inclination to address any actually post with really discussable content because you can't seem to find an answer that you think will make it sound as if you're right. I've read numerous posts where you will bring in circular arguments that wind in upon themselves so that if you tried to break them apart, there would be no direct way without having to demeterialize you're entire post into nothing but incoherent statements to push off the fact that people who make valid points you don't agree with cannot conject against your last point.

Being a lawyer, you've learned how to do this. It's apart of core process when speaking your case in front of the court. Sadly, we're talking about a card game and you feel the need to be right about any situation based off a small, one-variable sampling and making it king.

You misconstrue all posts by quoting the most-arguable portion of a post, and normally, the less-involved portion (and usually therefore the less-on-topic) post; so you're all about blowing and brushing off all other points made as "unanswerable", unless they are deemed worthy. These worthy posts are only when accepted. You've only accepted one person's argument here and that's because his opinion was aligned with your own. Very biased form of autocracy.

In response to your "40%" deems it beyond reason to restrict, why did you not address FoW then? The same reason would also ask why, back when it was showing 40% dominance in a field of only 25% Gush/Flash, that it wasn't dominant enough to warrant restriction at that moment OVER both Gush AND Flash? I mean, if you think that these numbers mean anything... what relevance do you have to base any of your proposals on? WotC doesn't have to follow tournament results to determine whether or not to ban/restrict a card. Look at Trinisphere. It was restricted because of it's "non-interactivity" to the format... Mana Drain and FoW were both showing numbers larger than Flash and Gush, but BOTH Flash and Gush were the two cards to become restricted... care to explain? It obviously has nothing to do with being Dominant...

But, let's look at that singularly value I mentioned you point as your basis: Dominance. Your basis is solely on Top 8's where these decks were winning. In order to truly address an indication of whether a card should be considered for Restriction/Banning in Vintage, you can't apply WotC simply policy for Standard/Extended, where the card pool is smaller and more easily controlled. Instead, after mentioned how complex vintage is where cards break the standard/extended's tempo and mana constraints of their Tournaments, you need to then reliably focus on more than just the Top 8's, because not all decks are defined by their standings. Stax is always considered a Tier 1 deck within the tournament scene, but it's rarely comes in 1st place... So, if Stax started making "heavy top 8's" you would call for restriction of Mishra's Workshop? Dominance has to also encompass 1st Place finishes AND the number of similar decks in each Tournament.... there's something to say if this 40% dominance came from only a few players, and at least one of them made a Top 8 each event... that could also be that random variable of "Chance" that no one can account for. Looking strictly at all numbers, not just the numbers of Top 8 appearances MUST be used in order to take a more accurate and finite glance at trying to piece together the puzzle of what people call "dominance."

In my opinion, as well, you also should somehow factor in who was playing said deck. The skill of a player is rather important too, considering that at some of these smaller events (20 or less), there are only 5 to 6 actually skilled players, leaving room for 2 to 3 "rogues" or less-skilled players in the format to have a chance to push results into the Top 8's that may not even be relevant. Many times decks with completely odd kill conditions may include cards from the restricted list, and mana drains, or workshops, etc... and if that player happens to Top 8, but lose before their less-then-popular (or probably less-good, or just bad) kill conditions (card changes) are seen (or understood), then these can construe results of the "best decks"... although this would make it seem that even this "bad deck" constitututes inclusion into a deck of it's acheatype, it just goes to show that players will use the best cards in a format no matter the reason (especially if they have access to them.)

It's too bad that the vintage scene in America is dominated by proxy events. This construes any results of the format because you can no longer base deck's "pilot" under the Eternal ratings system. If the eternal ratings system was back in place, then we could exclude or include results based on the a ratings standard. If an eternal player were at 2000, then I would clearly see them getting into Top 8 (or top 2 for that matter) often to be based solely on the fact that that player not only played one of the better decks in the format, but that they were so exceptionally good in the format that they coud even win with a lesser-viable deck based on their skill.

Without any of these ratings, it's hard to put a value on a player's skill as a deck pilot. My point in all of this is that there are so many variables to include other than strict Top 8's percentages of Card X... because under this system, there are cards more important that Mana Drain that would be under fire especially if you're use Gush/Flash's 25% "dominance" factor as precedent. WotC took major action on Gush before it had a chance to dominate for an entire year. Flash was running long before then, but really didn't take off at first... it spent a few months under the radar while people were still testing it's validity, as well as awaiting the powerful Protean Hulk/Reveillark build (which wasn't the original.) Considering the change of kill-condition in Flash, it's hard to use all of statistics and just "clump" them together... most people found the Sliver kill condition to be weak. I've played both, and was an active player of Flash through multiple iterations of the deck... and Protean Reveillark build was the best because you didn't need an attack step, therefore maximizing Pact of Negation as an offensive and defensive counterspell, and still being able to win before losing to the Trigger.... that's a lot change, and potentially, why the deck's popularity increased. Some sort of removal of percentage needs to be made, or, just don't use the aggregate. You need to use just the 1st Place Finishes %, Top 8 Results %, and Number of Flash decks (by type) %'s... once this is done, a more accurate view of the format can be defined. In Flash's case, it was so solitaire on the first Turn kill that something needed to be done about the deck because it was too wild and over-powered... but, if you want to address power... look @ FoW and Pact of Negations % in those dekcs too... should they have been restricted instead?

I mean, you can push all of these discussions wherever you like and deconstruct posts however you like to make it look like things are inane, but the fact is that your reasonings and decisions are only conclusive to you, not to the majority of players out there and you need to be open, for once, in accepting more than just one person's argument to agree with, considering that this person already agreed with you! This is like bias on crack.

[Smmenen]

You never seem to have the time nor inclination to address any actually post with really discussable content because you can't seem to find an answer that you think will make it sound as if you're right. I've read numerous posts where you will bring in circular arguments that wind in upon themselves so that if you tried to break them apart, there would be no direct way without having to demeterialize you're entire post into nothing but incoherent statements to push off the fact that people who make valid points you don't agree with cannot conject against your last point.

Just because someone says something, that doesn't make it true.   The quote above is a great example of that.

It couldn't be that I actually have a valid point, right?  I mean, it must be that I'm simply  making circular arguments or am honing in on minutia because the post which I'm replying to is right and I am wrong, and I need to distract from the points they are making to make it seem like I am right?   That's exactly what you say here.   So, where are these circular arguments? Also, to the very last point you made, isn't the whole notion of whether someone's point valid "to be determined?"  On what grounds is this hypothetical person's points valid?    Every criticism  just raised could just as easily apply to your two posts in this thread.

One of the main reasons I didn't want to respond to the full content of your prior post is because the first 40% of it was all over the place and made little sense. 

Let's walk through it:

I find all this talk about restricting a staple/core card of the Vintage format to be rather amusing at best.

After reading through the entire thread, I can only conclude that restriction of Mana Drain, even if it was farcical, is indulgent of over-bearing need to find anything to create discussion (and knowing debate.)

Uh, what?   

It couldn't possibly be that the debate at issue is based upon a valid concern over statistics, right?  I mean, clearly it must mean that I am being "indulgently overbearing need to create discussion," correct?   It couldn't possibly be that the statistics regarding Mana Drain are alarming to say the least.   

When I posted this on my team forums, Jimmy McCarthy wrote:

That's a little scary.  I know Tez is good, but that good?  Man...

Your post exhibits precisely those behaviors you accused my writing of being, as your statement I just quoted shows.   You are the one making the circular argument, assuming that the issue is not worthy of being debated within the debate.   

As I said, it couldn't possibly be that this is a serious issue and that there are valid concerns, right?  You seem to have decided your view of the issue at the outset.

Vintage is built upon pillars for which it's good: Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, and Mana Drain.

Everyone here agrees upon this topic. Those who don't only say this in spite of the current vintage metagame.

The topic being that Mana Drain should be watched over the next six months for possible restriction?   

It's far from clear what you are even referring to here.   And that pair of ambiguous sentences leads into:

Looking over the years from 2001 until now, you can see a definite shift in which one of those three 'pillars' was the best card that defined vintage. Dragon utilizing Bazaar was a good deck, Stax (with Trinisphere) utilizing Mishra's Workshop was a good deck, and Gifts utilizing Mana Drain was a good deck. All of these decks are basically non-existence, save for Stax (having to utilize more basic, and older Kron-based principles) in order to survive the shift over the years (as well as the bannings/restrictions.)

This paragraph makes little sense.   Since 2001, we can see definite shifts in which was the best card that defined Vintage.  Definitely, but your examples are odd.   Dragon was never the "best" deck.   Also, it's Kevin Cron, not "Kron," and almost everything that you've probably read about Kevin Cron's stacks principles you mentioned probably came from my articles.    Why are we even talking about this?   What does this have to do with the topic?  This is not nitpicking, this is a serious question. 

 Let's say your point is what you say it is: there are metagame shfits in the upper tiers.   Well, no duh.  My article Year in Review in 2008 proves this.  But, so what?  That has nothing to do with this topic, at least not clearly.   If your point is that Mana Drain decks are sometimes good, yes, they are.   And...?

In any case, you are remiss in not including Dark Ritual in those pillar cards.

No offense to anyone, but if you can't understand that within a complex system that is Magic, and more importantly, the Vintage format of Magic, there exist quite many cards that "break" the rules (and tempo) that is the Tournament Format. In such a format, how can even be implied that a "perfect" list of cards for Banning/Restricting can even balance this? Sadly, the B/R List has done a lot to "tame" this format, but it's not enough.

Another major shift.  I mean, your post is little more than a long, stream-of-consciousness bouncing around form topic to topic in free flow.   You start by exclaiming your amusement at the topic, then state your view that it is a totally ridiculous issue to even be talking about and stems from a desire to create discussion and debate rather than being based on evidence, then, mysteriously, you move from those comments to the truism that decks in the top tier change and finally, this very bizaare aside that many cards "break" the rules?   Huh??   What does that have anything to do with??   

Despite the fact that Vintage is a "dead" format as people say when it comes to WotC, they adjust the rules, re-errata cards, and make changes to the B/R List more-so than they do with any other format. It's constantly within their grasp. They know what's going on and keep a keen on eye on the vintage format. Most changes to the B/R List don't come hastily or without results. They use data from tournaments, and even with some perusing through deck-creation forums, to keep up with the current metagame in order to make good chances to the B/R List.

Again, this is just another random truism.    What is this about?  Why say this stuff?    This is just bizarre stuff. 

The last two quotes explain why I said I have neither the time nor the inclination to address your full post.  You are all over the map. If you want to discuss some key issues, I will be happy to do that with you. 

Being a lawyer, you've learned how to do this. It's apart of core process when speaking your case in front of the court. Sadly, we're talking about a card game and you feel the need to be right about any situation based off a small, one-variable sampling and making it king.

Wow.   So much misdirection and fallacious remarks.  First of all, lawyers are trained to argue cases based upon justice and the most favorable applicable law.   It has nothing to do with advancing circular arguments or making tautological points.   If an argument is circular, it can easily be called out as such and would hardly be successful in front of a jury or before a judge.     Even if it were true, it's simply ad hominem to say that someone how my arguments are not valid or, even worse, that we should dismiss my arguments since I’m trying to confuse or misdirect "because I'm a lawyer."   

As I was saying, these debates are loaded with embedded scripts and tautological terms.   A good analogy is the debate over the criteria for restriction here:
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=37034.30  I addressed the points made here, which you see as circular, in the same manner that I did there.   
This is a complex discussion.  People come into these discussions with a set of background assumptions, terms, and other scripts that they've used in these debates before.   The scripts that people usually bring to these debates, which are developed and honed out of their own experience, are not generally helpful.

You misconstrue all posts by quoting the most-arguable portion of a post, and normally, the less-involved portion (and usually therefore the less-on-topic) post; so you're all about blowing and brushing off all other points made as "unanswerable", unless they are deemed worthy. These worthy posts are only when accepted. You've only accepted one person's argument here and that's because his opinion was aligned with your own. Very biased form of autocracy.

Aside from more bald assertions, why don’t you cite the specific example rather than try to convey your point, and create an aura of authencity around it, by being non-specific and without support. For  example, you say that I normally reply to a “less-involved portion” of a post.  That’s a ridiculous claim, but one which is easy to throw out in the heat of a debate.   Just because you say those things does not make them true.     I do not have unlimited time to give the long sort of responses you might like, but I always argue in good faith and attempt to address the core issues people advance.   

In response to your "40%" deems it beyond reason to restrict, why did you not address FoW then? The same reason would also ask why, back when it was showing 40% dominance in a field of only 25% Gush/Flash, that it wasn't dominant enough to warrant restriction at that moment OVER both Gush AND Flash? I mean, if you think that these numbers mean anything... what relevance do you have to base any of your proposals on? WotC doesn't have to follow tournament results to determine whether or not to ban/restrict a card. Look at Trinisphere. It was restricted because of it's "non-interactivity" to the format... Mana Drain and FoW were both showing numbers larger than Flash and Gush, but BOTH Flash and Gush were the two cards to become restricted... care to explain? It obviously has nothing to do with being Dominant...

So, I said that being dominant is a universally accepted ground for banning or restriction.

And your response? 

It’s to say, well, duh, look, there are cards that have been restricted on other grounds.

Well, no kidding!  No one ever said that dominance was the ONLY grounds for restriction.  But it’s a clear ground. 

If that’s not a clear example of misrepresenting an argument I made, I don’t know what is.

I mean, you can push all of these discussions wherever you like and deconstruct posts however you like to make it look like things are inane,

The pot is calling the kettle black!

You are the one who has pushed this discussion in whatever direction you want.   You are really all over the place, talking about, apparently, whatever comes to mind, no matter how tenuous it's relevance to the main issue.   

but the fact is that your reasonings and decisions are only conclusive to you, not to the majority of players out there and you need to be open, for once, in accepting more than just one person's argument to agree with,

Wait, so you know what the majority of players out there think?  Did you take a poll?   And you know that NO one agrees with my reasoning here?   I mean, are you omniscient? 

for once, in accepting more than just one person's argument to agree with, considering that this person already agreed with you! This is like bias on crack.

Isn't it bias on crack to assume, from the outset, that this issue is "indulgent" and has no merit?  That a most players disagree with me?  That I'm wrong without having to actually give any reasons for why I'm wrong?   

[bluemage55]

I'm open to restricting Thirst, if six months from now, Mana Drains are performing 40-45% of top 8s.  That's simply unacceptable from a diversity/health of the format perspective. 

If it were possible, I'd rather unrestrict some other cards than restrict more cards to enhance diversity.  I believe you've wriitten before that ideally we want to have as small of a restricted list as possible.

I don't think Drain decks should be the strongest in the format, but I don't believe that restricting Mana Drain is the way to go about dealing with such a problem.  Despite being primarily a Drain player myself, I really enjoyed playing during the pre-June 20th  "Golden Age" despite how weakened Drain decks were.

I strongly feel that contrary to the DCI's goal of making Blue a weaker color, the Vintage Apocalpyse restrictions ironically served to reinforce Blue's stranglehold over Vintage.  Rather than further attempts to cut Blue control down, the DCI should be trying to raise up the other archetypes, whether by unrestrictions or through the printing of cards that shore up the weaknesses of other decks.  One of the reasons for the great diversity of decks during the Golden Age (remember the R/G Beatz deck that took a Starcity tourney?) was because WotC had been (possibly deliberately) giving Vintage cool cards like Thorn of Amethyst, Bridge from Below, Thoughtseize, Tarmogoyf, Painter's Servant, etc. that increased the viability of other decks.  Trying to chop down Blue doesn't make up for the fact that even if every Blue card in existence was restricted, it'd still be a powerful archetype.  Raising up the others, on the other hand, makes Vintage more diverse (and increases WotC's profits from the Vintage community to boot).

I don't have Premium, but from what I can tell you can be doing one of two possible things with your article: either advocating the weakening of the Drain archetype, or simply using it as a foil to explain how unnecessary the June 20th restrictions were.  I certainly hope the latter is what your real point is, rather than supporting a failed restriction policy that runs counter to the laissez-faire Vintage principles you've run with for as long as I can remember.

[Troy_Costisick]

You never seem to have the time nor inclination to address any actually post with really discussable content because you can't seem to find an answer that you think will make it sound as if you're right. I've read numerous posts where you will bring in circular arguments that wind in upon themselves so that if you tried to break them apart, there would be no direct way without having to demeterialize you're entire post into nothing but incoherent statements to push off the fact that people who make valid points you don't agree with cannot conject against your last point.

Well, I'm not Steve, so maybe you'll think I'm different.  Maybe not.

In response to your "40%" deems it beyond reason to restrict, why did you not address FoW then?

Replace all the Mana Drains in Mana Drain decks with any other 2 mana counterspell.  If those decks perform at the same level in the top 8's, then we can talk about FoW.

Mana Drain and FoW were both showing numbers larger than Flash and Gush, but BOTH Flash and Gush were the two cards to become restricted... care to explain?

Yeah, Wizards screwed up!  Adding Merchant Scroll (hands down the best unrestricted tutor) and Brainstorm (essentially an unrestricted A-call) to the restricted list would have solved the problem (if there really was one in the first place).  Adding the others was way overkill.  If you go back and read over the public reaction to WotC's decision is was nothing but acrimonious howls and vehement demands for rational justification that never really came.  Of all the B/R restrictions WotC has made in the last 5 years, June 2008 was BY FAR the worst and least justified.

Dominance. Your basis is solely on Top 8's where these decks were winning.

So you're saying that we need to examine decks that consistently fail to win for potential cards to restrict?  Is Goblin Charbelcher on your watch list, then?  

Stax is always considered a Tier 1 deck within the tournament scene, but it's rarely comes in 1st place... So, if Stax started making "heavy top 8's" you would call for restriction of Mishra's Workshop?

You're wrong on both counts.  Stax isn't always tier 1.  It's rank always depends on what the meta tells us.  Right now for instance, Stax is nowhere in the metagame.  I would not list it in the Tier 1 of Vintage decks at the moment.  Can you find a consensus of game reports or forum threads that do?  Second, shop decks came in 1 place tons of times before the June 20 restrictions.  Look earlier in this thread to see the metagame reports from that time.  In any event, is there any reason Workshop should be shielded from restriction for some reason?  Can you give any solid reason why any cards should be shielded besides, "It's a pillar of the format and is immensely popular."  

While you're thinking about the answer for that, find the quote where Stephen, myself, or anyone else in this thread stated that Mana Drain should be restricted at this time.  I can maybe only find one, and that's by Bongo on the second page if I'm reading that post correctly.  You'll have to decide for yourself how much pull he or she has with the DCI and then take up your argument from there.  For my part, I would argue that no cards need be added to the restricted list at this time.  If anything, I believe that there are several cards that could be removed.  But that is a discussion for another thread and another time.

I mean, you can push all of these discussions wherever you like and deconstruct posts however you like to make it look like things are inane, but the fact is that your reasonings and decisions are only conclusive to you, not to the majority of players out there

How in the world did you determine that?  Have you polled all the Vintage players out there to find out what the majority thinks? There's a chance that you might be right, but you have nothing to back up a statement like that.  It's baseless.

The argument that has seemed to arise on this thread may be a result of people having different ideas about what a healthy metagame is.  I happen to believe that a diverse metagame is best.  In June 2008, the "Rest of the Field" was nearly 50%.  That's awesome, IMHO.  That means that there was an incredible number of viable deck builds and win conditions.  Right now, the "Rest of the Field" is 20%.  To me, that's a bad thing.  It means that not nearly as many deck builds are viable and players have fewer choices.  I like choice.  Some people, however, may honestly believe that "Mana Drain Decks" at 45% of the meta is a healthy environment.  Okay, that's fine to hold that position.  However, expect me to oppose that position and use whatever tools and data I have availabe to do so.  It's nothing personal.  It's just that I prefer a more diverse metagame.  I hope you don't feel I'm piling on you.  I see that your're a new poster at theManaDrain and I think it's great that you've decided to participate.  I just hold an oppinion that I think is different from yours.

Peace,

-Troy

[TheShop]

I feel like this is getting so subjective and emotionally charged that it loses all positive conclusions to this discussion. 

@Steve:  I still enjoy reading your work and your arguments (and your transcription of t4 games).  If you want to continue this discussion or hear my responses- lets go to private message (as I feel this is getting out of hand fast).

@All
I apologize for contributing to this chaos.

[neotrophy]

Mana Drain was basically pushed aside during the period that Gush was legal as a 4 of.  Instead of calling for the restriction of Mana Drain, should we instead be calling for the unrestriction of Gush, and probably Ponder, too. 

Steven has said time and time again that he believes that Merchant Scroll was the big problem card in the Gush-bond engine, and I'm inclined to agree.  By unrestricting Gush, we open the door for a milder, less potentially dominant form of the engine, which may help to curb the prevalence of Drain decks.

There have been other cards which people, Steven probably at the forefront, have called to be unrestricted.  Fact or Fiction and Gifts Ungiven spring to mind, but these are likely to be particularly powerful in Drain decks, given their cast costs.  Ponder is a sorcery, as opposed to its co-collaborator, Brainstorm's instant speed.  This makes it distinctly less appetising to a deck that wishes to keep up in the opponent's turn.  This could allow some other decks, not based around Mana Drain, to have a competitive edge by being happy to play spells in their own turn.

Adjustments like this seem like a better alternative to restricting a vintage "pillar" and favourite of many.

*Edit*

I also wonder how much of Mana Drain's apparent dominance is actually a social effect, rather than a function of it actually being the best choice.  Many of the best foils for drain decks and possibly more dangerous decks are built using little power.  This means, particularly in proxied environments, that thy are less attractive to many players.  People like to be able to play with their old, broken cards.  Of the big 3, drain, shop and bazaar, drain is almost certainly the best choice.  The only other fully powered decks that really have a chance are ritual based combo decks, which many players have an aversion to, because they tend to not work very well when played poorly, and they have a stigma of the "dirty combo player" attached.  Perhaps TPS,or something similar, or R/G beats are actually better choices, but most players are just too attached to their Drains to try them out.

[LordHomerCat]

FYI, at RIW this weekend there were 3 Tezzeret players in the field out of like 25 or so.  There were also 3 in the top 4.  Play skill is certainly a factor, but its not like this deck is only doing well because 15 people are playing it each event.  At least out here, it is putting up a lot higher percentages in the top 8 compared to its percentage in the entire field.

[jamestosetti]

  I think if mana drain were restricted the format would become very simplistic until better counters were printed. I remember when Chapin said he was asked what it would take to make him play vintage and he said restict cards until mana drain is the best card and then restrict it and I'll play. I think he said this because he likes counterbalance.  I've already posted on Wizards asking players what it would take to make them play a certain format and with all these discussions it  makes me think that the high level players get to say what goes down. That's not a bad thing but you would think Wizards would posses the know how on this subject. The only real way to figure out which card needs restricted is to make tons of decks to play against each other with certain cards being restricted until a general idea of the possible metagame was found and then In 3 months a new set will come out and all that testing may produce the wrong result because of new cards.

 They should print something new to even this all out. Here is a quick idea I really just thought of this in the last 5 seconds. After so many artifact activations you lose the game from a counter that you get from the activation. That may be stupid I don't know but it could be bounced or destroyed causing different strategies to come about possibly new control decks or whatever. I think we just need some new cards with impact printed.

[desolutionist]

First, I am of the belief that Thirst is actually better than Intuition.

Yes, definitely.  TfK is now even better than it ever was because Brainstorm is restricted.  You don't really present a good argument for why it should be restricted though.  Yah true, its blue hand-fixing + card advantage.  We'd probably play Compulsive Research if it was gone. 

Point is, everyone wants to see "them" unrestrict Brainstorm and Ponder.  And I'd start to monitor Time Vault especially since they've already had to do something about it.   

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

As I posted in the other thread I believe the only reason drain decks are keeping their 40%+ stranglehold is because of key/vault. I'm not surprised that immediately after such a huge wave of restrictions people jumped back to a staple such as mana drain. However, we should almost be thankful that drain decks are the only decks currently using this insane combo. I won't repost my arguments since I think I've done it as clearly as I can in the other thread, but as long as key/vault remains out there it becomes just too ridiculous to unrestrict things. I bet 24%/24% of those tezz decks used key/vault and 40%+(more likely 44%)/44% of those drain decks did as well. Cards like ponder/gush are up for debate whether to unrestrict when realistically there used to be discussions about fact and gifts, both of which are more or less pure drain cards. Its true that other archetypes have been weakened or destroyed by the last ban/restricted wave, but what has actually changed in the card pool in the past little while? Every deck except drains has gained new cards playable in 4-ofs. Drains gained a singleton tezz(or at least playable as) and singleton(or at least playable as) key/vault. This is not to mention that drain decks have also lost more than ritual based combo and shop decks as far as restrictions go.This begs the question as to how drains have suddenly ridden these small additions to the extremely dominant place they hold right now.

People that play tezz often say that the namesake is the weakest card in the deck to the point where many lists run 1 and the rest merely 2. So that just leaves key/vault. This interaction is so powerful that it singlehandedly seems to be carrying drains to the top. I suggested in the other thread that this isn't even the beginning of what the combo can do. Key/vault combined are (for lack of any better way to describe it) Yawgmoth's Bargain on crack. Oh sure the combo takes 1 more card and is vulnerable to Null Rod and artifact hate. However, the combo costs BB less, instantly wins the game (its technically possible to fizzle bargain), costs no life(better against creatures), can be cast over multiple turns, isn't a huge drain target, and dodges enchantment hate. The combo can't be weakened by restrictions and the hate available compared to any other combo out there is extremely limited to bad cards and bouncable permanents. It's only a matter of time until we see some form of super combo deck cutting out the slow crap in tezzeret and just going straight for the win with turn 1 restricted tutor or turn 1 ritual->grim tutor, turn 2 other tutor of some kind and win.

You can try unrestricting cards but the bottom line is the format is just morphing into key/vault vs anti-key/vault decks. The reason shops are doing so poorly right now is because they don't have the tutors and draw spells to consistently be either. Even assuming you can't build a pure combo deck around this so what? Restrict thirst? OK we'll use intuition or meditate/remora like is already being done. Restrict both those? OK we'll go to compulsive research or courier's caspule. Restrict both of those? OK we'll go to a pure restricted draw engine and we still won't lose much overall. This problem won't be solved by restrictions or unrestrictions and WotC doesn't do power-level errata anymore. This only leaves banning time vault to be done with it. Once time vault is gone unrestricting a whole pile of cards becomes viable to unrestrict that would certainly never have been considered pre-banning. I'd rather see drain decks with 4xgifts/4xFoF than any deck with 1xvoltaic key/1xtime vault.

[dicemanx]

We don't do power level errata and we don't ban cards in vintage.

Oh sure the combo takes 1 more card and is vulnerable to Null Rod and artifact hate.

It's interesting how your post just glazes over these weaknesses. Susceptibility to Null Rod is huge, as is the fact that the combo requires two cards that are singletons. 

Maybe this will motivate the Fish players to play the correct number of Null Rods in their deck: 4.

Key/vault combined are (for lack of any better way to describe it) Yawgmoth's Bargain on crack.

These sort of comparisons are largely meaningless. I can likewise argue how "animate on WGD with Bazaar in play" is like "Yawgmoth's Bargain on crack", and play up the strengths of the instant-win combo (such as needing to *only* resolve 1 2cc spell, or the fact that the deck plays 7-8 such kill cards) while shrugging off the weaknesses (game 1 vulnerability to bounce primarily). The point is that you can make almost any game ending combo in vintage sound like the most amazing thing ever if you dismiss the vulnerabilities and play up the strengths. (Note: please do NOT engage in an argument why Vault-Key is superior to Animate+Bazaar or you'll be missing the point).

My suggestion is that we relax a little over the supposed Tezzeret.dec dominance, and let the format develop a little further and see what happens. It is a little too soon to be calling foul; most restrictions to take care of problem archetypes have only occurred after the problem deck persisted in the format for quite a while. For now Tezzeret dominance might actually be due to either preference or constitute a prophecy fulfilled. For instance, the knee-jerk reaction of many strong players in an entirely new format is to turn to Drains; alternately, if the strong players *believe* that the best deck is the Drain deck and it will dominate top level events, they will naturally fulfill such a prophecy regardless of whether their initial belief is actually true.

[Nehptis]

Once time vault is gone unrestricting a whole pile of cards becomes viable to unrestrict that would certainly never have been considered pre-banning. I'd rather see drain decks with 4xgifts/4xFoF than any deck with 1xvoltaic key/1xtime vault.

This is a similar point that I made a few times in the locked thread.  Resolve the issue with Vault/Key then look to unrestrictions to challenge Drain Decks further.

The issue though is what do we do about Vault?  Can we tolerate yet another errata to the card?  Perhaps.  Is banning Vault a consideration?  Possibly.  In the past I would have said no since it would have been outside the norm of banning for Ante or dexterity reasons.  However, the banning of a certain white Sorcery set a new precedent that Vault could follow, sort of.

If I were the DCI Czar I would ban Vault and ban YWill.  Then I would start anew with a very short B&R list and assess impact to the meta every three months as they do now.  With Vault and YWill gone I think cards like Gush, Brainstorm, Ponder, etc could come off the list.

[wiley]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an interesting thing looking back through Vintage history. Throughout the format's existence mana drain as an engine has comprised the majority (meaning largest share, not necessarily >50%, though that has happened multiple times as well) of top 8 decks except for the following periods:

Gush part 1
Dragon w/ entomb
3sphere aggro.era
Grim Long (and other speed oriented Long decks)
Gush part 2

Other than these specific time periods mana drain has always been on top of the numbers charts.  Even during these times mana drain was still fairly present, especially during dragon and 3sphere eras.  Rarely has mana drain dropped below 20% of top 8 decks in all of vintage, and those were during gush eras and even then only for brief periods.

It shouldn't be suprising to anyone that drains are back in force, in fact older players should (and it seems generally do) feel like this is a return to normalcy.  It seems like many of the newer players, who were attracted by the large diversity during the gush part 2 era are the ones who have the most complaints and strongest knee jerk reactions.  I think that looking back through the history of the format through Steven and Phillip's metagame reports would help many people to put this current situation into perspective.

[Tha Gunslinga]

The problem with Null Rod is that it only shuts off Key/Vault.  All these decks play Tinker-DSC (or occasionally Titan), and you'll die to 11 damage per turn with your useless Null Rod.  The strength of these decks is Mana Drain backed up by most of the restricted list, not Vault/Key by itself.

[reaperbong]

The strength of these decks is Mana Drain backed up by most of the restricted list, not Vault/Key by itself.

Can you honestly say though that - 3x Mana Drain, + 3x Counterspell/Mana Leak/Negate would nerf the Tezz deck? I find this highly doubtful.

[tito del monte]

The strength of these decks is Mana Drain backed up by most of the restricted list, not Vault/Key by itself.

Surely that's not true - Otherwise Drain Tendrils without vault/key (but with tinker/colussus) would fall into that category and be one of the dominant decks.

[Purple Hat]

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=21944.0

An interesting thread from 2005 discussing the restriction of Welder because CS was too strong/heavily played.  Now some people will look at this and say "See?  Drain IS too good, it was even dominant back in 2005."  But others will look at this and realize that people are always calling for the restriction of something and then the metagame moves on and something else takes its place.  I don't see anything different about this time other than the fact that it is now 2009 and people are calling for the restriction of something else.

[Smmenen]

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=21944.0

An interesting thread from 2005 discussing the restriction of Welder because CS was too strong/heavily played. 

No, you have misread/not read the article.   That's not why I suggested Welder could be restricted. 

The metagame was much more in balance then.  Look:

180 Force of Will
165 Wasteland
142 Island
137 Polluted Delta
136 Brainstorm
123 Goblin Welder
110 Volcanic Island
109 Chalice of the Void
98 Mishra's Workshop
96 Rack and Ruin
95 Mana Drain

There were fewer mana drains in November and December thatn Mishra's Workshops (by 3)!    Compare that list with the sorts of lists we see today where mana Drain is ridiculously dominant. 

[Tha Gunslinga]

The strength of these decks is Mana Drain backed up by most of the restricted list, not Vault/Key by itself.

Can you honestly say though that - 3x Mana Drain, + 3x Counterspell/Mana Leak/Negate would nerf the Tezz deck? I find this highly doubtful.

Mana Drain gives you mana.  It is mana acceleration.  Counterspell/Mana Leak/Negate are not.

Surely that's not true - Otherwise Drain Tendrils without vault/key (but with tinker/colussus) would fall into that category and be one of the dominant decks.

Tez/Key/Vault is *good* though.  Drain Tendrils is not.

[tito del monte]

I appreciate that Gunslinga - all I'm saying is that "Mana drain plus restricted cards" doesn't necessarily equal a good deck as you implied.

Which I suppose means I throw my cap in with the "mana drain isn't the problem" camp. I'm still inclined to see what pans out first, but I did think flyflysideoffry's above post was very convincing.

Titus.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

It's interesting how your post just glazes over these weaknesses. Susceptibility to Null Rod is huge, as is the fact that the combo requires two cards that are singletons. 

Maybe this will motivate the Fish players to play the correct number of Null Rods in their deck: 4.

Which goes to my earlier point of the format warping into key/vault vs anti-key/vault decks. You can't just toss 4 Null Rods into your sideboard and expect it to perform well against the combo. The fact that Null Rod is both a permanent and an artifact more or less makes it vulnerable to every bounce spell being run at the moment in addition to targeted destruction. The fact that they're singletons clearly doesn't mean much as niether card is restricted and yet here we are with a 24% top-8 rating on a pure combo/control key/vault.deck.

Key/vault combined are (for lack of any better way to describe it) Yawgmoth's Bargain on crack.

These sort of comparisons are largely meaningless. I can likewise argue how "animate on WGD with Bazaar in play" is like "Yawgmoth's Bargain on crack", and play up the strengths of the instant-win combo (such as needing to *only* resolve 1 2cc spell, or the fact that the deck plays 7-8 such kill cards) while shrugging off the weaknesses (game 1 vulnerability to bounce primarily). The point is that you can make almost any game ending combo in vintage sound like the most amazing thing ever if you dismiss the vulnerabilities and play up the strengths. (Note: please do NOT engage in an argument why Vault-Key is superior to Animate+Bazaar or you'll be missing the point).

My suggestion is that we relax a little over the supposed Tezzeret.dec dominance, and let the format develop a little further and see what happens. It is a little too soon to be calling foul; most restrictions to take care of problem archetypes have only occurred after the problem deck persisted in the format for quite a while. For now Tezzeret dominance might actually be due to either preference or constitute a prophecy fulfilled. For instance, the knee-jerk reaction of many strong players in an entirely new format is to turn to Drains; alternately, if the strong players *believe* that the best deck is the Drain deck and it will dominate top level events, they will naturally fulfill such a prophecy regardless of whether their initial belief is actually true.

The problem is that WGD takes 3 cards, is dependant on the graveyard, must have a full deck solely dedicated to the combo(transformational sides aside), is vulnerable to much more hate, takes more deck slots, and is a narrow path to victory. Key/vault is 2 cards, dependant on nothing more than mana, can be splashed into almost any deck reasonably, is vulnerable to only limited/narrow/easy to handle hate, takes 2 deck slots, and still leaves you open to other win conditions like tinker+man/Will+Tendrils/any creature. I know you told me not to discuss it but I feel its very important that we all recognize the raw power of the combo compared to anything else currently available. This isn't like comparing fact to gifts where both are relatively similar cards in power level. This is more like comparing Mana Drain(key/vault) to Cancel(any other combo ever printed).

My concern is that while banning cards is frowned upon its not illegal for WotC to do so and they won't be thrown in jail. Power-level errata is worse than just banning it since both do the same thing but one way also mutilates the card for other formats. I never for one moment buy the slippery slope argument as WotC has no obligation to do something like this ever again. I agree with you that we should wait and see how the format goes until June before taking any action. However, if we don't discuss the banning of Time Vault leading up to June it will either force an emergency ban/errata after the B/R changes are announced or we'll have to go through 12 months of key/vault vs anti-key/vault metagame. Unrestricting cards without solving this problem will either create new engines for either side of the warped metagame I fear is on the horizon or will spawn new decks that just make a small splash and then dissapear. Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe Drains are just dominating because all the best players are playing them and only scrubs are using other decks. Maybe key/vault isn't the reason Drains are winning so consistantly it could always be a coincidence. Maybe a combo deck won't be perfected to abuse this combo within a month. However, we can't just push the issue to the back of our minds and hope that when June rolls around everyone will just hop aboard the ban bandwagon.

Once time vault is gone unrestricting a whole pile of cards becomes viable to unrestrict that would certainly never have been considered pre-banning. I'd rather see drain decks with 4xgifts/4xFoF than any deck with 1xvoltaic key/1xtime vault.

This is a similar point that I made a few times in the locked thread.  Resolve the issue with Vault/Key then look to unrestrictions to challenge Drain Decks further.

The issue though is what do we do about Vault?  Can we tolerate yet another errata to the card?  Perhaps.  Is banning Vault a consideration?  Possibly.  In the past I would have said no since it would have been outside the norm of banning for Ante or dexterity reasons.  However, the banning of a certain white Sorcery set a new precedent that Vault could follow, sort of.

If I were the DCI Czar I would ban Vault and ban YWill.  Then I would start anew with a very short B&R list and assess impact to the meta every three months as they do now.  With Vault and YWill gone I think cards like Gush, Brainstorm, Ponder, etc could come off the list.

I don't agree with banning Yawgmoth's Will. The card itself is kept reasonably in check by restriction and does nothing by itself. The deck built to most abuse Will has been ritual based combo and those decks don't seem to put a majority standing on the scale of drain decks. With Will gone you weaken drain decks slightly and you weaken ritual decks heavily. What does this leave? Fish, extremely slow drains(assuming vault is gone also so all you have is morphling and tinker), general aggro, WGD, and stax. Then what? In my opinion WGD would be able to put up solid enough numbers that it becomes a problem, so we start restricting those cards. Then aggro decks start dominating and tada you have legacy+P9. Sure unrestrictions can spawn more decks but a lot of those cards become mostly useless without Will anyways so you're back to the same format with 2 less archetypes and a few more decks. In the slower format Flash would probably still be restricted because it holds back way too many other cards. Not to mention key/vault is non-interactive. You still need to sit there and see if your opponent can actually smash your face with something or pray that they mill themselves first unless you want to automatically give your opponent the win. In addition to this vault/key has given Wizards nonstop problems with re-errataing over and over again. There was a reason it was given a power-level errata and its the only card in all of MTG I think still deserves one. The only other option is I'm wrong about the massive impact the banning of Will would cause and then why ban it in the first place if it won't do as much as I'm suggesting?

My suggestion of banning key/vault is to save us from a warped format. Will doesn't create a warped format it just makes many decks stronger. Ironically a warped format would be an absence of Will because it is such a pillar in deckbuilding that the only decks that would still be strong is those with an absense or lack of dependance on Will, which are similar to legacy decks. I hope that our format moves from key/vault 40% dominance to something else, but in all honesty I think it will just get worse as it gets put into more decks.

The problem with Null Rod is that it only shuts off Key/Vault.  All these decks play Tinker-DSC (or occasionally Titan), and you'll die to 11 damage per turn with your useless Null Rod.  The strength of these decks is Mana Drain backed up by most of the restricted list, not Vault/Key by itself.

Thats my point, key/vault itself is only 2 deck slots and as long as a deck is running draw and tutors it can be shoved in. The fact that the only way to stop key/vault is a narrow piece of hate like pithing needle and Null Rod (be honest if a stax player can drop smokey at 2 and you have time vault out why the hell are you time walking instead of meditating?) is what makes it scary. If vault were a blue artifact creature then I wouldn't be worried. It is worse than just unrestricting Tinker because not only does this functionally serve as another cheap artifact related 2-card combo but it also synergizes with tinker itself while providing a completely different path to victory.

[Suicideking]

People have built plenty of successful decks by throwing tfk and drain into a bunch of restricted cards. 

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

People have built plenty of successful decks by throwing tfk and drain into a bunch of restricted cards. 

People have built plenty of successful decks by throwing a bunch of tutors and dark ritual into a bunch of restricted cards.

[dark burn]

What win condition in vintage is more efficient, cheap, resilient, and wins 99.999% of the time it is played than Vault/key. None. It is the absolute best win condition available in vintage now.  Mana drain decks are the ones most suited to use this super-efficient win condition, so it shouldnt be suprising that mana drain decks are the largest representative in the format.

I hope the format will be able to fight through the drains and vault/key format.

[Purple Hat]

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=21944.0

An interesting thread from 2005 discussing the restriction of Welder because CS was too strong/heavily played. 

No, you have misread/not read the article.   That's not why I suggested Welder could be restricted. 

The metagame was much more in balance then.  Look:

180 Force of Will
165 Wasteland
142 Island
137 Polluted Delta
136 Brainstorm
123 Goblin Welder
110 Volcanic Island
109 Chalice of the Void
98 Mishra's Workshop
96 Rack and Ruin
95 Mana Drain

There were fewer mana drains in November and December thatn Mishra's Workshops (by 3)!    Compare that list with the sorts of lists we see today where mana Drain is ridiculously dominant. 

Steve,
I've read the article, I think you missed my point. I was comparing the discussion of restricting drain that we're having now to the discussion of restricting welder that we had then.  I only mentioned the Drain thing to disarm the argument that drains have always been too good.  My main point is:  People are always calling for the restriction of something and frequently if nothing is restricted the metagame moves on and things change.  I didn't reread the article, but I linked to the thread because I remembered that discussion and this discussion reminds me of it.  Similar arguments were being made back then.  Look at what you said about Welder:

Goblin Welder - The Problem
The card that raises red flags in my view is Goblin Welder. Look at the card count. Goblin Welder sees more play than the most played dual land in the format. It is used in Workshops, Control and Combo (Belcher). It is no answer and it is no critical component of deck construction. It is no fixer. It is no Brainstorm or Force of Will. Goblin Welder is a combo part and a counterspell evader. It is used to recur Mindslavers, Goblin Charbelchers and Smokestacks. It is used to keep Trinisphere on the board.

Is it easy to kill? Sure. That's why Hanna's Custody and Lava Dart are now used in maindecks. But as easy as it is to kill, its just as easy to replay. And once Yawgmoth's Will comes down Time Walk and Welder are sure to follow and it will be too late to stop the little bugger.

If we all agree that dominance starts when you have four or more representative playsets in the Top 8 data, then those numbers would have to be, at a minimum, 16 copies on average in the Top 8, and likely closer to 20+. The Distorting threshold probably triggers around 16 copies and dominating probably around 20+. Any measure of distortion in Vintage surely must recognize that 18 copies per Top 8 is beyond the pale. No format, and especially not Vintage, is consolidated enough to really see any card put up more Top 8 occurrences. As dominant as GroAtog was, enough people actually decided to play other decks such that there weren't more Gushes in Top 8s than there currently are Goblin Welders.

Now I realize that Goblin Welder isn't the key component of a dominant or distorting deck. But it sure as hell passes the Skullclamp test. Goblin Welder is a key component of a distorting format.

There were only twenty-four Goblin Welders in the Top 8 at Gencon. That was because Workshop Aggro happened to be a big solution to the metagame of the time. If Gencon were held today, I would think that there might be 28 Welders in the Top 8, if not more. Goblin Welder is just that good.

Now maybe Goblin Welder doesn't deserve restriction. Maybe we are comfortable with nearly 20 of the buggers in every Top 8. If that's the case, let it be.

People say: Goblin Welder isn't the problem. Trinisphere is. Or Mishra's Workshop is. Mishra's Workshop does race Mana Drain, but Mishra's Workshop decks have a pretty poor record against Control Slaver and Goth Slaver variants. Ask Mark Biller from Gencon, who was accidentally bumped into the Top 8 by two guys who drew out of Top 8 contention and then ran a Workshop gauntlet. He used his own Welder and his Force of Wills to turn off his opponent's decks and waltzed into first place.

Here is an equation you should remember as true as it is simple:

Goblin Welder + Force of Will > Goblin Welder + Mishra's Workshop

20+ welders in the average top 8 is actualy >50% of the decks, yet I think we'd all agree that in retrospect restricting welder was unnecessary.  That's what I was trying to get at.  We're always having the same argument, the card in question changes, but the argument does not. 

[Smmenen]

Yeah, they restricted Trinisphere instead.   

I was responding to your claim that I was arguing for the restriction of Welder because CS was too strong/heavily played.  that's not why I said welder could be restricted.   

[Purple Hat]

Yeah, they restricted Trinisphere instead.   

I was responding to your claim that I was arguing for the restriction of Welder because CS was too strong/heavily played.  that's not why I said welder could be restricted.   

But not because of dominance.  They restricted trinisphere because trinisphere wasn't fun to play against.  The "dominance" of welder isn't even mentioned in the restriction note.

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af56. 

The tone of many posts in the thread was that CS was too strong/heavily played, not your article, sorry I failed to distinguish between the two, but I wasn't really planning on discussing your article in depth, which is why I linked to the discussion, not the article.  My point was that people always want to restrict something, and it's frequently the case that the metagame will adapt over time.

[Harlequin]

An interesting point about welder and drains in particular:

I think this situation of a 'dominance' when the card in question is probably the best answer to itself.  Looking at welder back in the day, running welder was a way to answer decks running welder.  The same can be (and has been) said of drains.  When everyone is running drains, you need to run drains.  If no one is running drains, you can't run drains (see both Gush erras).   When no one is running drains, this historically has ment that the format is 'too fast' for drains to be good, or 'too small' for drains to be game changing (ie against old UW fish decks 'oh nos you drained my flying man!'). 

Cards like Trinisphere are not subject to this issue.  If everyone is running Trinisphere - you may want to run shops, but you don't nessiarily want to run Trinisphere to fight against Trinisphere decks.  Crucible, wastes, artifact removal, shops ~ yes... which may utimatly lead you to run trinisphere; but again the card trinisphere doens't answer trinisphere in the same way welder answers welder, and drain answers drain.

The welder situation worked itself out naturally.  Also think about cards like Crucible of Worlds.  I remeber that when it was spoiled people speculated that every deck would need to run it because it was an answer to itself (crucible was the best answer to an opponent locking you with crucible strip).  But obviously that situation never arose.