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

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

2) Shop Aggro can easily lose to an early key/vault with little it can do to stop it.  Shop Aggro often doesn't run null rod and so, at times, can' even race the key/vault when it is on a good draw.

So ummm one extremely simple question. Why would Shop Aggro not run Null Rod in an environment where you either run Null Rod or lose to key/vault? Maybe it is just me but that statement makes absolutely no sense. You won't get banned from tournaments if your Shop Aggro deck runs 4xNull Rods and with all the new tools the deck has now it isn't even remotely hard to justify running+protecting them...

Edit: That isn't even to mention that now that shop decks can justify a blue core they can get a powerful draw engine going to almost garuntee hitting a Null Rod with 4xTfK+4xThoughtcast+busted restricted stuff. That or just oldschool ubazaar like you ran in your stax deck. Off the top of my head it seems like:

4xEsperzoa
4xMaster of Etherium

4xMindlock Orb
4xUba Mask
4xTangle Wire
4xNull Rod
3xTfK
4xFoW
1xAncestral Recall
1xTrinisphere
3xBazaar

4xShops+20xMana sources

Would take down drains pretty consistantly game 1 with tons of synergy and solutions to everything including a random turn 1-2 tinker->DSC with a shop fueled lock of Esperzoa+Tangle Wire. This was off the top of my head and I'm sure a few hours of testing could take this to way better places with cards like Etherium Sculptor and more consistant engines. As I said earlier if it wasn't for key/vault fitting so well in drain decks then Shop Aggro would probably be the deck to beat. Then again as purple hat said why not just slap key/vault into a synergistic shop deck and prove the combo's dominance further lol.

[wiley]

So ummm one extremely simple question. Why would Shop Aggro not run Null Rod in an environment where you either run Null Rod or lose to key/vault?

Maybe because for a shop aggro deck running welder and mox monkey is a better strategy than crippling your mana base, preventing you from playing out copious amount of threats (ie: how the deck beats drains).

Take Mantis' advice and test your deck.  Just from my cursory glance I can tell you that it will not perform as well as a good shop aggro or good stax build would because you have raped your ability to lay down consistent threats from turn 1 onwards due to having a color requirement on high casting cost cards.  Not to mention glaring flaws in the "I can answer anything" argument.

I also challenge that slapping key and vault into a deck make it better, even if you do have some things in there that can abuse key.  It works well in tez because of the robust tutor package provided by the drain shell.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

So ummm one extremely simple question. Why would Shop Aggro not run Null Rod in an environment where you either run Null Rod or lose to key/vault?

Maybe because for a shop aggro deck running welder and mox monkey is a better strategy than crippling your mana base, preventing you from playing out copious amount of threats (ie: how the deck beats drains).

Take Mantis' advice and test your deck.  Just from my cursory glance I can tell you that it will not perform as well as a good shop aggro or good stax build would because you have raped your ability to lay down consistent threats from turn 1 onwards due to having a color requirement on high casting cost cards.  Not to mention glaring flaws in the "I can answer anything" argument.

I also challenge that slapping key and vault into a deck make it better, even if you do have some things in there that can abuse key.  It works well in tez because of the robust tutor package provided by the drain shell.

You seem to think that what I slapped down there was a solid decklist with a significant amount of thought rather than 5 minutes of reviewing what cards go well together and don't get shut off or hurt by Null Rod. The decklist was to prove a point that shops have a ton of options on what to run. In addition to that I don't think needing a singleton blue mana is so much of a disadvantage that you can't play a threat turn after turn as you seem to be implying. It isn't like the only blue mana source in the deck would be lotus petal and it has a more consistant draw engine than just 4xBazaar. Ya sure maybe it turns out what I listed is a pile that doesn't deserve more than a cursory glance. (other than to see how all the cards support one another even if the support isn't enough) It still doesn't mean that a Shop Aggro list couldn't run Null Rod successfully. Not to mention last time I checked being able to answer any threat is an advantage not a disadvantage. However, I don't want this to be a discussion about a decklist that was posted merely to prove a point and I don't want to defend something I haven't tested or care about beyond just pointing out the weaker arguments raised against it.

I disagree with your narrow analysis that you can't run Welder+mox monkey with Null Rod for an even more crippling package or that Null Rod is mostly useless compared to the combination assuming running all 3 is useless. There have been stax lists in the past that have run all 3 when it was called for. In addition to this the point you raised about why Shop Aggro was losing to drains was because they had no answer to key/vault. It makes absolutely no sense that you wouldn't run answers to what makes a deck unrunnable in a certain format if you wanted to run it. As far as I can tell you seem to think that Shop Aggro is useless against drains and the only answer card to the problem can't be run because it might hurt you slightly at the cost of simultaneously slowing down your opponent by at least just as much (if not more since you both get to decide when to cast it and your deck is likely designed to avoid getting hurt beyond basic artifact mana) and stopping you from flat out losing the game. Not to mention there are plenty of cards that can break the parity of Rod for a short while like Esperzoa and Master Transmuter allowing you to bounce it, get yourself some mana, then recast it.

Finally I never said slapping key/vault into any random shop deck would make it better I made it a point to include the word synergistic. I think it would not be unreasonable to create a shop deck that could run the combo without it being a waste of space. Clearly the random pile of cards I put down can't do that but there are plenty of cards that work well with one or both. What about the decklists that ran/run staff of domination+metalworker combo? Both are decent cards by themselves (metalworker significantly better) and combined win the game. Same argument can be made for fitting in key/vault.

[Mantis]

I prefer Gorilla Shaman and Chalice of the Void over Null Rod simply because Null Rod cripples my own manabase very hard. Not to mention it's pretty bad with Triskelion, Memory Jar and Sword of Fire and Ice, and although these cards can be replaced, they are the cream of the crop to me and I would have to replace them with inferior cards just to fit in Null Rod. Another big problem with Rod is that it's a huge liability against decks that don't depend on artifact mana such as Ichorid, Fish and other Aggro decks. Rod hurts me more than it does hurt them in those matchups and taking out the Trisks and the Swords just means that I lost a significant edge. That said, I do think Rod fits into some Shop decks namely Stax. Stax puts a huge strain on the opposing manabase much moreso than Shop Aggro does, thus Null Rod truly shines. Stax also runs Bazaar which enables you to toss away your Rods when you are short on mana, this does not apply to Shop Aggro where Bazaar just doesn't have a place as it's way too slow.

Time Vault is restricted and Shop doesn't run tutors, it's not comparable to Metalworker/Staff of Domination at all. The chances of finding both pieces in a game are very slim and both Key and Vault are nearly useless by themselfs.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

I prefer Gorilla Shaman and Chalice of the Void over Null Rod simply because Null Rod cripples my own manabase very hard. Not to mention it's pretty bad with Triskelion, Memory Jar and Sword of Fire and Ice, and although these cards can be replaced, they are the cream of the crop to me and I would have to replace them with inferior cards just to fit in Null Rod. Another big problem with Rod is that it's a huge liability against decks that don't depend on artifact mana such as Ichorid, Fish and other Aggro decks. Rod hurts me more than it does hurt them in those matchups and taking out the Trisks and the Swords just means that I lost a significant edge. That said, I do think Rod fits into some Shop decks namely Stax. Stax puts a huge strain on the opposing manabase much moreso than Shop Aggro does, thus Null Rod truly shines. Stax also runs Bazaar which enables you to toss away your Rods when you are short on mana, this does not apply to Shop Aggro where Bazaar just doesn't have a place as it's way too slow.

Time Vault is restricted and Shop doesn't run tutors, it's not comparable to Metalworker/Staff of Domination at all. The chances of finding both pieces in a game are very slim and both Key and Vault are nearly useless by themselfs.

Thank you for putting some explanation behind your answers. I do not think that razormane and a different draw engine would be that much worse but your point about the strain on other matchups makes it more of an issue than just "it hurts your mana base." My opinion was that with a significant amount of either big/utility creatures or a draw engine that allows you to discard useless cards in certain matchups would be enough to make it a non-issue. However, I've seen your thread and you've clearly done a lot of testing so if you have proven otherwise than I suppose you have data to back it up so I trust your opinion. As for key/vault it wasn't even initially my suggestion but you're right it would probably fit more in a stax deck with tutors where time vault does serious damage with smokey/wire and you can include more cards that tap for good effects. Then again it would conflict with Rod so maybe not.

[wiley]

Let's recap:
You stated that Shop aggro can run 4 null rods and be fine, I gave you a reason why that isn't true.  Then to try and prove me wrong you posted a list that you posited could be drain decks with regularity.  I pointed out the flaws in your thought experiment.
That brings us to your latest post without further exploring your experiment.

There have been stax lists in the past that have run all 3 when it was called for.

Indeed, there have been many stax lists to do so.  In fact my UbaStax list does, and it works very well.  However, Stax is a different animal entirely from Shop aggro.  The mana retardation provided by null rod is symmetrical when placed in Shop Aggro, which makes the card sub-par since Shop Aggro beats drains due to its ability to throw out large threats at an incredible pace.  While Mantis is right in that it also forces you to drop cards like trike and sword, this point alone should be enough to dissuade you from running null rod in your own deck (at least main board).

In addition to this the point you raised about why Shop Aggro was losing to drains was because they had no answer to key/vault.

Shop Aggro randomly loses to tez because of key/vault.  It still has a good/even match up versus drain deck with other win conditions.  I say that Shop Aggro is not the deck to take to a tournament because of these random losses.  I have already stated why I do not believe Shop Aggro can be made to beat tez without drawbacks in other areas.

Not to mention there are plenty of cards that can break the parity of Rod for a short while like Esperzoa and Master Transmuter allowing you to bounce it, get yourself some mana, then recast it.

Transmuter doesn't work with null rod out and Esperzoa opens it up for being countered, something drain decks are very good at.

Finally I never said slapping key/vault into any random shop deck would make it better I made it a point to include the word synergistic.

Here is what I wrote, bolded for relevance:

I also challenge that slapping key and vault into a deck make it better, even if you do have some things in there that can abuse key.  It works well in tez because of the robust tutor package provided by the drain shell.

I addressed your synergy comment.  It is the tutor package that makes key/vault runnable.  A deck without such a package will not see anywhere near the same benefits from the combo.  This is why I say decks like (non 5c) Stax and Shop Aggro will not benefit from running it.

The worker/staff combo is still on the fringe of playability, and even then it is in mono brown shop decks where metalworker has a huge effect on its own.  The comparison is not as accurate as you portray it to be.

[Purple Hat]

I haven't tested this, so it may simply be untrue, but I would expect that a shop aggro list running 3-4 gorilla shamans would be able to do annoying things to tezz, like blowing up key and attacking tezz.

also time vault can actually be situationally useful in Stax or Mud.  sometimes you have a smokestack with 2 counters on it and untapping vault isn't all that bad a plan.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Let's recap:
You stated that Shop aggro can run 4 null rods and be fine, I gave you a reason why that isn't true.  Then to try and prove me wrong you posted a list that you posited could be drain decks with regularity.  I pointed out the flaws in your thought experiment.
That brings us to your latest post without further exploring your experiment.

There have been stax lists in the past that have run all 3 when it was called for.

Indeed, there have been many stax lists to do so.  In fact my UbaStax list does, and it works very well.  However, Stax is a different animal entirely from Shop aggro.  The mana retardation provided by null rod is symmetrical when placed in Shop Aggro, which makes the card sub-par since Shop Aggro beats drains due to its ability to throw out large threats at an incredible pace.  While Mantis is right in that it also forces you to drop cards like trike and sword, this point alone should be enough to dissuade you from running null rod in your own deck (at least main board).

In addition to this the point you raised about why Shop Aggro was losing to drains was because they had no answer to key/vault.

Shop Aggro randomly loses to tez because of key/vault.  It still has a good/even match up versus drain deck with other win conditions.  I say that Shop Aggro is not the deck to take to a tournament because of these random losses.  I have already stated why I do not believe Shop Aggro can be made to beat tez without drawbacks in other areas.

Not to mention there are plenty of cards that can break the parity of Rod for a short while like Esperzoa and Master Transmuter allowing you to bounce it, get yourself some mana, then recast it.

Transmuter doesn't work with null rod out and Esperzoa opens it up for being countered, something drain decks are very good at.

Finally I never said slapping key/vault into any random shop deck would make it better I made it a point to include the word synergistic.

Here is what I wrote, bolded for relevance:

I also challenge that slapping key and vault into a deck make it better, even if you do have some things in there that can abuse key.  It works well in tez because of the robust tutor package provided by the drain shell.

I addressed your synergy comment.  It is the tutor package that makes key/vault runnable.  A deck without such a package will not see anywhere near the same benefits from the combo.  This is why I say decks like (non 5c) Stax and Shop Aggro will not benefit from running it.

The worker/staff combo is still on the fringe of playability, and even then it is in mono brown shop decks where metalworker has a huge effect on its own.  The comparison is not as accurate as you portray it to be.

Thank you for a more in-depth answer you guys are right.

[LordHomerCat]

Really playing against Shaman or Karn is less annoying because he can eat your key and more annoying because he can eat all your mana sources so you can't do anything if you don't just naturally draw your combo pieces.  Smokestack is also problematic in combination with a dude eating your artifact mana.

[fractal7221]

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? 

Why do all the Mana Drain decks get grouped together, but Gush, Flash, and other Brainstorm/Merchant Scroll decks all get counted separately? Granted the Drain decks are still more dominate, but its a much closer percent.

In any case, I believe Gush was being watched closer, and held to a stricter standard. Much like the real world, repeat offenders are watched more carefully and locked up again at the first sign of trouble.

The main reason I feel Mana Drain isn't seriously being considered by most people for restriction was before the mass restrictions Mana Drain was a small part of the metagame. Now that Mana Drain is dominating merely shows that the restrictions were poorly targeted.

IMHO, many problems have resulted from getting rid of power level errata. Many old cards have awkward or poor wording, didn't transition well to 6th ed rules, or just work better using modern applications and end up too powerful. If we're going to go by original wordings Disenchant should be a discard spell, not something that kills permanents.

[Nehptis]

I agree about the unintended issues that have arisen due to power level errata changes (I'm looking at you Flash and Vault).  Your example of Disenchant is an amusing one.  But, it is also a sobering reminder that sometimes good intentions to preserve the original wordings of cards backfires.  I understand the attraction of nostalgia and the allure of simplicity.  But, in today's world most players have access to DCI wordings via the Net, and at tournaments clarity is only a Judge call away.

[zeus-online]

I agree about the unintended issues that have arisen due to power level errata changes (I'm looking at you Flash and Vault).

You forgot Phyrexian dreadnought. (although it hasn't proven to be a problem in any format yet)

/Zeus

[Troy_Costisick]

I agree about the unintended issues that have arisen due to power level errata changes (I'm looking at you Flash and Vault).

You forgot Phyrexian dreadnought. (although it hasn't proven to be a problem in any format yet)

/Zeus

And Gilded Drake.

[Purple Hat]

I agree about the unintended issues that have arisen due to power level errata changes (I'm looking at you Flash and Vault).

You forgot Phyrexian dreadnought. (although it hasn't proven to be a problem in any format yet)

/Zeus

well for all of these you'd have to define unintended as "exactly what we intended to have happen" if you want that statement to become something that approaches the truth.  Everyone knew that they were talking about changing timevault to untap with voltaic key just the way that everyone knew that changes to flash would allow for effects like rector to trigger.

[Nehptis]

That's fair.  "Unintended issues" means the accidental creation of an imbalance in the meta game due to the introduction (or re-introduction) of a combo due to the removal of power level errata.  It does not mean unintended card interactions.  Since, as you said most interactions due to power level errata changes were obvious (Key/Vault).  Perhaps the Flash interaction was a bit of a surprise, not sure.  But, the real issue is Vault.

Everyone knew that returning Vault to "normal" would re-enable Key/Vault type combos.  But, what was not known was whether this would be something that the meta game could absorb.  Or if it would tip the scales, as I believe it has.  And as this thread shows Drain has become the focus of the meta game imbalance, not Vault.  I wonder though if history were a bit different would this thread be debating Mana Drain dominance or Dark Ritual dominance.  Let me explain.

Once it was confirmed that Vault/Key would be re-enabled due to errata changes Vintage minds began concocting ways to abuse it once more: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/news/09012008

Now I don't have any evidence to support this next claim.  But, I think it's reasonable to assume that early Vault/Key deck development included a variety of shells like Drain, TPS, Bomberman, Tinker, etc.  However, around the same time that we learned about Vault / Key we discovered Tezzeret: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=128271.

I believe the Tezz spoil triggered a larger deck development movement towards the obvious Drain / Tezz / Vault shell.  So, had Tezz not been created or if it was costed out of Vintage playability perhaps Vault / Key would have gravitated toward a TPS build.  And if history were changed then I believe Vault dominance would still exist.  But, our sights would be on Ritual and NOT Drain.  The irony is that although I believe Tezz triggered the Vault/Key/Drain domination.  Tezz itself is one of the weaker cards in the deck.

My point to this alternate history lesson; Vault is the primary issue that stands in our way of a healthy meta.  Remove it or "fix" it and then let's see how things shake out after a re-balancing of the meta game.

[LordHomerCat]

That's fair.  "Unintended issues" means the accidental creation of an imbalance in the meta game due to the introduction (or re-introduction) of a combo due to the removal of power level errata.  It does not mean unintended card interactions.  Since, as you said most interactions due to power level errata changes were obvious (Key/Vault).  Perhaps the Flash interaction was a bit of a surprise, not sure.  But, the real issue is Vault.

Everyone knew that returning Vault to "normal" would re-enable Key/Vault type combos.  But, what was not known was whether this would be something that the meta game could absorb.  Or if it would tip the scales, as I believe it has.  And as this thread shows Drain has become the focus of the meta game imbalance, not Vault.  I wonder though if history were a bit different would this thread be debating Mana Drain dominance or Dark Ritual dominance.  Let me explain.

Once it was confirmed that Vault/Key would be re-enabled due to errata changes Vintage minds began concocting ways to abuse it once more: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/news/09012008

Now I don't have any evidence to support this next claim.  But, I think it's reasonable to assume that early Vault/Key deck development included a variety of shells like Drain, TPS, Bomberman, Tinker, etc.  However, around the same time that we learned about Vault / Key we discovered Tezzeret: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=128271.

I believe the Tezz spoil triggered a larger deck development movement towards the obvious Drain / Tezz / Vault shell.  So, had Tezz not been created or if it was costed out of Vintage playability perhaps Vault / Key would have gravitated toward a TPS build.  And if history were changed then I believe Vault dominance would still exist.  But, our sights would be on Ritual and NOT Drain.  The irony is that although I believe Tezz triggered the Vault/Key/Drain domination.  Tezz itself is one of the weaker cards in the deck.

My point to this alternate history lesson; Vault is the primary issue that stands in our way of a healthy meta.  Remove it or "fix" it and then let's see how things shake out after a re-balancing of the meta game.

Actually, my interpretation of vintage history is that drain would have been the go-to shell with or without Tezzeret.  I mean, look at the most similar comboes: Flame-Vault and Painter-Grindstone.  Except for the Gush-Painter deck (since in that meta no one sane played drains anyway), both were and are played pretty much exclusively in combo control, particularly drain powered combo-control.  No one ever played Flame Vault in combo, and no one played Painter-Grindstone there either.  Given these rather similar combos, it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption that Key-Vault would naturally be played most in a Drain control-combo shell, rather than just deciding Dark Ritual would be the natural home even though there is no precedent for such a deck.

[neotrophy]

I think that the Drain shell is inherently suited to the Vault + Key combo moreso than any other.  Firstly, the combo costs 4 colourless mana.  Mana Drain fits well here, in that it provides colourless mana, this is easier for Drain decks to get behind than Yawgmoth's Will, Tendrils of Agony, or pretty much any other win condition in history.

Secondly, it's a two card combo.  Unlike the 1 card combos of Yawgmoth's Will or Tinker -> Colossus, Key + Vault requires finding two specific cards, and having them in play at the same time.  Because of this, it is more suited to a more controlling deck, willing and able to play a long game while it waits for the two components to come around, and able to defend them on the way to the table, and while they sit there, or in hand waiting for the other half.  No other shell does this better than Drains.  The deck is designed to impede the opponent's ability to win, while establishing card and board advantage in small increments.  The TPS shell is designed to set up one big turn, sooner, or a little bit later.  While it's capable of playing the long game, it's more at home winning in the early to middle turns.

I really don't think that there has ever been a win condition that is more perfectly placed to slot into a Drain shell than Time Vault + Voltaic Key.  Tezzeret being able to find the Vault and untap it is a bit of a bonus, too.  And what other established shell can practically guarantee  ?

[Nehptis]

I think the previous two theories are sound.  That's the great thing about speculating hypothetical changes to history...there's no wrong answer!

But, here's my question.  Simple yes/no answer with a reason is fine.

Are Drain decks doing so well lately because of Vault/Key?

For me it's of course, Yes.  Remove the Vault/Key combo from the meta and I say Drain decks will go back to an acceptable level of success.  On the other hand, restrict Drain and keep Vault/Key and I think we will be back here discussing <insert card name>/Vault/Key dominance.  Leave everything as it is and unrestrict cards, well, I have no idea what could happen.  Maybe good / maybe bad. The last scenario do nothing at all; I think the situation that we are in simply gets worse.

Don't get me wrong I understand that there are strategies like Null Rod that in theory should keep Vault/Key in check.  But, the reality is that they don't do it well enough, or can't compete as well over the course of a large tourney as a Drain deck does, or players simply don't want to play Rod/Fish type decks.

[Purple Hat]

I think the previous two theories are sound.  That's the great thing about speculating hypothetical changes to history...there's no wrong answer!

But, here's my question.  Simple yes/no answer with a reason is fine.

Are Drain decks doing so well lately because of Vault/Key?

For me it's of course, Yes.  Remove the Vault/Key combo from the meta and I say Drain decks will go back to an acceptable level of success.  On the other hand, restrict Drain and keep Vault/Key and I think we will be back here discussing <insert card name>/Vault/Key dominance.  Leave everything as it is and unrestrict cards, well, I have no idea what could happen.  Maybe good / maybe bad. The last scenario do nothing at all; I think the situation that we are in simply gets worse.

Don't get me wrong I understand that there are strategies like Null Rod that in theory should keep Vault/Key in check.  But, the reality is that they don't do it well enough, or can't compete as well over the course of a large tourney as a Drain deck does, or players simply don't want to play Rod/Fish type decks.

You keep positing this "remove vault/key" theory as if it's some vintage solution.  Because of this I find it difficult to credit anything you say about the format at all.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying the results currently being put up by Tezz decks.  I'm saying it's difficult to credit your understanding of the format because you seem to not understand either the underlying principle behind vintage: Regardless of how powerful something is, if it doesn't present some kind of structural or judging problem for tournaments no card will be banned in vintage, or the underlying motivation behind the removal of power level errata: cards should work the way they seem like they should.

As to your question I'm gonna go with no.  Drain decks are doing so well lately because of several factors.  1) natural foils to drains were significantly weakened by the restrictions. 2) Natural foils are being under played.  2.5) counter intuative foils such as stax may exist but are underplayed or underdeveloped. 3) interesting undiscovered strategies may exist but some level of group think has set in (current tezz lists have difficulty with some "bad" cards like glacial chasm which may mean that an innovative deck could abuse those holes.)

I'm pretty sure that at this point the main reason for the dominance of drains is this discussion actually.

[AmbivalentDuck]

@The Glacial Chasm example
1-of Wipe Away technically addresses any spot fix to having infinite turns.  Also, having a hand full of permission-y goodness from the kind of advantage that infi turns gives you would likely be sufficient to address Glacial Chasm especially given the tempo and life loss from having played it.

Also, how many of these supposed foils can actually beat the average T2 or Extended deck? UWx fish vs. T2 is often a lost cause.  Even stax is arguably quite weak against 'the attack phase.'  There's a Vroman quote where he describes losing to Kamigawa-era T2 rats with Uba Stax.  Kinda lends itself to an argument that the format IS distorted.  Legacy decks can categorically trounce T2 and Extended.  Can the same be said of Vintage?

[Nehptis]

Why can't removing Vault/Key via banning or the re-re-re-errata of Vault be a viable solution to the current imbalance of the format?  It may not be a popular solution.  But, it's not so ridiculous that it would "discredit" my understanding of the format.  

You imply that the DCI's banning and errata decisions are black and white absolutes.  When in fact they historically are shaded with gray and are full of exceptions.  Why, because meta-game analysis is complex and highly debated, which is why this thread and the other are almost 20 pages long.

I think claims that players should solve the meta game problem themselves by playing more anti-Drain or anti-Vault strategies are much more challenging to agree with.  Here's why, my solution is a functional change that is easily implemented by the DCI.  A popular solution, maybe not.  But, very do-able.  Methods like the ones you are describing are "cultural" or maybe a better descriptor is "free-market" changes.  Maybe that's the best and current events analogy to make.  For how long do we let the meta-game (e.g. the market) attempt to correct itself  before the DCI (e.g. the government) acts?

I could be barking up the wrong tree and the problem could be Drain or nothing at all.  But, from what I see at tournaments that I play in and reports that I read, Vault is the real problem that is hiding behind Drain.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Why can't removing Vault/Key via banning or the re-re-re-errata of Vault be a viable solution to the current imbalance of the format?  It may not be a popular solution.  But, it's not so ridiculous that it would "discredit" my understanding of the format.  

Because other win conditions for Drains are similarly potent.  That'd be like restricting Triskelion because it happens to do the swinging while you're locked under a 3sphere.

[LordHomerCat]

@The Glacial Chasm example
1-of Wipe Away technically addresses any spot fix to having infinite turns.  Also, having a hand full of permission-y goodness from the kind of advantage that infi turns gives you would likely be sufficient to address Glacial Chasm especially given the tempo and life loss from having played it.

Also, how many of these supposed foils can actually beat the average T2 or Extended deck? UWx fish vs. T2 is often a lost cause.  Even stax is arguably quite weak against 'the attack phase.'  There's a Vroman quote where he describes losing to Kamigawa-era T2 rats with Uba Stax.  Kinda lends itself to an argument that the format IS distorted.  Legacy decks can categorically trounce T2 and Extended.  Can the same be said of Vintage?

It can of the arbitarily powerful Vintage decks.  I mean, go ahead and try to play a standard deck against TPS.  You will be unlikely to ever even resolve a spell before you are dead.  Tezzeret would be similar.  Just because super metagamed hate decks can't beat dedicated aggro doesn't mean anything. 

Also, as usual I'm with Purple Hat, banning or re-erattaing Vault goes directly against everything the DCI has said Vintage should be.  They don't ban cards for non-logistical reasons, and they don't issue power level errata.  Rather, they try to take off that very errata.  Constantly suggesting all this stuff contingent on the DCI doing something it has specifically stated goes against the philosophy of Vintage doesn't do anyone any good and really makes it hard to consider any of your other suggestions, because they are all tainted by your complete insistence on ignoring the basis of the format.

[AmbivalentDuck]

TPS is hardly a foil against drains.  If the decks that are good against Drains are bad against 'magic,' what does that say about the distorting effects of Drains?

[Purple Hat]

Why can't removing Vault/Key via banning or the re-re-re-errata of Vault be a viable solution to the current imbalance of the format?  It may not be a popular solution.  But, it's not so ridiculous that it would "discredit" my understanding of the format.  

If the format in question was Legacy then no, it wouldn't be so ridiculous that it would discredit your understanding of the format.

But the format in question isn't Legacy.  I'm not really sure how to go about trying to convince you that Vintage, the format where they don't ban cards for power reasons, does not "remove" cards from the format for power reasons.

That's what the format IS.  If you can't understand that then there's not really much point to discussing options for dealing with current decks with you because you don't understand the basic underlying premise of the format.

[Smmenen]

TPS is hardly a foil against drains.  If the decks that are good against Drains are bad against 'magic,' what does that say about the distorting effects of Drains?

The fact that TPS won the Vintage Worlds, and placed two in the top 4 completely discredits such a ridiculous comment, whatever it may actually mean.   

TPS is amazing, but very few Vintage players are actually good enough to pilot it.  And those that are good enough in the abstract are not very good with TPS (ala Rich Shay). 

[OwenTheEnchanter]

Despite the fact that he worded his claim terribly and the rest of his post made no sense, I can agree that TPS actually isn't that great against Tezzeret and other drain decks. Half the people in these tez threads just default to the old logic of 'rituals beat drains' and having played the matchup on both sides (in recent tournaments) I really feel like the drain deck is advantaged. They have Force of Will, Mana Drain, Duress effects, and the ability to win the game out of nowhere on top of the fact that in my experience TPS is just inconsistent.

2 TPS decks making it to t4 of worlds doesn't exactly convince me that TPS beats drains.

[Nehptis]

Constantly suggesting all this stuff contingent on the DCI doing something it has specifically stated goes against the philosophy of Vintage doesn't do anyone any good and really makes it hard to consider any of your other suggestions, because they are all tainted by your complete insistence on ignoring the basis of the format.

I'm not really sure how to go about trying to convince you that Vintage, the format where they don't ban cards for power reasons, does not "remove" cards from the format for power reasons.  That's what the format IS.  If you can't understand that then there's not really much point to discussing options for dealing with current decks with you because you don't understand the basic underlying premise of the format.

I think the fundamental difference between my philosophy and these is that I'm not a purest when it comes to managing the Vintage card pool.  I can respect purest beliefs.  But, just like my "radical thinking" seems askew, purest beliefs can be just as dangerous.  A Vintage purest does not subscribe to banning suggestions because that IS NOT Vintage.  Vintage is about playing with all of our cards (except the ones already banned).  But, how far are you willing to take that notion?  What if a card or combo of cards deteriorates the format so far that we need mass restrictions or a series of restrictions every 3 months?  I understand that this can sound like a sky is falling alarm.  But, just as we need conservative, "wait and see philosophies", I think it's healthy to have some folks on the other side of the fence, as well.

That's were my thinking comes in.  I say we should explore all options when it comes to maintaining the health of Vintage.  This includes restrictions, UNRESTRICTIONS, errata changes and Bannings.  I understand this is a slippery slope.  But, I see just as much risk with being immovable as I do with being slippery.

My mind is open to all considerations.  Look a few posts back where I said that perhaps Unrestrictions are the answer.  IMO, everything is on the table, Drain Restrictions, Vault banning or errata changes, Unrestrictions, etc.  The destination is a Healthy, Fun, Competitive Vintage format.  There are multiple paths to arrive there.  Unfortunately, my level of involvement begins and ends in these forums.  I'm not going to take it to the DCI or to Judges, etc.  I just don't have the time or energy to do that.  So, like a lot of TMDers I'm sort of along for the ride and occasionally I'll make comments from the back seat!

[Purple Hat]

Constantly suggesting all this stuff contingent on the DCI doing something it has specifically stated goes against the philosophy of Vintage doesn't do anyone any good and really makes it hard to consider any of your other suggestions, because they are all tainted by your complete insistence on ignoring the basis of the format.

I'm not really sure how to go about trying to convince you that Vintage, the format where they don't ban cards for power reasons, does not "remove" cards from the format for power reasons.  That's what the format IS.  If you can't understand that then there's not really much point to discussing options for dealing with current decks with you because you don't understand the basic underlying premise of the format.

I think the fundamental difference between my philosophy and these is that I'm not a purest when it comes to managing the Vintage card pool.  I can respect purest beliefs.  But, just like my "radical thinking" seems askew, purest beliefs can be just as dangerous.  A Vintage purest does not subscribe to banning suggestions because that IS NOT Vintage.  Vintage is about playing with all of our cards (except the ones already banned).  But, how far are you willing to take that notion?  What if a card or combo of cards deteriorates the format so far that we need mass restrictions or a series of restrictions every 3 months?  I understand that this can sound like a sky is falling alarm.  But, just as we need conservative, "wait and see philosophies", I think it's healthy to have some folks on the other side of the fence, as well.

That's were my thinking comes in.  I say we should explore all options when it comes to maintaining the health of Vintage.  This includes restrictions, UNRESTRICTIONS, errata changes and Bannings.  I understand this is a slippery slope.  But, I see just as much risk with being immovable as I do with being slippery.

My mind is open to all considerations.  Look a few posts back where I said that perhaps Unrestrictions are the answer.  IMO, everything is on the table, Drain Restrictions, Vault banning or errata changes, Unrestrictions, etc.  The destination is a Healthy, Fun, Competitive Vintage format.  There are multiple paths to arrive there.  Unfortunately, my level of involvement begins and ends in these forums.  I'm not going to take it to the DCI or to Judges, etc.  I just don't have the time or energy to do that.  So, like a lot of TMDers I'm sort of along for the ride and occasionally I'll make comments from the back seat!

But once you ban this how do you justify not subsequently banning yawgmoth's will, and after that how do you justify not banning tinker, and after that something else.

The format becomes Legacy with power pretty quickly once you start going down the path of "if a restricted card is in x top 8 lists then we ban it."  Sure you're gonna dismiss this cus I'm a "purist," but given that the ONLY distinction between the two formats is that one has a banned list and one has a restricted list...how can you possibly be anything else?

[Smmenen]

Despite the fact that he worded his claim terribly and the rest of his post made no sense, I can agree that TPS actually isn't that great against Tezzeret and other drain decks. Half the people in these tez threads just default to the old logic of 'rituals beat drains' and having played the matchup on both sides (in recent tournaments) I really feel like the drain deck is advantaged. They have Force of Will, Mana Drain, Duress effects, and the ability to win the game out of nowhere on top of the fact that in my experience TPS is just inconsistent.

2 TPS decks making it to t4 of worlds doesn't exactly convince me that TPS beats drains.

You don't seem to have grasped my point.    Although I disagree, my criticism wasn't that TPS isn't a foil to Drains, but of his claim that TPS is "bad" period.