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

[AmbivalentDuck]

TPS is hardly a foil against 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.   

Slaver and Painter are hardly the current generation of Drain decks.  Slaver was noted for its painfully slow starts and Painter would be naturally weak against the combination of a low blue count and high threat density. If anything, the restrictions lowered TPS's blue count.  Is TPS winning now?  A quick glance over the last few months on Morphling.de says no.

And WTF: where did I claim that TPS is bad?  I'm claiming that it's not a foil to Drains.

[zeus-online]

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.

I actually think vintage might be a better place without Will and Vault...Maybe tinker, not sure...but i don't see any other obvious targets for a supposed ban-list. It just seems to me like the restrict list is reaching "Critical mass" where it dosn't make sence not to play cards only from the restrict list with just a little disruption and a couple of lands for consistency.

That said, i doubt we'll see a ban anytime soon.

/Zeus

[Purple Hat]

I think he thought you were saying TPS was an example of a deck that beats drains but is bad at magic.

I don't think that's what you're saying, but I also don't think that's the case.  Stax is not bad at magic, it can have difficulty with aggro decks.  Uba stax in particular would have difficulty with a standard aggro deck because it used things like null rod and uba mask which are terrible against decks that don't play power and don't draw cards.  in addition, wastelands would probably be dead against kamigowa aggro decks.  Burdened with so many dead cards I don't find it unlikely that Uba stax, while still a powerful deck, would lose to a standard deck.  that doesn't make it bad at magic.  That makes it poorly metagamed.

Whether a deck can beat another deck from another format is irrelevant.  Storm 10 beats the hell out of standard decks, for example.  That doesn't make it a good vintage deck.

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.

I actually think vintage might be a better place without Will and Vault...Maybe tinker, not sure...but i don't see any other obvious targets for a supposed ban-list. It just seems to me like the restrict list is reaching "Critical mass" where it dosn't make sence not to play cards only from the restrict list with just a little disruption and a couple of lands for consistency.

That said, i doubt we'll see a ban anytime soon.

/Zeus

There will be something else.  Whether we can predict what it will be is a seperate issue. 

That said, I agree with the critical mass point.  This is why I favor unrestriction.  FoF as a 4 of for example would fundimentally change the way that Key/Vault combo works.  My guess is that it would end up more similar to shaymora than tezz, but that's neither here nor there, the point is it would change.  We need to manage the restricted list by unrestricting viable alternate strategies because what we have now is people playing 4 of targeted effects, the same way people play 4 of cards in other formats.

[hitman]

I didn't want to post anything in this thread but it's really going off the deep end.  All these discussions end up in ridiculous restriction suggestions and talk of banning cards.  Let's be honest here, guys.  We know that Tezzeret is the best performing deck in Vintage right now but the fact of the matter is, most people aren't playing decks on par with it and that's why it's "dominating".

There are only three decks in Vintage that you can reliably see success with.  If you're not playing Tezzeret, TPS or Ichorid, you are making a mistake.  These are the only three decks with the power level to play through hate and maintain brokeness.  Because TPS and Ichorid don't see anywhere near as much play as they should, Tezzeret is wiping the floor with all the jank decks seeing play.  TPS and Ichorid aren't foils but they're very likely to do well.  If two-thirds of the real contenders don't see enough play, Tezzeret, the only real contender left, is obviously going to put up the best results. 

If the three best decks in Vintage saw something approximating equal play, the metagame could progress as usual.  There would be places for metagame decks to exist because a metagame would be more defined.  I imagine Bomberman could be a potent metagame deck right now.  It seems pretty well positioned.

[Nehptis]

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?

On the contrary, I don't dismiss.  I think these are valid arguments.  What I don't subscribe to is that the banning of cards in Vintage instantly transforms it into Legacy with Power.  I think that the banning of Vault (or re-errata) and the banning of YawgWill could strengthen and preserve Vintage as a distinct format.

I don't deny that a banning precedent could put at risk other cards like Tinker.  But, to me that's a calculated risk.  And known risks can be mitigated or controlled.   What I fear is the thought process of "We don't ban in Vintage.  If we have a problem we'll solve it a different way. If you don't like it then go play Legacy."  That's just too rigid of a thought process for me.  We will never solve anything nor will we sustain the format with such a take it or leave it approach.

However, what I would like to see be more transparent is the DCI decision making process.  How do they make decisions?  How much Vintage data do they review?  Are they influenced by threads like this one?  Does a phone call or email from a Steve M weigh into their process?   Should I send them a Christmas card, etc.?

most people aren't playing decks on par with it and that's why it's "dominating".

There are only three decks in Vintage that you can reliably see success with.  If you're not playing Tezzeret, TPS or Ichorid, you are making a mistake. 

If the three best decks in Vintage saw something approximating equal play, the metagame could progress as usual.

So, your solution to the imbalance in the metagame is to CONVINCE people to play other decks?  Re-read my previous posts and you'll understand why I don't think this will work.  It's like your suggesting a laissez-faire approach that is filled with Player propaganda.  Meaning, "DCI please don't ban or restrict cards, we will fix this mess ourselves.  And oh by the way, people fix this mess."  I don't see that working.

[TheShop]

@hitman:

I dont think it would be a mistake to play with Stax right now....just no one in America plays it all that much.  Look at some of the european decklists:  Stax is just as viable if you play the right build, it just isnt being represented on our continent. 

[Purple Hat]

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?

On the contrary, I don't dismiss.  I think these are valid arguments.  What I don't subscribe to is that the banning of cards in Vintage instantly transforms it into Legacy with Power.  I think that the banning of Vault (or re-errata) and the banning of YawgWill could strengthen and preserve Vintage as a distinct format.

I don't deny that a banning precedent could put at risk other cards like Tinker.  But, to me that's a calculated risk.  And known risks can be mitigated or controlled.   What I fear is the thought process of "We don't ban in Vintage.  If we have a problem we'll solve it a different way. If you don't like it then go play Legacy."  That's just too rigid of a thought process for me.  We will never solve anything nor will we sustain the format with such a take it or leave it approach.

However, what I would like to see be more transparent is the DCI decision making process.  How do they make decisions?  How much Vintage data do they review?  Are they influenced by threads like this one?  Does a phone call or email from a Steve M weigh into their process?   Should I send them a Christmas card, etc.?

You'd like a more transparent process underwhich their first act is to announce that the only hard and fast rule they've ever given out was a lie.  ok, good luck with that.

[hitman]

So, your solution to the imbalance in the metagame is to CONVINCE people to play other decks?  Re-read my previous posts and you'll understand why I don't think this will work.  It's like your suggesting a laissez-faire approach that is filled with Player propaganda.  Meaning, "DCI please don't ban or restrict cards, we will fix this mess ourselves.  And oh by the way, people fix this mess."  I don't see that working.

I'm not suggesting a solution; I don't see a problem.  I think there is a perceived problem because players aren't playing the correct decks.  The thing is, in Vintage, players are more casually-minded.  More factors go into a deck decision than the question "What is the best deck to take"?  Players like to play certain things and are much less likely to deviate because they're not going to a PTQ or Grand Prix.  For many Vintage players, a Vintage tournament is a chance to hang out with friends and socialize, not dominate the local Vintage metagame.

These threads only serve to derail serious discussion about solutions to a problem, real or perceived.  I think it's much more productive to rationalize with an audience and convince them that way than try to persuade a governing body to come up with solutions for you in a format that makes the parent company little money.  Is it really that hard to beat a two-card artifact combo in Vintage?  I mean, come on!!!  Are Drains so hard to overcome that something needs to be done about it?  Obviously, Thirst for Knowledge is so broken we need to get rid of three copies; sign me up. 

[zeus-online]

In all honesty i think there are multiple decks that are just as viable as Tez:
UWB Fish and BUG Fish both seem good, and capable of winning against tez.
Ad nauseam seems fast and consistent enough to put up quite a fight.
UbaStax seems good against most of everything...sure that random goblin player will screw you over...at least before SB. But i'm betting that he dosn't make it past the first round anyway.
Painter and Bomberman both seem decent aswell.
TPS is obv. good aswell.
Hellkite oath is downright scary imo. although it has a terrible lategame (Atleast that's how i see it).
Ichorid will probably always be somewhat playable unless the DCI does something about it.

But with all that said: I am mostly playing Tez atm.

Since i enjoy drains more then the other archetypes, i'll naturally chose the one i like best and just play it until something else turns up or the deck goes away due to dci actions...(Hey, it happened to both Gifts and GAT, my last two decks )

/Zeus

[Nehptis]

You'd like a more transparent process underwhich their first act is to announce that the only hard and fast rule they've ever given out was a lie.  ok, good luck with that. 

I disagree with the premise that the DCI has a "hard and fast rule" about banning.  Check out this article and the passage I bolded.  This doesn't sound "hard and fast" to me.  It sounds narrow, but still very much open-ended.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/2

This reflects the DCI’s attitude towards the Vintage format: that it should allow players to play with as many of their cards as reasonably possible.

Here's another VERY interesting article.  Notice the passage about the power/Ban worthy-ness of a certain card that I like to discuss:

https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/131

BANNED
Time Vault
Skaff Elias: "This card was put on because it could be used to generate an 'infinite loop' for victory. There was a combination of power considerations but also rules considerations. The card was eventually errataed to solve the loop problems, and then taken off the list."

Very thought provoking, relevant and timely stuff, if you ask me!

[Purple Hat]

You'd like a more transparent process underwhich their first act is to announce that the only hard and fast rule they've ever given out was a lie.  ok, good luck with that. 

I disagree with the premise that the DCI has a "hard and fast rule" about banning.  Check out this article and the passage I bolded.  This doesn't sound "hard and fast" to me.  It sounds narrow, but still very much open-ended.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/2

This reflects the DCI’s attitude towards the Vintage format: that it should allow players to play with as many of their cards as reasonably possible.

Here's another VERY interesting article.  Notice the passage about the power/Ban worthy-ness of a certain card that I like to discuss:

https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/131

BANNED
Time Vault
Skaff Elias: "This card was put on because it could be used to generate an 'infinite loop' for victory. There was a combination of power considerations but also rules considerations. The card was eventually errataed to solve the loop problems, and then taken off the list."

Very thought provoking, relevant and timely stuff, if you ask me!

the analysis of the ORIGINAL banned list from 15 years ago, before there was a vintage, is relevant and timely?  did you read the part above time vault?  it contains such gems as:

RESTRICTED
Ali from Cairo

Skaff Elias: "Basically, Steve [Bishop] thought this was broken and had the potential for making games too long. He didn't like that it forced deck diversity—you needed a way to kill creatures in your deck if your opponent was playing with Ali."

In particular I think the fact that they thought that Deck diversity was a bad thing suggests that maybe it's absolutely insane to use the banned list from the early nineties to justify banning a card now.  Just a thought.

[Nehptis]

Yes, of course I read the entire article.  And no, I’m not insane.

Obviously, some aspects of that article are only relevant to the meta-game of the time.  And now some of those passages like the one you highlighted are merely amusing views into Vintages past.

But, just like all studies of history, some relevance can be gleaned and applied to current affairs.  I think the Time Vault passage shows that even back then the card brought about the same challenges to players and the DCI as it still does today.  I just can’t subscribe fully to the notion that today, Mana Drain is the issue.

[AmbivalentDuck]

On the subject of banning: if anything was going to be banned, it would have been Yawg Will whose successful resolution has been synonymous with winning in this  format pretty much since it was printed.  Vault is a 2 card combo (or at least costs 3UU as part of the Tez combo), unlike Yawg Will that wins on its own merits by comboing with playing spells.  You know, playing spells, that thing everything but Ichorid does.

Can one of the mods add a poll to this thread?  Something along the lines of:
1. Don't change the B/R list.
2. Nerf Vault with errata.
3. Restrict Drain.
4. Unrestrict Gush and/or Ponder.

[Purple Hat]

or just lock it.  We're well past the point of useful discussion.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Everything worth saying has been said, but some measure of a community concensus that Wizards' decision makers could be pointed at would be nice.

[Nehptis]

I think a poll is an excellent idea.

To take it further, I would like to see a periodic thread in the Open Forum that aligns with the month prior to the DCI B&R updates notice.  The purpose would be to discuss the metagame state (for about a month).  The thread would end with a Poll which would serve as a summariization of the thoughts of the thread.  IMO, that is a simple way of sending a clear message to the DCI of at least some portion of the TMD's group think on the topic.

I'm not clear whether this violates the "Topics that Shall not be discussed" rule.  But, I'll let the mods clarify that for us.

[bluemage55]

I think a poll is an excellent idea.

I think a poll is a terrible idea.  The DCI should not consider the input of "community consensus" in deciding their policy.  Anonymous voting is often contaminated by things like personal biases, uninformed voting, etc.  There's a reason why courts of law don't take a web poll to decide their verdicts.

It is much more appropriate for them to instead consider and weigh the arguments behind why people think cards should be restricted/unrestricted, rather than simply having people chime in that they agree with something.  For the same reasons that we don't allow poorly written one-liner posts, a poll with the intention of influencing the DCI is fundamentally flawed.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Exclude anyone with post count under 50/100/unestablished players.

[zeus-online]

Exclude anyone with post count under 50/100/unestablished players.

And what would be the point of that? the amount of posts says nothing about the player's ability and understanding of the game.

/Zeus

[bluemage55]

And what would be the point of that? the amount of posts says nothing about the player's ability and understanding of the game.

Agree, especially since we have things like a casual forum, a humor forum, legacy forums, etc. for people to build post counts in.

I'd advocate a poll that only considers full members+ or only Vintage adepts (note the lack of conflict of interest since I'm deliberately excluding myself here).

[AmbivalentDuck]

You're looking for status on an online forum...maybe not the best tactic.   The reason I wanted a post count over 50 was so that people couldn't double-vote.

[bluemage55]

You're looking for status on an online forum...maybe not the best tactic.

I think you've forgotten what is required to achieve that status (significant experience and knowledge of Vintage, involvement in the foremost American Vintage community, etc.)

[AmbivalentDuck]

"American" would be a stumbling point.  As would the politics behind the status (see Demars's and Smennen's demotions at various points).  Full member status signals participation in the online community.  Many well-performing vintage contenders don't hold the status.

Double voting is a reasonable concern, interpretting the results wouldn't be up to us in any case and therefore is not.

[Smmenen]

FYI: This article is now free, and I know that some people find these reminders helpful, especially on metagame reports such as this one. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

Finally, as a historical matter, it is unlikely that Tezzeret’s dominance will persist for any durable period of time. If history has taught us anything, it’s to be patient. Another deck always manages to emerge at the top eventually. Last year proved that this happens rather quickly if we a patient. If we are in the same position six months from now, then a more convincing argument could be advanced.

Three months in, nothing has really changed.  Of Alara Reborn's two contributions to vintage, Wisescale Coatl strengths Shaymora (a Drain archetype) and Pridemage strengthens Selkie Strike strategies. 

Maybe 11th edition will change the balance when it's released in July, but Drains seem likely to dominate for the foreseeable future.

[Sextiger]

I don't think Drains are the problem, it seems like Vault and Key are the bigger problem at the moment.  A brainless combo that you can put into any deck, Drain decks just have the protection and the draw to find them. 

[Zwadishim]

There are a lot of arguments here.  There are several different factors that are being taken into account.  Here are some of the trends I see.

1)  Arguments around what the correct criterion for restriction are:
   Some people think that metagame dominance is the most important factor.  I do not have the knowhow to asses how dominant a card is, although some people claim to be able to do so.  I am very skeptical of the statistics simply because I while I can read from the posts what the statistics are meant to represent, I have heard little of the theory as to the method for collecting these statistics.  I certainly agree that the possession of statistics is important, but the rate at which these statistics appear as well as the lack of any "scientific community" to critique the methodology involved in gathering them makes me extremely skeptical.  It is one thing to rant off statistics, and entirely another to substantially justify the interpretations of their meaning and more specifically the validity of the methods used in obtaining them.  I tend to be of the opinion that the people who are putting real work into these samplings are really working with the best possible tools that they know of or understand, but the epistemic condition of gathering data on magic seems to put people in a very difficult situation.  The factors that lead to a cards use are many, including but not limited to the use of proxies, the number of proxies allowed, the availability of the cards both financially speaking as well as in terms of rarity, the popularity of the card, deckbuilding decisions, restriction list decisions, etc. etc. etc.  While it may be logically possible to gain a relatively good understanding of the vintage metagame through statistics, the theory seems to be lacking and the possibility for true understanding seems bleak.  There are a plethora of factors and nobody is talking enough about how we would gain insight into what to make of them all.  There cannot be much confidence.  However, magic is a GAME and most of us have things we either need or want to be doing more rather than trying to attain the perfect scientific theory for how to mathematize magic.  Many thanks to the brave souls who have tried this but I tend to take the stats with a grain of salt.  The best laughs come from the theories we come up with that are very complicated... (first you take the percentage of top eight appearances, and compare that to the total percentage of the field, divide by the number of tournament victories, subtract 5 if the card is unrestricted, add 6 if there are at least 20 other restricted cards in the deck, multiply by the natural log of the number of wins... you get my point).  While dominance may be a factor... I cant say that I really buy the theory given that I feel like there must be at least as many force of will as there are drains, and I still don't believe that the fact that there where very few Channel means that it should be unrestricted nor do I think the game would be more fun without force of will.  Dominance is only one factor.
   Another criterion is fun.  Some cards just make the game less interesting (3sphere), in most peoples opinion.  I personally like to play against stacks although if 3sphere where unrestricted I might not like it so much.  That obviously must be taken into account.  Some people like to play certain matchups or decks or spells or combos and there is no guarantee that one will be anyones favorite.  I think ritual will stay off the list forever for this reason.  Its just more fun to have them in the format (I understand they are not considered dominant, but go to CO for a week or two, where most of the best players just LIKE to play storm...), because people who play vintage like to have 10000 mana floating into a draw seven and they like to Necropotence for 14 etc.  Maybe not all of them.  Some like to wait on a kill card behind 4 sphere of resistance.  Some just like to stifle lands or try to guess the right card with meddling mage or cabal therapy.  Not everyone will be happy with each restriction but fun is a MAJOR if not the most important factor for the average vintage player.  Drains are not 1st turn 3sphere, which nobody could really have thought was that fun besides the guy winning with it.  This too has its limits.  A stax guy against lotus lions eye ritual demonic tutor doesn't get to play his first turn either, but storm is not under the microscope now so nobody really cares, and this takes 4 cards to ruin his day instead of 1.  The point is that wizards knows that FUN is what they sell and the restriction of Mana Drain will probably be decided more on whether or not it is fun than on anything else.  While it is not the most fun card in history (see eye of the storm), it is definitely not a card that makes everyone want to tear up their cards all the time because it FEELS unfair or whatever it takes.  Force spike and Daze piss me off royally, but they are somehow still not the same as some other really unfun stuff like flash on my upkeep.  Yes, fun is SUBJECTIVE and people will argue about it based on their feelings about a card/metagame/etc. in spite of any hard facts or claim to hard facts anyone will ever make.  The dci could ban anything but some people think shops, rituals and drains are fun and some people would rather see everything banned until the only viable deck is 2 land belcher (if this is possible) simply because different things make them have fun.
   The third criterion is metagame.  This is highly dependent on location and is not extremely stable with new printings and so on.  The complexity of Magic makes this very hard to predict, which gives me cause to reiterate our poor epistemic state with regards to the "Truth" about the metagame.  There is probably just too much for us to know.  We might have this really strong gut feeling, but the kind of knowledge we have about phenomenon like metagames is not nearly as certain as many things we think we understand, and is a long way off from 2+2=4.  The gut feelings we have MAKE magic fun because it causes us to play different decks from each other (I have this gut feeling that today is the day to play platinum angel as my tinker target), which are never truly varified because we don't know if they guy just got lucky (avoided all the bounce) or if that specific arrangement is optimal (another word we use to fool ourselves into thinking we know more than we do).  It is WOTCs job to keep us in the dark about this by changing things faster than we can figure them out, because whenever we figure them out we get bored (I have a gut feeling affinity with skullclamp is the only way I can win a game today because everyone is playing it and nobody can beat it).  It is more fun to not understand the metagame... in fact it is what keeps us interested.  None of us, nor anyone at WOTC has the time or the mental capacity to predict what will take place on dominaria all the time, but while Mana Drain seems to be all over the place... what we really need to ask ourselves is whether or not mana drain is the only thing we feel like we can win with, because the point is to create diversity through leaving everyone with a lack of information.

Another major topic is this:

Some people think that people are using this blog, or blogs in general, to influence the metagame toward what they think is fun.  This is likely true and is a phenomenon that extends far beyond magic.  The people with the resources to invest in something tend to call a disproportionate number of the shots.  This can be good or bad.  Without getting into the political theory, let me simply remind everyone that there are plenty of ways to avoid this... for example playing by house rules (we all go to proxy tournaments after all, why not tournaments where mana drain is restricted, yagmoths will banned, crop rotation HAS to be a 4 of... hell, get creative and stop letting Other people tell you what magic is to you and your community, if everyone in your store hates drains just hold an unsanctioned tournament where they are banned). For those that want to play by the common language of Vintage rules, suck it up and accept the fact that you have to agree that maybe they are less fun to you than you wished or be like the guys who post all day and night and try to get things changed... Just don't lose sight of the fact that your experience with this game is really what you make of it.  Many casual formats have become more or less staples in the community, whether or not they are sanctioned.  I can play EDH in almost every city now, why not modified vintage?

Thats all I can write but just to throw it out there... the restriction of Mana Drain is a matter of FUN... and I personally think its fun to have mana drains and I don't think I am so important or knowledgeable as to tell anyone else whether it is fun to them... so I will try to throw this out there... why not get off our high horse for a while and suggest that we um... I don't know... VOTE?!?

Instead of letting some private interest groups tell us what to do with the cardboard we spent good money on, why not convince them to let us vote on the restricted list and if they decline... perhaps we should question whether or not they are really looking out for the players of vintage anyway and hold our own vote so we can take the game back to where it belongs... in our communities for the enjoyment of the players.

I vote no.

[Caron]

... what if only P9 were on the restricted list and we were free to use every other card in 4x?...
... which will be then the best deck? or decks? t

4 gifts?
4 gush?
4 timevaults?
...

I think it would be so funny, to have only 9 cards on the restricted list.. and see what happens..
... i play drains and i love them...
..but i also think that changings in the rules can stimulate the game a lot so...
..why not? i was so happy to play again 4 gush.. and still very happy not to play 4 of them anymore..
things change... and that's not bad.. in my opinion..

CARONDIMONIO

[Smmenen]

Finally, as a historical matter, it is unlikely that Tezzeret’s dominance will persist for any durable period of time. If history has taught us anything, it’s to be patient. Another deck always manages to emerge at the top eventually. Last year proved that this happens rather quickly if we a patient. If we are in the same position six months from now, then a more convincing argument could be advanced.

Three months in, nothing has really changed.  Of Alara Reborn's two contributions to vintage, Wisescale Coatl strengths Shaymora (a Drain archetype) and Pridemage strengthens Selkie Strike strategies. 

Maybe 11th edition will change the balance when it's released in July, but Drains seem likely to dominate for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, you are probably right.   However, it's important to note that while printings often trigger metagame changes, as they did quite often last year (Revellark, Painter, Tezzeret, etc), metagame shifts can also happen without new printings, at least not directly.   New printings can trigger metagame changes which themselves trigger further metagame changes.    This has happened many times.   For example, the printing of Thorn of Amethyst drove alot of GAT decks out of the metagame and shifted the metagame to Tyrant Oath, at least in the US, which had its own metagame ramifications.   But the intervening choice was the decision of many players to play Aggro MUD and other Workshop based decks using Thorn, which then triggered a metagame response. 

I was hoping that the dominance of Drains would lead people to switch to decks that are better at preying on Drains like TPS or Grow, decks which I've advocated.   Instead, it's created this sort of stasis, much like existed in 2005, where a bunch of Fish and Stax and Oath decks exist at the margin, but aren't really good enough or consistent enough to take down Tezzeret.   

Tezzeret decks are basically performing as well, if not better, than Gifts decks in their prime.   While that is disturbing, what's even more disturbing is that Mana Drain decks are nearly 50% of Top 8s, double the percentage of Gush decks in their prime, and dwarfing the percentage of other major foundational cards, such as Bazaar decks, etc.

Tom LaPille recently explained, in more detail, the rationale behind the June/08 restrictictions here: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/32

Importantly, he said:

In early 2008, members of Magic R&D were not happy with the direction that tournament Vintage was going. There were two problems that needed to be solved. The first was that Force of Will decks were much, much stronger than decks built around Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad, and Dark Ritual. The second issue was that Brainstorm and Ponder had a homogenizing effect on Vintage blue decks. Once you put four Force of Will, four Brainstorm, four Ponder, a bunch of restricted cards, and some mana sources in your deck, there simply isn't much room to put in anything else. This meant that the differences between different Force of Will decks were usually very small, and that hurt the format's variety.

Mission FAILED.

If anything, the restrictions have *dramatically* strengthened Force of Will based decks against their competitors, Workshops, Bazaars, and Dark Rituals.   Take a look at the percentage of Workshop vis-a-vis Gush decks in Top 8s in May-June 20, 2008:

31 Workshop decks (24.2% of the metagame)
30 Gush decks (23.6%)

Now compare those numbers to Jan/Feb of this year:

33 Mana Drain Decks (45.83% of the Vintage Metagame)
14 Null Rod Decks (19.44%)
12 Mishra’s Workshop Decks (16.66%)
5 Dark Ritual decks (6.9%)
4 Bazaar decks (5.55%)
4 Other decks (5.55%)

By virtually any measure, the format's diversity is much worse off now than it was before the restrictions, even from the perspective of engine.   One indicator: "rest of the metagame" stat, which measures the percentage of decks that individually make up less than 5% of top 8s, establishes this beyond doubt.   

In May/June of 2008, that stat was:
Rest of the Metagame: 49%

The rest of the metagame stat in Jan/Feb of this year is:
Rest of the Metagame: 26.3%

A note of caution: that doesn't mean that the DCI was wrong to restrict cards in June.  Rather, it just means that in terms of their articulated objectives, their decision(s) was a horrendous failure.   

[AmbivalentDuck]

A note of caution: that doesn't mean that the DCI was wrong to restrict cards in June.  Rather, it just means that in terms of their articulated objectives, their decision(s) was a horrendous failure.   

I'm not sure that's true.  Arguably, they were wrong to restrict so many cards at once when Merchant Scroll was the clear offender.  It's like the Academy restrictions all over again.  Seen in the light of WotC's hesitance to restrict Merchant Scroll, the restrictions of Gifts, Flash, and Gush are quite questionable.

So not only did they fail their stated objectives, they caused enormous fallout by restricting the most relevant engines in Vintage just because they were helped by the true offender.  This is similar to WotC's early experiences with Ancestral Recall:

Richard Garfield: "Yes, this card was really broken. I remember during the very earliest playtests people making these killer big creature decks (proving big creatures were broken), killer medium creature decks (proving medium creatures were broken), and killer weenie decks (proving little creatures were broken). Soon, I connected the dots and saw the common element in these was not the creatures at all but the Ancestral Recall support.